Tag Archive for: Christianity

The Kalam Cosmological Argument NOT Debunked

The Kalam Cosmological Argument NOT Debunked

, ,

By Evan Minton

I discovered a YouTuber called “Rationality Rules” very recently. One of his many videos is “The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked – (First Cause Argument Refuted)” which you can watch here. One of my patrons brought this video to my attention and requested that I respond to it, so here we go.

For the uninitiated, The Kalam Cosmological Argument is formulated as follows:

1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2: The universe began to exist.

3: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Let’s look at each of Rationality Rules’ rebuttals.

Objection 1: The Argument Doesn’t Support Theism 

Rationality Rules (RR) says “Even if the Cosmological Argument were accepted in its entirely, all it would prove is that there was a cause of the universe, and that’s it. It doesn’t even suggest, let alone prove that this cause was a being, and it certainly doesn’t suggest that that cause was a being that is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, personal and moral. That is one hell of a leap. Hence, even if accepted, the argument doesn’t even remotely support theism.” 

I really couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Has RR even paid the slightest bit attention to apologists’ defenses of The Cosmological Argument? This is patently false. Given that everything that has a beginning has something that caused it to come into being, and since Big Bang cosmology, the second law of thermodynamics, and the two arguments against actual infinites establish that the universe came into being out of nothing a finite time ago, it follows that a cause transcendent to matter, energy, space, and time must have caused matter, energy, space, and time (i.e the universe) to come into existence. Now, granted, the syllogism doesn’t define this cause as “God”. It only asserts “Therefore, the universe has a cause”. However, in every defense of The Kalam Cosmological Argument I’ve ever heard given, this is not where the argument stops. Once it is established that the universe a transcendent cause, the apologist (William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, Lee Strobel, Myself) do a conceptual analysis of what it means to be a cause of the universe. The conceptual analysis part of the argument is being totally ignored by RR.

When you do a conceptual analysis of what attributes or properties the universe’s cause must have, you do indeed end up with a being heavily resembling God.

The cause must be

Spaceless – Because space came into being and did not exist until this cause brought it into existence, the cause cannot be a spatial being. It must be spaceless or non-spatial. You cannot be inside of something if you are that something’s cause. You cannot be inside of something if that something did not exist until you brought it into existence.

Timeless – Since time did not exist until The Big Bang, the cause cannot be inside of time. It must be a timeless being.

Immaterial – The cause’s non-spatiality entails immateriality. How so? Because material objects cannot exist unless space exists. Material objects have mass and ergo occupy spatial dimensions. If there is no space, matter cannot exist. This means that because the cause is non-spatial, it is therefore non-material.

Unimaginably Powerful (if not omnipotent) – Anything able to create all matter, energy, space, and time out of absolutely nothing must be extremely powerful, if not omnipotent.

Supernatural – “Nature” and “The universe” are synonyms. Nature did not begin to exist until The Big Bang. Therefore, a natural cause (a cause coming, by definition, from nature) cannot be responsible for the origin of nature. To say otherwise would be to spout incoherence. You’d basically be saying “Nature caused nature to come into being.”

Uncaused – Given that the cause of the universe is timeless, the cause cannot itself have a beginning. To have a beginning to one’s existence entails a before and after relationship. There’s a time before one existed and a time after one came into existence. But a before and after of anything is impossible without time. Since the cause existed sans time, the cause, therefore, cannot have a beginning. It’s beginningless.

Personal – This is an entailment of the cause’s immateriality. There are two types of things recognized by philosophers that are immaterial: abstract objects (such as numbers, sets, or other mathematical entities) or unembodied minds. Philosophers realize that abstract objects if they exist, they exist as non-physical entities. However, abstract objects cannot produce any effects. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. The number 3 isn’t going to be producing any effects anytime soon. Given that abstract objects are causally impotent, it, therefore, follows that an unembodied mind is the cause of the universe’ beginning. Two other arguments for the personhood of the universe’s cause can be given, and I’ve unpacked these in my book The Case For The One True God: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Historical Case For The God Of Christianity available on Amazon.com in both paperback and Kindle.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause, given that the universe began to exist, if follows that the universe has a cause of its existence. The cause of the universe must be a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, supernatural, uncaused, personal Creator.

This being that is demonstrated to exist by this argument is consistent with The Christian God. The Bible describes God as spaceless (see 1 Kings 8:27, 2 Chronicles 2:6), timeless (1 Corinthians 2:7, 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2), immaterial (John 4:24, 1 Timothy 1:17, 1 Timothy 6:16), powerful (Psalm 62:11-12, Job 9:14, Matthew 19:26), uncaused (Psalm 90:2, Isaiah 57:15, 1 Timothy 1:17, Revelation 1:8), supernatural, and is a personal being (John 1:12, James 4:8). Moreover, The Bible credits Him with being the Creator of all physical reality (John 1:1-3).

Additionally, as I point out in my book The Case For The One True God: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Historical Case For The God Of Christianity a study of comparative religions demonstrates that only 4 religions are consistent with the Cosmological argument’s conclusion: Judaism, Christianity, Islam (that’s why Ghazali defended it), and Deism. All other religions involve either an eternal cosmos that have God or gods bringing order out of the eternally existing matter, energy, space and time, or else their god is the universe itself (pantheism). Therefore, if you’re picking a view about God based on the cosmological argument alone, your list of options consistent with the evidence is limited to just 4 options, Christianity being among them. Only the Abrahamic religions (and Deism) teach that a God like the one described above brought all physical reality into existence from nothing.

Rationality Rules complains that the argument doesn’t demonstrate the omniscience, omnipresence, or the moral character of the universe’s cause, but the argument was never designed to get those qualities. Richard Dawkins made this same complaint about the argument. Dawkins said it like this “Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts.”[1] and Dr. William Lane Craig responded to it thusly:

“Apart from the opening slur, this is an amazingly concessionary statement! Dawkins doesn’t dispute that the argument successfully proves the existence of an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, spaceless, and unimaginably powerful personal Creator of the universe. He merely complains that this cause hasn’t also been shown to be omnipotent, omniscient, good, creative of design, listening to prayers, forgiving sins, and reading innermost thoughts. So what? The argument isn’t intended to prove those things. It would be a bizarre form of atheism, indeed an atheism not worth the name, which admitted that there exists an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, immaterial, spaceless, unimaginably powerful, personal Creator of the universe who may (for all we know) also possess the properties listed by Dawkins. So we needn’t call the personal Creator of the universe “God” if Dawkins finds this unhelpful or misleading. But the point remains that such a being as described by this argument must exist”[2]

This is just a pitiful objection to The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Objection 2: It Doesn’t Prove The Universe’s Cause Was The First Cause. 

I facepalmed even harder at this objection than I did the previous one. Rationality Rules said “A second problem that even we accepted the argument. It wouldn’t prove that the universe itself was without a cause. Or in another words, it wouldn’t prove that first cause existed, which for a first cause argument is pretty damn ridiculous. To be fair, the proponents of this argument do indeed offer additional arguments in an attempt to assert that the cause of the universe must be without a cause. But the point that I’m trying to make here and now is that The Kalam Cosmological Argument, by itself, is pretty damn trivial. And hence, the proponents of this argument almost always employ additional arguments to reach their conclusions including the likes of Craig” 

There are good reasons given as to why the cause of the universe must be uncaused. I’ve given one of them above. I wrote “Given that the cause of the universe is timeless, the cause cannot itself have a beginning. To have a beginning to one’s existence entails a before and after relationship. There’s a time before one existed and a time after one came into existence. But a before and after of anything is impossible without time. Since the cause existed sans time, the cause, therefore, cannot have a beginning. It’s beginningless.” Another reason is that if you do not allow for an uncreated Creator, if you insist that God must have a Creator, you get thrown into an infinite regression. For God to come into being, His creator must have come into being, and before that creator could come into being, the creator before him had to come into being, and before that creator could come into being, the creator before him had to come into being, and so on back into infinity. No creator could ever come into being because there would always have to be a creator before him to bring him into being. In fact, no creator in the entire infinite past series of creators could ever come into being because each would have to be preceded by a previously created creator. And since no creator could ever come into being, the specific creator that brought our universe into existence couldn’t have come into being. But obviously, here we are. This suggests that there wasn’t an infinite regression of creators begetting creators. But if there was no infinite regression of creators begetting creators, then that logically brings us to an uncreated Creator, a Creator without beginning.

Even Rationality Rules admits that Kalam proponents back up the assertion that the cause is uncaused by arguments, as you can see in the quotation above. However, he doesn’t dispute the arguments. He doesn’t even say what the arguments are. He seems to think that merely having to bolster the conclusion “the universe had a cause” with additional arguments is an invalid move. But why think a thing like that? Yes, the syllogism by itself only gets you to “The universe had a cause”, but why take Christian Apologists to task for unpacking the implications of that conclusion with additional arguments?

The question RR should be asking is not whether additional arguments are needed, but whether the additional arguments given are good. RR’s objection is pretty damn trivial.

Objection 3: It Commits The Fallacy Of Equivocation

Rationality Rules indicts The Kalam Cosmological Argument for committing the fallacy of equivocation. What is the fallacy of equivocation? The fallacy of equivocation is when an argument uses the exact same word, but employs two different definitions of the word. It would be like if someone argued “God made everything. Everything is made in China. Therefore, God is Chinese”. The word being equivocated on here is the word “everything”. In the first premise, it means literally everything that exists, whereas, in premise 2, it only refers to everything that American consumers purchase.

Rationality Rules says that in the second premise, what we mean by the term “Universe” is the scientific definition of universe (i.e all matter, energy, space, and time), whereas in the conclusion, we employ the colloquial usage of the term “Universe”, meaning literally everything that ever was, is, and ever will be. Thus, RR says that steps 2 and 3 of the argument employ the same words with different meanings.

This objection is just as underwhelming as the previous two. For one thing, why isn’t “all matter, energy, space, and time) not synonymous with “everything that ever was, is, or will be”? Perhaps RR is assuming The Mother Universe theory whereby The Big Bang was not the absolute origin of all material objects, but only the birth of one of many “baby” universes” that come into being inside of a much wider Mother Universe. In that case, the origin of our universe would indeed not be “everything that ever was, is, or will be”.

But as I argue in my blog posts “Does The Multi-Verse Explain Away The Need For A Creator?” and “Is The Universe A Computer Simulation?” not to mention chapter 1 of The Case For The One True God, this Mother Multiverse scenario cannot be extended into past eternity. The Borde-Guth-Velinken Theorem, as well as the impossibility of traversing actual infinites, bring us to an absolute beginning of literally everything at some point, whether that be the beginning of our universe, The Mother Universe, The Grandmother Universe, or whatever.

This leads to my next point; we do mean literally everything in both steps 2 and 3. We mean all matter, energy, space, and time that ever was, is or will be in both steps 2 and 3. Now, RR can dispute whether premise 2 is true, but if I, William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, Frank Turek, Hugh Ross, etc. mean literally everything in both steps, then a charge of the fallacy of equivocation cannot stand. We mean the same thing by “universe” in both steps 2 and 3.

Objection 4: Nothing Has Ever Been Demonstrated To Come Into Being From Nothing 

RR says “And this brings us comfortably to another critical flaw with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It asserts that something can indeed come from nothing – a concept in philosophy known as Creatio Ex Nihilo (creation out of nothing), when this has never been demonstrated to occur. In fact, to the contrary, everything we know about cause and effect overwhelmingly and unanimously tells us that when a new thing is created it is due to the rearrangement of energy and matter that already existed… that is, everything is the result of Creatio Ex Materia (creation out of material).”

Another underwhelming objection. Before I give my response, let me inform my readers that I distinguish causes via Aristotelian Causation. The ancient philosopher Aristotle recognized that there are different types of causes. A “material cause” is the stuff out of which something is made. For example, a chair’s material cause is the wood gathered from chopped down trees. An efficient cause of the chair would be the carpenter who fashioned the chair from the wood. Another type of cause Aristotle identified was Final Causality. This is the teleology, the purpose or end goal of bringing something into being. In the example of the chair, the final cause would be the purpose of sitting. But for this discussion, only efficient and material causes need to be distinguished.

The objection here is that the inductive evidence is overwhelmingly against the idea that things can come into being without a material cause. The conclusion of The Kalam Cosmological Argument is that the universe came into being via an efficient cause (God), but with no material cause. God didn’t use previously existing material to manufacture the universe.

Now, I would agree that our experience shows us that whenever something comes into being, it had a material cause as well as an efficient cause, thus rendering us with as much inductive evidence for material causation, but this inductive evidence can be overridden if we have powerful evidence that all physical reality came into being out of nothing a finite time ago. The Big Bang demonstrates just that. To look at the evidence, see my blog posts “The Kalam Cosmological Argument” and “Is The Big Bang The Origin Of The Universe?”

As I explain in the above blog posts, we do in fact have powerful scientific evidence as well as philosophical arguments which show us that the whole of physical reality (space, time, matter, and energy) had an absolute beginning.

Objection 5: Special Pleading Fallacy 

RR says that Kalam proponents commit the special pleading fallacy. What is that? The Special Pleading Fallacy occurs whenever you make an exception to an established rule without justification. RR says “they [Kalam proponents] assert that the cause of the universe didn’t begin to exist and therefore it didn’t have a cause, without adequately justifying why this cause is an exception.”

My face is hurting from all the facepalming I’ve been doing throughout watching this dude’s videos. First of all, there’s no exception to even be made! The argument is that “Whatever begins to exist has a cause.” The Kalam proponent would only be special pleading if he or she said that God began to exist, but made him the exception by saying he came into being uncaused. However, all proponents of The Kalam Cosmological Argument hold that (A) God is uncaused, uncreated. And (B) we give arguments for that. I’ve given arguments for that above.

Objection 6: Argument From Ignorance

Of course. The overused “God Of The Gaps” objection. This is not based on what we don’t know. It’s based on what we do know. As I explained in subheader 1, the cause of the universe must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, uncaused, and personal. And I didn’t just arbitrarily assign these attribute’s to the universe’s cause, I gave positive arguments for why the universe’s cause must have these attributes. I, nor has any proponent of this argument ever said, “Scientists can’t explain how the universe came into being, so it must be God” or anything of that sort. One must suppose that atheists continue to illegitimately accuse the Kalam of committing this fallacy because they just don’t pay attention when it is explained to them. If you keep falling asleep in class, it’s no surprise that you don’t know what you’re talking about when it’s time to do your essay.

As for being the specific God I believe in, I’d recommend a look at The Case For The One True God. I admit that The Kalam doesn’t get you to the uniquely Christian conception of God, but it does get you to a conception of God that doesn’t match the majority of the ones most religions out there. Abrahamic religions and Deism are consistent with this argument, but polytheistic, animistic, and pantheistic religions are not. And atheism certainly is not consistent with the argument’s conclusion.

Conclusion 

When my patron Kevin Walker, asked me to make a response to this video, I was actually bracing myself for some pretty hard-hitting rebuttals, if not refutations. I was like “Boy, I hope I can handle these responses.” I never expected the pitiful, flimsy objections RR put forth.

Notes 

[1] Richard Dawkins, “The God Delusion” p. 158.

[2] William Lane Craig, “Deconstructing New Atheist Objections To The Arguments For God,” https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/short-videos/deconstructing-new-atheist-objections-to-the-arguments-for-god/

 

Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). He is the author of “Inference to The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine.” He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.

Original Blog Source:  http://bit.ly/2VrWpAg

/by
Who Made God A Cosmological Argument for Kids

Who Made God? A Cosmological Argument for Kids

,

By Mikel Del Rosario

Who Made God? Here’s a Simple Answer

Watching Phil Vischer’s Jelly Telly show with my little boy reminded me that accessible apologetics training is for kids, too! One day after church, we sat down to watch a little clip online. There was a puppet newscaster hosting a segment called “Buck Denver’s Mail Bag.”

At first, I wasn’t too excited about it. But then, Buck said that an 11-year old boy asked this question: “Who made God?” My ears perked up and began to lean forward.

What came next was something I’d never seen before: a puppet engaged in apologetics and using the cosmological argument to teach kids!

Video Transcript

Who made God? Easy answer: No one. You say, “How could that be? Everything I’ve ever known has been made by someone. How could God not be made by anyone?” Well, here’s the thing. Something has to have been not made.

Cause if you start with like, um, your car. Who made your car? Well, it came out of the factory. Who made the factory? Well, it was built by the builders. Who made the builders? Well, their mommies, kind of. And um, who made them? Their mommies and their mommies and going way, way, way, way back. It can’t go back forever. So at some point, it had to start with something that was not made. Something that just always was. That is God. God always was. He was never made. Pretty cool, huh? Something had to have started it all, and that something is God.

This reminded me of William Lane Craig’s wife, Jan, who responded in a similar way to a student who said she did not believe in God. Jan’s quoted in Reasonable Faith: “Everything we see has a cause, and those causes have causes and so on. But this can’t go back forever. There had to be a beginning and a first cause which started the whole thing. This is God” (122).

Here’s how William Lane Craig himself responded to the question, “Where did God come from?” He explained, “God didn’t come from anywhere. He is eternal and has always existed. So he doesn’t need a cause. But now, let me ask you something. The universe has not always existed but had a beginning. So where did the universe come from?”

Simple is Good

Whether it’s responding to kids, college students or anyone else, it’s not enough to have an answer to a tough question like, “Who Made God?” It’s also important to share it simply—at least at first. If the conversations get more technical, so be it. But let’s take a cue from Buck Denver and start with something simple.

Like This?

You’re gonna love this. The Jelly Telly crew got together and produced an awesome DVD series which incorporates accessible apologetics and theology for kids: Buck Denver Asks What’s in the Bible?

When it comes to introducing the Bible, theology, and apologetics to children in a way they can understand, this seriously rocks. It’s Bible literacy for a new generation. Whether you’re a parent, grandparent, Sunday School teacher, or just looking for a gift for that Christian kid on your list, check out Buck Denver Asks What’s in the Bible?

My kid loves this series. And I do, too!

 

Mikel Del Rosario helps Christians explain their faith with courage and compassion. He is a doctoral student in the New Testament department at Dallas Theological Seminary. Mikel teaches Christian Apologetics and World Religion at William Jessup University. He is the author of Accessible Apologetics and has published over 20 journal articles on apologetics and cultural engagement with his mentor, Dr. Darrell Bock. Mikel holds an M.A. in Christian Apologetics with highest honors from Biola University and a Master of Theology (Th.M) from Dallas Theological Seminary where he serves as Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center and a host of the Table Podcast. Visit his Web site at ApologeticsGuy.com.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2HcDa3U

/by
Desire and God Should I Always Do What I Feel

Desire and God: Should I Always Do What I Feel?

,

By Robby Hall

The debate over homosexual behavior has taken many surprising turns. The national debate has involved a Fast Food franchise and a maker of Duck Calls.  It has involved extremes from Fred Phelps and his clan to groups like GLAAD comparing the whole thing to the civil rights movement of the mid-20th century.

What is missing from all of this is honest discourse. And what is missing from those who tell us that what they are doing is ok is “why it’s ok?”.

We hear arguments like:

  • “I was born this way.”
  • “My Love is real.”
  • “Why would I choose to be gay?”

So, for the Christian who believes that God teaches homosexual behavior is sin and that those who practice this need repentance and forgiveness, the message they give to LGBTQ people is very important.

Ultimately, the discussion boils down to desire.  It’s at this point that the discussion breaks down most often because neither side really understands their desires, their position as a human being in a fallen world, and how God views all of humanity.

So let’s take a look at desire.  Most homosexuals would say that they desire romantic/sexual relationships with those of the same sex and that they did not choose these desires any more than a heterosexual chooses their desires for opposite-sex relationships.  I believe this is true, but not for the reasons most homosexuals or Christians believe. [though, I believe these homosexual desires developed at an early age rather than a person being born with them “out of the box”]

I do not believe God created people with homosexual desires.  Homosexual desires are a result of the fallen, sinful state every person finds themselves in.  It’s no different than my desire to sleep with multiple women or someone’s desire to get as drunk as they can, etc.  Desire is not the benchmark for God’s holiness or His creation.  People desire many things – Money, Sex, Power.  All of our sinful actions can be traced back to a desire.  As a Christian, we must see ourselves before our salvation.  The bible says we were “enemies of God.”  Enemies.  At our hearts, we were evil.  So it should not be surprising that people have sinful desires.

A big question here is “how do I know my desires are sinful?”.  The only real answer to that is to put it up against God’s standards.  We know from Romans 1 that homosexual behavior is sinful.  Now, notice that I said homosexual behavior.  Having a desire and entertaining that desire are two different things.  Simply being attracted to the same sex is not sinful in itself [that is, that the desire exists] unless you were to dwell on such thoughts [as Jesus says, “if a man lusts in his heart…].  This is an important distinction for a Christian to make as he/she approaches those in the LGBTQ community in conversation about this issue.  It is no more sinful than being tempted.  Jesus was tempted in all things but did not sin.

Now, instantly, someone will say “well, Jesus never said homosexual behavior was a sin!”.  Well, what did Jesus say?  In Matthew 19, the Pharisees asked Jesus about the lawfulness of divorce.  His response tells us many things about the Old Testament:

“He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning, it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Here, Jesus not only affirms the OT, but He also tells us what God’s design for marriage is.  Held up against this standard, the only holy marital desire is that of a heterosexual nature.  We must ask ourselves if we should give in to any desire we have?  If I have a desire for lying, should I lie and not be held accountable because I was born that way?  What about theft?  We could list many more, but you understand the point.

So, when someone says they can’t help the way they feel, they are correct.  Only the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as a result of salvation through faith and repentance can change desires.  But, desire is not an excuse for sin.  And it may be that the desire itself does not change, so the Christian must then choose to remain pure and, perhaps, unmarried.

When we as Christians see our own selfish desires that are to be crucified daily, we can understand a homosexual’s position and can offer understanding. Truth with gentleness and respect.

And for those in the LGBTQ community, understand that God does love you just as you are.  But you are in no different a position than I or anyone else.  Salvation comes by grace through faith in Christ alone.  And repentance leads to faith.

Be prepared to have honest conversations.  Discard bumper sticker slogans.  Let go of the Us vs. Them mentality.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2UUQ8bn

/by
Transcending Spiritual Gymnastics

Transcending Spiritual Gymnastics

,

By Nathan Howe

“Spiritual” people, specifically non-believers, can have some pretty comical explanations of the supernatural as they come out of Atheism. Coming from a perspective that attributes no part of existence by any Spiritual guidance or conscious force, is a horrible building block to start learning about spirituality. Truly, the case consists of individuals who fight tooth and nail to believe that existence is a freak accident, then turn right around and contribute omnipotent characteristics to things like, Nature, or create moral rebounds by a force known as “Karma.”

I’m reading an article someone wrote about the Law of Transcendence, Where the author correlates it to Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that everything in existence is moving in one direction or another, completely incapable of remaining in the condition it was created in.

Well, that would make sense considering that since sin entered the world, we have lived in a constant state of Decay. But Non-believer’s don’t see the Second Law of Thermodynamics from the Bible’s perspective. They state that things can actually move forward, getting better by means of health or wealth. The issue with that is that wealth isn’t always applicable to the quality of life, this is made evident by the countless millionaires who met their end by their own hand, as well as commonly circulated phrases such as, “Money doesn’t buy happiness.”

The problem with this word, “Transcendence,” is that it’s incredibly vague by definition. The dictionary defines it as, “existence or experience beyond the normal or physical level.” By this definition, we experience transcendence just about every time we take a wrong turn on our way home from work, (Does anybody actually do that?)

However, the point where this reaches “Maximum Silliness,” is when the writer states: “This chain of events is put in place because nature’s desire is for all forms of existence to improve upon themselves.”

Did you catch it? See, this is something Atheism, as well as New Agers, do quite commonly. “There is no God; your God isn’t real. We are the higher power.” And in the same breath, will turn around and give conscious characteristics to “Nature,” describing it as a conscious force that has a will for existence.

This is literally a description of God, but at the same time, they’re dancing around the title “God,” for peer approval, all the while pursuing spirituality. This is a people who will embrace Satanism under whatever guise it comes to the world as.

Watch the author do it again here, where they write, “It is not nature’s desire for any form of existence to stand still, and therefore, no being is permitted by nature to remain in any one condition for very long.” That time, it should have been pretty easy to catch. Not only does Nature have a desire for all things in existence to move about altering their conditions for better or for worse, but that the force (in a sense) doesn’t leave people where it finds them. It comes into their lives and moves them towards transcendence… The author just described God and called him “Nature,” That’s all they did.

We started with calling it the “State of Decay” caused by Sin and death entering the world, then the secular scientists redefined it as “The Second Law of Thermodynamics,” and after it watered down peoples philosophical understanding of the world we live in, the New Agers come along only to call it, “The Law of Transcendence,” completely cutting God out of the picture and replacing it with a conscious all-powerful force of their own. Are people catching this sleight of hand? Or are we now being blown around by any doctrine we hear? Never grab hold of a doctrine that cuts God out of the picture and tries to replace him with an all-powerful force who doesn’t pay mind to wrongdoing. The Law of Transcendence ought to be packed away with Astrology, the New Age Movement, New Thought, and other forms of teachings that cut God out of the picture He created.

 

Nathan Howe is a 26-year-old Male from Seattle, WA. He is relocated to Phoenix, AZ over 2 years ago, and currently, participate in his church (Vineyard Church North Phoenix) by playing the Bass guitar in the 18-25 Small Group band. He currently works at Arizona Autism as an HCBS Coordinator overseeing the North Phoenix Area; they are pediatric therapy specialists providing Respite, Habilitation and Therapy Services for Children with Developmental Disabilities.

/by
19 Essential Bible Verses and Passages on Apologetics

19 Essential Bible Verses and Passages on Apologetics

By Erik Manning

Sometimes you gotta make an apologetic for apologetics.  Often well-meaning Christians spout off pious-sounding platitudes like “faith isn’t based on reason, that’s why it’s called faith,” or “God doesn’t need us to defend him, just preach the gospel.” That sounds spiritual, but it isn’t biblical. That’s not the way Jesus operated, and that’s not the way the early church operated either.

Here I list off some verses and various passages that demonstrate that apologetics is one of the most biblical and spiritual things you can be involved in:

  1. 1 Peter 3:15-16“But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.”

This is every apologists’ “go-to” verse when defending the purpose of apologetics, and for a good reason. While not everyone is called to be a full-time minister, (Ephesians 4:11), Peter says that every Christian is called to give a reason for their hope in Christ. , Don’t leave out the “gentleness and respect” part!

  1. Jude 3“Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.”

Jude was writing to believers who were surrounded by heretics teaching the original “Hyper-Grace” message. In other words, they were saying grace means the moral law goes out the window. Sadly, we see a lot of that message resurfacing today. Jude urged them to be able to defend the original teaching handed down from the apostles. (Romans 6:1-2)

  1. Titus 1:9“He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.”

Paul is giving a checklist of qualifications for pastors. Pastors should not only able to teach sound doctrine but also able to refute those who oppose it. Pastors need apologetics as much as believers — if not more so — since it’s their job to help protect the flock against false teaching.

  1. 2 Timothy 2:24-26“And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.”

Here again, Paul is instructing ministers to be able to not only teach but to also be able to give a gentle answer to those who oppose the truth. We see here that apologetics can play a role in bringing people to repentance.

  1. Jude 22“Be merciful to those who doubt…”

For believers battling intellectual doubts, apologetics can be great mercy and help save their faith. We don’t want to offer pat answers. I know of several believers that can testify that studying apologetics during seasons of doubt saved their faith. We see that principle in action in the ministry of Jesus. That leads me to my next passage:

  1. Luke 7:19-22“When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’” At that very time, Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses, and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. So he replied to the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.”

John the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod and was sitting on death row. He previously baptized Jesus and identified him as the Messiah, but now that things were looking grim. John was wondering if he made the greatest life choices. He sent some disciples to get an answer from Jesus, and Jesus didn’t reply with a “just have faith” type of cliché. He pointed to the evidence from his miracles and fulfilled prophecy. Jesus had mercy on doubters. He repeatedly used his miracles as evidence of his identity. (see also John 5:36, John 10:37-38, John 14:11)

  1. Isaiah 48:5“Therefore I told you these things long ago; before they happened, I announced them to you so that you could not say, ‘My images brought them about; my wooden image and metal god ordained them.”

I love this verse because here God throws down the gauntlet. Can your idols predict the future? Can they declare the end from the beginning? Yeah, I didn’t think so. The apostles repeatedly used the argument from fulfilled prophecy in identifying Jesus. Just read the Gospels or any of the sermons in Acts preached to a Jewish audience.

  1. Acts 19:8-10“Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.”

Some people in the modern church will tell you that you can’t reason or argue someone into the kingdom of God. They’ll teach that if you’re just a nice person, then people will eventually give you the time of day. That’s not the way Paul operates,d. He proactively went into the synagogues and used his ability to persuade from the Bible that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah. Acts 17:2-4 says this was his custom.

What really sticks out to me is that when some of the Jews turned on Paul, he set up shop in a lecture hall and had an open forum for the next two years until everyone in the area heard the gospel. Daily discussions indicate that Paul wasn’t just preaching at people; he was having some conversations over spiritual things with whoever was willing. This sounds an awful lot like debates, which leads me to my next (and possibly favorite) passage on apologetics.

  1. Acts 18:27-28“When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers and sisters encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. When he arrived, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. For he vigorously refuted his Jewish opponents in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah.”

Have you ever watched a great debater, like John Lennox or William Lane Craig and feel like “Wow! I just had church!”? You probably came away feeling strengthened after witnessing the other sides’ arguments fall apart like a Chinese motorcycle while the Christian side came out smelling like a rose, even after tough scrutiny. Luke, by the Holy Spirit, calls this great help to the believer. And I think that’s pretty awesome. Apologetics can help persuade skeptics, but it also builds up the church.

  1. 2 Corinthians 10:5“We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”

Believers often apply this verse to guarding their own thought life. I’m not at all saying that’s wrong, but that’s not the actual context of the verse. Paul was concerned over the Corinthians being taken up with apostles who were flashy but empty talkers. He was saying that through the wisdom of God, he’d destroy their arguments. (Sounds like Paul would have made it in a lot of YouTube clips a la Ben Shapiro if he were alive today. I can see it now…. Paul of Tarsus DESTROYS and RIPS TO SHREDS religious opponent with LOGIC and FACTS)

Apologetics is a major way of doing spiritual warfare. It’s being able to deconstruct arguments and pretentious arguments that trip people up and keep them out of the kingdom.

  1. Colossians 2:8 “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.” 

CS Lewis famously said “Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy must be answered… The learned life then, is for some, a duty.” We are in a war with the hallow and deceptive philosophies of our time: Relativism, religious pluralism, nihilism, naturalism, scientism, critical theory, Marxism, – you name it, it’s all out there. These things have a major impact on individuals and our society. Our job is to give the world a real alternative.

  1. Luke 1:1-4 “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”

Luke’s not writing fairy tales or folklore here.  He interviewed eyewitnesses. He carefully investigated everything and being meticulous with his research. He’s writing as a historian giving a thorough report so that our confidence in what we believed would be increased.

  1. 2 Peter 1:16“For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”

Similar to Luke’s prologue, Peter isn’t spinning some pious myths or fables here. His message was based on what he was an eyewitness to.

  1. 1 John 1:1-3 “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us.”

John is encouraging a church that is going through a rough time. Some believers were abandoning their faith in Jesus because of the prevailing Greek philosophy around them that taught that the flesh is bad and spirit is good. Considering Jesus was resurrected in the flesh, this was a big problem. He appeals to them by the truth of Christ that he experienced with his own senses. He wasn’t preaching a spiritual, shadowy Jesus.

  1. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last, of all, he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”

The central claim of the gospel is Christ has been raised. If Christ isn’t raised, Paul says the whole Christian faith is a bad joke and a waste of time. (1 Corinthians 15:14, 1 Corinthians 15:17) Here Paul passes on a creed he was given by other believers before him that list off a host of resurrection appearances to individuals and groups. This creed has become the linchpin for most arguments for the historicity of the resurrection.

  1. Romans 1:18-20 “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness since what may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

We know from Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill (Acts 17:21-32) that he appealed to nature and their own moral intuitions.  Here Paul says there’s some revelation freely available to everyone, so much so that they have no excuse. The word excuse is “apologia,” which is the same word we get apologetics from. In other words, unbelievers have no defense for their rejection of God.

  1. Psalm 19:1-4 “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech night after night they reveal knowledge. They have no speech; they use no words; no sound is heard from them. Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.”

This might be the passage that Paul had in mind when he said the truth of God is evident to everyone through creation. The very existence of an orderly, fine-tuned universe created in the finite past speaks volumes, and you really have to plug your ears to say that it came about through purely natural processes.

  1. Colossians 4:5-6“Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.”

As believers, we are to make the most of every opportunity we get with people outside the faith and graciously know how to answer their worldview.

  1. Philippians 1:16 “…I am put here for the defense of the gospel.”

It’s interesting to note here that Paul was writing this letter from prison. He used the words rejoice and joy over and over, and he says he’s there for the defense of the gospel. Even being put in a dirty, dark prison wasn’t going to stop Paul from proclaiming and defending the Gospel with joy. He knew his purpose. It’s always to remind yourself why you are put here.

Bonus: To see apologetics in action, read Mark 12:12-37. Jesus was asked tricky questions from his opponents. Using logic, reason, Scripture, he left his critics speechless. Jesus was an intellectual heavyweight. He didn’t shy away from debate and “just preach the gospel.”

While this list isn’t completely comprehensive, I hope it helps you see the importance of apologetics and gets you motivated to get involved!

 

Erik Manning is a former atheist turned Christian after an experience with the Holy Spirit. He’s a freelance baseball writer and digital marketing specialist who is passionate about the intersection of evangelism and apologetics.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2IW4qXO

/by
25 Quotes On Tolerance

25 Quotes On Tolerance

By Luke Nix

  1. “Most of what passes for tolerance today is not tolerance at all but actually intellectual cowardice. Those who hide behind that word are often afraid of intelligent engagement and don’t engage or even consider contrary opinions. It’s easier to hurl an insult than to confront the idea and either refute it or be changed by it.” Greg Koukl, Relativism
  1. “Proponents of [this] cultural tolerance will point out that when you fail to endorse a person’s beliefs and behavior, you are, in effect, rejecting the person. [For example], many claim that homosexuality is not merely a sexual act or a natural orientation; it is a state of being—an identity. Many assert that people are born gay, and when you condemn homosexuality, it’s an affront to their personhood and a direct condemnation and discrimination against them as human beings.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “[Ironically], Some of the most vocal advocates for tolerance are completely intolerant of those who express their belief in a biblical morality, especially if they do so in the public arena.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “Cultural tolerance does not simply require that we give others the freedom to believe or live differently than we do. It has evolved into a demand that we accept, respect, and affirm the rightness of others’ views and behavior–or be labeled intolerant, bigoted, and even hateful.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “While we all may have a sense of what is evil and what is good under the philosophy of cultural tolerance, evil and good can only be relative ideals. Without an objective truth—a set of universal moral values—good and evil are defined by the individual, community, or society. Therefore, we have no moral basis by which to judge another person, community, or nation for what they do or don’t do.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “We are asked to be tolerant of what everyone else believes, so why aren’t we tolerant of terrorists?…Unless there are objective universal moral values, like those that reside in the character of God, no one really has the right to judge even the worst atrocities of terrorists.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “If man is the ultimate authority, then human beings are perfectly justified in defining morals and ethics that fit their own desires, even if those ethics are the ones espoused by Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and the Chinese government—murder, torture, and abuse.” Frank Turek and Norm Geisler, Legislating Morality
  1. “To say we’re intolerant of the person because we disagree with her idea is confused. On this view of tolerance, no idea or behavior can be opposed, regardless of how graciously, without inviting the charge of incivility.” Greg Koukl, Relativism
  1. “Having been influenced to believe it’s up to the individual to create his or her own truth, our young people are naturally uncomfortable with any suggestion that one particular viewpoint is true for everyone.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “The height of intolerance is not disagreement, but rather removing from the public square an opportunity for people to disagree.” Jonathan Morrow, Questioning The Bible
  1. “Traditional tolerance values, respects, and accepts the individual without necessarily approving of or participating in that person’ beliefs or behavior.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “Like the physical universe, the moral universe is governed by unforgiving laws that we do not have the power to alter.” Frank Turek and Norm Geisler, Legislating Morality
  1. “When we contrast the cultural narrative of truth with the biblical narrative of truth, we can see that cultural tolerance does not actually show respect for others or even demonstrate care for them—it does the opposite.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “Truth and traditional tolerance are the necessary balancing ingredients to genuinely love and accept others unconditionally.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “By understanding how truth and traditional tolerance work together, we unlock the key to making our children feel loved even when we can’t approve of what they choose and what they do.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful standard of tolerance.” Greg Koukl, Relativism
  1. “True tolerance involves loving people and suffering while they do something we think is absolutely wrong, which is exactly what Christ does for us.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “What distinguishes God’s unconditional acceptance from that of our culture is authentic love. His love is intended to make the security, happiness, and welfare of another as important as his own. It is other-focused, not performance-focused. God knows the real truth about us—that we were created in his image—and that truth allows him to separate the person from performance. God unconditionally values us for who we are without always approving of what we do because he separates the value of the person from the acts of the person.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “Real love isn’t an unlimited endorsement of just any behavior a person chooses to engage in. Many of those behaviors are inherently and inevitably harmful, and to endorse, approve, and encourage them is not loving; it is cold and uncaring. If we care about another person, we won’t approve behavior that is damaging and destructive to that person’s life.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “Truth is our best friend, and it is an inseparable part of what real love is. While cultural tolerance may disguise itself as caring, understanding, and loving, it lacks the moral authority of an authentic love that looks out for the best interest of others. That is another quality of authentic, real love—it is always other-focused.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “Our young people need to understand that the reason we have this concept that some things are morally right and others are wrong is not because a church propagates it or even that it is written in a book called the Bible. The moral authority of the Bible isn’t found in its commands and rules. The authority of scripture is derived directly from and founded in the very character and nature of God and represented in the flesh through Jesus Christ. All moral truth resides in and comes from God.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “It is important to note that even though the Founders believed the Rights of the people came from God, they did not insist that every citizen believes in God; they simply saw no way to justify those natural moral Rights unless there was a God.” Frank Turek and Norman Geisler, Legislating Morality
  2. “All moral positions impose values. Even the moral position that you should not impose values on others does just that: it imposes values on others. For if we are not to restrain people legally from doing wrong, then we impose on others the effects of the wrongdoing.” Frank Turek and Norman Geisler, Legislating Morality
  3. “We’re living in a society in which people feel no obligation to control their own actions. Instead, we rationalize and justify every aberrant behavior under the umbrella of freedom granted by the First Amendment, never admitting that freedom without reasonable and responsible limits destroys individual lives and ultimately destroys the fabric of a civilized society.” Frank Turek and Norman Geisler, Legislating Morality
  4. “If you find yourself being defensive when we criticize ideas, maybe you’ve bought into the cultural view of tolerance more than you realize…The highest degree of respect you can show somebody is to take their ideas seriously and graciously critique them.” Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

All these quotes can be found in the following books by the cited authors:

 

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2vmjRQ5

/by
Book Review So the Next Generation Will Know by Sean McDowell and J. Warner Wallace

Book Review: So the Next Generation Will Know by Sean McDowell and J. Warner Wallace

By Timothy Fox

You’ve probably seen the statistics and heard the concerns. Young people are leaving the church in greater numbers than ever. While the youth of every generation share many common characteristics, this generation – dubbed Generation Z – faces new and unique challenges thanks to the ubiquity of smartphones and easy access to the Internet. Young Christians are constantly bombarded with differing ideas and worldviews, all that are competing with the faith of their parents. It’s easy to give up and lose hope. But if you love this next generation, you can’t and you won’t. That’s why Sean McDowell and J. Warner Wallace have written So the Next Generation Will Know: Preparing Young Christians for a Challenging World. This book aims to help parents, teachers, and anyone else with a passion for young people to prepare the next generation for the unique challenges they will face.

Content

Next Gen consists of eight chapters divided into two sections. The first section provides a greater understanding of Gen Z and their specific needs. Chapter 1 gives general statistics about Gen Z and why they abandon Christianity. It also explains the critical ingredients to keeping young people connected to the church. Chapter 2 explores the unique characteristics of today’s youth – both positive and negative – and how to leverage them to form meaningful relationships with the young people in our lives.

Chapter 3 focuses on a recurring theme of the book, how imparting truth requires a genuine relationship. It examines obstacles that hinder Gen Z from connecting with others, like consumerism and social media, as well as how to counter them. The chapter ends with ten strategies for connecting with Gen Z, such as engaging in their world and setting appropriate boundaries. Chapter 4 provides ways to equip the next generation with a fully-formed Christian worldview, which includes strengthening your own theological and apologetic foundation first.

The second section of Next Gen offers practical steps to prepare Gen Z for their unique challenges. Young people are not content with simply being given information, but they want to know why it is true and why it is important. This is the main idea of chapter 5 and the principle “two ‘whys’ for every ‘what.’” Chapter 6 explains the difference between teaching and training young people, how training requires a purpose or a goal. And if we give them a challenge, they will rise to it.

Chapter 7 explores specific ways to challenge young people, like taking them on worldview missions trips and teaming with ministries such as Maven Truth (read Tim Stratton’s experience with Maven here). Once you have established a challenge, Chapter 8 outlines how to prepare your young people for it, using things they already encounter in their lives, like pop culture and current events. Finally, the Appendix contains lots of additional resources to help you to train young people.

Assessment

So the Next Generation Will Know is not just another apologetics answer book. Neither is it merely theoretical. Instead, it offers direct instructions to help you equip young people to internalize their Christian faith. While it is a short book – just under 200 pages – it contains plenty of research, statistics, and personal experiences from McDowell and Wallace, both having spent many years working with youth. If you are a parent, teacher, youth worker, or simply someone who has a passion to equip the next generation to stand strong in the Christian faith, So the Next Generation Will Know is the perfect resource for you.

So the Next Generation Will Know releases May 1, 2019. For more information about the book and exclusive pre-order offers, click here.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2GzFZvn

/by
Did The Historical Jesus Rise from The Dead

Did The Historical Jesus Rise from The Dead?

,

By Luke Nix

Introduction – Why Is Jesus’ Resurrection So Important?

Those who have followed this blog know that I focus a lot of my writing on defending the compatibility of science with the Christian worldview and that I spend much energy addressing philosophical and logical challenges to some of the finer details of Christian theology that skeptics offer as defeaters for the Christian worldview. However, it is important to remember that the truth of the Christian worldview rests on one, single historical event: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If Christ has not been raised, then none of the other details of the Christian worldview matter. The Apostle Paul made this very clear in 1 Corinthians 15:

1 Cor 15

While finding answers to the finer points of the Christian worldview can be difficult, if Christ has been raised, then there are answers to every scientific, philosophical, and experiential challenge. Even if we may not know all those answers at any given point in time and even if the answers are different from what we envision or desire, if Christ has been raised, Christianity is true, and we can work out the finer scientific, philosophical, and experiential details later. So, it is important that all skeptics and Christians deal with and be made aware of the evidence for this essential historical event.

In today’s post my goal is not to be comprehensive with the evidence for the Resurrection but to give the skeptic some videos and other resources to begin seriously looking at this claim and to make the Christian aware of resources that they can have to “always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that they have” (1 Peter 3:15).

Is The New Testament a Reliable Source of History?

One of the first concerns of the skeptic is the source of information that we have on the historical Jesus. Some believe that the historical Jesus is different from the Jesus of Christianity. This claim is based on the acceptance of the reliability of different historical sources that make conflicting claims about the historical Jesus.
It is generally recognized that the closer a record is to an event, the more likely its author is to be in the position to know if the claim is true or not, compared to later sources. In this first video, Dr. Gary Habermas traces the creed found in 1 Corinthians 15 to within a few years of the death of Jesus:

It is quite common for people to claim that the gospels cannot be historically reliable; however, when they are put to historiographical tests, it is unreasonable to reject them as reliable. In fact, if the gospels are rejected on historiographical grounds, then all ancient historical sources (and all our knowledge of ancient history) must be rejected as well. This second video explains the historiographical tests:

Dr. Habermas systematically evaluates the different proposed sources for information on the life of the historical Jesus in his book “The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence For The Life of Christ.”

Still, some people claim that the gospels that we have today cannot be the same ones originally written; it is common to hear the transmission of the documents compared to a game of “telephone” where the message changes slightly with every step of the transmission to end up with something completely different from the original message. In this video cold-case homicide detective J. Warner Wallace demonstrates how this analogy does not apply because of the established chain of custody of the accounts:

Wallace also applies tools of a detective to authenticate the gospels as eyewitness accounts. If these tools are unreliable to determine if the gospels are eyewitness accounts, then they are unreliable to determine if any other recorded accounts of any event (including crimes) are from actual eyewitnesses of those events (which would present a huge obstacle to seeing justice served when crimes are committed). His two books that go into the details these tools and how they are applied by detectives are:

Did Jesus’ Resurrection Actually Happen?

Now, establishing the gospels as actual eyewitness accounts does not necessarily establish the truth of the accounts. The content of the accounts must be put to the test. The key claim in the accounts that is important is the claim of the Resurrection of Jesus. In this next video, the facts surrounding the claimed event are put on the table for examination:

With all the facts before us, we must now examine possible explanations for those facts. The most reasonable explanation is the one that consistently explains the largest majority of the facts; while, the least reliable explanations cannot explain any number of the facts on the table. This next video examines the proposed explanations and shows how a physical resurrection is the most reasonable explanation of the facts:

Dr. Habermas presents much more of the detail of the facts and the proposed explanations in his book “The Risen Jesus and Future Hope.”

Is The Story of Jesus Just a Copy of Pagan Myths?

Despite the historical reliability of the data presented, some people try to explain all the data by claiming that the story of Jesus was merely a ripoff of other pagan mythologies. J. Warner Wallace takes a few minutes to show how the stories are not close enough to each other in their content to be related, and he shows that even if they were close in content that the presence of a fictional story does nothing to negate the truth of a historical event, even if they have similar characteristics and even if the fictional story predates the historical event:

Who Was Jesus, Really? 

The evidence demands a verdict. A verdict on the historical claim of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and who Jesus Christ is. We can either follow the evidence where it leads and make the reasonable and logical action of surrendering our lives to Him, or we can ignore the evidence and make the unreasonable and illogical decision to stick our heads in the sand and ignore reality. Ultimately, we all must face the evidence and answer Jesus’ pointed question: “Who do you say that I am?”

The Historical Jesus Did Rise from The Dead- Conclusion

The reality is that no matter what is true about the world we live in, if Jesus Christ has not been raised from the dead, Christianity is false. Since the evidence demonstrates that Jesus Christ has been raised, we can be confident that Christianity is true. Because the Christian has already followed the evidence where it leads regarding the historical claims of Jesus, the Christian is free to follow the evidence regarding any other part of reality, from the timing and mechanism of God’s creation to the interaction between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will to the role of pain, suffering, and evil in this present world.

The undeniable reality is that man is fallen and is evil by nature, and, though we all long for forgiveness and redemption so that we can live a life of objective purpose and ultimate significance, we cannot without the sacrifice of the perfect Son of God and His subsequent victory over death. Christianity is not just a story for people to accept by blind faith; it is the evidentially supported answer to all of our deepest desires and most painful sufferings. Follow the evidence where it leads; accepts the reality of Jesus’ death and Resurrection, and be changed for eternity.

 

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2vdLKKg

/by
14 Ways I Teach Apologetics to My 5-Year-Olds

14 Ways I Teach Apologetics to My 5-Year-Olds

By Natasha Crain

Recently, several people have asked me, “How do you actually do this apologetics stuff at home? How do you talk to your kids about these topics?”

When I get the question, the person asking usually looks a bit baffled, as if they are asking how I build rockets.

The word apologetics sounds serious, I guess. A lot of people assume teaching their kids apologetics would involve some kind of formal event: Dad comes home from work with his suit and briefcase, loosens the tie (only slightly), then sternly gathers the children and announces, “Kids, it’s time to talk about…apologetics.”

All kidding aside, it doesn’t have to be like that at all! Ideally, we should incorporate apologetics into the way we teach our kids about Christianity. Today I want to give you 14 examples of how I do that with my 5-year-old twins. Obviously, the details of how I communicate with them are age-specific, but I hope this will give you an idea of how the foundation of apologetics fits right into our regular Bible study time.

There are three things to note about these examples:

  • We do our best to have a nightly Bible time with the kids. That’s when these discussions take place. If you don’t yet have a “God time” set aside for your family, consider how you might do that.
  • The starting point for doing any of this is having a knowledge of apologetics yourself. When you become familiar with the common challenges to Christianity, you’ll naturally start tailoring many of your discussions with your kids to address certain points. The first step in teaching your kids is simply teaching yourself.
  • No 5-year-old will be prepared to make a case for and defend their faith based on the examples you’ll see below. That’s not the point. Just as you have to learn basic addition before you someday learn calculus, these concepts are foundational.

Here are 14 examples of teaching young kids apologetics:

  1. We frequently remind the kids that God has revealed Himself to people in TWO ways: through the Bible and through the world around us. It’s easy to slip this into everyday conversation when you make observations about the world around you!

Apologetics foundation: Makes kids aware that “natural theology” (what we can learn about God from nature) is an important part of God’s revelation. Since key arguments for God’s existence take place at this level (e.g., cosmological, design and moral arguments), thinking this way is good preparation.

  1. We often say that “without God, there would be nothing” to emphasize that God is the ultimate cause of everything. My daughter asked this week why we say this if we can get things like pumpkins at the grocery store. I asked her where the grocery store came from. She said people built it. I asked where they got the building materials. She saw where that was going and said, “Eventually, you keep going backward until things can’t just create themselves.” Exactly.

Apologetics foundation: This is one step toward the cosmological argument (God is the first cause of everything).

  1. We sometimes use our Bible time to study age-appropriate space books. This helps emphasize the idea that we can learn about God from the world around us (point 1). We discuss how huge the universe is and ask what we could know about the creator of it all even if we didn’t have a Bible (the cause of the universe must be outside of space and time, enormously powerful and able to choose to create).

Apologetics foundation: This is also a step toward the cosmological argument – God is the first cause, and we can know things about Him based on what He has made. Studying space books as part of Bible time also teaches kids that God and science are NOT at odds, as the world around them will claim.

  1. We talk about how amazing our Earth is for life and compare it to the other planets they are learning about in our solar system. For example, they understand that planets closer to the sun would be too hot for life and planets farther away would be too cold. We explain that God created Earth perfectly for life. We’ve introduced the idea that some people think it happened by “chance,” and how Christians instead believe it’s God’s design.

Apologetics foundation: This is a basic background for the fine-tuning argument.

  1. We’ve discussed how parents don’t have to teach their kids every single rule about doing the right thing. We throw out all kinds of scenarios and ask them what the right thing to do is. They get it right, and we ask how they knew that if we never told them what to do. Then we talk about how other people know the same right thing to do without being told. How does everyone know what’s good and bad? Because God has put those rules in our heart.

Apologetics foundation: This is a basic background for the moral argument.

  1. When we talk about people who don’t believe in God, we emphasize that they too can behave nicely – sometimes even more nicely than Christians! We explain that God placed his guide for what’s good and bad in every heart, whether a person believes in Him or not.

Apologetics foundation: This is a clarification to the moral argument (one a lot of adults still need to understand!).

  1. We’ve read through the World Vision Children’s Bible, which has a (true) story about world suffering after every few pages. Through this, our kids have encountered the reality of natural evil (hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc.) and moral evil (the suffering inflicted by wars, corruption, and greed). This led to weeks of conversations about the difference between natural and moral evil, and the fact that the problem of evil is one of the most difficult questions for humans to deal with.

Apologetics foundation: The problem of evil and suffering is one of the most significant challenges to Christianity. Rather than hiding it from our kids, we want them to grow up facing it directly and thinking through the difficulties. We talked at length about each story of suffering and why God may have allowed it to be part of our world.

  1. Our conversations from the World Vision Bible (see prior point) led us to the topic of free will, and how our free will can result in moral evil. My husband and I pretended to be robots that the kids created and said over and over (robotically), “I love you.” This (admittedly cheesy) act demonstrated that free will is necessary for us to genuinely love God. God didn’t just want robots. But that free will can be used to also make bad choices, which leads to much suffering.

Apologetics foundation: This helps explain the concept of free will, which is an important part of the response to the problem of evil.

  1. When our kids ask questions that no Christian has a definitive answer for, I make it a point to acknowledge that 1) the Bible doesn’t tell us everything we wish we knew, 2) I would like to know the answer myself, and 3) some people don’t believe in God because of that question (if applicable). For example, my son has asked quite a bit why God doesn’t show Himself more. I’ve told him this is my number one question about God! I go on to point out that some people say, “God seems to be way too hidden, so He must not exist.”

