Tag Archive for: Evan Minton

COMPUTER SIMULATION

¿Es el universo una simulación computarizada?

Por Evan Minton

Algunos ateos, en un intento de evitar la conclusión de que el origen del Big Bang de nuestro universo fue causado por un ser sin espacio, intemporal, inmaterial, sin causa, poderoso, sobrenatural (es decir, Dios), han postulado que tal vez nuestro universo y todo lo que hay en él es solo una simulación computarizada dirigida por extraterrestres en un laboratorio. El Big Bang fue el lanzamiento del programa y el desarrollo del universo por sus leyes finamente ajustadas formaba parte del código del programa-universo.

COMPUTER SIMULATION

Si crees que estoy inventando esto, revisa esta cita de Neil deGrasse Tyson en su galardonado libro Astrophysics For People In A Hurry (en español: Astrofísica para la gente que tiene prisa):

“¿O qué pasaría si todo lo que conocemos y amamos fuera solo una simulación computarizada hechos para el entretenimiento por una especie de alienígena supe inteligente?”[1][2]

También vi esta idea arrojada en una caricatura donde un par de extraterrestres estaban en este enorme acelerador de partículas. Los extraterrestres eran tus típicos hombrecillos verdes, sin pelo, ojos negros gigantescos,   y trajes espaciales plateados. Y la imagen muestra nuestro universo como el resultado de un experimento que los extraterrestres estaban haciendo con el acelerador/colisionador de partículas grandes.

¿Estos son estos ateos, verdad? ¿Fue el Big Bang el resultado de extraterrestres jugando con un acelerador de partículas en su universo? [3] ¿O solo somos una simulación en un programa de seres más avanzados que nosotros? Refutar esta propuesta es el objetivo de esta entrada en el blog.

CUALQUIER UNIVERSO DE SIMULACIÓN COMPUTARIZADA CREADO POR EXTRATERRESTRES DEBE TENER UN PRINCIPIO

En primer lugar, incluso si admitimos esta idea (de la cual Tyson solo descarta como una posibilidad), no se desharía de Dios. No erradicaría el análisis conceptual del Argumento cosmológico Kalam. ¿Por qué? Porque en el universo en el que la computadora simula nuestro existir, ese universo debe perdurar en el tiempo. Si este universo perdura en el tiempo, entonces debe tener un comienzo y, por lo tanto, una causa trascendente.

¿Cómo llegué a esta conclusión? De uno de los mismos argumentos filosóficos/matemáticos que me llevan a la conclusión de que nuestro universo tuvo un comienzo. En primer lugar, sabemos que estos extraterrestres tendrían que perdurar en el tiempo porque los alienígenas viven en un mundo de causa y efecto, de relaciones de antes y después. Hubo un tiempo antes de que estos científicos alienígenas nacieran y un tiempo después que ellos nacieran. Hubo un tiempo antes de obtener sus títulos en ingeniería informática y un tiempo después que ellos se graduaran. Hubo un tiempo antes de que construyeran la computadora que causó nuestro universo simulado, y un tiempo después que funcionara la simulación. Las relaciones de antes y después son imposibles sin tiempo. Según la descripción de esta teoría, nuestras criaturas alienígenas creadores son seres temporales. Esto me lleva al siguiente punto.

  1. Es imposible atravesar una cantidad realmente infinita de momentos temporales.
  2. Si es imposible atravesar un número realmente infinito de momentos, entonces no se puede alcanzar el momento presente.
  3. El momento presente ha sido alcanzado.
  4. Por lo tanto, no hemos perdurado a través de un número realmente infinito de momentos temporales (es decir, el universo tuvo un comienzo).

Este es un silogismo lógicamente válido. Si las premisas son verdaderas, también lo es la conclusión. Entonces, ¿son ciertas las premisas? Creo que lo son.

Veamos la premisa 1. Si el universo de nuestros creadores alienígenas fuera eterno y sin comienzo (a diferencia del universo que simularon), eso significa que su mundo soportó un número infinito de momentos para llegar al momento en el que causaron su simulación. Antes del día de la simulación, el día antes de la simulación tenía que comenzar. Y antes del día anterior al día de la simulación podría amanecer, el día anterior al día antes del día anterior a la simulación podría amanecer. Antes de que ese día pudiera amanecer, el día anterior tenía que amanecer. Antes de que ese día pudiera amanecer, el día anterior tenía que amanecer, y así sucesivamente. Como puedes ver, el día en que los científicos alienígenas causaron su simulación del universo nunca pudo haber llegado, porque habría que pasar un número infinito de momentos previos. De hecho, ningún momento en su universo en absoluto podría comenzar. Antes de cada día en la serie infinita de días, siempre tendría que haber un día que tuviera que amanecer primero.

Llegar al momento presente mientras se tiene que cruzar primero un número infinito de eventos pasados ​​es análogo a saltar de un pozo sin fondo, o hacer que se desborde una cafetera sin fondo. No importa cuánto café vierta en la taza, nunca se llenará hasta el borde.

Pero si un pasado infinito no se puede cruzar, entonces eso significa que el día del inicio de la simulación no pudo llegar. Y eso significa que nuestro día actual no pudo llegar. El comienzo de nuestra historia de 14 mil millones de años nunca pudo haber ocurrido (esta es la premisa 2). Pero claramente, el momento presente ha llegado (premisa 3). Estamos aquí. Estás leyendo esta publicación en el blog ahora mismo. Es evidente que el presente ha llegado. Esto significa que el universo de nuestros creadores alienígenas no podría haber perdurado para siempre, sino que debe tener un comienzo. Y dado que todo lo que comienza a existir debe tener una causa, se deduce que el universo de nuestros creadores alienígenas debe tener una causa.

PERO QUIZÁS ESTEMOS EN UNA SIMULACIÓN DENTRO DE UNA SIMULACIÓN

En este punto, el ateo podría responder: “Está bien, pero tal vez el universo de nuestros creadores alienígenas es también una simulación. Estamos en una simulación que está dentro de una simulación. Así como una muñeca que hace su nido puede estar dentro de otro nido de muñeca”. Esto no resuelve el problema. Solo lo empuja hacia atrás otro nivel. ¿Están esos extraterrestres sujetos al tiempo? Parecería ser así, si evolucionaran, nacieran, crecieran, fueran a universidades para obtener títulos en programación de computadoras y luego crearan una simulación universal que tendría una simulación de universo dentro de ella. En ese caso, te encuentras con el mismo problema. Ese universo también debe tener un comienzo.

Pero tal vez el ateo podría decir: “Bueno, ¿tal vez somos una simulación dentro de una simulación dentro de una simulación?”. Nuevamente, se aplican los mismos problemas.

Lo que ocurre es que en este escenario de simulación-alienígena-científica-creadora-de-un-universo es que te lanzas a un retroceso infinito de alienígenas creando simulaciones universales que contienen alienígenas que crean simulaciones del universo que contienen simulaciones del universo consigo mismas que contienen simulaciones del universo indefinidamente.

Como ya se explicó anteriormente, atravesar un número realmente infinito de cosas es imposible. Nuestra propia simulación nunca podría haber surgido si un número pasado e infinito de simulaciones del universo tuviera que surgir primero. Antes de que los extraterrestres pudieran simular nuestro universo, su universo tendría que ser simulado, y antes de que su universo pudiera ser simulado, su universo tendría que ser una simulación, y así sucesivamente hasta el infinito. Ninguna simulación podría llegar al pasado, y ergo la simulación actual (y el momento presente dentro de la simulación) nunca podría llegar a ser.

¿QUÉ SIGNIFICA TODO ESTO?

Significa que incluso en un escenario en el que los alienígenas súper avanzados creen un programa informático de un universo, eventualmente se remonta a un universo que no sea una simulación por computadora, pero sin embargo contiene criaturas alienígenas súper avanzadas y (espera…) tuvo un comienzo. En este escenario, debemos llegar a un primer universo, el primer comienzo y, por lo tanto, la primera causa.

Pero, ¿qué propiedades tendría esta causa? No sería un equipo de extraterrestres avanzados ya que este primer universo no es en sí mismo el resultado de un equipo anterior de científicos alienígenas. La causa trascendería toda la realidad física, todo el espacio y el tiempo, y por lo tanto sería inmaterial y no causada. En otras palabras, Dios levanta Su santa cabeza otra vez.

Dios está exento de los problemas que los creadores de alienígenas tendrían. Él no tuvo comienzo y no es causado, y por lo tanto no necesita una causa previa para explicarlo. El hecho de que Dios no tenga principio no implicaría que Él haya aguantado a través de un número realmente infinito de momentos porque Dios, sin la creación del tiempo, existió fuera del tiempo. No había tiempo. Una vez que Dios movió el primer dominó, el tiempo comenzó. Este es un tema un tanto pesado, y el filósofo cristiano William Lane Craig ha dedicado un libro completo al tema, [4] pero solo quería señalar que siendo intemporal y sin haber sido creado, Dios evita los problemas asociados con el hecho de no tener un principio de manera temporal.

