Christians Archives - Page 8 of 12

Tag Archive for: Christians

The COVID-19 War

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

The United States incurred an unprovoked attack, and the enemy (COVID-19) has inflicted casualties. The President declared war and already invoked the Defense Production Act, essentially forcing private companies into the production of what the government demands. Since the war has been declared, the expectation is there will be casualties, both of those on the front lines and the innocent. No realistic individual can believe wars come without lives lost. Yet the war strategy is marred with ill-defined goals and no clearly defined end-game. The strategists of this war appear to be politicians, epidemiologists, scientists, and actuaries. The President declared war; however, he is not relying on the general principles of warfare necessary to win. Wars are never won by near-complete withdraw and a shutdown of a country’s economy, limiting the financial strength to continue the fight. History confirms that withdraw comes with consequences usually in favor of the victor.

The way to defeat this enemy is through immunity. The two methods for immunity are active immunity and passive immunity, both helpful in promoting herd immunity. Passive immunity through immunizations is likely months away, and this war cannot wait for its development. Active immunization must occur and will only happen through the exposure of the disease and supporting the individual until resolution. The quicker herd immunity occurs, the fewer hosts/victims will be available for infectivity. This war, as all wars in the past, can and will be won on the backs of the fighters. There will be losses, and there will be sacrifices. However, the longer we wait to truly enter the battlefield, the more untoward consequences our passivity will create. We are held hostage by bureaucrats and activists who intend to utilize this crisis for their underlying agendas. We are already losing liberties with our first and second amendments in many states by government fiat. We are social shaming and virtue-signaling across all social media platforms as well as mainstream media. We are federalizing more financial agencies to redistribute wealth and socialize more of our free-market.

The economic devastation of shutting down a vast amount of the country increases financial devastation for the most vulnerable in our country. The realities of this include increase in bankruptcies, businesses shutdowns, unemployment numbers skyrocketing, increases in domestic violence, increases in suicides, considerable increases in homelessness, leading to less access to adequate nutrition and healthcare. When forced to choose between paying rent, buying food for a family, or paying for medicine or healthcare, most individuals choose to rent and food and forego the healthcare needs. This leads to increased morbidity and mortality down the road. The 2008 recession provided ample support of these conclusions, including the British Medical Journal (BMJ 2013;347:f5239, https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5239 ) attributing 10,000 suicide deaths to the economic recession.

The media portrays this war in a biased fashion utilizing data and statistics which support their narrative and promote their underlying agenda. They routinely use numbers and metrics in absolute terms without providing a reference to a standard population base or another comparable metric. They regularly state the worst-case scenarios rather than the more conservative numbers and rarely, if ever, report the underlying bias, assumptions, or deficiencies of the modeling. A perfect example of this is hospital beds and ventilators. The only scenario in which the United States wouldn’t have enough ventilators or beds is if COVID-19 infected everyone at virtually the same time across the country, which is unrealistic and virtually impossible.

This war is mostly a logistics problem. We will continue to see hotspots (battles) around the country, and the biggest challenge is getting the right people, the right equipment, in the right amounts to the right place at the right time. The majority of patients, other than the critically ill, are no more challenging to treat than other patients. The limiting factor in treating these patients is the time, energy, and additional supplies required every time you walk in the room. This is the limiting factor and is a logistic problem more than anything else. Many hospitals are furloughing employees because their censuses are so low. We are still learning about the disease in the critically ill and making some inroads; however, many of these critically ill patients will die no matter what medical advances are made. This is not only the nature of war; it is the natural consequence of life.

This war needs to be managed differently; otherwise, the long-term effects will be worse than the current disease. The economy needs to be selectively reopened immediately based on a risk analysis for each company. The legislatures need to restrict and/or limit any litigation related to a private company wishing to reopen. Individuals need to take personal responsibility related to their individual actions. Society needs to assist in protecting the most vulnerable, which includes the elderly and infirmed. We need to recognize and acknowledge there will continue to be hotspots around the country, and we will continue to see deaths. Every community needs to have strategies and plans in place to logistically and effectively manage each new battle.

Herd immunity is the solution to win the war. The sooner war strategies are implemented to reach this goal, the sooner we win.

What COVID-19 Reveals About Us: Four Categories of People Surfaced from the Pandemic

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

COVID-19 has brought great panic across the globe due to the rapidity of its transmission and the danger it poses to seniors and those with compromised immune systems. However, COVID-19 has done more than just bring panic. It has also catalyzed several truths about American people, revealing a more troubling underbelly of the American way of life. COVID-19 may prove to be a sociologist’s dream as it has shown what we as American people are like, what we are truly like when a crisis transpires. Because of the virus, comments on social media reveal four types of responses to the COVID-19 crisis. The comments begin to repeat over time. From the overlapping discussions, we can discover four categories of people. As a caveat, this information merely comes from this writer’s observations and is by no means intended to be a scientific study.

The Political Propagandist. For this person, everything becomes political. If the government says anything, the political propagandist will look for some twist and automatically assume that the authorities in question are only trying to pander for votes. Oddly, some of my Republican friends have taken this perspective even when a Republican President has issued some of the guidelines against which they are contending. Thus, every decision is thereby for or against the person’s party. I mentioned a Republican friend earlier. Ironically, I have some Democratic friends who have used the same logic with what a Democratic governor has issued. Some in this category deny that there is a real problem. They hold that the virus is nothing more than a political stunt. But who’s to blame? That depends on which political affiliation to which the political propagandist belongs.

The Paranoid Peddler. This person is one who is mostly given over to hysteria if left unchecked. For the paranoid peddler, everything is a conspiracy. Even if the government were to say that creamed cheese is good for your health, the paranoid panderer would attempt to find some agenda behind the government’s endorsement. He or she might say, “Maybe the government is trying to get rid of those of us who are lactose intolerant? What if that’s all the food they offer?” This is especially true when governing authorities have advised that people abstain from gatherings of over 100 people, including religious services. Katie, bar the door! From that point onward, the paranoid peddlers prognosticate that the government’s war against religion is well underway, all within the guise of protective parameters. Paranoid peddlers hold to the adage, “I don’t care what the government says, I’ll do it my way!”

My friend, Thomas McCuddy, pointed out that this logic is faulty on several fronts. The paranoid panderer commits the categorical mistake, mistaking the categories between shutting down something temporarily and permanently; the false dilemma, thinking that one has given up their faith by listening to the governing authority’s advice; and a non-sequitur, thinking that God will promise that if one goes to a church that he or she will not contract the virus.

The Hysterical Hoarder. Perhaps the third person is linked with the second? Nonetheless, some have made a point to hoard as many items as they can. It is one thing to be prepared. It is another thing to buy as much as you can so that others cannot get what you have. COVID-19 will be known as the toilet paper disease even though it is a respiratory virus. Why? People have selfishly purchased and stored enough toilet paper to last an entire year out of fear of running out. My parents grew up in a time where indoor bathrooms did not exist. Ask them. There are other sanitary ways to live, even if toilet paper is not around. Just make sure you don’t use poison oak to take care of your sanitary needs. My mother, who is five-feet-tall, was reaching up to grab a couple of rolls of toilet paper when this tall young guy ran up and stole them from her before she could reach them. Such examples exemplify the level of selfishness that has captured our society. Should such a real crisis exist, we would not come together as a nation. Rather, we would selfishly tear one another apart over something so trivial as toilet paper. The apologist in me thinks that this is one such consequence of living in a nation that is turning from its Judeo-Christian roots.

The Rational Responder. Lastly, while the first three responses have been mostly negative, there is hope with the rational responder. I have noticed that many of my Christian friends have responded to this crisis responsibly and with great compassion. By using reason instead of hysteria, many believers have seen the inherent risks associated with the virus and have chosen to respond accordingly. Many of the rational responders are even looking for ways in which they can minister to people during the chaos. I find it fascinating that most of these individuals also have a healthy ecclesiology (theology of the Church) by realizing that the Church is not an organization that requires walls and a structure, but rather one that is an organism, consisting of the people of God.

This article is not intended to poke fun at anyone. Furthermore, it also is not to say that some of what the first three responders have claimed doesn’t have some truth in it. Rather, the article comes as an observation of the reactions arising from COVID-19. By no means am I saying that I trust every governmental action. Nor am I saying that anyone should. However, when hysteria and emotionalism replace logic and reason, bad things soon follow. I am reminded of the words of the late Dr. Norman Geisler who said, “A clear mind and a pure heart are dangerous to the devil.” No matter what may come, let us always seek to think clearly while having faith that Christ can and will deliver us through any storm encountered. For our Great Shepherd will lead us through the valley of the shadow of death (Ps. 23:4) so that he may bring us to even greater pastures.

By the grace of God, we shall persevere!

Can A Person Be A Committed Christian While Ignoring Apologetics?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

I would like to describe a situation that arises frequently that concerns me. The situation I describe below brings out a flaw I see in the way that rank-and-file Christians respond to criticisms of Christianity in the public square.

Here is the situation

Eve is busy programming away at her desk, rushing to check in her unit tests so she can spend her lunch hour reading the latest Stephenie Meyer novel, or check on the schedule for her local sports team, “the Vicariouses” (she has tickets for Thursday). Suddenly Eve hears Alice talking to Bob on the other side of her cubicle. She stops typing to listen to the following unencrypted conversation.

Alice: I was watching a documentary on the Discovery Channel last night that said that the universe has always existed, so there is no God!

Bob: I was watching a documentary on PBS last night showing simulations of how the first life started on Earth! God didn’t do it!

Alice: I saw “Inherit the Spin” on the weekend! The only reason people oppose evolution is because of the Bible! Not because of science!

Bob: I’m going to see “The Va Dinci Code” this weekend! It says that the Gospels are unreliable and that Jesus didn’t even die on the cross!

