Christianity Archives - Page 31 of 106

Tag Archive for: Christianity

Book Review: The Magna Carta Of Humanity

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

The Magna Carta of Humanity: Sinai’s Revolutionary Faith and The Future of Freedom

In today’s world it is difficult to be online, at parties, with family, at work, or even just in public without hearing about the current cultural and political climate in the United States. Even if the Christian case-maker tries to avoid politics, they still confront culture and will be challenged with the hypocrisies of the Church and those who claimed to be members of the Church who just happened to also have founded The United States of America. And it is rare that challenges stop there.

People are passionate about one political view (or party) or another. Extremes on the different sides constantly accuse opposing sides of trying to destroy democracy, the Constitution, and even freedom itself. The rhetoric and apparent goals of different politicians can get our heads spinning out of control as we try to make sense of what is going on, how it affects us (and our future), what we can do about it to bring some measure of sanity in the conversations we inevitably get sucked into, and how we can respond logically with both gentleness and respect when the challenges come.

That is where I have found great value in Os Guinness’ “The Magna Carta of Humanity” (Hard copy, audiobook, Kindle). Guinness digs into the foundations, principles, and histories of the cultural and political divide in America. He compares and contrasts them in such a way that brings crystal clarity to the current situation. He points out that before we can even talk about “make America great again” (MAGA), we must truly understand what made America great in the first place. And before anyone wishes to reject the ideals that founded America, they must first truly understand those ideals and truly understand the implications of the ideals they are trading them for.

In my effort to help you determine if this is a book that is worth your time (and I believe it is), I will include a few of the skeletal points of the book, several of my favorite quotes (mainly from the Introduction- I don’t want to spoil too much), and my more specific recommendations.

My Awareness

I have to start with the podcast that drew my attention to this excellent book. Alisa Childers interviewed Dr. Os Guinness on her podcast (a great podcast that I highly recommend on its own, by the way) about whether or not Christians should be involved in politics. He not only answered in the affirmative but answered why that is the case and how America (and the world) has reached the point that such action is necessary. Here is the video:

Upon completing the podcast, I immediately purchased the audiobook and listened to it twice then picked up the hard copy to do a more analytical reading. This helped me to better grasp, understand, and appreciate the case presented by Guinness. It was definitely worth the additional time and effort spent.

Key Points:

The division in the USA today is due to two mutually exclusive views of freedom.
The first originates from the Exodus and was the foundation of the American Revolution of 1776. This view understands freedom as the individuals possessing the power to do what they ought to do. (“Sinai”)
The second view of freedom originates with ancient atheists and was the foundation of the French Revolution in 1789. This view understands freedom as individuals possessing complete autonomy. (“Paris”)
Paris, along with its many offshoots, have all proved disastrous for human life and liberty. Whereas Sinai (even when applied inconsistently) has been the only one that has resulted in true liberty.
Paris fails (and will continue to fail) because it has a false understanding of both the dignity and fallenness of humanity. On the contrary, Sinai recognizes these realities at its core.
The freedom of Sinai, though, is not self-sustaining. It requires individual self-awareness and focused and intentional dedication of each succeeding generation if it is to be maintained for future generations.
America must recognize the sins of its past and move forward. The way forward proposed by Paris (and the progressive left) is that of hate and revenge. While the way forward proposed by Sinai and Jesus (and even Martin Luther King Jr.) is that of love and forgiveness.
Because freedom is incompatible with hate and revenge, the way of Paris necessarily offers no hope of true freedom now or in the future. It pays lip service to the term while insisting on a contradictory concept.
America is currently in the process of switching from the ideals of 1776 to the ideals of 1789, and it, along with its citizens, will suffer the same fate as all the other nations that have tried its numerous versions (including Russia, China, and North Korea).
There is still time for America to stop the current trajectory and reclaim the love and forgiveness that is required of true freedom and reject the hate and revenge that has done nothing but prove disastrous.

Favorite Quotes:

“The great American republic is as deeply divided today as at any moment since just before the Civil War. Yet this time no Abraham Lincoln has stepped forward to address the evils, appeal to the Declaration of Independence, defend the better angel of the American character, demonstrate the magnificence of ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’ in our time, and call for a ‘new birth of freedom.'”

“America appears to be abandoning the ideals of the American Revolution or ideas that are disastrous not only to America but to freedom and to the future of humanity.”

“The American crisis is a crisis of freedom and must be understood as such…The present crisis stems from the fact that over the last fifty years, major spheres of American society have shifted their loyalties and now support ideas that are closer to the French Revolution and its heirs rather than the American Revolution.”

“Such current movements as postmodernism, political correctness, tribal and identity politics, the sexual revolution, critical theory (or grievance studies), and socialism all come down from 1789 and have nothing to do with the ideas of 1776…They are the *dramatis personae* without which the drama of America’s current crisis cannot be understood or resolved.”

“The United States is suffering from profound philosophical cynicism, moral corruption, and serious social collapse…And too many Americans, especially those who are younger, have already been bewitched by the ideas coming from the other revolution, 1789, and not 1776…they now appear hell-bent on rejecting ideas from their past, which they have not tried to understand, even as they embrace ideas from the other revolution, which they have not examined as closely as they need to. Many in America see only their ancestors’ errors and at once think that makes them wiser and better than their ancestors. Yet they do not try to understand what their ancestors thought and why, let alone ask where the alternative ideas will lead them.”

“The Russian and Chinese revolutions represented the first successful establishment of secularist regimes in history; the Russian doing so in Europe and the Chinese in Asia. Along with Hitler’s Germany, the Russian and Chinese revolutions were also the first regimes to produce genuine totalitarianism. With the horrendous quartet of their total ideology, total mobilization, and total surveillance, and total repression, these totalitarian regimes became the epitome of oppressive evil and the complete denial of liberty.”

“Far from ushering in the final form of freedom and representing a second coming of Epicurus, [the French, Russian, and Chinese Revolutions]’ claims to be the true and reliable source of human freedom have been left in tatters by the history of their repressive secularist regimes in the twentieth century and the slaughter of millions of their own citizens.”

“Is it still possible in the advanced modern world to build societies with both freedom and order at the same time? To build and sustain communities and nations that demonstrate the highest values of human dignity, freedom, justice, equality, compassion, peace, and stability?”

“Historically, it was the Exodus Revolution and not the French Revolution, that lay behind the genius of America’s ordered freedom or covenantal and constitutional freedom. A rediscovery of the foundational principles of the Exodus Revolution is therefore the once and future secret of true revolutionary faith and a sure path to freedom, justice, equality, and peace.”

“The…American Revolution [is] decisively different from the French Revolution, and the future of freedom depends on appreciating the differences and choosing between them.”

“America cannot endure permanently half 1776 and half 1789. The compromises, contradictions, hypocricies, inequities, and evils have built up unaddressed. The grapes of wrath have ripened again, and the choice before America is plain. Either America goes forward best by going back first, or America is about to reap a future in which the worst will once again be the corruption of the best.“

“Will the coming generation return to faith in God and to humility or continue to trust in the all-sufficiency of reason, punditry, and technocracy and the transformative power of politics?”

“The future for freedom and humanity is in the balance, as Sinai spells freedom for the future whereas Paris has so far spelled out freedom betrayed and the coming of a long night of expanding statism, surveillance, and repression.”

“This is not a plea for some special protection or exemption for faith. It is time and past time to set out the debate in its fullest terms and to recognize that the sequel to this generation’s choices will be consequential and historic.”

Recommendations:

While I believe that every reader, who takes the time to read the book seriously, would have much to gain from it, I do believe this book is of special interest for several groups:

Anyone who is involved in political discussions online or in person. Having a firm grasp on the sources of disagreement will guide us in how to address those disagreements. Recognizing areas of agreement will build a bridge that those we disagree with can cross to accepting the truth that we wish to communicate. Having those of these in our minds will help keep us calm, respectful, loving, and confident in discussion and will keep the discussion focused and productive.
Any scientist. When untrained and unlearned politicians sense a threat to their power, they will censor scientific research and the scientists (even if the research doesn’t legitimately provide a threat). Scientists will not be permitted to do research freely nor will they even be able to pretend to (much less, actually) follow the evidence where it leads. This is the way of Paris and 1789. All these naturalists and New Atheists who think that “science” is the end-all/be-all: they are about to reap a world that will destroy everything they have worked for, everything they are working towards, and everything they cherish. Not because they conceded to belief in God and man’s sinfulness, but because they explicitly rejected God and his moral authority over all individuals including those in government who have power over them. Let’s also not forget that this is not limited to politicians; it extends to corporations and those in power there as well. This similarly applies to any educator, researcher, and creative.
Anyone who supports the views of postmodernism, Critical Theory, tribal politics, identity politics, Marxism, socialism, and/or communism. Dr. Guinness shows how hate and revenge are at the core of these ideas and that history demonstrates that each of these ends in disaster for the individual who holds to them and nations that rule by them, no matter how they are applied; and any “new” ideas of how to apply them are doomed to fail as well.
Private and Home Educators. It is important that American and World history be taught with an eye to its application to the children we are teaching. We teach history not merely for trivial information, but so that our children will not make the same mistakes of the past. Freedom is not self-sufficient. It must be taught and applied to the world around our children so they can see the importance of this part of their education and what will happen is they too become “bewitched” by the glitter of Paris. Also, if there ever was a time to teach students the evidence for Christianity, it is today (see Christian apologists and theologians below).
Christian apologists and theologians. Os Guinness’ discussions and case depend highly upon the truth of several ideas that Christian apologists commonly (and maybe not so commonly) defend, thus he gives renewed urgency in showing these to be true to the world. They include: Obviously, God’s existence, but also man being created in the Image of God, human fallenness, trust (biblical faith and not blind faith), objective morality, human dignity, human equality, libertarian free will (properly understood, of course), the historicity of the exodus, truth, knowledge, and numerous more that I’m sure you will see as you come across topics you frequently address. Also, the utopian promises of Paris cannot ever be fulfilled by anyone or any government because they are false and do not reflect reality. It is important to show others that these are false so that they do not continue to trust the claims of Paris and its off-shoots and reap its consequences. Ultimately, this book can serve as a highlight several strong, basic human desires- freedom and justice that cannot ever be fully and perpetually fulfilled in this life because of sin; it is only through the atonement of Jesus Christ and the truth of his resurrection that there is ultimate hope for love and forgiveness now perpetually the future when He returns.
Pastors and Church Leaders. In today’s culture that is accepting a “progressive” and false gospel that is often grounded in postmodernism and is focused on social justice and politics, it is important to see the differences between those ideas that are sneaking into the Church, how they differ from Scripture and the world we live in, and the disastrous results if your congregation accepts them. You do not have to have a bent towards the political in your church, just a passion for truth and defending it (see Christian apologists and theologians, above)

Can A Perfect Being Create the Imperfect?

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

A common challenge raised by atheists is to point out the brokenness of the world and to use it as evidence that there cannot be a God. Your God is perfect, they reason, so why did he create such an imperfect place as this? They point to the natural suffering in the world, the harm that hurricanes and earthquakes can wreak on mortal and fragile human beings. They highlight too the evil that people, driven by their basest emotions, inflict upon their fellow human beings, from theft to murder and everything in between. How could a perfect God have ended up with this as his creation?

This is how one skeptic framed the argument:

“If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this “perfect” God created a “perfect” universe which was rendered imperfect by the “perfect” humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.”

The logic being employed by this challenger appears valid. If something that is perfect can only create perfection, then the Christian God is disqualified, as we believe God to embody complete perfection but concede that this world, and its human inhabitants, are clearly not perfect. But the problem with this argument is not the logic; it is instead the assumptions that underly the stated premises. The challenger’s first sentence – that nothing imperfect can come from a perfect creator – is not proven. It is simply an assertion. For the argument to actually hold, there must be some support for the premise that a perfect being is “limited” in what it can do, namely, that such a being can only create perfection. But the very articulation of this notion betrays the problem embedded in the assertion: it purports to limit the power of a perfect being. In other words, immediately after acknowledging God’s infinite power – his perfection – the skeptic, himself an imperfect being, attempts to limit the types of things God can do.

But how could the skeptic possibly know what God can or cannot do? On what basis can he conclude that a limitless, all-powerful being is constrained in the options available to him? Certainly, the possibility that a perfect being could create something less than himself is not contradictory. The opposite, of course, would be true; an imperfect being would be unable to impart perfection to his creation, something that he himself does not possess. So, it would be contradictory to claim that an imperfect being could create God. But why would a greater being be unable create something that is lesser than himself?

But there is an even greater flaw embedded in the challenge. That is, the skeptic assumes that God set out to create a “perfect” universe and somehow failed. Let’s take a moment to examine this conclusion? What evidence does the skeptic rely upon relating to God’s purpose or to conclude that God failed to achieve this purpose? To arrive at such a conclusion, one would first have to know the intent of the creator. Is not “perfection,” or at the very least success, dependent upon what the actor had as his goal? After all, perfection denotes a quality or performance or attribute that cannot be surpassed. For example, perfect vision would mean vision that cannot be improved upon. But to know what perfect vision is, one would first have to know what is to be accomplished with vision. Is it simply seeing in daylight, or also in complete darkness or underwater? A perfect robot would be one that completed its assigned tasks flawlessly, on time and without any failures or breakdowns. But to measure such performance, the reviewer would first need to know what tasks have been assigned, what the time limit is and what constitutes a breakdown or failure. It is only when one first has in mind a clear understanding of the designer’s purpose that one can decide whether the creation in question has achieved the ends or purposes set for it.

To this, the challenger would no doubt respond that this universe is imperfect under any definition. But by this he would simply mean that things break, that health suffers, that people do evil, or other things of this nature. But of course this only follows if one first assumes that God set out to create “perfectly” functioning humans in a flawless universe. Was this God’s goal? Could it have been, to the contrary, that God had in mind a much different purpose, specifically, to allow for the development of beings who possess free will and who can experience true love, freely given? In other words, did he instead set out to create conscious, intelligent and self-aware beings who were actually capable of exercising free will, and by so doing, necessarily capable of rejecting him and doing evil? Could the struggles we face in this broken world be part of a process by which we are developed, and refined?

This is certainly possible. If free will is to have any meaning, then people must of course be free to do wrong and to harm others. They must be free to reject love and embrace hate. They must be free to reject the God who created them.

Christians believe that God is, ultimately, love, which we understand to be the commitment of the will directed toward the good of the other. Love must be freely given if it is to have meaning. A spouse who remains in a marriage out of fear, or desire for material benefit, does not love the other spouse. We all desire to be the object of another’s true love, and by that we certainly do not mean someone who “cares” because they are afraid to be caught not caring or whose “love” is purchased. There is no reason to believe that God views love any differently. Despite our imperfections and limitations, we remain free to seek God and to ask him to do the refining work in us that is necessary to make us ready, and able, to reunite with him. In other words, as we make our way through this broken and imperfect world, we have the ability, and the freedom, to learn to love and begin to reciprocate the love of the God who gave us life, and intelligence and self-awareness. And, by contrast, we also remain free to reject him.

With sufficiently clear vision, it is possible to see that creating a universe filled with robots and other perfectly functioning things would not have accomplished God’s actual purpose. Yes, life on Earth is messy and often filled with great pain and suffering, much of which we struggle in vain to understand. As we make our way through this vale of tears, we may not understand God’s purpose; indeed, it may seem to us limited beings that such suffering has no purpose. Understanding that God’s plan requires imperfection in the here and now, and the suffering that may come from that, may not bring us comfort in the short run. But contemplating what God has in store for us, what reuniting with a perfect being will entail, may help us begin to make sense of our lives…and better plan our future. For what God has in mind is so much more ambitious – and wonderful – than creating something that fits our definition of perfection.

The Case for an Eternal Cosmic Observer

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

Modern understanding of quantum mechanics suggests that an eternal Cosmic Observer may in fact exist. If true, this holds numerous positive ramifications for arguments concerning the existence of God. Before we investigate the data, we must first ask what is meant by an eternal Cosmic Observer. A conscious observer is a living being that observes another entity. For instance, I am currently staring at the words being typed onto my computer screen. I am a living, conscious being that is observing the documentation of this piece. Spectators watching a sporting event are conscious observers of the events taking place in the stadium.

Physicists have observed that conscious beings can have an impact on physical objects and events simply by observing them. This impact precedes the dawning of conscious human beings, and really the existence of anything. Thus, this new body of research argues that all of reality is based upon the prior existence of an eternal cosmic observer. That Cosmic Observer must be God. While this article pushes a conclusion in a direction that is not necessarily implied by the biocentric physicists, it certainly appears that this would be the logical direction that the research leads.

So, what exactly does the data from the quantum world reveal about the Cosmic Observer? This article will note a few areas of considerable interest—biocentrism, consciousness, and time.

Biocentrism and the Case for an Eternal Cosmic Observer

Robert Lanza, MD, and Matej Pavsic, PhD spoke of biocentrism in their book The Grand Biocentric Design. Biocentrism holds that nothing can exist unless a conscious observer observes it. Lanza and Pavsic lay out seven key principles for biocentrism:

“What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness … Space and time are not independent realities but rather tools of the … mind.”[i]
“Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined.”[ii]
“The behavior of subatomic particles—indeed, all particles and objects—is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer.”[iii]
“Without consciousness, ‘matter’ dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.”[iv]
“The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism because the universe is fine-tuned for life—which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around.”[v]
“Time does not have a real existence outside of animal sense perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the universe.”[vi]
“Space, like time, is not an object or a thing … Thus, there is no self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent of life.”[vii]

While Lanza and Pavsic make connections to conscious human observers, the reality is that the universe existed prior to our conscious observations. If reality depends on life, then it stands to reason that a Conscious Observer must have lived before the creation of the universe. If the findings of biocentrism hold, then we could then say that reality depends on the existence of an eternal living Being. That Being we know as God.[viii]

Consciousness and the Case for an Eternal Cosmic Observer

According to experimentation, photons and electrons could appear, disappear, and rematerialize. The question was, what caused the wave function to “collapse and give birth to the object as an actual enduring entity.”[ix] According to the double-slit experiment, it was observations by conscious entities that made the difference. This finding is not something that is only made by Lanza and Pavsic. Max Planck, John Bell, and Niels Bohr also confirm the change evoked by consciousness.

But what exactly is consciousness? That is the million-dollar question. However, the best understanding of consciousness is that it is an awareness accompanied by volition, emotion, thought, and mind. Some claim that consciousness emerges from the brain.[x] Yet how could it be that the human consciousness is dependent on the brain when reality is dependent on the conscious mind? Rather than consciousness stemming from the physical world, it must be independent of the body while certainly connected to it.

If reality is dependent on consciousness and consciousness is dependent on physical reality, one eventually reaches an impasse. Because if one goes back far enough into the past, then one reaches Ground Zero, a time before physical entities existed. If reality is dependent on consciousness and there is a time when consciousness did not exist, then reality could not have come about. Thus, if reality is dependent on consciousness, then an eternal consciousness must exist independently of the space-time continuum that is our creation. As such, there must be an eternal Cosmic Observer. That Being we know as God.

Time and the Case for an Eternal Cosmic Observer

Lanza and Pavsic later contend that time also depends on a cosmic observer. They aver that “space and time are relative to the individual observer—we carry them around as turtles do their shells.”[xi] This led Lanza to believe that death is merely an illusion for conscious, living beings. While Lanza does not necessarily take a Christian perspective on the passage of death, he does note the everlasting aspect of living consciousness. With the volumes of objective evidence for near-death experiences (NDEs), we have a strong case to believe that death does not bring an end to the conscious, everlasting soul.

Conclusion: What Can We Deduce about the Eternal Cosmic Observer

Biocentrism is a fascinating field of study in quantum mechanics. Though it is relatively new, its findings have tremendous value in how we view the universe. According to the data presented in biocentrism—and if its deductions hold true—all material reality is dependent on consciousness. This is a revolutionary concept! Like NDEs, biocentrism completely shakes the concept of materialism—the idea that all reality is materialistic with no spiritual entities—to the core. Not only does biocentrism show that materialism is dependent on consciousness, but it also logically implies that a form of consciousness existed prior to the creation of the universe.

Furthermore, consciousness created reality. Or, one might say that reality is contingent upon the continued observance of the ultimate Cosmic Observer. These implications align perfectly with what one finds in the pages of Genesis and throughout the biblical text. For it was God who brought creation into existence (Gen. 1:1) and sustains it by his power. For God is “before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Col. 1:17).

Footnotes:

[i] Robert Lanza and Matel Pavsic, The Grand Biocentric Design: How Life Creates Reality (Dallas, TX: BenBella, 2020), 19.

[ii] Ibid., 20.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Ibid., 21.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] For a scholarly scientific article describing the impact of an observer on reality, see Dmitriy Podolskiy, Andrei O. Barvinsky, and Robert Lanza, “Parisi-Sourlas-like dimensional reduction of quantum gravity in the presence of observers,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics (2021).

[ix] Lanza and Pavsic, The Grand Biocentric Design, 76.

[x] Such is the case implied by Boris Kotchoubey, “Human Consciousness: What It Is and Where It Is From,” Psychology 23, 9 (April 2018), https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00567/full

[xi] Lanza and Pavsic, The Grand Biometric Design, 150.

Don’t Panic: A Step by Step Approach to Teaching Kids About God

Apologetics for Parents, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Shanda Fulbright

It never fails. When churched kids hit a certain age, I get panicked messages from parents. They usually start with, “We’re a Christian family, but my son doesn’t want to go to church anymore. He doesn’t believe in God.” Or, “I assumed my daughter was pro-life but she just told me women have the right to choose. How can this be when we are a pro-life family?”

These messages never come when the child is 8 or 9. I never hear about an 11 year old struggling to believe whether or not the Bible is true. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, I’m just saying this isn’t the age where parents start to panic.

It’s usually around the time our kids are well into their teenage years that parents begin to notice our kids aren’t on board with the whole God, Jesus, and the Bible stuff. Why does it take so long to realize this? There are two main factors. First, we assume that because our kids go to church, they are adopting the beliefs of Christianity. Second, most parents aren’t being discipled, so it’s impossible to catch the discrepancies in the worldview our child actually has compared to a biblical worldview until something big happens – like the approval of abortion or a blatant disbelief in God.

This is where parents hit the panic button.

Is there hope for parents whose teenagers are about to walk away from Christianity? The good news: as long as we have Christ there is always hope. The reality: it’s not going to be as easy in the teen years as it would have been to teach them when they were younger. It will take diligence, and if diligence is what’s been missing all along, be diligent now.

The question is, what does diligent teaching look like in the 21st century?

Learning is a layered process.That means we must transfer knowledge strategically, layer by layer. There has to be a foundation laid and basic knowledge taught before anyone can understand larger concepts. This goes for students of any age. If we skip the foundation, there will be a gap in knowledge. In Christianity, the gap in knowledge is evident when Christians lack a biblical worldview. By the time parents hear their kids expressing a disbelief in God, the gap is already there and it’s likely because they skipped the foundational stage.

So, let’s discuss the three basic stages in the layered process of learning, no matter how old your kids are. Keep in mind that there are recommended age groups to begin each stage, but if you are just beginning to disciple your kids, this is the process from beginning to end.

The good news is that you can always begin at any stage, depending on where you left off. And if you have been doing this all along, keep plugging away knowing that in due time you will reap a harvest (Gal 6:9).

Foundational stage: God’s Word (suggested age – birth to primary)

The path to a biblical worldview begins with biblical literacy. The Bible talks about the word of God as the foundation on which to build (Matt 7:24-27). It also refers to the word of God as spiritual food. It is a necessity of life that all who follow the Lord must implement into their daily walk. But we can’t expect our kids to do this without help.

The approach we take to teaching our children is important because how we present the word of God will determine how they view the word of God. Is it important to you? Then it will be important to them. Do you believe it is the infallible word of God? Then they will too. If you present it as stories instead of historical narratives, then they will view it as a fictional story thrown into their bedtime routine. The language we use when we talk to our kids about God and His word matters. So present the word as a necessity, not as an option.

Connection Stage: God’s World (suggested age – adolescent to preteen)

When we teach apologetics to Christians, we must take a different approach than when we use apologetics to defend our faith with a secular audience. Middle schoolers must begin to make the connection that God’s word and God’s world are not in conflict. We will only be successful at adding this layer to our children’s learning if we laid the foundation of biblical literacy during the first stage.

What happens if we didn’t? The good news is that we can start now. Weave biblical truths into your instruction so that the apologetics concepts are tethered to Scripture. For example, kids need to know God’s nature of goodness in order to understand why He is the moral law-giver. Do a study on God’s attributes before you study the apologetics arguments. This will help fill-in the biblical literacy gaps missed in stage one. Just remember – saturate them with the word of God in every stage, not just the first stage. The word of God is at the core of Christian education.

It’s imperative that we ensure our middle schoolers see how God’s word and God’s world connect. Scientific evidence that points to God’s existence supported by biblical truths accomplishes this. This is where the Cosmological and Design Arguments come in handy. If we don’t help middle schoolers connect the word with the world, it’s likely they’re already questioning the validity of one and where they fit into the other.

Action Stage: Live God’s word in God’s world (suggested age – teens to adult)

How we view the world affects how we live. At this stage, it is important to help your teens make the connection between the word of God and how it applies to the issues of life. In other words, get comfortable with having uncomfortable conversations.

It is the goal to get them to this stage with a biblical worldview so that they draw from biblical truths when looking for the answers to life’s questions. Students who have been discipled and understand why there are good reasons to believe Christianity is true will begin to connect knowledge of God and His word to the understanding of God and His word, and live for God by His word. In fact, this is where the evidence of a biblical worldview is seen in the life of our kids. When the knowledge of all they’ve learned leads them to an understanding of it, they are able to live it. And that’s how we know what someone truly believes.

All too often, Christians compartmentalize the Bible and separate it from the real world. We must be willing to bring real world issues into our conversations with our teens. But I caution you not to wait for your teen to come to you. Open the door to hard conversations about gender and sexuality, abortion, co-habitation, and all of the hot-button topics that make parents cringe. Trust me. Once you get used to having hard conversations they won’t be so hard anymore and you will help your teen live the word in the world.

Successful parents have this in common

If you find your kids are older and they’re beyond the first and second stages suggested here, don’t panic. As I said before, as long as Jesus is in the equation there is always hope. However, the stages of teaching a biblical worldview don’t change:

First, lay the foundation of biblical literacy: God’s word.

Next, add the building block of apologetics: God’s world.

Finally, teach them to apply it: live the word in God’s world.

For those parents who are wondering if the opportunity to teach your kids has passed you by, I want to offer some encouragement. You are the most influential person in your child’s life and that will never change. Use that influence to go back and make up the ground you think you’ve lost. Because as I’ve said before, with Christ it is never too late.

It is our job as parents to make sure we do all we can to raise godly men and women. Our culture looks different today than the cultures before us, but the biblical mandate to parents has always been the same. God calls us to be diligent, and parents must answer the call.

Appearances Of Mary Vs. Jesus’ Resurrection Appearances

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

On the evening of April 2, 1968, a Muslim bus mechanic was working across the street from St. Mary’s Coptic Church in Zeitoun, a district of Cairo, Egypt. Suddenly, something on the roof of St. Mary’s got his attention: a figure that looked like a young woman. The mechanic pointed it out to a few people nearby who saw the same thing. Concerned that the young lady was about to commit suicide, they called the police. A crowd gathered around the church to watch. Then, after just a few minutes, the woman suddenly vanished. As you can imagine, this got people talking.

At first the police tried to explain things away, saying it was just some light reflecting in a strange way from a street light – but many weren’t persuaded. A week later the female figure appeared on the roof again. The appearance of the woman lasted for a few minutes and then disappeared. Some people began to connect the dots: This is St. Mary’s church. The church is believed to be one of the locations that Jesus’ family stayed during their flight to Egypt. We’re seeing a shining female figure on the roof. Sure this must be the Mother of Jesus!

From there the appearances began to happen more frequently, at times lasting for hours. In some reports, the apparition appeared to be bowing toward the cross atop the church or blessing onlookers on the street below. Some of the faithful who came to tour the holy site reported to be healed of illnesses. The Coptic Orthodox Pope appointed a committee of high-ranking priests and bishops to investigate. On May 4th, the church issued an official statement confirming the apparitions as genuine.

The apparitions were witnessed by the Egyptian President. Some were recorded on film by newspaper photographers and Egyptian television. Police investigations found no apparent explanation. No device was found within a radius of fifteen miles capable of projecting the image, and many photos were taken of the alleged apparition from independent sources. With no alternative explanation and approval from religious and political leaders, the Egyptian government accepted the apparitions as true.

ARE APPARITIONS LIKE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES?

So why am I talking about the Marian apparitions of Zeitoun? It’s because scholars like Dale Allison and Bart Ehrman attempt to parallel these appearances with Jesus’ resurrection appearances. In fact, Allison says that they are in some ways better evidenced and yet he remains agnostic about them. Allison writes:

“Our knowledge of what happened in the days after Good Friday is depressingly sparse over and against our knowledge of what happened in Zeitoun. With respect to the latter, we have interviews with multiple eye-witnesses. We have photographs. We have on-the-spot, as-it-unfolded journalistic reports from religious and irreligious. We have a statement from an investigative committee. We have none of this, by contrast, with respect to Jesus’ resurrection, only a lamentable paucity of evidence and lack of detail at every turn. One wonders how, if we cannot solve the puzzle of Zeitoun, about which we know so much, we can solve the puzzle that is Jesus’ resurrection, about which we know so little.”

Bart Ehrman mostly agrees with Allison. He seemingly points out some inconsistency among resurrection apologists like William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas and Mike Licona, writing:

“it is striking and worth noting that typically believers in one religious tradition often insist on the “evidence” for the miracles that support their views and completely discount the “evidence” for miracles attested in some other religious tradition, even though, at the end of the day, it is the same kind of evidence (for example, eyewitness testimony) and may be of even greater abundance. Protestant apologists interested in “proving” that Jesus was raised from the dead rarely show any interest in applying their finely honed historical talents to the exalted Blessed Virgin Mary”

(How Jesus Became God) Ehrman doesn’t call them out by name, but these three prominent resurrection apologists are all committed Baptists.

When an Emailer asked about the parallel between Marian appearances and Jesus’ post-mortem appearances, Dr. Craig had his colleague Mike Licona respond to the reader’s question. Licona wrote:[i]

“In my debates with Ehrman, when he has raised the topic of Marian apparitions, I have responded that I do not doubt that the recipients saw something. What they saw is what I question. Elliot Miller and Kenneth Samples co-authored the book The Cult of the Virgin: Catholic Mariology and the Apparitions of Mary. In this book, they discuss the three major accounts of Marian apparitions: Lourdes, France; Fatima, Portugal; and Medjugorje, (mud·joo·jor·jee) Croatia. I know Samples personally. He has interviewed several of the seers to whom Mary has appeared in Medjugorje. Although Samples is a Christian whose Protestant theology does not incline him to believe that Mary has appeared to others, he is convinced that these seers have seen a spirit being. In fact, I had an opportunity to inquire further of Samples on the matter. He told me that several of the seers in Medjugorje continued to have visions of Mary. In fact, he was with one of the seers while he was experiencing such a vision, although no one else in the room saw her. Samples told me he asked the seer if Mary had ever spoken to him. The seer said she had, recommending a specific book which the seer was to read. When Samples looked up the title of the book, it was occultic. This led him to believe that a demonic spirit is what is appearing to the seers.”

I’m sure the “it’s the devil” hypothesis will offend Catholics and Orthodox Christians. I’d bet that Ehrman would be content to let them fight it out amongst themselves. Pitting Catholics vs. Protestants is a classic move made by skeptics going back to the Deist Controversy in the 17th and 18th century. Rather than denying the evidence, Licona refers to Samples’ theological argument, which seems to be based on some personal anecdotes and doctrinal inferences.

Even if you’re theologically opposed to the veneration of Mary, this evil spirit hypothesis is probably giving the devil more credit than due. While I’m a settled Protestant, I’m not automatically inclined to say that all Marian apparitions are either delusions, hoaxes or demonic because of my prior theological commitments. With enough evidence, my mind could be changed. But I don’t think Marian apparitions come anywhere near what we have for the resurrection. It’s more of an apples and oranges comparison.

WHAT WOULD BE EVIDENCE OF MARIAN APPARIATIONS?

What would convince me of Marian apparitions? Let’s think about it. Imagine if Mary appeared to a dozen people and ate several meals with them, they touched her hands, and she conversed with them. Now also suppose this group of twelve people were all Protestants, living in a country where converting to Catholicism could result in their arrest, torture, or death. That would move me a bit closer to accepting them.

But there’s a big problem. No one who has seen an apparition of Mary knew Mary before she died. There’s a tradition that she appeared to James the Son of Zebedee in Spain in 40 AD, but the evidence for this tradition is thin and Mary was probably still alive at that time. Those who believe in this appearance claim that she was supernaturally present in two places at once. The first recorded Marian apparition approved by the Catholic church was in 1555. Obviously Mary hasn’t been known by anyone personally for centuries, so there’s always at least the possibility that someone could be hoaxing these people in this proposed scenario.

People laughed when Robert Greg Cavin came up with his “twin brother” theory to explain away the resurrection. But Cavin had to come up with a theory to explain why the disciples thought they saw the risen Jesus, as they knew what Jesus looked like. They had hung out with him for three years.

But some might say that perhaps what the apostles saw was something like what people saw in Zeitoun. Maybe they experienced something like a bright light on a rooftop that they mistook to be Jesus and enthusiasm took its course from there. The problem with that is we can’t say that if we take the gospel accounts seriously. For they report multisensory group appearances extended across 40 days. These appearances involved conversations with Jesus, touching his wounds, and eating fish together. These aren’t the kinds of things you can be mistaken about.

Ehrman and Allison think that these accounts are embellished and unreliable, and so this is why they run this weak parallel. It’s not that they don’t think the disciples experienced appearances of Jesus of some sort. They do. This is because of what Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15 that Peter, the Twelve, Paul, James and an unnamed 500 brothers all claimed to have seen the risen Jesus. But what the appearances were like isn’t something Paul goes into detail about. If the best evidence we have for the resurrection is the creed that Paul quotes to the Corinthians, then we’re left with a pretty vague report. Or to use Allison’s words, “depressingly sparse”. Vague appearances that were overinterpreted by the disciples would be consistent with the creed in 1 Corinthians 15.

If we’re going to defend the resurrection, we’re going to need to defend the detailed reports contained in the Gospels are at least what the early disciples reported. But because Licona will only use facts that 90% + of scholars agree upon — which include the likes of Allison and Ehrman — he’s not able to do that. In his big book on the resurrection, Licona writes:

“We may affirm with great confidence that Peter had such an experience in an individual setting, and we will see that the same may be said of an adversary of the church named Paul. We may likewise affirm that there was at least one occasion when a group of Jesus’ followers including “the Twelve” had such an experience. Did other experiences reported by the Gospels occur as well, such as the appearances to the women, Thomas, the Emmaus disciples, and the multiple group appearances reported by the tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 and John? Where did these experiences occur? Historians may be going beyond what the data warrants in assigning a verdict with much confidence to these questions.”

The Resurrection of Jesus, A New Historiographical Approach, Kindle location 3758

This is why I’m not a fan of the minimal facts approach. If we are willing to say that the appearances to the Emmaus disciples or Thomas are impossible to know historically because that’s what the scholarly consensus allows us to say is a minimal fact, then there’s a massive problem. But if we look at the Gospels closely and more fairly, I think we can know with some confidence that they are scrupulous, habitually honest and close up to the facts. They were not the kind of authors who would be prone to embellish things. Nor are they likely to be schizophrenic authors, showing all these signs of truthful testimony, but suddenly at other times consider themselves free to invent and change facts.

And so it looks like they recorded what was really originally claimed by witnesses about Jesus’ resurrection. And this was the apostles’ claim in the midst of persecution, so it would be unlikely that they were fudging the truth. See my playlist on the reliability of the Gospels for more.

So getting back to Marian apparitions. I don’t think it’s at all impossible to have evidence that has strong weight for Marian claims. Let’s suppose that two Protestants who had previously publicly criticized Marian doctrine both claimed at the same time to have seen a vision of a woman claiming to be Mary telling them that she was taken bodily into heaven. Neither had a prior history of mental illness. They destroyed their own Protestant careers and endangered their lives by claiming this.

Furthermore, suppose the woman in question instructed them to call each other and ask each other, “Did you have any strange experience in the last 24 hours?” And they independently did this. That would be evidence of the Marian claims, but it wouldn’t exactly be an analogy to Jesus’ appearances on earth. It would perhaps be more analogous to the conversion of Paul and James. Oddly enough, Dale Allison says nothing short of Mary appearing to him would convince him. I don’t think our standards need to be that absurdly high.

This whole Marian apparition analogy just doesn’t work when one takes a more maximal data approach to the Gospels. I might not be able to explain all Marian apparitions, but they’re not the same as the resurrection appearances in the Gospels. At best they make me say “huh. Maybe the world is a weirder place than I thought, and I don’t really know what to make of this.” But because there seems to be some vagueness about what these apparitions mean or where they originate from I don’t feel super inclined to believe them.

Footnotes:

[i] https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/appearances-of-mary-and-jesus-resurrection-appearances

SES president: Heretical Cambridge sermon claiming Christ had a ‘trans body’ is sign of evil in world today

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Judge Phil Ginn

‘I would much rather trust the true Christ than a blatantly false figment of someone’s misguided imagination’

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Parishioners at Trinity College chapel, a constituent college of the University of Cambridge, were stunned and horrified when junior research fellow Joshua Heath preached a sermon claiming that due to select works of historical art, Christ had a “trans body.”[i]

Despite the cries of heresy during the sermon, Dr. Michael Banner, the dean of Trinity College, said Heath raised “legitimate” speculation about the gender of Christ, claiming his sermon “suggested that we might think about these images of Christ’s male/female body as providing us with ways of thinking about issues around transgender questions today.”

Judge Phil Ginn, president of Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES, www.ses.edu), responded to this outlandish speculation, warning Christians against the false doctrines espoused by the misguided and to hold fast to the truth of the Gospel.

Ginn stated, “In the year 167 BC, Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), the king of Syria, captured the city of Jerusalem and laid waste to the capitol of Judaism. In doing so, he desecrated the temple by sacrificing a pig on an altar to Zeus, which had been constructed over the holiest portion of the Jewish Temple. Sadly, desecration of holy places continues to this day despite the warning from 1 Corinthians 3:17 that if ‘any man defiles the temple of God, him shall God destroy.’

Such is the case with junior research fellow Joshua Heath and even more unfortunately with Dr. Michael Banner, a Dean at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. As reported by Fox News, Mr. Heath apparently preached a sermon in which he claimed that works of art portraying the crucifixion and death of Jesus essentially contemplated the martyrdom of a ‘trans Christ.’ Going even further in his malaise, Heath concluded from his observation of the paintings that the spear wound in Christ’s side ‘takes on a decidedly vaginal appearance.’ Cries of heresy arose from the crowd, but amazingly Dean Banner came to the defense of the blasphemy. Cambridge, of course, labeled the message as ‘thought provoking academic inquiry in keeping with open debate and dialogue.’

“I am sure that Mr. Heath is thankful that someone in authority like the Dean and the Cambridge University leadership came to his defense with their words of support. However, I would tend to lend greater credence to what the Apostle Paul had to say about heretical words and actions desecrating the holiness of God: ‘For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth’ (Romans 1:18). Paul goes even further: ‘For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened’ (Romans 1:21). Finally, Paul says this in the last verse of Romans 1: ‘Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.’”

Ginn concluded, “At Southern Evangelical Seminary we are well familiar with the Latin phrase ‘Coram Deo.’ Simply put, it means to live your life as though you are doing so before the very face of God. We constantly are reminding ourselves and our students to live worthy of the calling of God on our lives. That is why we are standing steadfast in the truth of the Gospel. We hold fast to the inerrant and infallible word of God because we know that it is by the Word of God that our lives will be judged. My prayer is that Mr. Heath, Dean Banner, and all of Cambridge University will come to know the true Messiah who gave his life for the sins of the world and rose on the third day victorious over death. I speak for SES and myself when I say that I would much rather trust the true Christ than a blatantly false namby-pamby figment of someone’s misguided imagination.”

Judge Phil Ginn was appointed president of SES in April 2021 after a distinguished career as both a lawyer and a judge. Over the course of his 22-year judicial career, he was privileged to hold court in almost 50% of the county seats in North Carolina. He holds a B.A. from Appalachian State University, a J.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a Doctor of Ministry from Southern Evangelical Seminary. Prior to his appointment as SES president, Judge Ginn served as SES Chairman of the Board of Trustees.

SES is proud to announce the upcoming release of “Steadfast: In a World of Confusion, Know Why You Believe.”[ii] This new 10-week study for small groups doubles as a seminary primer course and will give every believer game-changing training for living the Christian faith in today’s world. The study will feature exciting sessions from select SES professors. For more information about the upcoming study, click here.

The mission of SES is to train men and women, based on the inerrant and infallible written Word of God, for the evangelization of the world and the defense of the historic Christian faith. SES offers a range of undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral degrees (along with several for-credit certificates) that uniquely integrate theology, philosophy, and apologetics to build a complete and systematic Christian worldview.

Footnotes:

[i] Cambridge dean defends sermon about Jesus’ ‘trans body,’ ‘vaginal’ side wound blasted as ‘heresy’

[ii] In a World of Confusion, Know Why You Believe STEADFAST 10-Week Small Group Apologetics Study

Can We Legislate Morality?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Melissa Dougherty

Since the 1960s, there’s been a measurable dramatic decline in moral ethics here in the United States. Some would argue that it’s been in a general decline since the dawn of humanity, myself included. However, here in the United States, the phrase “legislating morality” has been brought up more and more. Depending on the generation, many people have not heard this phrase or even understood what it means. Some use it as a cliche term to throw in the face of the person trying to promote certain morals that should be either lawful or not.

I say that similar to the argument of “there is no absolute truth,” saying that we can’t legislate morality is simply self-defeating. Everyone everywhere intrinsically knows right from wrong. Many people would see that it’s obvious to enforce right from wrong lawfully. As Romans 2:15 says, mankind has God’s law written on our hearts. This is also echoed in our Declaration of Independence. Whose morality are we talking about, however? First, it must be established whether morality can and should be legislated at all.

How Can You Even Legislate Morality at all?

The brilliance of the Founding Fathers was that they avoided the inevitable pendulum swing that many governments fall victim to by finding a middle ground. Instead of appealing to religion or a secular government, they appealed to the Moral Law to make their case. They then legislated those laws and unalienable rights in the constitution. What makes this so clever is that it forbids the government from establishing a national religion, but it doesn’t prevent it from establishing a national morality. Their appeal to the Moral Law isn’t confined to just the United States. They’re appealing to an Authority that many cultures and people have appealed to in the past. The Founding Fathers believed these freedoms were morally right and needed to be preserved through legislation. This is literally legislating morality! This is also in the First Amendment. The government cannot establish a state-supported religion and will not force people to practice a particular religion. Unlike the popular political rhetoric we hear, this isn’t meant to shut up religious people.

Spoiler Alert

Nobody needs the Bible to tell them right from wrong. We intrinsically know this. This is why we see cultures have the same appeal to the Moral Law in some form. They didn’t get together and decide this. Separated over thousands of miles, over the span of every continent, without ever communicating, people knew this Law.

Fascinating

However, that doesn’t mean that there won’t be a suppression of this within ourselves. This is where it gets muddy. This doesn’t just go for the far-left secular humanist but also for the extreme right. When making rules around society or individually, we appeal to this Law. But it doesn’t always mean it’s black and white. There are some people who want to enact Old Testament law in the United States. On the other extreme, secular humanists want to restrict any religion at all in our country. They want to take away any appeal to a Higher Being. Both are in error.

What should be legislated is Moral Law.

These self-evident truths agree with many biblical principles because of their common source— God. The purpose isn’t to create a Christianized country. The point is to create a moral one. This then spirals into a question about who’s morals. Is the individual supposed to decide for themselves what’s right or wrong? Or are we to appeal to a standard higher than our own? This is a core issue in this debate.

The thing is that without God? All we have left is self.

As history has shown, establishing a divine rule by force over non-believers doesn’t work and is quite damaging. The same idea applies to forcing people to abandon their moral compass for vices. Secular Humanism reinforces the desired authority of the “self.” As Natasha Crain has said in her book Faithfully Different, feelings are the ultimate guide, happiness is the ultimate goal, judging is the ultimate sin, and God is the ultimate guess. For example, this is why when we debate with someone pro-choice, they can’t ultimately say when life begins or what exactly is in the mother’s womb. They must appeal to the subjective perspective of the mother and say it’s up to her to decide what it is. Ultimately, they must suspend truth and reality to be consistent with secular humanism.

Right and wrong are not determined. It’s discovered. The Moral Law is self-evident, but people have a way of suppressing this when it interferes with their own desires. As discussed, when our country was founded and the Declaration of Independence was written, Thomas Jefferson appealed to the Moral Law. This avoids the intolerance of a highly religious government and the moral relativism of a secular government. It’s clear to see which way the pendulum is swinging in our country and why the appeal to the Moral Law that our country was based on is the obvious answer. This only works if people actually follow these rules.

The Moral Law is not an invented morality but an inherited one. If we take away this Law, there is no objective standard. In other words, relativists don’t really have “morality.” Morality is doing what’s right, not what someone finds desirable to their life or situation.

Can We Agree to Disagree on Predestination?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By RYAN LEASURE

At Grace Bible Church, we have a statement of faith that all members must affirm. It’s a fine statement of faith (though a little long if you ask me). And it provides a nice summary of basic Christian belief. That said, not all doctrines are created equal. Some doctrines are absolutely essential while others are less important. How, then, should Christians “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) without contending for too much or too little?

In other words, how do we know which doctrines are worth fighting for and which ones are not? To help with these matters, we have adopted what Al Mohler once dubbed a “Theological Triage.”

Theological Triage

The word “triage” comes from a French word which means “to sort.” And if you’ve ever been to an emergency room, you’re familiar with the sorting process that takes place. If someone shows up with the sniffles, they’re most likely put at the back of the line. If someone shows up holding their decapitated leg, they’re put up front.

Doing theological triage follows a similar principle. As Christians, we must think through doctrine and decide which doctrines get sorted to the front (first-order issues) and which ones get pushed to the back (third-order issues).

At every membership class, I explain this concept and teach newcomers which doctrines are essential and which ones we can agree to disagree on. Let’s consider the three categories in turn.

First-Order Doctrines

First-order doctrines are the absolute essential doctrines to the Christian faith. These are doctrines that every true believer should affirm without hesitation. These doctrines include:

God is a Trinity
God is the creator of all things
Jesus Christ is the Son of God
Jesus is both God and man
Humans are made in God’s image
All humans are sinners and they must repent of their sin
Jesus died on a cross for our sins and rose again from the dead
People are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone
The Bible is God’s inspired word
Jesus is coming back to judge the living and the dead

You get the idea. These beliefs are so fundamental to the faith that if someone were to deny them, we would say that person belongs to a different faith system altogether.

Second-Order Doctrines

Second-order doctrines are not essential doctrines of the Christian faith, but they are essential for church membership. That is to say, even though people may disagree with us on these issues, we would not call into question their standing with God. We may think they’re wrong and think they should reconsider their views. But we would not question their faith altogether. That said, if people are going to be part of the same church, they need to agree on these second-order issues:

The recipients of baptism
Women Pastors
Revelatory gifts (speaking in tongues or prophecy)

Our statement of faith is clear on the first two points. We baptize believers and believe God has ordained for qualified men to serve as pastors. Our statement of faith doesn’t speak to revelatory gifts in the same way. So one could technically classify it as a third-order doctrine. But I suspect if someone felt strongly about publicly prophesying or speaking in tongues before the church, they would feel compelled to go to a different church where those types of practices were more accepted.

Third-Order Doctrines

Third-order doctrines are not essential to the Christian faith, nor are they essential for church membership. That is to say, church members are free to disagree on these matters. This does not mean, however, that these doctrines are unimportant (we can think of less important beliefs). It does not mean that we should not study the Scriptures to try and make sense of them as best as we can. What it does mean is that we are not going to divide over these issues.

Now sadly, it’s these third-order issues that have led to more church splits than anything else. But at Grace Bible Church, we are committed to remaining unified around the main things while allowing charitable disagreement around the not-so-main things. These third-tier doctrines include:

Calvinism vs. Arminianism
Age of the Earth
Millennial or tribulation views

Our statement of faith does not take a hard stand on any of these issues. Therefore, one does not need to affirm Calvinism or Arminianism in order to be a member in good standing at Grace Bible Church. In fact, our church leadership has disagreements on these matters! The same goes for one’s understanding of the age of the earth and the millennium. Good faithful Christians throughout history have disagreed on these matters which leads us to believe the issues aren’t as clear as the first and second-order doctrines.

What we encourage, then, is for each member to act charitably towards others with whom they disagree. We should never ridicule someone or call their faith into question because they land in a different place on one of these third-tier issues. We can agree to disagree or even study the topic together with the hopes of learning from one another. Let’s remember, though we’re all trying to get it right, none of us are infallible.

Dividing Over Doctrine

Placing doctrines in their proper tiers allows the church “to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). It protects the church from contending too much or too little.

Liberals have historically contended for too little. They have tended to press first-tier doctrines down to the third tier. They’ve adopted an “agree to disagree” mentality when it comes to important matters such as Christ’s bodily resurrection from the dead! On the flip side, fundamentalists have historically contended for too much. They have pushed third-tier issues up to the first tier and have divided over less-than-critical matters.

Doing theological triage protects us from both of these errors.

Joshua’s Conquest and God’s Moral Consistency

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By (Josh Klein)

If God is so good, why did he command the Israelites to utterly destroy everyone and everything in the Old Testament?

Is God a moral monster?[i] Particularly in the conquest of the land of Canaan? God calls for the complete and utter destruction of men, women, and children (as well as animals) multiple times[ii]. How could a moral God do this? Is that not genocidal malevolence? Would we not condemn a national leader today if they said “God told me to do murder thousands of children and women in His name” as a lunatic and a monster?

I believe these are important questions.

The question is a thoughtful one. When asked honestly, it takes seriously the biblical claims of God’s goodness, righteousness, love, and grace. The question, better asked, is like this: If God is who the rest of scripture says he is then how could he act in such a manner here? If God’s morality is inconsistent, then he really is not a god at all is he?

How we answer this question says a lot about who we believe God to be and what we believe scripture to be.

When I was in seminary, I took a class on Old Testament theology. I enjoyed the class because it came from a different perspective than I was used to. The professor in the class insisted that much of the narrative was mythological and/or allegorical in a way that was intended to set up Judaism’s religious structure and, ultimately, their need for a Messiah. He went so far as to say that Israel was likely a people that “emerged” from within the land of Canaan only to create a mythological origin story at a later date. In other words, the inerrancy of scripture is dubious at best.

One of the main issues brought to bear during the class was the violence in the Old Testament scriptures, particularly in the Israelite conquest of Canaan. I remember responding to the question with this statement: “If God is the author of life and death can’t God remove life at his will, and it be just? Especially considering man’s sin nature?”

This response alone fails to take the question seriously. The question is not about God’s power or his creative authority. It is about God’s consistency and biblical inherency. Why would God, out of one side of his mouth, condemn the Canaanite people to death, and then out of the other side of his mouth say things like “pray for those who persecute you?”

If God is not consistent then he is not moral. If God is not moral then he is not good, and if God is not good then he is not God.

Another unhelpful response is to use Romans 9[iii] as a justification in and of itself to proclaim that God creates some people to be killed for something they had no choice in doing. This sort of Exhaustive Divine Determinism[iv] unwittingly plays into the question’s premise. If God is creating people merely to smite them with his chosen people, then God seems to be a sadist. And while we can argue for God’s divine authority to do so until we are blue in the face, it does not, in fact, address the argument. Nor does it bring the skeptic closer to understanding God.

There are many responses to this question that are biblically and philosophically sound, and I cannot articulate all of them at length in this space. However, I believe we can provide a short answer that both takes the question seriously and remains faithful the biblical text without having to become an expert on ancient middle eastern civilizations.

For more on this objection check these out: Tim Stratton,[v] John Piper,[vi] William Lane Craig[vii]

To be clear, this is not an argument for the existence of God. The argument only follows once God’s existence has been established. This is also not an answer to the Euthyphro[viii] or Epicurean[ix] dilemmas. Perhaps I will tackle those another time, but I find them pedantic and shallow and easily refuted.

This is an argument for the consistency of the Judeo-Christian God, and a defense of his ethical consistency relying on the very thing he used to reveal himself: scripture.

To understand why God is a good God even (and perhaps especially!) within the context of the conquest of Canaan we need to go back to the very beginning to understand God’s relationship with creation in a post-fall world. I do not endeavor to provide a comprehensive breakdown in the limited space available here. Suffice it to say that entire books have been, and still could be, written on the topic and each line of thinking through the scriptures that I will provide could be expounded on ten-fold.

The foundation of God’s morality in this issue stems from a theology of sin that is introduced in the early part of Genesis. We find the penalty for sin, in general, is death[x]. However, we also find that the judge of the matter is God[xi] not man. The first human death recorded in scripture does not come from the hands of God, but from the hands of one brother to another. Cain feels slighted by Abel because his offerings to God are taken seriously while Cain’s are not. Cain’s response is to murder his brother in a fit of jealous rage. What Cain thought was justice we find to be injustice, and thus, punishable. The ethical keys to using death as discipline are only ever in the hands of God. Unless God proclaims death as consequence, death ought not be a consequence. We see this as well in God’s handling of Cain after the fact. It is God’s choice to allow Cain to live, despite the murder of his brother, and to give him a mark to indicate that this judgement is final and cannot be undone by human hands. Divine justice, from the hands of God is wielded for specific reasons upon specific people and we find this to be true throughout the scriptures.

Fast forward to the story of Noah[xii] and we find that God’s declaration of death upon all creation is due to the fall in the beginning of Genesis. While many will focus on the unfathomable act of judgement that occurs with a global flood in Genesis 6-11, one aspect that is often overlooked is God’s patience in the matter. A common theme throughout scripture is God’s patience with evil over time but swift rendering of justice when it reaches its fullness. God waits until “every intent of the thoughts of their (humanity’s) hearts was only evil continually” before he enacts divine justice through death with the global flood.

In the first 11 chapters of the Bible, we are reminded that God is just, loving, gracious, and merciful with his creation and God’s character in that regard does not shift in the time of the conquest of Canaan. Nor has it shifted since. Someday, the Lord will return with the keys to the second death, the real penalty for sin[xiii], and his judgement will be swift, righteous, and eternal!

But what make’s God’s judgement of humankind just? Using scripture as the barometer we find that humanity is corrupt from birth. We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are constituted sinners.[xiv] Thus, all of humanity is deserving of death from the moment we are born. Living any part of life is a gift. God then, can take human life at his will because it is perfect and just for him to do so. The beginning of Genesis teaches us this. Every person that dies is experiencing judgement from the first sin, and every person that lives experiences grace.

But what about when God uses other humans as his tool for judgement? Up until now we have seen only instances of God’s divine intervention. However, soon, in biblical history, we are introduced to God’s use of human vessels to enact his judgement on the sins of humanity.

God’s judgement is just when it comes to taking human life, and God can and will take human life by utilizing human actors. Innocence cannot be claimed to the divine by a fallen being. The taking of “innocent” human life then, must be ordained by God as judgement for a wicked and theocratic people.

As Cardinal Manning once remarked, “all human conflict is ultimately theological.” So it is with biblical history between nations. Starting with the nation of Egypt at the end of Genesis and into the opening chapters of Exodus, we find that nearly every nation God’s chosen people interact with is a theocratic nation. Thus, God’s judgement on those nations reflects their devotion to a god that does not exist. They must be punished as a group, not merely as individuals lest they lead the nation of Israel astray into a different theocracy. We find this to be true with the flood[xv], Sodom and Gomorrah[xvi] the plagues of Egypt[xvii], and so it is with the conquest of Canaan. God waits until sin has reached its apex to blot it out and he erases demonic deities in the process.

We find this convergence between God’s divine patience and his need to exact justice on nations that worship non-deities in Genesis 15:16 when God says, “…the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”

God’s patience is such that he will note strike against an entire nation of people unless their wickedness has been made complete. At this point in time, he will hand them over to their sin and punish them accordingly[xviii]. At the time that Israel is poised to enter the promised land we find that the wickedness of the Canaanite peoples in the land were at a fever pitch.

But God’s grace still abounds, prior to Israel’s arrival God promises to drive people from the land himself, “little by little” to make the conquest of Canaan easier for the Israelites but also because of his righteous judgement.[xix]

What constitutes completed wickedness? Why was God’s patience running out upon the entrance into the land of Canaan? Believe it or not, God’s law, specifically in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy gives us an answer.

God is very clear in Deuteronomy 9 that he is using Israel as a vessel for judgement. That the land is not a reward for Israel, but the conquest is a punishment for the wicked nations inhabiting the land.

We find that the nations in Canaan were engaged in all sorts of abhorrent, deviant, and evil behaviors. Incest, rape, child sacrifice, temple prostitution, homosexuality, bestiality, witchcraft, and profane violence to name only a few[xx]. After listing all of these behaviors as unlawful and worthy of the death penalty in Leviticus 18 God goes on to say this about the nations inhabiting Canaan at that time, “Do not defile yourselves by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am casting out before you have become defiled,” and again in Leviticus 20:23, “Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I will drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them.”

There are many extra-biblical accounts of the evil practices of the Canaanite theocratic city-states as well. Particularly found in the Archaeological record (Archaeology and the Old Testament)[xxi] (Moloch and Canaanite Worship).[xxii]

The judgement that God foretold in Genesis 15 came to fruition through the Israelites in the conquest of Canaan. God’s judgement on a theocratic people was swift and severe lest the “gods” of the Canaanites be said to have “saved” select people to maintain the faith. And we know that this happens because the Israelites ultimately fail to live up to the billing and allow Canaanite religions not only to remain, but to thrive in their midst. Likewise, the violent judgement of Israel foretold by Yahweh in Deuteronomy[xxiii] came true with the conquest of the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians.

We find that Joshua did all that he was told at the beginning of the book, but the Israelites failed to carry that mantle after his death. There is a common misconception by some that this means either Joshua used hyperbole to indicate he accomplished his task or that God was using hyperbole when he commanded Joshua to utterly destroy certain Canaanite cities. I believe neither viewpoint to be accurate.

It is clear from the beginning of the book of Joshua that he and the Israelites took very seriously God’s command. Otherwise Achan would not have been destroyed along with his family for violating the commandment after the Israelite defeat at Ai.[xxiv]

A careful reading of God’s rules for engagement in Deuteronomy 7 indicates that God anticipates survivors and even makes it clear to the Israelites that these survivors must not be allowed to prosper.[xxv] Elsewhere, in Deuteronomy 20, we find that there are other options for cities not placed under the “ban”. Israel was to first offer terms of peace, and if peace was rejected then they were to only destroy the men.[xxvi] Thus, the conquest of Canaan was primarily a judgement upon the kings of Canaan for their wicked and perverse structures.

God’s character remains the same in each of these events, and will remain the same in the consummation of time when God deals once and for all with sin and death. What does this mean? It means that the conquest of Canaan is no different than the flood story or the judgement of the world at the end of time. God’s divine ethic remains unwavering, and while it can seem unsettling for us to engage, we must understand the curse of Genesis 3 is what leads to the conquest in Joshua and the seat of judgement in Revelation.

Finally, while the divine ethic does not change, how that ethic is accomplished on earth does shift as God’s sovereign story continues to unfold. Just as God promised to never judge the world by a flood in Genesis[xxvii], he likewise shifts the focus of judgement from temporal to eternal through the establishment of his church through Jesus Christ. Could God still use nations to rain judgment down on each other? Absolutely, the heart of every human conflict is theological and current wars are no different. However, the time that God articulates a judgement on a people through the conquest of another people has long since passed. Not because it was wrong for God to do so, but because his choice in displaying his justice to the world now simply looks different.

God has released his final Word in the world and judgement rests on what the world does with Him[xxviii]. Thus, the idea that a current nation could legitimately use the idea that God is using them as a tool for judgement is refuted in scripture itself. But that’s another topic for another time.

In the end, the divine ethic survives severe scrutiny when placed within the framework of the biblical text. The Canaanite cultures were among the most abusive and evil cultures to have ever been established on the earth and God’s judgement of them was certainly just. The conquest is certainly unpalatable to our western minds, and for good reason. What matters most in this instance is not whether or not it makes us feel uneasy but whether or not this action is consistent with the character of God throughout history and scripture. I believe, that even in this short treatment we have found this to be right and true.

Footnotes:

[i] https://www.christianbook.com/moral-monster-making-sense-old-testament/paul-copan/9780801072758/pd/072758?event=ERRCER1

[ii] Deuteronomy 2:34, 3:6, 20:17; Joshua 6:21, 8:26, 10:28

[iii] Romans 9

[iv] https://freethinkingministries.com/3-reasons-why-exhaustive-divine-determinism-edd-is-not-redundant/

[v] https://freethinkingministries.com/ten-problems-with-the-canaanite-objection/?fbclid=IwAR1exRdFZkfyooD9VdxxgClonAsPVnkcNZzBuBv2tY_TNZ1XFN37tlxD2MI

[vi] https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-conquest-of-canaan

[vii] https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/slaughter-of-the-canaanites

[viii] https://www.rationalrealm.com/philosophy/ethics/morality-objective-without-god-page5.html

[ix] https://epicurus.today/the-epicurean-paradox/

[x] Genesis 3, Romans 3:23

[xvii] Each plague refutes an Egyptian god including the taking of Pharoah’s son – Exodus 9

[xviii] Romans 1:23-30

[xix] Exodus 23:30; Deuteronomy 7:21-23

[xx] Leviticus 18-20

[xxi] https://www.amazon.com/Archaeology-Old-Testament-Merrill-Unger/dp/0310333911

[xxii] https://allthatsinteresting.com/moloch

[xxiii] Deuteronomy 28-30

[xxiv] Joshua 7-8

[xxv] Deuteronomy 7:2-6

[xxvi] Deuteronomy 20:10-15

[xxvii] Genesis 9:11

[xxviii] Hebrews 1

Christmas: The Cure For Our Two-Storied World

CrossExamined, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

Even people who don’t celebrate Christmas seem to know what it’s about — the birth of a Savior who comes to rescue us from the consequences of our rebellion against Him. Ultimately, that means it’s part of God’s rescue plan and where we go when we die. But there’s another aspect to Christmas that I think is important too. It’s also about showing us how to live. And right-living depends on how we think. Unfortunately, our thinking is infused with lies that we’ve accepted as being part of “the human condition.” And believing those lies results in dissension, oppression, racism, political wrangling, class struggle, economic strife, and war. Sadly, it’s all part of the gravest story ever told. Christmas offers an antidote to the effects of that story too.

The story started in The Garden. And we’ve been repeating it to each other ever since. It thrives on divided minds. But we are designed to be united. God and man. Husband and wife. Body and soul. Physical and spiritual. The division we experience is a symptom of wrong thinking about the nature of reality. But there is a way to fix it. Christmas shows us how. It’s the cure for our two-storied world.

Focus On The Physical World

There is an assumption in our contemporary society that all of us have tacitly accepted, even if we claim to be “religious.” It is an assumption born in the Enlightenment and nurtured through four-hundred years of modern philosophy, medical breakthroughs, and technological innovation. The assumption is this: That the physical world is all that really exists. And, since science is the study of the physical world, the logical assumption is that it will give the answers to our most profound questions. This is called Naturalism or Materialism. And many of us claim not to accept this view. We may even argue vehemently against it. But it is a difficult assumption to overcome because it is embedded in the fabric of our culture.

When we hear of an inexplicable healing, or an answered prayer, or an eerie “coincidence,” or a Christmas Star, our initial reaction is to seek a scientific explanation. Even those of us who take our faith seriously secretly wonder if the walls of Jericho really just fell down; if the Red Sea really parted, or (though we would be loathe to admit it) if Jesus really rose from the dead. We are hard-wired to be skeptical of those kinds of claims. In a thousand different ways we have assimilated, accommodated, and capitulated to the materialistic world. And with each baby step in that direction, the idea of the miraculous diminishes into a faintly held belief we have little hope of defending.

Non-Physical Reality

The Apostle Paul told us to “test everything” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). So, we take him up on it. But in our knee-jerk reaction to do so we sometimes forget that a Christian view of the world is not limited to physical things. In fact, science is impotent when it comes to answering our biggest questions. And that’s because Ultimate Reality is not physical. It’s transcendent. It’s spiritual.

The Christian worldview encompasses both the physical and the non-physical. Alone, neither is adequate to describe us as persons. And neither can explain the makeup of all we know and experience. Ideas. Values. Reason. Mind. Morals. Love. None of these things are physical. But all of them are real. Life would be meaningless without them.

Creating The Two-Storied World

The modern, materialistic culture we live in disdains such a view. It does its best to belittle and destroy it. The result is that we are constantly engaged in the battle of ideas that this kind of philosophy has created. Francis Schaeffer addressed this conflict many decades ago. He didn’t originate the idea. But he identified its roots in a kind of “split” thinking. And he popularized the notion in a phrase we all recognize when we talk about taking a “leap of faith.”

On Schaeffer’s view, we have created a two-storied vision of reality. And we all live in it. Think of it as a two-story house. Non-physical realities like values, spirituality, religion, faith and the like, reside upstairs. Downstairs we find things like the physical world and science.

UPPER STORY: Values – Spiritual – Religion – Faith — Private

LOWER STORY: Facts – Physical – Science – Knowledge — Public

Living In The Two-Story World

When you think this way, the lower story is where we are told to go when we want to know the true things. Only science can help us. It is public and verifiable. The culture tells us this is where we should be living our lives. It’s the force behind the exhortation we hear every day to “trust the science.”

Conversely, upper story ideas are private and subjective. We are free to take an irrational “leap of faith” to the upper story if we want to. But we must realize that to do so is to ignore rational thought. That kind of stuff has no business seeping into the “real world.” We take the leap upstairs on faith alone. And while no one is permitted to question the thoughts or ideas of your “private world,” neither are we free to allow those ideas to influence how we understand the lower story.

The Consequences Of A Two-Storied View

Unfortunately, most of us go along with this program unwittingly. We tacitly accept the idea that our personal faith and religion are disconnected from, and have little value in, a fact-based world. But this doesn’t fit with what we know and experience. There is no way to understand meaning and purpose.

The lower story is right in front of us. But it contains no hope. Nothing in it can save us. And our world is filled with people who are wallowing in this disconnected reality. They live in the lower-story, but they long for the upper.

Wrong Solutions

Some religions just accept the disconnect. The secularists deny the upper-story. They try to construct a replica of it downstairs using only lower-story stuff. Conversely, the New Age, Gnostic, and eastern religions try to deny or escape the lower-story. They’re happy to float around upstairs with no attachment to the ground.

Both of these are dismal failures because they can’t make sense of the whole show. They don’t even try. All they can offer is a truncated view of the reality.

Christianity is a house where the two stories meld into one. A place where it all makes sense. Facts and values. Spiritual and physical. Religion and science. Faith and knowledge. All of these make up an integrated view of reality.

The two-storied world is not meant to be divided. It never was. There are stairs right in the middle of the house. But they’re too tall for us to climb.

So, God comes down.

Christmas

This is the other Christmas message. The Author steps onto the stage to offer His ultimate revelation. He shows us that human-centered thinking is inadequate to address the human condition we created shortly after we arrived on the scene. We came up with the flawed philosophy that exacerbated those problems. We’re the ones who manufactured a “two-story” view of the world. Our humanistic thinking divided that which was meant to be indivisible.

Christmas reminds us that it all can be fixed in only one way. God gives us the ultimate example of how the world was meant to be through the Incarnation. That’s what it means. God’s essence quite literally “puts on meat.” “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”

The spiritual is united with the physical right in front of our eyes.

At Christmastime, the floor joists shatter and a thundering shock wave pierces the night. The ceiling above our human-centered world collapses. And the spirit Who has been rattling around in the attic comes crashing into our living room.

The divine unites with the human in one person. A person who offers us the perfect example of what it means to bear His image. What it means to function as an integrated whole. That person offers us a way out of our self-made morass of idiotic ideas and worldly wisdom. The infinitely perfect man comes downstairs to rescue us. But He also shows us how to live.

Only He can do such a thing. And when He does, the world makes sense again.

Tag Archive for: Christianity

The Magna Carta of Humanity: Sinai’s Revolutionary Faith and The Future of Freedom

My Awareness

Key Points:

Favorite Quotes:

Recommendations:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Biocentrism and the Case for an Eternal Cosmic Observer

Consciousness and the Case for an Eternal Cosmic Observer

Time and the Case for an Eternal Cosmic Observer

Conclusion: What Can We Deduce about the Eternal Cosmic Observer

Footnotes:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

This is where parents hit the panic button.

Foundational stage: God’s Word (suggested age – birth to primary)

Connection Stage: God’s World (suggested age – adolescent to preteen)

Action Stage: Live God’s word in God’s world (suggested age – teens to adult)

Successful parents have this in common

Recommended resources related to the topic:

ARE APPARITIONS LIKE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES?

WHAT WOULD BE EVIDENCE OF MARIAN APPARIATIONS?

Footnotes:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Footnotes:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

How Can You Even Legislate Morality at all?

Spoiler Alert

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Theological Triage

First-Order Doctrines

Second-Order Doctrines

Third-Order Doctrines

Dividing Over Doctrine

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Footnotes:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Focus On The Physical World

Non-Physical Reality

Creating The Two-Storied World

Living In The Two-Story World

The Consequences Of A Two-Storied View

Wrong Solutions

Christmas

Recommended resources related to the topic: