Tag Archive for: Christianity

Personal Apologetics John 4

Making Apologetics Personal: A Quick Lesson from John 4

It’s no secret that I love apologetics. I love to read apologetics blogs, study apologetics books, and have apologetics conversations. But there is a constant temptation I have to battle that I believe is common among many apologists: the temptation to simply study apologetics but not put it into practice.

Let me state something clearly up front so I am not misunderstood: Studying apologetics has tremendous value in its own right. After all, learning how to defend the faith can bring both clarity and confidence in God and Scripture. Nevertheless, apologetics does not primarily have an inward focus in the life of the believer. It has an outward focus aimed at graciously answering tough questions that trouble both believers and non-believers in their understanding of God and salvation (e.g., 1 Pet. 3:15; Jude 3).

So, why would someone study apologetics but never put it into use? There are probably a myriad of reasons. But I suspect one reason is that its much easier, and more comfortable, to discuss apologetic matters in the abstract. It is less risky to debate the age of the earth or presuppositionalism with a fellow believer than to discuss the evidence for the resurrection with a non-believer. After all, what is there to lose in an “in-house” discussion? As easy and tempting as this can become, Jesus took another route.

Jesus obviously knew the Scriptures well and was eager to discuss them. But he regularly puts his knowledge into practice. In John 4, for instance, Jesus meets the Samaritan woman at the well. Wanting to keep religion as an abstract matter, she raises the question as to whether one should worship in Jerusalem or Samaria. Yet Jesus declined to entertain the question merely as a theoretical exercise. He made the issuepersonal by discussing her five husbands and how God wants her to worship Him in spirit and truth (John 4:24).

My point is not that we should necessarily confront other people in their sin, as Jesus did in John 4. There is a time and place for that, as Scripture teaches (e.g., Matt 18:15-20). Rather, my point is that we apologists must not solely remain in the realm of speculative discussion—we need to “get in the game” and find a way to apply apologetics to life. The greater point of apologetics is not simply to learn the material for its own sake, but for the sake of changing lives. Jesus refused to keep religious issues entirely in the abstract. He made them personal. And so should we.

Pastor Dan Kimball wrote an insightful (and convicting) chapter in Apologetics for a New Generation called “A New Kind of Apologist.” He tells the story of how apologetics played a key role in his conversion to Christianity. As a new Christian, Dan was eager to share his faith, so he quickly began to immerse himself in apologetics. He read books, went to conferences, watched videos, studied debates, and more. But ironically, he noticed a disturbing trend: The more he studied apologetics the less he was really doing apologetics and evangelism. In other words, his study of apologetics actually drove him further away from the practice of it.

Fortunately Dan noticed this trend early in his journey and did a 180. As a pastor, he still studies apologetics, and writes apologetics-related books, but always with an eye for how he can apply it to life and ministry. Like Jesus in his conversation with the woman at the well, Dan refuses to keep apologetics in the theoretical realm. He wants to make it personal. And this is what I try to do as well. How about you?

 

 

/by
Kids Resentment Christianity

How Living Counter-Culturally Can Lead to Your Kids’ Resentment of Christianity

By Natasha Crain 

Our family just returned from a wonderful vacation to the mountains of British Columbia. It was stunningly beautiful! We spent our first day there relaxing at this picture-perfect lake.

My husband and kids had a blast swimming out to a wooden platform in the middle of the lake and taking turns jumping off. I’m highly opposed to submerging myself in freezing cold water unnecessarily, so I happily enjoyed reading on the shore.

At one point I decided to walk down to the sand and take some photos. A man soon approached me and pointed to the water with a very serious look on his face.

“Leeches. The lake is filled with leeches. Look around and you’ll see that the big ones are puffed up on the blood they’ve sucked.”

I immediately freaked out, imagining that my family would soon be swimming back covered in blood-sucking creatures I would be too terrified to remove. But when I looked around the shallow water for signs of my family’s impending leech doom, I didn’t see anything. I started feeling better and decided the guy probably didn’t know what he was talking about.

When my husband and kids got back from swimming, I told them what the guy had said. My husband was as grossed out as I was and replied, “Great. I’m sure it’s not a big problem but now I don’t want to go back in. Way to ruin the rest of my day, ‘leech on the beach guy.’”

A little while later, leech on the beach guy spotted me and proudly walked over with a water bottle in hand. Inside was a gigantic leech with several babies attached.

“I told you so. She’s huge and was just sitting near the shore. They are everywhere.”

He walked away with the confidence of someone who had just revealed one of life’s greatest mysteries. But although it turned out he was right, my husband wasn’t exactly grateful for the confirmation. He still resented our leech friend for ruining his swimming plans.

When the Bearer of Bad News is Resented

That same day, I read with disgust about the now infamous Teen Vogue article promoting sodomy among teens. I truly couldn’t believe this was in a mainstream magazine. Speechless. Just speechless. And it made me consider how counter-culturally we have to live today as Christians. We’re no longer talking about a world where counter-cultural means leaving sports practice early for Wednesday night youth group.

We’re talking about having to protect our kids from widely available TEEN FASHION magazines that teach them how to be sodomized.  

(Almost equally unbelievable is the Twitter response from the magazine’s digital editor to those who think this is a problem.)

In a world like this, parents must increasingly say “no.” A lot. But if we’re not careful in how we execute our counter-cultural living, our kids can start seeing us like the alarmist leech on the beach guy and resent Christianity because of it.

There are four ways we can inadvertently allow that to happen.

  1. We focus more on the dangers of the world than on the beauty of Christianity.

There’s no doubt that leech on the beach guy was right about the dangers lurking in the water. But it was astounding to see how absolutely focused he was on the leeches, seemingly missing the stunning beauty around him entirely. He only cared about leeches.

In a world that seems to be going crazier by the second, it’s easy to spend more time pointing out the darkness of culture than the light of Christianity. Now, don’t get me wrong; we absolutely need to make our kids aware of cultural dangers. But when we don’t consistently point them back to the beauty of the Christian worldview which renders our culture so ugly in the first place, our faith will become defined by what we’re against more than what we’re for. There are a lot of problems with that, but for our current purpose, suffice it to say that persistent negativity breeds resentment.

The last six chapters in my new book, Talking with Your Kids about God, are written to help parents understand and communicate the beauty of a Christian worldview versus the atheistic worldview that so often pervades secularism. It was my favorite part of the book to write, knowing how important this knowledge is today.

  1. We spend more time addressing what is problematic about culture than whyit’s problematic.

Because leech on the beach guy was so focused on danger that no one else saw, we assumed his level of concern was disproportionate to the reality of the problem. Without more information to properly evaluate the significance of leech danger, my husband was left with ambiguous fear while having doubt about the legitimacy of the fear.

It’s a recipe for resentment: enough concern to modify your behavior, but not enough understanding to be confident the modification was worthwhile.

When the message our kids hear is an ongoing stream of don’ts without meaningful explanation—don’t listen to this music, don’t visit these sites, don’t use this social media platform, don’t subscribe to this magazine, don’t join this political movement—they’ll start to wonder if our level of concern about the world is warranted. And meaningful explanation requires demonstrating how the problems actually relate to the Christian worldview. Simply telling our kids that a movie has violence and they shouldn’t watch it, for example, is hardly a meaningful explanation. Why is that a problem for Christians? How can that affect us spiritually?Where should we draw the line? These kinds of questions should regularly be discussed.

  1. We frame our lives in terms of worldly limits more than Christian freedom.

If leech on the beach guy had a child with him, I bet that child would be longingly looking around at the groups of people having great fun. Some of the surrounding types of “fun” would be morally acceptable, some not so much. But you can bet the child would feel he or she was missing out on something by spending so much time focused on leeches…and probably resent dad because of it.

I often see ex-Christians comment about the freedom they feel in “letting go of God.” The language they use to describe their deconversion says so much. They saw religion as a limiting approach to life and therefore felt freer after shedding their beliefs in God. But as Christians we know that we are not free in our natural state at all—we are slaves to sin. When we put our faith in Jesus, we are given a new nature that is free from such bondage (Romans 6:18).

The reality, therefore, is that only Christians are actually free.

To embrace the feeling of freedom rather than limitation, our kids need to understand 1) the definition of sin, 2) the reality of sin, 3) why sin is such a big problem, and 4) why we should value being slaves to righteousness rather than to sin (Romans 6:18). Only then will they begin to understand that they’re notmissing out when they don’t make worldly choices.

  1. We focus more on authoritative parental decisions than on cultivating the skill of discernment.

Leech on the beach guy was incredibly smug. When he told me about the leeches, I asked him to show me where they were. He had no interest in doing so; he merely restated that he knew there were many in the lake. Had he not caught one later to show me, I probably would have left not believing him at all.

In many cases, parents have a bigger perspective than kids can possibly have given their limited life experiences. We have to make certain decisions on our kids’ behalves. But if we consistently present our “counter-cultural” lives as a series of decisions made by mom and dad (albeit for good reason), kids will naturally resent what they feel has been forced upon them. To the degree we can, we should always strive to cultivate our kids’ skill of discernment by involving them in the thought process of our decision making. After all, the second they walk out our door as adults, “authoritative parental decisions” no longer apply.

Finally, I want to mention that if you feel like you’re drowning in rather than navigating the cultural waters right now, there’s a fantastic new book out you should know about. It’s called A Practical Guide to Culture: Helping the Next Generation Navigate Today’s World, by John Stonestreet and Brett Kunkle. It explains why culture matters and how to handle topics with your kids such as pornography, the hookup culture, sexual orientation, gender identity, affluence and consumerism, addiction, entertainment, and racial tension. I highly recommend it for all Christian parents.

Just for fun, I managed to snap a picture of leech on the beach guy in anticipation of this post. Here he is, water bottle in hand, combing the beach for more leeches. Don’t be like this guy. Keep your family’s eyes on the beauty of the Lord and don’t let the world’s leeches suck the spiritual life out of you.

Leech on Beach Guy

Original Source Blog: http://bit.ly/2v4Nln7 

 

 

/by
Objections Objective Morality

Objections to Objective Morality

,

By Cole James

I took a philosophy class while I was in college. The topic of this class was on contemporary moral issues, so you know we got into some heated topics. I heard every objection under the sun to objective morality. Everything from it was not very “tolerant,” to different cultures act differently so therefore there cannot be objective morality. I was the minority in this class to say the least!

Objective morality means that moral statements like “murder is bad” is independent of the person saying it. Objective morality means that there is a standard of morality that transcends human opinions and judgements. Morals are not invented, they are discovered. Now that our society has seemingly transformed into a “post-truth” society, objective morals have come under attack. A “post-truth” society is a society which is not concerned with objective facts, but rather, right and wrong are based on personal subjective feelings, tastes, and personal belief.

As Christians, one of the best arguments we have for God is the moral argument. Of all the attacks on Christianity and God, a Christian will most likely hear the most attacks on this subject. Why? Because everyone can relate to this topic. Each one of us every day makes moral judgements and decisions every day, ranging from opening the door for someone to helping someone who just got in a car wreck. Just so we can have a basis for what the argument actually is, it goes as follows:

Premise 1: If objective moral values and duties exist then God exists
Premise 2: Objective morals values and duties do exist
Conclusion: Therefore, God exits

With the argument in mind, consider four objections:

  1. There are so many different cultures with different values, there can’t be objective morals! Look how different we are!

Off the bat, I agree with this objection. There are many different cultures appearing to be morally different on the surface. However, as one reads between the lines it becomes apparent that these different cultures are not really that different. It is important as we read between the lines to keep in mind that when looking at cultural diversity we need to determine whether differences are really about core morals or instead about application of that core moral truth. For example, what constitutes murder?

What my classmates did not realize is that these difference were in how morals were applied, not a difference in morals. Peter Kreeft says this,

“No culture has ever existed which believed and taught what Nietzsche called for: a transvaluation of all values. There have been differences in emphasis, for instance, our ancestors valued courage more than we do, while we value compassion more than they did. But there has never been anything like the relativism of opinions about values that the relativist teaches as factual history. Just imagine what that would be like. Try to imagine a society where justice, honesty, courage, wisdom, hope, and self-control were deemed morally evil. And unrestricted selfishness, cowardice, lying, betrayal, addiction, and despair were deemed morally good. Such a society is never found on Earth. If it exists anywhere, it is only in Hell and its colonies. Only Satan and his worshippers say ‘evil be thou my good.’”

It really comes down to a case-by-case basis. For instance, in the Hindu religion, they believe in reincarnation. Some of these people will starve themselves because they will not eat a cow. Why? Because they believe their great uncle died and reincarnated into a cow. Looking on the surface at this, it may look like there are differences in morals, but we need to read between the lines. As we read between the lines we see that the morals of our culture and their culture are the same. They think it is wrong to eat the cow because they believe that is their great uncle, we also believe it is wrong to eat our great uncle. As we can see, this really is not an objection, it is just a matter of not digging deeper.

  1. Objective morality is not very tolerant! Relativism is much more tolerant of people’s opinions and beliefs.

This objection is entirely problematic. First, it is a self-refuting statement! By someone telling a person that his/her beliefs are not very tolerant, they in turn are being intolerant of the other person’s views. Moreover, this objection assumes that tolerance is really objectively good.

A second answer to this objection is, if relativism were true, why not be intolerant? Why should I be tolerant? Do you see where I am going with this?

Relativism is the view that morality is culturally based, therefore being subject to a person’s individual choice. With this view, there is no objective standard that a relativist can point to, to say that someone should be tolerant.

At root, this is merely an emotional objection. The person who puts out this objection probably does not want objective morality to be true because it will change their lifestyle. So called, “tolerance” feels better to them, and indeed it is a good quality (Paul thought so), but again, just because it feels good does not mean I ought to be that way.

  1. There are so many different understanding of morals, there cannot be objective morality.

Just because there is widespread disagreement about a particular moral issue, does not mean that truth does not exist. Think of it this way, just because eight students have different answers to a math problem does not mean that a right answer does not exist. Philosopher Dave DeSonier says it best,

“Finally, even if one believes that morals (not just facts or practices) do actually differ between cultures, it does not logically follow that there must be no absolute, objective moral standards that transcend cultures. Just because five independent observers of an automobile accident give very different accounts of the event, it would be false to conclude that there is not an accurate, objective, and true description of what actually occurred.”

Even the skeptic David Hume understood this much. He points out,

“the fact that different cultures have different practices no more refutes ethical objectivism than the fact that water flows in different directions in different places refutes the law of gravity.”

So we can see, that even though common objective morals might sometimes be hard to find or discover, it does not logically follow that therefore, there are no common objective moral values and duties.

  1. I do not believe in God and I am a moral person. So you are saying that atheists cannot be moral people?

This is NOT at all what objective morality means! Of course, an atheist can be a good moral person. What’s ironic is that I know some atheists who are actually more moral than many Christians! A person does not have to believe in God to be a good person. This is more of an objection of epistemology, or how we know something. The atheist can know morality, but they cannot justify or provide logical grounds for it.

From the Christian worldview, we believe God fabricated a moral code into our DNA (Romans 2:15), other people think we know morality because of evolution. Again, this is a question of how we know something, notwhy I ought to do something. This objection confuses ontology (is there a moral reality) with epistemology (how do we know morality). On the naturalistic atheist worldview, they cannot justify why someone ought to be moral. There is no objective standard for the naturalistic atheist to point to. This objection is just a common misunderstanding of the argument. A simple clarification of what you mean by the moral argument will handle this objection.

As I mentioned earlier, in our “post-truth” society it is inevitable that a Christian will run into one of these objections. As Christians, we have to be prepared to answer these objections and to show that belief in God is rational and reasoned (1 Peter 3:15). What I have seen in dealing with the students in my class who opposed objective morality is that it is more of an emotional problem. As I mentioned in objection three, the students in my class did not want objective morality to exist because it would have to demand a change in their way if living. Hopefully, after reading this, you will be prepared to give a defense of one of the most relatable and fundamental arguments for the existence of God.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2tLqhF5

 

 

/by
Paul Letters Author

Did Paul Write All Thirteen Letters Attributed to Him?

,

By Brian Chilton

In the New Testament, thirteen letters are attributed to the apostle Paul. Paul is, of course, the individual who had persecuted the church, but became a Christian missionary after an encounter with the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus. But, did Paul actually author all thirteen epistles believed to have been penned by him? Some believe that Paul only actually authored seven of the thirteen.

Epistles are ancient letters written to individuals or groups of individuals addressing particular theological issues and/or doctrinal problems. The thirteen letters classically attributed to the apostle Paul are Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. Of the thirteen letters, seven are recognized as being undisputed (that is, without debate). Those seven undisputed letters are Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. But what of the other six (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus)?

Some scholars have called the disputed six letters of Paul the “deutero-Pauline” epistles.[1] It is believed by some that these letters may have been written by someone who was influenced by Paul’s doctrine and wrote what they thought Paul would have said on certain issues.

Skeptics of the disputed letters hold several reasons for their disbelief. First, they claim that the history presented in the disputed letters do not match what one finds in the book of Acts. For example, Paul leaves Timothy in Ephesus in 1 Timothy 1:3 and leaves Titus in Crete in Titus 1:5. Such events are not found in Acts.

The vocabulary, it is argued, is much different in the disputed letters than in the undisputed letters of Paul. Drake Williams notes that the skeptic argues that “Approximately one third of the vocabulary within the Pastoral Letters is not found anywhere else in Paul’s letters, and over 35 names are not found elsewhere in Paul’s writings. Many of these words, however, can be found within second-century writings (Harrison, Problem).[2]

In addition, skeptics argue that the development of church structure is more advanced in the disputed letters than the undisputed letters; doctrinal issues seem to point towards a later date (including some apparent allusions to Gnosticism); and the stylistic differences between the undisputed and disputed letters all illustrate their cause for dismissing Paul as the author of the disputed texts.

Despite the objections offered, one possesses good reasons for accepting all thirteen letters attributed to Paul as authentic. I have never been convinced that the disputed letters were forged. Here are a few reasons why.

The Appearance of the Apostle’s Name on All the Letters

The first point does not necessarily prove Paul to be the author of the disputed letters. In fact, the authors of the Gnostic second-century letters erroneously attributed them to apostolic origin. Nevertheless, it is quite odd that all thirteen letters would have received approval from those closest to Paul if the letters had not actually been written or dictated by him. The letters are certainly early enough to have been tested for authenticity as many early church leaders quoted from the disputed letters as well as the undisputed letters, as we will discuss a little later.

At times, skeptical claims can be a bit inconsistent when applied to biblical authorship. Some scholars deny the traditional authorship of the Gospels because they are anonymous while also denying the traditional authorship of the Epistles because they are not anonymous. How bizarre!

Differing Circumstances Account for Differing Theological Emphases

It must be remembered that Paul encountered various issues in differing locations. The church of Corinth faced tumultuous circumstances with doctrinal issues and infidelity. Thus, the letters to Corinth would differ from the letters written to Galatia where they were bombarded by individuals who attempted to steer believers away from the idea that the grace of God alone was sufficient for salvation. These differences are recognized among the undisputed letters. So then why would one not account for some differences in emphasis with letters written to individuals like Timothy and Titus, especially if one allows for the idea that Paul wrote the later letters from a prison cell?[3]

The Use of Amanuenses Account for Stylistic Differences

When I first learned the scribal practices of the amanuensis, I realized the stylistic differences in the different Pauline epistles were easily resolved. One may see stylistic differences even among the undisputed letters of Paul for the same reason. An amanuensis was a scribe who penned a letter as the author was dictating the message to him. The amanuensis would read back the letter to the author to ensure the message was as the orator desired. Scholars have noted that amanuenses were often allowed some liberty in the structure of their writing so long as the message was preserved.

In the undisputed letters, one finds evidence of the amanuensis’s involvement. Take Romans, for instance. The letter begins by stating, “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God” (Romans 1:1).[4] Yet, at the end of the letter, one reads, “I Tertius, who wrote this letter, greet you in the Lord” (Romans 16:22). What’s going on here?

Well, it’s simple really. Paul authored the letter while Tertius was the amanuensis. Paul dictated the information to Tertius, who wrote down the message of Paul and read it back to Paul to ensure that it encapsulated the message desired. In my humble opinion, I think the practice was used by the Holy Spirit to make the epistles even better than they would have been if only one hand was involved. Evidences for the amanuensis imprint are found in 1 Corinthians 1:1 and 1 Corinthians 16:21, 2 Corinthians 1:1, Ephesians 6:21, Colossians 1:1, among many other places.

The Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence

The so-called problem with the historical differences between the disputed epistles and the book of Acts is easily solved when one realizes that Luke did not provide an exhaustive history of the church in his sequel. That is to say, Luke did not document every event that took place in early church history. In like manner, the Gospels do not provide an exhaustive biography of the life of Jesus. As one of my former professors, Dr. R. Wayne Stacy denoted, “The Gospels provide us portraits of Jesus rather than photographs.” I like that analogy. John even admits as much when he writes that “There are also many other things that Jesus did, which, if every one of them were written down, I suppose not even the world itself could contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25).

When one examines Acts with the epistles, there is no problem so long as the two do not contradict each other. These differences can easily be dispelled when one acknowledges the intentional gaps in Luke’s history.[5]

Early Church Father Quotations from the Disputed Letters

The early church unanimously accepted all thirteen letters as authentic. Space will not allow a full treatment of this issue. However, let’s look at one disputed letter: Colossians. Early church leaders unanimously endorsed the letter as authentically Pauline. Irenaeus endorsed it in Against Heresies 3.14.1; Tertullian in De Praescr. Haer., 7; Clement of Alexandria in Strom., 1.1; as well as Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho 85.2 and 138.2.

Evidence for Deacons and Elders in Undisputed Letters

Concerning the development of elders and deacons in the church, one must consider the role of leadership in the earliest church. Jesus himself divided his disciples into various groups. He chose seventy-two (or seventy) disciples and sent them out two by two. Of those seventy-two, Jesus had twelve primary disciples. Of those twelve, he chose three to be inner-circle disciples (Peter, James, and John). Therefore, even Jesus established a system for the church in the early going. In Acts 6, the disciples chose seven to serve. These seven are believed by many, including myself, to be the earliest deacons chosen to serve. Thus, with the system set in place by Jesus and the addition of deacons in Acts 6, it is no great leap to implement the offices of elders (i.e.,, pastors) and deacons in the church. Therefore, the idea that the offices of pastor and deacon represents a much later development in church history is greatly overblown.

The Rejection of Pseudonymous Letters by the Early Church (2 Thess. 2:2)

The early church flatly rejected pseudonymous letters. Ironically, 2 Thessalonians (a letter believed by some to be pseudonymous) admonishes believers to “not…be easily upset or troubled, either by a prophecy or by a message or by a letter supposedly from us, alleging that the day of the Lord has come” (2 Thessalonians 2:2).

Early church leaders emphasized the authenticity of Christian documents. Tertullian while teaching on his acceptance of complementarianism discredited a letter involving Paul and a woman named Thecla because it was falsely attributed to Paul.

Eusebius tells the story of Serapion. Serapion was the bishop of Antioch. Serapion chided the church at Rhosse in Cilicia for their use of the the apocryphal Gospel of Peter. Serapion wrote, “We brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us.”[6]

Closeness in Proximity

Simply put, individuals closest in proximity to the writing of a document can know with more certainty who actually authored the document than those two-thousand years removed. This is especially true if the veracity of the document is stressed by early readers.

Conclusion

While this article is much longer than I hoped it would be, the importance of establishing the authenticity of Paul’s thirteen letters cannot be overemphasized. Did Paul write all thirteen of the letters attributed to him? Yes. He did with the help of amanuenses. With the points established in this article, one should have no reservation in accepting all thirteen letters. The only letter sometimes attributed to Paul that should be highly questioned for its Pauline origin is the book of Hebrews. No one really knows who wrote the book. However, it is accepted as authentic for reasons we will discuss in a future article. In fact, we will discuss the writers of the Pastoral Epistles next in our series on the authors of the New Testament.

Notes

[1] Drake Williams, “Paul the Apostle, Critical Issues,” The Lexham Bible Dictionary, John D. Barry, et. al., eds (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

[2] Ibid.

[3] The idea that Gnosticism is found in the disputed letters is far-fetched in my opinion.

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

[5] By gaps, I do not mean errors. Rather, Luke did not provide an exhaustive history and never intended to do so.

[6] Eusebius, Church History, 6.12.3.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2vok7wP

 

 

/by
Miracles Useless Evangelism

Miracles Are Useless, If…

,

By Rajkumar Richard

The Bible is replete with miracles[1]. Sincere Christians who worship the Triune God will objectively believe every recorded miracle in the Bible. Miracles are intended to glorify God, meet human needs and establish the supernatural basis of revelation.

Sincere Christians will also affirm miracles subjectively. They will subjectively assert their existence as a product of not one or two, but many a miracle. A classic spiritual example of a miracle is the born-again experience.

Postmodern Christians, however, will arrogantly deny miracles. Consequently, they will deny that the Bible (God’s Word) is inspired by God, is error -free and absolutely trustworthy.

Miracle, by definition, ought to appeal to God as its ultimate source. So atheists are not expected to believe in miracles. However, their beliefs in life from non-life, order from chaos, rational from non-rational are miracles in themselves. It’s just that atheists would attribute miracles to random occurrences without scientific explanation[2].

This article is neither intended to deny miracles nor affirm its absolute uselessness, but it will endeavor to highlight specific instances of application where miracles could be rendered useless.

Miracles Sustain Unbelief

Miracles would be rendered useless if it were solely used as an evangelistic means to bring people to Christ.

Miracles bring people to Christ. The Jews who witnessed Lazarus’ miraculous resurrection believed in Christ (John 11: 45).

However, the Lord Jesus performed numerous miracles. Nevertheless people abandoned HIM. So miracles were either rendered useless when people did not respond with belief in Christ or miracles were not performed with a motive for people to believe in HIM.

The 6th chapter of the gospel of John offers a remarkable insight into people’s disbelief and abandonment of the Lord. Although they were cognizant of the Lord’s miraculous feeding of the 5000 and the miraculous walking on the water, many disbelieved and abandoned HIM (John 6: 30, 66).

This is the problem. Without adequate biblical support, miracles are posited as a vital means to evangelism by certain Christians. But there are instances of people refusing to believe in Christ even upon witnessing miracles. (An overnight change in character from bad to good need not be construed as a miracle by those who are not predisposed to believing in miracles.)

On the other hand, when miracle-workers fail to perform miracles, they ascribe the failure upon the audience. They could claim that their audience did not possess adequate faith in Christ for miracles to occur.

These Christians commonly believe that miracles cannot be performed when there is no faith in people (cf. Matthew 13: 58, Mark 6: 5). This is an invalid notion.

The sovereign God cannot be limited by man’s belief. Christ healed a faithless man who was invalid for 38 years (John 5: 1-9).

Since not all miracles lead people to Christ, a conclusion that miracles sustain unbelief in Christ is reasonable.

Miracles Deceive People

The notion that miracles are solely meant to draw people to Christ presupposes an argument that Christians are the one and the only group who could perform miracles. This is an invalid notion.

The Egyptian magicians imitated the miracles of Moses and Aaron to a large extent (Exodus 7). If miracles are solely meant to draw people to Christ, then the miracles performed by those in the name of their gods would deceptively draw people to their gods. If miracles lead people away from Christ, the notion that miracles should solely lead people to Christ is self-defeating.

The fact remains that miracles could be deceptive.

Satan deceives people through miracles, “The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing…” (2 Thessalonians 2: 9-10, NIV, Emphasis Mine).

Therefore, miracles are useless when it deceives people and draws them away from the living God.

Miracles Propel Evangelists

Quite a few evangelists / miracle-workers perform miracles to propel themselves into greater fame and power. The Bible reveals this fact.

The Bible records Simon’s unholy eagerness to perform miracles (cf. Acts 8: 21-22). Simon probably desired to perform miracles to propel him to greater fame. The depravity of man’s heart remains the same then and now. Now quite a few evangelists use miracles to glorify themselves.

Sadly the destinies of these people are abundantly clear. They are eternally doomed (Matthew 7: 22-23). Although the miracles these people perform could bring people to Christ, these miracles, in their own eternal context, are useless (these miracles do not save the miracle-workers).

Miracles Entertain People

Miracles do possess an entertainment value.

Herod desired entertainment from Christ, so he hoped that the Lord would perform miracles (Luke 23: 8-9). This is the situation with quite a few people today. They look upon miracles as a means of entertainment.  This is another situation where miracles would be rendered useless.

Furthermore, could we pray for miracles in our life today? Yes! Miracles could be a means of God’s answer to our prayers.

How do we recognize if a miracle is from God or not? Miracles from God save man from his terrible predicament. Satan, as an agent of destruction, need not always save man from his predicament, unless ordained by God for a specific reason.

On a rather detached tangent, what about those among us who remain idle while expecting a miracle to happen?

This is a complex question. A universal answer is not a good choice to deal with this predicament. A suitable alternative is to examine every situation as independent of another within this context.

As a case in point, consider a Christian who refuses to eat medicines but waits on God to perform a miracle of healing. While God can accede to this request, HE could, as a just and a sovereign being, deny this prayer request. Hence, it is upon the Christian to know the will of the Lord.

The prayer life of a Christian should determine whether he/she waits upon the Lord for a miracle or consumes medicines, all the while knowing that medicines are also an agent of God’s healing for man.

So to conclude, the Bible reveals that Satan (a created being and enabled by God to perform miracles) could be a secondary source for miracles. In this instance, miracles will lead people away from Christ. So miracles need not always have God as its source (although God is the ultimate source for all miracles).

Man could also employ his [corrupt] freewill to draw people to himself rather than God. So miracles need not always be for the sake of God’s glory.

When a believer of Christ employs miracles for his selfish agendas, God need not necessarily confiscate the spiritual gift of miracles from him / her. The believer is responsible to use every gift for the sake of God’s glory.

Therefore, miracles should not be blindly believed to be as from God or as approved by God. Miracles ought to be perceived with utmost spiritual diligence.

Endnotes:

[1] Dr. William Lane Craig defines miracles as extraordinary acts of providence which should not be conceived, properly speaking, as violations of the laws of nature, but as the production of events which are beyond the causal powers of the natural entities existing at the relevant time and place. (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/creation-providence-and-miracle, last accessed on July 13, 2015)

[2]  http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/24660240, last accessed on July 13, 2015

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2tRFqX0

 

/by
God Patient Creation

God, Patience, and Creation

By Luke Nix

Introduction

One of the challenges skeptics raise against God as the Creator is the idea that He took entirely too long to create: God is inefficient and wasteful with time, if He did, indeed, take 13+ billion years to create the universe. Why did God take so long to create the universe when He could have created it in just a few days or even a couple microseconds? This challenge is necessarily dependent upon the idea that God has absolutely no possible reason for spending 13+ billion years to create. Thus, if it can be shown that God did have a reason for taking the time that He did, then the challenge is defeated. My goal in this post is to not only defeat the challenge, but to show that there is an answer that not just possible but more likely than not within the Christian worldview.

The Patience of God

I posit that the purpose is that God wanted to ensure that people would see that His Word, written thousands of years ago, actually does apply to us on a personal and existential (not just a distant) scale today.

“The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”- 2 Peter 3:9

Patience is a virtue; it is also one of the Fruits of the Spirit (Galations 5:22). God is patient. Just as Proverbs (6:6) encourages us to look at the ant for it teaches us something about hard work, so too Paul encourages us to look at the creation for it teaches us something about the attributes of God (Romans 1:20). Patience is, no doubt, one of the divine attributes that are “clearly seen from what has been made” when we see the time it took for our universe to get from the moment of creation to its present state. When scientists investigate the heavens and the earth they discover their history is one of patience, punctuated by numerous moments of deliberate, delicate, and dynamic activity. Why would God take so long to create? Why not just “poof” everything into existence in the necessary form? To display the extent of one of His divine attributes: patience.

The Human Temptation

Further, this is a guard against human pride, thinking that we are as patient as our Creator. Engineers, artists, project managers, scientists, architects, and many others have projects that span the time of weeks, months, years, and even decades. They can be patient for that amount of time as they see the final product take shape. For those who’s projects take months and years, the temptation to compare their patience of years and decades to God’s patience of merely days (on the view that God created the universe in six 24-hour days) and see their patience as superior is overwhelming. However, God took billions of years of active involvement (not laziness, disinterest, or inefficency) in the creation of our universe and planet. This time span is orders of magnitude greater than what any human or even generations of humans could dedicate to any project. The comparison is simply not possible. The patience of God is beyond what we could even imagine, and He has given us proof of His patience in His acts of creation.

“Crowned With Glory And Honor”

“When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them? You have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor.”- Psalm 8:3-5

God was patient with the universe He created because its combination of attributes uniquely could accomplish numerous purposes He had for His creation, yet He was aggressive in actively working through the universe’s laws and processes (which He put in place) to see the purposes fulfilled as soon as the universe that He created possibly could. One of those purposes is the redemption of as many of his Image Bearers as would freely choose to recognize their sinfulness and need of Jesus Christ. God patiently spent 13+ billion years preparing a world where we could come freely into a salvific relationship with Him; that is the value He places on us; that is what it means to be “crowned with glory and honor.”

Conclusion

Given the cases from Scripture for the value God places on patience and humanity and for looking to God’s acts (creation) to understand His purposes and attributes and the case from God’s creation for a necessarily time-consuming and precisely detailed series of processes to create our world, not only has the challenge been defeated by mere possibility; it has been shown that the answer is more plausible, evidentially, than not within the Christian worldview. The more I investigate the history of the creation of our world, the more I see the patience, the love, and the wisdom of our Creator and Savior, Jesus Christ. I believe the psalmist expressed this awe and wonder best:

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

For more on this theological and scientific topic, check out these great books:

Improbable Planet: How The Earth Became Humanity’s Home

Why The Universe Is The Way It Is

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

 

/by
Kids Existence of God

Do Your Kids Know Why They Should WANT God to Exist?

By Natasha Crain

I’ve written over 250 blog posts here since 2011. People still come across my old posts by searching for something on Google, so nearly every day I receive new comments on a wide variety of old posts. Many of the comments are from atheists.

As I read the latest comments this week, I noticed a running theme.

The vast majority of atheists who comment here don’t seem to want God to exist.

They talk about the “freedom” of no longer believing in God, how nice it is to be self-reliant, how great it feels to get rid of guilt, how they’ve found more meaning in life without God, how they can better enjoy all that life has to offer, how the world will be a better place when religion is gone, and so on.

If I saw God—and a godless existence—in the way most of these commenters do, I wouldn’t want to believe He exists either.

But I don’t think those who prefer the atheistic picture of reality have given it enough thought; no one shouldwant atheism to be true if we really draw out the implications of what that means for our existence. If people considered that more deeply, I think there would be more atheists saying, “I sure wish God existed, but there just isn’t enough evidence!” rather than, “There’s no evidence for God…and that sure is great!”

To be clear, wanting something to be true doesn’t make it true. But this isn’t a post about the evidence for the truth of any one worldview. This is a post about appropriately understanding the logical implications of a worldview.

With more than 60 percent of young adults rejecting their Christian faith today, and many becoming atheists, I have to wonder how many did so thinking atheism was actually more attractive…and not understanding these implications.

As parents, we should not only show our kids why there’s good reason to believe God exists, but why they should be thrilled that He does.

Let’s see what reality would look like in a world without God.

  1. Life has no objective meaning in an atheistic world.

In an atheistic world, our universe and everything in it developed by strictly natural forces. There’s no creative or sustaining intelligence behind it, and no ultimate reason for its existence. It just is.

It follows that there can be no objective meaning of life in such a world because there’s no Creator with the authority to say what that is. People can create theirown meaning, but there’s no meaning which applies to everyone.

Now, many people are enamored by that thought, but we should ask how meaningful that meaning can ever be. Without God, we’re just chemical specks in a vast, indifferent universe. You can choose to find meaning in saving the endangered Hawksbill turtle, but ultimately the Hawksbill turtle is just molecules in motion like you and every other living thing—why bother? You can choose to find meaning in art, but scientists say the sun will eventually explode and swallow the Earth—do paint patterns on canvas really matter? You can choose to find meaning in ending human suffering, but if humans have no more inherent value than rocks, why not just end those lives instead?

There’s no reason to celebrate the ability to live according to our small, self-defined meanings when ultimately such an existence leads to nothingness.

  1. Life has no special value in an atheistic world.

Astronomer and agnostic Carl Sagan said in his bestseller Cosmos, “I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan. You are a collection of almost identical molecules with a different collective label.”

Sagan appropriately sums up the value of life in an atheistic world: it has no more inherent value than its chemical components. Nothing exists apart from the basic matter of which we—and everything else in the universe—are comprised. In a world without God, we’re simply molecular machines.

  1. There’s little reason to believe we could actually make free choices in an atheistic world.

If all we are is our biology, a logical implication is that our decisions are driven by strictly physical impulses—we’re bound by the shackles of physical law. As molecular biologist Francis Crick said, “‘You,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”

Yet belief in the reality of some degree of free will fundamentally shapes how we live. Questions like What should we do with our lives? What is our responsibility to other people? and How should we make sense of evil?—have meaning because they presume humans have the ability to make choices that matter. That ability is highly questionable, however, in the context of an atheistic world.

  1. No way of living is better than any other way of living in an atheistic world.

If God doesn’t exist, there’s no objective reason why anyone should live in any particular way. Shouldimplies a moral obligation. But if we’re all just molecules in motion, to whom would we be morally obliged? To other molecules in motion? Clearly not. In an atheistic world, no one can prescribe a way of living for anyone else because there’s no moral authority, and, therefore, no objective basis for doing so. How a person “should” live his or her life can only be a matter of opinion. One way cannot be morally better than any other way.

  1. No one has a responsibility to anyone else in an atheistic world.

If life has no special value because it’s the product of purely natural forces, and there’s no moral authority to establish relational obligations, the idea of responsibility to one another is senseless. Molecules can’t owe other molecules anything.

Despite this implication of a world without God, many atheists consider themselves “humanists” and stress the importance of believing in human dignity and equal rights. It sounds good, but there’s a logical problem with the humanist position. If God doesn’t exist, natural rights that are equally held by all people also don’t exist. A “right” is something to which a person is entitled, and you can’t be entitled to something unless someone entitles you to it. Who has the authority to give rights to humankind if God doesn’t exist?

  1. There is no such thing as evil in an atheistic world.

On any given day, you can scroll through news headlines and read about people being murdered, children being abused, women being raped, and much more. It’s part of our most basic intuition to categorize such things as “evil.” But in a world without God, there’s no objective standard for calling anything evil. Without a moral authority, any one person’s view of murder, child abuse, and rape can only be a matter of opinion.

To be sure, atheists can feel as much moral outrage at the evil in the world as anyone who believes in God. They just have no objective basis for appealing to others to feel the same way. It can only be something they don’t like, not something that’s actually wrong.

  1. Life is ultimately hopeless in an atheistic world.

To recap, here’s a basic picture of reality in a world without God:

  • Life is an accident with no objective meaning.
  • We’re chemical specks in a vast, indifferent universe with no more inherent value than rocks.
  • There’s little reason to believe we can freely make choices.
  • No one should live in any particular way because it makes no moral difference.
  • No one has a responsibility to anyone else because we’re just molecules in motion with no moral obligations.
  • There’s no such thing as objective moral evil, so we can’t even condemn even the worst actions of society as objectively wrong.

Such a picture is undoubtedly hopeless in any meaningful sense. Sure, atheists can have “hope” in life, if we’re talking about hope for things like good parking spots or rain. Some hopes may have greater significance for a while—the hope of getting married, finding a good job, beating cancer, or having a family—but all of these hopes end in the same place after being realized: a grave.

Compare all this with a world in which God exists:

  • Life is precious and is the product of a purposeful Creator. All living things were meant to be here—no cosmic accidents involved.
  • Every person’s life has objective meaning: to know our perfect God and make Him known.
  • We have the ability to make choices and moral accountability for the choices we make. What we do actually matters.
  • Living a morally good life is the natural outcome of our belief in, knowledge of, and relationship with our perfectly good Creator.
  • There’s an objective basis for equal human rights because every human is created in the image of God and is therefore equally valuable.
  • Evil is an objective reality worthy of condemnation.

Instead of a grave, those who have put their trust in Jesus enter the glorious presence of the Lord and live with Him forever in a place free from pain and suffering (Revelation 21:4). This is a “new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade” (1 Peter 1:3-4).

That is hope.

Does it mean God exists or that Christianity is true? No. Again, that’s another subject.

But anyone who has thought through such a comparison of worldviews should want God to exist.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2sVXWw5

 

/by
Revolution Romans 13

So you say you want a Revolution, what about Romans 13?

By Steve Williams

Many Christians believe that the first section of Romans 13 – verses 1-7 — forbids any form of resistance to government… even when it clearly goes tyrannical. If one analyzes this passage of the Bible carefully, however, as The USA’s founding fathers did, we can see that Paul was speaking in generalities in this passage, and that unlimited tolerance of government tyranny is a highly wooden, hyper-literalistic reading of his words which is impossible to reconcile with other words of Paul, the words of Christ, other parts of The Bible, and Israel’s history. Ironically, many people who hold this position (like John MacArthur) probably wouldn’t even be here if their ancestors held to that reading, as these ancestors would have been slaughtered centuries ago for not resisting tyrants of old!

First, let’s look at the actual verses in question:

“13 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.”

Now having seen the section in its entirety, let’s examine the implications of taking each verse in the hyperliteral way some understand it, verse by verse:

“13 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.”

A wooden literal rendering of this would mean that Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and other mass murderers were “established by God” (clashing starkly with the principle that God does no evil), and that men like Niemoller and Bonhoeffer – who resisted them – were sinners for doing so.

“2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.”

A wooden literal rendering of this would mean that every genocidal action taken by a tyrant is tantamount to “an ordinance of God”, which again, clashes brutally with the principle that God does no wrong.

“3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;”

A wooden literal rendering of this would contradict a tremendous amount of human experience over the millennia, wherein millions of people who were minding their own business were slaughtered by/tormented by their own governments. Exhibit A: the executions of Christians – including the author Paul – by the Roman government.

“4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.”

A wooden literal rendering of this would contradict millennia of human experience wherein governments have not only winked at evil behavior of “the connected”, but helped to get the immoral goals of these guilty parties accomplished.

“5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.”

A wooden literal rendering of this would contradict the fact that some rulers (such as the USSR, communist China and North Korea) have structured their entire governments on the premise that God does not exist.

“7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.”

A wooden literal rendering of this would mean that we’d need to withhold things like “honor” from many governments and rulers, because it would require schizophrenia to deduce that they are due such things in the face of their evil actions.

In terms of Israel’s historical record and The Book of Revelations, an absolute literal interpretation: clashes with (among other verses) Joshua 2: 3-21, Daniel 3: 16-18, Daniel 6: 10-13, Acts 4: 18-20, Revelations 14: 9-11 (in the non-violent category), and with (in the more violent category) Joshua 6: 16-21, Judges 3: 14-26, Judges 4: 10-24, Judges 7: 19-25, Judges 16: 28-30, and The Maccabean revolt, which precipitated Chanukkah (“The Festival of Lights”). In The Maccabean Revolt of 167-160 BC, the Jews violently revolted against the Seleucid Empire. Inasmuch as Jesus, Paul, and virtually every other significant New Testament Jew celebrated this holiday, what does that tell us? Were they celebrating “the ends” and disregarding “the means”?!

Or consider the events of Judges 3: 14-26, in which Ehud kicks off a violent revolt against the Moabites with a quite graphic assassination of King Eglon. Obviously we have some significant Bible contradictions on our hands if Romans 13 mandates that revolution is ALWAYS forbidden. It is a generally well-accepted principle of hermeneutics that if two verses seem to clash on a strictly literal reading, another reading in which the two are harmonized is probably lurking in the background. What if Paul was writing in generalities, and didn’t mean to be covering EVERY situation? Well, it seems to me that that understanding of it has far greater explanatory scope and power than the former.

The USA’s Founding Fathers (whom I have argued had Christianity in mind) engaged in some interesting discussion on this topic, and obviously didn’t hold to the MacArthur view. They put up with a ton of abuse for many years prior to The Revolution, and tried a variety of non-violent ways to end the abuse, but I think where they finally drew the line and said “enough!” was roughly correct.

In 1775, Rev. Jacob Duché argued from the Bible in favor of the American position in Philadelphia, explaining:

“Inasmuch as all rulers are in fact the servants of the public and appointed for no other purpose than to be ‘a terror to evil-doers and a praise to them that do well’ [c.f., Rom. 13:3], whenever this Divine order is inverted – whenever these rulers abuse their sacred trust by unrighteous attempts to injure, oppress, and enslave those very persons from whom alone, under God, their power is derived – does not humanity, does not reason, does not Scripture, call upon the man, the citizen, the Christian of such a community to ‘stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ….hath made them free?!’ [Galatians 5:1] The Apostle enjoins us to ‘submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake,’ but surely a submission to the unrighteous ordinances of unrighteous men, cannot be ‘for the Lord’s sake,’ for ‘He loveth righteousness and His countenance beholds the things that are just.’” [The Duty of Standing Fast in our Spiritual and Temporal Liberties, A Sermon Preached in Christ Church, July 7, 1775. Before the First Battalion of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia (Philadelphia: James Humphreys, Jr., 1775), pp. 13-14.].

Of course The British accused the states of “anarchy”, but our Founders obviously disagreed with that characterization. In fact, while the states had been generally following the laws and rules they were under as colonies of Britain, The British had been systematically breaking their own laws and rules at the expense of the states for well over a decade. The “long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinc[ing] a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism” which are listed in our Declaration of Independence were not “light and transient” events which one might encounter (and suffer out of pragmatism) with any human institution. They were very serious offenses (including rape and murder), committed on a continuing basis, and attempts to resolve the issues “through the system” had resulted in nothing but insults and further abuses. England had racked up a great deal of debt during the French and Indian War (which ended in 1763), had significant numbers of (often abusive) troops on the continent, and had begun attempting to systematically extract as much revenue, goods and accommodations as it could milk from the colonists, and were apparently feeling very little restraint due to the massive distance of the states from the motherland. Under the legal theory of “Lex Rex” (“The Law is King”; ie: even Kings are subject to it) – which basically had been operative in England since at least 1688 (and arguably since the Magna Carta of 1215) – it was King George and his enforcers which were in a state of anarchy!

John Quincy Adams later described the situation as follows:

“[T]here was no anarchy. . . . [T]he people of the North American union and of its constituent states were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians in a state of nature but not of anarchy. They were bound by the laws of God (which they all) and by the laws of the Gospel (which they nearly all) acknowledged as the rules of their conduct.” (emphasis added). [An Address Delivered at the Request of the Committee of Arrangements for the Celebrating the Anniversary of Independence at the City of Washington on the Fourth of July 1821 upon the Occasion of Reading The Declaration of Independence (Cambridge: Hilliard and Metcalf, 1821), p. 28.].

As Declaration signer Francis Hopkinson (also a church musician and choir leader) put it:

“Q. It has often been said, that America is in a state of rebellion. Tell me, therefore, what is Rebellion?

  1. It is when a great number of people, headed by one or more factious leaders, aim at deposing their lawful prince without any just cause of complaint in order to place another on his throne.
  2. Is this the case of the Americans?
  3. Far otherwise.”

The truth is that The Revolutionary War was a defensive one. Great Britain had attacked America, not vice versa; the Americans had never fired the first shot – not in the Boston Massacre of 1770, the bombing of Boston and burning of Charlestown in 1774, or in the attacks on Williamsburg, Concord, or Lexington in 1775. “Don’t fire unless fired upon!” is a memorable command from this time, and reflects the prevailing mindset among our forefathers. Yet, having been fired upon without having broken any law, the Americans believed they had a Biblical right to self-defense. In fact, the Rev. Peter Powers, in a famous sermon he preached in front of the Vermont Legislature in 1778, specifically noted that America had “taken up arms in its own defense” – that she had not initiated the conflict but was only defending herself after being attacked. [The Rev. Peter Powers, Jesus Christ the true King and Head of Government; A Sermon Preached before the General Assembly of the State of Vermont, on the Day of Their First Election, March 12, 1778 at Windsor (Newbury-Port: Printed by John Michael, 1778).]

As Founding Father James Wilson (a signer of both the Declaration and the Constitution, and an original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court) affirmed:

“The defense of one’s self . . . is not, nor can it be, abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defense is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man. It is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those to whom he bears a peculiar relation – of his wife, of his parent, of his child. . . . As a man is justified in defending, so he is justified in retaking his property. . . . Man does not exist for the sake of government, but government is instituted for the sake of man.”

So I think we can conclude that The USA’s founders viewed the key words in Romans 13: 1-7 to be “governing authorities”; with a particular emphasis on what it means to be “governing”. When the powers-that-be diverge from following their own laws and begin systematically pillaging and otherwise abusing their subjects, it’s hard to see how that remains a case of “governing”, rather than “ravaging” people vulnerable to them under the color of authority.

In fact, let’s consider how Romans 13 describes what “governing” should look like:

“…For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil… Do what is good and you will have praise from the same, for it is a minister of God to you for good… for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.”

The British failed miserably at fulfilling these descriptions in the years leading up to The Revolution. In contrast, consider the fact that The USA’s Founders could have easily put into place a monarchy or oligarchy once the Revolutionary War was won and accreted power to themselves, but instead pored over the successes and failures of various forms of government throughout history, racked their brains as to how sustainable, checked and balanced self-governance could be arranged, and prayerfully cemented it into place.

One objection I’ve heard from “pacifists” (which I should hit before I wrap this up) is that during Paul’s time, evil Romans like Nero were in power, and since Paul didn’t endorse revolution against Rome, that must show that revolution against tyranny of that kind (or less), is not warranted. I think this objection overlooks a key principle: BE REALISTIC!

There was no way a ragtag handful of revolutionaries were going to be able to mount a viable revolution against the most powerful empire the world had ever seen at that point in time. Jesus Himself affirmed this principle in Luke 14:

31 Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32 Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.”

Side note: A reminder that Jesus endorsed self-defense in Luke 22 is worthwhile:

“36 Then He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money-bag should take it, and also a traveling bag. And whoever doesn’t have a sword should sell his robe and buy one.”

Lest one asserts this verse is taken out of context, please read Tim Stratton’s article, “Love Thy Neighbor & Pack Thy Heat.” 

In many (probably most) cases, the notion of revolution will simply be infeasible, as the powers-that-be will simply be too strong for a revolt. As Jefferson alluded to in The Declaration of Independence, actions like this are not to be taken “for light and transient causes”, and it’s better “to suffer, while evils are sufferable” than to engage in revolt, willy-nilly. In other cases, the notion will be dodgy because the populace will be morally questionable themselves. In the case of The USA’s Founders, however, they had the arms, numbers, terrain, intelligence, and most importantly, the morality, to pull it off and form something better. As a result, the most Christian country in the history of the world came into being, and inhabitants of the earth have been blessed in myriad ways as a result.

Yes, I’m well aware that we’ve drifted from the original blueprint. Anything administered by human beings will have its imperfections, but inasmuch as The USA has resembled Paul’s description of “government” substantially better than The British Empire (and most other governing entities that have existed), “the proof is in the pudding”.

Notes

I’ll be happy to open-mindedly consider the possibility I’ve gotten something wrong on this and consider a case for another viewpoint if one is presented to me, but I am highly doubtful that a more literal view of Romans 13 can survive its own self-refutation.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2uzs7L2

 

/by
Contingency Argument God

The Contingency Argument For God’s Existence

,

By Evan Minton

Why does anything at all exist? Why isn’t there just nothing? This is the first philosophical question I ever remember asking myself. I remember lying in bed at night when I was about 6 years old, and I asked and pondered this very question. I thought to myself “Everything must have been made by God. If God didn’t exist, then nothing else would exist either. Since everything exists, God must exist. But what if God didn’t exist either? Then nothing else would exist.” It was only 15 years later that I discovered that my childlike insight was actually developed into a sophisticated philosophical argument for the existence of God long before I was even born. In fact, I had even forgotten that moment of reflection when I was a small child until I started reading about the argument as an adult. Then I remembered.

The argument is called “The Contingency Argument For God’s Existence”. Sometimes it’s referred to as “The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument”, the reason why it is called that is that the argument was first formulated by the mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. The argument’s premises are:

1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).

2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3: The universe exists.

4: Therefore, The universe has an explanation of its existence.

5: Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.

Now, this is a logically airtight argument. So if the atheist wants to deny the conclusion, he has to say that one of the three premises is false. Let’s examine the premises to see what reasons can be given for affirming them.

Premise 1: Everything That Exists Has An Explanation Of Its Existence (Either In The Necessity Of Its Own Nature Or In An External Cause). 

*Types Of Explanations – There are 2 types of explanations for why something exists. X was either caused to exist by something that exists outside of and prior to X or X exists out of a necessity of its own nature (I.e its non-existence is impossible and it depends on nothing outside of itself to bring it into or keep it in existence). Something was either caused to exist by something else or it exists out of logical necessity.

*This Premise Is Self-Evident – We all intuitively know that whatever exists has some sort of explanation as to why it exists. Imagine you were walking in the forest with a friend and found a ball lying on the ground. You would naturally wonder how the ball came to be there. If your friend said to you “Don’t worry about it. The Ball just exists inexplicably” you would either think he was crazy or was joking around. Either way, you’d never take seriously the notion that the ball just existed there with no explanation for why it existed or how it came to be there.

Whatever it is we think about, whether it be cars, trucks, chairs, tables, people, houses, trees, balloons, mountains, planets, galaxies, etc. we know that they must have some explanation for their existence. Nothing exists for no reason. Even little children know this. Why else would they ask Mom and Dad “Where do babies come from?” They know that they have an explanation for their existence. They know that they don’t exist inexplicably.

*Objection: Does God Have An Explanation Of His Existence?

Critics of this argument frequently object to this premise by saying that if everything that exists must have an explanation for why it exists, then God must have an explanation for His existence. If God exists, then the premise applies to Him as well. However, that would demean God as it would mean something existed outside of God Himself which brought Him into existence. In other words, God would have a Creator and we would have a Heavenly Grandfather. Now, if we make God an exception to premise 1, the skeptic would rightly accuse us of special pleading. And moreover, he could ask that if we’re allowed to make God an exception to premise 1, why not exempt the universe?

This objection does not succeed. Read the first premise again. “Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause)”. We would agree that God’s greatness would be diminished if he had anexternal cause for His existence. But that’s not the only type of explanation there is. One category of existence-explanation is necessary existence. What the Christian Apologist would say in response is that God does indeed have an explanation for His existence, but that explanation is that He exists by the necessity of His own nature. If God exists, He cannot not exist. His non-existence is logically impossible.

So premise 1 certainly seems to be true. What about premise 2? Is premise 2 true?

Premise 2: If The Universe Has An Explanation Of Its Existence, That Explanation Is God.

At first, this premise may seem like a huge logical leap. But it actually makes sense when you think about it. In order to have caused the universe to come into being, the cause of the universe must be beyond the universe, beyond space and time. And therefore cannot be a material, spatial, or temporal type of thing. Whatever caused the universe to come into being must be a spaceless, immaterial, uncaused, powerful, personal Creator. Why is that?

The cause must be

Spaceless — because it brought space into existence. If the cause is responsible for space’s existence, it cannot be inside of space. It cannot exist inside of something that doesn’t exist yet. Just as the builder of your house could not have existed inside your house, so the cause could not have existed inside of space.

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

Supernatural – “Nature” and “The universe” are synonyms. Since the cause is beyond nature (given that its the explanation why nature exists), it follows that the cause is supernatural. After all, that’s what phenomenon transcendent to nature is. Supernatural, that which transcends the natural.

Powerful – Whatever is able to create and/or sustain the entire physical cosmos must have enormous power.

Uncaused – Given that the cause of the universe is a necesarilly existent being, it must therefore be uncaused. Necesarry existence presupposes eternal existence.

Personal – This is an entailment of the cause’s immateriality. There are two types of things recognized by philosophers that are immaterial: abstract objects (such as numbers, sets, or other mathematical entities) or unembodied minds. Philosophers realize that abstract objects if they exist, they exist as non-physical entities. However, abstract objects cannot produce any effects. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. The number 3 isn’t going to be producing any effects anytime soon. Given that abstract objects are causally impotent, it, therefore, follows that an unembodied mind is the cause of the universe’ beginning.

This sounds an awful lot like God to me. Now, we don’t have to call this cause “God” if that makes the atheist feel uncomfortable. We could just call it “The non-spatial, immaterial, unimaginably powerful, necesarilly existent Mind behind the universe”. But to avoid getting out of breath, I prefer to label this explanation “God”.

Moreover, even if the universe were beginningless, it would still be the case that it needs a cause that has the aforementioned properties. Leibniz’ argument doesn’t depend on proving that the universe had a beginning. As long as the universe is not a necessarily existent thing, then it needs a non-spatial, non-material, powerful, uncreated Mind to be the explanation for why it exists. For The Contingency Argument to succeed, all that needs to be true is that the universe is contingent.

3: The Universe Exists.

The truth of this premise is overwhelmingly obvious to anyone with even a small shred of sanity. No defense of this premise needs to be given.

Of course, if someone wanted to resort to some crazy idea like solipsism (the view that you are the only thing that exists, and the entire universe and everything you experience are projections of your own mind), that doesn’t get you out of this premise. In this case, one could just say that YOU are the universe.

4: Therefore, The Universe Has An Explanation Of Its Existence.

This follows logically from premises 1 and 3.

5: Therefore, The Explanation Of The Existence Of The Universe Is God.

This follows logically from premises 2 and 4.

*Objection: “Well, Maybe The Universe Doesn’t Need To Have An External Explanation For Its Existence. Maybe The Universe Exists By A Necessity Of Its Own Nature.”

This is one way an atheist could escape the conclusion of this argument. Perhaps premise 2 of this argument is false. The atheist could say “Well, granted. God or a being remarkably similar to God must be the explanation of the universe’s existence provided the assumption that the universe requires an external cause. But maybe that assumption is wrong. Maybe the explanation for the universe’s existence is that exists by a nature of its own existence.”

In order to save premise 2 and ergo the argument’s conclusion, we’ll need to show that the universe does require an external cause for its existence. There are some pretty clear reasons why we wouldn’t want to embrace this alternative. As we think about this big ole world we live in, none of the things that it consists of seem to exist necessarily. It seems like all of these things didn’t have to exist. It seems like they could have failed to exist.

But, you might say, perhaps the matter that these things are made of exists necessarily? Perhaps that although the galaxies, stars, planets, people, etc. and everything in the universe doesn’t exist necesarilly, the material stuff these things are made of exists necesarilly.

This proposal just simply doesn’t work. Allow me to explain why. You see, according to physicists, matter consists of teensy weensy particles called “quarks.” Everything in our world are just different arrangements of these quarks. But it seems to me that one could ask why a different collection of quarks could not have existed in the stead of this one? Are we expected to believe that every single quark in existence cannot possibly fail to exist? Does the skeptic want us to buy into the notion that all of the quarks in the universe have to exist?

“Okay, well maybe quarks aren’t necessarily existent. But maybe the particles of which the quarks are composed exist necessarily.” This suggestion won’t work because quarks aren’t composed of anything! They just are the basic units of matter. So if a quark doesn’t exist, the matter doesn’t exist.

It seems obvious to me that the existence of a different collection of quarks comprising everything of the cosmos was possible, but in that case, it follows that a different universe could have existed, and if a different universe could have existed, then it follows that our universe isn’t necessarily existent.

To see the point, think of your house. Could your house have been made of candy? Now, I’m not asking if you could have had a different house (one made of candy) in the stead of the one you actually live in. I’m asking if the very house you’re currently living in ifthat house could have been composed of candy. Obviously not. If it did, then it would not be the same house. It would be a different house.

Similarly, a cosmos comrpised of different quarks would be a different cosmos. Even if the said quarks were arranged in such a way as to resemble our universe identically, it still wouldn’t be the same universe because the quarks comrprising it would be different quarks. It follows from this that the universe does not exist by a necessity of its own nature.

Moreover, we have powerful scientific evidence that not only could the universe have failed to exist, but there was a time when it actually did not in fact exist. The Big Bang Theory has a lot of scientific evidence in its favor. A Big Bang beginning is a logical entailment of the expansion of the universe which is itself an entailment of the empirically verified “red shift” of distant galaxies, and moreover, The Big Bang is the only explanation for the abundance of light elements in the universe. Moreover, the universe is running out of usable energy over time, and if the universe had existed from eternity past, it would have run out of usable energy by now. Yet the universe has not run out of usable energy by now. This means that the universe cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning. Since the universe had an absolute beginning, it cannot exist by a necessity of its own nature. Why? Because necessary existence entails beginningless existence. It something cannot possibly not exist, then it could not have had a beginning to its existence. Since if it had a beginning to its existence, that would mean there was a time that it did not exist.

Conclusion

Given the truth of the 3 premises, the conclusion follows: God is the explanation for why the universe exists.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2te1kFa

 

/by
Gospel Luke Authorship

Who Wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts?

,

By Brian Chilton

We have been engaged in a series of articles discussing the authorship of the books of the New Testament. In this article, we consider the Third Gospel, the Gospel of Luke. Who wrote the Gospel? What clues do we have from the internal and external evidence, the date, and the location and audience?

Proposed Author by Tradition:       Traditionally, Luke is proposed as the author of the Third Gospel. Luke was a physician and an associate of Paul the apostle (Col. 4:14; Philemon 24).

Internal Evidence:    Internally, a few distinctive markers are found. First and most noticeably, the author of the Third Gospel writes to one “Theophilus” (Acts 1:3)[1] and seeks to provide an “orderly sequence” (Acts 1:3) of the life of Jesus, after having had “carefully investigated everything from the very first” (1:3) according to what the “original eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed down” (Acts 1:2). From this information, one can gather that the author was not an eyewitness of the events of Jesus’s life. But, the author had access to those who had.

Second, the author of the Third Gospel also authored the book of Acts. The level of detail and precision, writing style, the similar address to Theophilus, as well as the connective clause in the first of Acts connects the two works to the same author.[2]

Third, the level of Greek used in both the Third Gospel and the book of Acts is highly advanced. Having taken biblical Greek courses, I have found that a person learns first from the Gospel of Mark and John before tackling the Gospel of Luke. Due to the high degree of Greek employed in the Third Gospel and the book of Acts, one can deduce that the author is quite advanced in his education.

Fourth, the author focuses on Jesus’s ministry to the Gentiles and to the outcasts of society. The Sermon on the Plain is preserved in the Third Gospel. There the author notes that people came to hear Jesus from all around. The author notes that many of the people who heard Jesus were Gentiles from the region of Tyre and Sidon (Luke 6:17).

Fifth, the author describes medical matters far more and to a greater degree than the other Gospels. In Luke 4:38, Luke is sure to note that Simon Peter’s mother-in-law suffered from a high fever. In Luke 14:2, the author describes a man’s body that had “swollen with fluid.” Such details indicate a man who has an eye for medical matters.

Sixth, because of the author’s involvement with the book of Acts, one can deduct from the “we passages” that the author was a close associate of the apostle Paul. For instance, the author of Acts writes that “When it was decided that we were to sail to Italy, they handed over Paul and some other prisoners to a centurion named Julius, of the Imperial Regiment” (Acts 27:1).

Finally, the author had access to a great wealth of Jesus’s teachings that are not found in the other Gospels. For instance, it is only in the Gospel of Luke that one reads the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the Parable of the Lost Son. The author would have needed to have access to multiple eyewitnesses to be able to possess such knowledge and to be able to construct the orderly account that he did.

All in all, the internal evidence strongly points to someone of the caliber of Luke, the physician. Luke would hold the educational background, the eyewitness access, the resources, and the training needed to construct both the Third Gospel and the book of Acts. So far as I am concerned, I do not believe there are any other contenders. Why choose a non-eyewitness who was a Gentile[3] for the author if it had not been so?

External Evidence:   Externally, the early church is unanimous that Dr. Luke wrote the Third Gospel and the book of Acts. Irenaeus (c. 130-202) writes, “Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.”[4] Often, Irenaeus will add “Luke also, the follower and disciple of the apostles”[5] before quoting Luke’s Gospel. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165), before quoting from the Gospel of Luke and the other Gospels, notes that “the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them.”[6] Since the Gospel of Luke was written by a Gentile, Marcion, the ancient heretic, only allowed an abbreviated form of Luke’s Gospel in his canon. Irenaus notes that “Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains.”[7] From the evidence by the early church, Dr. Luke is the only valid candidate for authorship of the Third Gospel.

Date:               Seeing that Acts ends with the imprisonment of Paul (c. 64 AD), the Gospel of Luke must have been written at some time in the early 60s AD.

Location and Audience:       Luke-Acts comprises about 60% of the New Testament’s content. Luke writes to the influential Theophilus, a man of great standing and prominent status. Theophilus may have supplied the resources for Luke and Acts to have been written. The cost to produce a book the size of Luke would have been around $6,000 according to modern U.S. currency. Acts would have cost nearly the same. The entire product of Luke-Acts would have cost somewhere in the ballpark of $12,000. Thus, a man with the means of Theophilus was used by God to fund the ancient two-volume work we find in the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles which was written and compiled by a man with Dr. Luke’s resources and educational background.

Luke had a Gentile audience in mind. But the location of Luke’s composition is a bit of a mystery. The best and most probable locations of Luke’s composition include Caesarea, Achaia, Decapolis, Asia Minor, and Rome. My guess is that Luke was finalized in Rome.

Conclusion:    From the internal evidence, one discovers that the author of the Third Gospel must have been quite educated and knowledgeable concerning medicinal matters. The style of writing was quite exquisite, noting that a man of profound knowledge compiled the Gospel. The association that the Third Gospel holds with the book of Acts illustrates the association that the author had with the apostle Paul due to the “we passages” in Acts.

The external evidence unanimously holds Dr. Luke as the author of Luke-Acts. No other contenders exist. Luke’s involvement with the Gospel of Luke-Acts is documented by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Papias, and others.

The date of the Gospel must be in the early 60s due to the necessity of Acts being completed by AD 64. Thus, Luke-Acts is certainly early enough to have contained eyewitness testimony.

Luke-Acts is written for an influential man named Theophilus from whom Luke may have received funding for this writing endeavor. Theophilus may have been a new convert and was financially able to affront the funds and materials necessary to Luke. Luke, himself, would have been a man of great means, as well.

Compiling all the information we have before us, Dr. Luke—the physician and co-worker with the apostle Paul—is the only viable candidate for the authorship of the two-volume work known as Luke-Acts.

Notes

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

[2] Acts begins with the words, “I wrote the first narrative, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1).

[3] Luke is named among those who were uncircumcised in Colossians 4:11. Only Aristarchus, Mark, and Justus were the circumcised co-workers of Paul. Dr. Luke is listed in verse 14.

[4] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies” 3.1.1., in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 414.

[5] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” 3.10.1., 423.

[6] Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin” 66, in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 185.

[7] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” 3.11.7, 428.

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

 

 

/by