Tag Archive for: Christianity

How to Spot a Kant in Sheep’s Clothing

,

One of the ways you will find philosophy professors denying Christ is through an appeal to Kantian ethics. Kant’s ethical theory uses many positive-sounding words that appeal to our moral intuitions. Yet, when we examine the content, we find that Kant was opposed to Christ as revealed in Scripture. Instead, he sought to elevate the individual’s moral intuitions as the highest authority, and even above the Bible.

 

I know of professors who lure students in by claiming to be Christians, but then play a shell game: they subtly replace Christianity with Kantianism, and then argue that the Bible and Christianity are false because they contradict their moral intuitions.

Kant’s Ethics

Permit me to give you a brief overview of Kantianism. Immanuel Kant sought to ground ethics not in religion or divine revelation, but in human reason alone. His project was part of the broader Enlightenment goal of establishing a rational foundation for morality that could be universally valid, independent of theological commitments. By itself, that all sounds great. But once we begin to ask what Kant meant by terms like “reason” and “summum bonun,” we run into deep problems. Here’s how he approached it:

1. Moral Law from Within, Not from Above

Kant believed that morality must be autonomous, not heteronomous, that is, it must come from within the rational will of the individual, not from an external authority like God or the Church. By “reason,” Kant distinguished between pure reason (used in studying metaphysics) and practical reason (used to solve problems in means/ends reasoning). He was a skeptic about pure reason, arguing that it ends in contradictions. So, when he tells us to be rational or to use a rational will, he means to use reason to live according to the categorical imperative.
He famously wrote:

“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration… the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.”
Kant, Critique of Practical Reason (1788)

This “moral law within” was, for Kant, the source of true ethical obligation. He did not deny God’s existence, but he insisted that moral duties must be discoverable by reason, not dependent on divine command. He speaks like the Serpent from the Garden: he believes to be moral we must determine good and evil for ourselves.

2. The Categorical Imperative

Kant replaced divine law with a purely rational principle: the categorical imperative. This is a test for determining whether an action is morally permissible. His most famous formulation is:

“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)

This is an attempt to derive moral law from pure reason, without appeal to consequences, emotions, or divine will. For Kant, if a rule cannot be universalized, it is morally impermissible.

Yet, he bases this on “if you can universalize it.” Can you live with this rule being universal. This means it is a statement of subjective opinion and not objective reality. Nietzsche took this to its logical conclusion in his will to power. Because the Kantian rejects God’s law as heteronomy he has no appeal to anything objective by which to critique the will to power. And this is why professors in the Kantian tradition fell in so easily with philosophies of power like DEI and critical theory.

3. Human Dignity and Autonomy

Kant believed that each person possesses intrinsic worth because of their rational nature. Therefore, one should always treat humanity, whether in oneself or in others, never merely as a means, but always as an end. This principle grounds ethics in respect for persons, not in obedience to God.

The university Kantian combines this with the categorical imperative to make an appeal to abusive empathy. This is when you take advantage of the listener’s disposition to compassion and excuse the wrongdoing of the person who is pitied. How another person feels becomes their moral standard. If someone is poor, we do not consider the possibility of sloth; instead, we ask how they must feel and how good they would feel if they were simply given money and a house. This abusive empathy is used to bully the Christian into accepting the radical leftist morality that Kantianism has become.

Kantianism presupposes Rousseau’s claim that human beings are naturally good and only corrupted by the invention of private property. It rejects God’s providential rule of the world and instead insists that all injustice stems from the unequal distribution of material goods and resources. Kant rejects the biblical doctrines of the Fall and sin, and instead teaches that humans are perfectible through adherence to Kantian moral theory.

4. Religion as Morality’s Handmaid, Not Its Source

In his book Religion Within the Bounds of Bare Reason (1792), Kant argued that religion should support morality, not define it. He viewed Christianity as a helpful moral teaching only insofar as it agrees with his subjective reason. It is “subjective reason” because it relies on his moral intuitions about “how the world should be.” Christ was seen more as a moral example than a divine Savior.

And remember, for Kant, “reason” means: What can I universalize?, and then solving practical problems that arise as you live according to that principle. In other words, Kantian “reason” becomes subjective and denies the clear general revelation of God and His moral law.
Kant even called the concept of a divine command the “heteronomy of the will,” which is a failure of reason to guide itself. He wanted a moral law that any rational being, whether religious or not, could recognize and obey.

5. Postulates of Practical Reason

Although Kant did not ground morality in religion, he concluded that moral reasoning requires presupposing three things:

● God (as the guarantor of justice, otherwise unknowable)
● Immortality (so that perfect virtue is achievable)
● Freedom (to be morally responsible)

These are not proofs, but practical postulates, which are ideas we must assume if we are to take morality seriously. Still, they are subordinate to Kantian reason, not based on revelation or faith in Christ.

Kant attempts to get around God’s providence in this world, and the inherent connection of sin and death, by saying that what appears to be unfair in this life (the righteous suffer and the wicked live well) is made right in the next life. He defines the summum bonus, or highest good, this way: “The highest good is the complete unity of virtue and happiness” Critique of Practical Reason, 5:110).

In other words, the summum bonum is the state in which a person who is fully morally good (possessing a good will) also experiences the full happiness that such goodness deserves.
Kant teaches his followers to reject God’s law as heteronomy, to live according to their own subjective intuitions about what should be universal, and to be content with the idea that their self-defined virtue in this life will be rewarded with happiness in the next.

6. The Serpent and Kant

Think about how closely all of this resembles the teaching of the Serpent in Genesis 3. The Kantian is told to determine their own good and evil. God’s law is rejected as imposed, as a limitation on freedom, it is heteronomous and therefore illegitimate.

It is seen as an invasion of the human will by an outside source. But in Genesis 3, God imposed death as a call to repent of sin. Instead of repenting, the Kantian says, “Live by my philosophy, and you will be given happiness in the next life.” “God” becomes a mere postulate, which is a necessary idea to guarantee that promised happiness.

Yet Kant offers no explanation of how a sinner can be reconciled to a perfectly holy and good God. He teaches works righteousness. In his system, the human is not a sinner in need of grace, but someone who does wrong due to social circumstances, and who can be perfected and made virtuous by following Kantian philosophy.

7. Identify the Wolf

As a student, you should understand the philosophy your professors will be imposing on you. You can use Kantianism against them. Instead, insist on your own autonomy and reject their heteronomy. Then challenge their categorical imperative and ask how it escapes absolute subjectivity. And ask why God, who is holy, would ever grant happiness to an unrepentant sinner; someone who has spent a life rejecting God’s law and reducing Christ to a mere moral example rather than the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Kant:
1. Couldn’t explain what has existed from eternity.
2. Denied that what is good for a being is based on their nature and therefore determined by their Creator.
3. Rested his entire philosophy on ultimate skepticism about God and providence.
4. Denied that the Bible is divinely inspired.
5. Denied we need to be reconciled to God by Christ.

The Kantian is no Christian.

Learn to expose your professor’s presuppositions and demolish their arguments. Or better yet, don’t even sign up for, or pay for, such classes. Exercise your autonomy to find a university and professors who recognize what is clearly revealed about God and the moral law through general revelation.

Recommended Resources:

Intellectual Predators: How Professors Prey on Christian Students (DVD) (mp3) (mp4 Download) 

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4)

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

Letters to a Young Progressive by Mike Adams (Book)

 

​​Dr. Owen Anderson is a Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Arizona State University, a pastor, and a certified jiu-jitsu instructor. He emphasizes the Christian belief in God, human sin, and redemption through Christ, and he explores these themes in his philosophical commentary on the Book of Job. His recent research addresses issues such as DEIB, antiracism, and academic freedom in secular universities, critiquing the influence of thinkers like Rousseau, Marx, and Freud. Dr. Anderson actively shares his insights through articles, books, online classes, and his Substack.

/by

Does “Christian Nationalism” Go Against the Bible? Plus More Q&A

How do you respond when someone says your “Christian Nationalism” goes against everything Jesus taught in the Bible? And why are so many Christians preoccupied with LGBTQ+ issues–don’t they have their own sinful behaviors to worry about? In this midweek episode, Frank responds to a listener email from Australia related to these and other hot-button issues by answering questions like:

  • How does “Christian Nationalism” compare to secular internationalism?
  • Why should the government care about marriage?
  • Did Jesus believe in equity?
  • Do you call out your own sin or just the sins of others?
  • What are the 3 BIG temptations John 1 warns us about?
  • According to Paul, what kind of person isn’t welcome at church?
  • Is God just a cosmic killjoy?
  • What’s the difference between torture and torment and which one is found in Hell?
  • What’s the deal with the story of Jephthah and his daughter in the Book of Judges?

If you have a question you’d like Frank to answer on a future episode, be sure to send it to hello@crossexamined.org and don’t forget to download the CrossExamined app where you can access every single episode of ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist’ organized by date, subject content, or guest(s)!

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

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Self-Paced Online Course: Jesus vs. the Culture
Podcast: When Is Love Evil?
Sean McDowell & Carmen Imes: The BIBLE and SLAVERY Explained!
The Big Book of Bible Difficulties by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe
Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan
Is God a Vindictive Bully? by Paul Copan

Download Transcript

/by

What Children Show Us About Human Nature

Most non-believers will tell you that man is basically “good.” When he acts against that basic goodness, it’s the result of disease, such as alcoholism, drug addiction, or some form of mental illness. These, in turn, stem from a failure of society to reach out and provide the right kind of assistance and services. If only we as a society could do more, spend more, provide more, we could eventually create the kind of utopia that “good” people populate.

 

Christianity, by contrast, teaches a much different worldview. Long ago, the first man and woman exercised their free will to rebel against God, and in so doing created a rift between man and God that continues to this day. Though man has a certain inherent goodness, because he bears the image of God, he is at present broken, corrupted, and fallen, and he manifests that fallen nature in a way that we see quite starkly. Christians have a name for this manifestation – sin. It afflicts and motivates all of us, and no one can escape its pull. Not without divine help, anyway.

Worldviews Shape Our Response to the Gospel

These contrasting worldviews cannot both be correct. And depending on which view you accept, your response to the good news of the Gospel will be different. “Good” people who simply need more education and more refinement don’t need a Savior; they can do just fine on their own, and with a little help from society. But fallen and corrupted people, even well-intentioned ones, are not going to be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Their nature, constantly at war with the good that is within them, needs to be recast – remade in the image of the God who made them and left them here.

Is there a way to “prove” which view is correct? How can we reliably determine what man is like in his natural state? First, we need to get our minds around what we mean by terms like “good” or “evil.” I would suggest a simple definition: what we recognize as “good” in other people is the product of an intentional effort at selflessness. Whether it’s sacrificial love, working for charity or simply a random act of kindness – what we experience as “good” is an act directed to the benefit of the other. By contrast, what we see as evil is an act directed at satisfying within oneself a base or selfish end. The quests for power, for recognition, for material wealth, for dominance – all these things drive people to ignore the harm inflicted as they climb over those who stand in their way.

But, What About the Babies?!

Now, with this basic concept in mind, what can we see from examining man in his most primitive state? I don’t mean primitive as in caveman, but as in newborn. Spend even a little time with infants and toddlers, and you’ll see some basic features emerge. Each views himself as the center of the universe and expects his parents and the other kids around him to treat him accordingly. With each passing month, the willfulness of the child’s behavior becomes increasingly apparent: from every fiber of his being, he is shouting, “I want things my way!” Whether it’s food or drink, when and how he wants it, his mother’s attention, or his playmate’s toys, a developing child’s “me-focus” is readily on display. And if his will is thwarted, there is no resort to reason – a temper tantrum is the predictable result.

Now, some might object that children are innocent and cannot be described as bad or broken, or worse yet, evil. They might point out that children are free from the biases and prejudices that sour many adult relationships. But this objection misses my point. I would not describe children as evil either, because evil implies a level of awareness of the harm one is doing, and a small child does not yet appreciate the consequences of his behavior. But the child’s behavior is reflective of the way his mind operates, and unless a parent applies discipline and training to bend the will to a proper orientation, a spoiled, self-centered adolescent will emerge.

Evil Comes Naturally

Consider: no parents ever have to train their child to give up his positive and sunny disposition and be more critical of others; they don’t need to punish their children for sharing too much and instead teach them to rip their toys out of the hands of their playmates; they don’t need to insist that a child stop thinking so much about what he can do for his parents – “Can’t I wash the dishes or sweep the deck? I really don’t have anything else to do?” No, for every child, the process of “civilizing” is a process of moving from a me-centered selfishness to an other-centered effort to get along.

Children don’t have the insight yet to seek to change their ways, to live more cooperatively and altruistically. Their parents’ job is to teach them – to help them move from their inherent fallenness to a state which is not quite natural to us, a state in which we are intentional about trying to do good. The non-believer can also do good. But by rejecting God as the source of true goodness, he remains in defiance to God. He refuses to see his need for a Savior to finish the job of making him good. He refuses to bend his will to God. It is no coincidence that the Bible speaks of becoming a “slave” to Christ. For in the end, it is only by bending to Him – by dying to ourselves as we look outward to others in order to better serve Him – that we can eventually find the solution to our problem.

Believing that we are basically good flies in the face of the reality of what we truly are. It stands in the way of our crying out for the Savior who alone has the power to restore us. Observing children in their natural condition can help give us a better picture of ours.

This is one of the few lessons that we should allow our children to teach us.

Recommended Resources:

If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek 

Relief From the Worst Pain You’ll Ever Experience (DVD) (MP3) (Mp4 Download) by Gary Habermas 

 

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

/by

Who is Luke’s Key Witness? with Shane Rosenthal

 

How much do we really know about the “most excellent Theophilus,” and why did Luke dedicate both his Gospel and the Book of Acts to him? The answer might come from an unexpected source—one that’s supported by archaeology, literary structure, and a series of “undesigned coincidences.” In this paradigm-shifting episode of ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist’, we explore a groundbreaking new theory that could revolutionize your understanding of Luke’s Gospel.

This week, Frank welcomes Shane Rosenthal—host of The Humble Skeptic podcast and author of, ‘Luke’s Key Witness‘—to uncover fresh discoveries that some New Testament scholars haven’t even encountered yet. Together, they dive into Shane’s investigation and the growing body of evidence that supports his theory behind who he believes to be one of the main eyewitnesses of Jesus’ resurrection. Join Frank and Shane as they explore questions like:

  • Who could be the surprising key eyewitness behind Luke’s remarkably detailed accounts (including the Resurrection of Jesus) and what evidence supports this claim?
  • Why were ancient Christians hesitant to rely on the testimony of women?
  • What is a chiastic structure, and how does it give us a deeper understanding of Scripture?
  • Why are scholars re-dating the Gospel of John?
  • What paradigm shift is underway in New Testament scholarship?
  • Is faith blind, and why does Shane call his podcast, ‘The Humble Skeptic’?

You don’t want to miss this fascinating episode as Shane reveals surprising connections and overlooked clues that shed new light on the Gospel narrative. And be sure to check out a free preview of Shane’s book, ‘Luke’s Key Witness’ by visiting his website, HumbleSkeptic.com!

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

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Shane’s website: HumbleSkeptic.com
Shane’s book: Luke’s Key Witness
Luke: A Commentary by Peter. G. Bolt

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

Secular Professor Tactics 101

As a parent or student it will help you to know that in many cases your secular professors have a strategy. They have a goal. A strategy is the big-picture plan to win or achieve that goal. Tactics are the step-by-step methods used to carry it out. I’ve told you before that you can see their goal by how they live their own lives. But now let’s look at their classroom tactics.

 

If you’re a parent or a prospective student, you need to understand the tactics of the secular professor. For many of them, “winning” means leading students to adopt a radical leftist ideology—either by outright agreement or by slow, subtle influence. Agreement isn’t always demanded immediately. Sometimes, all they want is your gradual surrender of confidence in anything else.  The big win, however, is final deconversion from Christianity and acceptance of something like the LGBTQ+ “safe zone” philosophy pushed at ASU.

Undermining Christianity: The Real Strategy

The strategy of many secular professors is simple: undermine Christianity. Why? Because Christianity remains the major roadblock to their radical leftist ideology.  Without that, their goal is in sight.

If you had to guess a student’s religion, statistically, you’d guess Christian and be right more often than not. Christianity remains the default framework for morality, identity, and truth for many students, even if only in fragments.  Christian teaching is the main roadblock to the Marxism at the core of the radical left.

And that’s a problem—for them.

The teachings of Christianity are fundamentally incompatible with the radical left’s view of sex, gender, truth, power, and the good life. So, it’s not just about “dialogue” or “working together.” Before they can win a student to their worldview, they must first destabilize the student’s confidence in Christianity. Undermine the foundation, and the rest of the structure will fall. That’s the strategy. Their tactics follow.

How the Strategy Is Carried Out: Tactics You Should Know

This strategy to undermine Christianity is carried out through many identifiable tactics. For parents and students, it’s worth learning these—not only to recognize what’s happening, but also to see how poorly equipped many of these professors are for the intellectual life they claim to lead. Scripture puts it plainly: “Claiming to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22). What we’re witnessing in many classrooms today is a real-time application of that verse. Let’s examine a few of their most common tactics. We’ll begin with three—but the list, sadly, is always growing.

Tactic #1: Undermine the Word of God

The first and most foundational tactic is to undermine the authority of Scripture. This can take the form of a direct assault—mocking the Bible as outdated, oppressive, or absurd—or a more subtle approach: cherry-picking verses to support radical leftist ideology.

For example, I have a colleague—openly anti-Christian—who claims that Matthew 25:40 (“Whatever you did for the least of these, you did for me”) is the best verse in the Bible. Why? Because she believes it proves her progressive social philosophy. On her reading, all you have to do is advocate for so-called sexual minorities, and you’re doing exactly what Jesus said. No need for sound doctrine. No need to understand the whole Bible. Just grab a single verse and weaponize it.  Incidentally, it is worth noting that in this specific verse, Jesus is speaking about believers.

But that’s only half the tactic. The next step is to accuse actual Christians of not living up to the verse. She’ll claim that conservative Christians don’t care for the poor or marginalized—never mind the fact (which students rarely hear) that conservative Christians out-give atheist professors by a staggering margin when it comes to charity, adoption, missions, disaster relief, and practical acts of compassion.

Still, students don’t know that. So the professor paints a picture: the Bible is on her side, and Christians are hypocrites who don’t live up to it.

You’ll notice she never mentions John 6, where Jesus rebukes the crowd for following Him only to get bread, rather than the Bread of Life. She’s not interested in the full counsel of God—only the verses that can be twisted to serve her ideological agenda.

There are other versions of this tactic. One common move is to deny that the Bible even teaches that homosexuality is a sin. “That’s just in Leviticus,” they’ll say, “and no Christian keeps that anymore.”

I call this the “Did God really say?” tactic. Just like the serpent in the garden, the secular professor begins by sowing doubt: Did God really say that?

Did He really say that homosexuality is a sin?
Did He really define male and female?
Did He really establish the moral order we find in Scripture?

If they can get the student to doubt the clarity, authority, or consistency of God’s Word, they’ve won the first battle.

Tactic #2: Vilify Christianity

The second tactic is to vilify Christianity—to paint it not as the source of civilization’s greatest moral and social advances, but as the root of all historical evil. This is straight out of the classical Marxist playbook, so anyone familiar with the last 150 years of ideology should see it coming a mile away.

Unfortunately, most parents assume we’ve moved past this kind of propaganda. And most students, born long after the fall of the USSR, have never heard a rebuttal. So here’s what they’ll be told:

Christianity invented slavery.
Christianity promoted poverty.
Christians fought to keep people oppressed.

Of course, if you dig long enough, you can always find someone—somewhere—who called themselves a Christian and said something foolish or sinful. That’s not hard. But that’s not the [larger] truth. The truth is this: Christianity gave birth to orphanages, hospitals, and universities. It introduced the rule of law, the dignity of the individual, and the foundation for economic growth and human rights. Christianity gave entire nations the hope of a better future in this life—and the next.

You won’t hear that in most classrooms. Instead, students will be told that Christianity supported slavery. But the historical reality is that slavery was universal in the ancient world. Christianity challenged and ultimately abolished it in Christianized nations—while it still exists today in non-Christian societies.

Why do professors hide this? Because the tactic is designed to make students (specifically white male Christian students) ashamed of their own heritage, their faith, and their families. That shame softens them. Once a student is ashamed of Christianity, they can be more easily reprogrammed and brainwashed. The Marxists knew this. And today’s professors are still using the same tactic with unnerving skill.

Tactic #3: Teach That It Doesn’t Matter Either Way

This tactic is all about misdirection. Unlike the first two, which confront Christianity directly, this one tries to bypass it entirely. The professor simply avoids mentioning the Bible at all. Why? Because attacking it outright might prompt a student to open it—and then the risk is that the student might actually be convinced by its truth. So, instead, the tactic is silence.

The professor communicates—both directly and indirectly—that the student can live a good, meaningful, moral life without ever knowing what the Bible says. If Scripture does come up, it’s brushed aside with a casual, dismissive remark: “Oh, the Bible? Sure, there are a few good things in there—for people who like that sort of thing.”

The message is clear: the Bible is irrelevant.
Not dangerous. Not sacred. Just… beside the point.
Outdated. Unnecessary. Background noise.

This is misdirection at its finest—because it leaves the student disarmed. There’s no battle to fight if the battlefield itself is ignored. The professor shifts the student’s focus to career, activism, self-expression—anything but divine truth. And over time, the student begins to believe the lie that neutrality is possible, and that the big questions of life—truth, meaning, morality, destiny—can be answered without reference to God. But that is not neutrality. That’s secularism in disguise.

Spot the Tactic: A Challenge for Students

Recognizing these tactics is the first step to seeing how certain professors use their class time—not to educate—but to advance a strategy of deconverting Christian students. In fact, you might even turn it into a bit of a game. Challenge your friends:

  • Who can spot the most tactics in a single class session?
  • Whose course schedule has the most ideologically driven professors?
  • Who can most clearly connect the tactics to the broader strategy?

Keep score. Compare notes. And when you’re ready, send me your tallies—I’ll make sure they’re seen by those with oversight at the university. Because let’s be clear: taxpayers aren’t funding this nonsense.[1] And it certainly doesn’t qualify as “education.”

References:

[1] [Editor’s note: At least, taxpayers shouldn’t have to fund any anti-religious bigotry or anti-Christian indoctrination or deconversion tactics.]

Recommended Resources:

Intellectual Predators: How Professors Prey on Christian Students (DVD) (mp3) (mp4 Download) 

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

Was Jesus Intolerant? by Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

 

​​Dr. Owen Anderson is a Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Arizona State University, a pastor, and a certified jiu-jitsu instructor. He emphasizes the Christian belief in God, human sin, and redemption through Christ, and he explores these themes in his philosophical commentary on the Book of Job. His recent research addresses issues such as DEIB, antiracism, and academic freedom in secular universities, critiquing the influence of thinkers like Rousseau, Marx, and Freud. Dr. Anderson actively shares his insights through articles, books, online classes, and his Substack.

/by

When Is Love Evil?

 

What ONE insight will either make or break your life as a Christian, or even as a non-Christian? If followed, it will help your marriage, parenting, business, job, friendships, politics, and most importantly, your eternity and your relationship with Jesus.

Spurred by recent political and cultural events surrounding President Trump’s first 100 days in office and comments made by Vice President J.D. Vance during a recent interview about protecting the interest of American citizens, Frank reminds listeners of the doctrine of “Ordered Loves”. Originally articulated by Augustine over 1,600 years ago, this classic school of thought seems to be totally lost among our culture today. Tune in as Frank answers questions like:

  • What is the Doctrine of “Ordered Loves”, why is it so important, and how does it affect every single area of your life?
  • What are the negative consequences when we get the order wrong?
  • What did Jesus have to say about getting our priorities in the right order?
  • What did Dr. Erwin Lutzer mean when he said “love can be evil”?
  • Why did Vice President J. D. Vance recently cause a stir during an interview and what did Pope Leo XIV have to say about it?
  • Why do so many people (including some who claim to be Christians) reject the idea of hierarchies and an ordered world?
  • What’s the difference between true and false compassion?
  • Is character in politics only about personality?
  • What are 15 things that the Trump Administration has done policy-wise during the first 100+ days in office that all Christians should support?
  • What is the primary purpose of government?
  • Is idolizing politics really a problem among conservative Christians?

In his article, ‘Why Progressive Christians Reject the Doctrine of “Ordered Loves”‘, Michael Clary writes, “Whether we like it or not, God’s world is ordered and hierarchical. We can embrace it and enjoy the blessings of living according to God’s design, or we can reject it and live a life of bitterness, like so many progressives.” The choice is yours!

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

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Toxic Empathy by Allie Beth Stuckey

Why Progressive Christians Reject the Doctrine of “Ordered Loves” by Michael Clary

When Jesus Insulted People: A Comprehensive List

Resurge Podcast: Four Megachurch Pastors Debrief White House Visit

How The After Party Curriculum Is Sowing Political Confusion in the Church by Natasha Crain

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

A Wolf in Women’s Clothing: The One Question Trans-Activists Can’t Answer

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
Matthew 7:15 (ESV)

 

The bathroom debate has resurrected some very old questions about women’s rights.[1] Once upon a time, women fought for separate bathrooms from men. The reasons were obvious. Privacy, modesty, prudence, and the unfortunate fact that men have a worse record for physical and sexual violence. It’s not in women’s best interests to get stuck in a bathroom with a strange man, if she can help it. But in recent years, the common-sense solution of “separate bathrooms” has come under fire. The Trump administration has introduced a new level of pushback, but the bathroom debate is still far from settled. I have to wonder, however, if we could let the air out of this inflated debate by asking one simple question.

The Question Trans-Activists Can’t Answer

If we ask the right question, we can show that trans-activists aren’t very serious in proposing trans-inclusive bathrooms. Of course, trans-activists probably think they’re serious. We don’t have to question their intentions here either. Good intentions can’t redeem bad policy anyway. So, for the sake of argument, we can grant good intentions – compassion for marginalized people, commitment to justice, loving your neighbor, human rights, etc. But when activists push for trans-inclusive bathrooms they have to answer this important question. Otherwise, they haven’t really thought through the issue. So  they aren’t very serious. That question is simply this:

How do you police against the predators?

When I say “predators” I’m not talking about all LGBTQ folks or “trans-women” generally. I’m talking about would-be sex criminals: the voyeurs, rapists, pedophiles, criminal opportunists, and even “autogynephilic” men (males who derive sexual arousal from imagining themselves as women). Predators really exist. We can expect some predators to trespass into women’s restrooms as long as naïve policy allows them to. Predators are liable to spawn as long as the systems in place give mischievous males unfettered access to potential victims. In this way, predators are a reliable “test case” for progressive bathroom policies.

Trans vs. Trans-Acting?

We cannot rationally assume that every man who would use a women’s bathroom is a “trans-woman” (biological male who ‘identifies’ as female). Sure, he might be a classic transgender case who poses no real threat to women. But, he could instead be a cross-dresser who likes to sneak a peek at the ladies. He could be a flasher or a sexual harasser he gets a kick out of exposing himself or behaving rudely with women in the restroom. He could be a pedophile, taking mental pics of naked girls, to fantasize about them later. Or he could be a rapist who’d gladly wear a dress if it means open access to women’s bathrooms and locker rooms. Or he could be a clinically sick teen boy using performative gender to corner his “girl crush”, alone, so  she can’t reject him if she tried. History, criminal psychology, and a healthy dose of realism, attest that these are all live possibilities as long as biological males are legally allowed in women’s restrooms.

Maintaining separate bathrooms has, traditionally, been the common-sense solution for reducing those threats. No solution is 100% perfect here. But, realistically, keeping biological males out of women’s restrooms and locker rooms is a good start for policing against perverts and predators. Dropping that wall of separation means reducing our practical ability to protect women from predators. Bear in mind, we still have active laws against flashers, sexual harassers, and peeping toms. But, if it’s legal to do all of that now, as long as you “trans-act”, then our bathroom policies have given perverts and predators an escape clause in our legal code.

Sheep, Goats and Wolves

It would be nice if every “trans-woman” was just an innocent, lost sheep. Maybe they just need a little care, understanding, and a little guidance, to bring them into the fold. Then God could redeem their own unique gender-expression and sexual identity however He sees fit. Perhaps if the church did a better job caring for “widows and orphans,” i.e., fatherlessness, we wouldn’t have as much transgenderism going around (James 1:27; Exod. 22:22; 1 Tim. 5:5). Undoubtedly, there are some lost sheep out there that fit this profile.

The debate over trans-inclusive bathrooms would be a lot simpler if we were only dealing with the proverbial lost sheep. But, realistically, our policies must also account for goats (fakes and frauds). And we especially need to watch out for the wolves (predators and criminal opportunists). We cannot reasonably assume every “trans-woman” is a “lost sheep.” Instead, we have every reason to expect some of them to be wolves in women’s clothing.

The next time someone offers a policy proposal where trans-women can use the women’s restroom, you can ask them how that policy will police against predators? It’s a fair question. We used to police against them by, first, separating bathrooms according to sex. But, if biological males are now allowed into women’s restrooms, how do we expect to replace that policing power now that the perimeter defenses are down?

Remember the Wisdom of Separate Bathrooms

The ugly answer seems to be that trans-inclusive bathroom policy was never intended for women’s safety, but rather for men’s convenience. Males who identify as female are the target audience here, even if biological women are left in the lurch because of it. When inclusive-bathroom policies unwittingly carry a pack of savvy predators, as stow-aways, then as soon as they’re dropped on women’s restrooms, that’s like airdropping a pack of wolves into the sheep pen. Women deserve better. Moreover, it doesn’t do trans-activists any favors when their own policy is readily hijacked by criminals and predators. We do well to preserve separate bathrooms.

References: 

[1] A “quick fix” solution here is to make only “single-stall” bathrooms. That option can work in some cases, but it’s often impractical for stadiums, locker rooms, health clubs, large businesses, and so forth. The bathroom debate isn’t that easily solved.

Recommended Resources: 

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek

Legislating Morality (DVD Set), (PowerPoint download), (PowerPoint CD), (MP3 Set) and (DVD mp4 Download Set) 

Does Jesus Trump Your Politics by Dr. Frank Turek (mp4 download and DVD)

Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek 

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

/by

Remembering Rush with David Limbaugh

 

Are you missing ‘The Rush Limbaugh Show’? You’re not alone! Rush didn’t just comment on the news–he inspired millions, entertained countless listeners, and was a refuge for conservatives during some of the most turbulent times in recent history. But what else made Rush such a towering figure in conservative media? Who better to answer that question than someone who knew him best—his brother!

This week, New York Times best-selling author David Limbaugh joins Frank to celebrate Rush’s incredible legacy, reflect on his faith journey up until his passing in 2021, and discuss how David’s own dive into apologetics and Scripture led him to Christ. Together, they’ll tackle questions like:

  • Why did so many people disagree with Rush–and why might that actually be a compliment?
  • What made Rush a masterful broadcaster and sharp political commentator?
  • What role did faith play in the Limbaugh household growing up?
  • Was Rush a Christian when he passed away?
  • What surprising trait did Rush Limbaugh and Christopher Hitchens share?
  • How can we see Jesus throughout the Old Testament?
  • What ultimately convinced David Limbaugh to embrace Christianity?
  • How do the Old and New Testaments fit together as one story?

Join Frank and David for an engaging conversation filled with humor, memories, and powerful insights into Rush’s life, career, and faith. Though Rush’s voice is no longer on the airwaves, his influence and wit live on. And don’t forget to pick up David’s book, ‘Finding Jesus in the Old Testament‘, to dig deeper into how the entire Bible ultimately points to Christ!

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

Resources mentioned during the episode:

BOOK: Finding Jesus in the Old Testament by David Limbaugh

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

Alex O’Connor Misses The Mark On His Distinction Between Types Of Worship

A key argument in Alex O’Connor’s debate with David Wood is the distinction Alex draws (in his first rebuttal) between “proskuneo” (Gk: προσκυνέω) worship and “latreuo” (Gk: λατρεύω) worship.

Both proskuneo worship and latreuo worship are biblical terms used to describe worship or service to God, but they carry different shades of meaning. Proskuneo means to physically bow down, or prostrate oneself in order to show reverence. Latreuo means to serve or honour in a religious or sacrificial sense. In Romans 12:1 for example, Paul tells us to offer our bodies as a living sacrifice as latreuo to God).

The crux of Alex’s argument is that, on these two senses of worship, Jesus never receives latreuo worship in the way that only God does, and there is nothing special about the fact that the worship Jesus does receive is proskuneo; because other mortals also received proskuneo in the Greek Old Testament, or example, Esau from Jacob in Genesis 33, and Joseph from his brothers in Genesis 42.[1]

In his second rebuttal, Alex explains that this distinction argument is supported by James D.G Dunn, who writes:

It is noticeable that in each case the object of the verb [latreuo], the one who is (to be) served/worshipped, is God. Apart from one or two references to false worship (Acts 7:42; Rom 1:25), the reference is always to the cultic service/worship of God (Luke 1:74, 2:37; Acts 7:7, 42; 24:14; 26:7; 27:23; Rom. 1:9; Phil. 3:3; 2 Tim. 1:3; Heb. 8:5; 9:9; 9:14; 10:2 and 12:28, 13:10; Rev. 7:15; and 22:3). In no case in the New Testament is there talk of offering cultic worship [latreuo/λατρεύω] to Jesus.[2]

And so, Alex’s argument is that Jesus only receives the proskuneo kind of “worship” and not latreuo kind. This is a problem because proskuneo worship doesn’t determine whether Jesus thought of himself as God or whether he claimed to be God.

Two disclaimers

What Alex doesn’t mention in the debate is what Dunn writes in the same section: “more typically in the New Testament, [proskuneo] is used of the worship (prostration) due to God, and to God alone.”[3]

So at least according to Dunn, proskuneo as directed towards Jesus in the New Testament carries weight in determining whether Jesus thought of himself as God or whether he claimed to be God.

Further, it might be helpful to note that Dunn lists other Greek words for worship or reverence in the New Testament, which might be applied to either God alone, or to God as well as Jesus of Nazareth.[4] Proskuneo and Latreuo are not the only ones.

Two points in response to Alex

There are two points of response which show that Alex’s argument about the distinction between proskuneo and latreuo is underwhelming.

  1. It shouldn’t surprise us that Jesus of Nazareth received proskuneo (and not latreuo), because he was in physical form. Latreuo worship is sacrificially offered to the non-physical God, but Jesus of Nazareth was physically God-incarnate (as David argued in this debate!). With Jesus standing right before them, of course the disciples offered proskuneo When I finally see the God-man face-to-face one day, I already know that I’m going to fall before him in proskuneo worship.
  2. You’ve got to read in context. As Dunn states, proskuneo worship in the New Testament is typically “due to God, and to God alone.”[5] In fact, in Rev. 22:8, an angel rejects proskuneo worship from John and tells him to offer it to God. A simple, face-value reading of the New Testament, and even of the gospels alone, reveals that the authors thought that Jesus was God. Proskuneo worship of Jesus doesn’t detract from this, rather, it adds to it. Once again, as Dunn says, proskuneo is typically given to God alone in the New Testament (see Rev. 22:9; also see in the gospels in John 4:23-24 and Matt. 4:10/Luke 4:8). So, as Jesus of Nazareth receives proskuneo worship, the reader is drawn to see his ontology as more-than-human.

Review Alex O’Connor’s Argument

In summary, Alex’s leveraging of James Dunn’s argument has three faults. First, Alex cherry-picks from Dunn for his own purposes, and doesn’t expound on what Dunn says about proskuneo.

Second, it is of absolutely no surprise that the physical God-man receives proskuneo, because falling on your knees before Jesus is an appropriate act of worship.

Thirdly, the New Testament has a particular reverence for the word proskuneo, even if the Old Testament applies it more loosely. And so Jesus receiving the proskuneo of worship does not detract from his ontological divine nature, but rather points to it.

Let’s continue to pray that Alex would see Jesus for who he reality is. Pray that Alex would put Jesus in his rightful place.

References: 

[1] [Editor’s note: The Greek Old Testament is known as the Septuagint or LXX for short.]

[2] James D.G. Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? The New Testament Evidence (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), 13.

[3] Ibid., 10.

[4] These additional words are Sebomai/σέβομαι and Epikaleo/ἐπικαλέω. See Dunn, 15-17.

[5] See footnote 2.

Recommended Resources: 

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

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

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

How Can Jesus Be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

 

Sean Redfearn is a former Community Youth Worker who now works for Christian Concern in Central London, UK. He completed an MA in Religion at King’s College London, is in the process of completing the MA Philosophy program at Southern Evangelical Seminary, and is a 2022 CrossExamined Instructor Academy graduate. Passionate about Jesus, he is grateful for the impact that apologetics has had on his faith.

/by

What’s the Difference Between True & Almost True? with Dr. Erwin Lutzer

Why does the papacy exist in Roman Catholicism? What did the recent death of Pope Francis reveal about his legacy? And why do so many modern liberals misunderstand the true role of the Pope—treating him more like a soft-spoken “social worker with a Mr. Rogers personality” than a defender of sound doctrine? This week, Frank sits down with the one and only Dr. Erwin Lutzer to talk about the sobering state of the world, the growing animosity towards objective truth, and why Christians should avoid the temptation to compromise as the world drifts further into confusion, political unrest, and chaos (mixed in with a dad joke or two!). During their conversation, Frank and Erwin will answer questions like:

  • What’s the first duty of a pope and what should the cardinals focus on when choosing a successor for the late Pope Francis?
  • How is Marxist ideology creeping into the church through ideas like open borders and emotional manipulation?
  • What signs of the end times are we seeing today?
  • How do atheists unknowingly demonstrate that God exists?
  • Why is it self-defeating to believe in your own personal truth?
  • What’s the difference between objective truth and “truthiness”?
  • How are Christians being tempted to sell the truth for social acceptance?

Tune in as Frank and Dr. Lutzer tackle what it really means to stand your ground when even church leaders seem more concerned with being liked than being biblical. In a world that’s desperately trying to reshape God into a tolerant, all-affirming figure, this episode will remind listeners that the real God still judges sin and calls us to repent as we seek His truth. It’s a sobering—but necessary—wake-up call with a few laughs along the way!

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

Resources mentioned during the episode:

WEBSITE: MoodyMedia.org
BOOK: The Eclipse of God by Erwin Lutzer
BLOG: The Pope’s First Duty by Edward Feser

Download Transcript

/by