Tag Archive for: Christianity

Are You Going UP or Are You Going DOWN? Bible “Errors” Won’t Save You

Everyone you love will die. Everything you build will crumble. Everything you say will be forgotten. Everything you do will come to nothing. You and your identity will die and vanish, UNLESS…the resurrection is true. Yes, if Jesus of Nazareth really did rise from the dead–GAME OVER–Christianity is true! But wait…isn’t a miracle like the resurrection a little too hard to believe for a rational person?

Join Frank during his recent talk at Grace Community Church in Sarasota, FL where he draws a striking parallel between the sinking of the Titanic and the resurrection of Jesus. You’ll learn why the Gospel accounts are not myths or legends, but credible eyewitness testimony that can stand up to scrutiny. Along the way, he answers pressing questions like:

  • How do we know miracles like the resurrection are even possible and why are they so rare?
  • What’s the greatest miracle in the Bible? (no, it’s not the resurrection!)
  • Why are some atheists beginning to admit the evidence for Christianity’s greatest miracle?
  • Do Bart Ehrman’s so-called “contradictions” in the Gospel accounts defeat Christianity?
  • What does the Titanic have to do with the afterlife and the resurrection of Jesus?
  • Why is it highly unlikely that the Jews invented the resurrection story?
  • How do we know Hell is real?

There is an afterlife and what you do here on earth DOES matter. Not only for today, but also for eternity. The question remains for all of us: are you going up or are you going down? The choice is yours, choose wisely!

If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Digging Up the Bible
Let’s Get Real: Examining the Evidence for God
Israel, Jordan, and Egypt Trip

Download Transcript

/by

What is the Role of A Priori Knowledge?

A priori reasoning originates from a Latin word which means, “beforehand.” Knowledge gained from experience is called a posteriori, and knowledge that doesn’t require experience is called a priori.[1] Our primary concern here is with factual knowledge. For example, Little Italy is located in New York on the East Coast of the United States, Plato lived in Athens, Greece, and Seattle, Washington, is in the Pacific Northwest. This type of knowledge is often referred to as “knowledge that” or propositional knowledge because it involves statements or propositions that are [or can be] certain to be true.[2]

There are compelling reasons to consider a priori knowledge as a valid form of knowledge. For instance, the statement “bachelors are unmarried men” indicates that a certain level of experience is needed to grasp the meanings of the words “unmarried” and “bachelor.” This notion is referred to as the conceptual containment theory of truth, which asserts that the concept of the predicate is inherently contained within the concept of the subject. [3]

Is reason enough to give us true knowledge about God?   

A priori knowledge plays an important role in our understanding of truth. It is a type of knowledge that is independent of experience, meaning we can grasp its validity through reasoning alone. If a proposition can be known a priori, we can determine its truth merely by thinking about it.

Here are some examples of a priori knowledge:

  1. All unmarried men are bachelors.
  2. Two plus three equals five.
  3. All murder is wrong.[4]

These propositions rely on reasoning, and their truths are self-evident. We can recognize them as true because they are defined that way, with some, like the assertion that all murder is wrong, being particularly self-evident. [5]

The Ontological Argument   

A priori reasoning aids us in thinking and reasoning. For example, the ontological argument for the existence of God employs a priori reasoning. It can be structured as follows:

  1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
  2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
  3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
  4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

Given that it is rational to accept the central premise of this argument, it follows that it is also rational to accept the conclusion.[6]

The ontological argument has been defended by many philosophers, including Alvin Plantinga, who believes that it is a strong valid argument, and that this a priori argument can give us true knowledge [if it’s a sound argument].[7]

The role of a priori reasoning is important not only in philosophy but also in mathematics and science. Although philosophers such as John Locke have contended that a priori reasoning alone may be inadequate for attaining true belief or knowledge, it is significant that many contemporary philosophers, including William Lane Craig, have successfully defended the use of a priori reasoning in their arguments. Examples include the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Ontological Argument. These arguments illustrate the essential function of logical reasoning in the exploration and understanding of fundamental truths.

The Laws of Logic      

The Laws of Logic are not based on a posteriori knowledge but rather on a priori knowledge; the laws of logic require the use of reason. For example: 1. If God did not exist, the laws of logic would be merely human conventions. 2. The laws of logic are not merely human conventions. 3. Therefore, God exists.[8] Some might argue that A priori being unavoidable is a contentious claim, but when you consider 10 + 10 = 20 this requires A priori reasoning, and you can know this independent of experience.

When it comes to gaining knowledge of God’s existence, I believe that we can know that God exists independent of experience (A priori), but I also believe that we can have knowledge of God experientially, meaning that God can be personally known.

References:

[1] Bruce Russell, A Priori Justification and Knowledge “Plato.Stanford.edu Accessed July 17th  2025

[2] Dan O’Brian, An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2006), 4

[3] See, Brandon C. Cook, Plato.Stanford.edu/Subject Predicate Accessed April 29, 2025 [Editor’s Note: In a sentence, the “predicate” is the verb-phrase. It says something about the subject (noun/pronoun) of the sentence. For example, in the sentence “The cow jumped over the moon,” the phrase “the cow” is the subject, and “jumped over the moon” is the predicate.”

[4] [Editor’s note: The statement ‘All murder is wrong’ is a disputed example. Moral irrealists, a.k.a., moral relativists, are can argue that it’s only wrong sometimes, relative to the situation.]

[5] See DePaul, Hicks, in https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/ [Editor’s note: Again, this is a disputed example. Moral theorists don’t have to grant a priori status to the statement “all murder is wrong.” It could be an intuition, strongly held belief, faith-claim, etc, and it could even be true moral knowledge for other reasons that are’t a priori.]

[6] Rasmussen J., 2018 in G. Oppy(ed), Ontological Arguments, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 276 [Editor’s Note: The Ontological Argument, even in this “possible worlds” framing, remains a deeply disputed and unresolved line of argument. To my knowledge – Dr. John D. Ferrer – it’s not considered a sound argument by any atheistic, agnostic, deistic philosophers of religion, and it’s not even considered a sound argument by an strong majority of theistic philosophers. Nevertheless, it is an important part of the philosophy of religion, in part, because it demonstrate a potential application of a priori reasoning. If this argument is sound, then the definition of God is basically sufficient evidence, by itself, to conclude that God exists.]

[7] [Editor’s Note: An argument is “sound” if it is valid and it’s premises are true.]

[8] Craig, William Lane. “Do the Laws of Logic Provide Evidence for God?” The Good Book Blog – Biola University Blogs. Last modified May 3, 2024. Accessed May 3, 2024. https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2017/do-the-laws-of-logic-provide-evidence-for-god.

Recommended Resources:

Your Most Important Thinking Skill by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, (mp4) download

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)   

When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)     

   

As the newest member of Bellator Christi, Seattle native, Justin Angelos, brings a passion for evangelism and discipleship along with theology and apologetics.  He has studied at Biola University and Liberty University. Justin focuses on providing help for those who suffer from emotional and anxiety issues.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4mNLiub

/by

How to Win Gen Z Back to the Truth of Christianity with Shanda Fulbright

Gen Z is showing surprising signs of revival—but will it last? As young people flock back to church, the future of their faith may hinge on how parents, pastors, and mentors respond right now! Frank teams up with certified apologist and former California public school teacher, Shanda Fulbright, to discuss some of the challenges associated with discipling the younger generation and what parents can do to help kids ground their beliefs in facts instead of feelings. Together they answer questions like:

  • What does recent research say about Gen Z becoming more interested in Christianity?
  • What do Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, and Wesley Huff have in common?
  • What recent cultural events and trends have contributed to more young people embarking on a truth quest?
  • What are the dangers associated with winning people to Christianity based solely on emotion?
  • Why do young people need evidence to stay grounded in their faith?
  • What role should parents and the church play in discipleship?
  • What is the best age to introduce apologetics to your child?
  • What are some practical tips for helping young people discern truth from error?
  • Why should doubts be welcomed and expressed?

If you’re a parent, mentor, or simply care about the future of the Church, you won’t want to miss this practical conversation along with Shanda’s course for middle school students, ‘Let’s Get Real: Examining the Evidence for God‘! The PREMIUM version starts on MON. 9/8 and includes 13 LIVE Zoom sessions with Shanda, or you can guide your child through the SELF-PACED course at any time during the year!

If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Let’s Get Real: Examining the Evidence for God
ShandaFulbright.com
WesleyHuff.com
Apologetics Canada

Download Transcript

/by

Why Philosophical Proofs For God Are Better Than “Scientific” Proofs

Let me first say that I think the “scientific” proofs for God’s existence are very good, as far as they go (I’ll explain why that word is in quotes later). Since middle school one of my hobbies has been backyard astronomy. I am very familiar with the intelligent design arguments from cosmology and biology. They are all very good and very convincing.

So, what’s the issue? Well, for one, natural science alone can’t prove God. It needs philosophy. What then makes the scientific arguments good? They are good because they show that the chances for the design (not existence) of the universe and life due to random events are essentially zero. But the jump from probability to cause is a philosophical one. Science, does after all, require the use of philosophy. As someone once said, philosophy is unavoidable. Science can give us probability, mathematics, and descriptions of how things are. However, by definition natural science studies nature and thus cannot make the move beyond nature to the supernatural. Again, that is a philosophical move.

While science can prove that there probably is a cause that accounts for the design in the universe and among life, it cannot move beyond the cosmos for an answer. Even adopting the philosophical notion of cause and effect, science cannot tell us what the cause is like. It cannot tell us there is only one cause. It also cannot tell us that the universe was created from nothing. The best it can do is to show that a cause, or causes, arranged the universe and life in such a way to allow it to exist the way it is now.

Objections to Scientific Proofs for God        

Maurice Holloway makes a general objection against proving God’s existence from natural science in his Introduction to Natural Theology. He declares,

“Because of its formal subject and method of procedure, a positive [natural] science as such is intrinsically and necessarily incapable of demonstrating God’s existence. Physics, for example, is no more capable of proving the existence of a suprasensible being than mathematics is of proving the existence of a non-quantified being. To do this, they would have to change their essence, for they would have to go beyond their proper subject and proper method; and then they would no longer be positive sciences” (455).

In other words, it is simply against the essence of natural sciences to go beyond their own study, and to do so would be to require a completely different discipline (philosophy).

Consider the specific objections to scientific arguments for God from Holloway’s work (456-457). The first objection has to do with the issue of probability and certitude. He claims,

“Since such [scientific] arguments are based upon the laws and theories of positive science, the arguments themselves can never achieve greater certitude than that of these laws and theories. And . . . the scientists dispute among themselves as to the relative truth or value of their laws and theories.”

In sum, the level of certitude of the conclusions reached are never greater than the certitude of the theories themselves. I personally think the big bang theory is on solid ground and demonstrates with practical certainty that the universe had a beginning. However, not all scientists agree with the big bang. It is in dispute. For example, does the second law of thermodynamics (see below for what this is) apply to the whole universe or not? Big bang proponents hold that it does. Opponents tend to say that it doesn’t. Such disputes bring scientific theories into question, which also brings the conclusions into question.

Holloway’s second objection states,

“Since the laws and theories of positive science are based upon sensible phenomena as in some way physically observable and measurable, they can never be used to transcend the phenomenal order. But God, as a term to be demonstrated, entirely transcends the phenomenal order. Thus any proof that is strictly and merely from positive science can never demonstrate his existence.”

This is saying what I said above, namely, natural science studies nature and, by definition, cannot rise above it. Science studies the things of this world, not the things other than this world. This is simply true, by definition. To study the cause of this world would not be natural science, but natural theology (philosophy). Science can certainly show that systems in this universe (and the universe itself) are highly designed and need a designer; however, the existence of that designer cannot be demonstrated beyond a level of probability.

His third objection is related to the second but shows that science could not tell us about the essence of the cause of the universe even if it could tell us about its existence:

“Even if we were to grant that positive science could establish the existence of some super mundane principle, it could never go on to prove that this principle is God; namely, a Necessary Being and Pure Act. To reach such a term (that is, to reach God) one would always have to resort to principles that are truly metaphysical.”

The best that something like intelligent design can do is to show that there is a designer. It does not show the designer to be separate from nature, or a single being, or that the universe as a whole was created. While the kalam argument coupled with big bang cosmology does the latter, even the big bang theory must make the jump from science to philosophy to show there was a creation. Science just tells us what this universe is like and how it works. Philosophy tells us about the nature of things, and that effects must have causes. Science certainly cannot tell us anything about the nature of the cause(s) other than it is (they are) intelligent. Categories such as “Necessary Being,” “Pure Act,” etc., are metaphysical (philosophical) categories unavailable to the natural scientist (without importing them from philosophy).

But Can the Question Be Scientific? 

The question of God’s existence is inherently philosophical. But is it a “scientific” question as well? Yes, in a way. I have used the word ‘scientific’ in quotes for a reason. Historically, following Aristotle, a discipline was considered scientific if it could demonstrate its conclusions through a rational process (logical argumentation) and from first principles (such as the law of non-contradiction). If such a demonstration could take place, that is, if there was a rational move from premises to a conclusion and the body of knowledge could be arranged systematically along with this demonstration, the body of knowledge was said to be scientific. Since philosophy can demonstrate its conclusions from rational demonstration, historically it has been thought to be scientific (as was theology . . . the queen of the sciences). However, the notion of something being scientific nowadays usually means that it is identical with natural science.

Further, many think that science is the only domain that provides knowledge. This view is called ‘scientism’. Notice that the claim that “only science conveys knowledge” is a philosophical claim, not a claim demonstrated by natural science. It is a claim about the nature of science (philosophy of science) and the nature of knowledge (epistemology). In short, since philosophy is a science in this broader sense, the issue of God’s existence is a scientific one, just not in the sense of the natural sciences.

Distinguishing the Scientific and the Philosophical Arguments: What’s the Difference?  

Let’s now look at an example of a scientific proof and contrast it with an argument from philosophy. An argument from natural science goes something like this (there are even some philosophical moves here, such as the move from effect to cause):

Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
The universe had a beginning.
Therefore, the universe had a cause.

Most of the effort is usually placed on the second premise to marshal evidence for the universe’s beginning. For example, the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy) is often invoked. It says that energy in a closed system (a system that doesn’t get energy from the outside) converts from usable to unusable energy. In other words, when we take our cell phones off their chargers the battery begins to die until it is recharged. In the absence of a charger (energy from the outside), when it dies the phone will simply not work. The move in this argument is to show that there is nothing outside the known universe that provides energy. Thus, left to itself, the universe is running out of usable energy. If the universe existed from the infinite past, it would have already run out of energy by now. But it hasn’t. Therefore, the argument says that the universe has not existed forever into the past, but had a beginning. And if it had a beginning, it had a beginner.

Arguments like this are very strong, but they depend on the accuracy of interpretations and notions such as how the second law of thermodynamics works and to what extent it can be applied. Does the law apply to everything? Does it apply to the whole universe? Is the universe getting outside energy (whatever that would mean)? Thus, there is a degree of probability with this reasoning. It is based on induction and is thus not certain.

Philosophical proofs on the other hand lead to deductive (metaphysical) certainty. That is, scientific theories change, but the nature of the world does not. Not everyone agrees with such theories as the big bang (I for one do). But we can all agree (I know there are outliers) that things in the world change. From this concept of change we can deduce things about their nature and their cause. Consider the following argument that I have summarized from Thomas Aquinas that is referred to as the First Way:

Things change. In order for things to change they must be composed of act (existence) and potency (the ability to change). For a change to take place it must be brought about by something that already exists (is in act). A being in act causing change in another being cannot go backwards forever. Therefore, there must be a being that is not composed of act and potency, but is simply act. This being people call God.

Such an argument is based on the metaphysical nature of reality. Arguments like this start from existing things as effects and reason back to the nature of their causes. We can see that if this argument is sound, it shows God to be Pure Act, with no division of act and potency, and thus unchanging, and eternal (since time is classically understood to be a measuring of change).

Natural science on the other hand can at best only tell us that given what we know about the universe and life, there must exist some intelligent being, or beings, that in some way designed them (not even created them). Some iterations of the kalam argument attempt to show the beginning of the universe based on the big bang theory. There is much merit to this, but it is limited and still requires philosophical moves. Again, the scientific arguments are very strong, but they don’t go far enough to secure the God that Christians want to prove. We are not interested in simply proving a kind of god, but the God of Christianity, that is, the God just described above based on the first way.

In answering the question of whether or not the kalam cosmological argument gives us a being of classical theism based on natural science, Ed Feser retorts,

“It does not. for to get from the world to the God of classical theism, it is not enough to get from the world to a cause of the world. One must get to a cause that has the attributes distinctive of the God of classical theism—such as simplicity, immutability, and eternity—and one must get to a God who is not only the temporal cause of the world, but apart from whose sustaining causal activity the world could not exist even for an instant. And I submit that neither condition can be met without recourse to the distinction between actuality and potentiality that is at the core of Aristotelian-Scholastic philosophy of nature” (“Natural Theology Must Be Grounded in Philosophy,” in Neo-Scholastic Essays, 80).

Conclusion

I hope that I have been clear that I believe theistic proofs that involve natural science are strong, but limited. Natural science alone cannot make a case for God. Further, such arguments are not as conclusive as philosophical ones, nor do they give us the God of classical theism which we can discover through philosophy. I agree with Ed Feser when he says,

“To be sure, this is not to deny that considerations from modern cosmology—or from other natural sciences, for that matter—can be useful to the natural theologian; the kalam cosmological argument, I concede, shows that much. But I maintain that such considerations can never be sufficient, and that recourse to the philosophy of nature is necessary to get from the world to the God of classical theism” (Ibid., 80).

Recommended Resources:

Your Most Important Thinking Skill by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, (mp4) download

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)  

Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3 

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek 

 

J. Brian Huffling, PH.D. has a BA in History from Lee University, an MA in (3 majors) Apologetics, Philosophy, and Biblical Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), and a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from SES. He is the Director of the Ph.D. Program and Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SES. He also teaches courses for Apologia Online Academy. He has previously taught at The Art Institute of Charlotte. He has served in the Marines, Navy, and is currently a reserve chaplain in the Air Force at Maxwell Air Force Base. His hobbies include golf, backyard astronomy, martial arts, and guitar.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/46cZJSz

/by

The Demon Delusion? Recent Evidence They Exist

Are demons real—or just a delusion? The recent Minneapolis Catholic school shooting may be one of the clearest examples of demonic activity ever covered by the mainstream media. Frank takes a hard look at the shocking details surrounding the tragedy where a trans-identifying individual left many clues behind to demonstrate his delusion before deliberately targeting innocent children. He’ll answer tough questions like:

  • What shows us the shooter was influenced by demons?
  • What is Satan called “the father of lies”?
  • What is the anecdotal fallacy and why is it so dangerous?
  • What are the 3 ways we learn about reality?
  • Who is Satan, what does his name mean, and what does he want with us?
  • What does John 8 teach us about demons?
  • How can we demonstrate that God exists without even opening the Bible?
  • How did Jesus resist temptation from Satan—and how can we do the same?
  • What are some other things we can do to protect ourselves from the evil one?

The most dangerous thing about deception is that you don’t realize you’re being deceived! If you or someone you know needs to confront demonic influence without falling into despair, the only source of true freedom is the saving grace of Jesus Christ. Tune in to gain practical tools from Scripture to overcome fear, resist the enemy’s lies, and stand firm in a culture increasingly hostile to Christianity.

If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!

Resources mentioned during the episode:

The Josh Howerton Podcast – The Most *OVERT* Demonic Activity I’ve EVER Seen
Hollywood Heroes by Frank & Zach Turek

Download Transcript

/by

How to Raise Gender Confident Kids with Dr. Jeff Myers and Dr. Kathy Koch

What does it really mean to be male or female? You may not be confused, but your kids could be—and if you don’t help them now, they may come to believe they’re trapped in the wrong body. So how do you guide them with the truth before the culture hijacks their hearts and minds?

This week, Dr. Jeff Myers and Dr. Kathy Koch of Summit Ministries join Frank to discuss their new book, ‘Raising Gender-Confident Kids: Helping Kids Embrace Their God-Given Design‘. Tune in as Jeff and Kathy reveal how parents can protect and prepare their children for these cultural lies and provide practical tools to guide the conversation. Together, they’ll coach parents on how to instill hope and confidence in kids by embracing their identity in Christ and answer crucial questions like:

  • Why is it vital for Christians to talk openly about gender dysphoria?
  • What’s the best way to respond to someone who says there are more than two genders?
  • How do we know there are only two genders?
  • How common is it for kids to feel uncomfortable in their own bodies?
  • In what ways are medical professionals and Big Pharma profiting from the transgender movement?
  • What can parents say and do to proactively engage kids about gender from a biblical worldview with both truth and compassion?
  • What are some warning signs that parents can look for and what’s the best way to respond?

In today’s world, countless young people feel invisible, misplaced, or pressured to believe that “gender-affirming care” is the solution—when in reality, it leads to a psychological and physical dead end. Be sure to grab a FREE copy of Jeff and Kathy’s book at GenderConfidentKids.com while supplies last, packed with 200 conversation starters to make these tough discussions easier and more effective!

If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!

Resources mentioned during the episode:

GET YOUR FREE BOOK HERE! GenderConfidentKids.com
Summit Ministries
Celebrate Kids

Download Transcript

/by

New-Testament Slavery: Fact vs. Fiction with Dr. Paul Copan

Does the Bible REALLY support slavery, as skeptics often claim? Last week, Dr. Paul Copan joined Frank to unpack the cultural and theological context of Old Testament passages, like Leviticus 25. This week, Paul returns to examine the New Testament’s most controversial passages on slavery, addressing questions about human dignity, morality, and God’s ultimate plan while answering questions like:

  • What rights and protections did servants actually have under biblical law?
  • What does the punishment for mistreating servants reveal about their dignity and value?
  • How did the Bible call out abuses of slavery and work to humanize servants?
  • What did Paul teach Christians about how to treat slaves in the New Testament?
  • Were there barriers that made abolishing slavery outright impossible in ancient Rome?
  • Why does God sometimes take incremental steps to eradicate deeply entrenched evils?
  • Why were most abolitionists Christians while some famous atheists supported slavery?
  • How are modern atheists “borrowing” from Christianity when they complain about slavery?

You’ll learn that slavery in the Bible is far more nuanced than skeptics want you to believe. Tune in to discover how Jesus’ radical model of service, Paul’s letters, and the early church’s example paved the way for the eventual abolition of slavery in both the ancient and modern world.

If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Old-Testament Slavery: Fact vs. Fiction with Dr. Paul Copan
Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World
PaulCopan.com
Is God a Moral Monster?
Is God a Vindictive Bully?
Christianity Contested
Slavery in the Bible: Answering Atheist Critiques
The BIBLE and SLAVERY Explained! with Dr. Carmen Imes

Download Transcript

/by

Old-Testament Slavery: Fact. vs. Fiction with Dr. Paul Copan

Does the Bible condone slavery? Critics often point to verses like Leviticus 25 as proof that Scripture supports the kind of dehumanizing chattel slavery we know from the antebellum South. But is that REALLY what the text is teaching? Old Testament scholar and author, Dr. Paul Copan, joins Frank to unpack this hot-button issue and explain how to think carefully about slavery in its historical and redemptive context. You’ll hear answers to questions like:

  • What are 8 things a person needs to study in order to understand this topic well?
  • What does the opening chapter of Genesis teach us about slavery?
  • What is chattel slavery and how is it different from slavery in the Bible?
  • How did the Mosaic laws on slavery compare to other nations in the Ancient Near East?
  • What is the context of Leviticus 25:44 and how should it be understood?
  • How is the term “slave” in modern Bible translations misleading?
  • What is the ultimate vision of God’s Law when it comes to human dignity and freedom?
  • Why wasn’t slavery completely prohibited in the Old Testament?

Tune in as Frank and Paul peel back the layers of cultural context, translation challenges, and God’s ultimate plan of redemption—revealing why the Bible’s teaching on this controversial and complex issue is far different than what skeptics claim. This episode will barely scratch the surface, so be sure to tune in next week as they continue the conversation!

If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!

Resources mentioned during the episode:

PaulCopan.com
Is God a Moral Monster?
Is God a Vindictive Bully?
Christianity Contested
Slavery in the Bible: Answering Atheist Critiques
The BIBLE and SLAVERY Explained! with Dr. Carmen Imes

Download Transcript

/by

Four Ways that Middle Knowledge Helps to Explain Unanswered Prayer

Country singer Garth Brooks popularized the song, “Unanswered Prayers.” The song recounts how he prayed to have the love of a young woman earlier in his life. His prayer, however, was declined. While he didn’t understand why God did not allow him to have the love of this young woman when he was young, he later reflected on why God did not answer his prayer when he looked upon his wife and valued the love they had for one another. Brooks then sings, “One of God’s greatest gifts is unanswered prayer.”

In his book Luis de Molina: The Life and Theology of the Founder of Middle Knowledge, Kirk MacGregor recounts the life and belief system of Luis de Molina. Unfortunately, much of Molina’s works are still left untranslated. MacGregor, who is able to read the languages in which Molina wrote, digs into the writings of Molina. Of particular interest is the way Molina examines divine providence through the lens of middle knowledge. Middle knowledge is understood as “God’s knowledge of all things that would happen in every possible set of circumstances.”[1] Molina averred that middle knowledge helps to explain unanswered prayer in four different ways.

Some Prayers May Go Unanswered Because They are Logically Impossible         

Molina argues that some things for which people petition God are impossible for God to bring about.[2] As has been noted by numerous theologians and philosophers, certain things lie outside the realm of possibility for even God to answer. For instance, it is impossible for God to make a round square or a married bachelor. Such instances are logically impossible. MacGregor adds that prayers that an enemy was never born, for events such as the Holocaust to have never happened, or that God would commit some form of evil to avenge a person lies outside of possibility or the character of God. As such, some prayers may go unanswered because a person asks God to do something that lies outside his character to do. Remember, God is the absolute good and, thereby, does not commit evil acts.

Some Prayers May Go Unanswered Because They are Logically Infeasible          

Second, Molina holds that some prayers are logically infeasible for God to answer. [3] For instance, a person may pray that God changes another person’s life. While it would be possible for God to force his love and grace on another person, it would not be feasible to do if God grants individuals free will. As such, God will do everything possible to bring a soul to salvation without sacrificing the freedom of the will. If human free will is accepted, then it can be said that God’s desire is for all souls to be saved. Because of the essence of love itself, love must be freely given and freely received. Due to its inherent characteristics, prayers asking God to force a person into a divine relationship would inhibit the nature of love itself. If true, middle knowledge ensures that God will place each person in the best possible circumstance to receive God’s love, particularly those whom God knows would respond to his grace.

Some Prayers May Go Unanswered Because They are Individually Detrimental 

Molina argued that some prayers are unanswered by God because, if answered, they would be detrimental, if not disastrous, to the person requesting it. [4] MacGregor gives the illustration of a girl who prayed to marry a certain boy. God, however, did not answer the prayer. It may have been that if God had answered the prayer, the boy would have cheated on the girl, divorced her, causing her to question her faith. [5] The same may be said for prayers to win the lottery. Suppose that God answered a person’s prayer. It may be that if the person won the lottery that the individual’s children would become addicted to drugs, the person’s relationship with his/her spouse would become strained and that the person may leave their faith. What the person thought would have been a blessing would result in a disaster. Thus, God realizes that it would be better for the person if he or she doesn’t win the lottery rather than winning it. Therefore, the prayer goes unanswered.

Some Prayers May Go Unanswered Because They are Globally Destructive        

Molina also argues that God may not answer one’s prayer because the prayer would become disastrous to the world at large. [6] Suppose that a farmer prays for extra rain for his crops. But the rain does not come. Imagine that a dam was damaged, and the extra rain could have caused the dam to burst, causing devastation and the loss of lives to countless thousands. Perhaps God waits to answer the prayer until the time that he knows that a dam worker comes by to observe the defect and calls for the dam’s repair. Through God’s middle knowledge, he knows how the worker would respond in such an instance. In like manner, he also knows what the extra rain would do to the dam’s integrity. Some prayers may go unanswered because, unbeknownst to the petitioner, they could bring harm to others.

Conclusion

Middle knowledge has been called “the most fruitful theological ideas ever conceived.” [7] It has many beneficial applications even beyond the scope of balancing divine sovereignty and human freedom. As noted, middle knowledge can provide a means of understanding why God may not answer certain prayers at certain times. Since God knows every factual and counterfactual, God’s refusal to answer our prayers according to the way that we desire may actually turn out to our benefit. When we get to heaven, I imagine that all of us will sing along with Garth Brooks as we thank God for unanswered prayers.

Dive Deeper

Brian Chilton, Curtis Evelo, and Tim Stratton, “Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism,” BellatorChristi.com (8/8/2021), https://bellatorchristi.com/2021/08/08/sis-s1-e7-human-freedom-divine-knowledge-and-mere-molinism-w-dr-tim-stratton/

Brian Chilton, “What is Molinism?,” BellatorChristi.com (5/15/2018), https://bellatorchristi.com/2018/05/15/what-is-molinism/ 

References: 

[1] Kirk R. MacGregor, Luis de Molina: The Life and Theology of the Founder of Middle Knowledge (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 11

[2] Luis de Molina, Concordia 2.14.13.26.14; Ludovici Molina, Commenteria in primam divi Thomae partem (Venice, 1602), 25.3.

[3] Molina, Concordia 7.23.4/5.1.13.6; Molina, Commentaria 25.4.

[4] Molina, Concordia 6.22.4.10; 7.23.4/5.1.14.8–10.

[5] MacGregor, Luis de Molina, 127–128.

[6] Molina, Concordia 7.23.4/5.1.6.23.

[7] William Lane Craig, The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987), 127. [Editor’s Note: While Molinism is popular in Christian philosophy and some academic circles, it is not the “consensus” view, nor established orthodoxy. It is an “option” within historic Christianity, but it’s worth noting that other historic Christian traditions, notably, Classical Theists, Scholastics, and Thomists, tend to reject Molinism and the concept of “middle knowledge.” They, instead, explain the content of middle knowledge in other ways, without granting any middle realm of “knowledge” distinct from God’s self-knowledge and his knowledge of creation. Nevertheless, that disagreement is a family feud between Christian brothers and sisters. The point is, even if William Lane Craig is impressed with middle knowledge thinking it is especially “fruitful,” that opinion isn’t necessarily heresy but neither does it represent the consensus or even the majority view across historic Christian orthodoxy.]

Recommended Resources:

Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3 

The Great Book of Romans by Dr. Frank Turek (Mp4, Mp3, DVD Complete series, STUDENT & INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, COMPLETE Instructor Set)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

 

 

Brian G. Chilton earned his Ph.D. in the Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University (with high distinction). He is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast and the founder of Bellator Christi. Brian 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); earned a Certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, and plans to purse philosophical studies in the near future. He is also enrolled in Clinical Pastoral Education to better learn how to empower those around him. Brian is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in ministry for over 20 years and currently serves as a clinical hospice chaplain as well as a pastor.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4mveUvO

/by

What Happened to Our Respect for Authority? with Brett & Erin Kunkle

There is a crisis of authority in our culture. Across the board there is more distrust in our once authoritative positions: parents, politicians, media, teachers, law enforcement, and even God Himself. But have you ever stopped to ask: what is authority? Why do we need it? And what has to be missing or go wrong with an authority figure to make us distrustful? In this episode, Brett and Erin Kunkle from MAVEN unpack the nature of authority, how this applies to the authority of Scripture, and how to explain authority to your kids. Together with Frank, they answer questions like:

  • What’s driving the modern rejection of authority?
  • Why is obedience seen as a “bad” word?
  • What are the two essential ingredients for understanding proper authority?
  • How do you respond to people who reject authority because of past abuse?
  • What is “gentle parenting” and how does it miss the mark?
  • How has sin tainted the structure of authority and turned it into an attack on the family?
  • What is God’s design for the family and how does a biblical worldview reshape how we approach parenting?
  • Were we all born “good inside”?

Whether you’re raising toddlers, guiding teenagers, or mentoring young adults, this episode will give you clarity on what’s fueling the breakdown of authority in our current culture and how God’s Word provides the solution. And for more parenting wisdom from Brett and Erin, be sure to check out the links in the resources section below!

If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY HERE. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!

Resources mentioned during the episode:

MAVENTruth.com
The MAVEN Parent Podcast

Download Transcript

/by