Alice: I just bought the latest Dichard Rawkins book “Christians Should Be Fed to Lions and the Bible Should Be Burned”!

Bob: I will read that as soon as I finish Histopher Chritchens’ book “Why God is the Evilest, Stupidest Person in the World”!

Eve double-majored in business and computer science at the Indian Institute of Technology and has an MBA from the London School of Economics. She has spent a ton of time, effort and money studying very difficult subjects for her job, and she even publishes research papers. She works full-time and runs her own business part-time, and teaches night classes for a well-known university. She earns about 200K per year. She lives in a huge house, drives an expensive car, and goes on vacation abroad to all the best vacation spots.

Eve thinks she is a Christian. She has attended church since childhood, her husband is a church elder and she sings in the church choir. She reads the Bible and prays every night because it helps her to get sleepy before bed. She gives lots of money to the poor. She teaches Sunday school to very small children. She has even read all of the Narnia novels five times! She even has a calendar filled with nature scenes and itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny Bible verses posted on her office wall at work! Judging from all of these facts, you might expect Eve to get in on that conversation with Alice and Bob, and set them straight.

But she won’t. Why not?

Why won’t Eve stand?

I am wondering if anyone can explain to me why it is that most church Christians are not able or not willing to make a public defense when God’s reputation is called into question. It seems to me that there are two bad effects that follow from Eve’s unwillingness to stand up and invite Alice and Bob to lunch so that she can address their questions and concerns.

God’s reputation is being trashed by Alice and Bob on the basis of lies they’ve swallowed from pop culture. These lies about God’s existence and character could be easily corrected with a minimal amount of study, which Eve is capable of – she is a genius and has amazing entrepreneurial skills. If someone said similar lies about her husband or children, she would speak up, but she won’t speak up for God.
Alice and Bob are bound for Hell unless someone cares enough to correct their mistaken beliefs, which, along with their sinfulness, is what is keeping them from a relationship with God that would go on in Heaven. If Eve’s husband or children were mistakenly about to drink poison thinking it was Aspirin, then Eve would speak up. But to save her co-workers from Hell, she won’t speak up.

Eve is capable of studying to defend the faith, because of her great success in other areas where so much time and effort were required to master difficult material. So why has she not applied herself to answering public challenges to her Christian faith from her professors, teachers, actors, the media, politicians, scientists, historians, etc.? She’s heard these questions about God’s existence and character all through high school and into university and then now in her career. Doesn’t she believe the Bible when it says to prepare a defense? Doesn’t she believe the Bible when it says to acknowledge God before men? Doesn’t she believe the Bible when it says that all authentic believers in Jesus will suffer a little for their faith?

It seems to me that if she did spend some time studying, and then made her defense to her co-workers, then two good things would follow:

Eve would be demonstrating her love for God and her friendship with God by protecting his reputation when it is called into question by unbelievers in public settings. That’s what friends do – if Eve wanted to be God’s friend, she would care that no one believed lies about him and told lies about him in public settings.
Eve would be demonstrating her love for her neighbor if she was able to correct some of these false beliefs, such as that the universe is eternal, or that a historical case cannot be made for the resurrection, or that evil is not compatible with theism. It’s important for Alice and Bob to know that Christianity is not stupid.

So why is it that Eve is able to go to church for 20 years, sing in the choir, read the Bible, read the Narnia stories, pray on her knees, and yet still be unwilling to do the best thing for God and the best thing for her neighbor? If a Christian is smart enough to know how to get a degree and how to hold down a job, then that intelligence should also be used to defend God’s reputation when it is called into question. I don’t see how it is possible to claim that you love God, but then not apply your mind to defending him when you apply your mind to other things like education and work.

20 Myths About Old Earth Creationism

Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

Podcast: Play in new window

By Luke Nix

Introduction

Last month I was alerted to a debate on Justin Brierley’s podcast “Unbelievable.” This debate was a discussion between a young-earth creationist (Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis) and an old-earth creationist (Jeff Zweerink of Reasons to Believe). This, of course, caught my attention because of my focus on science/faith issues. I decided to take a listen but found myself quite frustrated within just minutes of Justin giving his introductions. Here is a link to the episode for those who would like to hear it for themselves: Do we live on a young or old earth? Ken Ham vs. Jeff Zweerink

Throughout the discussion, Ken Ham presented many strawmen and misrepresentations of Zweerink’s old-earth creationist view in order to argue against the view. I recognized many of these myths as ones I’ve heard over the years that remain popular today despite their falsehood and countless attempts at correction.

In today’s post, I have compiled twenty of the myths that Ken Ham presented in the “Unbelievable” discussion, and I have provided a short, one-to-three paragraph explanation of how they are false and what the correctly understood old-earth creationist (OEC) position is. Since I have written on many of these topics in the past, I have included links to previous posts where they can offer a more detailed response. My intention for this post is three-fold for both believer and unbeliever.

First, for the unbeliever, I want them to understand that the young-earth view is not the only view held by Christians. They do not have to affirm young-earth creationism (YEC) in order to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and remain logically consistent.

Second, for the believer, I want them to understand that claiming that a logically consistent Christian must hold to the YEC view is simultaneously a detriment to our evangelism and to worshiping the Father in spirit and in truth (John 4:23).

Finally, for those who are honestly investigating the biblical, philosophical, and natural data to resolve this issue (both believer and unbeliever), I pray that this post also serves as a quick stop for addressing many of the myths, strawmen, and other mischaracterizations of the OEC view in a single location.

But, before I get to the perpetuated myths of old earth creationism, it is important to recognize where Ken Ham (YEC) and Jeff Zweerink (OEC) hold much common ground in their two views. Even though there are significant differences, there are even more significant commonalities that they can shake hands with each other and give them a hardy “Amen, brother!” I compiled a list a while back that is certainly not comprehensive, but is a large list to see where the differences between YEC and OEC may be fewer than is commonly understood:

What Do Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists Agree Upon Regarding Origins?

Now, on to the myths of Old Earth Creationism!

Myth #1: The debate is not about whether the universe is young or old, it is about whether you believe God’s Word or not.

Fact:
Ken Ham began with this myth. It implies that anyone who disagrees with him on the interpretation of Genesis 1-11 does not believe God’s Word. This could not be further from the truth. It is the very belief that God’s Word is true and authoritative in the Christian’s life that Christians try to understand what it means. In order for a proposition (or collection of propositions, such as the Bible) to be believed and applied to our lives, we need to correctly understand the meaning of the proposition(s). If we did not believe that the collection of propositions that constitute God’s Word is true and authoritative over our lives, then we wouldn’t bother with trying to understand what the author (and Author) meant to communicate in it. Saying that a Christian, who interprets differently, does not believe God’s Word is simply false. The debate is not about belief but rather about correct meaning.
For more, see “Man’s Fallible Ideas vs. God’s Infallible Word.”

Myth #2: Big bang cosmology is based on naturalism.

Fact:
Naturalism holds that there is nothing that exists outside this physical universe. Big bang cosmology has two requirements that necessarily exist outside this physical universe. Firstly, because big bang cosmology posits an absolute beginning to the universe and nothing that begins to exist can cause its own beginning to exist, the big bang necessarily requires a cause that is outside itself (this physical universe). Secondly, because of the fact that the universe’s physical laws are finely-tuned to support advanced life, the cause of the universe not only has to be super-natural, but it also has to be intelligent and purpose-driving in His creative act. These are attributes of a purposeful agent, not just another mechanism (naturalism), or deism (we’ve now left naturalism behind), or even basic theism. These attributes of the Cause mirror those of the Christian God. Not only is it false that big bang cosmology is based on naturalism big bang cosmology necessarily implies that the Christian God exists by the attributes of the Cause required to produce what is observed in the universe.

Myth #3: You cannot see “age” in nature.

Fact:
One of the foundational beliefs of science (that allow it to discover events of even the recent past) is constant laws of physics. For the Christian, this foundational belief for science is even affirmed in Jeremiah 33:26 (see my post “How Naturalism Defeats Science As A Knowledge Discipline“). What is very nice about constant laws of physics is that if we have a correct understanding of processes from one moment to the next, we can work backward in time (via deductive reasoning) to come to sound (necessarily true) conclusions about the past, including the age of things. This is done for trees and corals using the number of rings and layers, respectively, and the well-understood rate of the formation of those layers. The idea that age cannot be determined by observing nature alone is correct, but when combined with the constant laws of physics and deductive reasoning, the ability to accurately determine age by observing God’s creation cannot be escaped by the Bible-believing Christian.

Myth #4: The same people who promote big bang cosmology deny the virgin birth of Jesus.

Fact:
This is quite a sweeping statement. In this myth, Ken Ham places all who affirm big bang cosmology into the same naturalistic category of those who deny miracles and God’s interaction with creation (including the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity and the Resurrection of Jesus). It is obvious, though, that Christians do not belong in the same category as naturalists when it comes to miracles. Some YECs who insist on this categorization, though, insist that Christians can believe both but only inconsistently.

The problem here is that affirmation of big bang cosmology in no way implies that supernatural miracles are not possible. In fact, as shown above, in Myth #2, the big bang assumes a supernatural miracle for the universe’s existence! If anyone is being inconsistent in their beliefs regarding the big bang and miracles, it is the naturalist who affirms the big bang yet denies supernatural miracles are possible. So, Christians who affirm big bang cosmology do not deny supernatural miracles such as the virgin birth of Jesus and are under no compulsion by logic to even entertain such a ridiculous claim. We do not deny the virgin birth of Jesus, and our view does not imply even the possibility of such a denial. While naturalists do deny the virgin birth of Jesus, inconsistently, the Christian affirms it consistently.

Myth #5: People only debate the meaning of the word “yom” in Genesis 1 because they want to fit millions of years into the Bible.

Fact:
Implied in this myth is the idea that “yom” was never debated until it was discovered that the universe was billions of years old and/or when Darwin came along and proposed evolution, which presumably would require billions of years of slow changes over time. However, this is demonstrably false. The meaning of “yom” has been debated for centuries before scientists posited billions of years for the age of the universe. St. Augustine, for instance, defended the contention that “yom” was different from a 24-hour day. Numerous other Church Fathers also debated “yom”‘s meaning. Since it was debated before scientists posited billions of years for the age of the universe and earth, such a discovery cannot serve as the motivation for the debate continuing to this day. For more on the Church Fathers and their debates over the meaning of the word “yom” in Genesis 1, I recommend checking out “Coming to Grips With The Early Church Fathers’ Perspective On Genesis” by Dr. John Millam.

Myth #6: The idea that the universe is young has been well-established in Church history; therefore, it is true.

Fact:
This is an interesting argument. The falsehood is not found in the first part; young-earth creationism (along with other views) we debated and held by many Church Fathers; the falsehood is found in the logic. A well-established doctrine is not necessarily a correct doctrine (this goes for all sides of the age debate). Ken Ham, as a member of the Protestant tradition of the Church, would hold that many well-established doctrines of the Church (Catholic Church, at the time) were false. So, being well-established does not mean true, even for Ken Ham. Anyone who argues this way is simply incorrect.

Now, many people try to claim that young-earth creationism originated with the Seventh Day Adventist “prophetess” Ellen G. White, but since some of the Church Fathers already held to this view, it can hardly be said to have originated recently. But, again, that early origin does not mean true. Young-earth Christians need to be careful about which conclusion they are drawing from the early articulation of their view, and old-earth Christians need to be careful about which conclusion they are drawing from a later (more developed) articulation of the young-earth view.

Myth #7: Believing that the universe is old undermines God’s Word.

Fact:
Many young-earth Christians (but not all) are not even open to alternative views because they have heard this myth so many times, presented in so many different ways, that they believe it. As mentioned in my response to Myth #1, this is not true, as demonstrated by the very attempt to reconcile God’s Word with God’s actions (creation). That recognition is enough to demonstrate the falsehood of the myth in general. But what about the more specific forms of the myth (additional myths, in themselves)? In a past post, I took on five common ways that this myth is articulated. Take a look at these additional myths in the post “Does Old Earth Creationism Compromise Scripture” to see if you have fallen victim to believing them.

Myth #8: You weren’t there to witness the creation; therefore, you cannot know what happened except by an eyewitness testimony (God’s Word).

Fact:
This myth attempts to strike at the foundation of scientific claims about origins: the ability to know origins. In this myth the young-earth creationist takes a hyper-empiricist view of knowledge that states that only the five senses can reveal truth about the physical world: in order to know anything that happened in the past, you had to be there to witness whether it happened or not, and since we were not there to witness the creation, we cannot know how it happened. They then say that we can only rely upon the eyewitness record in Genesis 1, which they assume is only compatible with their view (see Myths #1 and #7 above).

Even if we were to grant that the Genesis 1 account was only compatible with the young-earth view, they have a serious problem. If we cannot know something happened in the past unless we witnessed it, then how do we know that Genesis 1 was reliably handed down through the generations? We were not there to witness each transcription. In order to defend the reliable transmission of the text to today, we rely upon another source of knowledge that uses inductive and abductive reasoning (neither of which are sense-based). If those are valid sources of truth to discover past events, then the young-earth creationist must allow such sources of truth in the debate over origins. So, by their own epistemology (how we know what we know), this myth falls and falling further, their attempt to use the process of elimination to get to their view also fails. This myth is so prevalent in the origins debate that I have written quite a bit about this it in the past.

Myth #9: Only the YEC believes the eyewitness of God’s Word.

Fact:
As demonstrated in my answer to Myth #8, this myth falls flat immediately. However, it gets worse for the YEC, not only can they not know that they have the eyewitness account about origins as it was originally recorded, they cannot know that they have a reliable eyewitness account about the Resurrection of Jesus as it was originally recorded! The staunch YEC may be able to live with not having a reliable account of the events of creation, but I do not believe for one second that they are willing to follow the logic to its necessary conclusion and accept that we then also do not have reliable accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. For such a necessary implication would give us no confidence whatsoever in the truth of Christianity, which would then give them no foundation for holding onto their YEC view. The ground crumbles beneath them.

This is not a problem of belief (I know Ken Ham believes that the Bible we have today was reliably transmitted through the generations), but rather it is a problem of a lack of a foundational explanation for the belief in the reliability of the transmission of the Bible. If Ken Ham is to maintain the “you weren’t there” mantra, then he has no explanation for the reliable transmission of the Bible, and worse he has unwittingly provided an explanation for precisely why the Bible he holds in hands cannot be trusted as what was originally inspired by God! This is the myth, among all other ones because it strikes at the very foundation of the Christian worldview, that must die in the Church:

Historical Science, Deception, and Blind Faith
Is It Biblical to Have An Evidential Faith?
The Historical Jesus
Cold Cast Christianity
Forensic Faith
Did The Historical Jesus Rise From The Dead?

Myth #10: Animal death and suffering are incompatible with the all-powerful and all-loving God of the Bible.

Fact:
I find it very interesting that young-earth creationists often raise the logical problem of evil against God in these discussions. Simply put, the logical problem of evil has been a go-to challenge to God’s existence for atheists for centuries (and still is today in popular/internet atheist circles), but such a challenge is no challenge at all. The challenge relies upon the idea that an all-powerful and all-loving God could not possibly have justifiable reasons for allowing evil, pain, and suffering in the world. However, since we cannot possibly know all of God’s purposes comprehensively, this challenge fails on epistemic grounds- no one has enough knowledge to make such a grandiose claim. And not only that, the Bible teaches that any suffering that God does allow does has an ultimate, eternal purpose.

So we do have enough knowledge to claim the very opposite: that God does have a purpose for allowing all pain and suffering, even if we cannot specifically identify that purpose with our current amount of knowledge. This would include any and all animal suffering. So for the young-earth creationist to be in the company of atheists with raising this challenge is to simply place the God of the Bible in the same box that the atheist attempts to place Him: “since I cannot see what purpose God may have for suffering, He must not have one.” This is only one way to demonstrate the falsehood of this myth, but others exist as well.

Myth #11: Having animal death before The Fall makes God responsible for moral evil.

Fact:
Related to Myth #10 above, Ken Ham tries to show how God is responsible for moral evil if animal death existed before the Fall of Adam and Eve. Since the Christian God is not responsible for moral evil, then if there is a view that necessarily implies that God is responsible for moral evil, then it is false, and its god is not the Christian God. Ken Ham argues that animal death is a moral evil, and since old-earth creation requires that God is responsible for it, then old-earth creationism must be false. He attempts to release God from the responsibility of animal death by saying that the Fall introduced death to the animal kingdom. Many YECs have proposed different models for the Fall introducing death into the natural order (changed laws of physics, attributing creative power to sin, and punctuated equilibrium are just a few) in order to escape the implications of their own accusation.
But all this effort is actually unnecessary because animal death is not morally evil. For an event, action, or behavior to be morally evil, the perpetrator must be a moral agent with the free will to choose to do otherwise, and the offended party must be of intrinsic value. Both of those features are necessary, but neither are present in the physical creation prior to God’s creation of Adam and Eve. Animals are not moral agents, and they are not created in the Image of God, which would be the source of intrinsic value. These are precisely why we do not classify animals killing other animals as murder. “Murder” is “killing” with moral status. Without the moral status, animal killing is just killing, not murder. Since animals killing animals is not performed by moral, free agents and animals are not intrinsically valuable, there is no foundation for calling such death “morally” evil. It does not matter how much death happened before the Fall of Adam and Eve; it was not morally evil. So even though God is the Creator of the natural order (which includes animal death), He is NOT responsible for any moral evil here. Thus this myth is demonstrably false. I go into more detail in these posts:

Myth #12: If you can understand the general message of the Gospel without the scholarship, then you can understand the details of creation without scholarship.

Fact:
This myth implies that because the basics of the Gospel can be understood and acted upon by the youngest and least educated among us, that the deeper and more refined details of the Gospel can also be discovered without the need for a scholarship. Ken Ham holds that the same applies to ideas of origins: if the basics of creation can be understood without scholarship, then so can the details be known without scholarship. In the podcast, Ken Ham appeals to biblical scholarship to make his case; then, he comes back later to deny the value of such biblical scholarship. He seems to hold that the “plain reading” (as would be understood the first time a person reads a passage) is the correct and comprehensive understanding- there is no need for further scholarship to determine details. Because Ham both uses and denies the value of biblical scholarship in the same conversation, it is hard to determine which of the mutually exclusive views he takes. But since he pounds the drum of “the plain reading” so much, it is reasonable to think that he (at least by his words and his actions) denies the value of biblical scholarship and affirms that there is no need to pursue further study beyond one’s initial reading of the text.

Interestingly enough, the Apostle Paul denies such a view explicitly in 1 Corinthians 3:2. Paul tells the Corinthian church that he gave them the theological basics and called it “milk,” but affirmed that the theological details, which he called “solid food,” still remained to be grasped by them. A deeper study (scholarship) is required if we are to get to the truth of a view. If we eschew biblical scholarship, then we run the same risk of the Corinthian church and being satisfied only with “milk” and never graduating to “solid food.” When we look deeper into the first chapters of Genesis, we discover that the YEC view is not the only view compatible with the inerrant text. In fact, a range of views are fully compatible. If a person is to pursue the correct understanding, they must begin with the correct list of available options, then use further scholarship and sources of truth to determine which of those available options is the correct interpretation. This myth denies such a pursuit, which is in direct contradiction to Paul, so it must be false.

Myth #13: OEC takes something from outside the Bible to use it to reinterpret God’s Word.

