Atheist Archives - Page 2 of 6

Tag Archive for: Atheist

No, Dan Barker. Covid-19 Doesn’t Disprove God

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

Not one to let a good crisis go to waste, former minister and atheist activist Dan Barker tells us that the coronavirus proves that the Christian God doesn’t exist. Why? Because God promises to answer prayer. People have prayed for COVID-19 to stop. The virus continues to spread and people continue to die. Therefore Christianity must be false. Here’s Barker in his own words:

The Christian god makes a crystal-clear pledge: “I will answer your prayers.”

Jesus stated boldly: “All things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.”(Matthew 21:22) There is no ambiguity here. “All things” means “all things.” He even clarified: “Even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ it will be done.”

Jesus, who said “I and the Father are one,” confirmed this in many other passages: “So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.” — Mark 11:24

Barker multiplies many other prayer promises from the Four Gospels. Then he goes on:

The claim is indisputable. The omnipotent and omnibenevolent Christian god promises to answer “everyone who asks,” “all things,” “whatever you ask for in prayer.” If a believing Christian prays, then “it will be done for you,” “you shall receive,” “it will be yours,” “I will do it.”

There is no more solid promise in scripture.

The Christian god vows to answer prayer not with “Yes, No, or Wait,” as some apologists claim. He promises an unequivocal “Yes.”

Can Prayer Alone Fix Everything?

Barker is right about one thing. No passage in Scripture says ‘yes’ ‘no’ or ‘wait.’ But notice that Barker only emphasizes the ‘whatever you ask’ part in these verses. But he conveniently says nothing about the ‘believe that you receive it’ portions.

According to Barker’s strange reading of these texts, if we ask God for anything, it should immediately be performed. But that’s not how any of this works. Jesus didn’t indiscriminately heal anyone and everyone in the Gospels. We read in Mark 6:1-6 that Jesus could barely heal anyone in his hometown, Nazareth. Why? Mark says it was because of their unbelief. While in Nazareth, he went on to say in Luke 4:23-27 that there were plenty of lepers in Israel during the time of Elisha, but it was only Naaman the Syrian who was healed.

Repeatedly throughout the Gospels, Jesus healed individuals in response to their faith. See Mark 5:34, Luke 17:19, Luke 18:42, Matthew 8:13, Matthew 15:28 for just a few samples. Faith then must play a major factor. No one in the Gospels approached Jesus and said, “Hey Jesus. While you’re healing people, why not heal Israel of all their sicknesses?”

This would’ve convinced the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the High Priest, Pilate, Herod, and so forth. But that’s not the way God chose to operate. It is unlikely to have turned them into true worshipers but opportunists. And he’s not going to override his own word or his own divine nature. He expects people to respond in persistent, heartfelt faith.

It’s interesting that repeatedly in the Gospels, Jesus would command people to not tell of the miracles they experienced. (Mark 7:31-37, 9:2-9, Luke 5:12-15, 8:49-56). He also didn’t perform signs when the Pharisees and scribes demanded one. (Matthew 12:38-41) God gives enough evidence for those who want to believe can, but leaves enough ambiguity for those who want to go their own way can do so.

Barker continues:

Multitudes of Christians have been fervently praying. The Jesuits have asked Jesus to “Heal those who are sick with the virus.” The Christian relief organization World Vision is asking Almighty God to “keep this new coronavirus from continuing to spread.” The Southern Baptists are entreating “Lord, you are the Great Physician, so we pray for healing for the victims of COVID-19.” President Trump’s spiritual adviser Paula White said: “I believe in the same way if we call on God Almighty to divinely intervene just as He does so many times, that the plague can be stopped.”

So why are thousands continuing to succumb indiscriminately to the coronavirus? The tragic deaths include devout believers, as well as ministers, priests, and bishops. They are beseeching their Lord for protection, but the impudent virus, no respecter of persons, is recklessly cavorting around the planet oblivious to their beliefs.

Prayer Isn’t A Cure-All And Jesus Never Said That It Was

All this shows is that, at best, the Jesuits, World Vision, the Southern Baptists, etc. are praying unscripturally. Receiving answers to prayer, more often than not, is a matter between the individual and God. There’s nothing wrong with asking God to intervene for others, but I don’t think these leaders are expecting this pandemic to miraculously stop in its tracks, independently from God using people.

I can’t pray for God to keep my entire city free from COVID-19 anymore than I can pray for God to stop every traffic accident, cure every cancer, every heart disease, every stroke, every influenza, and every case of diabetes. You get the idea.

If God allowed that, we would live in a consequence-free world where God was orchestrating tens of thousands of miracles each day. My prayers cannot necessarily sober up every drunk driver, cause every person to make healthy choices, or keep college students from congregating on Florida beaches during spring break, or prevent some Chinese people from eating bats (or acting irresponsibly in a lab) or prevent the World Health Organization from initially advising against closing Chinese borders.

Because we live in a world where natural laws work in predictable ways, diseases can spread, and accidents can happen. Solomon was right when he wrote, “When a man’s folly brings his way to ruin, his heart rages against the LORD.” (Proverbs 19:3)

Is The Coronavirus A Judgment From God?

So is this virus a judgment from God? Barker points out that some Christian ministers have said that it is.

Rev. Ralph Drollinger, the evangelical pastor who conducts bible study at the White House for President Trump’s cabinet, blames the coronavirus on sin: “Whenever an individual or corporate group of individuals violate the inviolate precepts of God’s Word, he, she, they or the institution will suffer the respective consequences,” he wrote. “Most assuredly America is facing this form of God’s judgment.”

Some Christians preach that prayer is contingent. Natural disasters are actually punishments from God, they proclaim. He doesn’t answer prayer at the moment because America has turned its back on him.

Now, I haven’t looked into Drollinger said in context. But we all have seen ministers get on TV and blame people for disasters. And these Christian leaders are an embarrassment to me and many other believers. Barker would be rightly appalled. Notice that Jesus dealt with a similar situation in the Gospels:

Now there was some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.

(Luke 13:1-5)

Jesus And The Problem Of Suffering

I’m sure this isn’t going to be popular, but Jesus didn’t say that tragedies befall people because they were worse sinners than anyone. But He said they were sinners nonetheless and unless we repent, we’ll likewise perish. The wages of sin is death, but God’s gift is eternal life for those who trust in Jesus. (Romans 6:23)

DA Carson’s commentary on Luke 13:1-5 is so insightful that I’ll quote it here at length:

First, Jesus does not assume that those who suffered under Pilate, or those who were killed in the collapse of the tower, did not deserve their fate. Indeed, the fact that he can tell those contemporaries that unless they repent they too will perish shows that Jesus assumes that all death is in one way or another the result of sin, and therefore deserved.

Second, Jesus does insist that death by such means is no evidence whatsoever that those who suffer in this way are any more wicked than those who escape such a fate. The assumption seems to be that all deserve to die. If some die under a barbarous governor, and others in a tragic accident, it is not more than they deserve. But that does not mean that others deserve any less. Rather, the implication is that it is only God’s mercy that has kept them alive. There is certainly no moral superiority on their part.

Third, Jesus treats wars and natural disasters not as agenda items in a discussion of the mysterious ways of God, but as incentives to repentance. It is as if he is saying that God uses disaster as a megaphone to call attention to our guilt and destination, to the imminence of his righteous judgment if he sees no repentance. This is an argument developed at great length in Amos 4. Disaster is a call to repentance. Jesus might have added (as he does elsewhere) that peace and tranquility, which we do not deserve, show us God’s goodness and forbearance.

It is a mark of our lostness that we invert these two. We think we deserve the times of blessing and prosperity, and that the times of war and disaster are not only unfair but come perilously close to calling into question God’s goodness or his power—even, perhaps, his very existence. Jesus simply did not see it that way.

Bingo. Barker goes on to say that God is the ‘most unpleasant character in all fiction’ but it seems like Barker is upset that God judges sin. It’s as if Barker thinks God should wink at people living like Canaanites and never punish anyone. But according to Barker, God should prove himself by instantaneously healing every person on the planet on demand, or else we should conclude He isn’t real!

CS Lewis right when he wrote, “What would really satisfy us would be a God who said of anything we happened to like doing, ‘What does it matter so long as they are contented?’ We want, in fact, not so much a Father in Heaven as a grandfather in heaven — a senile benevolence who, as they say, ‘liked to see young people enjoying themselves,’ and whose plan for the universe was simply that it might be truly said at the end of each day, ‘a good time was had by all.”

Jesus Is Still In The Healing Business

No, suffering and death are in the world because of sin. Jesus said disasters are a reminder of this, and unless we repent, we’ll also perish. And yet, Jesus still goes about “doing good and healing all those that are oppressed by the devil” in response to faith. (Acts 10:38) Barker says God isn’t healing anyone during this pandemic. But just ask this Georgia man, who claims God healed him of COVID-19. Or this woman that was given up for dead. Even the doctors remarked that something miraculous happened.

I personally know a person in my congregation whose 80-year father was in a nursing home that contracted the disease. Their dad was made completely well within a short time after prayer was made. Or what would Barker say to all the healings documented by Craig Keener’s scholarly two-volume work Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts?

So no, Barker is wrong. The coronavirus isn’t “virulent enough to single-handedly kill the Christian God.” As a former pastor, he should know that he is twisting scripture and using the tragedy to stand on his favorite soapbox.

Is Earth Just A Pale Blue Dot?

2. Does God Exist?, Atheism

By Ryan Leasure

In his book Pale Blue Dot, the late astronomer Carl Sagan had this to say about the above photograph taken aboard Voyager I:

Because of the reflection of sunlight… Earth seems to be sitting in a beam of light as if there were some special significance to this small world. But it’s just an accident of geometry and optics… Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

Sagan reiterates what is commonly known as the Copernican Principle, or the Principle of Mediocrity. It’s the idea that earth and by extension human beings aren’t significant in the grand scheme of things. We’re just a random speck of dust revolving around an average star in the corner of an average galaxy.

Sagan was so confident of his view that he predicted the Milky Way galaxy probably contains as many as a million advanced civilizations. But is this a reasonable conclusion? I think it’s unlikely. In fact, the more we learn about the requirements for habitability, the less probable life in other places becomes. To demonstrate this claim, I want to highlight seven different habitability requirements — or habitable zones — that are necessary for advanced life to exist in the universe. As far as we know, the earth is the only planet to meet all the requirements.

The Right Kind Of Galaxy

Astronomers have placed galaxies into three categories — spiral, elliptical, and irregular. Of these three, only spiral galaxies can support life. Elliptical galaxies contain mostly ancient stars that lack necessary resources — like heavy elements — that life needs. Additionally, because of the shape of elliptical galaxies, and the close proximity of the stars, stable planetary orbits are impossible.

Similarly, irregular galaxies lack the necessary qualities for habitability. For starters, their irregular shape leads to chaotic stellar and planetary orbits which result in planets colliding or brushing too closely to ultra-violet emitting stars. Additionally, large irregular galaxies possess active nuclei which spew too much deadly radiation for life to exist. Conversely, small irregular galaxies lack the necessary heavy elements for habitability.

Only spiral galaxies can support life. And not just any spiral galaxy, but one that possesses the right size and structure that can yield heavy elements and protect a host planet from deadly radiation and gravitational disruptions along the spiral arms. It just so happens that the Milky Way meets these necessary requirements.

The Right Location In That Galaxy

Not only is the right kind of spiral galaxy necessary for habitability, but the location inside that galaxy is also just as important. And that location is close to the mid-plane of the galaxy about halfway between the galactic nucleus and the external edge.

If the earth’s solar system was closer to the nucleus, it would face the onslaught of radiation and overwhelming gravitational force from the galactic black hole nucleus. Moreover, this territory inside the galactic habitable zone contains trillions of comets, which combined with the erratic gravitational forces would inevitably lead to several comet collisions and wipe out any existing population. Conversely, stars located towards the outer galactic edge can only host small terrestrial planets that are too small to retain an atmosphere or sustain plate tectonics.

This galactic habitable zone is usually represented by a thin ring that circles around the Milky Way galaxy. Only stars that land on this narrow ring can realistically sustain life. Furthermore, our solar system is located in a safe place between the Sagittarius and Perseus spiral arms. Spiral arms are dangerous places with fluctuating radiation and erratic orbits. And as many astronomers have pointed out, this relatively gas and dust free environment proves to be the ideal location for viewing the universe and making further discoveries.

The Right Kind Of Star

In addition to being in the right location of the galaxy, the star must possess the right qualities to support life. Of the stars located in the galactic habitable zone, about 3 percent of them have the right qualities for any kind of life to survive. In fact, to emit a sufficient level of ultra-violet radiation, the host star must be virtually identical to the sun. Larger stars than our sun give off extreme variations of UV radiations, as do smaller stars than the sun. Our sun is also metal-rich compared to most stars making it possible to host planets like earth.

While it’s true that the sun is an average star (a yellow dwarf) as far as size goes, its average quality is essential for life. In addition to emitting erratic levels of UV radiation, larger stars burn their fuel faster and have shorter life spans — too short to host advanced life. On the other hand, smaller stars, like red dwarfs, give off such low levels of energy that a planet would have to orbit extremely close to it. This close proximity inevitably leads to tidal locking where one side of the planet bakes in unending misery while the opposite side remains frozen in perpetual darkness.

The Right Distance From The Star

Next, for habitability to be possible, a planet must maintain liquid water. And this is only possible for planets that are the right distance from their host star. For example, if the earth were slightly closer to the sun, all water would evaporate. If it was slightly further away, all water would freeze. Furthermore, for water to remain, the planet must have the appropriate level of atmospheric pressure.

The planet must also receive the right amount of UV radiation, and much of this depends on its distance from that star. If it receives too little, vitamin D levels would be too low to produce strong bones, prevent cancer, and maintains healthy immune systems. On the flip side, if UV radiation were stronger, most if not all would suffer from skin cancer and bad eyesight.

Additionally, a planet must be the right distance from its host star for photosynthesis to occur. While some life-forms could exist without photosynthesis, large-bodied warm-blooded animals could not.

The proper distance also impacts its rotation rate. As I mentioned earlier, a planet that is close to its host star experiences tidal locking, meaning it does not rotate due to the intense gravitational force. This results in one side of the planet enduring an onslaught of heat and radiation while the opposite side remains perpetually in the cold dark. This kind of planet could not sustain life as it could not have liquid water. Conversely, if the earth rotated faster, we’d experience extreme temperatures and atmospheric winds that would make life virtually impossible.

The Right Kind Of Neighbors

While the other planets in our solar system aren’t suitable for life, they still serve a purpose in contributing to the earth’s own habitability. For starters, larger planets such as Jupiter and Saturn serve as earth’s bodyguards against comets or asteroid bombardments. Due to their size and relative force of gravity, these large gas giants act like giant vacuum cleaners for potentially dangerous collisions. Even smaller planets like Venus and Mars offer protection despite their limited gravity. Mars, for example, stands between us and an asteroid belt and has taken a few hits for us over the years.

Additionally, these other planets have contributed to important scientific discoveries. Johannes Kepler formulated his famous laws of planetary motion by observing these other planets. One of these discoveries was that planetary orbits are not circles but ellipses. And these discoveries served foundational for Newton’s laws of motion and gravity, which became the foundation for Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.

The Right Kind Of Moon

Of the dozens of moons in our solar system, the moon if fifty times larger than any other moon compared to the mass of its host planet. Moreover, the moon orbits more closely to earth than any other large satellite yet discovered.

The size and proximity of the moon stabilize the earth’s rotation on its axis around 23.5 degrees. If the moon were smaller, like the Martian moons, the tilt would wobble about 30 degrees like Mars. The results of an unstable title would be catastrophic. If the North Pole, for example, were leaning more sunward during the summer, most of the Northern Hemisphere would experience months of scorching heat and perpetual daylight. Then in the winter months of the year, any survivors would experience extremely cold dark winters that would make Antarctica feel mild by comparison.

With no tilt, the earth would not experience seasons and rain distribution across the planet. The result would be large swaths of arid land uninhabitable for life.

It’s also worth noting that earth is the only place in our solar system where a perfect solar eclipse is possible. This phenomenon is possible because while the moon is four hundred times smaller than the sun, it is four hundred times closer making them both appear the exact same size from our vantage point. This phenomenon is highly coincidental if the earth is just a “pale blue dot.”

The Right Kind Of Planet

Finally, the right planet is also necessary for habitability. For example, life could not survive on a gas planet, but one made of rock. Additionally, this planet must have liquid water. But if the planet was perfectly smooth, the entire planet would be submerged in water. Fortunately, the earth has continents, mountain ranges, and valleys which allow for life to exist simultaneously with oceans and lakes. And this is made possible by plate tectonics. Yes, plate tectonics can be dangerous, but without them, life could not exist. And earth is the only planet in our solar system with plate tectonics.

A planet must also maintain a powerful, stable magnetic field. Without this protective fence, the earth’s atmosphere would eventually float away towards the sun making it impossible to sustain life. Of course, to maintain the right magnetic field requires the right internal composition of a rocky planet. Specifically, it requires a liquid iron outer core and a solid iron inner core.

Additionally, the planet must also have the right kind of atmosphere. In particular, the ozone shield is necessary for protecting a planet from receiving too much harmful radiation. Currently, earth’s ozone layer absorbs about 98 percent of the sun’s harmful UV radiation while allowing the beneficial radiation to pass through to earth’s surface. In this sense, the ozone layer acts as a shield or a type of sunscreen protecting us from too much of the sun’s radiation but allowing just enough beneficial for life.

Just A Pale Blue Dot?

So many are the requirements necessary for habitability that extraterrestrial life seems improbable. Back in the 1960s, when Sagan’s theory began to pick up steam, scientists launched the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). When the search began, scientists were convinced we would find advanced life on the moon or Mars. Now the search is more modest. They hope to find some kind of lower life form to an obscure moon orbiting Saturn that may or may not contain liquid water. In other words, the hundreds of millions of dollars invested in SETI have been spent to no avail.

Additionally, this search raises some important questions. If life really exists all over the universe, why haven’t they found us yet? After all, are we so conceited to think that we are the most advanced civilization? Surely, if millions of other civilizations exist, some of them would have greater capabilities than us.

Furthermore, good scientific theories are always falsifiable. But isn’t this theory unfalsifiable? At what point will those who say the universe is teeming with life say they were wrong? After sixty years of searching, they’re still saying, “Just give us more time. We’ll find it.” And they could keep saying it for a thousand years. In the end, the search for extraterrestrial life seems like a fools errand. So many are the conditions necessary for habitability. Earth appears to be pretty special after all.

Are You Good Without God?

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mikel Del Rosario

While I was driving from Sacramento to the Bay Area, I saw a huge billboard that read, “Are you good without God? Millions Are.” I also noticed a theistic tagger added the words, “Also Lost?” at the end of the message. At first, I wondered if the original question could mean something like, “Do you feel comfortable without a belief in God? Millions feel the same way.” Kind of like if you offer someone a drink, and they say, “No, thanks. I’m good.” But I don’t think that’s what the message is all about.

Can’t People be Good Without God?

So, then it got me thinking, “Can’t people be good without God?” I mean, couldn’t an atheist do some really good things without God? I guess if we mean “doing the right thing while not believing in God,” then sure. An atheist could do the right thing. For example, they could honestly report their income to the government, be faithful to their spouse, and so forth. And why not? But maybe the better question is, “Why?” Why even care about being moral?

Why Do the Right Thing?

Think about it like this: If God’s not real, there’s no moral lawgiver and no such things as objective moral commands. If that’s true, then why not say, “I’ll do the right thing when it makes me feel good or gives me an advantage, and I’ll do the wrong thing when it makes me feel good or gives me an advantage.” Or why not say, “I hereby declare from this day forward that it’s always right to steal.”

If there’s no God and no objective moral standard, there’s no moral difference between abusing someone or taking care of them. Basically, good and evil are reduced to preference. All you could say is, “I don’t like terrorism,” or “I’m not into slavery.” “Human trafficking isn’t my thing.” But who can really live like this? Some things are really wrong. For example, we all know by intuition that it’s better to give a little girl a loving hug than to hurt her for no reason.

Right, Wrong, and the Moral Law

Imagine my 6-year-old asked you who wrote this blog post. It’d be dumb to say “No one. And if you think I’m wrong, don’t forget I can read better than you!” The existence of this post implies an author. And it really doesn’t matter if you can read this post better than a kid. Here’s the point: Moral commands imply a moral lawgiver. They are a form of communication from one mind to another. And it doesn’t matter if a certain atheist happens to do more good deeds than a certain Christian or vice versa.

Interested in exploring this idea further? Check out these links:

Maybe people really can’t be good without God, after all. I mean, if there’s no God, there’s no standard of goodness. On top of that, when we compare ourselves to God’s standard, it turns out no one is good—no one’s lived up to the standard. That’s what Jesus said in Mark 10:18. Keep in mind that niceness isn’t goodness. Don’t you think the Neo-Nazi moms bake cookies for their kids or hand out cupcakes at their birthday parties? Sure they do. Jesus also said it’s no big deal if we’re nice to the people we like (Matt. 5:46-47). How do we treat everyone else?

Yes and No

If “Are you good without God?” just means, “Can you do good things without acknowledging God?” Then, sure. You could say, “Yes” to that. But the real answer to the question, “Are you good without God?” is “No. None of us are.” Without God, there is no objective standard of goodness. But we know such a standard exists. Why? Because while you could have good without evil, you can’t have evil without good.

Think about it: You could have a standard of goodness in a world where nothing falls short of that standard. But you can’t have something falling short of a standard of goodness without the standard itself. And when we recognize a standard greater than ourselves–GOd’s own nature–we can see we need forgiveness. We all for short before God. That’s another reason we need him. Millions and millions do.

Natural-ly There Is A Problem With Evil

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Alex McElroy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

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

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

[4] Turek, Stealing From God, ix.

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

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

[7] Harris, The Moral Landscape, 56.

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

Putting God on Trial

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apologetics as Conversation

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mikel Del Rosario

Hey, Can We Talk?

Seeing apologetics as a conversational ministry

There’s an Indian proverb that says, “You don’t cut off a man’s nose and give him a rose to smell.” I first heard this from Ramesh Richards, who applies this idea to apologetics. He says that sometimes, in the midst of talking about God, Jesus, or the Bible with skeptics, some Christians seem to “destroy them in the process of contest and debate.” That stuck with me.

While apologists often cite 1 Peter 3:15, focusing on the command to be “prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you,” some tend to neglect the rest of the command, “yet do it with gentleness and respect.” Think about apologetics training in a church or school context. Each lesson usually focuses on philosophical, theological, or historical issues, and the instructor often gives less attention to the personal aspects of practical engagement in everyday conversations. The content isn’t bad, but we need practical training for having conversations, too.

So how can we approach difficult spiritual conversations? At the Hendricks Center, we’ve dedicated a number of episodes on the Table Podcast dedicated to exploring the concept of dialogical apologetics—a practical approach which sees apologetic engagement not merely as a debate but as genuine dialogue.

In this post, I’ll share three ideas we need to incorporate into the way we think about engaging in apologetics: First, we need to see apologetics as a ministry. Second, we need to adapt our approach to a shifting culture. Third, we need to earn the right to be heard–especially in difficult spiritual conversations.

See Apologetics As Ministry

While some Christians seem reluctant to discuss the faith with their skeptical friends, others seem almost too eager to tear down objections and refute people’s challenges to Christian truth claims. What kind of attitude should we have as we prepare for difficult spiritual conversations? How can we alleviate some of the tension, so we don’t automatically get defensive? On an episode of the Table Podcast called, “How to Engage in Spiritual Conversations,” Mary Jo Sharp talked about seeing apologetics as a ministry. She said:

The first thing I want to demonstrate to a person is that I care about them. So, what we’re about to discuss is all wrapped up in, “Do I really want to serve this person?” I’ve had atheists tell me they felt like Christians made them a project. Like they just wanted to throw their [talking] points at them, and if they weren’t ready to accept those points, they just walk away. That makes them feel like a project rather than a person. I want to avoid that…

Many Christians don’t talk to other people about their faith because they don’t know their faith. They are not trained in essential Christian doctrine. They’re not comfortable in their Christian skin… We have to know what we believe and why we believe it. Early on in Christianity, I felt intimidated to share my faith with others, because I didn’t know why I believed it. And that’s just vital to having an effective conversation where you don’t get defensive—knowing your own beliefs.

So, knowing what you believe and why you believe it can give you the confidence you need to engage in spiritual conversations. But even before we start to engage, let’s look at apologetics as a ministry. Who says apologists have to be stern or super serious all the time? Sometimes we get a bad rap as the kinds of people who walk into conversations looking for a fight. But ministry means service. I believe there is apologetic value to remaining calm in difficult spiritual conversations and genuinely serving the other person.

When you have confidence in the truth of the Christian worldview, it should allow you to minister to the person by listening to their views and the stories behind them. Approaching these encounters with a desire to minister to the person can reduce the tension you feel. And it can help you avoid getting defensive or becoming argumentative.

Adapt to a Shifting Culture

While the truth hasn’t changed, challenges to the Christian worldview have evolved. And we need for a new generation of apologists who are sensitive to current conversations around transgenderism, religious freedom, and the intersection of faith and vocation. What kinds of issues are people already talking about as they try to sort out the tensions of life? These kinds of hot-button issues especially need to be approached from the standpoint of dialogue, not debate.

On an episode of the Table called, “Truth, Love, and Defending the Faith,” I sat down with Sean McDowell to talk about how the next generation of apologists can engage the culture in rapidly-shifting times. He said:

Truth remains the same, but culture changes. A new kind of apologist is [a Christian who says], “Let’s take stock, because a lot of things have changed around us today. Let’s make sure that we’re communicating the gospel and defending the faith in a way that’s God-honoring and effective in our culture today.”

Back in the second century, there was a group of Greek Apologists like Justin Martyr who defended the faith in a pagan, Greco-Roman context. They had to learn to “read and react” to what was going on in the public square. In the same way, we need a new generation of apologists who are able to address a variety of cultural issues as they make the case for Christianity in the public square today.

Earn the Right to be Heard

So a new kind of apologist sees apologetics as a ministry and adapts to a shifting culture. But he or she also knows how to earn the right to be heard in a society that often pushes back against Christianity. On the same episode, I asked my mentor Darrell Bock about this. Here’s what he said:

There are three important elements: One is earning the respect and credibility of someone by the way you relate to the person next to you, the way you engage them, their seeing your sincerity. Christianity has an inherent critique of the way people live. That’s not an easy thing to deal with. They won’t care about your critique unless they know you care. That’s step one.

The second requires a significant adjustment…We’re used to saying, “The Bible says [a proposition is true] and so it’s true.” That’s how we think about it. “It’s true because it’s in the Bible.” I like to reverse that and get people to think about maybe it’s in the Bible because it’s true…So what makes this true? What makes this authentic about a way to live that we need to probe in order to understand why God would put it in his inspired word?

Because what God is communicating to us are the realities of life and if we appreciate why those realities are the way that they are, why the truth is true…you don’t have to appeal to the Bible for it. You can also appeal for what this means for quality of life, or for human flourishing, the common good, [what] makes it valuable, and you can lead people into reflecting on the nature of what it is you’re arguing for in and of itself without appealing to the Bible for the warrant. For someone [for whom] the Bible is not a warrant—to say “The Bible says it” doesn’t do them much good.

Third, there’s a way to have a conversation across a table with someone that emphasizes that aspect of the equation…[to see] apologetics as a conversation rather than thinking about it as a debate…that is the right tonal way into the conversation.

So there are three things here. One is how you relate, the second is knowing how to make the argument, and this third one is understanding you’re not in a debate, you’re in a conversation and it’s important to draw a person into the topic that you’re talking about.

Conclusion

The Indian proverb gets it right. There’s no point in giving someone a rose to smell if you’ve cut off their nose. But the flip side is also true. A gift of a rose and its smell is especially sweet when it comes from someone who actually cares about you. Let’s see apologetics as a ministry, adapt our approach to a shifting culture, and earn the right to be heard–especially in difficult spiritual conversations.

Can We Be Good Without God?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

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

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

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

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

Objective Morality?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where Does Objective Morality Come from?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answering the Skeptics’ Objections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Moral Argument for God

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 27, 2019/by Guest

What Biblical Books are Included in the Earliest Canonical Lists?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

There are two opposing ways to view the history of the canon. One would be to believe that the church, in its entirety, uniformly accepted all twenty-seven books of the New Testament as canonical from the very beginning. The other would be to suggest that the canon didn’t exist until an arbitrary church vote in the fourth or fifth century.

While either view might fit one’s preconceived agenda, the fact of the matter is that both views are terribly naive. The truth is, neither adequately deals with what history tells us.

I believe there’s a better, more balanced approach to the canon. It’s one that recognizes the canon’s development wasn’t as neat and tidy as some conservative scholars might think. Yet at the same time, it wasn’t a wild free-for-all like some other liberals suggest.

Instead, we find that the church affirmed a majority of the New Testament books at the beginning stages of Christianity. We might call these books the canonical core. Then as time progressed, the church, likewise, affirmed the peripheral books of the canon. To demonstrate this balanced approach, I want to highlight some of the early canonical lists from the first few centuries.

Irenaeus (AD 180)

While earlier church fathers quote New Testament books as Scripture, our first clear canon list comes from the Bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus. While he doesn’t include all twenty-seven books, Irenaeus gives us most of the New Testament. His canon includes:¹Michael Kruger, The Canon Revisited, 228.

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
1 John
2 John
Revelation

While Irenaeus’ list excludes four New Testament books (Philemon, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Jude), his list is impressive nonetheless. He’s clear on the Gospels as evidenced by his famous yet unscientific quote, “It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer than the number they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live and four principle winds.”²Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.8.

Moreover, his list contains the entire Pauline corpus (minus Philemon), Revelation, and about half of the shorter general epistles.

Muratorian Fragment (AD 180)

Named after its discoverer, Ludovico Antonio Muratori, this canonical list dating to the later part of the second century also confirms a core group of canonical books. The list includes:

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
1 John
2 John
Jude
Revelation

Notice the similarity to Irenaeus’ list. Both include the four Gospels, Acts, and the entire Pauline corpus. It also includes 1 and 2 John and Revelation.

It’s worth noting that the Muratorian Canon includes the Apocalypse of Peter but with the caveat, “though some of us are not willing for the latter to be read in church.”³Muratorian Fragment, Line 72. Additionally, the fragment rejects the Shepherd of Hermas because it was written “quite recently, in our own times” and thus not backed by apostolic authority.⁴Muratorian Fragment, Line 74, 80.

There’s an important observation here. Both Irenaeus and the Muratorian Fragment indicate that the early church agreed on the core New Testament canon. And with that core agreement came an established theology.

Think about it. Almost all of Christian theology can be established using the four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters, 1 John, and Revelation. Not to downplay the importance of books like 3 John or Jude, but Christian theology doesn’t hang in the balance without them. This canonical list, then, should give us confidence that the early church agreed on key Christian doctrines (Trinity, creation, fall, salvation through Christ alone, the deity of Christ, etc.).

Eusebius (AD 320)

While much canonical development occurred over the next hundred years — especially with Clement of Alexandria and Origen — we now turn our attention to Eusebius of Caesarea. Known for writing the first church history, Eusebius gives us a canonical list recognized by the church. What’s interesting about his list is that he breaks it down into four distinct categories.⁵Eusebius, Church History, 3:25.

The Recognized Books

This list includes the books universally received by the church:

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
1 Peter
1 John
Revelation

Disputed Books

Some disagreement surrounded the following books:

James
2 Peter
2 John
3 John
Jude

While Eusebius included these books in his disputed list, he makes an important statement about their validity. He writes that these books “are disputed yet known to most.”⁶Eusebius, Church History, 3.25. In other words, Eusebius indicates that most regarded these books as canonical even if a few were doubtful. Therefore, we shouldn’t think that most were on the fence with respect to these books — just a small minority.

What we find here, then, is the complete New Testament canon when you combine both the recognized and disputed books. The recognized books are essentially the same canonical core from the second century, plus the disputed books which most recognized as canonical.

Spurious Books

These books were ones that early Christians found helpful, but not canonical. They included:

Acts of Paul
Shepherd of Hermas
Revelation of Peter
Epistle of Barnabas
Didache
Gospel of Hebrews

These books would have been considered orthodox in their theology (much like a modern book by an orthodox Christian writer), but they weren’t backed by apostolic authority, and thus not canonical.

Heretical Books

These books were universally rejected by the early church:

Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Thomas
Acts of Andrew
Acts of John
Gospel of Matthias

Eusebius goes so far to argue that these books “ought not be reckoned even among the spurious books but discarded as impious and absurd.”⁷Eusebius, Church History, 3:25. His sentiments seem to fly in the face of modern liberal scholars who argue that the Gospel of Thomas is just as credible and authoritative as our four Gospels.

The Canon and Beyond

Following Eusebius, Athanasius gives us our precise twenty-seven book New Testament in his Festal Letter (AD 367). Additionally, regional church Synods at Hippo (AD 393) and Carthage (AD 397) both affirm the twenty-seven book New Testament canon.

You might ask what took so long to get all twenty-seven books affirmed? There could be a couple of reasons for the delay.

First, the peripheral books were generally shorter and made less of an impact on the church than the core books. It’s not hard for us to see how the church read Romans or Luke more than 3 John. For this reason, peripheral books didn’t circulate around the Roman Empire with the same frequency as the core ones. The truth is, many in the early church probably never read Jude or 3 John.

Another possible reason for the peripheral book’s late acceptance is the persecution of the early church. For example, in AD 303, Emperor Diocletian ordered all Christians to sacrifice to the pagan gods and to hand over all their biblical texts to be burned. It’s easy to see how Christians couldn’t just circulate their books willy-nilly.

Once Constantine legalized Christianity (AD 313); however, Scripture circulation came much easier. And quickly after that, we start finding complete canon lists.

So, did the early church have a neat and tidy agreed-upon canon at the end of the first century? No. But was the canon like the wild-wild West? No again. Instead, the church recognized a core canon from the very early stages, and they came to recognize the peripheral books later once all the books had time to circulate the Empire.

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

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

August 4, 2019/by Guest

Give Credit Where Credit Is Due

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Alex McElroy

I’ve never been much of an artist. I do, however, have great respect for those that possess the skill and patience to create a masterpiece. In fact, I admire anyone that can draw anything beyond a stick figure. I remember when I was growing up, my brother would draw figures from comic books, and my best drawings would pale in comparison. My wife is an amazing artist as well, and I now see similar talents in my daughter. I have to give credit where credit is due.

Often when you are in the presence of a great work of art or anything that has been finely made, you stand in awe. However, we are not simply in awe of what was made but that someone was able to conceive of and make it. The magnificence of the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel is not the details in the design of what has been painted but in the fact that Michelangelo had the ability to paint such details.

To not give credit to Michelangelo is a lesser example of not giving credit to the designer of everything… including Michelangelo. We also see evidence of design in ourselves, on the earth and in the universe. We all see it, but we don’t all give credit to whom it is due. To acknowledge a work of art while ignoring the artist is disrespectful. To benefit from the works of the ultimate artist and not give Him credit is to worship the creation while ignoring the Creator. We have a purpose precisely because the ultimate designer has purposefully designed us.

Credit for making

When we see elements of design, we always understand that a designer initiated the process. In 1953 Francis Crick helped discover DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), the molecular building blocks of life. DNA is the most complex system of message every composed. There are five levels of information transmission (statistics, cosyntics, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics). The highest level, apobetics, involves requests with an expectation of a response. DNA is information at the highest level. In other words, there is a clear design to DNA. To assume that this level of information could be achieved randomly or as a result of impersonal, non-communicative physical forces seems illogical. It seems, in that case, we would not be giving credit to whom it is due.

In Life Itself, Francis Crick proposed that some form of primordial life was shipped to the earth billions of years ago in spaceships—by supposedly ‘more evolved’ (therefore advanced) alien beings. Unfortunately, that theory still begs the question – who created the aliens? When it comes to how we’re made, maybe there is someone else we should be giving credit to.

Credit for morality

When we are trying to understand objective truths, it is helpful to note that they usually exist through their opposite. For example, we know what left is because we know what right is. Almost everyone agrees that true evil does exist. This implies that true good must exist. For those that don’t believe in God, where do you root this idea of objective good? C.S. Lewis, who was an atheist and called himself ‘England’s most reluctant convert,’ wrote, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”

If moral values originate from humans, they will fluctuate with the whims and preferences of humans – thereby making them subjective. If there is objective evil, then there is an objective moral law. If that is true, then there is an objective moral law-giver – God. And He deserves the credit for the moral standard that we seek to live by.

Credit for meaning

If we are the product of time plus matter plus chance, then life has no meaning. However, everything about how we live and the fact that we are able to live points to the fact that life does have meaning. It behooves us to give credit to the source of that meaning.

The worldview we espouse will, by and large, determine our understanding of the meaning of life itself. This is important because if life has no ultimate purpose, then neither do you or I. In that case; there would be no purpose to fulfill, assignment to complete, or reason to exist. Once you are clear about your origin, you can gain clarity on your purpose. Once you gain clarity on your purpose, you gain clarity on where you’re going. That clarity comes from determining what is true and by giving credit to the source of all truth.

Alex McElroy is an international speaker, author, blogger, leadership advisor, and the Pastor of Education at New Life Covenant Southeast Church, with over 20,000 members led by Pastor John F. Hannah. Alex has been serving in both youth and teaching ministries at New Life for over 12 years. In his role, he teaches Discipleship class designed for adults to learn, fellowship, and grow in their faith within a small group setting. Alex also trains hundreds of teachers and ministers to deliver lessons in proper lifestyle, Biblical study, focused preparation, and Apologetics in order to maximize their effectiveness in and for the Kingdom of God.

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

July 16, 2019/by Guest

No, the argument from miracles has not been debunked (Pt. 1)

3. Are Miracles Possible?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

Is the argument from miracles full of fallacies? Popular atheist YouTuber ‘Rationality Rules’ argues that’s the case. Rather than examining miracles on a report-by-report basis, he opts to say that the case for miracles is doomed from the start. This reasoning follows the tradition of the famous 18th-century philosopher David Hume.

For those of you who aren’t into YouTube, Rationality Rules has had his channel since March of 2017. In that short time, he’s gained over 200k subscribers and has had nearly 15 million views.

There’s a cottage industry of channels similar to his and we shouldn’t underestimate their influence. These are sharp skeptics making entertaining and digestible videos packed with thought-provoking content. As believers, we’d be lazy not to respond to their arguments.

Here’s his video on miracles in full. Here I’ll focus on his main points:

Does the argument from miracles fail to support Theism?

Here’s Rationality Rules first objection to the argument from miracles:

“The vast majority of miracles wouldn’t prove the existence of a god, even if they were indeed true. Or in other words, they don’t support theism. For example, even if it were unimpeachably true that a man called Jesus resurrected, this would not, in the slightest, prove that the universe had a creator! Nor would prove that Jesus turned water into wine; that he healed the blind; that he walked on water; or that he was born of a virgin… all it would prove is that a man called Jesus respawned and that he had terrible lag because it took him three days!…”

While I appreciate the video game reference, this argument against miracles is hardly a “game over” for the Christian. Jesus’ resurrection absolutely supports theism and fits poorly in a naturalistic worldview. For starters, the gospels report that Jesus said that the resurrection would prove his message:

“Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.” He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Matthew 12:38-40)

Secondly, the resurrection didn’t happen in a vacuum. Jesus’ preached the kingdom of God and called himself the Son of Man. The Jewish expectation at that time was the Messiah was coming and bringing his kingdom. That’s a historical fact.

The Roman historian Suetonius says this regarding the Jewish revolt against Rome “There had spread over the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at that time for men coming from Judea to rule the world.”

Tacitus also picks up on this prophetic expectation: “…in most, there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their priests was contained how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rules, coming from Judea, were to acquire universal empire…”

The 1st-century Jewish historian Josephus also mentions this hope: “But now, what did most elevate them in undertaking this war was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how “about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth.”

All three of these ancient historians applied these Jewish predictions to the Roman Emperor Vespasian, including even Josephus, oddly enough. He was, after all, a turncoat from the Jewish side to Rome.

So where did this expectation come from? If you read the prophecies from Daniel 2, 7, and 9, there was an understanding that there would be four great kingdoms before the kingdom of God would come.

Those kingdoms were believed to be Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. During the time of the Roman kingdom, the Son of Man would bring his kingdom and reign over the whole earth. (Daniel 7:13-14) The Messiah would come some 490 years after the rebuilding of Jerusalem, which had been destroyed by the Babylonian Empire.

You can also see this expectation in the New Testament writings. Even John the Baptist had to deny that he was the Christ. (John 1:20) Luke 3:15 says “Everyone was expecting the Messiah to come soon, and eager to know whether or not John was he.” (TLB)

This is also why Paul said things like: “At the right time, Christ died for the ungodly, or “…when the time had fully come, God sent his Son….” (Romans 5:6, Galatians 4:4) And the gospel writers have Jesus repeatedly referring to his appointed hour. (John 2:4, 7:30, 8:20, 12:23-24, Mark 14:41)

These prophecies are extremely fascinating and it would take another blog post to fully unpack their importance, but here’s the point: Jesus’ resurrection wasn’t some anomalous event devoid of spiritual significance. While it wasn’t the way many Jews expected the Messiah to come, the resurrection reportedly happened in an atmosphere charged historical and religious meaning.

Furthermore, his closest followers boldly proclaimed that God raised him. And they didn’t say the resurrection was the work of some generic god, but the God of Israel who performed this amazing sign. (Acts 2:22-24) Jesus’ disciples had the best vantage point to interpret the significance of this event. The one that was raised must have said that it was God who raised him. This is hardly some random miracle.

Let’s turn to Rationality Rule’s second objection:

Is the argument from miracles an argument from personal incredulity?

“The second and perhaps most obvious flaw with miracles is that they almost always commit either an Argument from Ignorance or a Personal Incredulity Fallacy.

To illustrate this, consider the following: Throughout history, there have been numerous accounts of flightless animals raining from the sky – and needless to say, on just about every occasion, someone somewhere has asserted that a miracle has occurred, because, “there’s no other explanation”.

Now, of course, it’s fair to say that flightless animals don’t just fall from the sky, but one can’t simply assert that a miracle has occurred simply because there’s “no other explanation”… that would be, and is an outrageous Argument from Ignorance!

It is, in essence, “we don’t know, therefore god”. Anyhow, as it turns out, we now actually do have an adequate explanation (which, by the way, perfectly demonstrates why Arguments from Ignorance are flawed).

This explanation is, quite simply, a tornado that’s formed over a body of water (otherwise known as a waterspout), that’s then hurled water and aquatic animals over land… it’s is a bizarre phenomenon, incredible even, but it’s not a miracle, because it doesn’t violate the laws of nature.

Yet, despite the fact that we now know exactly how flightless animals can rain from the sky, many people still assert that the only explanation is divine intervention, because they either don’t personally know about waterspouts, or they don’t understand them, which…is a Personal Incredulity Fallacy.”

Rationality Rules is right about one thing: Nature does some weird things sometimes and we’re not justified in attributing miracles to every gap in our understanding. That would be an argument from ignorance.

But let’s think about it for a moment: When it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, will there ever be a time when scientists discover a law shows that dead people do not stay dead after three days?

Given everything we know, that seems just as likely as discovering new laws that overturn the law of gravity. While there is some personal incredulity that’s unwarranted — like why flightless animals can at times rain from the sky — some things stubbornly resist our current framework of science. This has caused us to revise our framework when needed, but why can’t there be a case that’s so obstinate that it would resist scientific explanation altogether?

If atheists want to say that that can never possibly happen, that would be an extreme example of begging the question.

This is why many skeptical New Testament scholars (like Gerd Lüdemann and Michael Goulder, for instance) opt to naturalistically explain the specific evidence we have for the resurrection.

In fact, many of Rationality Rules’ fellow skeptical YouTube colleagues would seem to rather put forward arguments against the existence of the historical Jesus altogether. They clearly understand the theistic implications of the resurrection!

The argument from miracles: Not Debunked

Jesus’ resurrection was either natural or supernatural. Based on what we scientifically know today, natural causes isn’t a live option.Therefore, given that Jesus claimed to be divine and those who saw him after his resurrection claimed God raised him, the supernatural explanation is the most plausible one. This is especially true when we consider how poorly naturalistic explanations fare in comparison.

This isn’t an argument from ignorance, it’s just abductive logic — inference to the best explanation. We use this type of reasoning all the time, especially in science, history and in cases of law.

So unless we beg the question against the existence of God, we can’t just rule out miracles from the get-go. Now, Rationality Rules could try and debunk the evidence for the resurrection, but if he does that, he repudiates his second argument against miracles.

But Rationality Rules has two more objections to the argument from miracles. In my next post, we’ll look at them and see if those arguments stick better than his first couple. So far, he’s not off to a promising start.

Erik Manning is a former atheist turned Christian after an experience with the Holy Spirit. He’s a freelance baseball writer and digital marketing specialist who is passionate about the intersection of evangelism and apologetics.

July 14, 2019/by Guest

Tag Archive for: Atheist

Can Prayer Alone Fix Everything?

Prayer Isn’t A Cure-All And Jesus Never Said That It Was

Is The Coronavirus A Judgment From God?

Jesus And The Problem Of Suffering

Jesus Is Still In The Healing Business

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Right Kind Of Galaxy

The Right Location In That Galaxy

The Right Kind Of Star

The Right Distance From The Star

The Right Kind Of Neighbors

The Right Kind Of Moon

The Right Kind Of Planet

Just A Pale Blue Dot?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Can’t People be Good Without God?

Why Do the Right Thing?

Right, Wrong, and the Moral Law

Yes and No

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Hey, Can We Talk?

See Apologetics As Ministry

Adapt to a Shifting Culture

Earn the Right to be Heard

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Objective Morality?

Where Does Objective Morality Come from?

Answering the Skeptics’ Objections

The Moral Argument for God

Irenaeus (AD 180)

Muratorian Fragment (AD 180)

Eusebius (AD 320)

The Recognized Books

Disputed Books

Spurious Books

Heretical Books

The Canon and Beyond