Christianity Archives - Page 58 of 106

Tag Archive for: Christianity

White-Knuckling It

As a man who loves Jesus, is in a heterosexual marriage and still experiences some same-sex attraction that is lingering from my previous gay life, I spend a lot of time talking to Christian men about what life as a same-sex attracted (SSA) Christian man should look like. Much of the conversation centers on behavior. “How do I go the rest of my life without acting on these desires which seem so innate and natural?” they ask many times.

It is an important conversation. Denying oneself for the sake of the Gospel is essential to our Gospel witness, the flourishing of our faith, and the wellbeing of our soul. Denying what our flesh so strongly craves is difficult, painful, and can’t be done without the sustainment of the Holy Spirit working in our lives. However, I believe that there is an even more important conversation to be had with these men: what do they do with their attractions?

White-Knuckling It

I went through many years of my 20s “white-knuckling” it. Fighting hard. My desires for men was so strong, but I was determined to fight for purity for the glory of Christ. It was a fight which I fought under much of my own power, and it was leaving me exhausted. It wasn’t until I went to seminary and started to better understand the human heart, the idols they serve, and the true hope we have in Christ that I started to see that God wanted something better for me. He helped me see that He not only helps us control our behavior but also works to untangle what our hearts have twisted. I have heard it said many times that “same-sex attraction is not sin, only acting on it is.” But is that always true? Are desires for what is sinful at all sinful? Is it okay to feel desire for something God forbids? The answer to that question was something deep down; my soul didn’t want to hear. Because for years, in my own pridefulness, I thought I had arrived. I thought my heart and my life were pleasing to God because I had taken the steps of leaving my LGBTQ life behind and was denying myself daily. But finally, in His grace, God brought me to my knees to confront a difficult truth: God not only wanted to transform my behavior, He wanted to transform my heart. And that included my same-sex attraction.

Can Attraction Be Sinful?

It is said repeatedly that “temptation is not sinful. After all, Jesus was tempted, and yet he never sinned.” It is prudent to ask, though, is our temptation the same as that of Jesus experienced? Many know the story of Jesus being tempted, as told in Mathew 4. Jesus went to the wilderness, and the Devil came to tempt and entice him. The results are clear: Jesus never gave into temptation. But, was his temptation the same as the temptation which is manifested in same-sex attraction? The temptation which Jesus experienced was that of an outside force: The Devil. The Devil came and tried to entice Jesus to sinful behavior. And certainly, every believer experiences this type of temptation. We have an enemy who is out to “steal and deceive and destroy.” (John 10:10). However, scripture also speaks of a different type of temptation. James 1:14 states, “each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed.” This passage speaks of temptation that is the result of our own evil desire. Now that is a type of temptation which Jesus never experienced. Whereas Jesus only experienced temptation by outside forces, people experience temptation that is a result of the evil in their own hearts. We know that Jesus never experienced such temptation because there was no evil in his heart.

Shifting from the Old Testament law to the Law of Christ in the New Testament, scripture repeatedly raises the bar for what is expected from God’s people. Whereas the Old Testament says, “Do not murder” and “do not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:13), the expectations for people who know Christ are “do not hate” and “do not lust in your heart.” (Matt 5:28). Jesus shifted the focus from external behavior to internal, heart-level desire. Under the Law of Christ, it is no longer good enough to merely not act on our desire for what is evil. Jesus commands that we repent of our desire to do so.

It can be hard to tell the difference between temptation and lust. The question many men seem to ask (with any form of sexual desire) is “how far can I go?” I think a much better question to ask is “how Holy can I be?”

Romans 1: It All Starts With a Lie

The first chapter of Romans is one of the infamous passages in scripture which speaks of homosexuality. Throughout the chapter, we see a progression:

1) They became futile, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Romans 1:21)

2) They traded God’s truth for a lie. (Romans 1:25)

3) They worshiped created things instead of the Creator. (Romans 1:25)

4) They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal man. (Romans 1:23)

5) They developed a sinful desire for sexual impurity in their hearts for one another. (Romans 1:24)

6) They acted on their desire, resulting in men having sex with men and women having sex with women. (Romans 1:26-27)

We see this pattern in all areas of sin in our lives: Our foolish hearts are darkened. We trade truth for a lie. We worship the creation. We develop sinful lust for God’s creation. We act on that desire.

Through God’s grace, He desires to take us down the reverse course: Through the power of the Holy Spirit, we gain control over our behavior. But it doesn’t have to stop with behavior change! Through the lifelong process of sanctification, God allows us to untwist what our darkened hearts had twisted. He trades the lies which we had believed for his truth. The lies that had led us to lustful desires are exposed and replaced with the truth of scripture. And in doing so, He frees us from the desires which once enslaved us!

Freedom In Christ

Although my romantic and sexual feelings towards other men have so greatly dwindled, occasionally, a man catches my eyes and my heart in a way which another man shouldn’t. I instantly know that there is idolatry happening in my heart. My heart is looking for redemption and wholeness…and it foolishly thinks it can find it in another man. My brokenness tells me that I can acquire what my heart thinks I am missing (usually in the categories of personality traits, talents and abilities, and physical characteristics) from an emotional or sexual connection with another man. In the moment, it feels so natural and normal. However, there is freedom in repentance. Instead of letting the desire for this man grow in my heart, I can repent of trying to acquire from him what is not mine (the sin of coveting). I can go to the Lord and find my wholeness in Him, instead of trying to acquire it from another person. And when I do so, He frees me from the attraction that previously gripped my heart so deeply. In the 13 years since I surrendered my life to the Lord, the process of identifying the idolatry behind my attraction towards a man and finding my wholeness in Christ has gone from months to a matter of hours, minutes, or even seconds. As the Lord has continued to peel back layers of my heart and reveal lies which had led to this evil in my heart, He gives me the grace to repent and see Him untwist what my heart had twisted. That is the promise He gives us in sanctification. It is not completed on this side of the cross, but we can all be “confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 1:6) This sanctification is such a sweet gift from our precious Savior.

Why Most Doubts About God Are Emotional, Not Intellectual (Part II)

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mike Taylor

How to Deal with Emotional Doubt

Most of the time in our lives, it’s not the facts of the situations around us that are important; it’s how we process those facts. Similarly, the worst kind of a pain in our lives is not from what happens to us but how we download it or process it.

For people dealing with emotional doubt, when something bad happens, they give themselves permission to let those events determine why they have problems. However, beliefs (i.e., the way we download information) are the things that stand between those events that happen to us and the consequences that come from them.

Events alone rarely cause all the consequences we experience. Events plus negative or detrimental beliefs about those events often cause excessive consequences. So, when we say negative things to ourselves about things that matter to us – things like “What if God doesn’t really love me?” – it’s important to refute those thoughts with “That’s not true because…” It’s all about how you talk to yourself about the events in your life because most of us lie to ourselves without even realizing it.

Here are a couple of simple steps to dealing with this type of emotionally-driven thought pattern:

1. Locate the misbelief

Usually, there’s a primary and secondary misbelief. You might tell yourself something that’s untrue, but there’s usually a deeper lie about life beneath that. As yourself, “Why do I have a hard time believing this?” or, “Why does this seem so unlikely to me?” Don’t just shut down the idea of trusting God because it’s difficult to believe. Be willing to explore your reasons for not believing.

For example, for many people, distrust is bred over time as a result of painful situations such as abandonment, neglect, abuse, or some other type of emotional damage we experience. When those negative memories and thought patterns are left unchecked, they can create in us a mindset that people are not to be trusted. As subtle as it may be in us when we approach evidence for God with this distrusting mindset as our basis, no amount of factual evidence is going to break through our barrier. It’s only by moving to step two that we can take a truly unbiased look at evidence for God.

2. Remove and replace

Once you’ve identified the root of the emotional doubt, it’s important to confront those doubts with empirical truth – truth that can be verified through observation and experiences (i.e., the resurrection of Jesus, the goodness of God as evident in creation, etc.).

The best way to do this is to simply remind yourself, “That’s not true because…” Replace the misbelief with an evidence-based truth. Change your perspective and choose to see things from a neutral perspective instead of from the negative, misleading perspective. After all, most emotional doubters are anxious doubters. They’re being anxious or obsessive-compulsive by doubting. It’s not a rational issue they’re dealing with.

It’s important to address emotional doubts because if you allow yourself to be dominated by your emotions rather than what’s true, eventually, you’re at risk of simply giving up and completely turning off to God. That’s what Dr. Habermas calls volitional doubt.

Volitional doubt describes people who know Christianity is true, but they’re typically mad at God, and they’ve turned away from God completely. This can happen for a variety of reasons, but it’s a matter of the will. It’s an unwillingness to believe despite known truth. God loves you enough to give you freedom, and using that freedom to walk away from Him is the one thing He can’t save you from – not because He isn’t able, but because He loves you too much to force you to be with Him if you don’t want to.

The good news is, you’re in control of your doubts. You get to decide what to do with them and how to manage them. Remember that the most damage that occurs in our lives is not from what happens to us but how we process it. So, understanding the necessary facts is key, but then reminding yourself of those facts in negative situations is also vital. After all, the facts about God don’t change just because your circumstances change.

This is where faith comes in.

In Scripture, the word for “hope” refers to a grounded hope, not a hope in something you don’t know about. That hope comes from faith that is grounded in facts.

Faith does what reason can’t do. Faith says, “This can be trusted.”

Faith says, “Quit asking ‘what if’ about stupid questions when you already have good answers. Reason says, “Here are good responses.” Faith says, “Those are good enough. You can trust those. Walk-in it.” Faith comes along and says that belief is warranted.

Faith is trusting the evidence. It’s okay to keep studying to build on good answers, but not because you have to keep answering the same question every day.

You have to train the habit of faith. Learn the art of learning enough and then letting go. And faith is not going to stay there if you ignore it. That’s why people who follow Jesus read the Bible, worship, fellowship with other Christians, etc. because it reinforces our faith when we hang around people who don’t think they have to answer the same questions every day.

Remember: The gospel is the most important message in the Bible, and it’s the one doctrine that is the most supported by evidence. In other words, God put the most evidence for the most important thing we need to know.

So, minimize the importance you place on periphery issues. It will save you a lot of stress and wasted time. Look to answer the most important central doctrines:

Jesus is the Son of God.
Jesus died on the cross for our sins.
Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

Then, if that’s not working and something is still nagging at you, and you’re in pain, then you’re probably experiencing emotional doubt.

You can read the first part here.

[This article was an adaptation from my book Grounded Faith for Practical People. You can download it for free at MikePTaylor.net]

El Apologista

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Terrell Clemmons

Jorge Gil: Next Gen Apologist to the World

Jorge Gil was born in 1982 to a single mother in Costa Rica. When he was one year old, she left him in the care of his grandparents and moved to the United States, where she died ten years later. In the wake of her death, with a grandfather who was away most of the time, a grandmother who showed love by giving him whatever he wanted, and adolescence approaching, young Jorge started exploring. With no father figure and no boundaries, he soon discovered he liked liquor and pot, and both became regular pastimes. As in much of Latin America, the culture around him was nominally Catholic, and he could easily party all night and go to Mass the next day, no qualms. He never doubted the existence of God. He just never cared about him.

Still, he was a smart student. He graduated high school at sixteen, and by age eighteen had completed three semesters of college. However, with expanded freedom had come expanded carousing. When the aunts footing the bill for his education saw how he was wasting the opportunity, they cut off the funds. At that point, his Aunt Shirley invited him to America, where she lived, and where he could work and earn his own funds to finish school. He arrived in North Carolina two weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

But a change of setting does not a change of lifestyle make. A steady income of his own simply freed him up to do whatever he pleased, and life settled into a steady cycle of hard work followed by hard-partying. Who needed school?

Being musically and technologically inclined, he also built a recording studio in his apartment. This attracted friends, including women, and before long, he’d taken up with one in particular. Neither of them had any plan or ambition for life, and they drifted along carelessly and recklessly before and after children entered the picture. Jorge’s daughter Leda was born in 2007, followed by his son Aiden in 2008. With both Jorge and his baby-mama stuck in codependency, Aunt Shirley next door picked up a lot of the slack for everyone.

Stopped

In 2012, several years of irresponsible living caught up with Jorge. It started with a routine traffic stop while he was driving home from a friend’s house. Although he’d had some drinks, his breathalyzer test registered under the legal limit, so that wasn’t a problem. But his driver’s license was expired. So he was taken to the police station, where, by some mysterious misfortune, a second breathalyzer test showed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.1% over the limit. Jorge was detained overnight in the Sampson County jail, and now he had a DUI charge to contend with.

The next morning, he woke up to an ICE officer waiting for him. The reason his driver’s license was expired was that he’d let his immigration permit lapse, and now he was being placed on immigration hold. Driving with an expired license was a minor offense, and the DUI arguably stood on shaky ground. But this immigration situation was a more complicated matter. In counsel with his lawyers, Jorge decided he would plead not guilty to the DUI charge and remain in the county jail while they prepared his immigration case.

Detention: Part One

“Do you have anything to read?” he asked his Mexican bunkmate on the first day in jail. His bunkmate had two books, a Colombian classic called One Hundred Years of Solitude and a Bible. Jorge had no interest in reading the Bible, but after finishing the novel in two days, the Bible was the only book around, and prison days were long. He read the Gospels.

To his surprise, he found himself intrigued. As if in response to some nascent prayer, the following week, a black man named Cortez was transferred into his pod. (A pod is a large communal cell.) Cortez had what he called “jail preacher syndrome,” meaning that he would drift in and out of jail and while in jail he would preach the gospel and teach Bible studies. Jorge took it all in, and when another preacher visited two weeks later and laid out the gospel with all his country-preacher fire, Jorge surrendered his life to Jesus on the spot. At that moment, all the urges and desires of his old life—a pack or two of cigarettes a day, drinks every night, and pot here and there for good measure—up and left, never to return.

Cortez went to work discipling him right away. He told Jorge to stop using profanity, both the Spanish words and the English ones. Jorge did, and the two studied the Bible together every day until Cortez was transferred out a few weeks later. With Cortez gone, Jorge took it upon himself to become the new in loco preacher. Still new to the Bible himself, he used whatever he could find. He asked Aunt Shirley to get him some resources, and though he hardly knew what to ask for, he soon had a study Bible, some Our Daily Bread devotionals, a few InTouch magazines, and a stash of commentaries, all of which he devoured and disseminated as best he could like there was no tomorrow. He reached out to contacts in the community and asked for Bibles to be donated, and soon every new inmate received from him a good welcome and his own Bible. Inmates started calling him Preacher and coming to him for counsel, and between the providence of God and the flame driving his regenerated heart, Jorge grew into the preacher-teacher role with a passion.

Detention: Part Two

Six months to the day after Jorge entered the Sampson County jail, he was transferred to a federal ICE detention facility in Georgia. The DUI charge had been dismissed, and by the time he left, in addition to becoming Preacher, he’d become friends with all the guards, served as their on-call translator, read some sixty books, and accumulated a pile of yellow pads filled with notes, ideas, and sermon outlines.

Although he’d pretty much put himself through “preacher school,” as he now puts it, the ICE facility presented a whole new set of challenges. These weren’t people who were in for crimes per se, but like him were being detained and processed for either deportation or reinstatement as a resident. In North Carolina, most of the inmates had come from some kind of Christianized background and had a reasonable context by which to relate to the gospel. Here, he encountered Buddhism, Islam, Rasta, Hinduism, Bahá’í, and other world belief systems. He would start preaching or talking as he’d done before, and men would challenge him with questions he’d never encountered: “How can you say Jesus is the only way?” and “Hasn’t the Bible been corrupted?” and the like. How was he to respond to these?

He prayed, and his answer came in the form of an AM-FM radio a Mexican man who was being deported gave him. By holding the antenna up to the window just so, Jorge found a radio teacher who flat-out blew him away. The man had a funny accent, and Jorge thought he was some kind of Messianic Jew because his name was Ravi, which he assumed was a mispronunciation of Rabbi. Jorge sat by that window every single day, wrote down everything this man said and asked Aunt Shirley to send him every book she could find related to Ravi Zacharias.

The books and notepads continued to accumulate until November when Jorge received a full pardon and was released. He returned home 110 pounds lighter, nine months drug-free, insatiably thirsty for knowledge of this Jesus he loved, and with a heart set on sharing him with the world. He started looking for apologetics programs online as soon as he could get his hands on a smartphone.

El Director

Life since that pivotal year has brought a lot of twists and turns. His employer had held his job for him, and he was welcomed back wholeheartedly, but his relationship with the mother of his children deteriorated rapidly. Not only had she not changed, she was not happy about these changes in him. She left a few months later in a violent fury, never to return.

His Aunt Shirley, who had been like a mother to him all these years, died in 2014 in a horrible murder-suicide shooting, and following that, he discovered in a new way the richness of the body of Christ, as his small rural church stepped in to help him with his kids. He went to every weekend apologetics conference he could find within driving distance, and he sought out mentors who could help him grow as an apologist and man of God. He met Frank Turek of Cross-Examined and in 2015 was hired on as Cross-Examined’s social media director. He also met Angelia (“Lia”) in 2015, and in 2017, she became his wife and accepted the mantle of mother to his children.

Today, he serves as the Executive Director for Cross-Examined. He oversees all projects, including the translation and publication of apologetics resources into world languages, including Chinese and Russian. He oversees Cross-Examined’s social media operations and, techno-whiz Millennial that he is, keeps them ever on the leading edges of technologies, in order to reach younger generations on their grounds and terms.

He speaks and conducts seminars overseas on a wide range of topics—postmodernism, same-sex marriage, the problem of evil—contextualizing the content as much as possible for local audiences, and he creates and hosts online communities, the goal always being to advance the gospel and deliver sound apologetics to the world.

Hombre de Dios

He’s one busy hombre who loves what he does. “I certainly didn’t plan this,” he says. “God gave me this opportunity, and it’s a joy to be able to allow him to use me to connect the North American movement in apologetics and actually create one in Latin America.”

He finds his greatest joy, though, in his family.

To see that family unity that I never had—I never met my biological father, I was raised by my grandmother, my biological mom died (I barely knew her), and my grandfather who was supposed to be the role model in the house was always gone working, and when he came around he was drunk—to see the relationships I have with my children and with my wife, and that my children have with her is incredible. I think that’s the thing I enjoy the most.

Scripture speaks about God calling his people, establishing them, and then making them flourish. I think Jorge Gil is just getting started at that flourishing part.

Out of the Trenches

How Jorge Gil Grew into His Calling

“One of the things people don’t know about me,” Jorge says, “is my struggle with not having a degree.”

He was in a business meeting of the Evangelical Philosophical Society one day, when the president, Angus Menuge, asked him what his area of expertise was. “Bro,” he said, “I’m riding on a high-school diploma.”

In addition to multi degreed Christian academics like Dr. Menuge, Jorge’s circle of colleagues includes such apologetics giants as J. Warner Wallace, Greg Koukl, and the late Dr. Norman Geisler, so it’s understandable if he feels intimidated at times. But the way he’s going about his Christian life is hardly “riding.” Consider the following:

Diligence: For one thing, ever since his Christian conversion seven years ago, Jorge has invested himself in learning everything he can that’s related to the Christian faith. Although he was not deported in 2012, his temporary residential status meant he would have to enroll in school as a foreign student, which carried a much higher tuition cost.

As a single parent, formal education was simply not an option for him for some time. So Jorge studied on his own -theology, apologetics, philosophy-whatever would make him a more suitable vessel for sharing the gospel.

Humility: Second, having never had a father figure to speak of, he intentionally sought out learned, godly men for help and advice. He met Richard Howe, who was director of the Ph.D. program in philosophy at Southern Evangelical Seminary, at an apologetics conference and asked Dr. Howe if he would be his philosophy mentor. He built relationships with people he saw as role models, not because of their “star status,” but in order to learn from them. One of the many questions he would ask is, “What would you tell your thirty-year-old self that you would want him to know?” He also offered his services as a translator to them-to subtitle their videos, for example, or to re-post their biogs in Spanish. No charge; it was all about offering what he had to give in service to the cause.

Faith: And third, Jorge never let intimidation or lack of a degree hinder him from doing what he believed God was calling him to do. He’s currently pursuing his Associate, Bachelor, and Masters degrees, all in one swoop. At the same time, he insists it’s not the degrees or the seminary that prepares you for the work, but the God who calls you to it.

“If you want it and you think God has called you to something,” he tells people,

then go for it, and things will fall into place. Don’t think, “I’ll get my degree and then I’ll do apologetics.” No, get into the trenches. If you have to get your degree while you’re in the trenches, do it. But don’t be intimidated by all of these people who have big letters in front of or behind their names. Remember, God just grabbed a handful of fishermen and turned the world upside down. I think he’s still operating the same way today.

Indeed. I think the rest of us can learn from Jorge’s example. The Christian life is never about what we have or don’t have. It’s about the God we know and what we do with what we have. By those lights, Jorge “graduated” a long time ago.

Why Most Doubts About God Are Emotional, Not Intellectual (Part I)

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mike Taylor

If we’re honest, we would all admit that we have doubts about God to some degree or another. I mean, on some level, it almost feels like human nature to resist fully trusting anything. We doubt ourselves, we doubt other people, and more than anything, we doubt God.

Doubt is normal. No matter who you are, you’re going to have doubts. Even biblical heroes such as Job, Abraham, David, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Thomas, and Paul had doubts about God. But for some reason, too many of us think that doubts should be avoided.

I think we get the idea that doubt is bad from a misapplication of Scripture. In Matthew 21:21, Jesus said we should pray without doubt, and incredible things will happen. So doubt must be bad, right? But the point Jesus is making is that faith is all or nothing. We either trust God, or we don’t; there is no in-between.

We can’t half-trust someone. I can trust a complete stranger to make my food at a restaurant, but I won’t leave my children with them. I doubt them in important things, but I can trust them with small things. That’s what Jesus was saying – that we must have faith like that of a mustard seed. He said, “it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree…” (Matthew 13:32)

It’s only by exploring and pressing into doubts that you can take the necessary small steps of faith. After all, if you only explored the things that made you feel comfortable, you would never need to trust God.

So doubts aren’t bad, and they aren’t a sin. They can actually be beneficial if we address them properly. But how do we know how to deal with doubts when they come? Because if you don’t know what to do with doubts, you’ll end up going back and forth between the latest trends and ideas.

In order to healthily and effectively deal with doubts, we must start by knowing where our doubts are coming from. Otherwise, we’ll try addressing them the wrong way without ever knowing the source.

3 Types of Doubt

In his book The Thomas Factor, Dr. Gary Habermas says there are three types of doubt: factual doubt, emotional doubt, and volitional doubt.

These categories are largely self-explanatory: Factual doubt is doubt caused by a lack of information or evidence, emotional doubt is doubt rooted in some sort of emotional pain and resulting distrust, and volitional doubt is basically an unwillingness to believe or to apply known truths. The first is a matter of the mind, the second is a matter of the heart, and the third is a matter of the will.

According to Dr. Habermas, most people doubt for emotional reasons, and only about 15% of doubts are factual. Because of this, doubts are almost never remedied by information alone. Sure, dealing with factual doubts is important, but there’s more than enough evidence to get you past those doubts. In other words, good answers are necessary, but not sufficient. They simply serve as the foundation for faith.

According to Habermas, emotional doubt is the most painful, but it’s the least serious. In fact, emotional doubt is the only doubt that comes with pain. Factual doubt and volitional doubt don’t hurt, but emotional doubt does. Emotional doubters know the facts; they just have a hard time believing them due to an emotional view of the facts. They might think it’s too good to be true, or they might obsess over all the “what if’s” that they ultimately can’t answer anyway.

When you have the facts of a situation, but you still struggle with doubt, there’s probably an emotional, anxious, or obsessive cause to those doubts.

Emotional doubters usually ask similar questions to factual doubters, but they ask for different reasons.

For example, they might both ask for evidence of the resurrection, but one is genuinely looking for facts they don’t have, and the other is asking because they’re really wondering if it could be possible to be wrong.

Habermas says that one common characteristic of emotional doubt is when a question starts with “What if…”. The person asking a question like that probably knows the evidence, but they often wonder things like, “What if we’re wrong?”

But you could turn that around and say, “Do you have any reason to think we’re wrong?” People with emotional doubt tend to have general “what if” questions without evidence behind it. Their doubt is painful.

They might say things like, “It would be horrible to be wrong.” They might have fears about Jesus saying He never knew them or that they might still go to hell even though they’re saved. They might also obsess over questions like, “How do I know if I love God?” and other questions that can’t be backed by evidence.

Dr. Habermas says emotional doubters might include people who keep getting saved because they doubt their salvation. They just “know” they’re not saved even though they believe the gospel. It’s an emotional response to the data.

Another example of emotional doubt might be someone who has no problem believing that God exists, but emotionally they can’t come to grips with why God would allow evil to come into their lives. They’ve seen the facts, and the facts make sense, but they let their emotions dictate what they’re willing to believe.

The emotional doubter might say, “But what about hell? What is it, and who goes there? And how can it exist with a loving God?” These are questions that go beyond available human knowledge and therefore require faith.

This type of person has moved past the intellectual stage of doubting and into emotional doubting. They see the world the way it is, they’ve heard the explanation of why it is that way, yet they don’t want to believe it because of their emotions and past pain.

Let’s look at a couple of ways to overcome this type of doubt on the next part of this mini-series of Why Most Doubts About God Are Emotional, Not Intellectual.