Fact:
What is very dangerous about this myth is that it makes a simple statement but never explicitly states the conclusion or the logic to the conclusion. It is true that OEC takes something from outside the Bible and uses it to interpret God’s Word. What does OEC take from outside the Bible? God’s actions: His creation. Time after time, the Bible affirms that God’s actions (His creation) are a valid source of truth. Psalm 19 states that the heavens declare the glory of God; Romans 1 affirms that the knowledge (truth) available to all in creation is so reliable and visible that it is enough to condemn a person; and Jeremiah 33:25-26 states that the laws that govern the universe are as constant as God Himself! (see Myths #16 and #20 below for more on this).

Not only is it biblical to use God’s actions, it is perfectly logical to use a person’s actions to help interpret what their words mean. We do this every day. We even do this when trying to interpret what America’s Founding Fathers meant when they penned the Constitution (see my post “Deconstructionism, The Constitution, and Biblical Interpretation“)
This myth is simply an attempt at a scare-tactic. It is presented as if OEC is concluded because people have approached Scripture with an atheistic presupposition (see Myth #2 above and Myth #14 below) and are trying to make Scripture subject to atheism. If God tells us that His actions are reliable sources of truth, then it is perfectly legitimate to use His actions to help us interpret His words. And to refuse to allow God’s actions to guide our interpretation is another way that we refuse to accept “solid food” and remain satisfied with “milk” (see Myth #12 above).

Myth #14: OEC tries to fit millions of years into the Bible because the secularist needs it for evolution.

Fact:
Similar to Myth #2, Ken Ham attempts to discredit using God’s actions (His creation) to interpret His words by appealing to atheism. Myth #2 already demonstrated that big bang cosmology not only does not indicate atheism, but it requires theism. This myth is necessarily dependent upon the idea that the currently measured age of the universe (~13.7 billion years) is enough time for unguided evolution to produce what we see today. This could not be further from the truth.

Big bang cosmology and a 13.7 billion-year-old universe was not a relief for the naturalist when it was discovered; it was a brick wall that evolution slammed against then and continues to slam against today. This was one of the key reasons that big bang cosmology was rejected by naturalists for so long! 13.7 billion years is orders of magnitude too young for unguided evolution to produce what we see today! In fact, many naturalists are positing that an infinite multiverse exists that would provide them with enough time across all of reality just for evolution to produce what we see today even one time! Big bang cosmology is no friend to the secularist. Not only does big bang cosmology require a Cause and a Designer, it chronologically constricts the naturalist’s evolutionary story to suffocation! Big bang cosmology is rather a powerful enemy to the naturalist, which adds yet another reason for its truth (see my post “Evidence for the Empty Tomb of Jesus and Big Bang Cosmology“).

Myth #15: Allowing nature to interpret Scripture opens the doors to immoral, secular views (including gay marriage).

Fact:
Since Ken Ham is under the mistaken impression that allowing God’s creation to help us interpret Scripture sneaks in an amoral view (naturalism), I can understand why he would be scared of this myth (and propagate the same fear to his followers). However, it is not the act of allowing nature to interpret Scripture that is the source of moral conclusions; rather, it is the presupposition that one approaches the Scripture. If one already has the view that atheism is true, then all behaviors are permissible in their view. However, as seen in Myth #13, the usage of God’s actions (His creation) to help interpret His words is grounded in Scripture, which already holds that the Scripture (which includes the ethical claims) is inerrant and authoritative. A Christian allowing God’s creation to help them interpret God’s words does nothing to damage the ethical claims of God’s words and actually affirms their truth by affirming the truth of the biblical claims of the physical world.
Ham is also fond of saying that a Christian can follow biblical ethics and believe in the big bang, but they are doing so inconsistently. As discussed in Myths #2 and #14 above, though, big bang cosmology is not an atheistic but rather theistic view of the origin of the cosmos, so there is no logical inconsistency between the Christian who agrees with both biblical ethics and big bang cosmology. This myth is simply false.

Myth #16: Allowing nature to interpret Scripture undermines the authority of God’s Word.

Fact:
If it is not clear from the previous fifteen myths that this myth, too, is false, then allow me to offer these additional points. First, if Christians who affirm OEC did not believe that God’s Word was both true and authoritative, they would not bother with trying to find the correct interpretation. Nobody looks at a work of fiction (on a page or on-screen) and attempts to reconcile its claims with the real world. We simply do not do that for stories that we believe are false and have no moral authority over our lives. The very fact that Christians take so much time to dig into biblical and scientific scholarship (the “solid food” of 1 Corinthians 3:2) to find the correct understanding (what the author and Author intended to communicate to their respective audiences) demonstrates their respect, belief, and submission to the content of Scripture.

Second, the only thing that is undermined by deeper scholarship is falsehood. Unlike God, man is not infallible, so his interpretations can be incorrect. It is through deeper scholarship that these incorrect interpretations are discovered and can be rejected. While it is important to study God’s Word to discover the range of possible interpretations that are compatible with an inerrant (and reliably transmitted) text, it would be irresponsible of us to neglect God’s actions (His creation) to rule out possible interpretations or even positively identify the correct interpretation. To refuse to conduct such a study and submit ourselves to God’s actions (as well as God’s Word), and even encourage others not to as well, is to affirm one’s own infallibility- something that no humble Christian should do, even implicitly. This is not to say that deeper scholarship will always lead to what is true (many scholars hold many different views about origins, many of them are mutually exclusive), but the more knowledge we have from the sources of truth that God has given us, the more information we have to reason with and come nearer to the correct view in the details.

Myth #17: OEC is a compromise in the Church.

Fact:
By this time, one should see how this myth is completely unfounded. OEC has compromised, nothing true nor important. OEC does not compromise the truth of God’s Word nor its authority in the Christian’s life. OEC only compromises the YEC interpretation, which is a human interpretation that is not infallible anyway. What has been compromised is falsehood, which is precisely what the Christian wants to compromise! This myth may have rhetorical power on the surface, but when we dig deeper into the scholarship (again, the “solid food” of 1 Cor 3:2), we find that the myth loses its rhetorical power with us because it is a lie. Now, I know that many young-earth creationists are concerned about more than just the age of creation (as well they should), so I have two posts that directly addresses (40) areas of full agreement with YECs and other common areas where “compromise” is claimed against OEC:

Myth #18: OECs talk about nature as the 67th book of the Bible.

Fact:
This myth originates from a claim made by Dr. Hugh Ross back in the 90s (if I recall the timing correctly) that was misunderstood. He stated that nature, as a trustworthy and infallible source of truth (since it is from the infallible God), was akin to a 67th book in the inerrant Bible. But many Christians misunderstood and misrepresented his analogy as his attempt to “add to Scripture” and was trying to say that nature can provide enough information to save a person. Of course, Dr. Ross never intended for either of these to be communicated by his analogy because he does not believe them, nor does his view logically imply or even indicate them. His attempts to correct the misunderstandings over several years were not accepted by his critics, so because of these misunderstandings and to attempt to avoid further misunderstandings of his view, Dr. Ross abandoned this analogy in the mid-2000s. Ken Ham was one of these critics and, to this day, still claims that OECs use this analogy. Today, OECs do not talk about nature as a 67th book of the Bible and have not for well over a decade precisely because we do not wish to be further misunderstood and misrepresented. Because the myth is dependent upon a misunderstanding of an analogy, and that analogy is no longer even used, the myth is false on two counts.

Myth #19: The creation is cursed; therefore, it cannot be trusted to reveal the truth.

Fact:
If we refer back to myth #3, we see that this myth is false already on that count alone. However, when we further study the Bible, specifically Psalm 19 and Romans 1, we see that the authors affirm (through divine inspiration) that the creation can be trusted to reveal the truth. This is not a debate about over whether God’s creation reveals the truth or whether or not the creation is cursed (as also affirmed by the Bible). The debate is over the nature and extent of the curse. Since Jeremiah 33:25-26 affirms constant laws of physics, we must exclude limitations on the creation’s ability to reveal the truth (again, see Myth #3 above). If we are to include limitations of the creation’s ability to reveal the truth as part of the curse, then we essentially must deny biblical inerrancy since Psalm 19’s and Romans 1’s (along with the numerous other passages that affirm creation’s revelation of truth) would be false. The creation was not cursed in a way that prevents it from revealing the truth. Creation was indeed cursed, but its ability to reveal truth being removed was not part of that curse. The creation’s ability to reveal truth remains intact despite the curse.
While this myth is incorrect on biblical grounds, let’s also not forget that Ken Ham attempts to use the creation to demonstrate the truth that it was created by a Designer. Old-earth creationists agree with this; however, if the creation cannot reveal the truth, then Ken Ham’s appeal to it to tell us something true about its origins is a pointless appeal- why would Ken Ham use an untrustworthy source to reveal truth? The reality is that Ken Ham’s own defense of his view using God’s creation is logically incompatible with his view of the curse in Genesis- every “scientific” critique that he offers against big bang cosmology is without a foundation. If God’s creation cannot reveal truth, then it also cannot reveal a defeater or even a mere challenge to any view of reality because it would be challenging a truth-claim. Challenges to truth claims, based upon God’s creation, is philosophically off-limits on Ken Ham’s view of the curse. But, lucky for Ken Ham, this myth has been biblically demonstrated to be false, so he can continue to bring his critiques, see them undermined, and be faced with what God’s creation actually reveals about its supernatural and awesome history.

Myth #20: Children are leaving the Church because they see the conflict between millions of years and the Bible.

Fact:
This myth capitalizes on Christian parents’ greatest fear: that their children will reject Christ. As we’ve seen, though, there is no actual conflict between the universe being billions of years old and the Bible. The reason children see conflict is because Ken Ham still perpetuates the idea that there is a conflict by consistently presenting these myths as fact. By perpetuating these myths, Ham is essentially presenting children the false dichotomy of “accept YEC or deny Christ.” God’s creation denies YEC (both deductively and abductively), yet God’s Word (and history) affirms Christ, so our children are caught between a rock and a hard place. Their sinful nature tends to make this decision easy, though: deny Christ. By presenting the false dichotomy of “YEC or atheism,” Ken Ham is unwittingly setting up our children for spiritual failure; it is this false dichotomy combined with their sin nature that is the reason our children are leaving the Church. Ken Ham perpetuates this problem then complains about it saying that his view is the cure, but if he is perpetuating the problem using a false dichotomy, false accusations against competing views, and a scientifically (the testimony of God’s creation, itself) demonstrably false alternative, how in the world can he hold the cure? Are our children leaving the Church because they see this conflict? Yep! But the conflict they see is a false conflict, perpetuated by Ken Ham. This is the only myth in this list that is true, but the myth testifies not against old-earth creationism but against the false dichotomy of “believe YEC or reject Christ” that Ken Ham claims that logically consistent people must choose between.

Conclusion – Post-Modernism Has Sneaked Into The Church

None of these myths are new. I remember hearing many of them in my teens when I first became aware of the origins debate within the Church. What is really disheartening, though, is that while Ken Ham has been corrected numerous times over the decades, he still insists on using these strawmen to argue against a view he disagrees with.

I recently finished reading the book “Time for Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin” by Os Guinness. As I was reading through the part of this book where Guinness talks about the importance to the post-modernist of controlling the narrative (whether with truth or falsehood) in order to preserve and promote a relative or subjective “greater good,” I couldn’t help but think of how so many Christians misrepresent and communicate myths about views they disagree with, in an effort to defeat that view in the market place of ideas. As Christians, when we refuse to correct our own misrepresentations of a view we’re critical about, we treat truth with no more respect than does the post-modernist. Let’s ensure that we are not guilty of this ourselves.

Why Most Doubts About God Are Emotional, Not Intellectual (Part II)

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mike Taylor

How to Deal with Emotional Doubt

Most of the time in our lives, it’s not the facts of the situations around us that are important; it’s how we process those facts. Similarly, the worst kind of a pain in our lives is not from what happens to us but how we download it or process it.

For people dealing with emotional doubt, when something bad happens, they give themselves permission to let those events determine why they have problems. However, beliefs (i.e., the way we download information) are the things that stand between those events that happen to us and the consequences that come from them.

Events alone rarely cause all the consequences we experience. Events plus negative or detrimental beliefs about those events often cause excessive consequences. So, when we say negative things to ourselves about things that matter to us – things like “What if God doesn’t really love me?” – it’s important to refute those thoughts with “That’s not true because…” It’s all about how you talk to yourself about the events in your life because most of us lie to ourselves without even realizing it.

Here are a couple of simple steps to dealing with this type of emotionally-driven thought pattern:

1. Locate the misbelief

Usually, there’s a primary and secondary misbelief. You might tell yourself something that’s untrue, but there’s usually a deeper lie about life beneath that. As yourself, “Why do I have a hard time believing this?” or, “Why does this seem so unlikely to me?” Don’t just shut down the idea of trusting God because it’s difficult to believe. Be willing to explore your reasons for not believing.

For example, for many people, distrust is bred over time as a result of painful situations such as abandonment, neglect, abuse, or some other type of emotional damage we experience. When those negative memories and thought patterns are left unchecked, they can create in us a mindset that people are not to be trusted. As subtle as it may be in us when we approach evidence for God with this distrusting mindset as our basis, no amount of factual evidence is going to break through our barrier. It’s only by moving to step two that we can take a truly unbiased look at evidence for God.

2. Remove and replace

Once you’ve identified the root of the emotional doubt, it’s important to confront those doubts with empirical truth – truth that can be verified through observation and experiences (i.e., the resurrection of Jesus, the goodness of God as evident in creation, etc.).

The best way to do this is to simply remind yourself, “That’s not true because…” Replace the misbelief with an evidence-based truth. Change your perspective and choose to see things from a neutral perspective instead of from the negative, misleading perspective. After all, most emotional doubters are anxious doubters. They’re being anxious or obsessive-compulsive by doubting. It’s not a rational issue they’re dealing with.

It’s important to address emotional doubts because if you allow yourself to be dominated by your emotions rather than what’s true, eventually, you’re at risk of simply giving up and completely turning off to God. That’s what Dr. Habermas calls volitional doubt.

Volitional doubt describes people who know Christianity is true, but they’re typically mad at God, and they’ve turned away from God completely. This can happen for a variety of reasons, but it’s a matter of the will. It’s an unwillingness to believe despite known truth. God loves you enough to give you freedom, and using that freedom to walk away from Him is the one thing He can’t save you from – not because He isn’t able, but because He loves you too much to force you to be with Him if you don’t want to.

The good news is, you’re in control of your doubts. You get to decide what to do with them and how to manage them. Remember that the most damage that occurs in our lives is not from what happens to us but how we process it. So, understanding the necessary facts is key, but then reminding yourself of those facts in negative situations is also vital. After all, the facts about God don’t change just because your circumstances change.

This is where faith comes in.

In Scripture, the word for “hope” refers to a grounded hope, not a hope in something you don’t know about. That hope comes from faith that is grounded in facts.

Faith does what reason can’t do. Faith says, “This can be trusted.”

Faith says, “Quit asking ‘what if’ about stupid questions when you already have good answers. Reason says, “Here are good responses.” Faith says, “Those are good enough. You can trust those. Walk-in it.” Faith comes along and says that belief is warranted.

Faith is trusting the evidence. It’s okay to keep studying to build on good answers, but not because you have to keep answering the same question every day.

You have to train the habit of faith. Learn the art of learning enough and then letting go. And faith is not going to stay there if you ignore it. That’s why people who follow Jesus read the Bible, worship, fellowship with other Christians, etc. because it reinforces our faith when we hang around people who don’t think they have to answer the same questions every day.

Remember: The gospel is the most important message in the Bible, and it’s the one doctrine that is the most supported by evidence. In other words, God put the most evidence for the most important thing we need to know.

So, minimize the importance you place on periphery issues. It will save you a lot of stress and wasted time. Look to answer the most important central doctrines:

Jesus is the Son of God.
Jesus died on the cross for our sins.
Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

Then, if that’s not working and something is still nagging at you, and you’re in pain, then you’re probably experiencing emotional doubt.

You can read the first part here.

[This article was an adaptation from my book Grounded Faith for Practical People. You can download it for free at MikePTaylor.net]

The Impact of Divine Omnipresence to a Believer’s Life and Beyond

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

While God used apologetics to bring me back to faith, God uses theology to humble, awe, and comfort me before his amazing presence. Theology is a passion of mine. My resume will show how much I love theology. As I mentioned in a previous post, I realized that schools hiring teachers desire applicants to possess 18 hours of graduate study in a chosen field. Curious as to what hours I held, I began to investigate how many hours I possess in different fields. I realized that by the time I finish my Ph.D., I will carry 30 hours of theological study. I guess you could call me an overachiever. I certainly don’t say this to sound braggadocios. I merely mention this to note the great impact theology has made in my life.

Even while I have devoted much of my time to theological studies, I still find the words of Dr. Daniel Mitchell, Professor of Theology at Liberty University, to ring true, “The more we study God, the bigger God becomes.” I asked him about what he meant by that statement in a class that I had with him. Mitchell noted that he did not mean to say that we make God bigger in our imaginations, but rather we begin to understand how big God truly is the more we study him. When we understand the grandeur of God, our worries tend to fade away in the warm, strong arms of God.

One divine attribute that provides both awe and serenity is God’s divine omnipresence. The word omnus means “all.” We all understand what the term presence means. Thus, God has the capacity to be in all places at all points of time. There is not a place where God’s presence is not found. Scripture indicates the omnipresent nature of God in many locations, but it is most explicitly found in Psalm 139. David writes as he speaks to God,

“Where can I go to escape your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there. If I live at the eastern horizon or settle at the western limits, even there your hand will lead me. If I say, ‘Surely the darkness will hide me, and the light around me will be night’—even the darkness is not dark to you. The night shines like the day; darkness and light are alike to you” (Ps. 139:7–12, CSB).

From the text at hand, God is shown to be present in every location at the same point in time. Wayne Grudem defines God’s omnipresence as the following: “God does not have size or spatial dimensions and is present at every point of space with his whole being, yet God acts differently in different places” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 173). Divine omnipresence impacts the believer in multiple ways, but for the sake of space, I will concentrate on only five.

God is with you when no one else can be. Often, people feel alone. Widowers who lost their spouses may feel an overwhelming sense of loss. When my wife left on a business trip, I was overwhelmed with the sense of loneliness that overtook me, even if for a little while. People who must reside in assisted living homes or nursing facilities may feel like they are the loneliest people on earth. However, when we understand God’s omnipresent nature, we understand that none of us are ever truly alone. God promises that he will be with you now and for all eternity. Jesus says, “And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20, CSB). God promised Abraham to be with him, saying, “Look, I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go” (Gen. 28:15, CSB). God’s presence accompanies us wherever we may go. This is only possible because of God’s omnipresent nature.
God is with your loved ones when you cannot. God’s omnipresent nature holds that God can protect your loved ones from afar. Israel (aka., Jacob) told his son Joseph that he knew that God would look after him even though he was about to die (Gen. 48:21). Consider also the Roman centurion. He had faith that Jesus could heal his servant even when Jesus was not present (Matt. 8:5–14). The centurion had faith in God’s omnipresent power to heal. Perhaps this was one of the things that startled Jesus about the depth of the centurion’s faith. Even when you are not present with your family members, God is. God can help those who suffer in distant areas far greater than you or I ever could.
God is with your loved ones who have already passed. God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exodus 3:6). Jesus uses this argument to defend the reality of the afterlife (Matt. 22:32). Jesus understood that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still alive in the spiritual watch care of God. Some of your loved ones may have died. However, with God, death has died. For those who died in Christ, they live in eternity. This indicates that God is with our loved ones in eternity. If we grasped this reality, even the fear of death dies in the omnipresent love of God.
God is working in creation even when you cannot see it. God is beyond the scope of creation but is always working in creation (Ps. 147:4). God is the One who established the sun, the moon, the stars, the galaxies, and even the universe itself (Jer. 31:35). God’s omnipresent nature indicates that he is in all places at all times in the universe and even beyond the universe. He does not depend on the universe, but the universe depends on God. There is not a molecular change in the far reaches of the universe that leaves God unaware. God knows when, if, how, and where the star Betelgeuse will explode into a supernova or transform into a neutron star.
God’s presence is with the believer in a personal fashion. While God is everywhere, God personally relates to those who receive Christ (John 5:38; 8:31; 15:4-9). Consider this: The God of all creation—the transcendent, magnificent, holy, righteous, loving, omnipresent Creator of all things—desires to have a relationship with you. Oh, that is so profound yet so difficult to grasp. What would God desire to love someone like us? I don’t know. But God does.

I write this being unaware of what you the reader faces as you read this post. But the amazing facet of this divine attribute is that no matter where you are, God is there with you. Paul said to the Athenians at the Areopagus that God had established from one man every person, nation, and language. God established boundaries and determined appointed times and seasons. God did this, Paul says, “so that they might seek God, and perhaps they might reach out and find him, though he is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27, CSB). Amazingly, God has blessed Bellator Christi Ministries to reach almost all the nations on our beloved Earth. No matter where you may be reading this, God is near you. God is willing to receive your worship. God is willing to forgive you by the sacrifice that Jesus made on your behalf. By his omnipresent nature, God can fill you with God’s Spirit. God is with you. God is always near you. What could be better than that?

Are Pro-Lifers Who Own Guns Hypocrites?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Nathan Apodaca

Another assertion has become commonplace in discussions of abortion. Pro-lifers who own firearms, or support military actions abroad are misled at best, and at worst, hypocrites. The critic assumes that any inconsistently held pro-life beliefs are evidence pro-lifers aren’t actually motivated by a desire to protect human life, but rather a desire to control women’s liberty. This line of criticism lacks substance and misunderstands both the essential pro-life position as well as why people support gun rights or particular military actions.

Suppose for a moment it’s true that the vast majority of pro-lifers are hypocritical in how they hold their views on protecting life across various issues. Would that supposition invalidate the pro-life position as a whole? The essential pro-life argument is as follows:

It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings
Elective Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings
Therefore, elective abortion is wrong.

If the premises are true (and there’s good reason to believe they are) and the conclusion logically follows, then the argument is sound. Would a subset of the pro-life community being hypocrites demonstrate that either premise is untrue? Of course not. Neither the wrongness of killing innocent human beings nor the nature of abortion and its victims are in any way impacted by whether some pro-life advocates behave inconsistently toward life in regards to the views they champion.

In fact, this is little more than a personal attack. It’s highly unlikely that if the moral consistency of particular pro-lifers changed overnight, these critics would then drop their support for abortion. It’s a smokescreen, an attempt to poison the well of the pro-life cause, not an actual rebuttal of the above argument.

Guns Protect Life

That being said, the claim that supporting gun rights or military service is inconsistent with the pro-life view is mistaken. As philosopher Tim Hsaio points out, self-defense is an extension of the right to life, intrinsic to all human beings. Since all human beings have the natural (intrinsic or God-given) right to life, then it is perfectly just for human beings to take steps to prevent themselves from being victimized by those with an evil intent. Writes Hsaio,

“Now since the purpose of a right is to protect my well-being, the possession of a right entitles me to protect that which I have a right to. Thus, if I possess the right to life, then I must also possess the corresponding right to secure or protect my life. I must, in other words, possess the right to self-defense. The right to self-defense follows immediately from the right to life—in fact, the right to self-defense is an integral part of the right to life itself. It is what gives substance to the right to life.”[1]

Remember, the reason abortion is wrong is because it intentionally kills an innocent human being. The vast majority of Americans who purchase firearms do not do so for the purpose of going out and intentionally killing innocent human beings, but for self-defense purposes or for protecting friends and family from those with wicked intentions.

What About Military Service?

Military action is a bit more complicated but still serves as a further extension of this principle. Being a service-member myself (Going on six years as a Cavalry Scout in the Army National Guard) I have received the question on numerous occasions, why do I oppose abortion if I am engaged in a line of work where my job is predicated upon the taking of human life?

The question ultimately relies on a confusion of moral principles. Remember, pro-lifers oppose elective abortion because it intentionally takes the life of innocent human beings. We could be mistaken in that claim, but that doesn’t necessarily make us inconsistent if we support or serve in the Armed Forces. It’s impossible to find a valid comparison between an ISIS fighter or a Nazi executioner and an unborn child. It’s not even worth pondering.

The ethics of warfare are complex and involve a great amount of moral ambiguity, but at their core are the same basic principles which underlie both the pro-life position and self-defense. Just as a toddler cannot adequately exercise the ability to defend their life or well-being, and therefore needs an adult (such as a parent) to fill this role, governments must protect the lives of citizens against immoral aggressors such as foreign states and terror groups. This is why we have police, intelligence services, and the military provided by civil government.

Debates over the ethics of contemporary military actions abroad usually come down to finer details about how to effectively engage enemy combatants and achieve victory with minimal loss of innocent life. While a military commander may foresee the loss of life on the battlefield, this in no way makes a conflict inherently immoral, provided steps are taken to mitigate the loss of life without compromising the overall mission. For instance, the introduction of laser-guided weaponry, thermal imaging, communications, and better surveillance/reconnaissance equipment has been a major boon towards limiting the risk to civilians(and friendly forces) caught in the crossfire of a battle.[2]

Even when an attack or war is being fought for justified reasons, the loss of innocent human life can sometimes be unavoidable. For instance, during the D-Day landings in Normandy, due to uncontrollable circumstances such as bad weather, enemy anti-aircraft fire, and other factors, Allied bombers often overshot their objectives and accidentally bombed civilian centers as well as Allied fighting positions.[3][4] While undoubtedly tragic, few would argue that the invasion would have been inherently unjust unless no civilian lives were lost. In war, a variety of unseen and unavoidable variables can pop-up in an instant and impact battlefield decision making. The advent of modern military technologies helps, but similar problems can still impact the battlespace resulting in tragedy. Communications errors, equipment failures, bad intelligence, and unethical behavior on the part of soldiers sometimes tragically lead to unintended results in conflict. Fatigue and cynicism can also play a role. Decision making on the battlefield changes within split seconds while still being guided by the commander’s intent, which is guided by an overall strategy and “big picture” mission of friendly forces. All of these safeguards can’t prevent the occasional unethical and immoral behavior (human beings aren’t basically good), which is why a clearly defined Rules of Engagement (ROE for shorthand) and Uniform Code of Military Justice are essential for a morally upright military. In the circumstances where soldiers behave unethically or even wickedly towards non-combatants, the military justice system corrects and punishes bad behavior, while promoting and honoring good behavior on the parts of service-members. Leaders should model good behavior and combat bad behavior within the ranks. As retired Marine Corps General James Mattis poignantly puts it, people should know that they have no better friend and no worse enemy “than a United States Marine.” The same is true for the rest of the Armed Services.

As Army Major Pete Hegseth points out, by and large, it has been the United States military (with help from countless invaluable allies worldwide), which has promoted stability, justice, and peace at home and abroad by serving as a sort of world sheriff.[5] Perfect, no, but until a better alternative presents itself, those who love justice shouldn’t feel ashamed for supporting the United States military. As the noted British historian Andrew Roberts argues, when the United States military is weak, wicked men like Adolf Hitler are able to make growing threats to the lives of millions of marginalized people; however, when the American military is strong, even oppressive superpowers like the Soviet Union are forced to tread carefully.[6]

The decision to engage in conflict must be guided by sound moral principles, which includes considering the possible unintended consequences of one’s decision. Good intentions alone are not good enough.

Conclusion

In light of this, pro-lifers are not hypocritical to support either gun ownership or armed conflict provided both are guided by sound moral reasoning. Debates over both are a sign of healthy functioning social conscience.

However, the debate over abortion has nothing to do with what sort of human beings pro-lifers are; it has everything to do with whether the unborn are human, and will be granted recognition as fellow members of the human family. Debates over the Ethics of war, capital punishment, and gun ownership are ultimately irrelevant to the humanity of the unborn and the inhumanity of abortion.

Notes

[1] Hsiao, Tim “Natural Rights, Self-Defense, and the Right to Own Firearms,” The Public Discourse https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/10/42765/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_bomb

[3] United States Army, “Invasion of Normandy” https://history.army.mil/brochures/normandy/nor-pam.htm

[4] Beevor, Antony D-Day: The Battle for Normandy

[5] Maj. Hegseth, Peter “Who Should Win the Nobel Peace Prize?” PragerUniversity, Nov 11, 2019

[6] Roberts, Andrew “Why America’s Military Must Be Strong” PragerUniversity, May 26, 2014

I Lost Motivation for my God-given Passion… Now What?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jeremy Linn

You were driven. Each day you were excited to take another step forward. God seemed to be doing amazing things.

Now, months later, your passion has disappeared. Each day you feel worn out and progressively waste more of your time. You wonder if God will ever use you to the same extent as you once experienced.

What happened? Have you lost motivation to pursue the primary passion God has given you?

I certainly have felt this way before. Upon the start of a new ministry, I was constantly motivated to keep taking steps and saw God do incredible things in the process.

Then over time, the amazing moments started to fade. Team communication halted. And my motivation plummeted to the point I didn’t know what to do next.

This path led me to wonder – what problems could have led me to lose motivation for something I had such a strong passion for?

To begin working through this question, I wrote down nine problems that could cause you to lose motivation for your God-given passion and listed action steps that could help to address each one. And now, I share the results with you. As you skim through the list, feel free to skip over the problems that don’t affect you, and focus more on the ones that may be causing you to lose motivation.

PROBLEM #1 – A lack of communication causes delays and stagnation.

You want to take action but can’t seem to because you need input from others first. With communication shut down, your motivation stalls out.

Action Steps:

Consider and pray about the role of patience in your circumstance. It’s possible that your expectations of the other people involved are unrealistic.
Seek out a solid mediator who will help set up and direct any needed conversations. Doing so enforces the need to communicate and work through any issues, and adds a potentially helpful and unbiased voice to the discussion.
Determine what steps you can take now before communication happens. Taking action on something, even if it’s small, can help bring back some sense of motivation.
Consider coming to a decision on your own if it is clearly waiting for input is more detrimental than it is potentially helpful. If you are thinking about taking this step, it may be a good idea to run the idea by at least one wise person you trust.

PROBLEM #2 – You are comparing yourself with people going down a similar path who appear to be more “successful.”

You think you will never be as successful as the person or group you have in mind, so wonder what the point is of continuing. The doubts in your mind cause a loss of motivation.

Action Steps:

Recognize you are comparing. If you have feelings of jealousy and self-doubt when you observe the impact others are making, this problem likely affects you. The recognition is a crucial first step in alleviating the weight of comparison.
Reach out to people you are comparing yourself with. If it is possible to connect, a conversation makes a person you are idealizing through comparison seem more “human.” It also gives you an opportunity to learn from people, diminishing the desire to compete with them in your mind.
Pray for humility and study scripture surrounding the topic. Humility is essential to handle success in a way consistent with the character of Christ. Humility also lessens the pressure to see instant success and turns your focus instead of faithfulness.
Work on developing your “lane.” If you are doing something specific that no one else is doing in your area of passion, you have no reason to compare what you’re doing with others. You can instead focus on what’s ahead in your wide-open “lane.”

PROBLEM #3: A fear of failure is holding you back.

You fear your actions won’t lead to results that match or exceed your expectations, causing you to wonder if it’s worth stating to take those actions.

Action Steps:

Evaluate your expectations. Instead of keeping your expectations stuck in your head, write them down and ask yourself if they appear unrealistically high.
Establish a short-term goal to strive after. This step can put your focus on what is currently in front of you, rather than your worries of meeting your long-term expectations.
Put your trust in God. No matter the expectations we have for our passion, we can find contentment in Christ – echoing the Apostle Paul’s “secret of being content” spelled out in Philippians 4:11-13.
Dig into “success” stories. There is often a slow start and a load of work involved to get to the point of perceived success. Hearing these stories can help us to realize that “success” doesn’t happen right away – it typically comes through a series of small steps taken over a long period of time.

PROBLEM #4: Your time is taken up by average things that don’t provoke inspiration and excitement.

You’re not spending your time on “great” things that spark your passion. Over time, your motivation dulls as you lack moments of excitement for what lies ahead.

Action Steps:

Acknowledge that feelings are not the primary driver of your life. You often need to do things that feel “average” in order to reach a “great” goal. But having that “great” goal in mind can spark motivation, which leads to the next step.
Evaluate your passion and goals. Take time to journal and pray about where God has led you, how he has built you, and what he might be leading you to focus on. Then start taking actions to foster that focus area.
Keep a record of activities you are doing right now. This recording will help you to determine which activities you could drop, and how much open time you have to further your area of passion – to pursue something “great.”
Drop one “average” thing and pick up one “great” thing in line with your passion. These changes will help you to see if this factor is affecting your motivation levels, and they create at least one new and potentially exciting opportunity.

PROBLEM #5: A sin issue provokes shame and doubts that you are “worthy” to act on your God-given passion.

You don’t push forward with your passion because you already don’t feel “good enough” or “spiritual enough” for it.

Action Steps:

Acknowledge God’s grace through prayer – thank God for the forgiveness He has provided through Jesus Christ. This is the essential step needed to restore the connection with God and deal with feelings of shame.
Seek out accountability with one person or a group, where the body of Christ can work together to overcome sin through God’s power. If you don’t know where to start, try an online search for your city/state, a specific sin area, and “Christian recovery.”
Work through the origins of your pattern of sin. This step could involve journaling about your past, talking to a counselor, or sharing your struggles with close friends.

PROBLEM #6: You feel disconnected from God compared to how you used to feel.

This sense of disconnection could be caused by a variety of factors beyond sin issues – an overwhelming sense of busyness and isolation from other Christians are examples.

Action Steps:

Schedule daily time to spend with God. Use that time to engage in spiritual disciplines – reading scripture, prayer, and even meditation on God’s word and character can build up a connection with God when done consistently.
Seek a strong Christian community where others can encourage you in building your relationship with God and the pursuit of your passion. Look especially for a group where the spiritual maturity of people in the group fosters an environment where you can grow.
Journal factors that lead to the distance. Journaling can help us be more aware of the specific factors tearing apart our relationship with God. If anything, the journaling will give you a clear sense of what to bring to God in prayer.

PROBLEM #7: You lack a connection with people you can share your passion with.

You feel alone in the pursuit of your passion and don’t receive encouragement to continue forward, which drives you into self-doubt and a gradual loss of motivation. Action Steps:

Share what you’re doing with current friends on a consistent basis, even if they don’t share the same passion. You can approach this conversation by saying, “it may be helpful to talk with you about my passion from time to time. Would you be okay with doing that?”
Do research to locate people near you who may have a similar passion, and make a list of the people you find. A simple way to begin is to do an online search for your location plus area of passion.
Make a goal to reach out to one person you listed every month. This is a modest goal that will help you start getting connected with people in your area of passion.
Join social media groups related to your area of passion. In-person connections are preferable to online ones, but these social media groups can provide a burst of encouragement as you interact with people about your difficulties and successes.

PROBLEM #8: You don’t have a clear vision or goals related to your passion.

While you have an idea of what your passion is, you have little sense of direction for what to do with it, and thus don’t have a foundation built which will drive motivation.

Action Steps:

Identify any vision and goals you have in mind right now. If you are drawing a big blank, that’s a sure indication this area is one to work on.
Take time to work out a vision and set a few achievable, time-specific goals. Prayer and talking to people who know you well are helpful ways to get this process going.
Practice patience while praying for a vision. Passion can drive you to want to take action constantly, but the action won’t be maximally effective if a strong foundation of vision and goals is not established first. It may take time to develop this foundation, but that’s okay – the time provides an excellent opportunity to seek God in the process and to develop skills you’ll need when it’s time to run full speed ahead with your passion.

PROBLEM #9: You feel overloaded by the commitment required for things you’re involved with.

The resulting stress causes your physical and mental health to suffer, along with your relationship with God. You lose motivation to take action on just about anything, including your passion area.

Action Steps:

Write down everything you are involved in on a weekly basis, and how much time those things take up. This is a great first step to help you understand why you feel overloaded.
Share how you feel to people you trust. Those people can help you talk through your thoughts and feelings of being overwhelmed, and can point out any obvious solutions you may not have considered.
Drop one thing that is lower in priority, and observe the difference dropping that thing makes. It’s possible that a larger overhaul is needed before the feeling of being overwhelmed changes, but dropping one small thing is a good starting step.

This list is not exhaustive, nor is it meant to give you the perfect solution to get you on the motivation track again. But the action points can at least get you out of inactivity, and back into a gradual buildup of motivation.

The main idea is this: when you feel like you’ve lost motivation, ask yourself what problems could lead to that loss. Once you identify potential problems, plan to take one or two small action steps that could help alleviate the problem.

And through the process, pray for wisdom and set your focus on God.

How Understanding Divine Omniscience Helps Anxiety

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

While apologetics is a major focus in my life, it is only eclipsed by a love for theology. I am a big picture kind of guy. That’s why systematic theology has always intrigued me. Systematic theology examines the major themes of Scripture and organizes those themes into patterns and structures. One could say that I went a little crazy with my theological studies. While I have over 18 graduate hours in apologetics, biblical studies, and church history; I will have over 30 hours in graduate-level studies of theology by the time I finish my Ph.D. So, yeah. You could say that I like theology a little bit.

Another aspect of my life that is important to note for the sake of this article is that I also suffer from bouts of anxiety. My anxiety is not major. However, it is something that I have combated for years. Agoraphobia is one such area. I love people. I love being in the ministry. However, long bouts of extended social gatherings wear me down especially if those gatherings are loud and boisterous.

You may be left asking, “Why is this guy talking about theology and anxiety?” Theology has a major calming effect when a person understands certain aspects of God’s nature. One such calming attribute is God’s omniscience. Omniscience is a compound word consisting of two Latin words; Omnis meaning “all” or “of all things,” and Scientia meaning “knowledge.” Thus, omniscience indicates one’s ability to know all things. God is the only Being who could possess this level of knowledge. Millard Erickson links God’s omniscience with God’s infinite nature. By infinite, this means that “not only is God unlimited but that he is illimitable. In this respect, God is unlike anything we experience” (Erickson, Christian Theology, 243). When God’s knowledge is linked with his infinite nature, one will note that God’s “understanding is immeasurable” (Erickson, Christian Theology, 243).

God’s omniscience means that God knows all there is to know and everything that can be known. So, how does understanding God’s divine omniscient nature help with anxiety? I contend that it helps in three areas.

Anxiety lessens with God’s knowledge of events in time. First, God is not bound by time. Therefore, God’s knowledge is not bound to the present time. David writes, “Before a word is on my tongue, you know all about it, Lord” (Ps. 139:4). God knows what David would say before he said it. People who suffer from anxiety often fear what may come. However, when a person couples God’s knowledge of what will happen along with God’s goodness and love, then anxiety should fade into the divine arms of God. Why worry about what could happen when God already knows what will happen?
Anxiety lessens with God’s knowledge of injustices. Second, a person’s anxiety lessens when one acknowledges God’s omniscient knowledge of all people. God knows what all people always do. People often place security cameras to catch criminals in their mischievous acts red-handed. While I am in favor of security measures as noted by the community watch group I support, it is a redemptive thought to consider that God knows everything that all people do. Solomon notes that “The eyes of the Lord are everywhere, observing the wicked and the good” (Prov. 15:3, CSB). Many anxiety sufferers worry about what someone might do to them. Perhaps such attitudes come from a hyperactive imagination or viewing too often the crazed psychopaths on Lifetime Movie Network. Nevertheless, the believer can rest easy knowing that God sees the actions of all. No wrong deed escapes his sight. As the ultimate Judge of humankind, God will hold each person accountable at some point (Rom. 14:12). This is not to say that a person should not use good reason, establish security measures, and remain proactive in dangerous environs. Rather, a person can rest easy in knowing that every person will stand before God one day.
Anxiety lessens with God’s knowledge of purpose. Third, people often worry about whether their lives have any purpose or value. Social media has escalated this concern. People often compare themselves with others by a self-imposed competition. Trouble is, no one ever wins such comparative competitions. The person must eventually ask oneself, “How good is good enough? How much success do I need? How much money makes me the winner?” There is no answer. In stark contrast, when one understands the value that God places on all people, then such concerns should fade, and self-imposed competitions should cease. God told Jeremiah that he knew him before he was ever born (Jer. 1:5).

Jesus emphasized the peace that comes from understanding God’s omniscience, noting that if God could clothe the flowers of the field and feed the birds of the air, then God would most certainly care for his own in greater fashion (Matt. 6:25–34). If God knows all there is to know, if God knows all that everyone does, if he knows our future, and cares for us; then, what do we have to fear? For, if God is for us, then who can be against us (Rom. 8:31)? Human anxiety melts before the brilliant assurance of God’s omniscient nature.

Resources

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Third Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.

Apologetics and a Different Kind of Persuasion

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mikel Del Rosario

A Different Kind of Persuasion

Have you ever found yourself “in debate mode” while talking to a skeptical friend about Christianity? Perhaps this is because many of us have been equipped with apologetic content (arguments for God’s existence, the reliability of the Gospels, etc.) with less of a focus on an apologetic method for use in everyday conversations.

Sometimes, we can get so concerned about winning or making a certain point, that we lose the credibility that an ambassador of Christ should have. Others you don’t notice may be watching and listening to your conversation. If the exchange gets heated, some may be thinking, “I don’t care if Christianity is true if it’s not good.” So, is there a different kind of persuasion to employ?

At the Hendricks Center, Darrell Bock and I invited John Dickson, the Founding Director of the Centre for Public Christianity, to join us in discussing what persuasion and apologetics can look like when Christians function as cultural minorities in a society.

In this post, I share three quick tips I learned from his visit on how to use a different kind of persuasion in our apologetic encounters:

Give ’em pause
Have conversations, not debates
Show truth and goodness.

Give ’em Pause

Instead of walking into a conversation in “debate mode,” Christians should seek to persuade others by provoking two things: Reflection and a longing for the truth of the gospel. On an episode of the Table Podcast called “Keys to Effective Cultural Engagement,” Bock talked about what he calls “a different kind of persuasion.” He says:

My initial goal…is to get the person to pause and reflect. “Might there be another way to think about what we’re talking about?” with the hope that what I’m putting out on the table is something they can recognize the potential merit of, and then consider what is being said, because it’s different than what they’re used to hearing.

Instead of relying on a more forceful kind of attempt at persuasion, he suggests an approach that communicates something like, “What I’m putting out on the table for you is a helpful way to think about how humans should interact and live with one another…” He says, “There’s certain effectiveness of living that’s being represented. I want to give them pause so they’ll start to think.”

Dickson agrees. He explains how this applies not just in conversations, but even in televised public debate situations:

If I lose well in a debate or discussion with a journalist, but I’ve done it so well that I know that the audience is thinking, “That Christian guy was reasonable and level headed and pretty nice.” That commends the gospel. I don’t go around trying to lose, but I’m not so concerned about losing… losing well is sometimes a beautiful representation of the gospel for those looking on…

Richard Dawkins is doing us a favor in the long term because he is so extreme…If the average, thoughtful doubter thinks, “That’s not an approach I like. I thought the Christian did a little bit better there.” That is winning.

Have Conversations, not Debates

You probably won’t yourself defending the faith on TV or in a literal academic debate. But even in everyday conversations, other people may be watching you interact with someone who sees Christianity differently. How do you compose yourself? Rather than being consumed with winning the debate, let’s engage in a real conversation. Remind yourself, “I’m in a conversation, not a debate.” Bock elaborates:

The first rule is, “I’m engaged in a conversation versus a debate. I’m not trying to win anything. All that I’m trying to do is demonstrate what I hope is the reasonableness of what I believe in a way that will draw people in to consider what it is that’s being said…” I’m probably not going to convince the guy on the other side of the microphone but I’m interested in the person who’s trying to decide, “Which microphone am I going to believe?” and hopefully draw them in my direction as opposed to the direction of the person who I may be pitted against.

Show Truth and Goodness

Today, many people are wondering not if Christianity is true, but if Christianity is even good. They reason, “If it’s not good, then should I, why to care if it’s true?” Don’t forget that persuasion is always person-relative. While you may not be able to help someone consider the truth of a certain Christian truth claim, you may be able to show them by the tone of your conversation and the way you treat them that Christianity is good.

Dickson notes that this was the approach of C.S. Lewis:

Lewis came to believe that if he could convey the beauty of Christianity to people, it opens them up to the truth…He wanted to convey the beauty of ideas to allow people to open up to the possibility that they’re also true. To want it to be true is a step along the path to knowing it’s true…

He goes on to say:

The Greek word epikeia, which you find in Paul’s letters is translated as “gentleness,” but it really means “humanitarian regard,” that moderate, fair, just character. We trust…the good-hearted person more than anyone else on all topics.

The key to persuasion is if you are someone who is trustworthy, …that moves belief. Aristotle said this ethos is the primary part of persuasion because we believe those who we perceive to be credible and fair-minded far more easily than we do anyone else.

I agree. Our skeptical friends and neighbors are more likely to give Christianity a fresh hearing if we can, through our actions, show them that Christianity is good. I like how Dickson describes goodness as “morally credible, loving, generous, compassionate, humble—things that flow out of the gospel.” Sometimes, just getting someone to want that goodness, to long for that goodness, is a step in the right direction—even if they are not fully persuaded of its truth just yet. As Christian ambassadors, we need to help people see the beauty and goodness of Christianity, in addition to the truthfulness of its claims.

Reflection and Persuasion

I enjoyed putting this episode of the Table Podcast together and getting Bock and Dickson together to discuss a different kind of persuasion. These insights are applicable to both personal discussions and square public conversations. Rather than being primarily concerned about winning a debate, let’s focus on getting people to pause and reflect on the effectiveness of living God’s way. Yes, we should defend the faith with confidence. But let’s also be mindful of our demeanor and the way it affects those who may be watching and listening.

The next time you find yourself operating in “debate mode,” take a step back. Consider these tips and try using a different kind of persuasion.

Tag Archive for: Christians

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Here is the situation

Why won’t Eve stand?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction

Now, on to the myths of Old Earth Creationism!

Myth #1: The debate is not about whether the universe is young or old, it is about whether you believe God’s Word or not.

Myth #2: Big bang cosmology is based on naturalism.

Myth #3: You cannot see “age” in nature.

Myth #4: The same people who promote big bang cosmology deny the virgin birth of Jesus.

Myth #5: People only debate the meaning of the word “yom” in Genesis 1 because they want to fit millions of years into the Bible.

Myth #6: The idea that the universe is young has been well-established in Church history; therefore, it is true.

Myth #7: Believing that the universe is old undermines God’s Word.

Myth #8: You weren’t there to witness the creation; therefore, you cannot know what happened except by an eyewitness testimony (God’s Word).

Myth #9: Only the YEC believes the eyewitness of God’s Word.

Myth #10: Animal death and suffering are incompatible with the all-powerful and all-loving God of the Bible.

Myth #11: Having animal death before The Fall makes God responsible for moral evil.

Myth #12: If you can understand the general message of the Gospel without the scholarship, then you can understand the details of creation without scholarship.

Myth #13: OEC takes something from outside the Bible to use it to reinterpret God’s Word.

Myth #14: OEC tries to fit millions of years into the Bible because the secularist needs it for evolution.

Myth #15: Allowing nature to interpret Scripture opens the doors to immoral, secular views (including gay marriage).

Myth #16: Allowing nature to interpret Scripture undermines the authority of God’s Word.

Myth #17: OEC is a compromise in the Church.

Myth #18: OECs talk about nature as the 67th book of the Bible.

Myth #19: The creation is cursed; therefore, it cannot be trusted to reveal the truth.

Myth #20: Children are leaving the Church because they see the conflict between millions of years and the Bible.

Conclusion – Post-Modernism Has Sneaked Into The Church

Recommended resources related to the topic:

How to Deal with Emotional Doubt

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Guns Protect Life

What About Military Service?

Conclusion

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Resources

Recommended resources related to the topic:

A Different Kind of Persuasion

Give ’em Pause

Have Conversations, not Debates

Show Truth and Goodness

Reflection and Persuasion

Recommended resources related to the topic: