Tag Archive for: Christianity

Debating Atheists Biological Information

Can Science Explain Morality? No!

,

By Sean McDowell 

Human beings have a universal belief in right and wrong. As C.S. Lewis has observed, moral codes from cultures throughout world history vary over what specific behavior they consider moral, but there is an underlying agreement that objective moral values and duties exists.

As my father and I state in the introduction of the updated Evidence that Demands a Verdict, any adequate worldview must be able to explain this feature of reality.

Science and Morality

In his book The Moral Landscape, atheist Sam Harris claims science can provide a basis for objective morality. But in his recent book Stealing from God, my friend Frank Turek has written a piercing response:

“Science might be able to tell you if an action may hurt someone—like giving a man cyanide will kill him—but science can’t tell you whether or not you ought to hurt someone. Who said it’s wrong to hurt people? Sam Harris? Is his nature the standard of good?”[1]

In other words, science is a descriptive discipline, but morality is a prescriptive discipline. Science can describe how things work, but it can never tell us how we ought to behave.

Another popular explanation for morality is evolution.

Evolution and Morality

A few years ago, I participated in a public debate on the question of God and morality. My opponent argued that evolution explains morality better than God. But this explanation also fails too. Frank Beckwith and Greg Koukl offer two reasons:

First, evolution doesn’t explain what it’s meant to explain. It can only account for preprogrammed behavior, not moral choices. Moral choices, by their nature, are made by free agents. They are not determined by internal mechanics. Second, the Darwinist explanation reduces morality to mere descriptions of behavior. The morality that evolution needs to account for, however, entails much more than conduct. Minimally, it involves motive and intent as well. Both are nonphysical elements that can’t, even in principle, evolve in a Darwinian sense. Further, this assessment of morality, being descriptive only, ignores the most important moral question of all: Why should I be moral tomorrow? Evolution cannot answer that question. Morality dictates what future behavior ought to be. Darwinism can only attempt to describe why humans acted in a certain way in the past.[2]

Science and evolution simply cannot adequately explain the origin of right and wrong. They are both incapable of offering a robust account for why humans have moral obligations.

And yet theism offers a much more natural explanation. Think about it: Valuable human beings don’t come from purposeless, random processes in nature. Rather, they come from a personal, good God. God Himself is the source for right and wrong, and we ought to follow His guidance because He is the one who created us.

Even those who don’t believe in God, still believe in objective morality, because the moral law is written on their hearts (See Romans 2:14-16). Belief in objective morality is ultimately inescapable.

Science can explain many things. But it will never be able to adequately account for morality. To explain real right and wrong we need a source beyond human efforts – namely, God.

Reference:

[1] Frank Turek, Stealing from God (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2014), 100.

[2] Greg Koukl and Francis Beckwith, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 164.

 

Sean McDowell, Ph.D. is a professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, best-selling author, popular speaker, part-time high school teacher, and the Resident Scholar for Summit Ministries, California. Follow him on Twitter: @sean_mcdowell and his blog: seanmcdowell.org.

/by
Welcome to College

Book Review: Welcome to College

By Luke Nix.

Introduction

With today’s culture ever-increasingly becoming hostile to the Christian worldview, it is vitally important that we prepare our children for the challenges they will encounter to what they believe. Jonathan Morrow wrote a book several years ago that focuses specifically on a Christian’s journey through college. He recently updated this volume with the latest popular challenges that a Christ-follower will likely encounter on campus. “Welcome to College: A Christ-Follower’s Guide for the Journey” is 350 pages in length, but those are divided into 43 short chapters that are easily read in very short sessions. Because of the number of chapters and their short length, this review will not follow the usual chapter-by-chapter summary format of my other reviews (I don’t want to give away the whole book). Rather I will focus on several of the key points made throughout the book that I found particularly important, then I will conclude with my thoughts of the book (you will not want to skip them).

Book Introduction

Morrow begins by congratulating the student on their tackling of a whole new world. He encourages them to enthusiastically dive into their studies and use the most of their time to learn and build relationships. He cautions though that it is important to realize that ideas and worldviews, particularly the Christian worldview, will be challenged and even opposed, so it is important to know what they believe and why they believe it.

From there Morrow spends the next ten chapters discussing the fact that everyone has a worldview, the importance of following evidence where it leads regarding the truth of a worldview, what faith truly is, how we can know things to be true and the distinction between knowing your faith to be true and showing it to be true. In discussing these, he sets up the student to critically evaluate claims made, evidence provided, and address basic challenges to one’s even making a claim to know anything.

Intellectual Challenges in College

Intellectual challenges to the Christian worldview abound in college. Everyone from the professors to the students will present their own reasons for rejecting Christianity. These reasons range from the amount of evil in the world to the supposed scientific inaccuracies in the Bible, to the idea that Jesus was either a copy-cat myth or that there are so many versions of Jesus/Christianity that it is impossible to know which one is true. The historicity of the Resurrection and the reliability of the Gospels will be constantly under attack. Morrow takes each of these issues and presents the cherry-picked facts that seem to ground these objections. He dives into the philosophical foundations of science and the facts of history surrounding the historical Jesus (his life, death, and Resurrection). Along with the highly selected evidence, he also presents the rest of the evidence that, not only explains those few facts that seem to justify skepticism but the rest of the evidence that demonstrates that the skeptical conclusions are not only ultimately unfounded but actually provide powerful support for the truth of Christian claims.

Doubt in College

Doubt is a powerful tool against the Christian entering college. Whether that doubt is intellectual or emotional, from professors or friends, it can wreak havoc on a student’s faith. However, doubt is not incompatible with the Christian life. The idea that Christians are not allowed to doubt is a myth perpetuated by a secular culture in an effort to finally sever the Christian from his beliefs. Morrow explains this important truth: it is okay for the Christian to doubt; doubt often leads to further investigation into the evidence, and further investigation into the evidence will demonstrate a more solid ground for our Christian beliefs. While investigation takes place, the doubt will also cause the student to need to rely personally on God more through prayer and a humble and thankful attitude. These are necessary to connect the head to the heart when doubt is present in college.

Practical and Cultural Challenges in College

About halfway through the book, Morrow shifts from more intellectual challenges to practical challenges. He offers advice covering everything from the overwhelming school work requirements to budgeting issues to dating. He explains how a Christian’s worldview can inform how to deal with these challenges in a successful way. For many Christian students just entering college, they in for many shocks. I’ve covered only a few of the intellectual and practical ones that he addresses, but he also takes a considerable amount of the book to discuss cultural differences and the unique challenges and pressures that will be encountered. Once again, Morrow uses the Christian worldview to help inform the student on how to respond to the pressures of the newly discovered independence from mom and dad. Cultural views of sex (including gender and same-sex relationships), alcohol consumption, the value of human beings, and the purpose of individuals legislating morality, abortion, and technology use and addiction are discussed. Morrow explains not only how the Christian worldview informs these decisions but how the student can articulate his or her decisions and defend them in the most respectful and graceful ways. Throughout this part of the book (and the previous part), Morrow constantly reminds the student that they are called by God for a purpose, and they need to focus on and make their decisions based upon that purpose.

Reviewer’s Thoughts

This book is one resource that I wish I had before I began my journey. Because of circumstances that were happening in my life during my transition from high-school (homeschool) to college, I was already in an intellectual and emotional crisis of faith. While I had been informed of some of the challenges that college would present, I was not given as much instruction or preparation to deal with them as I wished that I had. This book is one of my most highly recommended books for those who look forward to attending college. Parents, take note: Because of the fact that it covers intellectual, emotional, practical, spiritual, and cultural challenges students will face in college, “Welcome To College: A Christ-Follower’s Guide for the Journey” is one of the most important books that your college-bound teen can read. The way that Morrow laid out the book, with its bite-sized yet in-depth chapters and the “Big Ideas” sections at the end of each chapter, he makes it extremely easy for teens to comprehend the content and for parents to engage the material and help train their children for the challenges that lie ahead. College is a whole new world for our kids, and we need to train them and prepare them with the resources that God has given us; if you have made it this far through this review, it is safe to consider that Morrow’s book is now one of the resources God has provided you. Take this opportunity, pray for guidance, and equip your child for the journey that God is preparing to take them on.

Notes

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2GG09Ds

/by
Religious Discussions

Are Religious Discussions Important?

By Brian Chilton

An old adage claims that the two worst conversations to have with a person involve religion and politics. Since people hold deep emotional feelings pertaining to these two issues, the logic of the cliché claims that the two topics must be avoided. However, these two topics are arguably the most important topics that one could discuss. I will leave the issue of politics with the pundits. Nevertheless, political policy affects everyone in the nation to which it is given. On a larger scale, religion is an issue that deals with life’s most important questions. Does God exist? Is there an afterlife? How does one get to heaven? Did Jesus of Nazareth exist? Did Jesus rise from the dead on Easter Sunday?

I have heard people make the claim that religious conversations should be avoided because they are worthless. Statements such as “All people want to do when talking religion is to force their opinions on others” indicate a disdain for the topic. For some, it could include a disregard for religion itself. So, is the discussion of religion important? Let’s consider three aspects that religion covers.

  1. Religious conversations are important as they discusscritical shapers of a worldview.

Why does it matter what a person believes, that is, accepts as truth? It actually matters a great deal. Everyone has a religion of some sort. The person’s religion may or may not be part of an organized religious system of thought. But, the person still has a religion because the term religion is understood as a systematized, personal belief. How one views God, the world, and humanity becomes part of that person’s religious belief. These beliefs are actually shapers of the person’s worldview.

Individuals have been moved to do great good by their religious beliefs. Countless individuals have given of themselves, sometimes even their lives, to serve other people because of their belief that God loves all people and wants to love all people. Consider missionary Jim Elliot who gave his life to share the gospel with the Huaorani people of Ecuador. Why did he share gifts and his beliefs with the Huaorani? Because he believed that God loves everyone. Elliot’s worldview was shaped by the religious shapers of his belief system.

In stark contrast, others such as Adolf Hitler[1]—who was influenced by a bizarre conflation of New Age ideology, mixed with the beliefs of atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche[2], and the biology of Charles Darwin—and Joseph Stalin—who was influenced Karl Marx and his atheism—were led to do great harm because of their worldview. Hitler and Stalin’s worldview were shaped by their religious beliefs. Ideas truly matter!

  1. Religious conversations are important as they diagnose claims of truth.

Everyone has an opinion, but is every opinion based on truth? Do we take seriously the claims of the Flat Earthers in that the world is flat, and that the population’s acceptance of a round earth is part of a greater conspiracy? It seems that there are conspiracy theories for everything nowadays. While it is important to respect each person, it is not wise to accept all opinions as truth.

Some people reject the idea of a spiritual existence beyond the scope of the body that awaits the return of Christ. However, if a person accepts the authority of the Bible and Jesus’s teachings, then it is difficult to accept his teachings to Martha after Lazarus’s death, saying, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me, even if he dies, will live. Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die” (John 11:25-26a).[3] How could this be true if there is no survival of the soul after death? Or, what of Jesus’s promise to the criminal on the cross where he says, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (John 11:43). If Jesus is true, then ideas of soul death or soul sleep cannot. Intellectual discussions of religious belief, when done properly, can diagnose truth claims according to theological, philosophical, historical, and biblical evidences.

  1. Religious conversations are important as they dissect conversational spiritual status.

Not all religious conversations will end with good results. Nevertheless, a person can gauge one’s spiritual status during conversations of religion. I heard the story of a pastor who spoke with a young man who took a lax view of sin and theology. The pastor asked the young man if he and his girlfriend were engaged in premarital sexual relations. The young man admitted that they were. The young man’s rejection of ethical and theological standards said more about his spiritual state than the veracity of the ethical and theological truths being discussed. Religious conversations may lead to deep discussions, or it may lead to revealing spiritual conditions. If a person is found to be in a lost or spiritually weak state, one knows how to pray for the person in question.

Conclusion

If God exists, Jesus is risen, the Bible is God’s revelation to humanity, and if salvation is found in Christ’s work on the cross; then religious discussions are the most important conversations that we can have. In the end, I really don’t think that people who accuse religion as being unimportant truly mean what they say. I feel that the people making this claim do not desire to be obtrusive or combative. However, it has been my experience that with proper training and in-depth contemplation, religious conversations do not need to be hostile or combative. Hot-button issues only become hostile if we allow it. Emotional outbursts do more to show the shallowness of a person’s worldview than to dismiss logical and evidential claims. Sometimes, all one needs to do is, as Greg Koukl suggests, leave a stone in someone’s shoe.

Notes

[1] See an interesting expose on Hitler’s anti-Christian sentiments at Ray Comfort, “Was Adolf Hitler a Christian?,” CBN.com, http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/churchhistory/godandhitler/

[2] See “Michael Kalish, “Friedrich Nietzsche’s Influence on Hitler’s Mein Kampf,” UCSB.edu (2004),  http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133p/133p04papers/MKalishNietzNazi046.htm.

[3] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).

 

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 in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian is full member of the International Society of Christian Apologetics and the Christian Apologetics Alliance. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2DWEg4T

/by
God Reveal Himself

Should God Reveal Himself More Clearly?

,

By Al Serrato

God gave us free will so that we can freely choose Him, for freedom of choice is essential to love. But, the skeptic counters, many people do not believe God is real. Why doesn’t God reveal himself more clearly? This question has considerable surface appeal, as it plays on our intuitive sense of fairness. Despite the vast number of people who believe that the evidence for God’s existence, and for Christ’s deity, is more than sufficient to ground a solid faith, there are always others who say they might believe “if only….” And if God really does want all to be saved, why doesn’t He provide them with that extra level of proof?

Before attempting an answer, it’s worth taking a closer look at what the skeptic is really saying: “I’m not interested in what your evidence shows. It’s not enough to satisfy me. I want my personal standard to be met. Satan knew of God’s existence and still rejected Him. Why can’t I get that level of proof?”

This is an odd challenge, because it ignores the objective nature of “evidence” and instead focuses on the subjective nature of a person’s response to it. It moves from considering what conclusions the evidence might support to considering what more could be added to make the conclusion even stronger. In the criminal courts, it is not uncommon to present a compelling case which, after days of deliberations, results in a “hang” and the need for a retrial. Eleven jurors might be completely convinced as to the truth of the charge, but one juror can insist that he needs more evidence. Now, perhaps that one has found something that no one else could see, despite days of discussion; more likely, the lone juror is unwilling to convict – to follow where the truth leads – for other reasons. If he follows the skeptics’ lead here, that juror might say: “I’ve heard of cases in which there is a confession to the crime and still the jury did not convict, so I am justified in voting not guilty here until I get the kind of evidence that I want.”

Like the skeptic in the present challenge, this juror is making a statement, and not an argument. The fact that greater evidence could be produced in support of a claim is a given; it is true for all possible claims at all possible times, because perfect proof is not possible. But this assertion is not an argument that the evidence that was produced is insufficient. In fact, it does not address the weight and convincing force of the evidence at all.

Returning to the original challenge, what is it that would convince the skeptic? The answer: total knowledge of God, the same kind of knowledge Satan may have had. That means the skeptic wants full knowledge of that Being which embodies the ultimate perfections, that Being from whom derives all things good and worthy of praise and apart from whom there is only deprivation and evil for time without end. Full knowledge of that Being would also entail full knowledge of the consequences of accepting or rejecting His offer of life with Him. Satan was some type of spiritual creature; we know little about him, other than that he used his will to oppose God. But we are all human beings, and as such, we have intimate knowledge of man and his nature. Could we really face that level of knowledge? Would it not be apparent to all that the choice to accept God would be coerced and no longer free? Free will would become a mere fiction.

God set the level of evidence of Him in a way that is fitting to our nature. He does not reveal more because what He has revealed is sufficient, which explains perhaps why the vast majority of all who have ever lived have sought in some way for the God they know is there. We are without excuse, the Bible says, for the knowledge of God is written on our very hearts. We may blur that knowledge with the frantic pace of our lives, or silence it with our insistence on having things our way. But what we have been given is enough to ground our faith, if we only use our minds and our ability to reason to assess what has been revealed to us. But for those who choose not to believe, there is freedom to pursue that course, a course marked by self-will and the quest for control.

Yes, the evidence could always be better. But imperfect human beings rely on imperfect knowledge all the time. The evidence we do have is worth considering, and it may well change the course of your life… if only you give it the chance.

 

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

/by
Purpose God

Can You Have Purpose Without God?

By Luke Nix

Introduction
One of the more convincing reasons to believe that atheism is false comes from man’s desire for life to have purpose. If there is no designer behind the universe, life in general, and our individual lives in particular, have no ultimate purpose, no goal to guide our decisions, no finish line to motivate us to keep running when things get tough. The way that pastor Rick Warren put it in his book “The Purpose-Driven Life” makes it quite clear:

“Without a purpose, life is motion without meaning, activity without direction, and events without reason. Without a purpose, life is trivial, petty, and pointless.”

If life is truly pointless, then why should anyone want to endure the suffering and pain that life brings? If life is pointless, as atheism necessarily implies, then there is no reason to want to continue to live. This is, quite literally, an unlivable philosophy for life, and if atheism necessarily implies this philosophy, then atheism is not just unlivable, but completely incompatible with living. And if a worldview is incompatible with living, it cannot be true. However, people do continue to live because they believe that their lives do have a purpose, so it follows that atheism is false. The power of this argument against their worldview is recognized by many atheists (they would agree with Warren in his assessment of the need for purpose), and they believe that they have found a way to undermine the soundness of the defeater of their worldview.

Atheistic Purposes?

In order to undermine the defeater, the atheist recognizes that there must be some way to give people’s lives purpose. Since they do not have a Creator to provide such a purpose, they must look elsewhere. The common appeal for the atheist is to look to the individual for their purpose for living. Whatever the individual wants or desires becomes their purpose for living. From what I can tell, there are at least three problems with this approach.

Humanist vs. Narcissist

First, unless the person is a complete narcissist, they will attempt to take others’ lives and feelings into account (a humanist position) as they attempt to create the purposes for their lives. In order to keep from becoming overwhelmed with the shear number of people to consider, the individual must limit the scope of who all they will consider. This can only be done by considering the other people’s value. In an atheistic worldview, humans do not have intrinsic or equal value (grounded in the Image of God in Christianity), so their value must be determined by their purpose. But if that individual must determine their own purpose, then that must be taken into account when the humanist is attempting to create their purpose. This, of course, becomes extremely difficult if the purposes of the others are not necessarily known and even more difficult if the other people considered decided to change their purposes at any given time. And let us also not overlook the infinite regress of interdependencies of purposes upon one another, which may actually render such a pursuit of purpose for the humanist practically (if not necessarily) impossible.

Challenged by Others

Second, let us assume that the atheist is able to face and overcome the obstacles described above (or is a narcissist) and chooses their own purposes. Others, no doubt, will question the individual’s chosen purpose. The humanist will question the narcissist, and the narcissist will question the humanist (let’s also not forget that existentialists, hedonists, and numerous others who also will give their input). This results in the individual doubting their choice of purpose, which will throw them right back into the struggle described in the first issue. Unless the atheist is or becomes a narcissist, these two issues will never result in satisfaction with the purpose set by the individual. If satisfaction does not exist, the process continues ad infitum.

It Keeps Going and Going and Going and Going…

Third, if the atheist gets to the point of settling upon a purpose (through accepting narcissism or whatever), once the goal is achieved, new purposes must be created quickly; otherwise, hopelessness will set in when living becomes painful. Even the narcissist will become tired of repeating the same process over and over with no ultimate satisfaction that an ultimate goal has been achieved. The only way to avoid despair for the atheist is to borrow from theism and believe (incorrectly and blindly) that their repeated struggle does have ultimate purpose.

Tiny Little Purposes

The atheistic life is ultimately unlivable without believing the “useful fiction” of ultimate purpose (theism). Without an ultimate purpose to deal with the struggle, pain, and suffering involved in trying to create our own individual purposes numerous times throughout our lives, doing this time and time again becomes tedious, and when we realize that we become more willing to question such a delusion. As we personally experience the futility of trying to create our own purposes, something about this never-ending process becomes painfully apparent. In his talk “Has Christianity Failed You?” philosopher Ravi Zacharias stated it succinctly:

“If you don’t have ultimate purpose, all these tiny little purposes are nothing else but ways to tranquilize your boredom.”

Tranquilizing our boredom becomes the atheist’s ultimate purpose, but who or what established that that is, in fact, their ultimate purpose? The atheist tries to undermine God’s existence (which necessarily implies ultimate purpose; again, who or what assigned that as the ultimate purpose?) by demonstrating subjective purposes can exist. However, this side-steps the issue; it does not actually address the issue. The atheist believes that since they have offered subjective purposes that ultimate purpose is no longer necessary. But subjective purposes and ultimate purpose are not mutually exclusive. Just because subjective purposes exist does not mean that ultimate purpose does not, as has been demonstrated in the three issues with trying to substitute subjective purposes for ultimate purpose. Again, Ravi Zacharias:

“God’s made you for a purpose. All the tiny little purposes become purposeful because your life itself has purpose.”

Conclusion
While the atheist believes that they can overcome the challenge of a lack of ultimate purpose in their lives, we have been hardwired to need ultimate purpose in order to continue to want to live. Atheism is logically incompatible with such an idea. Atheism has no choice but to borrow from Christianity to make itself a livable worldview. To the atheist, ultimate purpose is nothing more than a “useful fiction” and since such a belief in a purpose-giver is necessary to live out atheism, why would the atheist establish his purpose as to undermine the existence of the Purpose-Giver? How can a worldview be true if it promotes the belief of a useful fiction in order to make it livable? Simply put, it can’t. Atheism is not true, and our need for purpose demonstrates it. Atheism tips its hat to Christianity in its reliance upon an ultimate purpose. That is no coincidence, it must be so because Christianity is true.

If you have been struggling intellectually and emotionally with your purpose in life, I invite you to not only consider the argument presented in this post, but also those on the many other posts on this blog. You will continue to struggle with your purpose until you accept that Jesus is your Creator and Savior, and He is the Purposer of your life. Investigate the evidence, then come to Christ on His terms and see that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

 

Notes

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2nv6VTz

/by
LGBTQ Contradictions

How do Atheists Justify Human Rights?

,

Christians and atheists often disagree over politics and human rights.  However, while Christians have a foundation for supporting their political positions, atheists unwittingly steal from God in order to argue for some of their political rights, whether it’s abortion, same-sex marriage, government healthcare or whatever. 

How so?

By what objective standard are abortion, same-sex marriage, taxpayer-provided health care, and the like, moral rights? There isn’t such a standard in an atheistic universe.  If there is no God, all moral questions are matter of human opinion.  So atheists must steal the grounds for objective moral rights from God while arguing that God doesn’t exist.

Atheists are caught in a dilemma. If God doesn’t exist, then objective moral rights don’t exist, including all those that atheists support. If God does exist, then objective moral rights exist. But those rights clearly don’t include cutting up babies in the womb, same-sex marriage, and other invented absolutes contrary to every major religion and the “self-evident” natural law.

No matter what side of the political aisle you’re on—no matter how passionate you believe in certain causes or rights—without God they aren’t really rights at all. Human rights amount to no more than your subjective preferences. So atheists can believe in and fight for rights to abortion, same-sex marriage, and taxpayer-provided entitlements, but they can’t justify them as truly being rights.   They are their own preferences, not rights.

Want the details including answers to objections?  They are in the book and the new Stealing From God online course I’m hosting that beings January 15 (you can start the self-paced version any time after that too).  The course includes ten hours of video, and several live video conferences where I’ll be answering questions.   Since we limit the size of the live classes to ensure every student has an opportunity to ask questions, you’ll want to sign up soon if you want to be a part of this.

 

/by
Canon Conspiracy

The Canon Conspiracy

By Timothy Fox

I’ve always been intrigued by conspiracy theories. New World Order, Illuminati, stuff like that. Christianity has its own share of conspiracy theories, like the existence of “lost” gospels suppressed by the Church. However, we all must wonder why the Bible contains the books that it does. What if there really are texts purposely omitted from the canon that would have produced a radically different Christianity? Far from being mere conspiracy theory, this is an important claim to explore. So, let’s briefly examine four of the most infamous “lost” gospels:

The “Lost” Gospels

Gospel of Thomas

The Gospel of Thomas is the most popular of all “lost” gospels. It was discovered in 1945 within a collection of texts near Nag Hammadi in Egypt.Thomas seems very primitive, being a collection of sayings with no clear narrative and no mention of Jesus’ death and crucifixion. Thus, its proponents consider it an extremely early gospel source.

However, scholars believe Thomas was heavily influenced by the synoptic gospels, and possibly Paul’s writings and the Diatessaron, another ancient Christian text. Also, gnostic elements within the text discredit an early origin, as gnostic reinterpretations of Christianity hadn’t surfaced until the 2nd century. Thus, Thomas should be rejected as an early, independent account of Jesus’ life.

Gospel of Peter

In the late 19th century, fragments of a supposed Gospel of Peter were found in Akhmim, Egypt. Its proponents argue that Peter contains elements of an older Christian tradition that may predate the canonical gospels. However, documents must be dated by existing textual evidence, not by their hypothetical roots. Peter shows signs of dependence on the synoptic gospels and also contains obvious embellishments, including fantastical elements such as a talking cross and giant angels. Most scholars date it to the late second century, and so Peter is not a reliable, independent witness of Jesus’ life.

Gospel of Mary

The idea that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers was popularized by Dan Brown’s bestselling book, The Da Vinci Code. However, its roots lie in the so-called Gospel of Mary. Fragments of it were found in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries and it advances a radically different message than what is contained in the Bible. Mary’s proponents herald it as proof of the patriarchal suppression of women within Christianity.

But while its small size makes dating difficult, scholars place it at the end of the second century, much too late to be considered reliable. Also, no scholar takes the Jesus-Mary coupling seriously as it is mentioned nowhere else in any other early Christian writings.

Gospel of Judas

A gospel written by the scoundrel who betrayed Jesus?! Now this is juicy. Do we get to see the other side of the story? Sorry, Judas is an obvious fake. In fact, church father Irenaeus smacked down this false gospel way back in 180 AD, condemning it as heretical, Gnostic fan fiction.

General Arguments

Let’s now examine some general arguments and statements concerning “lost” gospels:

Bible “Buzzfeed”

The Internet loves lists, and so did the early Christians. In The Canon Debate, Lee McDonald compares thirty lists of New Testament books ranging from the second to sixth century. And of these, the Gospel of Thomas is the only “lost” gospel to appear on any list, and at that, only on one. That’s right, one. Out of thirty. If the Christians closest to Jesus’ time did not consider these “lost” gospels worthy to be included in the biblical canon, then why should we?

Canon by Chance?

If there really is a God who inspired the Bible, do you honestly think he’d leave its compilation to chance or human opinion? Of course not. We should be confident that the Bible contains exactly the books God wants.

Ehrman Closes the Case

For the final nail in the coffin, let’s turn to Bart Ehrman, agnostic (thus, non-Christian) New Testament scholar. In Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code, he writes:

“The oldest and best sources we have for knowing about the life of Jesus… are the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This is not simply the view of Christian historians who have a high opinion of the New Testament and its historical worth; it is the view of all serious historians of antiquity of every kind, from committed evangelical Christians to hardcore atheists.”

Conclusion

Theorizing about secret gospels and canon conspiracies may be fun for some, but there is no truth behind it whatsoever. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the only legitimate Gospels that contain reliable information about the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

 

For a more in-depth examination of these and other alleged “lost” gospels, check out chapter 5 in the updated Evidence That Demands a Verdict, “Gnostic Gospels and Other Non-biblical Texts.”

 Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2r6nJWc

 

/by
Reference Guide Biblical Numerology

Reference Guide to Biblical Numerology

By Brian G. Chilton

Early Apostolic Church Fathers (100-451 AD) recognized that Scripture had four layers of interpretation. They used a method called quadriga which held the following layers: 1) Literal (sensus historicus), 2) Allegorical (sensus allegoricus—texts hold symbolic meaning), 3) Tropical/moral (sensus tropologicus or sensus moralis—broader moral lessons), and 4) Anagogical (sensus anagogicus—mystical, metaphorical sense). Often numbers are used symbolically to indicate certain truths. This article will provide an extensive glimpse at the most common symbolic numbers used in Scripture. A gauge will be used to indicate the certainty that I hold with the meaning given to the number. The word symbolize is used of numbers for which there is great confidence in its symbolic meaning. The word represents is used for numbers of which there is good confidence in its symbolic reference. Implies represents numbers that have fair representation for the meaning attributed to it. The phrase may imply is used for numbers that could hold symbolic meaning but doesn’t hold a good deal of evidence to support the meaning given to it.

1) Symbolizes the unity of God (there is one God) (Deut. 6:4; 1 Cor. 8:4: Gal. 3:20). The number also represents the unity between the Father and the Son (Jn. 10:30), the singular sacrifice of Christ, and Christ’s being the one Mediator and Shepherd (1 Tim. 2:5; Jn. 10:16).

2) Symbolizes the duality of man, consistent of both spirit and flesh (Gal. 5:16-18). The number two also represents the union of two parties, the verification of two witnesses (Mk. 6:7-13; 1 Tim. 5:19), the union between Christ and the church (1 Cor. 12), and the Old and New Testaments. The number two can also represent comparison and contrast between two things.

3) Symbolizes the triune nature of God. By no surprise, three can also represent completeness. Three may also represent God’s perfect design as there are three heavens (2 Cor. 12:2), three time frames (past, present, future), three points of measurement (beginning, middle, end), three kinds of sacrifice (sin, peace, and praise), three kinds of laws (moral, ceremonial, and civil), three things that were placed in the Ark of the Covenant (Ten Commandments, Aaron’s staff, and a jar of manna), three gifts of grace (faith, hope, and love), and three parts to salvation (justification, sanctification, and glorification).

4) Symbolizes the creative work of God and universal truth: 4 corners of the earth (Rev. 7:1); 4 rivers of Paradise (Gen. 2:10); 4 winds of heaven (Jer. 49:36); 4 acts of judgment (Eze. 14:21—sword, famine, evil beasts, and pestilence); 4 horsemen (Rev. 6); and 4 winds (Matt. 24:31); and four guardians of God’s throne.

5) Represents God’s goodness and grace upon humanity and teaching. There are two divisions of five in the Ten Commandments; five offerings given to God (Burnt—Lev. 4; Sin—Lev. 4; Trespass—Lev. 5:14-19; Grain—Lev. 2; and Peace—Lev. 3); the five divisions of Psalms; and the five books of the Law (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy).

6) Represents the fallen nature of humanity. God created human beings on the 6th day. Six days were given to work. 666 is the number of Satan.

7) 7 is one of the most important numbers in the Bible. It symbolizes completion, perfection, and rest. God finished creation in 7 days. There are 7 great land masses. 7 colors of the rainbow. 7 notes make a perfect scale. 7 days in the feast of Passover. 7 weeks between Passover and Pentecost. 7 days for the Feast of Tabernacles. God had 7 covenants with humanity (Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Levitic, Davidic, and Messianic). In Revelation, one finds 7 churches, 7 letters, 7 candlesticks, 7 stars, 7 angels, 7 Spirits of God, 7 Seal Judgments, 7 horns, 7 eyes on the Lamb, 7 trumpets, 7 thunders, 7 mountains, 7 bowls, 7 kings, and so on.

8) The number eight is also of great importance as it symbolizes new life, resurrection, a new covenant, and new beginnings. God spoke 8 words to bring forth creation (Gen. 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26). Jesus rose on the 8th day—the first day of the week (Sun. Apr. 5, 33 AD). Eight people were resurrected besides Jesus’s own resurrection. If you take the numerical value of Jesus’s name, it comes to 888.

9) Nine, a multiple of three, symbolizes the finality of faith or divine completeness. Christ died in the ninth hour (3 pm). Yom Kippur occurs on the 9th day of the 7th month (Lev. 23:32). The fruit of the Spirit consists of nine qualities (love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control—Gal. 5:22-23).

10) Like 7, 10 symbolizes completion. For instance, there were Ten Commandments. In the end times, 10 kingdoms will exist. 10 spies were sent out (Num. 13:32). 10 men were needed to form a quorum in the Sanhedrin.

11) Represents chaos, disorder, and judgment. The number 11 is used twenty-four times in Scripture and “11th” can be found 19 times, all denoting chaos. John saw 11 things connected to the final judgment (Rev. 20:12-14).

12) Another major number in Scripture, 12 symbolizes God’s government. God brought about 12 tribes from Jacob’s 12 sons. There are 12 lunar cycles corresponding to 12 months of one year. Jesus called 12 apostles (Matt. 10:2-4). 12 is seen quite frequently in Revelation.

13) Implies rebellion and lawlessness as indicated by Nimrod who tried to take the place of God (Gen. 10:9), a man who was the 13th of Ham’s descendants.

14) Implies a double measure of spiritual perfection due to the fact that it is seven doubled and that there are three sets of 14 generations in Jesus’s lineage.

15) Implies rest after deliverance (14). The 15th day of Nisan is the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Also, the 15th day of the 7th month of Tishrei begins the Feast of Tabernacles.

16) Implies love and loving. 16 is 8 doubled (8×8=16). Some have suggested that the OT gives 16 names and titles for God’s constant love. Zilpah and her descendants survived a brutal drought (Gen. 45:11). Zilpah and her descendant who survived numbered 16 people (Gen. 46:18).

17) Implies victory. The prophetic beasts of Daniel and Revelation (representing world powers) will have 7 heads and 10 horns, totaling 17. They will be overcome by the power of God.

18) Implies bondage as identified by 18 people who served as judges during a time of great sin in the nation (Joshua, Othniel, Ehud, Deborah, Barak, Eli, Gideon, Abimelech, Tola, Jephthah, Samson, Samuel, Ibzan, Jair, Elon, Abdon, Joel, and Abiah).

19) Implies God’s perfect order as 19 is the sum of both 10 and 9, both holding tremendous biblical value. Israel had 19 kings before the Northern Kingdom was overtaken.

20) May imply a time of waiting. Jacob had to wait 20 years to marry his wives and be freed from Laban’s control.

21) May imply great wickedness and sin. Advocates hold that Satan is released on the 21stday of the seventh Hebrew month ending Christ’s millennial reign at the end of time. Satan will rise and will finally be defeated once and for all.

22) May imply disorder, chaos, and disorganization since 22 is 11 doubled.

23) May imply evil. Jezebel, an evil woman, is mentioned 23 times compared to Eve who is referenced 19 times.

24) Implies priesthood and the worship of God. 24 is a multiple of 12. David divided into 24 divisions (1 Chron. 24).

25) Implies grace doubled. In Ezekiel’s vision of the future temple, which was seen in the 25thyear of captivity (Eze. 40:1), he gives 5 measurements of the temple which are 25 cubits long (Eze. 40:13, 21, 25, 29-30).

30) Represents a person’s calling. Aaronic priests were dedicated at 30 years of age. Jesus was around the age of 30 when he began his 3 ½ year ministry (Lk. 3:23).

33) May imply the promises of God. Often, 33 may be linked with divine judgment. 33 is the numeric equivalent of the term amen. Other links are found with 33 in the 33rd use of a particular name in Scripture (e.g., 33rd time Abraham is mentioned, he had Isaac).

40) Symbolizes testing and trials. Genesis notes that it rained 40 days and 40 nights upon the earth during the time of Noah’s testing. Moses was in Egypt 40 years, in Midian 40 years, and served God 40 years. Moses was on Mt. Sinai 40 days as God gave him the law. Saul, David, Solomon, and Josiah ruled for 40 years. Israel was in the wilderness 40 years. Jesus fasted in the wilderness 40 days. Jesus taught his disciples for 40 days following his resurrection.

42) Symbolizes the antichrist. The antichrist will be allowed to have authority for 42 months (Rev. 13:4-5).

50) Symbolizes power, celebration, and joy. The Year of Jubilees came on the 50th year (Lev. 25:10). Pentecost occurred 50 days after Jesus’s resurrection, was on the 50th day after the first harvest of grain, and was the time that the Holy Spirit filled believers with his presence. David has a connection with 50 in 2 Samuel 24.

70/72) Symbolizes human leadership and judgment. Moses appointed 70 elders (Ex. 24:1). The Sanhedrin consisted of 70 men. Jesus chose 70 or 72 disciples (Lk. 10:1). Jesus told Peter to forgive 70 times 7.

120) Implies a divine time of waiting. 120 disciples were gathered when Matthias was chosen as Judas’s replacement (Acts 1:14-26). God gave a 120 year period to allow humanity to repent of their evil before engaging in judgment against them (Gen. 6:1-3).

153) May imply God’s overflow of blessing as it is linked with the 153 fish that were caught at one of Jesus’s resurrection appearances (Jn. 21:11).

200) May imply insufficiency. Achan sinfully takes 200 shekels of silver in Jericho (Josh. 7). The Romans escort Paul from Jerusalem to Caesarea with 200 soldiers (Acts 21-23).

390) Represents separation. Ezekiel is commanded to lie on his side for 390 days to represent Israel’s sins and separation (Eze. 4:1-5).

400) May imply a divine time period.

666) Symbolizes the antichrist and the kingdoms of humanity opposing God. 666 is oddly a triangular number, thus representing a counterfeit trinity. The number is identified as the mark of the beast in Revelation 13:18.

1000) Symbolizes the conclusion of a time. Jesus will return to establish a millennial kingdom on earth. He will reign for 1,000 years after which Satan will launch one last effort against Christ that will prove fatal for Lucifer (Rev. 19:16; 20:4, 6).

144,000) Symbolizes totality and the church. David’s army consisted of 12 sets of 144,000 in 1 Chronicles 27. More indicative of the numerical meaning is the reference of 144,000 end-time believers whom God saves from the tribes of Israel (Rev. 7:4-9).

More numbers could be given. However, the numbers mentioned in this article represent the most impressive numbers symbolized in the Bible. The intricate detail of Scripture and the numerical connections add to the impressive revelation that is found in God’s word.

Were there some numbers that were missed? Do you agree or disagree with the symbolic meanings attributed to the numbers? If so, leave a comment and let us know what you think.

 

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 a student of the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian is full member of the International Society of Christian Apologetics and the Christian Apologetics Alliance. Brian has been in the ministry for over 14 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

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

/by
Evolution True Happen Adam Eve

If Evolution Were True, What Would Happen To Adam And Eve?

,

By Evan Minton

If evolution were true, what would we Christians do about the Bible’s teachings on Adam and Eve, their relationship with sin’s entrance into the world, and the doctrine of original sin? As I’ve argued in several blog posts on this website, I believe Christianity and Evolution are compatible, and many of the objections lodged at Theistic Evolution simply don’t work. For example, when scientists talk about “random” mutations, they don’t mean the mutations are purposeless or chance events. They just mean that they’re unpredictable from a scientific point of view[1], and in any case even if they did mean they occurred by chance, this would at most, only be from a human perspective. Proverbs 16:33 says “The lot is cast, but it’s every decision is from the Lord.” So the argument that evolutionary creationism is incoherent because “it posts that God had a purpose in a random process” commits the fallacy of equivocation. God is sovereign even over what appears to be a chance event from our human point of view. Also, just because an event can be explained naturally by no means entails that God wasn’t involved. We believe (and The Bible teaches) that God orchestrated the crucifixion of Jesus, but He clearly worked through natural processes (i.e human free choices) to bring that about. Moreover, as Kirk MacGregor has argued, Molinism would provide a plausible mechanism for how God could guide evolution without intervening all the time.[2]

All that said, I think the trickiest area that Theistic Evolution a.k.a Evolutionary Creationism has to deal with is the biblical teachings on Adam and Eve. For those who reject macroevolution entirely, such as young earth and old earth creationists, Adam isn’t a problem. But what about those convinced of Evolutionary Creationism? What if you become convinced that the scientific evidence firmly establishes macro evolution? Some say that evolution doesn’t allow for a historical Adam at all, and therefore, would adopt an allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1-11 and say that biblical history starts in Genesis 12 (e.g Peter Enns). As I’ve written elsewhere, I think an allegorical view of Genesis is exegetically untenable. If nothing else, it makes Romans 5 unintelligible, and it renders the Genealogies in Luke and 1 Chronicles errant.[3]

While it’s true that an evolutionary process wouldn’t result in the genesis of one man and one woman, it doesn’t follow that Genesis 2-11 need to be entirely jettisoned as historical narrative. I’m convinced that there are least two biblically faithful options we could adopt if we thought the theory of Darwinian macro evolution were true. These would harmonize evolutionary biology with the biblical text. There are more than Christian evolutionists have proposed, but in this blog post, I’ll only survey the ones I think are the most tenable and have the least amount of problems.

1: The Strattonian Model 
In his blog post “Should Christians Oppose Evolution?” apologist and blogger Tim Stratton offers the following evolutionary creation model.

“1. God exists and possesses omniscient middle knowledge.

2. Big Bang (God chooses and actualizes this world and all that will happen in it)!

3.The universe unfolds…

4. Our solar system and earth come into existence.

5. Life evolves exactly the way God knew it would via his design in the finely-tuned initial conditions of the Big Bang.

6. Homo sapiens evolve as planned (not by accident).

7. God “breathes his image” (soul) into the Homo sapien making the first human in another act of special creation.

8. God does the same thing with a female Homo sapien and then “breathes his image” into her making the first female human.

9. God separates Adam and Eve from the other “soul-less” Homo sapiens (who are physically identical, but not spiritually), and places them in the Garden of Eden with the Tree of Life (as long as they eat of this tree they will never experience a physical death).

10- After the fall, Adam and Eve are expelled from the paradise of the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Life (now they will eventually die).

11. After Adam and Eve’s son, Cain, kills their other son, Abel, Cain is expelled from the world’s only “human tribe.” Cain is scared of other soul-less Homo sapiens who may kill him (Genesis 4:13-14).

12. Cain finds a physically identical but soul-less Homo sapien female as a wife (Genesis 4:17). The human soul is always passed on to offspring (avoids “bottle-necking” problems).

13. The human soul is a trait preferred via natural selection (as it allows for rationality).

14. Soon, all Homo sapiens have souls created in the “image of God.” Therefore, now all Homo sapiens are human (All humans are Homo sapiens, but not all Homo sapiens have been human).

15. This is exactly the way God planned and designed life to unfold. It all started with the Big Bang!” [4]

The most controversial and most important part of the model is 8-14. This is because it deals with the origin of humanity and the historicity of Adam and Eve. Stratton proposes that a few thousand homo sapiens evolved in the “March Of Progress” (step 6), and God elected to supernaturally intervene to endow one specific homo sapien with a spirit (i.e His image, entailing rationality, free will, and the knowledge of objective morality) (step 7). This homo sapien, He named Adam. Then God did the same thing with a female Homosapien (step 8), whom Adam named Eve when he first met her. Step 9 of Stratton’s model posits that the other homo sapiens were not supernaturally endowed with His image, and therefore remained spiritless like all of the other animals in the world. If you’re having a hard time imagining this, think of the unintelligent, mute humans in the movie “The Planet Of The Apes” (the original one with Charlton Heston). While George Taylor was an intelligent, rational being endowed with free will and a knowledge of right and wrong, the other homo sapiens he encountered had devolved into unintelligent animals, and the apes in the movie (who had now gained intelligence and rationality) treated them as such.

Steps 10-12 of Stratton’s model posits that once exiled from the Garden of Eden because of their disobedience, Adam and Eve had other children, and once Cain fled the scene of the crime, the wife he found was one of these spiritless homo sapiens, whom he was able to reproduce with since they were physically identical. Over time, the divine image bearing homo sapiens replaced the non-divine-image bearing once because natural selection preferred the former because greater intelligence provided for better survival.

Step 12 of Tim Stratton’s model is helpful since it posits that Adam’s offspring reproduced with spiritless homo sapiens. This would provide enough genetic diversity by the time of the Genesis flood (chapters 6-9) so that, although all people are inherited from Noah and his sons (who, in turn, were descended from Adam and Eve), we don’t run into the “But much population genetics!” objection. All people are descended from two humans, Adam and Eve, despite evolution bringing about a large number of homo sapiens.

When I first read about this model many months ago, I really liked it. One thing that bothered me about it is that it posits that Adam’s descendants mated with non-human (i.e non-imageo dei) homo sapiens. This seems to get dangerously close to saying beastiality occurred, because although they were biologically identical to the image bearing homo sapiens (Adam, Eve, Cain, Able,) they were animals on a spiritual level. But as I reflected on it, I became more comfortable with it. First, even if this was technically beastiality, is that really any worse than the traditional explanation that Adam’s children all had sex with each other? Also, many Christians are trichotomous in their view of the human soul. So, to say that God could have created a human body with a soul but not a spirit (i.e the divine image) shouldn’t bother them. Since the spirit is a separate faculty altogether, I don’t see why God couldn’t withhold this faculty from all except Adam and Eve and the children they bore. And even on dichotomism (the view I gravitate towards), the Spirit is a faculty of the soul even though it isn’t a separate faculty altogether. To be a truly human person, one is biologically homo sapiens and is endowed with a spirit-soul. Why couldn’t there homo sapiens endowed with souls that lacked the property? Creatures, that are human in biology only?

Tim Stratton, after presenting this model, went on to stress that he isn’t saying this model of creation is true. In fact, he wasn’t even arguing that evolution is true. Rather, he’s presenting this model as a possibility to show that macro evolution and Genesis 1-11 being historical accounts are not mutually exclusive affirmations. There is a logically possible way that both can be true. Therefore, if one is convinced of The Bible, one does not have to throw out evolution. If one is convinced of evolution, that is no cause to throw out The Bible. This model shows it’s logically possible for both Darwinian macro evolution to be true and for the historical accounts in Genesis to be true.

Evolution does nothing to undermine the inerrancy of The Bible and Christians have nothing to fear if they start thinking that Darwin’s theory has something to it.

In order to show evolution refutes Genesis (or vice versa), one would have to show that Tim Stratton’s model cannot even be possibly true.

2: The Evolutionary Ancestral Pair Model 
Some have argued that even presupposing the truth of Darwinian Macro Evolution, it is defensible to suppose that by the time homo sapiens evolved, something happened to render us a bottleneck of only two individuals. Individuals who evolved but are nevertheless the only remaining members of their kind. They would rebut geneticists who say that genetic evidence forces us to say that the bottleneck of ancient homo sapiens was no larger than 10,000, citing studies showing genetic diversity coming from one male animal and one female animal that exceeded the expectation of the scientists who put the two animals together.

Biochemist Fasale Rana writes of one study involving two sheep that were left together on a deserted island. He wrote:

“In 2007 a research team reported on the genetic diversity of wild mouflon sheep on one of the islands that are part of the Kerguelen sub-Antarctic archipelago. This group of sheep provided researchers with an unprecedented opportunity to study the effects of population dynamics on genetic diversity in small populations.

In 1957 a male and female yearling were placed on Haute Island (an island in the Kerguelen Archipelago). . . . By the beginning of the 1970s, the number had grown to 100 individuals and peaked at 700 sheep in 1977. Since that time the population has fluctuated in a cyclical manner between 250 and 700 members.

Given that the population began with only two individuals, . . .has experienced cyclical changes in the population size, and was isolated on an island, the researchers expected very low genetic diversity (measured as heterozygosity).” [5]

However, when the scientists measured this quantity directly for the sheep on Haute Island, they discovered that it exceeded the predictions made by the models by up to a factor of 4. The genetic diversity exceeded the expectations of the model four times over! They greatly underestimated what the genetic diversity of the actual population was going to be.

It’s important to point out that Fasale Rana accepts De Novo Creation rather than Evolutionary Creation. It’s also important to point out that these findings don’t disprove macroevolution nor do they prove all humanity actually came from one man and one woman. The findings do, however, make defensible the doctrine that all humanity descended from one man and one woman.

Perhaps we all descended from Adam because he was the only homo sapiens left by the time of homo sapiens’ evolution. Perhaps some catastrophe wiped out the other homo sapiens by this time. That would make it necessary for God to miraculously fashion another human from Adam’s side. Upon seeing Eve, Adam was relieved to find that there was another human being, whom he could mate with to restore the species (Genesis 2:20-23).

Or, perhaps Adam and Eve were one pair among several thousand at the dawn of humanity, and the reason why we’re all descendants of him is that we’re all descendants of Noah, and only Adam’s lineage survived the flood through Noah. If the population genetics argument is as faulty as Rana says, no objection could be raised at a bottlenecking during the time of Noah’s Ark.

However, if population genetics are reliable after all, there still wouldn’t be a problem. We could merely adopt Tim Stratton’s model, which, as I said, would entail that Noah and his sons had much genetic diversity within them, given that Adam’s children mated with spiritless homo sapiens. The flood could very well explain why these spiritless homo sapiens vanished from the Earth and only the imageo dei baring ones lived on.

Objection: But Genesis 2 says Adam was made from Dirt, and Eve from his side!

Some special creationists would object that although these models would keep Adam and Eve as historical individuals within an evolutionary framework, nevertheless, the biblical description of their creation precludes them being evolved from lower hominids. Genesis 2:7 says that God made Adam from the dust of the ground and Genesis 2:21-22 says Eve was fashioned from Adam’s side. If that doesn’t sound like de novo creation, I don’t know what does. Doesn’t this rule out human evolution entirely?

I don’t think so. First, while I’m open to these descriptions being literal, I’m also just as open-minded toward a non-literal reading of these passages. Just because a text is a historical narrative doesn’t mean every word within the narrative has to be taken literally. If that were the case, then when Jesus said “I am the gate” (John 10:9), we’d have to conclude he’s literally a gate with hinges. The gospels are clearly Greco-Roman biographies (a specific kind of the historical genre), yet Jesus frequently spoke in metaphorical language.

Old Testament Scholar John Walton proposes a metaphorical reading of the “dust from the ground” and “from Adam’s side” language in his book The Lost World Of Adam and Eve.

John Walton makes a strong case that the reference to dust is implying Adam’s mortality, given other places in Scripture where it speaks of humans being dust, with the context making it clear that the “dust” language is speaking of our mortality. Psalm 103:13-16 says “As a father has compassion for his children, so the Lord has compassion for those who fear him. For he knows how we were made; he remembers that we are dust. As for mortals, their days are like grass; they flourish like a flower of the field; For the wind passes over it, and it is gone, and its place knows it no more.” 

We are dust. We are mortal. Just like the grass and flowers.

The “teacher” of Ecclesiastes asserts the same thing, comparing us to animals:

“The fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again.” – Ecclesiastes 3:19-20

It’s very plausible that the Genesis text is just saying God created Adam mortal, rather than literally scooping up a handful of dirt and miraculously transforming it into a person. It’s also possible that the language of Eve being created from His side is to convey the fact that women are ontologically equal to men.

“But wait!” you’ll object. “Doesn’t The Bible make it clear that Adam was created immortal? Romans 5 says death came into the world through his sin.” — For one thing, I think it’s plausible that Romans 5 is speaking of spiritual death, not physical (see my blog post “Why Pre-Fall Death Isn’t A Problem For Old Earth Creationism” to see why). But besides that, if Adam was created mortal, then the tree of life becomes superfluous. For if Adam was an inherently immortal being until he sinned, then why does there need to be a tree of life for him to eat from? And why did God feel the need to bar access from the tree of life? In Genesis 3:22, God told us the reason for barring access to the tree of life. “And the LORD God said, ‘The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”God barred access to the tree of life to prevent Adam and Eve from living forever. But if they were inherently immortal, such a tree wouldn’t be needed. It’s implied that unless Adam and Eve could have regular access to the tree of life, they would die, which entails they didn’t have immortality in and of themselves.

Moreover, we should also keep the principle of accommodation in mind. As I’ve argued in Part 3 of my series on biblical hermeneutics and in “Why Did God Write A Book?”, I don’t believe it was God’s intention to teach the original recipients of scripture scientific truths. God used the faulty science of their day to convey spiritual and theological truths. If that’s the case, then Genesis 2-3 shouldn’t even be treated as a text on anthropological origins even in principle.

Objection: Genesis Doesn’t Say Anything About Other Humans Coming Into Existence Simultaneously with Adam and Eve.
Some may object that any evolutionary creationist view that takes Genesis 1-11 as historical is untenable because Genesis 2-3 is silent on the creation of other humans. Since The Bible doesn’t say anything about these other thousands of humans at the dawn of our species, it is eisegesis to say that Adam and Eve were only one couple among thousands.

The problem with this objection is that it commits the Argument From Silence fallacy. True, The Bible doesn’t mention any other humans at the dawn of our species except for Adam and Eve, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they weren’t there. It’s possible that The Bible simply omits any omission of them because they aren’t important in the narrative. This is especially the case if Tim Stratton’s model is true. On Stratton’s model, these would be homo sapiens of an animalistic nature. They would be human in biology only, not baring the imago dei, which is the direct focus of Genesis 2; this image-bearing creature getting to know his Creator and getting the privilege to name all the animals (a privilege we still enjoy today when scientists discover a new species or star). Hugh Ross, who does not affirm evolutionary creationism, agrees that Genesis 2 is concerned with the spiritual origins of humanity whereas Genesis 1 is concerned about the physical origins.

It would also make sense of scripture to zero in on Adam if he is truly the man whom all humanity is descended from. On Stratton’s model, natural selection got rid of the non-spiritual humans since the intelligence associated with the imago dei contributed to survival value. Also, it could be the case that even if all homo sapiens had the imago dei, we could all still share Adam as our first parent since only his lineage survived the flood (i.e through Noah and his sons). This would also make Adam and Eve of special significance, and therefore it would make sence why the Genesis narrative focuses on them and ignores everyone else.

Moreover, if one affirms a “Federal Headship” view of Adam, it makes, even more, sense why Genesis would be silent about these other humans. Adam is their tribe leader and Eve is his wife. He’s the one responsible, on this view, for getting humanity into this sin situation, to begin with. Just as nations were held responsible for the sins of their kings, the rest of the human race were held accountable for what their chief leader (Adam) did. This is not a view I’ve examined in this post, partly because of length concerns, but also because I find problems with the inherited accountability brand of original sin, but this view is talked about in Loren Haarsma’s article linked below. I only bring it up because this model would also make sense of why Genesis only mentions one couple.

My philosophy has always been that when The Bible is silent on the matter, we’re free to speculate and/or look to other sources of knowledge to come to a conclusion. Genesis doesn’t really say that Adam and Eve were the only people God created at that time. This conclusion was inferred from (A) the lack of mention of other persons in the account and (B) the fact that Paul says every nation was built from one man (Acts 17:26), and (C) it has typically been held that the sinful nature was inherited from Adam a la Romans 5. But as we’ve seen, B is accounted for if only Adam’s lineage survived; either through natural selection or the Noah’s Ark flood. Thus Paul’s statement in Acts 17 would be true. As for C, it’s never explicitly stated that the sinful nature is inherited. This was an inference made by St. Augustine.

It could be that Adam spread sin to the entire human race in two ways; one through inheritance, and the other through bad influence. The latter would only apply to Adam’s contemporaries.

I would also like to point out that positing other humans created alongside Adam and Eve is not without historical or exegetical precedent. I remember reading a BioLogos post which mentioned that even before Darwin’s theory was even published, some theologians has speculated that perhaps God created other people alongside Adam and Eve. Their reason? To explain how human civilization sprung up so rapidly in Genesis 4 and to explain how Cain got his wife without having to invoke the incestuous explanation. I think this is significant, as these theologians weren’t trying to reconcile The Bible’s account of human origins with the evolutionary account (there wasn’t even an evolutionary account yet). They were trying to explain some anomalies that immediately followed the expulsion from the Garden of Eden.

Conclusion 
There are many more models of evolutionary creationism that preserve a historical Adam that I could have surveyed, but I find these two to be the most faithful to the biblical text and have the least amount of exegetical and scientific difficulties. For other EC views on the historical Adam, check out this blog post written by Loren Haarsma.

In conclusion: Evolution is not a threat to Christianity. It is not only is compatible with theism, it’s compatible with The Bible. True, evolution would alter the way we read the accounts of Adam and Eve’s formation, but it wouldn’t force us to deny their existence altogether. Therefore, even if evolution is true, we’re not forced to deny the historicity of The Bible’s opening chapters. If we are convinced the biblical authors intended for us to take Adam and Eve’s story as history and if we’re also convinced of macro evolution, these models are welcome alternatives to the allegorical approach.

Also, keep in mind that these two models are only put forth as possibilities, to try to show compatibility between the biblical account and evolution. As Tim Stratton recently said in a Facebook comment, it’s good to “have a model of Theistic Evolution in your ‘back pocket'” so you can immediately stop Darwin from being a roadblock to people coming to the cross, whether you personally think TE is true or not.

One thing is certain: God inspired two books: the book of The Bible and the book of nature. Since He is the author of both, neither can contradict one another. If there appears to be conflict, it’s because we human interpreters got it wrong somewhere. We either misread The Bible, or we misread the universe. Either the theologian got it wrong, or the scientists did. We must be careful to consider which.

Notes 
[1] Scientists and Christians Deborah and Loren Haarsma explain in their book Origins: Christian Perspectives On Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design. They write:

 “When scientists say that something is random, they mean that the outcome is unpredictable. Consider the roll of a pair of dice. Scientists can calculate the probability that the roll will yield a five or an eleven, but they can’t predict what any particular roll will turn out to be. It’s not that some mysterious force is at work making the dice roll differently each time. Rather, each time the dice are rolled they follow exactly the same well-understood natural laws of gravity and motion. The dice land differently each time because of how they bounce and spin. If the dice are tossed even slightly differently from one time to the next, that slight difference is magnified by each bounce, and after several bounces the final outcome is completely changed. The system is scientifically random because the outcome is unpredictable.” 

[2] See Kirk MacGregor’s paper “The Impossibility Of Evolution Apart From A God With Middle Knowledge”. I also talk about this in my own words in my blog post “Could God Not Use Evolution Because It’s A Random Process” and “5 Reasons Why I’m Open To Theistic Evolution”. 

[3] See my blog post “Why I Don’t Accept The Allegorical View Of Genesis”. 

[4] Tim Stratton, “Should Christians Oppose Evolution?”, Free Thinking Ministries, October 18th, 2016, http://freethinkingministries.com/should-christians-oppose-evolution/

[5] Fazale Rana, “Were They Real? The Scientific Case for Adam and Eve,” Reasons To Believe, October 1, 2010. See http://www.reasons.org/articles/were-they-real-the-scientific-case-for-adam-and-eve  

 

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

/by
God Forgive

Why Can’t God Just Forgive Us?

, ,

By Evan Minton

Some non-Christians, mainly Muslims, ask why Jesus had to die on the cross in order for us to be saved. “Why does God need a blood sacrifice?” They’ll ask, “Why can’t He simply just forgive us?”

This objection was recently posed to me in the comment section in another article in this sight. This fellow said “God is the one who set up this system of sacrificial atonement. This is where I began to have serious doubts about the authenticity of the Bible as the Word of God. I can see a primitive sect of people setting up a system this way since they were familiar with various tribes that thought sacrificing a baby or a virgin would appease the gods. But it is hard for me to accept that the real God of the universe who has all knowledge and power would ever resort to such a bloody, painful and grotesque practice. It makes no sense that he would require the death of someone to atone for the sins of the world. He could have set this system up anyway he wanted to. He could just forgive us like we forgive others. When someone wrongs me, I do not require a blood sacrifice. Generally a simple ‘I’m sorry, please forgive me’ will do. But that is not good enough for God. He requires death.”

How should we answer this?

I think this makes more sense if you think of God’s ridding our sins as a discharging of debt. Imagine you have violated the law and face a $50,000 fine. You tell the judge that you are truly sorry for your crime, but the judge responds “I certainly hope so. You’ve violated the law. Now, pay this fine.” You respond “No, I cannot. This debt is too much for me to bare. I promise I won’t do it again. Just please forgive me.” and the judge says “I can’t do that. The law requires that you pay this fine or face prison. I would be a corrupt judge if I just let you off Scott free. Someone has got to pay the penalty.” You begin to despair because you know the judge cannot just simply forgive you, but neither can you save yourself from this massive debt. Suddenly, something takes you by surprise. The judge steps down from his bench and walks over to you. Then he reaches into his pocket and takes out his wallet, handing you $50,000 in cash saying that he will pay the fine for you (should you accept his offer).

This is analogous to our sin situation. We have all strayed from God’s laws (Romans 3:23), and are therefore guilty before Him, deserving death (Romans 6:23a). God has to punish evil because He is just (Psalm 9:7-8, Psalm 9:16, Psalm 11:16). If He did not punish us, He wouldn’t be a just judge, just as the judge in the illustration above wouldn’t be just if he had let the fine go unpaid. So God must punish us. However, God is also loving (1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:16) and therefore desires not to punish us for our crimes. Just like the judge in the above illustration, God stepped down from His throne, taking on human flesh (John 1:14, Philippians 2:5-8), and was punished in our place. He accrued the penalty to Himself by being crucified.

However, Jesus’ death is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition for salvation. Repentance is required for Christ’s death to be efficacious (Isaiah 55:7, Acts 3:19). If we reject Him, God’s wrath will remain on us (John 3:18, John 3:36). Just as if you were to reject the judge’s offer to pay your fine for you, if one rejects Christ, our sin-debt will remain unpaid.

Regarding animal sacrifices prior to Jesus’ death, I think these are analogous to credit cards. Credit cards don’t actually pay for anything, but they allow you to walk out of the store with your desired object until you have the money to pay for it. Likewise, animal sacrifices never discharged our sin-debt before God (Hebrews 10:4), but they were a sign to God that you were repentant and trusted in Him for salvation. God retroactively applied Jesus’ sacrifice to these Old Testament individuals.

 

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

/by