Apologetics foundation: When we acknowledge these points, we help set our kids’ expectations about faith – for example, there are some answers we will never have. It additionally helps them to understand why others believe the way they do.

  1. We have a night per week where there is no Bible story or lesson planned, and we just discuss whatever questions they have. If you do nothing else listed here, DO THIS. Start right where your kids already have questions.

Apologetics foundation: Setting aside time for questions each week teaches kids that their questions are important and that mom and dad value the opportunity to answer those questions.

  1. We’ve asked the kids, “Why should we believe what the Bible says? These stories about Jesus are from 2,000 years ago! How do you know the writers didn’t make up stories – like a Curious George book – and we believe it for no reason?” While a detailed discussion of the reliability of New Testament manuscripts is beyond them at this point, we’ve talked about the difference between authors intending to write fiction vs. non-fiction, how the New Testament writers wanted to carefully describe Jesus’ life, and how most of the disciples ended up being willing to die for what they said was true (we explained how they wouldn’t be willing to die for what they knew was a lie).

Apologetics foundation: This gets kids thinking about how we can know the Bible is trustworthy and lets them know there are good reasons to rely on God’s Word.

  1. I throw out statements that I hear atheists make to introduce them to other people’s thinking and respond accordingly. For example, when talking about the resurrection, I’ve roleplayed a non-believer and said, “I don’t believe the resurrection happened because I know dead people don’t come back to life!” (an “argument” I hear frequently). Then we talk about how no one naturally comes back to life. We explain that Christians believe Jesus was only able to come back to life because God exists and can work outside of how things normally function.

Apologetics foundation: This clarifies the nature and uniqueness of Jesus’ resurrection.

  1. When talking about Jesus’ miracles, we are sure to emphasize that they gave evidence that Jesus was who he said he was – God’s son. We point out that Jesus didn’t just tell people to believe what he was saying was true. He showed them by doing things regular people can’t do. We let them know that God values giving us enough evidence for us to decide to give our lives to Him.

Apologetics foundation: This emphasizes that we don’t need blind faith – God gives us reasons to believe!

  1. We regularly remind them that truth is not what you like the best, what makes the most sense to you, or what makes you the happiest. For example, we point out that we can’t make it rain just because we would like it to. In the same way, we shouldn’t decide what’s true about God based on what we would like to be true. We have to look at all the information He has given us – in the world around us and in the Bible – and discover what is true.

Apologetics foundation: This gets kids thinking about the nature of truth.

 

Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2XgJJIU

/by
Messianic Prophecy and the Resurrection

Messianic Prophecy and the Resurrection

,

By Brian Chilton

My class and I recently completed a wonderful Ph.D. seminar entitled Issues on Messianic Prophecy with Dr. Randall Price and Dr. Ed Hindson at Liberty University. Unfortunately, messianic prophecy has received less attention than in times past. Even in evangelical circles, hyper-critical views are being taken on the Old Testament which seemingly lessens any apologetic power when considering a future eschatological messiah (Note: I use the capitalized “Messiah” when referring to Jesus and the lower case when referencing the position). However, when keeping the prophecy in context, especially the context of the entire book, it is surprisingly clear that the prophet was speaking about a future blessed Redeemer who would bring forth a new covenant.

At Christmastime, we often ponder the prophecies of Isaiah when contemplating the Messiah’s miraculous birth and the prophecy of Micah when considering his birthplace. But as we approach Easter, did you realize there are prophecies pertaining to Easter? This article will examine a few of those prophecies.

Genesis 3:15

“I will put hostility between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He will strike your head, and you will strike his heel” (Gen. 3:15, CSB).

Genesis 3:15 is the earliest messianic prophecy in the Bible. In this prophecy, God speaks to the serpent and notes that there would be hostility between him and the offspring of the woman. She would have an offspring that would crush the serpent’s head and the serpent would strike the offspring’s heel. While this prophecy may not explicitly reference the resurrection, it does so implicitly. The writer of Hebrews notes that through the death of Jesus the power of the devil was destroyed. John also denotes the same in 1 John 3:8. But the ultimate victory over death came by the resurrection of Jesus on the first resurrection morning. For victory to occur, death must be defeated. Jesus did just that.

Psalm 2:7-8

“I will declare the LORD’s decree. He said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father.’ Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance and the ends of the earth your possession” (Ps. 2:7-8, CSB).

This prophecy may require a bit of explaining. In Psalm 2, the Messiah is coronated as the ruler of the earth. In verse 2, the psalmist shows that the rulers of the world conspire against Messiah. They conspire to destroy the Holy One of God. However, the Lord laughs from heaven. Verses 7-8 describe a time when the Anointed One’s identity is displayed before all. Paul, in an early sermon summary recorded in Acts, views this as being fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus. After thoroughly reading Psalm 2, I would wholeheartedly concur.

Psalm 16:10-11

“For you will not abandon me to Sheol; you will not allow your faithful one to see decay. You reveal the path of life to me; in your presence is an abundant joy; at your right hand are eternal pleasures” (Ps. 16:10-11, CSB).

Psalm 16 is a psalm of David. In this psalm, David asks for God’s protection using the term shamar which means to keep watch over a person like a shepherd. At the end of the psalm, David notes his confidence in that God would not leave him in the grave. God’s holy one would not see decay. This not only points to David’s confidence in the resurrection but is ultimately fulfilled in the Messiah as is noted by Peter in an early sermon summary in Acts 2:25.

Job 19:25-27

“But I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the end, he will stand on the dust. Even after my skin has been destroyed, yet I will see God in my flesh. I will see him myself; my eyes will look at him, and not as a stranger. My heart longs within me” (Job 19:25-27, CSB).

Job had been met with a horrible fate. He had lost his family, his home, his farm, his family, and his health. Yet despite his suffering, Job was able to proclaim his confidence in the Lord knowing that his Redeemer lives. He placed confidence that he would be resurrected after his inevitable demise. The passage is prophetic in that he realizes that his Redeemer will stand on the dust at the end and would testify on his behalf. This points to a resurrected Redeemer who is Jesus the Messiah.

Isaiah 53:9-12

“He was assigned a grave with the wicked, but he was with a rich man at his death, because he had done no violence and had not spoken deceitfully. Yet the LORD was pleased to crush him severely. When you see him make a guilt offering, he will see his seed, he will prolong his days, and by his hand, the LORD’s pleasure will be accomplished. After his anguish, he will see light and be satisfied. By his knowledge, my righteous servant will justify many, and he will carry their iniquities. Therefore I will give him the many as a portion, and he will receive the mighty as spoil, because he willingly submitted to death, and was counted among the rebels; yet he bore the sin of many and interceded for the rebels” (Isa. 53:9-12, CSB).

Isaiah 53 provides a portrait of the Messiah’s life. It was not until recently that I came to realize that the latter portion of Isaiah 53 prophesies the resurrection of the Anointed One. Notice that the prophet depicts the Suffering Servant sharing a grave with the wicked and buried with a rich man at his death (Is. 53:9). The Servant was crushed which also points to his death. Yet, despite the death suffered by the Servant, he would have his days prolonged. How does one prolong the days of one who has died unless the person is brought back to life? How could the Servant see light and be satisfied without a resurrection? How could he possess a portion among the many and the spoil of the mighty if he is dead in the grave? All of these vividly points to the Messiah’s resurrection.

Some of the prophecies listed are more explicit in referencing the resurrection of the Messiah than others. Nevertheless, all of them point to a Redeemer who would overthrow the powers of Satan and defeat the doom of death. The resurrection of Jesus is not only historically verifiable, but it was also prophetically predicted to happen. Our Savior is one who gives life to all who ask. For, those who call upon the name of the Lord will most assuredly be saved (Ac. 2:21 and Rom. 10:13).

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2UGh8A4

/by