Christianity Archives - Page 62 of 106

Tag Archive for: Christianity

The Works of Jesus in the Nicene Creed

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

Jesus: The Essential Works

What are the essential truths Christians believing about the things Jesus did? As defenders of the faith, we need to know which beliefs about Jesus’ deeds are essential and why we should believe them.

I had a conversation with my mentor Darrell Bock about this on an episode of the Table Podcast focusing on the works of Jesus mentioned in the Nicene Creed—a collaborative statement of essential Christian beliefs crafted in 325 AD. This creed was based on the Apostle’s Creed and various Scriptures. Early creeds are a good reminder that the essentials of the Christian faith were not just made up recently but actually go back to the earliest memories of Jesus and the teachings of his official spokespeople.

Let me share a couple of things we mentioned while talking about a line that that mentions Jesus’ historic death and burial:

“For our sake, he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.”

The Nicene Creed makes historical claims about Jesus but also includes theological interpretations of the facts. In this post, I’ll define what Christians mean when we say Jesus died “for us.” Then, I’ll touch on the historical evidence for Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. At the end of this post, you can check out the complete podcast to hear our full conversation on the works of Jesus described in the Nicene Creed. So what’s it means to say Jesus “was crucified for us?”

The Nicene Creed says Jesus was crucified for us

First, the Nicene Creed highlights a kind of substitution where Jesus bears the penalty for human sin. As Anselm of Canterbury explained, Jesus paid an infinite debt no mere human being could pay.

Second, understanding the Jewish context of the earliest Christian thought brings a couple of pictures to mind: The suffering servant of Isaiah 53 who “bears our reproach” and the way Jews understood an animal suffering in the place of a sinner. In some cases, Jews put their hands on the sacrifice to symbolize a transfer of responsibility in the sacrificial system. When you wonder about the significance of something Jesus said or did, remember that themes from the Hebrew Scriptures are often the background, and it pays to see Jesus in his cultural context.

So that’s a theological interpretation of Jesus’ death. But what about the event itself? The Nicene Creed mentions Jesus’ suffering on the cross. What’s the historical evidence for Jesus’ death on the cross?

The Nicene Creed says Jesus died on the cross

Jesus’ death by crucifixion is well-attested: It’s mentioned not only in the Gospels but in a snippet of something the Jewish historian Josephus wrote in his Antiquities, which verifies Jesus’ death under Pontius Pilate. The Roman historian Tacitus alludes to Jesus’ crucifixion as well in The Annals. As even a rather skeptical scholar like John Dominic Crossan recognizes, “That [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.” [1]

“That [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”

But what happened to Jesus’ body? The Nicene Creed says Jesus was buried, just like we read about in Mark 15 and Luke 23. But what about this?

The Nicene Creed says Jesus was buried in a tomb

Some skeptics ask, “Weren’t crucifixion victims thrown into shallow graves? How do we know Jesus was put in a tomb?” First, we have reports of Jesus’ burial from the time when people who knew about it were still alive. Second, ancient Jewish sources never say Jesus’ body was thrown to the dogs in a shallow grave. There are good reasons to believe Jesus was really buried in a location that was known and that he was buried in a way that by sensitive to Jewish culture.

For example, convicted felons weren’t buried in family tombs. That’s why Jesus wasn’t buried in a family tomb. He was buried in the tomb of a fellow Jew: Joseph of Arimathea. So Jesus’ burial honored what Jewish tradition says about the way a Jewish crucifixion victim should be buried.

So Christian belief operates on two levels: The historical and the theological. As Christians, we believe historical things about Jesus—events you can actually look into like other events in ancient history. But Christians also believe theological things about Jesus—the stuff that makes historical things really matter in our lives.

Like many Christians, I affirm my belief in both the historical and theological truths of the Nicene Creed as I recite it along with my brothers and sisters in the church.

The Works of Jesus in the Nicene Creed

For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven,

was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary

and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day, he rose again

in accordance with the Scriptures;

he ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,

and his kingdom will have no end.

Watch the Table Podcast

We cover a lot more about the works of Jesus in the Nicene Creed during our conversation. What are the essential Christian beliefs? Why should we believe this stuff? Check out the complete podcast:

Book Review: Time for Truth: Living Free in A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

1. Does Truth Exist?, Atheism, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

“Time for Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin” by Os Guinness has been on my reading list for several years now. It is a relatively short book, so I popped it in my bag to read during downtime on a trip to see family. By the time I had made it through the first chapter, I wished that I had made time to read it sooner!

In today’s cultural and political climate that seems to twist and spin reality to fit certain narratives, it is vital that people be able to distinguish between truth from falsehood. The history of the East demonstrates the implications of denying truth as an accurate reflection of reality. In “Time for Truth,” sociologist Os Guinness takes the reader through the philosophies and events that led to the fall of the East and compares them to current philosophies and events in the West. He warns that if the West continues on its current trajectory, it is headed for a similar collapse.

As usual, this review will take the form of a chapter-by-chapter summary and conclude with my thoughts and recommendation.

Book Introduction: But Not Through Me

Guinness opens his book by recalling the revolutionary event of the fall of communism in eastern Europe and Russia in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The significance of this at the time was that under communist rule, propaganda was taught instead of truth so much so that the populace believed what was false to be true. But it was only when some members of the populace pointed out that what was being taught by their government were lies told in order to maintain power and control. The taste of and for truth grew and grew until finally, the purveyors of false narratives were overthrown, and the truth set these nations free from the lies and tyranny.
Ironically, at the same time, this revolution of truth took place in the East, the West was busy relativizing truth the way the communists already did in the East. Guinness sets up the rest of his book by pointing out that such a postmodern view of truth violates reality and morality (why it was overthrown in the East), and the West is on the road to accepting the same view of truth. However, if the West does not recognize the mistakes of the past (in the East), then it will suffer a similar fate. But it is not enough to merely make observations about the past; the people of the West must take action now and become “people of truth” to prevent a repeat of history.

Chapter 1: Back to The Moral Stone Age

In order to show that the West is, in fact, on this same path, Guinness takes a look at the change in students’ reactions to the morally repugnant practice described in the story “The Lottery.” The 70s, 80s, and 90s saw a dramatic shift in the schools regarding moral judgments. The 70s and 80s saw students gradually shift their focus from outrage over the most heinous human behaviors (human sacrifice, in the case of “The Lottery”) to focusing on the more trivial aspects of the same tale. Fewer moral judgment were made, and more stylistic critiques became the main focus. In the 90s, this shift seemed almost complete, to where students were allergic to giving moral judgments about another’s cultural practices, no matter how heinous the action.

Guinness observes too that ethical training in today’s higher academy has also shifted from making any moral judgments to merely providing information about cultures and how to avoid punishments if one does not agree and wishes to participate in prohibited practices. On this new view, no one is truly deviating from any objective standard; they just act differently from others. Guinness ties this to the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche. These writings take the idea that “God is dead” and vehemently attacked the very concepts of knowledge and morality- stating that nothing can be known or trusted, and nothing is as it seems. Nietzsche supports a radical skepticism and distrust about everything and everyone, and thus, a meaningless and purposeless existence is all that any individual has.

Chapter 2: We’re All Spinmeisters Now

With Nietzsche’s idea that with God’s death comes the death of all knowledge and truth about anything, people are free to tell whatever stories they wish that will accomplish their personal goals (or a “greater truth”)- whether the stories are true or not. As multiple people tell their own contradicting stories and these lies are discovered, others’ trust in these people and those who support them dwindles. This causes a vicious cycle of skepticism that self-perpetuates. The singular truth stands alone in a multitude of lies promoted by their own multitude of untrustworthy sources. In this sea of “spin,” the truth ultimately becomes unidentifiable by the individual and even outside their grasp. The individual has nothing solid to grab onto to ground themselves in reality, so they are forced to make up stories of their own and live their own lie of a life.

Guinness illustrates this in practice with the very public figures of Mark Twain and Rigoberta Menchu. The stories that were told by both (Samuel Clemens, in the case of “Mark Twain”) were false, but they each acted as if they were true, and the culture responded accordingly. Clemens’ false story had more pop-cultural effects, while Menchu’s lies had political and educational ramifications. Even after the lies were discovered, both held firm saying that these were “their truths.” Guinness makes the point that when knowledge is not attainable, lies can perpetuate like this easily in a culture, and the culture is eager to accept them even if the stories are discovered to be false. On this postmodern view of truth, everyone is free to make up their own truth from moment to moment, all depending on their feelings at the moment or whatever they feel will accomplish their goal at that moment.

Chapter 3: The West Versus Itself

Quite often, this battle for the concept of truth has been seen as an “East vs. West” battle. Where the eastern philosophies held to relative and subjective views of truth and western philosophies held to the objective view of truth. Guinness observes that Geoge Washington and the other Founding Fathers saw their newly formed country as an experiment with “ordered liberty”- freedom exercised within the confines of objective truth. But postmodern views of truth have sneaked their way into western culture, not unlike a Trojan horse. This attack has been so successful since the formation of America that even the President of the United States in the 1990s saw and exercised the liberty to attempt to adjust truth to fit his own desires.
Guinness takes the time to demonstrate how seven unique characteristics of a postmodern mind were exhibited in President Bill Clinton during his sex scandal. Because of Clinton’s public face and the respect of Americans for the office of the President of the United States, his postmodern actions shifted western thinking more permanently toward postmodern views of truth. This view of truth has become so ingrained in western thought now that the battle is now the older western though versus, the newer western thought. The west is engaged in a war against itself for itself.

Chapter 4: Differences Make A Difference

Unfortunately, many people do not see why it makes a difference in what view of truth one holds. Guinness explains that the way one views truth can have great implications. He takes the atheist survivor of Auschwitz, Primo Levi, and the theist Russian revolutionary, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, to compare and contrast the views’ implications. Levi held that no God exists to ground truth. He tasked himself with ensuring that Auschwitz was never forgotten or repeated, but the weight of such a task, without any ultimate purpose or truth to ground his claims in, ultimately led to his suicide. On the other hand, Solzhenitsyn merely publically promoted his view of truth to release Russia from the shackles of the communist regime, that made a habit of presenting falsehood to its people as truth in order to subjugate them. Solzhenitsyn had an ultimate purpose and objective truth behind his actions that made them meaningful. Levi had no purpose and only relative truth behind his actions that made them meaningless.

These differences are not trivial; rather, they are impactful. Guinness offers that the West has become so hypnotized by the supposed “freedom” that having no objective truth brings, that it has not been able to experience true freedom. True freedom requires identity and limits. But if there is neither (what relative views of truth assert), then the individual must endlessly wrestle with their identity and what limits exist before they can even begin to experience true freedom. Because there is no objective truth about identity or limits, there is no end to their wrestling; thus they never will experience true freedom, and their pursuit becomes a prison. It is only when one recognizes that objective truth exists and the Foundation of Truth (God) that objective identity and objective limits can be discovered and freedom is even possible to experience.

Chapter 5: Turning The Tables

So far, Guinness has argued against relativistic views of truth by demonstrating the implications of such a view. But that is not always the most effective way to argue. It tends to be more effective if one argues on the skeptic’s own grounds. Guinness proposes two strategies for argumentation: one negative and one positive. The negative approach takes the relativist’s own relativism and follows it to its logical implications until it violates something of great value to the relativist. This usually doesn’t take long since the relativist values their own objectivity. While they desire that everyone else be a relativist, they do not apply such a requirement and fate to themselves. Seeing that their own views may be thought but not lived may be enough to jerk their thinking about truth back to reality.

Guinness argues that it is often not until a person is brought face-to-face with the dire implications and emptiness of their view of truth that they are willing to entertain an alternative. Ironically, when an individual or even a nation is at its philosophical and ethical breaking point, is when the opportunity to argue for the alternative is most effective. This opens the door to the positive approach. It also appeals to what the relativist values. With the inability for relativism to produce what the relativist values now in place, the positive approach shows how the objective view of truth genuinely provides what the relativist values. Guinness encourages the reader to consider that while it may seem that darkness has overtaken the individual relativist or a relativistic culture, that darkness may actually be an indicator that a new day is coming.

Chapter 6: On Record Against Ourselves

In Guinness’ final chapter, he encourages the reader to be a seeker of truth. As one is seeking objective truth, though, it is important to realize that there are subjective perspectives that do cause people to come to different conclusions about reality. While this is no excuse for seeing things inaccurately, it is an explanation for such and a beginning point to recognize in our own search for truth to guard against. One more thing can keep people from seeing reality as it is.
The biblical worldview holds that by nature, we are not just truth-seekers; we are truth-twisters. It is a sin in our lives that pushes us towards false narratives and rationalizations. Interestingly enough, it is the dual nature of man that explains both the successes and failures of modern and post-modern views of truth. Guinness explains that is it only the biblical worldview that can provide a foundation for not just the pursuit of truth but also how and why such a pursuit can go wrong. He encourages the reader to accept, because of its explanatory power, the biblical worldview of our sinfulness and our need for the Savior, Jesus Christ. Christ is the truth; thus it is in accepting Him that will allow us to truly be “people of truth,” and it is only as true “people of truth” that we can experience real freedom.

Reviewer’s Thoughts

“Time for Truth” was a fascinating read. I have to admit that I had picked up the book a couple of times in the past and (re)started before I was able to make it through this time. The introduction was a little slow, but once I passed that, it picked right up, and I was hooked! I really enjoyed how Guinness took the reader through several events in recent history that have led to the crisis of truth in American culture. I found myself stopping many times to reflect on events in my own lifetime that Guinness described and older events’ effects on what I experience today. The way that Guinness connects modern events with the crisis of truth that he speaks against is what will draw the reader in. This is not merely a theoretical treatise on truth; it is an analysis of events in our lifetimes and a warning of what will come if the West follows in the footsteps of the East regarding the ideas of truth.

Post-modernism has saturated our culture, and its effects are being played out before our eyes and in ways that are so subtle that we may not even recognize it. For anyone who is concerned about modern western culture’s treatment of truth, this book is highly recommended. For anyone who is fed up with the claims of “fake news,” this book is highly recommended. For anyone who is tired of seeing politicians change the truth for their own agendas, this book is highly recommended. For anyone who is concerned with history, this book is highly recommended. For anyone who is concerned with their children’s future, this book is highly recommended. Needless to say, this book is highly recommended for all serious readers and those who are fascinated by politics and modern culture. It will enhance your perspective on what is taking place today and give you not only an explanation for what is taking place but also provide a solution. Go get this book!

You Might Be a Deist

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

Atlanta native Jeff Foxworthy made a name for himself as a stand-up comedian doing a routine called “You might be a redneck.” Some of these classic one-liners include, “If you have a set of salad bowls and they all say Cool Whip on the side, you might be a redneck … If you have ever been accused of lying through your tooth, you might be a redneck … If you ever use your ironing board as a buffet table, you might be a redneck.” Foxworthy is a masterful comedian.

A theological system known as deism is no laughing matter. Deists hold that God is transcendent but is impersonal and has no dealings with the world. Therefore, deists deny such things as special revelation (that God can communicate with human beings) and miracles. Problematically, it seems as if many professing Christian theists are practicing deists. The following are three ways in which modern Christianity seems to be drifting towards a form of deism.

You might be a deist if you reject divine communication. Undoubtedly, many people abuse and misuse the phrase, “The Lord told me.” Some have claimed that the Lord told them that they needed to raise so many millions of dollars for a new jet or for a new building. While many of those claims are greatly suspect, the reaction to the extreme charismatic movement tends to move too far in the other direction. For instance, John MacArthur notes that “The truth is, there is no fresher or more intimate revelation than Scripture. God does not need to give private revelation to help us in our walk with Him” (quoted in Buettel, “The Lord Told Me,” GTY.org, https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B160122/the-lord-told-me). The problem with MacArthur’s response is that he is gravitating towards an implicit deism. John Morrison warns that modern theology has greatly been influenced by a cosmological dualism which tends to shut God out of the world from all “spatio-historical action and objective self-declaration” (Morrison, Has God Said, 2). Is it not then possible, at least, that God could communicate with individuals on a personal level? I think so. Furthermore, I think God communicates with us often, although not in an audible voice necessarily. Yet, I would caution that we do need to check everything by Scripture as God does not lie and, thereby, would not contradict what he has said in his word (Titus 1:2).
You might be a deist if you reject divine miracles. While it would be difficult to imagine that any Christian would dismiss God’s ability to perform miracles, the anticipation that God could work a miracle has seemingly declined in a modern rationalistic belief-system. This, too, comes from a philosophical ideology that holds that God cannot interact with space and time. However, is God not the one who created and developed the laws of nature that govern the universal system? If God is the one who created all things, including the laws that bind things together, then one could certainly hold that God continues to perform miracles as God sees fit. The rejection of God’s ability to perform miracles in the current age shows a bent towards deism rather than classical Christian theism.
You might be a deist if you reject divine relationships. Finally, it seems that some writers and scholars (and I use general language intentionally) have popularized a notion that divine relationships are not biblical. That is, a person should simply accept a theological truth and not pursue an intimate relationship with a holy God. However, that again leans towards a deistic understanding of God. Jesus says, “On that day you will know that I am in my Father, you are in me, and I am in you” (John 14:20, CSB) before saying, “Remain in me, and I in you” (John 15:4, CSB). Paul writes, “The Spirit himself testifies together with our spirit that we are God’s children, and if children, also heirs—heirs of God and coheirs with Christ—if we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him” (Rom. 8:16–17, CSB). A covenantal relationship with God is deeply personal. Thus, we should not think that our journey is one that is walked alone. Rather, the believer has the promise that God will be with them until the very end (Matt. 28:20).

This article is not to badmouth any theologian or writer. Certainly, the individuals who wrote against certain practices did so with a concern that certain people were abusing the name of God. Nothing could be worse than that. Yet, the history of humanity reveals that individuals typically have the uncanny ability to take issues to its extreme end. My concern is that by guarding individuals from New Age philosophies and radical forms of Christianity—some which have become quite cult-like—many are leading individuals into a form of deistic theology. Throughout the pages of Scripture, individuals have encountered God personally and radically. Their walk with God was quite personal and relational. While God is mighty and awesome, he is also tender, compassionate, and near to all of us. May we never forget that.

How to Work through Doubt and Uncertainty

Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Matthew Slama

In the guide to Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement from JCGM, it defines uncertainty as meaning doubt. It specifically defines uncertainty of measurement as meaning doubt about the validity of the result of a measurement.

I recently presented at a technical conference on methods of computing measurement uncertainty and was thinking about the applicability of these concepts to other areas of knowledge. We don’t see doubt and uncertainty in science the same as we do in religion. In religion, it is often viewed as a bad thing. But in science, it is often viewed as a good thing. The reason for this is in scientific endeavors; you are trying to achieve an end result – knowledge. In the scientific community, when one realizes that there is uncertainty, that is not the end. You do not just drop everything and realize you can’t go anywhere. That would be antithetical to the human tour de force or spirit. No, when we arrive at some level of doubt or uncertainty, we create a new test, we develop new methods, we try harder, we think smarter. We realize that we want to know something and use our innovative and inventive mind to reach that goal. When we have spent that effort, we end up with more confidence and more certainty in our end goal – knowledge.

But in the religious community for some reason, we think that if we have doubt it is something unpardonable and we must stop doubting. So instead of taking some guidance from the thinking faculties that God gave us (reason), we take our guidance from the pre-enlightenment era. This is a cultural affliction in many believing groups and has caused many to fall away. I have seen it first-hand.

Why has religion not followed up with science in terms of how we behave and respond to uncertainty or doubt?
Why is it that we don’t see uncertainty or doubt in religion as a stepping stone to the next breakthrough in our lives?
Why do we not plunge forward with the resolve that investigating uncertainty and doubt will result in something better, something stronger, or something greater?

I think that this is from the sinful nature of man – slothfulness and fear.

I should note that the scientific community is far from perfect… I have seen this slothfulness and fear time and time again in the scientific community. I’ve seen organizations run tests with no uncertainty analysis and make decisions off faulty data. They didn’t address the doubt or rather uncertainty that they had their measurement. I’ve seen this go sour many times and cost corporations millions of dollars. It’s because people didn’t do the due diligence of finding out what their uncertainties really are. I get it. I really do. It’s difficult to be prudent. It takes a lot of effort to survey the weak points in our systems. Sometimes it takes great humility. It’s hard to put together one’s uncertainties and find out what and where you need to improve

However, I see clients that do the hard work of finding out where there are uncertainties are then address these areas of uncertainty. These corrective actions result in measurement and knowledge that has lower uncertainty and results in moving forward in confidence that they’re making the right decision for their product development. I think it’s time we do the same in the Christian church community.

To do this, we need communities that are able to open up and share the struggles that they’re going through in their relationship with God. It takes asking the hard personal questions.

Do I know the core concepts of Christianity? Write down a core Christian concept without consulting a guide. How did you do?
Can I defend my faith? Look up a common Atheist, Muslim, or Jewish attack on Christianity and answer it without consulting a guide. Afterward find a theological solution and learn it
Why do I think that Christ is God? Describe a historical fact that gives credence to the authenticity of Christ as God without consulting a guide
Are there emotional issues I have that prevent me from Evangelizing? Go and share Christ with someone. If you are too afraid, find out why. Ask why am I scared? Create one action step to work on that “why” and do it.
What emotional issues am I bringing into my faith? Take the survey howwelove.com to find any childhood links that shape how we love and receive love. Anxiety can also drive mad amounts of doubt. This and other mental illnesses can shape very impoverished views of God.
What distortions of Christianity do I believe? Think of our cultural Christianity that did not exist in 1st or 2nd century Christianity. Think of how our country’s wealth shapes our thinking. Are you in the 1% of the world? ~43% of Americans are ( data from ASEC data 2017-2018)
What habitual sins do I need to talk with someone about? Find a close friend, pastor, or counselor to confess and work through sins and emotional baggage.

That only happens in small groups and communities that are showing the love of God because it takes a lot of patience and love to work through other people’s issues (and our own). We need to work on these things if we want to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.”

Yes, it is difficult, but it’s totally worth it.

This week, ask yourself one of the questions above and ask a friend a question. You might be surprised.

Racism, Racial Reconciliation & The Gospel

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Carter Keller

In recent years, America has once again become susceptible to racial prejudice on a cultural scale. It is difficult, however, to determine how widespread racism is in the nation. Especially since those currently in the spotlight, politicians, media, cultural influencers, etc., are constantly making charges of racism at every turn. However, it is undeniable for all of us that, at least, racial suspicion has come back with a vengeance. Often we ask the questions of “How?” and “Why?” and go down rabbit trails of factors such as poverty, institutional racism, white privilege, etc. I am not interested in getting lost in the weeds. I am interested in the core issue, how to fix the core issue, and then moving on to fry bigger fish. I ask you to join me, and our first step, naturally, is to define racism. Once we have done so, we can then discuss the core issue which drives racism and how to solve it.

Racism is the idea where one person or people group is superior to another person or people group based solely on the fact they are a member of this particular group. When we “dig a little deeper,” (to borrow a phrase from Mama Odie), we learn racism is another spawn of a deeper problem: hatred. Hatred takes many forms, and racism is just another rotten incarnation. And yet, this is still not enough. Where does hatred come from? Why does hatred exist in any form?

Without going too far into another topic for another paper, it is undeniably clear God exists. No man can escape him. C.S Lewis presented one of the greatest arguments against atheism in human history when he wrote in The Case for Christianity;

“‎Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course, I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” (C.S Lewis; The Case for Christianity p. 32)

We are able to learn who this God is through the Bible. Among an infinite number of things, He is the Source of Life, Love, Truth, Good, and Peace. If one were to reject God, they reject everything about Him, including Life, Love, Truth, Good, and Peace. When one rejects Life, Love, Truth, Goodness, and Peace, the resulting world will be marked with Death, Hatred, Lies, Evil, and Chaos. Thousands of years ago, we rejected God in the Garden of Eden. Hatred came with sin, and sin separates us from God. When I drop a ball from the top of a building, it is only a natural consequence the ball will fall to the ground due to gravity. Just as falling is the natural consequence of gravity, death and hatred are the natural consequence of sin, as Scripture clearly states, “The wages of sin is death.” (Romans 6:23)

However, God did not want us to be slaves to such a fate! It is possible to be reconciled with God, as 2 Corinthians 5:20-21 states: “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ since God is making his appeal through us. We plead on Christ’s behalf: “Be reconciled to God.” He made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us so that in him, we might become the righteousness of God.” God made a way through His Son, Jesus, as Scripture declares over and over again:

“For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)
“A thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I have come so that they may have life and have it in abundance.” (John 10:10)
“Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me, even if he dies, will live.” (John 11:25)
“If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9).

God wants us to be reconciled to Him in a perfect relationship with Him. God wants humanity to be saved from our fate of death and separation so we can live forever and abundantly with God. It is through faith in Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection from the dead alone we can be saved. There is no other name under Heaven by which we may be saved, as God has also stated in His Scripture (Acts 4:12).

The Gospel, or Good News, is the truth which tells us we may be reconciled with God the way the Prodigal Son was reconciled with his father in the book of Luke, (Luke 15:11-32). So how, now, shall we live? Once we are reconciled with God, immediately, God indwells us as “temples” walking around the earth (1 Corinthians 6:19). Once we are reconciled with God, we are reconnected to God, and therefore we begin to live as such. Since God is the source of Life, Love, Truth, Good and Peace, in communion with Him, we begin to live our lives spreading Life, Love, Truth, Goodness, and Peace. Since God is love, we as believers and reconciled children who are saved by grace through faith must love our brothers and sisters, neighbors, and even enemies (1 John 4:7-21; Ephesians 2:8-9; Matthew 5:43-47). There is no room for hatred at the feet of Jesus, nor is there room for division at the foot of the Cross, for all of us equally have sinned against God (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:9-11; Romans 3:23).

When we are reconciled with God, we are reconciled with each other. This reconciliation is expressed in its fullness through our actions in fulfillment of Jesus’ words, “Love one another as I have loved you.” (John 13:34-35). And how did Jesus love us? By laying down His life for us. Sacrificing His life as a ransom for our souls in order that we may have His righteousness and perfection placed on us to fulfill His desire where we “may be perfect as [our] heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). There is no special love or any rituals we must perform to be reconciled to one particular group of people. The mission of the Church is to spread the Gospel concerning reconciliation with God (2 Corinthians 5:20-21). When we are reconciled to God, we are able to be reconciled to each other.

Racial reconciliation should not be a special category of reconciliation. Racism and all other forms of hatred are utterly defeated and crushed when we just love each other without any goals, agendas, and without making a point about the skin color of the people in the room. Believe it or not, if we are reaching out to a specific people group because they are a specific people group, (for example, if we engage with a community outreach program just to reach a neighborhood because it is predominantly African-American), this is simply compounding and multiplying the problem. You are still focused on the color of their skin and not on the state of their souls. You are still focused on achieving diversity when, by default, humanity is already diverse because no two people are alike. You are still focused on racial division, and by acknowledging there is something different about them, you are simply exacerbating the issue. Children only learn racism from those who teach about it, and only act as if there is division if others tell them division exists. We do not make “black” friends, or “white” friends, or “red” friends. We just make friends. If we say “blackness” or “whiteness” is a “part of who I am,” then we have misunderstood what God says when He calls us to abide in Him and find our identity in Him and nothing else (John 15:4-5; Exodus 20:3).

Christ did not call us to reconcile the races. He called the one race named Mankind to be reconciled to God, and then be reconciled to each other. If we simply live out the Gospel in our lives, racism will die, hatred will retreat, and Love will win the day. The Gospel of Jesus Christ and the child-like innocence which follows (as Jesus used when talking of how to enter the Kingdom of God) are the only real and lasting cures for racism and its root causes. The Church needs to stop focusing on race. Our primary job is not social justice reform on this side of Heaven, nor is it our job to pursue diversity as a goal to be achieved. Our job is to spread the Gospel to the corners of the Earth and pray the Holy Spirit would move in the hearts of the lost so they would repent and be reconciled to God through Christ. Our only desire should be to see as many people as possible be saved by the blood of Jesus, the Messiah, King of kings, Lord of lords, Prince of peace, the great I AM and Creator, and Sustainer of all things. All other messages, mantras, and ideals fall to the wayside, and they pale in comparison to the glory and freedom of Jesus of Nazareth, risen from the dead, and ascended at the right hand of God. Our priority is the Gospel, and we have no other. We must abandon racial reconciliation as the goal. We must recognize diversity already exists, and abandon the pursuit of what we already have attained. We must embrace our only true mission, the only reconciliation which truly matters in all of human history: the lost sheep with the Shepard, the lost souls to the Creator, and the sinners to the Savior.

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

“Character, not circumstances, makes the man.”

Booker T. Washington

“I know that my Redeemer lives. Thank God I love humanity; complexion doesn’t interest me one single bit.”

George Washington Carver

Scripture references are from the following sources:

2 Corinthians 5:20-21 – English Standard Version (ESV) The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Text Edition: 2016. Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.

John 3:16 – Christian Standard Bible (CSB) The Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved.

John 10:10 -Christian Standard Bible (CSB) The Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved.

John 11:35 – Christian Standard Bible (CSB) The Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved.

Romans 10:9 – Christian Standard Bible (CSB) The Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved.

1 John 4:7-21 – Christian Standard Bible (CSB) The Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved.

Romans 3:23 – New International Version (NIV)

Lewis, C.S. The Case for Christianity. Macmillan Company, 1942.

King, Jr., Dr. Martin Luther. Strength to Love. 1963.

Washington, Booker T., “Democracy and Education.” Institute of Arts and Sciences, 3o

September 1896, Brooklyn, NY. Address

The Washington Standard. “George Washington Carver: ‘Thank God I Love Humanity;

Complexion Doesn’t Interest Me One Single Bit.”.” The Washington Standard, 14

July 2016, thewashingtonstandard.com/george-washington-carver-thank-god-love-humanity-complexion-doesnt-interest-one-single-bit/

No, it’s not wrong to argue for God’s existence.

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

There are dozens of arguments for the existence of God. To rattle off just a few: there’s the moral argument, ontological, religious experience, miracles, consciousness, reason, desire, and the families of cosmological arguments and design arguments.

Some Christians say that while these arguments are good for building up the faithful, they’re useless for apologetics and evangelism. After all, we’re not trying to make generic theists. Even the demons believe in God, but that doesn’t give them a saving relationship with Him! (James 2:20) Apologists using these arguments in conversations or debates are barking up the wrong tree at best, and at worst, are being unfaithful to God.

To make the point, these critics will often point to the case of Antony Flew. Flew was a notable philosopher of religion who argued against the existence of God for decades. Near the end of his life, Flew changed his tune. He became a believer in God because of the philosophical and scientific arguments for God. He even wrote a book about it. Here’s a quote that sums up Flew’s conversion:

“I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half-century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science.” There is a God.

Flew’s turnabout sent shockwaves through academic circles and a lot of Christian apologists claimed it as a victory for scientific and philosophical apologetics.

Here’s the rub: Flew never became a Christian. He declared himself to be a deist. Deists, if you don’t know, reject direct revelation and miracles. If this is what successful apologetics looks like, then what’s the point?

Here’s the thing though — For every Antony Flew, you have dozens of people like me. Quick background story: During my teenage years, I was an atheist. But along the course of time, I gradually became convinced God existed. But I wasn’t satisfied with the idea of deism or a generic God. Why?

There are a couple of reasons for that: If God exists, it would be weird if God never communicated with us. And if God was going to communicate with us, he’s not probably going to do it only privately.

The problem with Deism and mysticism

Let’s think about it for a second: Why would a Supreme Being create intelligent beings with the ability for communication and then never speak to them? Not even a ”howdy”? Wouldn’t we expect this God to offer a few words of advice or the occasional helping hand? Deism might explain why there’s a cosmos, consciousness, or the moral law. But it doesn’t offer much of an explanation of God’s silence.

There’s also the problem of God speaking only through private revelation. Anyone could claim that God’s speaking to them, how do we parse that out and see who’s right? It would be spiritual anarchy.

As human beings, we all have the same basic needs and problems in life. It would make more practical sense for God to speak to us about these things publicly and collectively. An all-wise being would talk to us a way that anyone could access and understand. Scripture, or something like it, makes a lot of sense.

It’s this commonsense reasoning that led me to dig up a Bible and start reading. Even though I had issues with the idea of miracles at first, I eventually had an experience with the Holy Spirit and became a Christian. You might say this is just anecdotal, but I’m not the only person to make the jump from ‘generic theism’ to Christianity.

How Natural theology helped lead three former atheists to Jesus

A philosopher’s Journey

Ed Feser taught philosophy of religion for years as a college professor. After going through the arguments semester after semester, he eventually became a philosophical theist. Says Feser:

“I don’t know exactly when everything clicked. There was no single event, but a gradual transformation. As I taught and thought about the arguments for God’s existence, and in particular the cosmological argument, I went from thinking “These arguments are no good” to thinking “These arguments are a little better than they are given credit for” and then to “These arguments are actually kind of interesting.” Eventually, it hit me: “Oh my goodness, these arguments are right after all!” The Road From Atheism

Edward C. Feser is an American philosopher. He is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California

But that’s not where the story ends. Feser eventually became a Christian. He didn’t remain a mere philosophical theist. Not content merely knowing that the God of the philosophers existed, Feser continued his journey and eventually met Jesus.

A scientist’s story

Physicist Frank Tipler is another example of someone who became a Christian after looking at different proofs for God. While Feser was impressed with the philosophical reasons for the existence of God, Tipler became a believer based on the evidence from cosmology and physics, his specialty. While many atheists argue that science and reason will lead someone to reject faith, Tipler found the opposite was true. In the intro of his book The Physics of Immortality, he wrote:

“When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.”

Frank Tipler is a mathematical physicist and cosmologist, holding a joint appointment in the Departments of Mathematics and Physics at Tulane University.

So obviously Tipler didn’t stay in the camp of belief in a deistic or generic deity. His discovery left him wanting to know who this Creator and Designer was.

An Oxford Student’s testimony

I could multiply examples, but for the sake of space, I’ll offer just one more. Sarah-Irving Stonebraker is a history professor in Australia. In an article entitled, ‘How Oxford and Peter Singer Drove Me From Atheism to Jesus‘, Sarah outlines her journey.

“I grew up in Australia, in a loving, secular home, and arrived at Sydney University as a critic of “religion.” I didn’t need faith to ground my identity or my values. I knew from the age of eight that I wanted to study history at Cambridge and become a historian. My identity lay in academic achievement, and my secular humanism was based on self-evident truths…

After Cambridge, I was elected to a Junior Research Fellowship at Oxford. There, I attended three guest lectures by world-class philosopher and atheist public intellectual, Peter Singer. Singer recognized that philosophy faces a vexing problem in relation to the issue of human worth. The natural world yields no egalitarian picture of human capacities. What about the child whose disabilities or illness compromises her abilities to reason? Yet, without reference to some set of capacities as the basis of human worth, the intrinsic value of all human beings becomes an ungrounded assertion; a premise which needs to be agreed upon before any conversation can take place.

I remember leaving Singer’s lectures with a strange intellectual vertigo; I was committed to believing that universal human value was more than just a well-meaning conceit of liberalism. But I knew from my own research in the history of European empires and their encounters with indigenous cultures, that societies have always had different conceptions of human worth or lack thereof. The premise of human equality is not a self-evident truth: it is profoundly historically contingent. I began to realize that the implications of my atheism were incompatible with almost every value I held dear … One Sunday, shortly before my 28th birthday, I walked into a church for the first time as someone earnestly seeking God.

Before long I found myself overwhelmed. At last, I was fully known and seen and, I realized, unconditionally loved – perhaps I had a sense of relief from no longer running from God. A friend gave me C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity, and one night, after a couple months of attending church, I knelt in my closet in my apartment and asked Jesus to save me, and to become the Lord of my life”

Dr. Sarah Irving-Stonebraker is Senior Lecturer (in Australia, this is a tenured professor position) in Modern European History at Western Sydney University in Australia, where she teaches in the History and Political Thought major.

So after learning that God existed through the moral argument, Irving-Stonebraker didn’t stop there. She wasn’t content knowing that a generic God existed. The moral argument made her want to find just who this Moral Lawgiver is.

Arguing for God’s existence isn’t fruitless

So what’s my point?

While Antony Flew’s non-conversion might feel like a failure, there are many people like Feser, Tipler, Irving-Stonebraker, and myself who didn’t stop at generic theism. And the writer of Hebrews tells us that belief in God is a necessary precondition to pleasing God. (Hebrews 11:6) The next part is seeking Him. So when someone like William Lane Craig argues for the existence of God, they’re laying some foundational groundwork and we’re wrong to think little of that.

Once you become convinced God is real, then unless you’re apathetic, you’ll want to get to know him personally. And it’s not as if Craig or others like him stop after offering the arguments for God, they almost always then argue for the resurrection.

And as I said before, intuition and common sense tell us that if God exists, he’s not going to remain silent and stand aloof. And if he’s as smart as design arguments show, he’s going to communicate with us in an accessible way. God can and has used these arguments to get past someone’s intellectual hang-ups or blind spots and to take a step towards him. How could that possibly be a bad thing?

Yes, We Do Need to Put God in A Box

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

“You can’t put God in a box.” It’s a popular saying within the Christian community. And it seems reasonable to say. After all, God can do anything He wants to do. Who would question that? I submit that every thinking Christian should question that … because it’s not true. God’s character does put him in a box. And our failure to recognize that creates a false — and therefore dangerous — picture of God. There is a box God needs to be in. And his character defines it.

God Cannot Do Whatever He Wants

God cannot do whatever he wants to do. If you think that sounds sacrilegious, you first have to understand that God cannot do things that are contrary to his nature. Before we can determine if God can do anything he wants to do, we have to first understand what that nature is. There are several elements to God’s nature but here are a few to consider.

God is Logical

God made an orderly universe. He built the laws of logic into our world and made it predictable. This is why we can communicate with one another. It’s the reason we can use science to understand how the world works. If God made the universe that way, it means that he must also be logical. It means that logic is an extension of his character. And that means God cannot do illogical things.

He can’t make a square circle, a married bachelor, or “a rock so big he can’t lift it.” This is an important point to understand as it relates to the rest of his character traits.

God is Omnipotent

God is all-powerful. But having supreme power doesn’t mean God can do anything. It means he can do anything that power can do. Being immeasurably powerful is what allows God to do miracles or create a universe as immense and complex as the one we see around us. But power does not allow God to do illogical, sinful, hateful, or unjust things. That’s an important distinction to make.

God is Goodness

God is pure goodness. He is “the final standard of good and all that God is and does is worthy of approval.” Because he is good, God is willing and able to demonstrate love in all its forms through mercy, patience, and grace. God loves everything he created. And since human beings are the pinnacle of that creation, God loves humanity in a way that we are incapable of comprehending.

God is Just

Justice occurs when someone gets exactly what they deserve. This can be positive or negative. We know that good acts deserve a reward and evil acts deserve punishment. And we know this intuitively. No one had to teach this to us. Even little babies demonstrate that they know it. All of us inherently value — and seek — justice. God is the source and embodiment of that idea. His character demands it. And since his character is morally perfect, any act of rebellion against that moral perfection — no matter how small — deserves to be punished.

God is Eternal and Self-Existent

God is not the type of being who needs a cause for His existence. The fact that anything exists at all means there must be a permanent, unmovable foundation that sustains it. That’s God. He is the foundation of all being. This is why the question, “Who made God?” is such a silly one. God isn’t the type of thing that you make. He upholds all reality at every instant but does not need to be upheld himself.

God is Omnipresent

The fact that God upholds all reality at every instant means that he is present everywhere. Always. He is not limited by time or space. Don’t get this confused with the ideas that God is everything. That’s pantheism. God’s omnipresence means that he is present everywhere in his creation but also distinct from it.

Putting Them All Together

There are plenty of other character traits that theologians use to describe God. If you are interested in digging more deeply into these kinds of topics, I suggest investing in a book on Systematic Theology. But considering the definitions I’ve briefly mentioned here, I doubt that anyone who takes God seriously would find them to be controversial in themselves. Our problems arise when we forget that God exhibits all these character traits simultaneously. All facets of his nature have to work together. He can’t exercise one if it violates another.

Theological Inconsistencies

Focusing on one aspect of God while ignoring another invites us to accept a false view of him. And many Christians unwittingly do this all the time.

“God showed up!”

When they have an emotional experience in worship, it is common to hear some proclaim that “God showed up today!” But God doesn’t “show up” anywhere. He is always everywhere. Don’t confuse the issue. God doesn’t need our praise to show himself. We need to praise him to remind ourselves of our dependence on him.

“God is so good!”

This is a common refrain to hear from someone who has just received good news of some kind. And while it’s great to acknowledge God’s blessings, it’s wrong-thinking to acknowledge them only when things are going our way. God is good regardless of our personal circumstances. It’s easy to express our love for him when things are good. But it’s imperative that we do the same when things are bad.

“Where was God when …?”

On the flip side, we seem to think God has gone missing when catastrophes occur. We assume that God’s omnipotence means he can and should destroy evil forever. But God made the loving decision to create us as free-will beings. He willingly limits his own power to give us the freedom to choose to follow him. And that means that no matter how powerful he is, God has created a world that allows us to make bad choices. The moral evil we witness all around us depends on our actions, not on God’s absence.

“God is love”

This idea is absolutely true. But contrary to the claims of the universalists and inclusivists among us, God is not just love. The idea that “God is love” is true as far as it goes, but there is more to the story. Ultimate goodness and love are different ways of describing God’s moral perfection. Being pure love and goodness means he cannot sin and he cannot lie. And that means he cannot allow moral imperfection into his presence. When our actions violate his moral law, his justice requires that there be consequences for our decisions. God’s character won’t allow him to accept whatever moral choices we make. This is a reality that often gets ignored by those who insist that a loving God would never allow us to be separated from him. The fact that God loves us does not mean he condones anything we do.

The Box God Needs to Be In

These are just a few examples of how our failure to keep God in the proper box leads not only to theological inconsistencies but to a corrupted view of reality itself. That’s what I mean when I say that we have to put God in a box. It’s a box defined by the sum total of all the elements of his character. Isolating our favorite trait is a bad idea because it doesn’t tell the whole story. And, as is always the case, accepting bad ideas leads to bad real-world consequences.

It turns out that we better keep God in a box. And we better understand how that box is defined. It helps us avoid most of the silly, false, and even dangerous ideas that have become all too common among Christians these days. It’s not always an easy thing to do. But being clear-thinking Christian demands that we acknowledge that God puts himself in a box. And we would do well to keep him there.

The Gospel Authors Knew Palestinian Geography

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

By Ryan Leasure

We’re told by skeptics that eye-witnesses didn’t write the Gospels. Not only that, they say the authors wrote from distant lands like Rome, Egypt, Asia Minor, or Greece. They merely heard the stories of Jesus from others who heard the stories of Jesus from others who heard the stories of Jesus — much like the game telephone.

And as so often happens in the game of telephone, the stories got mixed up along the way. So by the time the writers penned the Gospels, they had a distorted view of Jesus, and thus we can’t know what the real Jesus said or did. Or so the argument goes.

But is that really what happened? A little thought experiment might help us answer this question. Pretend you were given the task of writing a biography on a traveling woman from Bolivia named Carla. Yet you weren’t allowed to visit Bolivia. Furthermore, you couldn’t use the internet, encyclopedias, or maps for research. Your resources would be a couple of Americans who had never met Carla themselves but had heard stories about her travels.

As you undertake this project, how accurately do you think you could convey the geography and landscape of her travels? Would you really be able to give precise locations and distances? Would you know which towns had higher or lower elevations? How accurately could you describe the bodies of water she encountered? Chances are, you’d make a lot of mistakes with these details.

Well, as we think about these so-called authors from distant lands, they wouldn’t have had access to sources that could give them specific details of the Israeli landscape. So as they wrote their stories about Jesus, we would expect them to make lots of geographic blunders, much like your story on Carla. But this isn’t what we find.

Geography of Towns and Regions

The Gospel writers display an incredible familiarity with Palestinian geography. And they don’t just get most of the geography right; they get it all right. This would be truly remarkable if they lived in faraway regions and had only heard of Jesus through secondary sources. But it would be expected for eye-witnesses who followed Jesus from town to town.

Consider this list of towns the Gospel writers mention:1

In total, the Gospel authors list twenty-six different towns. Some are prominent like Jerusalem, while others are obscure like Cana.

Not only do the Gospels include towns, they reference general regions as well. Consider this list:2

In total, the Gospels list thirteen different regions. Compare these lists with some of the apocryphal Gospels, which give us almost no geographical details.

The Gospel of Thomas, for example, mentions Judaea once and no other locations. The Gospel of Judas doesn’t even list a single location, and The Gospel of Philip names just Jerusalem, Nazareth, and Jordan.

Of course, the lack of geographical detail is to be expected in these apocryphal works. After all, non-eye-witnesses wrote them from distant regions some 150 years after Jesus. Naturally, people would have heard of Jerusalem (the capital of Israel), Nazareth (Jesus’ hometown), and Jordan (the river where Jesus was baptized). One wouldn’t need to be an eye-witness to have knowledge of these regions. But Cana, Bethany, and Salim? One would have to have special knowledge to know about these places.

Geography of Bodies of Water

Since the writers had an in-depth knowledge of the towns and regions, it should come as no surprise to learn they also knew about the bodies of water. Consider this list:3

It’s interesting to note the numerous references to “the Sea” of Galilee. For a body of water that’s a mere thirteen miles long, it’s odd that an Egyptian or Roman author would call it “the sea.” For them, the Mediterranean qualifies as a sea, not this tiny body of water that’s less than 1/300th the size of Lake Michigan.

Yet we would expect Galilean fishermen — who spent their entire careers on the body of water — to call it “the sea.” What’s even more interesting is that while the three Jewish authors of the Gospels refer to it as “the sea,” the one non-Jewish author (Luke) does not. Instead, he refers to it as “the lake” (Lk. 5:1, 2; 8:22, 23, 33). This makes sense because from a broader gentile perspective, “lake” was a more accurate description.

The authors also know that Bethsaida and Capernaum are close by the Sea of Galilee and that you can go directly from the Sea of Galilee into the hill country. Furthermore, John knew of a small stream called the Kidron and of two pools in Jerusalem. One pool he describes as having five colonnades, which has been verified by archeological evidence. Again, all of these details would be quite remarkable coming from non-eye-witnesses in distant regions.

Geography of Roads

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus tells the story of a man “going down” from Jerusalem (750 meters above sea level) to Jericho (250 meters below sea level). This was a descent of approximately one kilometer. The writer knew enough to know both Jerusalem and Jericho’s elevations. In fact, all four Gospels describe people “going up” to Jerusalem and “going down” as they left Jerusalem.

In John 2 and 4, leaving Cana (200 meters above sea level) for Capernaum (200 meters below sea level) is described as “going down.” Similarly, Luke describes the travel from Nazareth (350 meters above sea level) to Capernaum (200 meters below sea level) as “going down.”

More impressively, the authors knew the location of a tiny village called Chorazin. In Luke 10:13-15, Jesus chides Chorazin along with Bethsaida and Capernaum for their lack of belief. According to New Testament scholar Peter Williams,

The little-known village of Chorazin is, in fact, on the road to Bethsaida and just a couple of miles north of Capernaum. As far as we know, there was not a single literary source that could have provided this information to a Gospel author.4

The authors also knew that multiple routes existed between Judaea and Galilee — one to avoid Samaria and one right through it. Furthermore, they knew it was short travel from the small villages of Bethany and Bethphage to Jerusalem.

Who Could Know All These Geographical Details?

How could one get all of these obscure details correct? If it’s as the skeptics say, and non-eye-witnesses wrote these accounts from distant places, they got extremely lucky. A more reasonable conclusion, however, is that the writers received detailed information from eye-witnesses or were eye-witnesses themselves. As Peter Williams concludes,

No known sources hold together the particular set of information they (Gospel writers) have, and besides, we would have to suppose that they undertook a level of literary research quite unparalleled in ancient history. If these pieces of information result from hearing, then the reports they heard must have been fairly precise — concerned with stories not merely for their message but also for specific details. Thus it seems that the authors received the information either from their experience or from detailed hearing.5

*For more on this topic, check out Peter Williams’ book Can We Trust the Gospels?

I’m not a Jehovah’s Witness for the same reason I’m not a global warming alarmist

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

In the summer, a couple of Jehovah’s Witness ladies were going door-to-door, and they stopped by my house while I was out mowing. I decided to talk to them. They asked me why I was an evangelical Protestant rather than a JW. Rather than go into a lot of theology about the Trinity and the Watchtower translation, I decided to just tell them about the false predictions their group has made.

So, let’s just quickly review that using this article from Watchman fellowship, which quotes JW publications:

Initially, the organization taught the “battle of the Great Day of God Almighty” (Armageddon) would end in 1914. Every kingdom of the world would be overthrown in 1914, which was “God’s date” not for the beginning but “for the end” of the time of trouble.

“…we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished by the end of A.D. 1914” (Watchtower founder, Charles Taze Russell, The Time is at Hand, p. 99).

“…the ‘battle of the great day of God Almighty’ (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth’s present rulership, is already commenced” (Ibid., p. 101).

“CAN IT BE DELAYED UNTIL 1914?… our readers are writing to know if there may not be a mistake in the 1914 date. They say that they do not see how present conditions can last so long under the strain. We see no reason for changing the figures – nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God’s dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble” (Watch Tower, 15 July 1894, p. 226).

Clearly, the world did not end in 1914, and it did not end at subsequent JW predictions, either, e.g., 1925, 1975.

So, as the title of the post says that I can’t be a global warming alarmist for the same reason, I can’t be a Jehovah’s Witness: failed predictions.

Here’s an excellent article from Daily Signal by famous black economist Walter Williams, who explains the connection:

As reported in The New York Times (Aug. 1969), Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich warned: “The trouble with almost all environmental problems is that by the time we have enough evidence to convince people, you’re dead. We must realize that unless we’re extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.”

In 2000, David Viner, a senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia’s climate research unit, predicted that in a few years’ winter snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

In 2004, the U.S. Pentagon warned President George W. Bush that major European cities would be beneath rising seas. Britain will be plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020. In 2008, Al Gore predicted that the polar ice cap would be gone in a mere 10 years. A U.S. Department of Energy study led by the U.S. Navy predicted the Arctic Ocean would experience an ice-free summer by 2016.

In May 2014, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius declared during a joint appearance with Secretary of State John Kerry that “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Peter Gunter, professor at North Texas State University, predicted in the spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness:

Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975, widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China, and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions. … By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.

Ecologist Kenneth Watt’s 1970 prediction was, “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000.” He added, “This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

Williams concludes:

Today’s wild predictions about climate doom are likely to be just as true as yesteryear’s. The major difference is today’s Americans are far more gullible and more likely to spend trillions fighting global warming. And the only result is that we’ll be much poorer and less free.

We have known for decades that the Earth’s temperatures were much warmer during the “Medieval Warming Period,” hundreds of years ago. But some people are just having irrational fears about overpopulation, resource shortages, etc. and so they will promote nonsense to try to scare people into doing what they want. World history is full of pious-sounding attention-seeking hoaxsters who try to scare the gullible masses into giving them money and/or power. It’s not new.

Ambassador at Work – Faith, Vocation, and Apologetics

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mikel Del Rosario

How do people see you at work? I’ve been thinking about the relationship of your vocational work to spiritual conversations, especially as I reflect on collaborative events I’ve participated in over years, like the National Faith and Work Association Meeting. And here’s the thing: Our apologetic arguments aren’t heard in a vacuum. They’re wrapped in a special packaging called “your life.” In other words, our spiritual conversations are heard in the context of our who we are at work.

Think about it: We spend most of our time at work. And that’s where most of us interact with people who see Christianity differently. Each week, you have the opportunity to break down emotional barriers to the Gospel by the way you work and the way you treat people at work.

In this post, I’ll share two ways your time at work can begin to break down barriers to spiritual conversations with people you see the most. First, your work provides opportunities for building relationships. Second, your job provides opportunities to love your neighbors.

Real Relationships

Building relationships with your co-workers and clients is a great way to break down emotional barriers to spiritual conversations. Part of earning the right to be heard includes doing good work in our vocation. Again, our spiritual conversations, apologetic arguments, and evangelism don’t take place in a vacuum. They are wrapped up in the kind of person you are in the workplace. Walt Larimore, who wrote Workplace Grace along with Bill Peel, says:

“People tend to not want to hear what you say if you are sloppy at work.”

But it’s a lot more than job performance that counts. It’s how you treat people, too.

Neighborly Love

Honoring God with our life includes viewing our work as a ministry—a service to both God and neighbor. This goes beyond the things that we might do outside of our work responsibilities. Although praying for people or leading bible studies after office hours may honor God, we shouldn’t forget that our daily, professional work itself is also a part of our service to the Lord. I like how Greg Forster says that work is “how we serve our neighbors in our everyday activities,” and it “is one of the main ways we reflect the character of Christ” (Theology That Works, 10).

Both competence and character are important traits of a Christian ambassador at work. It’s no surprise that thoughtful acts of kindness—like sharing the recognition for corporate victories with our staff or verbally appreciating our coworkers for their contributions—can play an important part in representing the Gospel. The Lord is pleased by Christian ambassadors who do good, honest work while obeying the Second Greatest Commandant: to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Loving your neighbor often paves the way for open spiritual conversations. In a video series on Workplace Grace, Bill Peel explains:

“When actions and words go together in showing appreciation and respect and honor of the value in another person, that speaks volumes. Obviously, if a person doesn’t feel valued by us they’re not going to value what you believe or what you say.”

So, when someone realizes that we have their best in mind, they may find it easier to open the door to honest conversations about some of the most important things in life. As ambassadors, we must begin to develop a biblical perspective on our work. One of the results of doing so is a better witness for Christ at our places of employment.

At the end of the day, our spiritual conversations are always heard in the context of our lives, including our lives at work. As Christian ambassadors, we need to see the value God sees in our work and the opportunities he’s has placed for us to represent Him well in our places of employment.

Take this week to intentionally build relationships with your coworkers, supervisors, customers, and clients, genuinely loving them through your work. By God’s grace, these simple acts of kindness can help open the door to spiritual conversations and even break down emotional barriers to the Gospel.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/35ver66

October 23, 2019/by Guest

Tag Archive for: Christianity

Jesus: The Essential Works

What are the essential truths Christians believing about the things Jesus did? As defenders of the faith, we need to know which beliefs about Jesus’ deeds are essential and why we should believe them.

The Nicene Creed says Jesus was crucified for us

The Nicene Creed says Jesus died on the cross

The Nicene Creed says Jesus was buried in a tomb

The Works of Jesus in the Nicene Creed

Watch the Table Podcast

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Book Introduction: But Not Through Me

Chapter 1: Back to The Moral Stone Age

Chapter 2: We’re All Spinmeisters Now

Chapter 3: The West Versus Itself

Chapter 4: Differences Make A Difference

Chapter 5: Turning The Tables

Chapter 6: On Record Against Ourselves

Reviewer’s Thoughts

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Scripture references are from the following sources:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The problem with Deism and mysticism

How Natural theology helped lead three former atheists to Jesus

A philosopher’s Journey

A scientist’s story

An Oxford Student’s testimony

Arguing for God’s existence isn’t fruitless

Recommended resources related to the topic:

God Cannot Do Whatever He Wants

God is Logical

God is Omnipotent

God is Goodness

God is Just

God is Eternal and Self-Existent

God is Omnipresent

Putting Them All Together

Theological Inconsistencies

“God showed up!”

“God is so good!”

“Where was God when …?”

“God is love”

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Geography of Towns and Regions

Geography of Bodies of Water

Geography of Roads

Who Could Know All These Geographical Details?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Real Relationships

Neighborly Love