Tag Archive for: Christianity

Q&A_ Answering Questions Of An Agnostic Brother

Q&A: Answering Questions Of An Agnostic Brother

, ,

By Evan Minton

Hi Evan,

I really like your work, really helped me.

But I have a brother, he is agnostic, and he has a few objections I can’t answer (it’s so uncomfortable), so I decided to ask you.

The first is on skepticism in general. Shouldn’t we be skeptical about anything? Since everything is subjectively perceived? Especially moral values? Also, in a pragmatic sense, shouldn’t we agree we can’t know and just follow Aristotle’s “man is a political animal”?
And then on the fine-tuning argument, well he has a weird objection, but I found it difficult (not very well read in this topic, only read on guard and Strobel), couldn’t a different type of life emerge in different universes with different constants?

I thought it was arguing from ignorance, but another thing he said fine tuning only works from the perspective that we are the final product (carbon-based life).

So, I hope you understood these questions, have any recommended resources that wouldn’t be to difficult for a 14-year-old?

Thanks, Evan.

Hugs

Thanks for your question. I’m glad you’ve found my work helpful in your walk with Christ.
On Skepticism

First, you ask “Shouldn’t we be skeptical about anything? Since everything is subjectively perceived? Especially moral values? Also, in a pragmatic sense, shouldn’t we agree we can’t know and just follow Aristotle’s ‘man is a political animal’?

Based on how you worded this section, it sounds to me like your brother has been reading Immanuel Kant. He seemed to make a similar argument that Kant made regarding the knowability of the world. In his weighty Critique of Pure Reason (1781) and his Religion Within the Limits of Mere Reason (1793) he argued that God is unknowable, and Kant also insisted that our mind and senses are so structured that we cannot know reality in itself (the noumenal realm) but only what appears to us (the phenomena). Thus, as Frank Turek humorously puts it: “According to Kant, you Kant know what the world is really like.”

The major problem with Kant’s argument is that it is self-refuting. That is to say, Kant, in claiming that the external world is unknowable is claiming to know something about the external world! Namely, that it’s unknowable! But how would Kant know that we cannot know reality in itself unless he knew at least one thing about reality? Thus, Kant’s view saws off the branch it’s sitting on. To affirm it, one needs access to the very thing the view says we can’t access.

So should we be skeptical about anything? Not if the basis of that skepticism is that all perception is subjective, for that relies on a self-refuting philosophy.

As far as the affirmation of moral values, I have always defended the objectivity of moral values and duties in the same way that Craig has. William Lane Craig states that the evidence for the existence of objective morality is on par with the evidence for the existence of the external physical world. We recognize that both are real because we can sense that they’re there. He states “In moral experience, we apprehend a realm of moral values and duties that impose themselves upon us. There’s no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world.”

Craig argues that our moral experience is on par with our physical experience. Our five senses tell us that the physical world is real, that you are really sitting there reading this blog post. In a similar way, your moral senses tell you what is good and what is evil. Now, we can’t get outside of our moral senses to test whether they’re giving us reliable information, but neither can we get outside of our physical senses to test whether they’re giving us reliable information. Should we, therefore, conclude that we can’t know what the physical world is like? Of course not. But then, why should we deny the existence of objective morality because we can’t get outside of our moral perceptions to test their reliability? I’ve noticed that most skeptics, in trying to knock down the epistemological justification of the second premise of the moral argument, they tend to make arguments that would undermine our 5 senses if the same logic was applied to them. For example, some will point out that different people have disagreements on whether a certain action is morally right or wrong (e.g. abortion, the eating of animals). Based on this, they’ll say that we, therefore, can’t trust our moral intuitions. But what if this line of reasoning was applied to our sense of sight? No one could forget that a whole internet sensation was based on a debate as to whether a dress was black/blue or white/gold. People disagreed on what color “The Dress” was. I remember back in the day disputing with my friends on the playground whether James of Team Rocket from the Pokemon anime had blue hair or purple hair. However, would anyone argue that such disagreements on color render color a non-objective feature of reality?

I think the person is within his rational rights in affirming the objectivity of morality on the basis of his moral compass unless he is presented with a powerful argument that his moral compass has a spring loose, so to speak. However, I’ve never encountered such a refutation.

An Objection To The Fine-Tuning Argument

Your brother objects to the fine-tuning argument with “Couldn’t a different type of life emerge in different universes with different constants?” This is an objection to The Fine-Tuning argument that I get all the time in my conversations with non-theists.

Often these people make use of an illustration by Douglas Adams, the well-known author of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (although this quote is not from that book):

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’”

Richard Dawkins applied this to the fine-tuning at Adams’ eulogy. Now, these atheists argue that just as that man is a fool, so we would be fools to believe the universe was designed so that we could exist.

The problem with this argument is that it radically misunderstands the consequences of what would happen if the physical constants and quantities were off.  Take the expansion rate of the universe for example. If the universe expanded too rapidly, then gravity would not have had the opportunity to collect gas and dust and condense it into galaxies, stars, and planets. The universe would forever
exist as nothing but isolated pieces of matter, gas, and dust. Because if the universe expanded too quickly, then all of the stuff of the universe would fly apart too quickly for gravity to take them and to condense them into galaxies, stars, and planets.  If the ratio of the number of electrons to protons were off by a little bit, electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet
formation. Again, the universe would be completely devoid of galaxies, stars, and planets. If you don’t have galaxies, if you don’t have stars, and if you don’t have planets, you can’t have any life. One reason is that without a planet, there’s no hope for life to evolve and live on. A second thing is that, regardless of whether life must be carbon based, you need stars to “cook” the elements needed for life. No stars, no elements. No elements, no life. Even if one thinks silicon-based life forms are possible, stars are needed to make the silicon.

If the Strong Nuclear Force were slightly weaker, it would be too weak to bind together protons and neutrons inside the nucleus of the atom. Therefore, no atoms could exist in the universe except the hydrogen atom; the simplest atom there is, consisting of a single proton and a single electron. In the case of The Strong Nuclear Force being weaker, the only existing element would be hydrogen. You couldn’t possibly get to any higher levels of complexity in such a scenario.

So, it is my judgment that comparing the fine-tuning to a man waking up in a puddle is an analogy that…. doesn’t hold water.

Recommended Resources

“Have any recommended resources that wouldn’t be to difficult for a 14-year-old?”

Sure! First and foremost, I’d suggest my own Inference To The One True God: Why I Believe In Jesus Instead Of Other Gods, a book that I’m currently working on upgrading in Google Docs. In the book, I talk about The Kalam, Fine-Tuning, Moral, and Ontological Arguments, as well as the historical evidence that Jesus died and was resurrected. According to one reviewer on Amazon, “His easy conversational style throughout the text reminds one of Max Lucado, and he presents material of great import in a comfortable manner that is a joy to read. This book is an excellent introduction to the most significant and well-founded Christian apologetics in the modern era and is well-suited to high school and college students, as well as adults interested in Christian apologetics and philosophy. I highly recommend this book.” another Amazon reviewer wrote “Mr. Minton helpfully surveys some of the best arguments for God’s existence, appealing to the most robust scholars and answering the most difficult challenges to the arguments. While some of the scholars who have written about philosophy of religion might be too academic and difficult to read, this author’s writing style makes the most complicated arguments (even the ontological argument) relatable. Recommended for those who are new to apologetics or those who want to brush up.” 

Another book I’d recommend is J. Warner Wallace’s God’s Crime Scene. Among books on Natural Theology, this one is really unique. Like his previous book Cold Case Christianity, it reads like a combination of a detective novel and apologetic book. He lays out the evidence for a Creator on the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, the existence of the moral law, the complexity of the cell, and even argues for the existence of the soul based on the phenomenon of consciousness, and he does it all from the perspective of a detective, in a very easy-to-read manner.

But I think the most accessible book on these topics would be Leslie Wickman’s God Of The Big Bang: How Modern Science Affirms The Creator. Wickman is an internationally respected research scientist, engineering consultant, author and inspirational speaker.and is also executive director of the American Scientific Affiliation (a non-profit organization promoting the dialog between science and faith), and as a Professor of Aerospace-Industrial-Mechanical Engineering at California Baptist University. Her book God Of The Big Bang should certainly be not “be too difficult for a 14-year-old.”

So,
1: “Inference To The One True God” by yours truly.

2: “God’s Crime Scene” by J. Warner Wallace

3: “God Of The Big Bang” by Leslie Wickman

are what I recommend.

God bless you.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/Dsiuae

/by
8 Things Kids Should Know About Hell

8 Things Kids Should Know About Hell

,

By Natasha Crain 

Hell is probably not at the top of your list of things to talk about with your kids.

On the surface, it seems to contradict all the messages about God’s love that we share with them. We worry about confusing them or having them follow Jesus out of fear. We want them to focus on the joy of Jesus and how we should live in this life. I dare say that we sometimes don’t know quite what to make of hell ourselves. Therefore, we just avoid the topic.

But it shouldn’t be ignored.

We frequently talk about the need for salvation and the fact that Jesus died so we can be forgiven and reconciled to God. But saved from what? Reconciled for what? Hell is the assumed other side of the coin that we outright avoid acknowledging much of the time.

So what should we teach our kids? “If you believe in Jesus, you go to heaven, if you don’t, you go to the big fiery pit called hell where you suffer forever. The end.” Pass the dinner rolls.

There is much more we can and should teach about hell than this simple “heaven and hell are opposites” concept! Given how many people struggle with the notion of hell as adults, it should be well worth our while to address this (admittedly difficult) topic more thoroughly.

Here is a framework of key topics to consider. This is detailed! But you won’t regret taking the time to consider these points.

I highly recommend Francis Chan’s book “Erasing Hell” as an excellent and much more complete treatment of this subject.

  1. The Bible speaks of hell in many places.

If you read your Bible regularly, you might think this one is a no-brainer. But Bible literacy is at an all-time low according to many surveys, and many Christians are not highly knowledgeable of what is and isn’t in the Bible.

With this in mind, let’s start with making sure our children know that hell is, in fact, spoken of in the Bible many times. There are 162 references to hell in the New Testament, and 70 of those references were made by Jesus himself.

The extent of hell references is actually quite an important point to understand; the notion of hell doesn’t come from a vague handful of statements. With 162 references, there is no getting around the fact that the New Testament talks extensively about hell.

  1. Hell is a state of punishment after the final judgment (not a status in this life).

In an effort to soften the concept of hell, I’ve heard many well-meaning people suggest the notion that hell is separation from God on earth (“hell on earth”). This is simply unfounded. The Biblical concept of hell very specifically refers to the punishment of the unrighteous after the final judgment (at the end of history).  Every person will be held accountable for this life.  Those who believed in Jesus will be reconciled to God and will be with him forever; those who did not will be separated from God in hell.

Matthew 25:31-46 is the longest and most detailed account of that judgment day in the gospels. Though the word hell is not actually used here, the concept is clearly conveyed.

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats…then he (God) will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels…then they (the unrighteous) will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Paul never used the word hell in his 13 letters but described the fate of the unrighteous with words such as “perish, destroy, wrath and punish” more than 80 times.

It is clear that hell is a final punishment at the end of time for the choices made in this life, not a reference to a status in this life.

  1. Hell is described with imagery of fire and darkness, but those may not be literal descriptions.

In reading some books about hell, I have to admit I was surprised to learn that the vast majority of Christian pastors and scholars do not believe that hell is a literal fire, even though that’s what most of us traditionally associate with it. However, when you really look at the descriptions of hell, it certainly appears they are metaphorical rather than literal, physical descriptions. Take these examples:

  • Jesus refers to hell as a “fiery furnace” and “eternal fire” (Matthew 13:30-40; 49-50). The Book of Revelation also refers to the “lake of fire” (Revelation 20:10).
  • At the same time, Jesus refers to hell as “outer darkness” (Matthew 8:11-12; Matthew 22:13; Matthew 25:30).

Though it’s possible to conceive that God can create a way for there to be fire AND darkness at the same time, most theologians look at these opposing descriptions as metaphorical rather than literal. Fire is often used throughout the Bible in nonliteral ways (e.g., Luke 12:49, Rev. 1:14, James 3:6, 1 Corinthians 3:15).

The bottom line is that we don’t know exactly what hell will be like. We know its purpose (see number 2), but to teach that hell is simply a big fire pit where non-believers go probably assumes more than the Bible tells us. Whatever it literally is, however, we do know that hell will be eternal separation from God.

  1. There may be degrees of punishment in hell.

This was also a new concept to me. There are three scriptural references that hint at there being degrees of punishment in hell:

  • In Matthew 11:24, Jesus said, “It will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you” (“you” referring to those who witnessed Jesus’ life first-hand).
  • In Luke 12, Jesus tells a parable about slaves who receive differing levels of punishment (this is thought to represent final judgment).
  • Paul suggests that unbelievers are “storing up wrath” for themselves on judgment day.

Though the Bible is far from clear on this concept, it is an interesting insight to discuss.

  1. Hell is a place of annihilation or never-ending punishment.

Something else Christian Biblical scholars battle over is the duration of hell. Most of us have learned exclusively that the wicked will suffer “forever and ever” … and that may indeed be the case. But there are very valid reasons for believing that the Bible speaks alternatively of annihilation (permanent destruction rather than everlasting punishment).

In almost every passage where Jesus mentions hell, He doesn’t explicitly say that it will last forever. Most biblical references to hellfire say “eternal fire” – but does that mean the fire or the suffering is eternal?

In Mathew 10:28, Jesus says, “Fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Destruction has a very different connotation than eternal suffering. The language of destruction specifically is common throughout Paul’s letters as well. John 3:16 itself says that those who believe in Him “shall not perish.” Again, perishing is different than eternal suffering.

Matthew 25:45-47 are the key verses that support the notion of never-ending punishment: “…and these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life.” These are the same Greek words Jesus used to describe the fire “prepared for the devil and his angels,” so Jesus is saying unbelievers share the same fate as the devil.

We don’t know for certain what the duration of suffering will be. The interpretation based on the original words continues to be the subject of extensive debate.

  1. No passage in the Bible says that there will be a second chance after death to turn to Jesus before the final judgment of hell.

While we can hope and hypothesize all day long about the possibilities of people having a second chance to turn to Jesus (and many people do), the fact remains that there is no evidence of this in the Bible.

  1. The existence of hell doesn’t imply Christians are in any position to determine who or who will not be going there.

While the Bible tells us in general why people go to hell (for not believing in Jesus), we are not in a position to judge individuals. I’ve been asked several times by non-believers if, as a Christian, I think they are going to hell. I always reply with what the Bible says about believing in Jesus for salvation, and that only God knows their heart. We need to make sure a knowledge of heaven and hell doesn’t lead to our kids becoming judgmental of individuals themselves.

  1. Hell is hard to understand.

Theoretically and theologically speaking, I understand and can “justify” to myself why a good God sends people to hell. But from a very practical perspective, does it make “sense” to me that friends or family members – people I know and love – will suffer forever and ever for not having faith?

No.

Hell is hard to understand. If for some reason hell is not hard for you to understand, please know that hell is hard for the vast majority of people to understand, probably including your kids. To not acknowledge this when talking about hell almost trivializes the matter.

I will readily tell my kids that hell IS hard to understand, but that truth is not dependent on whether or not it makes sense to our human minds. If we accept all of the “joyful” parts of Christianity that we learn from the Bible, we have to accept the existence of hell as well – even if it is a very, very difficult thing to grasp. 

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Md4S62

/by
Does Suicide Condemn Someone to Hell_

Does Suicide Condemn Someone to Hell?

By Brian Chilton

NOTE: We recently received a question related to this topic so we decided to reblog this entry. We believe this is an extremely important issue we need to deal with as a Christian community.

Pastor Rick Warren and his family suffered a great loss as his son died from suicide. Suicide is the killing of one’s self.  It is a crime and a sin since there is a life taken which was made in the image of God.  Certainly, our thoughts and prayers are with the Warren family.  This post is done in sincere respect for the family.  That is why I felt led to cover this issue now, as there are many who have been affected by suicide.  With that in mind, many have theological issues with suicide.

Many ask if suicide can be forgiven.  The common thought is that suicide cannot be forgiven and immediately condemns someone to hell because the person committing the crime would not have time to ask for forgiveness after committing the sin.  Is this true?  Even more than this, is this the way we should view salvation?  In order to answer the question about suicide and salvation, we must first examine salvation itself.  So, before we answer the question of whether suicide condemns someone to hell, we must first answer the following questions: how is a person saved?  Who is it that saves?  What is the depth of salvation?  What about sins not yet committed?  After answering these questions, it will be our goal to answer the question using the fundamentals from the Bible concerning the salvation of whether suicide automatically condemns a person to hell.  First, we must ask, how is a person saved?

How is a Person Saved?

What does it mean to be saved?  Theologically speaking, it means that we have access to God and have a promise of a heavenly existence after we die.  We call it being “saved” because we recognize that we have been rescued from the penalty of sin and a rightful eternal destination in hell.  So, being saved means that one has a promise of eternal life with God in heaven.  So, how is one saved?  To answer that question, let us look at a powerful piece of Scripture by Paul written to the Ephesians.  Paul writes, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.  10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.”[1]  We will examine more of the passage that comes after this text later in the article.  But first, let us ask, how is it that a person is saved?

Paul makes it quite clear that salvation comes “by grace…through faith.”  The word “grace” or “charis” represents “favor,” “good will,” or “kindness.”  So, Paul is saying that it is by the good-will or charity of God that we are given salvation.  More on this in a moment.  But, what does Paul mean “through faith”?

The words “through faith” in the Greek text are “dia pisteuos” or “through faith.”  “Faith” does not mean a blind leap in the dark, but a thing that can be trusted and known with certainty.  Therefore, the text indicates that it is through a person’s dependency upon God’s gift through Christ Jesus that one can be “saved” or enter into a right relationship with God.  In other words, it is through trust and dependency upon God through Christ Jesus.  But, who is it that saves?

Who Is It that Saves?

If you followed the previous question, you can clearly see that it is God who saves.  Salvation is God’s gift to us.  We can especially see this as Paul continues to state, “and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”[2]  In the Greek text, the statement ends “Theos to doron” or “God the giver.”  Paul makes this clear, even more so in the Greek text.  God is the one who gives the gift.  I cannot save myself.  You cannot save yourself.  There is only one who can give the gift of salvation… God alone.  This is critical in understanding our issue at hand.

If it is God that saves, then it is not by the actions of humanity.  It is God who calls a person to salvation.  It is God who enters a receptive heart.  It is God that cleanses.  It was God who bore the penalty for our sin.  And, it is only God who can proclaim us justified “or innocent.”  This salvation is not something that I can give you.  It is not something that you can give yourself.  It is a free gift offered by God.

Think of it like a Christmas gift.  If you were to buy a loved one a Christmas gift, you would buy the present.  You would put it in a box.  You would wrap the present (unless you can’t wrap or are just lazy).  You would give the present at the opportune time.  The only thing the person receiving the gift would do would be to open the gift and receive it.  It is the same with this salvation in which we speak.  So, we are brought before another question, what is the depth of that salvation?

What is the Depth of that Salvation?

When we ask about the depth of salvation, we are asking, how deep does salvation penetrate?  Does it cover all sins or is it a partial kind of forgiveness?  Well, let us look at some key passages that will help us understand this issue better.

The writer of Hebrews writes,

Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.  For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.[3]

 This passage is of critical importance.  The writer of Hebrews shows that Jesus is a High Priest who was sinless.  He did not have to offer up a sacrifice for Himself.  Rather, He offered up a sacrifice once for all.  This one time sacrifice covers a multitude of sins in the penitent believer.  Also, look at what is written in the first verse.  The writer of Hebrews wrote that “He is also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him.”  If this salvation is forever, then what could take it away?  Jesus gives us another hint of the depth of salvation.

Jesus Himself even states, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.  30 “I and the Father are one.”[4]  Two things stand out in this passage, as well.  One; God is greater than all.  If God says one is forgiven, who can claim otherwise?  Nobody.  Two; no one or nothing can take away one from the hand of God.  In the issue at hand, this is HUGE in understanding the outcome.  But, we must also ask, is there anything that is unforgivable?

Is there Anything Unforgivable?

Does the Bible list anything that is considered “unforgivable”?  By “unforgivable,” we are indicating something for which there is no forgiveness.  With the issue of suicide, some have elevated the crime as an unforgivable sin.  But, what is listed as unforgivable?  Do we know?  Actually, yes we do.  We know from Jesus Himself.

Jesus states, “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.  32“Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.”[5] What is this unforgivable sin?

If you look at the context of the passage, earlier the Pharisees had attributed the work of the Holy Spirit in Jesus to the work of Satan.  Jesus shows that attributing the work of God, more specifically the work of the Holy Spirit, to the work of the Devil is unforgivable.  Can someone reproduce this sin today?  From the text, it would seem that the only way that this sin could be reproduced is if one dies without acknowledging the Spirit’s work of salvation in and through Jesus Christ.  Therefore, the unforgivable sin is the rejection of the Spirit’s work through Christ Jesus unto death.  Notice that Jesus says that all other sin and blasphemy will be forgiven save this one.  Is suicide the unpardonable sin?  It isn’t according to the words of Jesus.

We are getting a clearer picture on the issue now.  But, we have one question that must be tackled before we formulate a conclusion on the issue of suicide and salvation.  Some would argue that suicide cannot be forgiven because the person committing the act was not able to ask for forgiveness after committing the deed.  So, what about sins not yet committed?  Are we forgiven for future sins or must we ask forgiveness after committing every specific sin?

What about Sins Not Yet Committed?

The writer of Hebrews gives us a clue to this question in the previous Scripture that we quoted in Hebrews.  Paul writes in Romans,

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.  So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.  20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.[6]

 Okay, this was a lot.  But, let us look at some important principles.  First, sin entered all of humanity through the one rebellious act of the first two human beings (Adam and Eve) against God.  From that moment, all of humanity was cursed with sin.  The moment sin enters a holy race it is tainted.  It is like one spot of black paint in a gallon of white paint.  It will not be pure white anymore.  (It is like my wife trying to explain to me the difference between white and off-white.  I still have difficulties determining between the two, but there is a difference.)  Second, through Christ all human beings can be saved by His action on the cross.  Third, the righteousness that came through Christ’s actions on the cross resulted in salvation to everyone open to receive.

So, what about sins not yet committed?  When Christ died, none of us were yet alive.  Therefore, none of our sins had yet been committed.  Yet, through the action of Christ on the cross, He died for all of our sins yet to be.  When a person thinks that every minute sin must be accounted for by the asking of forgiveness by the person, it places the emphasis on human actions instead of the divine act given for us.  Anytime the emphasis is placed on human actions over God’s forgiveness, it takes away from the work on the cross and places it on human actions.  Let me illustrate why this is problematic.

Suppose a man is on his deathbed.  Perhaps he has had an estranged relationship with his brother.  Even though he has accepted Christ as his savior, he still has hard feelings for his brother.  He wanted to make things right as his brother lived in another part of the country, but never was able to do so.  Let me ask you this; suppose the man dies without making things right with his brother.  Does this action keep him from entering heaven because he has an estranged relationship with his brother?  Or even worse yet, perhaps the man told a little white lie before getting in his predicament and forgot to ask forgiveness.  Does this keep him from heaven?  You see how complicated this could become.  But, you should also see where the emphasis lies.  The emphasis is not on Christ’s work on the cross, but our actions as believers.  So, what can we make of the issue of suicide and salvation?

Conclusion:

Does the act of suicide condemn someone to hell?  Suicide does not condemn a person if the person had a right relationship with God through Jesus Christ.  The answer depends on whether the person who committed the act was in a right relationship with Christ Jesus.  The work of Christ on the cross atones all our sins.  That is not to say that this gives us a license to sin.  Heaven forbid.  It should bring about a transformation in one’s heart.  However, this salvation does not mean that the “saved” individual will not have troubles and trials.  It also does not promise that the Christian will always do everything right.  (By the way, this is why the Christian MUST regularly attend a Bible-believing church.  When you slip from regular Christian fellowship, the likelihood of slipping and falling increases.)  For some, depression can become an obsession.  When depression becomes an obsession, it can become an oppression for which trouble may occur.  Let’s be honest.  If you are a Christian, you strive to do what is right.  But, it is not always easy.  This happened to Paul, as well.  Paul wrote, “For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.  20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.  21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.”[7] So, no one is immune to bad deeds.  Even the strongest of us can slip and fall.  So, why would we think that a bad decision would nullify one’s salvation?

This issue is very important to me.  When I had just graduated high school, I was called home from the Bible college that I was attending at the time.  I was told that my very own grandfather, of whom I was very close to, had committed suicide.  My grandfather had some medical problems where he suffered from a lack of blood flow to his brain.  He began to have delusions and had great problems with depression.  I will never know why this happened.  However, I cannot believe that God would negate the power of his forgiveness on the cross because of one major lapse in my grandfather’s decision making abilities.  To make matters worse, I was about to be confronted with this issue even harder.

When I returned to Bible college, a student attending there had heard of the incident with my grandfather.  Do you know what he said to me?  He said, “You know your grandfather is in hell don’t you?”  Really?  You are really going to tell someone that?  Even if it were true, what kind of sick perverted person says that to someone while they are grieving?  But, was he right?

No!  Some may claim that this issue has slanted my beliefs.  However, if you research the essentials of salvation which we just presented, I think you will find that suicide is not the unforgivable sin that some have purported.  Is it the result of bad decisions and faulty thinking?  Yes.  Is it serious?  Yes.  Is it wrong to commit?  Absolutely.  Is it unforgivable?  No, the grace of God is stronger.  But, this information comes with a warning.

Just because suicide is not the unforgivable sin, this does not give someone the freedom to use this as an out.  If you are contemplating suicide, get help NOW!!!  You may think that things are bad.  But, let me tell you this; you will make matters horrific for your loved ones if you take your life.  There is a help that is available to you, but you have to be willing to use it.  We are a triune person made in the image of God: body, mind, and soul.  To get spiritual help, see your pastor.  To get physical help, see your doctor.  But if you are having mental issues or bouts of depression, see a counselor or a psychologist.  There is no shame in obtaining help.  If you are contemplating suicide, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK or go to www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org.  Remember, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem!

Notes

[1] All Scripture unless otherwise noted comes from the New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Ephesians 2:8–10.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Hebrews 7:25–27.

[4] John 10:27–30.

[5] Matthew 12:31–32.

[6] Romans 5:8-9, 18–21.

[7] Romans 7:19–21.

 

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. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Olwoe4

/by
The MAVEN Experience

The MAVEN Experience

By Tim Stratton

The primary goal of FreeThinking Ministries is to equip the church to engage the culture. In my opinion, no one is doing that better than Brett Kunkle. Kunkle became well-known in the apologetics community through his time at Greg Koukl’s organization, Stand To Reason. Recently, however, Kunkle has branched out and started MAVEN, an organization focused on helping the next generation know the truth, pursue goodness, and create beauty.

What exactly is a “maven?” Wikipedia defines maven as “a trusted expert in a particular field, who seeks to pass timely and relevant knowledge on to others in that field.” Kunkle’s particular “field” is worldview, apologetics, and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Since our goals overlap (and we are both former youth pastors), Kunkle invited FreeThinking Ministries to partner with MAVEN to pass this “timely and relevant knowledge” of God along to teens.

This is primarily accomplished through MAVEN’s Apologetics Immersive Experience. I joined Kunkle and his crew this summer to witness the “experience” first hand on the campus of Cal-Berkeley in northern California. Three youth groups—from New York, Colorado, and Utah—joined forces under Kunkle’s lead. What I witnessed was amazing!

Teenagers from around the country put many “stones in the shoes” of people in the Bay Area. They engaged in respectful and intelligent dialogue with atheist speakers, talked to skeptical U.C. Berkeley students and professors, visited Alcatraz, the Golden Gate Bridge, and even went surfing. As a former youth pastor, I can attest that this was the best “evangelism training” I have ever witnessed. These teens are inoculated by the MAVEN team “injecting” them with the best arguments atheists, and those of other religions will offer against Christianity. That might sound risky, but then Kunkle and his team show the students all the logical flaws with these arguments raised against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:5). After training, teenagers are sent to the mission field, in this case, UC Berkeley, to put their new-found apologetic skill set to the test.

The Berkeley Survey & Dialogues with Atheists

This is primarily accomplished through a survey MAVEN has developed. Teens spread out across the campus in groups of two or three and ask students and professors if they would be interested in taking a quick survey on worldview. Unless one is late to class, most are happy to engage in this discussion.

Many of these campus surveys at Berkeley would turn into 45-minute conversations about worldview, God, and Jesus Christ. I lost track of how many times an ardent “anti-Christian” would take a step back and say “you’ve really given me something to think about.” Or, “I guess I’ve never thought about it that way before.”

After conducting campus surveys, the students and MAVEN leaders reconvene. One evening I had the opportunity to teach students about how we have epistemic access to the supernatural. That is a fancy way to say, “how we can know the supernatural exists.” I explained that although we cannot directly sense the supernatural with our five senses, logic provides epistemic access to the supernatural. I offered the Kalam Cosmological Argument as one example.

To be fair, however, MAVEN allows teens to be exposed to ideas from atheists as well. A prominent atheist in the San Francisco area was invited to give the students his best shot. Kunkle invites certain atheists to come to speak to kids and lets them explain why they believe atheism is true and Christian theism is false. There is one catch: they must engage in a dialogue with the teenagers. Shortly after my discussion (about how we have epistemic access to the supernatural through logic) came to close, one particular atheist entered the classroom and proclaimed: “Even if the supernatural does exist, we would have no way of knowing it!”

The youngest student in the room (still in middle school) raised his hand and with what he had learned an hour earlier politely asked: “Have you heard of the Kalam Cosmological Argument?” The atheist said that he was aware of the Kalam, but was no expert. The young student (while regularly looking back at me to make sure he was explaining it correctly) began to debate the atheist. His classmates joined him and were able to explain how we do have the ability to know the supernatural exists and how we can know specific things about supernatural entities.

The takeaway is this: the atheist left his encounter with the teens with his “faith” shaken. The Christian teens left with their faith strengthened with logic and reason.

Movie Night

The MAVEN experience also includes times of Bible study and prayer, time enjoying God’s creation, and time learning how to see everything through the lens of a Christian worldview — a worldview that happens to be true! This even includes a lesson on how to watch a movie.

One evening we all gathered to do just that — watch a movie. Before it began, Kunkle prepared the students to keep several things in mind when watching any movie and to always look for certain ideas, assumptions, moral values, and how characters are developed throughout the story. We then watched Les Miserables starring Liam Neeson and Uma Thurman.

After the movie, Kunkle led a fantastic conversation by asking some key questions regarding the overarching theme, who are the “good guys” and who are the “bad guys.” (What makes them “good” and “bad”?) What values are promoted and what is the “good life” according to the movie? These questions led to a fantastic and deep conversation with the teens.

Conclusion

By the end of the week, teens in these three youth groups were equipped to engage the culture! They all know exactly what they believe and exactly why they believe it. They know the Gospel and are prepared to share it and also to answer questions and objections raised against the Gospel message (which is a rarity)! These students also learned how to worship God while enjoying His beautiful creation — and simultaneously learning how to surf. The kids had tons of fun and were transformed by the renewing of their minds (Romans 12:2). They also changed a few lives for eternity.

If you are a youth pastor, Sunday school teacher, parent, or grandparent, you must do whatever it takes to get your kids on one of these trips before they graduate! To get a glimpse of the MAVEN experience click here for a Berkley trip and here for a Salt Lake City trip (they also offer a “Worldview Roadtrip”)! To learn more about these experiences email Glenn Pinson here: glenn@maventruth.com.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18)

 

Tim pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at North-West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2LYzO9U

/by
How Do I Explain Abortion To My Children_

How Do I Explain Abortion To My Children?

,

By Michael Sherrard

These kinds of questions keep you awake at night. Knowing how and when to talk to your children about sensitive issues isn’t an exact science. But we better figure it out quick. While we contemplate the best way to do it, our little ones are being taught by someone else. The internet, social media, and public education have changed the rules of the game. With that in mind, here are four practical suggestions for parents and church leaders on how to get ahead of the issue and teach your children about abortion.

  1. Start Early.

Parents always struggle with “how soon do I allow my children to see the brokenness in the world?” My wife, Terri, and I err on the side of sooner than later. I want the first time my children to be horrified by the brokenness of our world to be in the safety of our company and in the context of the gospel. Besides, in the tech age, I’d be foolish to think I can keep the filth away. It will find them. My children need to be ready for when they encounter the darkness.

We need to be proactive in teaching our children. This doesn’t mean that we the force the issue, though. A good way to be proactive but not overbearing is to use questions to gently bring up sensitive subjects. They way I broached abortion with my oldest daughter (age 7) was by asking her if she knew why I went on a recent trip to England. She said, “to speak.” I said, “Yep. I went to speak about abortion. Have you heard that word before?” She shook her head no. I left it there. One minute later she asked what it meant, and we had an amazing conversation.

Good teaching requires knowing your children’s knowledge and assumptions. Bad teachers simply lecture and then patronizingly ask, “Does that make sense?” Don’t do this with your children. Instead, ask your children questions to find out where they are on abortion. Are they oblivious, disinterested, or already educated? Find out. Asking questions also allows for self-discovery. You’d be amazed at the insight of seven-year-olds. They are already making sense of the world. They are forming their moral framework. When simply asked a question and introduced to abortion, children often know what to think if it.[1]

  1. Simplify The Issue.

Children, and adults for that matter are confused about the pro-life position. We must simplify it. People need to know that we are pro-life because we believe it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being. Therefore, we believe abortion is wrong.

Children also need to know the reasons that support this belief. They need to know that along with scripture we are pro-life because science and philosophy direct us to be. Science informs us that from the earliest stages of development the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. And philosophically, we understand that there is nothing morally significant in the difference between an embryo and adult that would justify killing the unborn. Differences in size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not good reasons to kill the unborn.[2] 

The case for life is reasonable, rationale, and remarkably simple. Children easily grasp it. Use questions to simplify the issue, teach the pro-life syllogism, and explain the science and philosophy that support our conclusion.[3] Here are some questions you can use.

  • “Is it okay to kill humans?”
  • “Are the unborn human, and if not what are they?”
  • “Would it be okay to kill unborn humans because they are smaller, not aware of themselves, dependent on their mom for survival, and living in her womb?”
  • “Are humans valuable because of what they can do like be self-aware and able to care for themselves? Or are they valuable because of what they are, a human being?”
  • “If the unborn are valuable because they are human, what should we do with them?”

There you go. It’s that simple. You can teach your children the scientific and philosophical case for life by having a conversation directed by the right questions.

  1. Talk About It From The Pulpit.

I understand that many pastors don’t want the controversy that might accompany speaking on a social issue, but neutrally isn’t an option when it comes to abortion. Children are very observant. When the church is silent on abortion one of two things is communicated to them: either that abortion is tolerable or that it is unforgivable. Both positions are false.

The sin of abortion is a horrific sin for which the blood of Jesus Christ is sufficient. People in our congregation need to hear that abortion is wrong and that there is mercy, forgiveness, and healing for those who have participated in one. When the pulpit addresses abortion, it shows the relevancy of Christianity to our children. It shows that it speaks to all of life. Speaking on it also allows sin to be seen in a concrete rather than abstract manner which makes the gospel more tangible. If you want to faithfully teach your children about abortion, the pulpit must be involved. When it is not, the church undermines the work in the home.[4]

  1. Care For Those Affected By Abortion.

Training our children to be pro-life doesn’t mean that we just make then apologists. We want them to serve and love those affected by abortion. Whether this means that they serve in a local pregnancy resource center, or simply show compassion to their friends who have had an abortion, actively loving those affected by abortion must be stressed.

Do this as a family or a church family. Our youth group went and served our local pregnancy resource center by doing odd jobs for them. Our youth painted, cleaned up the grounds, folded clothes, and many other things. They also were given a short presentation by the director educating them on what the resource center did for a woman. Many of our kids had no idea what the resource center was doing. This experience opened their eyes to the compassion in the pro-life movement and the reality of abortion in a way that words never could.

Parents, church leaders, we must be motivated. Children are almost always ready for more than we give them. Knowing when they are ready for something isn’t always clear. But I would rather make a mistake a time or two of addressing something too early rather than too late. So start early and teach the simple pro-life message in the home and the church, and may we all show the compassion that springs from the love of our Lord.

Notes

[1] Check out “Children asked about Abortion” by my friends at the Human Coalition.

[2] See “How to Defend Your Pro-Life Views in 5 Minutes or Less” by Scott Klusendorf for an excellent, concise summary of the pro-life position.

[3] A syllogism is simply a conclusion that is supported by reasons. This is the pro-life syllogism in case you missed it.

  • Premise/Reason 1: It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
  • Premise/Reason 2: Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being.
  • Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is wrong.

[4] I am a pastor, and I’ve experienced the fruit of speaking an equipping, gospel-centered message on abortion. Pastors, you can win on this issue. You don’t need to fear taking it on. For our story and some resources on how to do this is your church, visit the Pro-Life Pastors Initiative at plpi.info.

 

Michael C. Sherrard is a pastor, the director of Ratio Christi College Prep, and the author of Relational Apologetics. Booking info and such can be found at michaelcsherrard.com.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2LXSW87

/by
Would A World Without Satan Lack Evil_

Would A World Without Satan Lack Evil?

By Rajkumar Richard

The question, “Would there be less evil in a world without Satan?” could be relevant, for if the answer to this question is a yes, then we could plausibly ask, “Why did God create angels, i.e., Satan if evil in this world would be lesser without Satan?”

Within this context, if God had not created Satan, evil would have been less, and our world would have been a good world. However, since God created Satan, could we then infer that God erred in HIS decision to create Satan?

The entailment to this thought process could potentially debunk Historic Christianity. God (as a maximally great being) cannot err. If God erred in creating Satan, HE cannot be God. Hence God’s existence could be disputed. The infallibility of the Bible that reveals God to mankind could also be thus disputed. We could go on and on.

Let us discuss this theme by considering the following aspects albeit from a biblical standpoint.

The Source of Sin

Sin is an evil action or motive that opposes and assaults God. Sin replaces God with something or someone in God’s rightful place of supremacy. Sin entails evil.

Understanding the source of sin is vital to understanding the theme we are discussing now. If Satan is the source of sin and evil, one could argue that God should not have created Satan to keep the world free of sin and evil.

The “Animal Nature” of man is the source of sin, claimed British Philosopher and Theologian Frederick R. Tennant. Under this notion, humans possess natural animalistic impulses as a means to human survival that have intensified through natural selection based on their evolution from less highly developed forms. Other theologians have posited other sources of sin. However, each of these views has been found to be largely inadequate.[1]

The Bible teaches differently. Sin is not caused by God (James 1:13), but man is responsible for his sins (James 1: 14-15).

Man possesses certain innate desires. He could either satisfy those desires in moderation or sin by abusing those desires to either hurt himself or the others.

His ‘desire to enjoy’ could result in an enjoyment of eating in moderation or a sin by being a glutton, whereby he injures himself.  His ‘desire to obtain’ could be satisfied either by legitimately acquiring material possessions or he could sin by exploiting and stealing from others. His ‘desire to achieve’ could be satisfied either through legitimate achievement or he could sin and achieve at the expense of others.

Man could satisfy these desires in a godly manner by dwelling within the divinely imposed constraints. But man sins when he fails to accept the divine limits to these desires and makes these desires as ends in themselves, which are the cravings of a sinful man (1 John 2: 16).

While desires are natural, there could be external inducements (Satanic or human) that motivate a man to sin. Whatever be the case, man is wholly responsible for his sins. Sin is the choice of the person who commits it.

Function of Satan in Sin

Satan is a demon (cf. Luke 10: 17-20). He is the tempter and deceiver. Satan opposes God and the work of Christ by tempting and deceiving humans. Satan tempted Adam & Eve, Jesus, Judas, etc. (cf. Acts 5:3, 1 Corinthians 7:5, 2 Corinthians 2: 11, Ephesians 6: 11, 2 Timothy 2: 26).

Sometimes we state that Satan is the source of sins. While making such statements, we use the word “source” informally. In this informal usage, “source” refers to an ‘originator’ or an ‘instigatory cause.’

If we claim that Satan is the source of all sins, i.e., if we use the word ‘source’ to mean, in an Aristotelian sense, the material cause (‘that out of which’) or the efficient cause (‘the primary source of…’), then we posit dualism. Dualism contradicts the Bible, for there are no two equally ultimate powers, one good, and the other evil.

God is the only ultimate power and God is good. God is not the source or the originator of sin or evil. Moreover, Satan was originally created good; hence Satan is not the source of sin and evil.

Potency of Freewill to Sin without Satan

If asked differently, the title question would be, “Would Adam & Eve have sinned without Satan?” Since man is responsible for his sins, the answer should be yes.

The premise on which this argument is also predicated on is the freewill-based rebellion of angels in the heavenly realm. (This premise presupposes the metaphysical similarity of the free will of angels and humans.)

The angels that rebelled against God did not have an external inducement (as Adam & Eve had Satan as an external inducer). There were only two entities during the angelic fall – God and Angels. (Even if mankind was created before the fall of Satan, man was totally incapable of influencing Satan’s fall.)

Since God can neither tempt nor cause evil, the angelic rebellion was an entailment of their free will. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to conclude that Adam & Eve had the potential to sin or would have sinned irrespective of the presence of Satan.

Satan merely accelerated the sin of Adam and Eve. Had Satan not existed, Adam and Eve would have sinned (or eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) sooner or later.

Conclusion

Satan is not the source of sin. Man’s free will is the source of sin. Man would have inevitably sinned regardless of Satan’s existence.

Would the quantum and the extent of sins be minimized if Satan was not created? Not necessarily so, for if Satan is to be considered as an accelerant of sin, then there is a possibility that the quantum and the extent of sins would be actualized at a later time. So the quantum and the extent of sins would have been the same with or without Satan, for the potency of man’s free will to sin is independent of Satan.

The other possibility is that the quantum and the extent of sins would be lesser without Satan. In which case, the question, “If evil in this world would be lesser without Satan, then why did God create Satan?” gains legitimacy.

If Satan is the sole cause of evil, then evil would have been absolutely eliminated, had Satan not been created. However, since Satan exists and that Satan is not the sole cause of evil, only God, in HIS omniscient wisdom would be able to determine the extent to which evil would be reduced had angels not been created.

But on the other hand, if the good that is to be actualized from the good angels in ministering to people is commensurately immeasurable, then God would be justified to create Satan even with the potential of evil.

Finally, natural evil, which is devoid of human willing and acting, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. and suffering caused by a host of diseases such as cancer, cystic fibrosis, etc. exist independent of Satan and adds substantial numbers to the victims of evil. The pain and suffering caused by natural evil and diseases are innate in the creational design of this world and the human body.

The fact of the matter is that evil would not cease to exist if Satan were to be non-existent. Hence, numbers need not matter. When evil exists, the terms ‘lesser’ and ‘greater’ do not gain greater significance, for the world we live in would be evil even if only 1% of the total population (1 out of 10 people) are adversely affected by evil. Moreover, if only 1% of the total population is affected by evil, then there is a certain possibility for evil to increase.

Therefore, the question, “Would there be less evil in a world without Satan?” would neither debunk nor harm Historic Christianity.

Notes:

[1] Other theologians have posited various sources for sin. The “Anxiety of Finiteness” was proposed by Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971). The idea of “Existential Estrangement” was proposed by Paul Tillich (1886-1965), the “Economic Struggle” proposed by the Liberation Theology, and “Individualism and Competitiveness” as argued by Harrison Sacket Elliott (1882-1951).

 

Rajkumar Richard is passionate to strengthen the faith of fellow Christians, especially the young Christians. He has a Masters in Religion (Southern Evangelical Seminary, NC, USA) and Masters in Biology (School of Biological Sciences, Madurai Kamaraj University, India). He is a Christian blogger, itinerant speaker, social evangelist, and a mentor to young Christians.

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

/by
A Call To An Intellectual Faith

A Call To An Intellectual Faith

By J. Brian Huffling

I would venture that if you asked people what is meant by ‘faith,’ they would likely say “believing something in spite of the evidence or in the absence of evidence.” However, such has not historically been the view of faith.

Faith has traditionally been understood as trusting a reliable source. For example, while it is possible to prove through historical means that Jesus died, it is not possible to prove through merely historical means that his death atoned for our sins. The former is demonstrable through reason, the latter by faith. This is not meant to say that faith is irrational. On the contrary, when a source is demonstrated to be reliable, we can trust that source even when we cannot prove something through empirical investigation. Jesus and his apostles have been verified to be reliable sources. Their message has been confirmed with miracles, and Jesus’ claims to deity were likewise confirmed via miracles. Given such reliability, we can trust, i.e., have faith in, what they say.

This is in stark contrast to the blind faith that so many in our culture accuse Christians of having. I have been asked on more than one occasion how I can be a philosopher and also a Christian. The answer is simple: Christianity is philosophically rational.

The Problem

However, sometimes Christians don’t help matters. Sometimes people assert that faith is all it takes to be a Christian. In a sense there is a ring of truth to this; however, that is probably misleading. We have to have faith in the right object. Discerning what object should warrant our faith and belief requires reason. Faith alone is not enough, for one can have (blind) faith in anything. To have faith in the traditional sense requires one to have reasons, and thus to have a reasoned faith.

It is sad that some Christians actually believe (blindly) that we should not base our faith on reason, for such supposedly subordinates God’s Word to human reason. However, understanding (let alone believing) the Bible requires one to rationally understand what it says. We cannot even know what the Bible says without using reason.

Some Causes of the Problem

With such notions in mind, our culture has ridiculed Christians for being irrational. Historically this is false, for many of the best minds have been Christians. But there is a very real sense of anti-intellectualism in the church nowadays. This is particularly noticeable to new seminary graduates who are eager to take various positions in church ministry or academia. I cannot begin to count the number of graduates that I know who have been disillusioned by the church’s disinterest in being intellectually fit.

Another problem is pastors. I wish I had a dollar for every time some pastor called for the congregation not to clutter their Christian faith with reason. Sometimes this call is subtle and sometimes it is overt. Many churches I have visited, even lately, have an anti-intellectual air about them, stemming from the person behind the pulpit. Such leads to disastrous consequences.

This can be seen in the gross ignorance of average Christians who don’t know hardly anything about their faith. I have had countless people talk to me about their Christian “faith” who do not even know whether or not they are Protestant, even though they have identified with Christianity for years. The average churchgoer cannot even articulate, let alone defend, such primary doctrines as the Trinity or the Incarnation. Many who have grown up for decades in the Church know next to nothing about the Bible, where certain books are, or have any idea whatsoever about how to interpret or study it. Most Christians cannot have an intelligent conversation about God’s nature regarding whether they think he is temporal, changeable, etc., or that these issues are even debated. Rather than have solid studies on the Bible or theology, most are more interested in 12 step programs, like how to better their lives. Several years ago I made a list of the top 10 books in Christian bookstores. There was maybe one book on theology, several on health and prosperity, and others on fiction. Why is this?

I think at least one problem is pastors. They are not the only problem, but they are our leaders of spirituality, and they definitely share at least some of the blame. (I realize this is a generalization, but I have seen and heard more pastors show off their ignorance as well as a desire for others to do the same than I would like.) In my experience and in talking to others, it appears that one reason that pastors want to downplay reason and intellectual faith is because it is difficult. It actually requires a lot of studying and learning. It is much easier to attack reason as an instrument of paganism or the devil than it is to devote one’s life to the intellectual pursuit. However, pastors have a responsibility to lead their flock in worship and devotion to Christ. A consequence of pastors downplaying reason is apathy and ignorance on the part of the parishioners. The Bible tells us explicitly (and many times implicitly) to worship God with our minds (Matt 22:37).

It is worth noting that when reason is downplayed false teaching is much more likely to abound. Both Mormons and teachers of the Word-Faith Movement downplay the use of reason. What is left is an attempt to judge what is true based on feelings.

Of course, pastors are not the only problem. Each person is responsible for his own mind and faith. It is also true that a church can have a marvelous pastor with uninterested followers. Church and Christianity have been so divorced from intellectualism in many circles lately that people either don’t care to learn or don’t know how. So what is the solution?

Part of the Solution

The anti-intellectualism issue has many causes and requires various solutions. One solution is for parishioners and pastors to realize there is a great need for pastors and church leaders to be educated. Some pastors realize the need, but either can’t afford to do anything about it or do not have the support of the church. We must support our pastors in this area. We should not settle for anything less. Most people would not get their hair done by someone who didn’t have a license and training to do it, so why wouldn’t we want the leaders of our churches who are supposed to lead our families and us in our faith to have an education?

In turn, churches should have programs in place to teach their parishioners the basics of the faith. The average Christian isn’t expected to be a theologian, but he ought to at least understand the basics of the faith. A good way to do this is to have studies on the churches doctrinal statement (if they have one!).

Another part of the solution is to be educated ourselves. This does not necessitate formal training, but it we should take an interest in what we claim to be the most important area of our lives: our faith. This means going to church and Bible studies (taught by trained teachers), reading books, and making it a point to learn what our faith is all about. (See my Recommended Booklist.)

Having a rational faith also allows us to apply it to every area of our lives, such as politics, ethics, and entertainment. This is how we love and worship God with our minds. The difference between humans and other animals is the human mind and the ability to reason. This is how God made us different and more like him. We should, in fact, seek to worship and know him through this important aspect of our nature.

 

J. Brian Huffling, PH.D. have a BA in History from Lee University, an MA in (3 majors) Apologetics, Philosophy, and Biblical Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), and a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from SES. He is the Director of the Ph.D. Program and Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SES. He also teaches courses for Apologia Online Academy. He has previously taught at The Art Institute of Charlotte. He has served in the Marines, Navy, and is currently a reserve chaplain in the Air Force at Maxwell Air Force Base. His hobbies include golf, backyard astronomy, martial arts, and guitar.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2LT9c9y

/by
Pastors Get Scared Sharing Their Faith Too!

Pastors Get Scared Sharing Their Faith Too!

,

By Ryan Leasure

We’ve all felt it. The sense of guilt overwhelmed us. The pastor brings his sermon to a close, but before he concludes, he gives the congregation one final exhortation. Go tell others about Jesus. He says if Jesus was willing to lay down his life for you, the least you can do is proclaim that message to others. Gulp. As you slouch farther down into your seat and wipe the sweat off your forehead, you wonder if you’re a pathetic Christian because you struggle to share your faith.

It’s not that you don’t want to either — you really do. But you’re scared. You’re scared of people will think you’re that weird Jesus person who’s out of touch with reality. You’re afraid the friendship will end or that you’ll make everything awkward. Have you ever felt this way? Have you ever started a conversation with good intentions to talk about Jesus only to back out later? If so, you’re not alone.

Pastors Get Scared Sharing Their Faith Too

I say you’re not alone because I’ve done the same. I’m a pastor. I have a seminary degree. I’ve studied the Bible a lot. Yet, at the same time, I get scared too. Do all my neighbors know about my Christian faith? Not even close. I’ve had intentions to share my faith, but my intentions often times fail to deliver the goods.

When I was younger, I owned a t-shirt and a hat that said “No Fear.” I wore them together so if anyone ever doubted my bravery after looking at my shirt, they could lift their eyes to my hat and have any lingering doubt removed. Wearing that slogan, however, only demonstrated my fear. It’s a lot like the kid who’s the first to say “Ewwww” when someone asks if they pick their boogers. The emphatic rejection often times reveals the opposite.

I’m fearful of how people will perceive me. And in my experience, just about everyone else is in the same boat. The Bible has a phrase for this — the fear of man.

Advice On Sharing Your Faith

While I struggle with the fear of man, God’s been kind to grow me in this area. I’m far from perfect, don’t get me wrong. Yet, sharing Jesus with non-Christians isn’t as daunting as it once was. And it doesn’t have to be a daunting task for you either if you abide by these principles.

Pray

Pray for your lost friends and neighbors consistently. Remember, God is the one who ultimately transforms people’s hearts and lives. Also, pray that God will give you a greater love for them because love compels us to share the Gospel more than anything else. And pray for boldness to share the Gospel despite the fear of rejection.

Personally, I find that when I pray for people to receive Christ, God gives me opportunities to share the Gospel with them in a natural way. Jesus says in Matthew 7 that when we ask God for good things — and evangelism opportunities are good — He will be faithful to give them to us.

Avoid Jesus-Juking

A Jesus-juke is when you try to smuggle Jesus into the conversation at any cost. For example, your non-Christian friend might say, “I’ve had a rough day.” To which you reply, “you know who had a rough day? Jesus, when he died on the cross for your sins.” If you want to make things awkward with your friend, Jesus-juking is the way to go.

As I think about evangelism, I think a lot of us feel as if we need to take this kind of approach. Sure, we won’t be as blatantly awkward, but we feel as if we need to look for any crack in the door in order to slip a Jesus foot through it. In my experience, forcing Jesus unnaturally never works.

Build Relationships

The days of door-to-door evangelism are long gone. Most people won’t even answer their door anymore, let alone talk with you for fifteen minutes on their front porch. We need a new strategy — one that will be effective. That strategy is cultivating relationships with non-Christians. Invite them into your home. Have dinner together. Have your kids play together at the park. Build a relationship with that person so that they know you care. And as you converse, ease into faith conversations.

As opposed to Jesus-juking, talk about Jesus at natural times. Perhaps they will bring up a difficult situation in their life. Express genuine compassion for them, and then ask them if they’ve ever wondered why this world is so broken? This could potentially lead to a conversation about Jesus dealing with our brokenness. You get the idea, but don’t feel as if you have to force Jesus into every conversation.

Be Ready To Give An Answer

One of the greatest fears we have when it comes to sharing our faith is that we’re afraid we’ll be asked hard questions we don’t know how to answer. For some, this might cause more fear than making things awkward. How do we fix this?

I would encourage you to know what you believe and why you believe it. This, of course, requires a bit of perspiration on your part because no one learns everything they need to know overnight. Read the Scriptures. Go through theology books. Think about the objections others have toward Christianity, and do your best to find the answers. You won’t ever know it all, but you can do your best. Peter says, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Pet. 3:15).

You’re Not Alone

If you struggle to share your faith, you’re not alone. You’re not a pathetic Christian either. We all struggle. Pastors struggle. We’re in this together. Yet, by God’s grace, you can grow in effectiveness, though you will need to be intentional in your efforts. No one ever becomes an effective witness by accident. Just like anything else in your life, if you wish to excel, you need to plan to excel. Think about something you are really good at. Now think about how that happened. Chances are, you put a lot of thought and energy into excelling in that area. I would urge you to do the same with evangelism.

You’ll mess up along the way. You’ll chicken out again. It’s ok. God is gracious. He’ll give you more opportunities.

 

Ryan Leasure holds an M.A. from Furman University and an M.Div. from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

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

/by
Was Jesus’ Death and Resurrection Copied from Krishna_

Was Jesus’ Death and Resurrection Copied from Krishna?

,

By Mikel Del Rosario

Copied From Krishna?

What would you say if someone told you the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ death and resurrection were copied from earlier pagan stories? Over 100 years ago, a guy named Kersey Graves talked about Jesus and Krishna. He said Jesus wasn’t unique among religious figures. Fans of his work were convinced the Hindu figure Krishna wasn’t just a dying and rising god but a crucified savior, too.

Maybe you haven’t heard this exact challenge about Jesus and Krishna before. But the idea that Jesus’ story was ripped off older pagan myths comes up over and over again in conversations about world religious literature.

I teach a World Religion course at William Jessup University and recently got a chance to collaborate on this topic with my friend Daniel Lee, who is currently studying Christian Apologetics under another friend from my Biola days, Dr. Sean McDowell.

In this post, we’ll show you how comparing the story of Krishna with the biblical accounts of Jesus show that Jesus’ death and resurrection wasn’t copied from Hinduism. First, we’ll compare the story of Jesus’ death to the story of Krishna’s death. Was Jesus’ death copied from Krishna? Then, we’ll compare the idea of resurrection in each of these stories. Was Krishna really a crucified Savior?

Was Jesus’ death copied from Krishna?

Let’s compare Jesus and Krishna. In The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors, Graves wrote that Krishna was crucified between two thieves (p. 140). But no Hindu text says Krishna was crucified at all! Still, some wonder if there’s a parallel between the way Jesus and Krishna died. They’ve heard that long before Jesus’ death, there was an old Indian myth about the Hindu god Krishna being pierced and resurrected. Really?

It does sound curious when you put it that way. After all, Christians link Isaiah 53:5 to Jesus’ death by crucifixion: “But he was pierced for our transgressions…with his wounds we are healed” (Compare this with 1 Peter 2:24). But here’s the thing: All things can seem similar if you ignore the differences!

Read for yourself what the Indian epic-poem called the Mahabharata (Book 16: Mausala Parva) says about Krishna. He wasn’t crucified. Instead, he got shot in a hunting accident!

“The hunter, mistaking [Krishna]…for a deer, pierced him at the heel with a shaft and quickly came to that spot for capturing his prey. Coming up, Jara [the hunter] beheld a man dressed in yellow robes, rapt in Yoga and endued with many arms. Regarding himself an offender, and filled with fear, he touched the feet of [Krishna, who] comforted him and then ascended upwards…When he reached Heaven [he] met the deities…”

Yes, Krishna was pierced. But he was pierced by an arrow when he got shot in the foot! Krishna wasn’t crucified. And he certainly wasn’t crucified between two thieves!

So was Jesus’ death by crucifixion copied from Krishna? Nope. Turns out, there’s no crucifixion in the Krishna story at all. We just don’t see a meaningful parallel between Jesus and Krishna in this regard. What about Graves’ idea that Krishna was a resurrected savior?

Was Jesus’ resurrection copied from Krishna?

We could be wrong about this, but it’s not clear that Krishna actually died when Jara shot him in the foot. If he didn’t really die, he couldn’t have been raised from the dead. But let’s give Graves the benefit of the doubt and say Krishna died when he got shot in the foot and somehow came back to life right after getting shot.

There’s still no meaningful parallel with Jesus’ resurrection. According to the earliest Christian sources, Jesus was buried and his tomb was discovered empty by his women followers three days later. Over a period of 40 days, he convinced individuals and groups that God raised him from the dead before ascending to heaven. This is totally different from the Krishna story.

But more importantly, Christians link Jesus’ death and resurrection with the possibility of forgiveness of sin and eternal life. In contrast, no Hindu text links the Krishna scene to the possibility of human beings attaining forgiveness of sins or attaining eternal life. In what sense, then, was Krishna a savior?

So was Jesus’ resurrection copied from Krishna? No. It’s not clear that Krishna was resurrected in the myth and no Hindus link Krishna’s hunting accident with forgiveness of sins or eternal life.

Jesus and Krishna: No Meaningful Parallel

People who want to force a parallel say Jesus and Krishna were both pieced and raised from the dead. But again, almost anything can seem similar if you ignore the differences! The key point of the Gospel story is that God used Jesus’ resurrection to validate his divine claims. Further, the New Testament links Jesus’ death and resurrection to believers receiving forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Indeed, the Christian significance of this event has no meaningful parallel with the Hindu story of Krishna. As my friend Daniel concludes:

“These stories and implications are about as similar as an ant and an elephant.”

Interestingly, the earliest critics of Christianity never said Jesus’ story was ripped off from Hinduism. Right from the get-go, the Apostle Paul acknowledged that Gentiles found the idea of a crucified savior tough to accept (1 Corinthians 1:23), not like it was a common theme in pagan mythology. Even in the second century, the Greek Apologist Justin Martyr made a similar observation in Apology I: Skeptics said the idea of a crucified savior was absolutely crazy (13.4)!

Jesus’ Story Wasn’t Copied from Krishna

Bottom line: Was Krishna crucified? Nope. Not in any Hindu story anywhere. Was Krishna resurrected? Maybe. But despite what Graves insists, Krishna was not a pre-Christian example of a crucified savior. There’s no salvation, forgiveness of sins (or escape from karma for that matter) or hope of eternal life linked to it. Just comparing the stories of Jesus and Krishna shows Graves is wrong on this one. You can be confident that Jesus’ death and resurrection wasn’t copied from Krishna.

 

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

/by
Unfashionable History_ The Untold Story Behind The Rise Of Western Civilization

Unfashionable History: The Untold Story Behind The Rise Of Western Civilization

By Terrell Clemmons

Unfashionable History

A Review of How the West Won: The Neglected Story of the Triumph of Modernity by Rodney Stark

Americans are becoming increasingly ignorant of how the modern world came to be what it is, says Rodney Stark. A generation ago, most college curricula included a course in Western Civilization that covered Western achievements in art, music, literature, philosophy, and science. Today those courses have all but disappeared on the spurious grounds that the West is but one of many civilizations and that it is ethnocentric and arrogant for Westerners to study it. So Stark is out to educate us, its beneficiaries, in the “remarkably unfashionable” story of our own heritage.

The most important thing to know on this subject is that “modernity is entirely the product of Western Civilization.” By modernity, he means, “that fundamental store of scientific knowledge and procedures, powerful technologies, artistic achievements, political freedoms, economic arrangements, moral sensibilities, and improved standards of living.”

In How the West Won, the Distinguished Professor of Social Sciences at Baylor University goes beyond the old “Western Civ” courses, which usually merely described the rise of the West. Stark tells the neglected story of why these monumental contributions to human good grew out of the West, and not out of Asia or the Islamic world. To explore this prehistoric phenomenon – as a set of explicable effects produced by discernible causes – is not ethnocentric, but is rather, “the only way to develop an informed understanding of how and why the modern world emerged as it did.”In the process, Stark refutes much of the “received wisdom” about Western history. Here are a few examples:

  • Dramatic changes in climate, including a four-century-long warming trend followed by a “Little Ice Age”, played major beneficial roles in the rise of modernity.
  • There were no “Dark Ages.” The Dark Ages myth was made up by “eighteenth-century intellectuals determined to slander Christianity and to celebrate their own sagacity.” In reality, the entire era was one of remarkable progress and innovation.
  • The brilliant achievements of the “Scientific Revolution” (which is also a misnomer) were the culmination of centuries of step-by-step progress.
  • Europe did not grow rich by exploiting its colonies. Rather, the colonies drained European wealth – even as they became the beneficiaries of European advances.

Throughout, Stark gives primacy to ideas. He does so because it was certain, specific ideas that gave rise to all those desirable societal traits – democracy, science, free enterprise, etc. – that have characterized Western nations and that are now revolutionizing life in the rest of the world.

Ultimately, Stark says, those potent – and truly revolutionary – ideas are the product of Christianity. “The most fundamental key to the rise of Western Civilization has been the dedication of so many of its most brilliant minds to the pursuit of knowledge. Not to illumination. Not to enlightenment. Not to wisdom. But to knowledge. And the basis for this commitment to knowledge was the Christian commitment to theology” – the highly rational discipline of formal reasoning about God, with an emphasis on discovering his nature.

With lively, in-depth narratives, Stark demonstrates how Christian ideas drove everything that is good and desirable about Western modernity. Yes, Western Civilization has seen its failures, limitations, and discontents. Nevertheless, it far surpasses every known alternative, and is, in a very real sense, God’s gift to the world.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2v2a5SL

/by