[This article was an adaptation from my book Grounded Faith for Practical People. You can download it for free at MikePTaylor.net]

13 Good Historical Reasons For The Early Dating Of The Gospels

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

Skeptics like Bart Ehrman will use Apollonius of Tyana as a challenge to Jesus’ uniqueness. Apollonius lived in the first century. His birth was supernatural. He also performed miracles and appeared to people after his death. Sounds familiar, right? Critics will then conclude that the story of Jesus isn’t special.

Apologists will then retort that the Apollonius’ biography was written long after his death. It isn’t until about 100 years later that Philostratus wrote his biography. Therefore, the story we have about his life couldn’t be based on eyewitness testimony. But the Gospels are based on the accounts of witnesses.

And this is where critics will say “Oh really? The Gospels came long after Jesus’ death too!” For example, here’s Bart Ehrman:

“The very first surviving account of Jesus’ life was written thirty-five to forty years after his death. Our last canonical Gospel was written sixty to sixty-five years after his death. That’s obviously a lot of time.”

How Jesus Became God, pp 90

We know that Jesus died around 30-33 AD. But most contemporary scholars date Mark roughly around 70 AD. Matthew and Luke date to 80-90 AD. And John dates to 95-100 AD. We have this long chain of storytellers circulating stories about Jesus for decades. The tales grew in the telling. While the problem isn’t as bad as Philostratus’ bio of Apollonius, 40-75 years is a long enough time for legends to creep in.

The Main Reason Why Critics Give The Gospels A Later Date

So why do scholars date the gospels so late? There’s one big reason: Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. That happened in 70 AD. And we know predictive prophecy isn’t a real thing, so the Gospel authors must have put these words like these in Jesus’ mouth:

“…as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!” And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” (Mark 13:1-2)

“…when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.” (Luke 19:41-44)

Scholars call this ‘vaticinium ex eventu’. That means that the text is written so as to appear that the prophecy had taken place before the event, when in fact it was written after the events supposedly predicted.

Well, pardon me, Mr. Skeptic. It seems like your anti-supernatural bias is showing. While real examples of this exist in history, there are a few problems with this view in regard to the Olivet Discourse.

The Olivet Discourse Does Not = Late Dating

For starters, if the Gospels are late, why is there no emphasis on the fulfillment of Jesus’ predictions? Luke actually does this in Acts. Here’s a noteworthy example:

“Now in these days, prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world (this took place in the days of Claudius).” (Acts 11:27-28)

It’s odd that Luke went out of his way to emphasize a prophecy by such an obscure figure. Why would Luke capitalize on that, but not highlight a fulfilled prophecy about the main character of his story?

Furthermore, several of Jesus’ warnings about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple make no sense if Jesus gave them after the event. This is true of all three synoptic gospels.

“But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains…Pray that it may not happen in winter.” (Mark 13:14, 18)

Matthew adds: “Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath.” (Mt. 24:10)

And Luke writes: “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it...” (Luke 21:21)

The Romans destroyed the Temple in the Summer of 70 AD. It makes no sense for Luke to add a warning about not entering into Jerusalem if the city was already destroyed.

The Siege and Destruction of Jerusalem, by David Roberts (1850).

It is also baffling why Matthew or Mark would add commands to pray about something that didn’t take place at the particular time that it happened. New Testament scholar Dale Allison writes “What would be the point of inserting an imperative to pray about a past event, that does not take place at a particular time?”

13 Good Historical For The Early Dating Of The Gospels:

What about early dating? Are there any arguments that are in favor of it? Yep, there sure are. There’s a lot of things that are conspicuous by their absence when we look at Acts.

Luke was the first church historian. And Acts is the sequel to his own gospel, which he says he was careful to interview eyewitnesses about. (Luke 1:1-4) There’s a lot of interesting details we find out about life and (hard) times of the early church.

We read about the martyrdom of James the brother of John. (See Acts 12:1-3) We find out about the martyrdom of Stephen. (See Acts 7:56-60) We hear about the early church persecution of Peter and Paul. We follow Peter in the first half of the book, and then we get up close with Paul in the last half of the book.

There are some big events that are missing from Acts that you’d expect to find from such a thorough storyteller like Luke. We’ll now look at 13 reasons why scholars — even some non-conservative ones — date the Gospels earlier.

1. The Death Of Paul

At the end of Acts, Paul is under house arrest in Malta while having his own healing revival. Paul’s execution was in 62-64. After being Paul’s biographer for a huge portion of the book, this seems like a huge event for Luke to fail to mention. Luke has been keenly interested in what is going to happen to Paul. It’s unlikely that he’d cut his book’s narrative off without telling what happened in Paul’s hearing if he were writing much later.

Adolf von Harnack was a prominent German NT scholar who changed his mind on the late dating of the Gospels and Acts. His turnabout came precisely because of the ending of Acts and that Paul is still in Rome alive and preaching. Says Harnack: “we are accordingly left with the result: that the concluding verses of the Acts of the Apostles, taken in conjunction with the absence of any reference in the book to the result of the trial of St. Paul and to his martyrdom, make it to the highest degree possible that the work was written at a time when St. Paul’s trial had not yet come to an end.”

The Beheading of Saint Paul by Enrique Simonet, 1887

2. The Death Of Peter

Luke was also up close with Peter in Acts, so it’s also weird that he doesn’t mention Peter’s martyrdom in 65 AD. Again, we see Stephen and James the son of Zebedee’s deaths. Yet he fails to mention the death of the towering figure who preached on Pentecost and was such a pivotal figure in his gospel? It doesn’t add up.

3. The Death Of James The Brother Of Jesus

James was a huge figure in the church of Jerusalem. He looms large in Acts. He’s also Jesus’ brother. We know from the Jewish historian Josephus that James’ martyrdom took place in 62 AD. Josephus thought it was a big enough deal to describe this event, and he was no Christian.

4. The Severe Persecutions Of Nero

Nero himself was probably to blame for a large fire that broke out in Rome. What’s an emperor to do when his capital city is in flames and it’s his own fault? Blame those weird Christians, of course.

This happened around 64 AD. We can read about it in some detail in Tacitus. It’s a strange thing for Luke not to mention this. Luke mentions the church’s persecution in other places, like Jerusalem, Phillipi, Ephesus and more places. Luke also at length discusses relief efforts for the impoverished saints in Jerusalem during a famine.

But he doesn’t mention one of the more gruesome persecutions of the time?

5. The Destruction Of The Temple And The Second Coming

This might be the most convincing proof of them all. The passages in Matthew that describe the destruction of Jerusalem and Jesus’ second coming seemingly leave no time between the two events. Reading Mark and Luke, the interval between the two events is brief. Skeptics like Bertrand Russell and Bart Ehrman have been quick to pounce on this as if Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet.

I’m not here to give a theological explanation, although many have been offered throughout the centuries. The association of the destruction of Jerusalem with the return of Jesus wouldn’t exist if the composition of the Gospels was after the destruction of the Temple. Surely there would’ve been some explanation or indication that the two events were not to stand in so close juxtaposition.

6. Luke Was True To His Times

Luke has a lot to say about issues of the day that wouldn’t have been relevant after the destruction of Jerusalem. For instance, there was the brouhaha about how to deal with Gentiles now being members of the church. There’s also mention of the division between the Palestinian and Hellenistic Jews. These would not be relevant after Jerusalem’s destruction. Disputes like these are absent in the writings of early church fathers.

7. Paul Quotes Luke As Scripture

The letters to Timothy proceeded Paul’s death. Paul writes:

The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” (1 Tim. 5:17–18)

Paul quotes Deuteronomy alongside Luke. This saying is in Luke 10:7. Scriptures refer to something written down, so this goes beyond oral tradition. This takes for granted that they had familiarity with what Scriptures Paul was talking about.

I understand some critics say Paul didn’t write 1 Timothy. But I’d humbly argue that they are incorrect in their assessment. The main reasons to reject Pauline authorship are thin, as I cover here.

8. Jesus Approves Of The Temple Tax

NT scholar Robert Gundry tells why this is so significant:

“The distinctive passage [of Matthew 17:24–27] teaches that Jewish Christians should not contribute to their fellow Jews’ rejection of the gospel by refusing to pay the Temple tax. This exhortation not only shows Matthew’s concern to win Jews. It specifically favors a date of writing before AD 70; for after the destruction of God’s temple in Jerusalem the Romans shifted the tax to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome (Josephus J.W. 7.6.6 §218; Dio Cassius 65.7; Suetonius Dom. 12), and m. Šeqal. 8.8 says that the laws concerning “the Shekel dues…apply only such time as the Temple stands...

Surely Matthew does not include this passage to support the upkeep of a pagan temple, for then the argument implies that the disciples are sons of the pagan god! Nor can we suppose that Matthew is urging Jewish Christians to support the school of pharisaical rabbis that formed in Jamnia yet during the aftermath of the Jewish rebellion, for he excoriates the Pharisees throughout his Gospel. The argument from 17:24–27 for an early date gains further cogency from the evidence that Matthew himself composed the passage.“

9. Swearing By The Temple

In Matthew 23:16-22, Jesus is excoriating the scribes and Pharisees. He says:

“Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by Him who dwells in it. And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it.“

This text makes as much sense as me talking to a Gen Z audience about slide projectors or phone booths. Unless the temple still stood, all of these practices would be antiquated.

10 Gift At The Altar

In Matthew 5:23-24 we read “So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First, be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.”

It could be the case that Matthew was faithfully passing on a saying of Jesus, but it doesn’t make as much sense for Matthew to relay it for the very important reason that no one could obey it if the temple was no longer standing!

11. Jewish Persecution

If Matt 23:34 is reflecting current Jewish persecution of Christians by the synagogue, the verse implies an authority to punish that Jewish leaders did not likely have after the temple destruction.

12. Patristic Evidence

Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp. Polycarp was a student of John. Therefore Irenaeus was in a position to know about the composition of the Gospels. In his book Against Heresies, he writes: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” (3.1)

That’s interesting. The internal evidence we have for the early dating of the Gospels now matches the external dating.

13. Who Was The Unnamed Disciple Who Was “Famous In The Gospel?”

2 Corinthians 8:18-19 speaks of a famous unnamed disciple that several church fathers (Origen, Jerome) and some commentators believe is referring to Luke.

“We have sent along with him the brother whose fame in the things of the gospel has spread through all the churches and not only this, but he has also been appointed by the churches to travel with us in this gracious work…”

The commentator Barnes observes

“…Luke was the companion and intimate friend of Paul and attended him in his travels. From Acts 16:10-11, where Luke uses the term “we,” it appears that he was with Paul when he first went into Macedonia, and from Acts 16:15 it is clear that he went with Paul to Philippi. From Acts 17:1, where Luke alters his style and uses the term “they,” it is evident that he did not accompany Paul and Silas when they went to Thessalonica, but either remained at Philippi or departed to some other place.

He did not join them again until they went to Troas on the way to Jerusalem; Acts 20:5. In what manner Luke spent the interval is not known…it seems probable that Luke is the person referred to by the phrase “whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches.” This would be more likely to be applied to one who had written a gospel, or a life of the Redeemer that had been extensively circulated, than to any other person.“

While this is admittedly speculative, it does make sense of Paul quoting Luke’s gospel.

The Gospels Were Written Early

NT scholar EP Sanders writes that “there is no material in Mark which must be dated after 70.” If that’s true of Mark, it’s true of Matthew and Luke as well. And if Acts was written before Paul’s death, that means the Gospel of Luke was written when Paul was still alive and kicking. We’ve seen that Paul quotes Luke as scripture. And history tells us Paul died in 62 AD.

There are also several indicators that Matthew’s Gospel was written before 70 AD as well. If both Gospel writers used Mark as a source, then Mark has to be dated even earlier than 62 AD. That means this alleged time-gap has been greatly shortened 40-60 years to 20-30 years. If Paul refers to Luke in 2 Corinthians, then his Gospel was being circulated before 55 AD.

Furthermore, if Paul quotes Luke’s Gospel as scripture, and Paul has met with Peter and James — who were living eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus — then it’s not difficult to imagine the other apostles were aware of the written Gospels as well. They could have policed and addressed necessary correctives if they were inaccurate, and they also could have been sources for the Gospels. We know that the church father Papias (125-130 AD) tells us that Mark’s Gospel was based on Peter’s preaching.

This doesn’t compare to the legend of Apollonius after all. They are close to the events.

The Impact of Divine Omnipresence to a Believer’s Life and Beyond

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

While God used apologetics to bring me back to faith, God uses theology to humble, awe, and comfort me before his amazing presence. Theology is a passion of mine. My resume will show how much I love theology. As I mentioned in a previous post, I realized that schools hiring teachers desire applicants to possess 18 hours of graduate study in a chosen field. Curious as to what hours I held, I began to investigate how many hours I possess in different fields. I realized that by the time I finish my Ph.D., I will carry 30 hours of theological study. I guess you could call me an overachiever. I certainly don’t say this to sound braggadocios. I merely mention this to note the great impact theology has made in my life.

Even while I have devoted much of my time to theological studies, I still find the words of Dr. Daniel Mitchell, Professor of Theology at Liberty University, to ring true, “The more we study God, the bigger God becomes.” I asked him about what he meant by that statement in a class that I had with him. Mitchell noted that he did not mean to say that we make God bigger in our imaginations, but rather we begin to understand how big God truly is the more we study him. When we understand the grandeur of God, our worries tend to fade away in the warm, strong arms of God.

One divine attribute that provides both awe and serenity is God’s divine omnipresence. The word omnus means “all.” We all understand what the term presence means. Thus, God has the capacity to be in all places at all points of time. There is not a place where God’s presence is not found. Scripture indicates the omnipresent nature of God in many locations, but it is most explicitly found in Psalm 139. David writes as he speaks to God,

“Where can I go to escape your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there. If I live at the eastern horizon or settle at the western limits, even there your hand will lead me. If I say, ‘Surely the darkness will hide me, and the light around me will be night’—even the darkness is not dark to you. The night shines like the day; darkness and light are alike to you” (Ps. 139:7–12, CSB).

From the text at hand, God is shown to be present in every location at the same point in time. Wayne Grudem defines God’s omnipresence as the following: “God does not have size or spatial dimensions and is present at every point of space with his whole being, yet God acts differently in different places” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 173). Divine omnipresence impacts the believer in multiple ways, but for the sake of space, I will concentrate on only five.

God is with you when no one else can be. Often, people feel alone. Widowers who lost their spouses may feel an overwhelming sense of loss. When my wife left on a business trip, I was overwhelmed with the sense of loneliness that overtook me, even if for a little while. People who must reside in assisted living homes or nursing facilities may feel like they are the loneliest people on earth. However, when we understand God’s omnipresent nature, we understand that none of us are ever truly alone. God promises that he will be with you now and for all eternity. Jesus says, “And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20, CSB). God promised Abraham to be with him, saying, “Look, I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go” (Gen. 28:15, CSB). God’s presence accompanies us wherever we may go. This is only possible because of God’s omnipresent nature.
God is with your loved ones when you cannot. God’s omnipresent nature holds that God can protect your loved ones from afar. Israel (aka., Jacob) told his son Joseph that he knew that God would look after him even though he was about to die (Gen. 48:21). Consider also the Roman centurion. He had faith that Jesus could heal his servant even when Jesus was not present (Matt. 8:5–14). The centurion had faith in God’s omnipresent power to heal. Perhaps this was one of the things that startled Jesus about the depth of the centurion’s faith. Even when you are not present with your family members, God is. God can help those who suffer in distant areas far greater than you or I ever could.
God is with your loved ones who have already passed. God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exodus 3:6). Jesus uses this argument to defend the reality of the afterlife (Matt. 22:32). Jesus understood that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still alive in the spiritual watch care of God. Some of your loved ones may have died. However, with God, death has died. For those who died in Christ, they live in eternity. This indicates that God is with our loved ones in eternity. If we grasped this reality, even the fear of death dies in the omnipresent love of God.
God is working in creation even when you cannot see it. God is beyond the scope of creation but is always working in creation (Ps. 147:4). God is the One who established the sun, the moon, the stars, the galaxies, and even the universe itself (Jer. 31:35). God’s omnipresent nature indicates that he is in all places at all times in the universe and even beyond the universe. He does not depend on the universe, but the universe depends on God. There is not a molecular change in the far reaches of the universe that leaves God unaware. God knows when, if, how, and where the star Betelgeuse will explode into a supernova or transform into a neutron star.
God’s presence is with the believer in a personal fashion. While God is everywhere, God personally relates to those who receive Christ (John 5:38; 8:31; 15:4-9). Consider this: The God of all creation—the transcendent, magnificent, holy, righteous, loving, omnipresent Creator of all things—desires to have a relationship with you. Oh, that is so profound yet so difficult to grasp. What would God desire to love someone like us? I don’t know. But God does.

I write this being unaware of what you the reader faces as you read this post. But the amazing facet of this divine attribute is that no matter where you are, God is there with you. Paul said to the Athenians at the Areopagus that God had established from one man every person, nation, and language. God established boundaries and determined appointed times and seasons. God did this, Paul says, “so that they might seek God, and perhaps they might reach out and find him, though he is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27, CSB). Amazingly, God has blessed Bellator Christi Ministries to reach almost all the nations on our beloved Earth. No matter where you may be reading this, God is near you. God is willing to receive your worship. God is willing to forgive you by the sacrifice that Jesus made on your behalf. By his omnipresent nature, God can fill you with God’s Spirit. God is with you. God is always near you. What could be better than that?

Is Hell Torment or Torture and Is there a Difference?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Making a case for Christianity can be challenging in this secular culture. And what can be more challenging than explaining –no, than defending – the existence of a place of eternal punishment? It’s easy to be placed on the defensive, with an aggressive challenger deriding how a good and loving God could be so vindictive or petty as to subject his children to eternal torture simply because they didn’t “believe” the right things.

But Jesus himself repeatedly spoke of Hell, so however difficult a conversation, it is one we cannot evade. Indeed, in some passages, Jesus likened Hell to the perpetual fires burning in the garbage dump outside Jerusalem, in the place called Gehenna. The Book of Revelation leaves us with the jarring image of the lake of burning fire, a place of perpetual torment.

Is the challenger, right? Is Hell, in fact, some arena of sadism in which a cruel and unloving God derives pleasure by inventing ways to torture his children? Or can we make sense of it, at least intellectually, if not emotionally?

The first step in assessing this issue is to tease out the underlying assumption that is at play. If God actively causes someone to burn eternally, if He inflicts agony upon the souls in Hell, then yes, we would have to concede that this would be torture. The real issue, then, is whether God does those things to the souls in Hell, or whether those lost souls experience an everlasting torment that is a consequence – and not a separate goal – of the fact that they are in Hell.

An example may help place this in focus. In the Civil War, doctors treated most bullet wounds to an arm or leg by amputating the limb, no doubt an excruciating experience in the days before anesthetics. But these actions were done not to torture the patient but to accomplish some good purpose – namely, to save him. The patient no doubt felt tormented, but this was a natural consequence of the necessary action that was taken; it would not be fair to say the doctor had engaged in torture. On the other hand, if one side had taken perfectly healthy prisoners of war and amputated a limb to inflict pain, either to coerce cooperation or as a method of terror, this would indeed be torture. Similarly, if a modern surgeon decided to amputate without anesthetics, it would be fair to characterize such actions as torture.

With this distinction in mind, we must next consider whether Hell serves a legitimate purpose. Christians contend that God is all good and that whatever He creates must also be good. Hell is a place – or perhaps more precisely a state – of separation He has created for those deserving of such separation. And who is deserving of separation? Well, if we take God at His word, it is for those who die in rebellion against Him, who, through their thoughts and actions, have asked for that separation. This is intuitively understandable: a parent may seek separation from a rebellious child without wishing to inflict pain upon them. The judge who grants a restraining order, or who imprisons the offspring guilty of elder abuse, accomplishes a purpose that is in no way similar to inflicting torture.

Let’s take this analogy a step further. Imagine that the rebellious offspring insists on living in his parents’ home while refusing to follow any of the rules. Or commits a crime against his parents and is sentenced to prison? The prison sentence is meant to separate the abuser from society, and separating him in this fashion is indeed a form of punishment. But the punishment we speak of is, in essence, the incarceration, the very same act that accomplishes the separation. We do not first separate the wrongdoer from society and then inflict additional punishment; there are no medieval tortures that await the prisoner, no mistreatment that is deliberately inflicted to further the pain the inmate feels, no chain gang to make his daily life unbearable. In a very real sense, the punishment is the product of the incarceration, not an additional purpose.

Now let’s move to the final step. God does not inflict temporal separation or temporal punishment, as in the example of a prison sentence. He is an eternal being, and He made us for eternity as well. And when you grasp that distinction, you can begin to see that forcible separation from God is the absolute worst thing that can befall any soul. There is nothing more to be done, nothing that could increase the pain that such a soul would experience. By the same token, however, there is nothing to be done that would lessen that pain, short of the annihilation of that person. There is no way to make separation from the source of all that is good, more bearable.

Why is this so? Well, consider for a moment of what the pain of separation consists. Do you remember your first love? Or the way you felt when you beheld your first child? Or reuniting with your spouse after a period apart? Conversely, can you recall the first time you felt lost and alone, or were homesick or the first time you experienced the death of a close loved one? Even for the most hardened of criminals, there are people to whom they are attached, with whom they wish to spend time, even if they are simply fellow inmates. These others have some quality, some attribute, which makes them attractive, makes them desired. That is why solitary confinement is such an extreme form of punishment. We were not meant for isolation; however, hardened and lost a person may appear.

Now magnify these feelings – not by a hundred, a thousand, or even a billion, but by infinity, and by eternity. Why should this be so? Because God is… perfection…absolute, unlimited, infinite perfection, the kind that we as human beings, cannot even begin to fathom. Start to get the picture? If the goodness and beauty of the people we love can cause us such torment when we face separation from them, and if that goodness is a mere shadow of the infinite perfection of God, that I shudder to imagine what knowing but not be able to experience God would be like.

Consider finally then the soul in the abyss, facing eternal separation and eternal alone-ness, isolated and embittered, aware of but forcibly separated from the God against whom his rebellion rages? What a human being feels on a limited and temporal basis, such a soul feels magnified an infinity of times. And he is not contemplating separation from a limited and flawed human being, but from the source of all life, all goodness, all joy. Can we even find words to describe what infinite emptiness feels like?

No, God does not actively torture souls in Hell. But he does not change His nature to suit those who shake their fist at Him, who reject the offer He is extending. The separation that He imposes, just though it is, is indeed terrifying.

But it is not torture. It is the nature of things.

Richard Dawkins’ Warnings Of A Godless Society

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

It was brought to my attention a few weeks ago that the notorious atheist Richard Dawkins may be changing his tune regarding the necessity of belief in God in human society (click or tap text to see the article). I do recall hearing winds of this change a couple of years ago when he seemed to make a distinction between the religions of Islam (threatening) and Christianity (benign). It seems that Dawkins recognizes that without the belief that people will be held responsible to a higher power, those people who are in power (the State) will push society further and further into harmful and devastating behaviors, but he recognizes the dangers of certain theistic religions. Dawkins seems concerned that without the (false on his view) belief that the Christian God exists, then society will crumble, yet with the (also false on his view) belief that the Islamic god exists, then society will be destroyed. Dawkins seems to be now telling people to not be concerned with what is true, but be concerned with what is pragmatic. Unfortunately, this is nothing new and seems to have been the strategy of many States for quite some time. Allow me to explain.

Theism vs. The State

If God is the source of all moral duties and obligations, then the State can not be. Thus if a State wishes to legislate moral obligations (such as that people who offer a service are morally obligated to act against their moral conscience) or freedoms (such as pedophilia), then State must eradicate God from the conscience of those it governs. With God still in the cultural picture, there is an Authority to which the government is subject and is obligated to align laws with. However, if no God exists (or a State’s citizens do not recognize that God exists), then the State has no one and nothing to challenge its authority or the laws it legislates. Without any external source (God) for the citizens to hold the State accountable to, the State’s authority and legal commands will be understood as absolute.

Such a view is encouraged by the State through the promises of the legalization of many people’s sinful desires. Everything from autonomous sexual freedom to drug use is dangled in front of the populace to entice them to rid their worldview of a God that is a “party pooper.” For the State knows that with the eviction of God from the cultural mindset to allow people to explore their wildest and most debauched fantasies also goes the God that would place limitations on the State to control the masses.

No God, No Legitimate Reformations

While many atheists would have no problem with (even a belief in) God having no part in government (“separation of Church and State” and all), there are some serious consequences that some atheists (including Dawkins) have detected and are warning against. For instance, the reformer has nothing to appeal to in order to demand change in the government. Great reformers, such as those who challenged the government’s permitting the owning of slaves, would ironically be standing in the wrong and would have no objective grounding on which to stand against the government. In such a world, the State is a god; no one has any grounds to challenge it; it maintains absolute authority. If there is no external source for morality to hold the government accountable to, then no reformation should ever take place. If such a world truly existed (one without God), then Africans could still be enslaved in America today.

No God, No Legitimate Changes at All

If the State already legislates, executes, and adjudicates according to an individual atheist’s ideas of “right” and “wrong,” then things are okay with that particular atheist. However, if the State does not align with the atheist’s ideas of “right” and “wrong” 100%, it would be wrong (on the view that there is not God- that government is the absolute moral authority) for the atheist to attempt to change the State’s position on anything, for submitting to the absolute authority of the State is legally (not “morally” since morality is not objective on this view) obligatory. If the State is the absolute authority for how its citizens should act, then if the State is Christianized (or becomes a theocracy), then the atheist is legally obligated to act according to the laws and not attempt reform government. Again, to attempt to reform would be a violation of the legal obligation to submit to the absolute moral authority of the State.

Ironically, when a naturalist stands against the State today, they are in violation of this legal obligation. If the State were to criminalize abortion, the atheist would be legally obligated to comply. In a socialist country, the capitalist would be the criminal for standing against socialism, and in a capitalist country, the socialist would be the criminal for standing against capitalism.

Yet Changes and Reformations Abound And More Are Attempted

This type of world is quite scary for both atheist and theist alike. Neither truly believes that the State is the ultimate authority of morality. This is evidenced by both sides’ reservation of the right to attempt to reform the State should a law be legislated that does not align with their idea of right or wrong. Ironically for the atheist (but consistent with the theist), God (as the objective standard of morality) must exist for the reservation of that right to be legitimately justified. I’m not saying that the atheist cannot exercise this right, but they have no foundation for it in their own worldview; they must borrow from the theistic worldview to justify any governmental change or reformation.

Politicians Are Already Steps Ahead of Us

We see almost daily how politicians throughout our government are working diligently to remove God from the culture. When they accomplish this, their citizens will have no choice but to submit and never attempt to change or reform the government.

This is nothing new. Politicians have been working at the grassroots level with our education system for decades. By trying to eradicate God, they not only take away any moral authority over the State, they also eliminate any ability to ground reasoning or to have knowledge. So, even if someone decided to challenge the State, they could never use reasoning or claim to have knowledge that the State’s position was objectively wrong. I go into more details of this in my post, “Is Education Overrated?“

An Even More Dangerous Game

With the destruction of reasoning and knowledge, we will see another devastating and logical implication of eliminating God- the destruction of the academy. Without knowledge even being possible, all knowledge disciplines are ultimately useless. If a would-be reformer were to use the knowledge disciplines to evidentially challenge the State, it would be pointless, for the reformer could not lay claim to having knowledge from any discipline. Further, without a grounding for logic, they could not even reason from the evidence to the guilt of the State and the need for change or reformation.

When I see politicians trying to remove God from America, I see them setting up their dictatorship in my back yard. This should not just concern theists, but it should (and does) concern atheists alike. We have to remember that there is no single “atheistic” ethic or belief, so the chances that the views of the one who is in charge aligning with that of any other atheist in this country are slim. Most atheists will desire reform, but they not only have a legal obligation not to challenge the State, they would not have any moral, evidential or logical grounds on which to do so.

Conclusion

With atheists such as Richard Dawkins now telling us that while theism is false, we cannot remove it from society, there is a great deal of irony and even absurdity. They recognize that atheism is not a livable worldview for society, and they recognize that in order to survive, we must believe something that is false (theism, on their view). If, in order to survive, we must believe what is false about the world we live in, then how can they claim that what they have come to believe, in order to survive, is true? If atheism is true, then knowledge is an absurd concept, and no one can claim to know anything true about our world, and worse off, we have reason to doubt everything that someone else tells us is true!
Ironically, Richard Dawkins, by his own recognition that God is not just a “useful fiction” but a “necessary fiction” for the very survival of society, has given us every reason to toss his entire life’s work (everything from his scientific research to his philosophy of atheism) into the garbage can! At this point, if Richard Dawkins wants to salvage any portion of his life’s work, he needs to recognize the existence of God (and not just any god but the Christian God) and do what he can to reconcile God’s existence with his work in biology and biochemistry (maybe recognize that nature appears and measures to be designed because it is designed); but his atheism is a failed hypothesis no matter which way he goes. Interestingly enough, Richard Dawkins is making the case against his own atheism using the immorality of modern culture. To understand this argument better, check out this video from Reasonable Faith and the links to books below:

The Death of Judas: A Hopeless Bible Contradiction?

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

Skeptics accuse Christians of not paying attention while they’re reading their Bible. If they didn’t rush through their daily devotional, they’d catch some obvious contradictions. One of the more famous of these contradictions is the two accounts of the death of Judas. Here’s Biblical scholar and critic Bart Ehrman:

“The two reports give different accounts of how Judas died. However mysterious it may be to say he fell headlong and burst open, at least that is not “hanging” oneself. And they are flat out contradictory on two other points: who purchased the field (the priests, as per Matthew, or Judas, as per Acts?) and why the field was called the field of blood (because it was purchased with blood money, as Matthew says, or because Judas bled all over it, as Acts says?”

Jesus, Interrupted p. 53

Ouch. Both of these accounts can’t be reconciled. Or can they?

Reading the Texts

Let’s read the passages for ourselves. Here’s Matthew’s account:

“Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself.

But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury since it is blood money.” So, they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. Therefore, that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.” –Matthew 27:3-8

And here’s Luke’s version:

“Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness and falling headlong he burst open in the middle, and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.” — Acts 1:18-19

One Proposed Solution from A Scholar

Noted New Testament Scholar I. Howard Marshall suggests the following solution:

Judas hanged himself (Matthew.), but the rope broke, and his body was ruptured by the fall (possibly after he was already dead and beginning to decompose).
What the priests bought with Judas’ money (Matt.) could be regarded as his purchase by their agency. (Acts)
The field bought by the priests (Matt.) was the one where Judas died. (Acts)

Now you might say that this scenario smacks of harmonization, but is it really all that implausible? Let’s think about it for a sec.

Dealing with Judas’ Death

Judging by the text, Matthew seems to focus on Judas’ suicide. Luke’s focus is on the final state of Judas’ body. According to Jewish laws and customs, the Jews would not have wanted to go near a dead body. (Numbers 19.11) This would be especially true when that dead body belonged to a traitor.

But how would someone who hanged himself have their guts burst out? This gruesome story doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. Or does it? The Textbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology says:

“Between 3 and 7 days, ever-increasing pressure of the putrefying gases associated with colliquative changes in the soft tissues may lead to softening of the abnormal parietes resulting in bursting open the abdomen and thorax.”

P. 91

So, we actually do have some medical data that fits with what we read in Matthew and Luke. Someone eventually cutting Judas’ corpse down, or the rope giving out, would explain how his body would have burst on the ground. Therefore, Matthew and Luke aren’t contradictory; they’re better viewed as complimentary. Each account ties up a loose end of the other.

There are also cliffs that overlook the valley of Hinnom. Those cliffs could very well be the place where Judas hanged himself, and his dead body fell. Falling against the rocks, this could explain why he fell facedown.

But What About the Field Bought by The Priests?

Jewish law says that it was wrong for the priests to keep Judas’ blood money. (Numbers 35:31) Why then was it OK for them to buy a field with it? Luke’s story gives us a possible answer: it wasn’t. That’s why the priest bought the field in Judas’s name.

The priests were acting as intermediaries. Them purchasing the field in Judas’ name was as if Judas bought it himself. You might say this is special pleading, but we see this elsewhere throughout the Gospels. See for yourself:

Matthew 27:59-60 “And Joseph (of Arimathea) took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had cut in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb and went away.”

Did Joseph, a rich man and a member of the Sanhedrin, bury Jesus himself? No, he had his servants do it.

Mark 15:15“So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.”

Did Pilate, a Roman prefect, grab a whip and get himself bloody scourging Jesus by himself? Again, the answer is obviously no. He sent his soldiers to do it.

John 4:1-2“Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples)”

Here John says that Jesus was baptizing more disciples than John but then stops to clarify that Jesus didn’t himself baptize; it was the disciples. This type of “representation” speech is also found in the alleged contradiction of the healing of the Roman Centurion’s servant, which I wrote about here.

Plus, the priests had the motivation to do this. It avoids the paper trail that ties them to buying a field with blood money. This would have been a ritual impurity for all the public to have seen.

The Death of Judas: Not A Hopeless Bible Contradiction.

You might say this is all conjecture. But it’s impossible to avoid conjecture if you want to suggest what may have happened. But a classical historian wouldn’t see these discrepancies and be troubled by them. We have a strong historical tradition of the death of Jesus’ betrayer. And we have an event associated with a specific field named. These differences don’t undermine their historical value.

Notice also that each Gospel writer’s account is consistent with their profession. As a tax collector, Matthew is interested in legal and financial details that are involved with Judas’ death. He’s the only gospel writer that talks about the thirty pieces of silver. Luke’s a physician. He gives us more of an autopsy report.

These accounts aren’t hopelessly contradictory. In fact, they complement each other quite nicely.

Are Pro-Lifers Who Own Guns Hypocrites?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Nathan Apodaca

Another assertion has become commonplace in discussions of abortion. Pro-lifers who own firearms, or support military actions abroad are misled at best, and at worst, hypocrites. The critic assumes that any inconsistently held pro-life beliefs are evidence pro-lifers aren’t actually motivated by a desire to protect human life, but rather a desire to control women’s liberty. This line of criticism lacks substance and misunderstands both the essential pro-life position as well as why people support gun rights or particular military actions.

Suppose for a moment it’s true that the vast majority of pro-lifers are hypocritical in how they hold their views on protecting life across various issues. Would that supposition invalidate the pro-life position as a whole? The essential pro-life argument is as follows:

It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings
Elective Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings
Therefore, elective abortion is wrong.

If the premises are true (and there’s good reason to believe they are) and the conclusion logically follows, then the argument is sound. Would a subset of the pro-life community being hypocrites demonstrate that either premise is untrue? Of course not. Neither the wrongness of killing innocent human beings nor the nature of abortion and its victims are in any way impacted by whether some pro-life advocates behave inconsistently toward life in regards to the views they champion.

In fact, this is little more than a personal attack. It’s highly unlikely that if the moral consistency of particular pro-lifers changed overnight, these critics would then drop their support for abortion. It’s a smokescreen, an attempt to poison the well of the pro-life cause, not an actual rebuttal of the above argument.

Guns Protect Life

That being said, the claim that supporting gun rights or military service is inconsistent with the pro-life view is mistaken. As philosopher Tim Hsaio points out, self-defense is an extension of the right to life, intrinsic to all human beings. Since all human beings have the natural (intrinsic or God-given) right to life, then it is perfectly just for human beings to take steps to prevent themselves from being victimized by those with an evil intent. Writes Hsaio,

“Now since the purpose of a right is to protect my well-being, the possession of a right entitles me to protect that which I have a right to. Thus, if I possess the right to life, then I must also possess the corresponding right to secure or protect my life. I must, in other words, possess the right to self-defense. The right to self-defense follows immediately from the right to life—in fact, the right to self-defense is an integral part of the right to life itself. It is what gives substance to the right to life.”[1]

Remember, the reason abortion is wrong is because it intentionally kills an innocent human being. The vast majority of Americans who purchase firearms do not do so for the purpose of going out and intentionally killing innocent human beings, but for self-defense purposes or for protecting friends and family from those with wicked intentions.

What About Military Service?

Military action is a bit more complicated but still serves as a further extension of this principle. Being a service-member myself (Going on six years as a Cavalry Scout in the Army National Guard) I have received the question on numerous occasions, why do I oppose abortion if I am engaged in a line of work where my job is predicated upon the taking of human life?

The question ultimately relies on a confusion of moral principles. Remember, pro-lifers oppose elective abortion because it intentionally takes the life of innocent human beings. We could be mistaken in that claim, but that doesn’t necessarily make us inconsistent if we support or serve in the Armed Forces. It’s impossible to find a valid comparison between an ISIS fighter or a Nazi executioner and an unborn child. It’s not even worth pondering.

The ethics of warfare are complex and involve a great amount of moral ambiguity, but at their core are the same basic principles which underlie both the pro-life position and self-defense. Just as a toddler cannot adequately exercise the ability to defend their life or well-being, and therefore needs an adult (such as a parent) to fill this role, governments must protect the lives of citizens against immoral aggressors such as foreign states and terror groups. This is why we have police, intelligence services, and the military provided by civil government.

Debates over the ethics of contemporary military actions abroad usually come down to finer details about how to effectively engage enemy combatants and achieve victory with minimal loss of innocent life. While a military commander may foresee the loss of life on the battlefield, this in no way makes a conflict inherently immoral, provided steps are taken to mitigate the loss of life without compromising the overall mission. For instance, the introduction of laser-guided weaponry, thermal imaging, communications, and better surveillance/reconnaissance equipment has been a major boon towards limiting the risk to civilians(and friendly forces) caught in the crossfire of a battle.[2]

Even when an attack or war is being fought for justified reasons, the loss of innocent human life can sometimes be unavoidable. For instance, during the D-Day landings in Normandy, due to uncontrollable circumstances such as bad weather, enemy anti-aircraft fire, and other factors, Allied bombers often overshot their objectives and accidentally bombed civilian centers as well as Allied fighting positions.[3][4] While undoubtedly tragic, few would argue that the invasion would have been inherently unjust unless no civilian lives were lost. In war, a variety of unseen and unavoidable variables can pop-up in an instant and impact battlefield decision making. The advent of modern military technologies helps, but similar problems can still impact the battlespace resulting in tragedy. Communications errors, equipment failures, bad intelligence, and unethical behavior on the part of soldiers sometimes tragically lead to unintended results in conflict. Fatigue and cynicism can also play a role. Decision making on the battlefield changes within split seconds while still being guided by the commander’s intent, which is guided by an overall strategy and “big picture” mission of friendly forces. All of these safeguards can’t prevent the occasional unethical and immoral behavior (human beings aren’t basically good), which is why a clearly defined Rules of Engagement (ROE for shorthand) and Uniform Code of Military Justice are essential for a morally upright military. In the circumstances where soldiers behave unethically or even wickedly towards non-combatants, the military justice system corrects and punishes bad behavior, while promoting and honoring good behavior on the parts of service-members. Leaders should model good behavior and combat bad behavior within the ranks. As retired Marine Corps General James Mattis poignantly puts it, people should know that they have no better friend and no worse enemy “than a United States Marine.” The same is true for the rest of the Armed Services.

As Army Major Pete Hegseth points out, by and large, it has been the United States military (with help from countless invaluable allies worldwide), which has promoted stability, justice, and peace at home and abroad by serving as a sort of world sheriff.[5] Perfect, no, but until a better alternative presents itself, those who love justice shouldn’t feel ashamed for supporting the United States military. As the noted British historian Andrew Roberts argues, when the United States military is weak, wicked men like Adolf Hitler are able to make growing threats to the lives of millions of marginalized people; however, when the American military is strong, even oppressive superpowers like the Soviet Union are forced to tread carefully.[6]

The decision to engage in conflict must be guided by sound moral principles, which includes considering the possible unintended consequences of one’s decision. Good intentions alone are not good enough.

Conclusion

In light of this, pro-lifers are not hypocritical to support either gun ownership or armed conflict provided both are guided by sound moral reasoning. Debates over both are a sign of healthy functioning social conscience.

However, the debate over abortion has nothing to do with what sort of human beings pro-lifers are; it has everything to do with whether the unborn are human, and will be granted recognition as fellow members of the human family. Debates over the Ethics of war, capital punishment, and gun ownership are ultimately irrelevant to the humanity of the unborn and the inhumanity of abortion.

Notes

[1] Hsiao, Tim “Natural Rights, Self-Defense, and the Right to Own Firearms,” The Public Discourse https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/10/42765/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_bomb

[3] United States Army, “Invasion of Normandy” https://history.army.mil/brochures/normandy/nor-pam.htm

[4] Beevor, Antony D-Day: The Battle for Normandy

[5] Maj. Hegseth, Peter “Who Should Win the Nobel Peace Prize?” PragerUniversity, Nov 11, 2019

[6] Roberts, Andrew “Why America’s Military Must Be Strong” PragerUniversity, May 26, 2014

Tag Archive for: Christianity

White-Knuckling It

Can Attraction Be Sinful?

Romans 1: It All Starts With a Lie

Freedom In Christ

Recommended resources related to the topic:

How to Deal with Emotional Doubt

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Jorge Gil: Next Gen Apologist to the World

Stopped

Detention: Part One

Detention: Part Two

El Director

Hombre de Dios

Out of the Trenches

Recommended resources related to the topic:

3 Types of Doubt

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Main Reason Why Critics Give The Gospels A Later Date

The Olivet Discourse Does Not = Late Dating

13 Good Historical For The Early Dating Of The Gospels:

1. The Death Of Paul

2. The Death Of Peter

3. The Death Of James The Brother Of Jesus

4. The Severe Persecutions Of Nero

5. The Destruction Of The Temple And The Second Coming

6. Luke Was True To His Times

7. Paul Quotes Luke As Scripture

8. Jesus Approves Of The Temple Tax

9. Swearing By The Temple

10 Gift At The Altar

11. Jewish Persecution

12. Patristic Evidence

13. Who Was The Unnamed Disciple Who Was “Famous In The Gospel?”

The Gospels Were Written Early

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction

Theism vs. The State

No God, No Legitimate Reformations

No God, No Legitimate Changes at All

Yet Changes and Reformations Abound And More Are Attempted

Politicians Are Already Steps Ahead of Us

An Even More Dangerous Game

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Reading the Texts

One Proposed Solution from A Scholar

Dealing with Judas’ Death

But What About the Field Bought by The Priests?

The Death of Judas: Not A Hopeless Bible Contradiction.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Guns Protect Life

What About Military Service?

Conclusion

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic: