Christians Archives - Page 2 of 12

Tag Archive for: Christians

Who is the Leading Person of Interest?

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

Why are murders so interesting to us? Some of the most popular podcasts, videos, and news headlines are about high-profile homicides. We are often consumed with the primary suspect the cops often call “the person of interest.” Right now, the headlines are obsessed with Brian Laundrie? Where is he? Did he do it? If so, why? And will he get justice?

Unfortunately, over the long run, the person of interest is usually remembered much more than his victims. We remember names like Charles Manson, Jeffery Dahmer, and Ted Bundy, but we usually forget those they killed.

But what if there is one huge exception to that typical outcome? What if the most remembered and influential name in human history isn’t a villain but actually a murder victim himself?

Cold-Case Homicide Detective J. Warner Wallace makes that exact case in his astonishing new book Person of Interest. Wallace shows the unparalleled impact a murdered Jewish preacher from an obscure corner of the ancient Roman Empire has had on the world over the past two thousand years.

Jesus of Nazareth is not only the central figure of the world’s largest religion, but he is also the central figure of influence throughout human history. In a book filled with over 400 of his own illuminating drawings, Wallace shows that even if every Bible and manuscript suddenly vanished from the planet, you could reconstruct the “explosive” appearance of Jesus and his essential teachings from the “fuse” of ancient history and the “fallout” of the past two thousand years.

Consider for a moment the impact Jesus had on literature. Jesus has been written about more than any other figure in history. To date, there are more than 109 million books written about Jesus (George Washington is a distant second at nearly 59 million books). No one, and I mean no one, has inspired authors and writers like Jesus of Nazareth, and this influence started early.

Wallace illustrates a robust list of Christian and non-Christian voices found on ancient manuscripts in the earliest centuries of the Common Era – more non-Christian than Christian – who describes Jesus and his followers. From these early voices, the entire story of Jesus can be reconstructed even if every New Testament manuscript had been destroyed.

Jesus dominates another form of literature: screenplays. Wallace assembles the movies crafted about Jesus of Nazareth in an illustration that demonstrates the unparalleled impact of Jesus on moviemakers (The Jesus Film, for example, remains the most translated and viewed movie of all time). But there’s more. Great thinkers and theologians have written about Jesus over the centuries, establishing a robust Christian publishing industry that thrives to this very day. Even non-Christians are compelled to allude to Jesus in one way or another. Christ figures—parallels to Jesus—populate not just classical literature but even popular fiction.

You’d have to destroy much more than the New Testament to erase Jesus from the world’s pages. You’d have to destroy much of the history of literature.

But that’s only one aspect of the “fallout” indebted to Jesus. Wallace also describes and illustrates the monumental impact Jesus had on education, science, art, music, and other world religions. Unlike other books that simply explain the role Jesus played in human history, Person of Interest uncovers the hidden evidence you might not have considered in the aspects of culture most revered by non-believers. The impact of Jesus has been seismic, and from His fingerprints in each area of human history, His story can be completely reconstructed.

How did a man who never led an army, never held an office, never started a company, never wrote a book, never had children, never travelled more than 200 miles from where he was born—a man who was murdered two thousand years ago—become the most important person of interest and the greatest influence in all human history?

Maybe because he wasn’t just a man. Maybe because his murderers couldn’t keep Him in the grave. Person of Interest will leave you thinking and feeling that’s, by far, the most reasonable explanation.

Confronting Homosexuality in a Culture of Identity (Part 1)

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Josh Klein

Lil Nas X

Do you know the name? I do not know why you would, but Lil Nas X has become a bit of a cultural icon in recent years. He wrote a hit country/hip-hop song in 2019 called “Old Town Road” with country star Billy Ray Cyrus. The success of the hit propelled Lil Nas X into the modern spotlight. The song, and its remix, won him fourteen awards spanning from the Grammys to Kids’ Choice Awards[1].

As a result, Lil Nas X toured the country singing for elementary-age kids and was even quoted as saying young kids were his “core audience”[2] in early 2021.

Why am I writing about Lil Nas X on a Christian website?

Well, this man that vies for the eyes and ears of children recently released a new music video that is anything but “kid-friendly.” In his song Montero, Lil Nas X is seen flirting with the Devil, having the Devil lick his navel, pole dancing to Hell, and then giving Satan a lap dance in the underworld. At the end of the clip, Lil Nas X breaks Satan’s neck and removes his crown, declaring himself the king of Hell (which we know is inaccurate, theologically speaking… Satan does not rule Hell – see Rescuing Hell).

To capitalize off the viral video’s success, Lil Nas X also teamed up with a branding company called MSCHF (a play on the word mischief) to release a pair of Nike-branded shoes (Nike has since sued MSCHF for copyright infringement) dedicated to Satan[3].

Lil Nas X also happens to be a gay man. Which would not even be on the top list of problems with the aforementioned publicity stunt, but since Lil Nas X used his upbringing as a catalyst for the release of the new song and video, it is pertinent to the conversation[4].

This article, though, is not about Lil Nas X, or Satan shoes, or the increasing leftist dogma being thrust upon our children.

I wanted to look at the core issue around Lil Nas X’s song, and a core issue going on in Evangelical circles for the past decade-plus.

Homosexuality.

A few weeks ago, I got a text from a young person concerning this very subject:

“I want to do research into God’s view on homosexuality because I’ve been seeing a lot of different takes on TikTok and Instagram and such but it could be heresy or misinterpretation or something else and I want to find out for myself.”

In Sean and Josh McDowell’s book The Beauty of Intolerance[5], the two seek to tackle the issue of Truth and Love and use the example of a family’s argument about sexuality as the impetus for such a discussion. If you have not read the book, it is a good read and gets to the point of the current culture of a new tolerance that seeks compliance, rather than acceptance, to a narrative of subjective moral values.

But the argument on homosexuality within the Church goes back decades, so what is new? The newness of the issues stems from a poor approach to the issue of homosexuality in the 1970s-1990s from the conservative evangelical Church. Homosexuality was rarely talked about and was often seen as a political issue more than a sin issue. I highlight some of this in a previous article on Free Thinking Ministry’s website[6] (Cuties article) so I won’t go into all of the history here.

However, I think it is important to note that the argument that Christians got lost on during that time was whether or not Homosexuality was a choice or genetic.

The argument goes that if it was a choice, we could reform the homosexual; but if it was genetic, then we could not. This argument also implies that natural proclivity could equate to God-ordained behavior.

I remember growing up in the ‘90s hearing many evangelicals talk like it was absolutely imperative that no “gay gene” would ever be found. Almost as if that scientific discovery would shatter thousands of years of orthodoxy on the topic.

But the biblical case against homosexual behavior is not genetic.

It is spiritual and biblical.

Genetics are just as affected by the fall as our spiritual state, and we know this. When we say things like “in the end, there will be no more sickness or death,” we are not just referring to scripture (Rev. 21:4) but we are affirming that there is a physical component to the fallen nature of man. In other words: Our DNA, physical dispositions, and natural proclivities are fallen just as our soul is fallen.

I want to be clear, I am not calling homosexuality a sickness, at least not a mental illness anyway. But it, like many other “dispositional sins” is a sickness of the soul.

Homosexuality is a product of the fall[7] just as much as lying, cheating, or heterosexual promiscuity. Whether or not it is natural is of no relevance to the theological topic. There are many natural behaviors that we are called to curb as Christians. Covetousness, lust, greed, and pride are just a few of many natural proclivities that human beings are born with that must be dealt with overtime in the sanctification process of the Christian.

Homosexuality falls in line with many of those natural proclivity sins. The church argued against genetics when it never needed to, and as it argued against genetics it allowed a narrative of identity to undercut the nature of the issue.

And now we have a bigger problem.

No longer are we speaking to the activity, we are speaking to a person, and in their minds, we are asking them not to be themselves. We are telling them to release, not only a proclivity of human nature but their entire identity of belonging.

In a sense, we are telling them to call themselves evil.

But no Christian worth his/her theological salt would state that being gay condemns a person to Hell. No, we are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are constituted sinners, and thus, we stand condemned already (John 3:17). In a sense, it is not sin that makes us evil but our evil hearts that make us sin. God rescues us from our already moribund disposition. We are all basically bad and we all need a new identity to overcome this badness.

However, one can see why someone that identifies with being a homosexual would find it hard to follow a God that calls what they think is their defining nature a sin. If a person is basically good, then their core identity is also basically good.

But orthodox Christian doctrine teaches, and rightfully and logically so, that we are all basically bad and in need of saving. Our identity then is sin and we need an exchange of identity to be good! All of us.

Orthodox theology, to the LGBTQ+ people, screams that God made a mistake when He made them. And like Lil Nas X, they either hate themselves or rebel against the faith altogether:

The result of preaching behavioral modification instead of identity transformation is self-loathing and angst, not a conviction.

The natural result of this, then, is to capitulate to the offended; and the liberal theological movement sought to do just that. They sought to provide a theological landing spot for hurting homosexuals in the body of Christ.

God is love, and as a result, He would not want anyone hating themselves because of their identity. So, we must augment our hamartiology (the study of sin) to allow for behavior that was understood to be sinful over the history of the church because God does not make mistakes.

It is true that God does not make mistakes, but it is not true that His creation right now is perfected. Thus, we are inherently flawed and sinful. If we were not, why would we need a savior at all?

The mistake the liberal theologians make is to assume that there is any room for an identity other than “child of God”[8].

I am a man that is attracted to the opposite sex, but my identity is not wrapped up in that attraction.

My identity is either a sinner or saint. Blessed by God to be invited into His family, I can declare that I am a child of God that happens to be attracted to women. However, as a result, that natural proclivity of attraction must be curbed to reflect God’s design.

One woman for a lifetime.

I have embraced this limitation joyfully, because it is no limitation at all, but is a realization of the freedom found in the Godhead through Christ. And I believe, firmly, that those who are homosexuals can experience this same counter-intuitive freedom. More on that in the next few weeks.

The response to homosexuality in that regard should be simple enough. You can be a man or woman that happens to be attracted to the same sex (regardless of if it is a choice or is a genetic disposition) but if you are a child of God (believer in Jesus as your Savior) then that proclivity of attraction must be curbed to reflect God’s design.

Which, unfortunately for the person with natural homosexual proclivities, would be self-denial of acting on that attraction.

My heart aches for this person in a very real way and my empathy extends to them in more ways than they know. But the truth is the truth, and sin is sin. There is no such thing as having compassion on a lie, for entertaining a lie and letting it live is neither compassionate nor merciful. True compassion is lovingly, but firmly, confronting sin and falsehood in the name of Christ and offering freedom in His name.

Just as any heterosexual man that has struggled with pornography will attest, this self-denial of sexual pleasure is beyond difficult and nothing to be glossed over. But we do not deny sexual pleasure to punish ourselves, we do so to glorify God. Boundaries are not set to avoid Hell, they are set to glorify heaven. When we make the mistake of setting boundaries around sin to avoid sin instead of to glorify God we set ourselves, and others, up for fantastic failure.

And it is when we do this that we are tempted to empathize with the seemingly unwinnable battle. I have empathy for all who fight to avoid sin. I know how hard that is, but misplaced empathy can lead to a dangerous theological road and that is what we will tackle next week. How do we show empathy but hold fast to the truth? For that is true mercy and compassion. And that is the mission of the Christian.

Footnotes

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Lil_Nas_X

[2] https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/01/06/lil-nas-x-says-children-are-his-core-audience-right-now-and-thats-ok

[3] https://satan.shoes/

[4] https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/lil-nas-x-s-satan-shoes-trolled-some-christians-montero-ncna1262495

[5] https://www.amazon.com/Beauty-Intolerance-Setting-Generation-Truth-ebook/dp/B015F06DMS

[6] https://freethinkingministries.com/cuties-the-natural-progression-of-love-is-love/

[7] https://biblia.com/bible/esv/romans/1/26-27

[8] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+3%3A1&version=NASB1995

The Best Apologetics Book for Beginners?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mikel Del Rosario

One of the most common questions I get asked is, “What is the BEST apologetics book for beginners?” In this video, I share my top 5 apologetics book recommendations for people just getting started with apologetics.

Click the links below and use the “Look Inside” feature to decide which one is the best, FIRST Christian apologetics book for you.

Apologetics Books for Beginners:

On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision – William Lane Craig

This book has illustrations, sidebars, and memorizable steps to help you defend the faith with reason and precision. Craig offers four arguments for God’s existence, defends the historicity of Jesus’ claims and resurrection, while also covering the problem of suffering and religious relativism. Along the way, he shares his story of following God’s call in his own life.

Tactics, 10th Anniversary Edition: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions, – Greg Koukl

This demonstrates how to navigate spiritual conversations, keeping them moving forward in constructive ways through thoughtful diplomacy. You’ll learn how to stop challengers in their tracks and turn the tables on questions or provocative statements. You’ll also learn how to get people thinking about Jesus. This give you a game plan for explaining the truth about Christianity with confidence and grace.

The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus – Gary Habermas and Michael Licona

This is an accessible, comprehensive, and persuasive resource providing detailed evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. It introduces the popular “minimal facts” approach, utilizing data that are so strongly attested that virtual every critical scholar grants them. It helps you memorize not only these facts, but the data which support them. This book includes helpful charts as well. The authors also demonstrate how to share the material in everyday conversations.

Truth in a Culture of Doubt: Engaging Skeptical Challenges to the Bible -Andreas J. Köstenberger, Darrell L. Bock, Josh Chatraw

This book helps you respond to key arguments skeptical scholars such as Bart Ehrman have raised in his popular books. It will help you think through key issues and explain topics such as the Bible’s origins, the copying of the Bible, alleged contradictions in Scripture, and the relationship between God and evil. After studying this book, you’ll be equipped to respond to a wide variety of critical arguments raised against the reliability of Scripture and the truthfulness of Christianity.

Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World – Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell

This updated and expanded version of the modern apologetics classic offers a defense of Christianity’s core truths and thoughtful responses to key questions about difficult passages in the Bible. This large reference book covers evidence for the Bible, Jesus, the Old Testament, and the nature of truth.

So what is the best apologetics book for beginners? It just depends on what you are looking for. I hope you found one of these suggestions helpful for you!

Recommended resources related to the topic:

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)

Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek (DVD Set, mp4 Download set, and Complete Package)

So the Next Generation will Know by J. Warner Wallace (Book and Participant’s Guide)

Fearless Faith by Mike Adams, Frank Turek, and J. Warner Wallace (Complete DVD Series)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/3Eo5Y7n

September 20, 2021/by Guest

On Apologetics and Spiritual Warfare

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

In my experience, the typical discussion of “spiritual warfare” centers on the stuff of the old Frank Peretti novels like This Present Darkness or Piercing the Darkness. It’s all about gargoyle-looking demons snarling on our shoulders, power plays, and satanic influences. But the whole “devil made me do it” thing has always seemed a little over-the-top to me. For that reason, it’s a subject I have mostly ignored. It certainly never seemed to have much to do with the things I like to talk about here — arguments and evidence. But it turns out there is a direct connection between apologetics and spiritual warfare. And all of us need to understand what it is.

The Balanced View

As usual, C. S. Lewis encourages us to consider a more reasonable view of the spiritual warfare than the one we usually hear:

“There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.”

~ C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

Balance is always good. And if you want an introduction to that view of spiritual warfare, there is no more entertaining way to get it than reading C. S. Lewis,’ The Screwtape Letters. The gist of the book is that Screwtape is a senior demon who is training his understudy, Wormwood, about how to best mess with humans. The book is a record of their dialogue. It’s a training manual for spiritual warfare — from the bad guys’ point-of-view.

Lewis said it was the most difficult book he ever wrote because it forced him to think backwards. God is the “enemy.” Promoting evil is Screwtape’s mission.

I’ve always enjoyed Lewis’ unique approach. But more recently, I’ve come to see spiritual warfare in an even more pragmatic way.

Close Encounters of a Different Kind

In lesson two of his 8-part course, The Bible Fast Forward, Greg Koukl makes a fantastic insight about this. He points out that much of the emphasis in the church on spiritual warfare has been on engaging in power encounters. We talk about binding, loosing, and casting out demons with specific kinds of prayers. Much like Frank Peretti, we focus on methods we can use to counteract the evil enterprises of the enemy.

But, Koukl says, Scripture suggests something different. His point is that the essential character of spiritual warfare is not about power encounters with the devil. It is about truth encounters. It’s about opposing lies and deception.

Paul’s Take on Warfare

In 2nd Corinthians 10:3-5, Paul addresses the issue this way:

“For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”

Then, in Ephesians 6, the most famously quoted Bible passage on the subject, Paul goes on to describe the fight:

“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”

But in the plea that follows, Paul doesn’t tell the Ephesians to pray against the rulers, authorities, and powers. Rather, he tells them to pray for perseverance. He asks them to pray that he and those around him might speak the truth fearlessly.

Do you see the difference?

The Battlefield of Ideas

The weapons of spiritual warfare are thoughts. The battlefield is in our minds. And that means that an apologist — a defender of the faith — lives at the forward edge of the battle area. The battlefield is not just a place to make arguments about topics like the existence of God, the design of the universe, or the reliability of Scripture.

It’s a place to fight for the essence of truth itself.

Think about it. Normal, rationally thinking human beings could never come up with some of the ideas our culture accepts without question. Those who argue in favor of corruptions of human sexuality — things like same-sex “marriage” or gender fluidity — aren’t just arguing about the moral nature of their conduct. Reasonable people could debate that kind of thing. Instead, they are denying biological reality itself. And, as Carl Trueman puts it in his book, The Rise & Triumph of the Modern Self, “many in our society [insist that] to deny it or question it in some way is to reveal oneself as stupid, immoral, or subject to yet another irrational phobia.”*

In other words, the culture holds in contempt anyone who claims to see reality for what it actually is. We have arrived at the place George Orwell warned about 100 years ago, “In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

Not Just A Cultural Trend

Human sexuality is at the epicenter of the cultural battles that are raging around the topics of truth and reality. But it’s not the only issue. Our society has also accepted without argument the idea that science will solve all our problems. This philosophical view is called “Scientism.” And it’s based on the notion that science and faith are in a perpetual state of war. But, as I’ve discussed elsewhere, that is a lie. Science and theology are complementary ways knowing things about the world. They are mutually reinforcing allies in the ongoing battle for the truth.

Likewise, those who foment hatred in our society do so by disingenuously politicizing the news. They do it using incidents of racism, oppression, inequity, and inclusion. Surely, we can find blatant examples of abuse with each of these. No thinking person can deny it. But that does not mean our entire society can be reduced to them. Generalizations are never a good idea. You don’t define the whole by the abuses of outliers.

But the really troubling thing about all these trends is that they are not just cultural phenomena. They are also infiltrating our churches under the banner of “Progressive Christianity” and “social justice.” I guess we should expect the world to turn things inside out and upside down. But when the church goes along with it, I don’t see any other way to explain it except as the consequence of spiritual warfare.

The “Social Justice” Deception

Back to C. S. Lewis. In one of his training sessions with Wormwood, the indomitable Screwtape hits on the topic of how to remove spirituality from the Christian’s life. His method may sound familiar:

“We want men to treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything – even to social justice. The thing to do is to get a man first to value social justice as a thing which the enemy demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice … it is quite easy to coax humans around this little corner. Only today I have found a passage in a Christian writer where he recommends his own version of Christianity on the ground that ‘only such a faith can outlast the death of old cultures and the birth of new civilizations.’ … You see the little rift? ‘Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason.’ That’s the game …” (emphases mine)

Remember, Lewis wrote those words in 1942. It turns out the battle for our minds hasn’t changed much over the years. Screwtape’s minions have been wildly successful in their mission to deceive the world. Our challenges as defenders of the faith are complicated but they’re not new. When it comes right down to it, they’re as old as the Garden of Eden.

A Reason For Hope

When you see spiritual warfare this way you realize it never stops. The battle of ideas will continue far into the future. We can’t escape the battle. But we can embrace a battle plan that refuses to surrender. As Rod Dreher put it in his fantastic book, Live Not By Lies: A Manual For Christian Dissidents,

“You have to live in a world of lies, but it’s your choice as to whether that world lives in you.”

~ Rod Dreher

If you watch the news, this can all become very discouraging. But as an apologist, we don’t have time to be discouraged. Our charge is not just to give answers. It is to “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have…”

Hope.

In The Everlasting Man, G. K. Chesterton surveys the many forces that have threatened to destroy Christianity over the last 2000 years. “Time and again,” said Chesterton, “the Faith has to all appearances gone to the dogs. But each time, it was the dog that died.”

Our faith and our church have been under attack since the beginning of time. But the Bible and history are littered with examples of the saints who persevered in the face of both physical and spiritual warfare. Our time is unique in many ways. But from an eternal perspective the mission is still the same. Lies are still the enemy. And truth is still unchanging.

And that is the reason we have hope.

Resurrection Defense Series: Archaeological Evidences Supporting the Resurrection

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

We have examined various lines of evidence that support the notion that Jesus literally rose from the dead. As we wrap up the series, it may prove beneficial to describe a few pieces of archaeological evidence that supports the resurrection of Jesus. Archaeological evidence can neither prove nor disprove an event of history.[1] However, it can lend itself to probabilities that an event did or did not occur. The resurrection poses an additional problem as no one was present when the event took place. Even still, certain artifacts lend credibility to the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

The Nail Spiked Ankle Bone of Yehohannan

In 1968, an ossuary was discovered that contained the heel bone of a young man named Yehohannan. Living 2,000 years ago, Yehohannan died by crucifixion at the hands of the Romans. Evidence suggests that he was only in his twenties when he died. The description of his crime has been lost to us. However, the nature of his execution was preserved by the young man’s extant heel bone. A traditional Roman spike pierced the heel of Yehohannan. But unlike other nails which were reused to crucify victims, this spike bent most likely after striking a knot in the wood. The heel bone, bent spike, and even a piece of wood confirm that nails were used, at least at times, to fasten victims to the cross. For Yehohannan, his executors nailed his ankles to the opposing exterior sides of the vertical beam rather than through the feet. The young man’s preserved heel bone reveals two things about Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection.

First, the find proves that Romans did nail victims to the cross, confirming the details of the Gospel narratives related to the death of Jesus. Crucifixion was a nasty form of execution. The victim would slowly die from asphyxiation which led to heart failure. The chances of Jesus surviving crucifixion, as proposed by some, are slim to none.

Second, the find also proves that the Romans permitted families to grant crucified victims a proper burial. In ancient Israelite culture, a body was buried in a tomb. A year later, the bones were collected in the linen wrappings and placed in a common family ossuary (bone box). It was not until the time of Emperor Caligula that the practice of granting proper burial to crucified victims ceased. Caligula began his reign in AD 37 which was 4-7 years after the time of Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection. Thus, the claim that Jesus was merely buried in a shallow grave rather than a tomb loses its impact in light of the discovery of Yehohannan’s heel bone.

Nazareth Decree

The Nazareth Decree is a fascinating find. In 1878, a French scholar acquired a slab of stone in Nazareth dating to AD 44.[2] The decree was given by Emperor Claudius (AD 41-54) who charges that if anyone is found extracting or exhuming bodies from tombs, then the graverobbers would be charged and promptly executed. Interestingly, the decree also mentions one moving stones enclosing tombs. The Gospel of Matthew notes that the Jewish leaders deceitfully contrived a rumor that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus (Matt. 28:11-15). While a direct correlation cannot be drawn between the Nazareth Decree and the rumor arranged by the Jewish Sanhedrin, one still finds a strong probability that the growth of Christianity accompanied with the rumor could have necessitated such a decree in the emperor’s mind.[3]

Church of the Holy Sepulchre

Protestants often prefer the serene location of Gordon’s Tomb over the iconic and liturgical nature of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. However, if one pursues truth over preference, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is hands-down far more likely to be the actual tomb of Jesus rather than the irenic counterpart. In AD 132, Emperor Hadrian barred Jews from Jerusalem and attempted to eradicate evidence of both Judaism and Christianity by building Roman temples and statues over sacred spots. In AD 313, Constantine legalized Christianity. His mother Helena, a devout Christian, sought to discover the most sacred sites of Christianity. Hadrian had placed a statue of Venus atop the tomb of Christ in an effort to desecrate the tomb. When Helena asked local believers where the tomb was located, they pointed her to the tomb with the erected Venusian statue. Helena immediately ordered the removal of the statue and the preservation of the tomb. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was later built around the tomb and crucifixion site. A few years ago, in an effort to restore key sections of the holy church, researchers were allowed to peer inside the slab of marble used to protect the bedding. The upper part was removed. Underneath, they discovered a broken piece of metal with a Crusader’s cross engraved. Under the metal, they found a stone bedding that dated to the first century. The discovery proved that the Edicule of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre has been revered as the burial place of Christ for two millennia. This adds considerable weight to the idea that the empty tomb of Jesus is either in the Edicule or very nearby. Personally, the Edicule holds a strong probability of being the actual burial site of Jesus—a probability greater than 95%.

Shroud of Turin

Finally, we end with one of the most mysterious archaeological finds of all time. Just when skeptics seem to debunk the Shroud of Turin, something comes along that later confirms it. The Shroud of Turin is a highly controversial linen cloth that measures 14 feet, 5 inches by 3 feet, 7 inches. It bears a negative three-dimensional image of a crucified man in his thirties and includes bloodstains of actual AB hemoglobin.[4] Additional discoveries have found pollen grains of plants based in Israel and dating to the first century along with evidence that the Shroud had been exposed to a high dose of radiation, perhaps from the resurrection event itself.[5] Although the Shroud had been dated to the medieval ages in a carbon-14 test conducted in 1988, those tests have proven false. The debate surrounding the Shroud of Turin will most certainly continue until the return of Christ himself. The Shroud of Turin is not necessary to prove that Jesus rose from the dead, as has been shown by this series. Nonetheless, if the Shroud of Turin is authentic, it not only proves that Jesus rose from the dead, but it also provides a snapshot as to how Jesus may have looked.

Conclusion

Admittedly, the archaeological evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is largely circumstantial. The only direct piece of archaeological evidence for the resurrection would be the Shroud of Turin, if genuine. However, the Shroud is enshrouded in mystery (pun intended). Because of the nature of the resurrection event, one should not expect a slam dunk discovery to be made. Why? Because Jesus is no longer in the tomb. The most direct evidence has been removed and is no longer available. Regardless, the data provided when taken together affords a strong case that something mysterious and amazing transpired on the first Easter Sunday. The artifacts described prove the high probability that Jesus died by crucifixion, was buried in a tomb, the tomb was found empty, and that the tomb was revered for two millennia. Taken together, that is a compelling case for the resurrection event. For more information on the archaeological evidence for the Bible, see chapter 13 of the Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, and be sure to check out Ted Wright’s page EpicArchaeology.com.

Notes

[1] Randall Price and H. Wayne House, Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology, 26.

[2] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 48; Ted Wright, “10 Significant NT Archaeological Discoveries,” EpicArchaeology.com.

[3] To read the full transcript of the Nazareth Decree, see Brian G. Chilton, Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, 123.

[4] Chilton, Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, 127-128.

[5] Ibid., 128.

Does Jesus Devastate An Old Earth?

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

Science and faith issues are no doubt a hot topic of discussion when it comes to defending the truth of Christianity. Many Christians hold many different views about the timing and mechanism of God’s creative acts. Some views hold numerous details in common while others may hold only many details in common. It is the few differences here and there that cause much heat in this internal debate and cause unbelievers (and some Christians) to question the truth of the historic Christian faith as a whole. Today, I want to look at one of the more common distinctives between Christians who believe that the universe is young (6,000-10,000 years old) and those Christians who believe that the universe is ancient (~13.7 billion years old).

But before I get to the specific challenge, I need to set a foundation. First, I am an old earth creationist (OEC), so I will defend the latter of the two views above; however, I will not appeal to God’s actions (creation) today; rather I will limit my appeals to Scripture alone. Second, there are numerous areas of agreement among young and old earth creationists just within the doctrine of creation (not to mention the rest of the Christian worldview), and I feel that the differences, because of their ability to undermine the truth of the Christian worldview, tend to get more of the focus than the common ground. I have a list of more than forty areas of agreement in my article “What Do Young Earth and Old Earth Christians Agree Upon Regarding Origins?” to help Christians remember these area of unity and be more gracious in our discussions with each other. The primary two areas of agreement that are important for today’s topic are that both young- and old- earth creationists affirm biblical inerrancy and that Adam and Eve were historically the first humans. With those in place, here we go!

The Claim: Jesus Was A Young Earth Creationist

In Mark 10:6 Jesus teaches, “But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” Many young earth creationists (YEC) use this passage as a proof text that demonstrates that their interpretation of Genesis 1 is the interpretation that Jesus held (see this article from the YEC organization Answers In Genesis: Jesus Devastates An Old Earth). Young earth creationists believe that God created Adam and Eve between 144 hours and 168 hours after He created the universe. Old earth creationists believe that God created Adam and Eve between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. So, the YEC argument goes like this:

Jesus taught that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning of creation of the universe.
The YEC creation of Adam and Eve is closer to its date of creation of the universe than is the OEC creation of Adam and Eve to its date of creation of the universe.
Therefore, Jesus was teaching the YEC interpretation of Genesis 1.

The Fatal Flaw

On the surface, the argument does seem legitimate and is certainly persuasive. I’m sure many have seen and some have used this argument, sometimes with a slightly different second premise, but the first premise and the conclusion are always the same. However, there is one fatal flaw to all these versions. “144 hours later” is not the same as “the beginning of creation of the universe,” and, to be fair, neither is 100,000 to 200,000 years later either. The first premise (the one premise that appears in all the versions of this argument) is simply false. The falsehood of the first premise is what logically undermines the conclusion. But is the defeat of the first premise really that cut-and-dried? Perhaps not. The doctrine of biblical inerrancy may have an allowance that permits the first premise to be true.

Finding The Proper Interpretation

A statement can be true but not complete in its precision, just like 3.14 or 3.14159 both accurately represent pi even though they have different levels of precision. A lack of precision does not necessarily undermine the truth of a claim, nor does a lack of precision necessarily undermine the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. In the case of Mark 10:6, it is true; however, it is not explicitly precise. “The beginning of creation…’of what'” is where the debate on interpreting Mark 10:6 hinges. There are two ways to address this. First, let’s examine an argument for what the object of creation is, and second, let’s examine an argument for what the object of creation is not.

What Is Jesus Talking About?

When we read the passage, it is obvious that Jesus is describing the features of humans: “God created them male and female.” So, the specific portion of God’s creation that is in view is that of humans. Notice that there is the pronoun “them” in the passage as well. A pronoun must have an explicit or implicit antecedent. If we are to interpret Jesus’ words to mean “From the beginning of creation of humans God made them male and female,” we see that the antecedent (implied by Jesus’ words but explicit in the interpretation of Jesus’ words) matches that of the object of creation that Jesus is obviously referring to in the passage.

What Is Jesus NOT Talking About?

But is there a way that the universe could be the object of creation yet Jesus be making a point about the creation of humans? The doctrine of biblical inerrancy certainly allows for truth without precision, so could the YEC simply say that Jesus was truthfully but imprecisely equating the time of the creation of man with the time of creation of the universe, making the object of the creation the universe? The answer is “no,” and here is why. It is generally recognized that there is a difference between “lack of precision” and “false.” This distinction is not always easy to identify, but in many cases, rules or methods can be used to identify the line. Back to my example of pi, the rules of rounding provides the boundary that logically judges that 3.15 is not a lack of precision but is a falsehood. In the case Mark 10:6, we can use the perspicuity of Scripture (allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture) to identify where the line of distinction precisely lies and can judge for us whether the proposed interpretation is a lack of precision or is a falsehood.

Genesis 1 clearly defines the location of the line of distinction for judgment. Genesis 1 places a hard line between “lack of precision” and “false” for any timing claim regarding the universe’s creation event at the beginning of the next “yom” (“day”). A lack of precision of another passage of scripture is permitted by Genesis 1 as long as the lack of precision is still within the boundary of the “yom” (“day”) of the creation of the universe. So, on the YEC view, “lack of precision” is biblically and doctrinally permitted if and only if the imprecise claim of Mark 10:6 falls within that first 24 hours. However, the claim is false if the lack of precision of timing is outside of the 24 hour window following the creation of the universe.

Genesis 1 states that Adam and Eve were created on Day 6. Since Day 6 falls outside that 24 hour window, claiming that the creation of Adam and Eve and the creation of the universe are imprecisely at the same time is outside the allowable limits of a lack of precision, thus it is outside the boundaries of an interpretation that is guided by biblical inerrancy and the perspicuity of Scripture. So, Genesis 1 judges that Mark 10:6 cannot be interpreted to mean “the beginning of creation of the universe” even with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy allowing for a lack of precision.

So, the interpretation of Mark 10:6 which includes the universe as the object of creation is false- not permitted as judged by the doctrine of biblical inerrancy via the perspicuity of Scripture. If anyone was to insist that the universe is the object of creation in Jesus’ statement, this would place them (YEC or OEC) in the position of denying not only the truth of biblical inerrancy but the use of biblical inerrancy in interpretation.

The Proper Interpretation Within the Bounds of Biblical Inerrancy and Genesis 1

We see that the object of creation cannot be the universe but rather is humans. When we understand “humans” as the antecedent of “them” and that it is the specific creation of which Jesus is describing both the beginning and features, the passage remains true, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy has properly guided to our interpretation of Mark 10:6, and Genesis 1 has rightfully judged our interpretation of the passage.

A Vital Decision

However, with this proper interpretation, the YEC loses claim to this passage as a proof-text of their view and as a defeater of other views. They also lose it as a supporting premise of their argument(s), and they lose the claim that Jesus was a YEC. The young-earth creationist has a choice: they can either give up the idea that Jesus held and taught their view, or they can surrender biblical inerrancy.

It is important to understand the ramifications of each of these options. If a YEC were to surrender Jesus as an infallible authority who holds their particular doctrinal interpretation, that is not a big deal. Why? Because Jesus did not speak to every doctrinal issue while on earth, and just because He did not speak to it while on earth does not mean that it is not true (its truth may be able to be established another way- including with the rest of Scripture, which Jesus, being God, did inspire). However, if the YEC surrenders the inerrancy of Scripture, then they lose the reliability of the accounts of Jesus teaching anything while on earth or inspiring human authors to teach while He was not on earth…so none of Scripture can be used to argue for the truth of any doctrine. With the first option, what is lost has the possibility of being regained, but with the second option everything is lost and nothing is regained.

It Gets Progressively Worse – Threats to the Church

Insisting upon the YEC interpretation of Mark 10:6, undermines biblical inerrancy (without even appealing to raw scientific data recorded from God’s creation). Such a position is essentially the same as the position of Progressive Christianity. Insisting upon an interpretation of any passage of the Bible that logically implies the denial of biblical inerrancy opens the door wide to this heretical movement within the Church. If a Christian recognizes the problem described in this post with the YEC interpretation and use of Mark 10:6, this could play a vital role in their “deconstruction” (see the book “Another Gospel: A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth In Response to Progressive Christianity” by Alisa Childers about Progressive Christianity) should they not also be presented the viable alternative described above. And their rejection of the Bible as a whole as being “God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16) and their rejection of the historic Christian worldview will not be far behind.

Now, does this mean that Genesis is not history? No. Does it mean that the early chapters of Genesis are not to be interpreted literally? Not at all. Does this mean that we are taking man’s word over God’s word? Not a chance. These and several other common concerns are addressed in these posts:

Conclusion – The Implications for Evangelism

We’ve seen in this article that it is simply false that Jesus devastates the old-earth interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. Jesus did affirm the historicity of a literal Adam and Eve in Mark 10:6, but He did not say or imply anything about the time of their creation. The proper interpretation of Mark 10:6 has great apologetic significance. For when the correct interpretation of Mark 10:6 is recognized (Jesus did not teach that the universe is young, here), when unbelievers and Christians in the process of deconstruction test Jesus’ claims about creation against the revelations of creation, they cannot use Mark 10:6 as an excuse to say that Jesus’ claims about reality (including His claim to be God and the only way to the Father [John 14:6]) are false. Romans 1 remains true in its claim that the unbeliever is without excuse, even (or especially) when they look at the creation. Ultimately, if this passage is brought up as a defeater for Christianity, then we can simply demonstrate the misinterpretation, then get back to the evidence that answers the one question that the truth of the historic Christian worldview depends upon: Did The Historical Jesus Rise From The Dead?

What Does This Verse Mean to You? Some Thoughts on Understanding the Bible

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Richard Howe

In our recent live-stream about truth, we demonstrated how properly understanding the nature of truth and recognizing that truth about reality is objective and knowable are crucial in properly doing both apologetics and Bible study. We also discussed that language is capable of communicating objective truth about reality, including communication found in the Bible. Here we wish to give some preliminary thoughts on how to understand properly the objective truth we find in the pages of Scripture.

Does Everything in the Bible Apply to Us Today?

First, does everything in the Bible apply to us today? I (Richard) was in a discussion about Bible interpretation when this question came up. I told my friend that it would seem that answer must be ‘no’. In making my case, I appealed to what I thought would be a relatively uncontroversial example from Matthew 21. Verses 1-2 tell us “Now when they drew near Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, {2} saying to them, ‘Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied and a colt with her. Loose them and bring them to Me.’” [NKJV] It seemed obvious to me that none of us today are under the obligation to bring a donkey to Jesus. Clearly, Jesus’ command was to the disciples present with Him then and was not a prescription for all time for us to loosen a donkey and bring it to Jesus.

I must quickly add, however, that, based upon hearing some of the most ridiculous sermons and Bible studies, I would not be surprised that somewhere in a pulpit one Sunday, there will be a sermon preached, “Have You Loosened Your Donkey for Jesus?” In thinking about what a “donkey theology” might come to look like throughout the Christian world I had to conclude that the Reformed Calvinist Christians held firmly to the notion that you cannot loosen your own donkey. Instead, God has to sovereignly loosen your donkey for you. To be sure, God only does so for His elect. I’ll avoid the tricky task of trying to referee the debate between the Supralapsarians who hold that God’s decrees are so ordered that God decrees to tie the donkey first and then decrees to loosen the donkeys for the elect vs. the Infralapsarians who insist that God’s ultimate decree was that His elect would have their donkeys loosened and only then decrees to have them antecedently tied.

Baptists, of course, are noted for their battle cry, “Once loosened, always loosened!” The Arminians not only disagree with the Calvinists over whether someone has the free will to loosen his own donkey, but they warn of the danger of losing your donkey on your way to bringing it to Jesus.

Departing from the more conservative wings of the faith, one will note that the liberal Christians maintain that it doesn’t have to literally be a donkey that you bring to Jesus. It can be any farm animal as long as you’re sincere. Moving even further away from a core evangelicalism, the radical pluralists believe that it doesn’t even necessarily have to be Jesus to whom you bring your donkey. You can bring your donkey (or other farm animal) to Krishna or Buddha or more. Last, the New Ager urges everyone to just become one with his donkey. [I can’t take credit for that last one, as it was suggested to me once when I was telling this joke.]

Other passages could be given like the donkey passage that seem to collapse into absurdity when forced to apply to us today. Whenever I encounter a Christian who seems too full of himself in how obedient to the commands of the Bible he thinks he is living, I ask him if he has greeted Rufus yet. After all, we can see from Rom. 16:13 that we’re commanded to do so!

Setting aside, then, those instances where Matt. 21:1-2 or Rom. 16:13 could only be made to apply to us today by the most illegitimate interpretive move, a sober reading of such passages makes us aware that, with any given Bible reading, we have to come to terms with the issue of whether it does or does not apply to us today.

The Challenge of Descriptive vs. Normative (Prescriptive) Passages

In addition to the above challenge (actually a close cousin to it) is the problem of distinguishing descriptive from normative (or prescriptive) passages. A descriptive statement is one that merely states what a situation is, i.e., it describes the situation. A normative (or prescriptive) statement states what a situation ought to be, i.e., it prescribes a situation. I’m sure you’ve heard the old joke about the long-haired “hippy” teen-ager who wanted his dad to buy him a car. The dad, who had grown weary of his son’s long hair, told him that he would buy him a car only if the son cut his hair. The son responded “But dad, Jesus had long hair!” to which the dad countered, “Yes, and he walked everywhere too!” What the joke points out is the issue of whether, because Jesus did X, we, as His followers, should do X. I remember well as a young person and a new Christian my spiritual leaders urging that we should rise early in the morning to pray just as Jesus did in Mark 1:35. Little did they realize how much they were setting this night owl up for the bleakest discipleship experience because of my repeated failures to crawl out of bed early enough in the morning.

However, such considerations can quickly get one into issues that are less funny than they are controversial or divisive. Consider Malachi 3:10 which commands us to “bring all the tithes into the storehouse” after which God has promised that He would “open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you such blessing that there will not be room enough to receive it.” Forget wishing that you had a dollar every time this passage was preached in a contemporary church to defend a doctrine of tithing for the Christian. I’m sure such preaching has brought many dollars in already. But is tithing something obligatory (or even expected) for the Christian? Is the Christian church a “storehouse”? Is it obvious that the passage is prescriptive for today?

If such questions were not divisive enough, how about Acts 2:4? The early disciples were all gathered in the upper room. When the Holy Spirit filled them, they “began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” Is such an experience normative for the Christian today? Ought we to seek such an experience? Or is it the case that this experience was something only relative to what God was doing in the early stages of the Church?

The Problem of Moralizing or Allegorizing

More often than I care to count, I have heard sermons where a given passage is “moralized.” This means that the preacher takes the passage, attempts to glean some moral principle from the passage, and then applies the passage to our lives today. What could be wrong with this? After all (some might wonder) is not this the very calling of a preacher vis-à-vis the Bible? The problem arises when, in attempting to glean any such moral principles, the interpreter has to allegorize the passage. Various elements of the passage (most often, but not always, a historical narrative) are given an allegorical (or “spiritual”) rendering.

How many times have you heard 1 Sam. 17:38-39 preached to teach that we should not seek to adopt someone else’s “calling” or “ministry” for ourselves? Instead, we should seek to discover what God’s unique ministry is for us in our own “calling.” This, the preacher might insist, was what David discovered when he attempted to put on Saul’s armor, only to find that it didn’t fit. For David to try to do God’s will in this situation by wearing Saul’s armor (instead of going forth with what God’s had equipped David) was the wrong path. Once he discovered that Saul’s armor didn’t fit (i.e., once he discovered that God did not intend for David to work within what God had given to Saul) then David “took them off.” You know the rest of the story. So, the conclusion goes, if you want to succeed in God’s will for your own ministry, don’t try to “borrow” someone else’s “calling” or “equipping.”

If that lesson doesn’t sound familiar, surely you’ve been encouraged more than once on how to “slay the giants in your life.” The familiar story of David and Goliath has always (in my hearing) been preached as an allegory. It is (so the common interpretation goes) the classic story of the triumph of the underdog. Goliath represents (i.e., is an allegory of) the seemingly insurmountable obstacles we all encounter from time to time in our lives. But with God’s help, we can have the hope of being able to overcome those obstacles by slaying these “giants” that we encounter. What could be a more uplifting message with which to walk out of the church to face our week?

Sometimes the stretching used to make a passage “preach” itself begins to stretch credibility. While few people with whom I’ve discussed the issue would see anything wrong with the above take on the David and Goliath passage, I almost fell out of the pew when I heard a preacher encourage all of us to “lighten our loads” in our lives, based on the “principles” he saw in Acts 27:18 “And because we were exceedingly tempest-tossed, the next day they lightened the ship.” If your life is getting to be too much to bear, perhaps you need to consider lightening your load! What made it even worse; the preacher admitted at the beginning of his sermon that this probably wasn’t what this passage was teaching. Apparently, the allegory was too hard for him to resist wrenching out for his sermon.

I would be remiss, however, if I didn’t visit the most notorious example of allegorizing a passage in a public sermon. There are a number of versions of the stories. Most of the versions I’ve heard come from people claiming to have actually heard a preacher preach the passage this way. Then they quickly add the joke that they so cleverly thought while sitting in the pew listening to the sermon. As the preacher is preaching about Jesus riding on the donkey for His triumphal entry, observing how the donkey is “carrying Jesus to the world,” making the application of how we, too, ought to be a “donkey for Jesus” to “carry” Him to our world as (to extend the application) the Great Commission commands, the one telling the story remarks how fortunate it is that the preacher is not preaching from the King James Version of the Bible!

Some Comments on the Issue of “Out-of-Context” Verses

All of the above points fall under the heading of hermeneutics; the science of textual (in this case, biblical) interpretation. There are seemingly countless books that have been written on hermeneutics. Sadly, too many of those books have been compromised (to a greater or lesser extent) by bad philosophy; specifically, the philosophical issues surrounding the nature of language, the nature of meaning, the relationship of language to reality, and the nature of how meaning is conveyed from the meaner to the reader. I am not here so much concerned with these critical philosophical issues. For that, I would recommend to my reader Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation by my brother Dr. Tom Howe. For my purposes, I should like to focus on a few more general points and then visit different senses in which a verse or passage can relate to its context.

Sometimes one may use a verse out of context to defend a point that is true and that may actually be taught elsewhere in Scripture. Thus, for me to quarrel with a verse out of context, does not necessarily imply that I disagree with the ultimate conclusion that someone may put to the passage to serve. Even if a conclusion is true, when using a verse out of context, as the saying goes, “You can’t get there from here.”

Six Types of Context

As to the issue of context itself, there are a number of sources of misinterpretation of verses of Scripture. I want to briefly focus on six. First, there is the philosophical context. This involves issues mentioned earlier regarding the nature of truth, the ability of human beings to know truth, the usefulness of language to convey truth, and even metaphysical truths like the fact that all physical beings have natures by which they are known. Without having a sound philosophical underpinning for our hermeneutics, readers can come to all sorts of bad conclusions. For example, the Bible clearly says that Jesus is made of flour and water. After all, He is the bread of life! This is a silly example because we know the nature of human beings (Jesus’ human nature) and the nature of bread. And we know that humans are not bread. Hence, we know that Jesus being the bread of life is a figure of speech. Nevertheless, this simple example illustrates exactly how bad philosophical foundations lead to dangerous, and sometimes heretical, conclusions. For on this issue, see this archived blog post.

Second, there is the Immediate Context. This asks “How might the surrounding verses aid our understanding?” Unpacking this a bit, one should consider in which Testament (Old Testament or New Testament) the verse is found. This can be important because some things are true absolutely and transcend the context of the particular Testament such as God’s existence and nature. Some things are true specifically in reference to the subject matter of the particular Testament. Some verses/promises/warnings/commands pertain to the Nation Israel, some to Christians in general, and some to specific individuals. Also, one needs to consider who exactly is doing the speaking in the passage. Sometimes the passage represents the words of a speaker who is not necessarily conveying God’s words (e.g., Satan in the Garden of Eden) and may, in fact, be speaking a lie. Sometimes the passage represents the words of God Himself.

Third, there is the Original Language Context. This asks “How might the original language of the text aid our understanding?” The Bible was written in Hebrew and Aramaic (Old Testament) and Koine Greek (New Testament). It is possible that the original language might convey a sense (either meaning or significance) that is obscured by a translation.

Fourth, there is the Grammatical Context. This asks “How might a careful reading of the English grammar aid our understanding?” Many examples can be given to illustrate the need to pay careful attention to the adequately translated passage.

Fifth, there is the Historical/Cultural Context. This asks “How might historical or cultural considerations aid our understanding?” Since the culture of the Bible is several thousand years (and even more miles) removed from many of us, the interpreter has to be careful not to ignore this context (or, worse, not to impose his own) in considering a passage.

Last, there is the Theological Context. This asks “How might theological considerations aid our understanding?” Admittedly, this can be the trickiest, if not the most abused. It plays off the delicate interplay of, on the one end, exegesis (leading out of the text the meaning that is there) and, on the other end, systematic theology (the careful arrangement of one’s conclusions about the truths of God into a systematic, coherent whole). Exegesis without systematic theology is in danger of being inconsistent (and, thus, false at some point) while systematic theology without exegesis can lead to defending a theological system without careful regard to the testimony of Scripture. And all of this, again, hinges on a proper philosophical foundation that begins with the undeniable fact that truth about reality is objective and knowable.

What Are Students Learning At Yale? A Review of Dale Martin’s Introductory Lecture on the New Testament

Theology and Christian Apologetics

Dale Martin is a scholar of the New Testament, formerly a professor at Yale University until his retirement in 2018. Prior to his appointment at Yale, Martin was a faculty member at Rhodes College and Duke University. Yale University generously uploads many lecture series, covering various disciplines, to their “YaleCourses” YouTube channel. One of their series, uploaded in 2009, covers the discipline of New Testament studies and is instructed by Dale Martin (here is the link to the playlist). Watching Dale Martin teach his introductory lecture raised a number of concerns for me — not primarily because I disagree profoundly with many of Dr. Martin’s conclusions but because a significant number of the ‘facts’ he delivers in his presentation are quite simply false on a factual level, or otherwise misleading. This concerns me because of Dr. Martin’s position at the time as a faculty member and thus a position of trust in relation to his students. Undergraduate students are unlikely to fact-check the statements of one of their professors because it is assumed that the information being delivered at the college level, in particular at a prestigious institution such as Yale, will be factually correct. Imagine being a young Christian freshman student and, being interested in the New Testament, signing up for the course on “Introduction to New Testament History and Literature.” Is it any wonder that somewhere between sixty and eighty percent of young people in the church are losing their faith after going to college? Of course, intellectual concerns are not the only reason why a young student may walk away from the faith, but it is certainly a major factor that contributes to the youth exodus problem. In this article, I will discuss some of the assertions made by Dr. Martin in his introductory lecture, which one can presume is representative of what students in other institutions around the country are also being exposed to.

Dr. Martin begins his lecture by asserting that “the text of the Bible isn’t Scripture in itself. It’s only Scripture to a community of people who take it as Scripture.” This is nothing short of postmodern relativism (though Dale Martin himself elsewhere identifies as a postmodern Christian, so I doubt he would quibble with this). However, this position is not tenable — either the Bible is Scripture for everyone or it is not Scripture for anyone, irrespective of what any individual believes about it. It cannot be Scripture to a community of people who take it to be Scripture and not Scripture to everyone else.

Dr. Martin went on to give his class a quiz about whether certain ideas are found in the Bible or not. He claims that the doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Bible. However, this is very misleading. Certainly, the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, and neither are the philosophical categories that came to be associated with the doctrine of the Trinity in particular at the council of Nicaea in 325 A.D (i.e. the distinction between being and person). But the concept of there being one God who is manifest in three distinct persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is an idea that can indeed be found in the Bible. If the Scriptures uphold the doctrine of monotheism and also maintain that the attributes and titles of deity are associated with three distinct persons, I would argue that the Nicene formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity is the best way of understanding the Biblical text. Readers who are interested in a more thorough discussion of this topic are invited to peruse my articles on the subject of the Trinity, available here. Readers may also find useful the recording of my recent debate with an Islamic scholar, Dr. Shabir Ally, on the Trinity vs. Tawhid. Dr. Martin says that “Some people will say that at least the doctrine of the Trinity is hinted at in the Bible and that the later church was correct to read the New Testament to support it. And that might be right theologically. But read historically it’s not in the Bible.” It is not clear to me how Dr. Martin makes a distinction here between reading the Bible theologically and reading it historically. Good hermeneutics attempt to elucidate the meaning of the text as intended by the original author, historically. It is a mistake to draw any sort of distinction between what the text meant historically and what it means theologically.

Dr. Martin also brought up a popularly claimed contradiction between the resurrection accounts in Matthew and Luke. According to Dr. Martin, the gospel of Matthew “has Jesus appear to the disciples only in Galilee (not in Judea), and the gospel of Luke and Acts have Jesus appear to his disciples only in Judea but not in Galilee.” At the end of Luke, however, there is clear haste and a lack of specificity about time. The very end of Luke does not make it look like all of the appearances take place in one day. He’s either running out of scroll or in a hurry at that point, and he doesn’t appear to have full knowledge yet of exactly how long Jesus was on earth, so he just leaves it non-specific and clarifies in Acts 1. I would argue that it is entirely plausible that Jesus’ instruction to remain in Jerusalem (Acts 1:4) was said to the disciples after they had returned to the Jerusalem area from Galilee during the 40 days on which Jesus remained on the earth, perhaps shortly or even immediately prior to the ascension. By all accounts, the ascension occurred from the region of the Mount of Olives near Bethany, so evidently, they went to Galilee and then came back. I do not see a problem here.

Dr. Martin also claims that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is not found in the Bible and that the New Testament does not teach that souls go to be with Jesus after death. This, however, is nonsense. Paul says in Philippians 1:23-24 “My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account.” Jesus says to the thief on the cross, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). The alternative reading of that text, which puts the comma after “today” (i.e. “I say to you today…”) is possible but unlikely since that construction is not found anywhere else in the New Testament. The parable of the rich man in Lazarus in Luke 16 also seems to indicate a conscious experience post-death. Even though the story is a parable, parables reflect actual real-life scenarios. There are no other parables in the gospels where Jesus literally invents a fantasy world which does not reflect actual realities.

Dr. Martin then went on to claim that the book of Acts reads like a Greek romance novel. This is material straight out of the late Westar Institute fellow Richard Pervo, who was, to be candid, a fringe scholar. Craig Keener, who is arguably the world’s leading authority on the book of Acts, comments[1],

“In the end, most scholars reject the characterization of Acts as a novel. Ancient readers knew the genre of the novel but, in the overwhelming majority of cases, could distinguish between the narrative genres of history (where facts are important to the genre) and novel (where they are not). Even when historical works have incorrect facts, they do not become fiction, and a novel that depends on historical information does not become history; what distinguishes the two genres is the nature of their truth claims. Yet Acts is certainly entertaining history, recounting ‘a dramatic and absorbing story.’ The literary public was not large enough for political and other historians to gain an audience by simply recounting bare events. ‘The historian therefore had to recount in lively fashion events beyond his reach, and qualify ethically the personalities involved.’”

The fact of the matter is that the book of Acts is spectacularly well supported by extrabiblical corroborating evidence (one could give more than a hundred examples lifted from works by Craig Keener, Colin Hemer, James Smith, and others).[2] It is also supported by dozens of undesigned coincidences with the letters of Paul (indeed, one could adduce more than forty examples if one were limited to using only Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and Galatians, never mind the numerous examples found in the other epistles).[3] There are also unexplained allusions (such as Acts 18:18), which further support historicity. For further discussion of this subject, I refer readers to Tim McGrew’s excellent lecture on the reliability of Acts, as well as the discussion I had on the same subject with Craig Keener (see also the interview I did with Wesley Huff on the evidence for the historical trustworthiness of Acts). I have also discussed this subject in detail elsewhere on this website (e.g. see here, here, and here), so I need not repeat myself in this article. Furthermore, the best way of interpreting the “we” passages in Acts 16:10ff as indicating that the author was a travelling companion of Paul. Besides the clear inside-knowledge that is demonstrated by the author of Acts throughout his volume, the “we” passages trail off in Acts 16 when Paul is in Philippi and then begin again in Acts 20 when Paul returns back through Philippi (strongly suggesting that the author had remained in Philippi and rejoined Paul when Paul returned through Philippi).[4]

Dr. Martin then claims that Paul was not considered to be an apostle by the guy who wrote the book of Acts. However, the author of Acts does indeed identify Paul as an apostle, since he refers to “the apostles Barnabas and Paul,” (Acts 14:14). Even without that reference, however, it would not demonstrate that Luke did not view Paul as an apostle, since Luke does not say anything to the contrary. And Paul implies in his letters that the Jerusalem leaders recognized Paul as an apostle (e.g. Galatians 2:7). Luke was present with Paul when he met with the Jerusalem leaders, including James, in Acts 21.

Dr. Martin also claims that the epistle to the Hebrews (which he correctly recognizes is more like a homily) is not addressed to Jews but is addressed to gentiles. This too is indefensible. The whole point in Hebrews is that the author is explaining the superiority of the new covenant over the old because the audience to whom the homily is addressed are in danger of going back to their former ways of Judaism. Even the opening verse of the book of Hebrews suggests that the intended audience is fellow Jews: “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets.” The book also presupposes certain things that the author can take for granted would be familiar to a Jewish audience, but which he cannot take for granted to have been familiar to a gentile audience.

Dr. Martin further asserts that the New Testament books were written between the year 50 and the year 150 A.D. One has to wonder what book(s) Dr. Martin thinks were written as late as 150? It seems unlikely to me that any of the books were written later than the close of the first century, and I am not aware of any contemporary scholars who would date any of the New Testament books that late. At the very least, Martin’s view here is extremely out-dated. Though it was once thought by the Tubingen school that the gospel of John was composed towards the latter end of the second century, this view has now been universally abandoned, in part due to the discovery in 1934 of the John Rylands fragment, p52, a small fragment of the gospel of John that may be dated to, give or take, 125–175 A.D.

It is quite disappointing to see a scholar of Dale Martin’s caliber mislead his students in regards to the text of the New Testament. If this lecture is representative of what freshman students are being told at institutions of higher learning such as Yale, Duke, or Harvard, then it is no wonder that so many young people are falling away from the faith. Now, to be fair, I am also aware of misleading and factually inaccurate statements being made at evangelical seminaries as well, so this problem is not unique to secular institutions. However, this does teach us how imperative it is that students, no matter what institution of higher learning they attend, when it comes to worldview-sensitive subjects such as New Testament studies or philosophy of religion, should always do their own fact-checking and not take the word of their professor at face-value. It also reveals how important it is for parents to equip their children with a robust, though balanced, education of their own in regards to the Bible in order to adequately equip them for the intellectual challenges they will face in college.

Footnotes

[1] Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 1 (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012), 431, 80–81.

[2] Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Vols 1-4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012–2014). Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990). James Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul: With Dissertations on the Life and Writings of St. Luke, and the Ships and Navigation of the Ancients, ed. Walter E. Smith, Fourth Edition, Revised and Corrected. (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1880).

[3] William Paley and Edmund Paley, The Works of William Paley, vol. 2 (London; Oxford; Cambridge; Liverpool: Longman and Co.; T. Cadell; J. Richardson; Baldwin and Cradock; Hatchard and Son; J. G. & F. Rivington; Whittaker and Co.; Hamilton, Adams & Co.; Simpkin, Marshall, and Co.; Smith, Elder, and Co.; E. Hodgson; B. Fellowes; R. Mackie; J. Templeman; H. Washbourne; Booker and Dolman; J. Parker; J. and J. J. Deighton; G. and J. Robinson, 1838). Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, Ltd, 2017)

[4] Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 1 (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012), 431.

Are Christians the New Extremists? Yes, and That’s Okay

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Natasha Crain

My blog and podcast have been quiet since April because I was finishing writing my new book, Faithfully Different: Regaining Biblical Clarity in a Secular Culture.

Faithfully Different is about the fact that Christians with a biblical worldview are now a minority in America and how the secular worldview that surrounds us is putting significant pressure on what we believe, how we think, and how we live. I wrote it to help Christians more clearly understand the fundamental differences between the secular and biblical worldviews, both for the strength of our own faith and for our ability to be salt and light to others. I’m really excited to share it with you! Faithfully Different comes out in February and I’ll be posting pre-order details here in the next few weeks.

In reading that, you might wonder if Christians really are a “minority” in America. I discuss this at length in my first chapter, but here’s the bottom line. About 65 percent of Americans self-identify as Christians—certainly not a minority. But when researchers ask questions about specific beliefs and behaviors, only about 10 percent of Americans have what would be considered a “biblical worldview” (holding basic beliefs consistent with the historic Christian faith and exhibiting corresponding behaviors). Furthermore, researchers have found that not only are those with a biblical worldview now a small minority in America, they’re a small minority within the church.

Now, there are plenty of minority groups that people don’t care much about. I’m sure there are only a handful of people, for example, who eat pickles every morning for breakfast. No one cares. But it’s becoming clear to Christians with a biblical worldview that secular culture does care about our existence…because it hates all we represent.

In a very real sense, we’re increasingly being seen as a small and extreme faction of society.

Understanding Christian “Extremism”

Read or watch anything in mainstream media that mentions “conservative Christians” and you’ll immediately know from the tone that the term isn’t being used as a neutral descriptor. It’s now a pejorative that comes with a knowing nod and eye roll among the supposedly more enlightened culture. (Note that I’m not necessarily talking about conservative in a political sense; in secular usage, “conservative” is a blanket label to reference Christians who disagree with mainstream secular views. There’s often a correlation with politics, but it’s not exclusive to that.)

The implication is that we’re those people—the hold-outs who won’t get on board with where the rest of society wants to go. We’re seen as an impediment to culturally-defined progress because of how different our views are relative to today’s mainstream secularism.

The result is that secularists now see us with various degrees of indignation. As strange as it sounds to many Christians, we’re the new extremists—a minority group whose views are seen as 1) fundamentally different from the “average” view of secular culture and 2) concerning to the rest of society.

When you sense that this is how culture sees us, it can seem pretty bizarre. After all, Christianity has been the dominant religious influence in America for the last 400 years, but now it’s extreme (and concerning) to believe that the Bible is God’s Word?

While there’s no reason to agree with secularists that our views are concerning, there are many reasons to agree that our worldview is extremely different relative to the dominant secular worldview culture now holds. We’re certainly “extremists” in that sense—and should gladly embrace the fact if we fully understand the nature of a biblical worldview.

More specifically, we’re extreme in three major ways.

First, we’re extreme in our source of authority

The most foundational difference between those with a biblical worldview and those with a secular one is our source of authority. Every person, as part of their worldview, has an ultimate authority for what they believe to be true about the world and how they should function within it. For Christians with a biblical worldview, that source of authority is God, and we believe that He’s revealed those truths in the Bible.

In secularism, a person’s source of authority is the self. Secularism isn’t what you get when you simply subtract so-called religious beliefs from a person’s worldview. When you take away the authority of God, you aren’t left with no authority—you’re left with the authority of you.

This difference in authority is at the root of almost every difference between a biblical and secular worldview.

When the vast majority of people’s authority for truth is themselves, it shouldn’t be surprising that Christians are going to come to some very different conclusions about the nature of reality than culture. Even uttering the words “The Bible says…” with the assumption that what follows is objective truth that supersedes personal opinion is extreme relative to today’s average view that the individual reigns supreme.

And for those who assume the Bible is merely a written record of man’s thoughts about God (and nothing more), such extremity is concerning. How can Christians be compelled to follow new societal directions if they don’t view truth as something subject to change? With fellow secularists whose feelings determine truth, society can “progress” through the push and pull of changing popular consensus. But Christians who believe they have un unchanging authority for all time? That’s an infuriating barrier that secularists resent.

Second, we’re extreme in our understanding of morality.

It follows from the first point that Christians with a biblical worldview are going to be at great odds with secularists in matters of morality.

For those whose authority is God and who believe He’s revealed Himself and His will in the Bible, what the Bible says is right or wrong is going to be the final word…regardless of what we think, regardless of what any other individual thinks, and regardless of what society thinks. From a secular perspective, what a stubborn view!

When your authority is yourself, there’s no objective basis for defining morality for all people. In essence, each person is their own God. What’s right or wrong isn’t a matter of what someone else has said—God or not—it’s a matter of what you’ve said.

But wait! Wouldn’t that mean that secularists should accept the Christian view of morality as just one more valid view?

Absolutely.

But they don’t. And this is where secularists fail to live consistently within their own worldview rooted in the authority of the self.

If they were consistent, they’d say this: “Hey, we understand that your Christian view is just as valid as anyone else’s since every individual is their own authority and there’s no objective basis for claiming that anything is right or wrong for all people. But a bunch of us have (fill in the blank) view on (fill in the blank) issue, and we want to try to convince you to change your opinion! Yet even if you don’t change your mind, that’s OK, since everyone’s view is equally valid anyway. Have a great day.”

Instead, they’re saying this: “The (fill in the blank) view on (fill in the blank) issue is the objectively right view for all people, and if you disagree, you’re wrong…and evil.”

Without an objective basis for morality from a higher-than-human moral lawgiver, the closest thing secularists can have as a moral standard that applies to all people is popular consensus. That’s why it’s so important for secular culture to continually push their views of morality through every conceivable channel—education, media, entertainment, business, and more. The more people get on board with any given view of morality, the more the popular consensus is achieved, and the more secularists have a new supposed standard for what’s right.

But once again, Christians with a biblical worldview aren’t subject to that shift. No matter how prevalent any new idea of morality is, if it conflicts with what Christians believe God Himself has said, the popular consensus won’t become our new standard. And that “extreme” viewpoint relative to average culture is mind-numbingly frustrating to nonbelievers.

Third, we’re extreme in believing that judgment can be objectively valid.

This point follows from both of the prior points. Because Christians look to God and His word as the source of authority for our lives, and because views of morality are an outworking of those beliefs, Christians believe that judgment on matters of truth can be objectively valid—not just a matter of opinion.

In Faithfully Different, I describe the tenets of a secular worldview this way: Feelings are the ultimate guide, happiness is the ultimate goal, judging is the ultimate sin, and God is the ultimate guess. Judging is the greatest sin in secularism because when feelings are your guide and happiness is your goal, no one has the ability or right to tell you what only you can know (how you feel and what makes you happiest). From the worldview perspective that the authority is the self, it’s absurd and insulting for someone else to come along, look at a person’s life journey, and claim to know better than they do how they should or shouldn’t be living.

But that assumes there’s no God who has provided a reliable and authoritative source for that information.

From a biblical worldview perspective, God has provided that in the Bible. And if the God of the universe has told us what’s true about reality, it’s not absurd or insulting to share what He’s said—it’s literally the only reasonable thing to do given that the God who created everything would assuredly know more than any human.

Jesus never said that the world would understand us. To a large degree, secular culture’s views here are to be expected. What concerns me far more is when Christians don’t understand how extremely different a biblical worldview should be from a secular one. In many ways, secularists who think those with a biblical worldview are extreme relative to average society understand this more than self-professed Christians who see only marginal differences.

When we truly have a biblical worldview, we should understand that we really are “extremists” in today’s culture…and embrace it. Not only is it okay to be extreme in this way, it’s beautiful—because it’s what God Himself calls us to.

Why People Hate Being Judged

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

“Don’t judge me” seems to be an increasingly uttered, and accepted, refrain in our society, reflecting what appears to be a universal and deep-seated human tendency. Even Christians, who should know better, seem to be jumping on board, believing somehow that Christian compassion requires us to be more understanding and more accepting of bad behavior.

But when you think about it, the phrase is not quite apt. Most people don’t really mean that they don’t want to be judged. In fact, they do. What they mean is that they want others to approve of their conduct or behavior. What they don’t want is to be judged and found wanting. Whether its sports or academics or work, again and again we see that people want to compete, want to be praised for their performance, and want to come out on top. It is losing – being told that they didn’t measure up or that they did something wrong, or bad – that they seek to avoid.

This inclination to seek praise and to avoid condemnation is apparent from a child’s earliest days: praise him and he smiles, admonish or scold him and he cries. He doesn’t need to be taught how to react; he simply knows it. And when he learns to express himself, one of the first things he will intuitively grasp is that there is this thing called “fairness” by which all behavior is judged. He will make use of this early and often, as he condemns actions that do not meet his expectations. “That’s not fair!” he will exclaim, without fully understanding the power of that phrase to influence others. And when he himself is accused of being unfair, he will not respond by saying that it’s okay to be unfair; instead, he will say that he is being fair, as he attempts to justify his conduct. It’s only as he gets older that he will learn the clever parry that is so popular today of claiming that judging itself is wrong.

What explanation does atheism have for this obvious human condition? Since the vast majority of people seem inclined to want to shake off judgment and be free to do what they wish, wouldn’t natural selection have eliminated this condition of feeling constrained to act a certain way long ago? In other words, when we seek to avoid judgment, what we are really saying is that we do not want to feel guilt. We don’t want that nagging sense that, as CS Lewis put it, we are aware of a law that is pressing down upon us, a law that we did not create and that we cannot evade, for it resides within our minds. But if there is no God, what evolutionary benefit would possibly derive from feeling guilty about not acting as we should? Would this not inhibit us from future acts that might benefit us in a direct and personal way at the expense of others? If natural selection operates as Darwinists suggest, then those early humans who lacked a sense of guilt would have been free to vigorously pursue their self-interest – to enhance their ability to survive and to procreate – as contrasted with their fellows who were inhibited because they did not want to feel the guilt that comes from hurting other people. With survival of the fittest as the rule, behaviors that limit our choices and prevent us from putting ourselves first make us weaker, not stronger. In a universe in which we are simply an accident of evolution, pursuit of self-interest would be the default setting.

The Christian worldview, by contrast, can and does make sense of guilt. We intuitively know that there is a right and wrong, that there is good and evil and fairness and unfairness, because the absolute standard for goodness made us in His image. He left within us – written upon our heart as it were – intuitive access to this standard and a desire – a need – to conform to it. Our fallen nature prevents us from ever fully achieving this, but the knowledge of this law, and of our need to yield to it, is part of the very fabric of our minds.

God left within us the desire to find our way back to Him, and an innate fear of condemnation for failing to meet His standard. Though we may not realize it, we long to hear Him welcome us home with words of praise, a hearty “well done my good and faithful servant.”

What we seem to have forgotten, however, is that we need not fear ultimate condemnation, for He also sent His Son to provide us the way home, the path to redemption. But we cannot make it there on our own and pretending otherwise by trying to avoid feelings of guilt does no one any good.