CONCLUSIÓN 
Desafortunadamente para los ateos, esta idea alienígena de simulación por computadora solo hace a Dios subir las escaleras al máximo. No se deshace de Él. El análisis conceptual del Argumento Cosmológico Kalam sigue en pie.

Notas 

[1] deGrasse Tyson, Neil.Astrophysics for People in a Hurry (Ubicaciones Kindle 170-171). W. W. Norton & Company. Versión Kindle.

[2] Por cierto, no dejes que esta idea descabellada te impida obtener el libro de Tyson. Solo menciona la idea de simulación en este lugar.  “Astrophysics For People In A Hurry” es un fantástico curso de introducción a la astrofísica. Tyson no presenta teorías salvajes como esta, y solo muestra su manga atea un total de dos veces. El primero en esta parte del libro, y el segundo, en el capítulo final. Es una obra religiosamente neutral en general. Recomiendo a cualquiera que ame la ciencia (y sea especialmente no muy letrado en ciencias) adquirir el libro.

[3] Por cierto, esto sucedió en un episodio de Doctor Who (titulado Extremis). No describiré lo que sucedió en el episodio. Míralo tú mismo. Mira toda la serie de hecho. ¡Es un espectáculo increíble!

[4] El libro se llama “Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship To Time” (Tiempo y eternidad: explorando la relación de Dios con el tiempo).

 

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2ErH4n3

Traducido por María Andreina Cerrada

/by
Argument for the soul

The Identity Argument for the Soul

,

By Evan Minton

C.S Lewis once wrote “You don’t have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body“.[1] Most Christians believe that we are not merely physical bodies, but that we are immaterial entities that live inside our bodies. We are embodied spirits. This view is known as Substance Dualism. The Bible very clearly teaches substance dualism (see, for example, 1 Samuel 28, 2 Corinthians 5:6-8, Philippians 1:20-22, 2 Corinthians 12:2-4), so if you believe the Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant, then you ought to be a substance dualist. However, how would you demonstrate the reality of the soul to someone who doesn’t believe The Bible is divinely inspired? Quoting passages to prove that souls exist would do little good when talking to an atheist or an agnostic.

Fortunately, there are philosophical arguments we can draw on for the existence of the soul. One such argument is The FreeThinking Argument which I briefly surveyed in my blog post “5 Arguments For The Existence Of Free Will”. However, another argument reasons to the soul’s existence from the law of identity. This logical principle states that if you’re considering two objects, and every single property both objects have are in common, and there is literally nothing to distinguish the two, the most logical inference is that they are one in the same. That is to say, the two things really aren’t two things after all, but one thing. On the other hand, if the two things do have at least one property that distinguishes them, then the two things are totally separate entities.

In syllogistic form, the argument goes like this:

1: If the mind is identical to the brain, then whatever is true of the brain is true of the mind and vice versa.
2: There are things true of the mind that are not true of the brain.
3: Therefore, the mind and brain are not identical. 

This is a logically valid argument. The conclusion follows from the premises by the rule of modus ponens. In order for the conclusion to be justifiably reached, we must affirm that both premises are true. What reasons can be given in defense of these premises?

Premise 1: If The Mind Is Identical To The Brain, Then Whatever Is True Of The Mind Is True Of The Brain and Vice Versa.

The premise rests on the law of identity. The physicalist (i.e the person who believes that people don’t have souls) must prove that when one is talking about the “brain” and when one is talking about the “mind”, they are talking about the same object. In order for them to really be one in the same, any property that the brain has, the mind must have. Any property the mind has, the brain must have. If physicalism is true, the brain must have properties A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and the mind must have properties A, B, C, D, E, F, G. Moreover, there must be no property or properties, H, I, and/or J which exists in one but not in the other. For if properties H or I can be found in one but not in the other, then this shows that they are different entities.

Imagine an alien were to visit from a faraway galaxy and he asked an Earthling who the current president of the united states is. The Earthling tells the alien that the current president is the former host of the TV show The Apprentice. Furthermore, this Earthling later learns from another person that The Apprentice only had one host prior to Arnold Schwarzenegger, Donald Trump. So, if the current president is the former host of The Apprentice, and the former host of The Apprentice is Donald Trump, then the alien would rightly conclude that the name of the current President is Donald Trump. He also learns that Trump is a Caucasian man and that it was a Caucasian man who previously hosted the television show.

Now suppose that this alien knows nothing of how the U.S government works and doesn’t know that a President can only serve a maximum of 8 years. He comes back 20 years later and asks someone who the current U.S President is and the Earthling tells this alien that the president is an Asian Woman whose previous trade was a movie actress, like Reagan. The alien takes into account the facts learned before, namely “The current president is the former host of The Apprentice“, “The current president is a man”, “the previous host of The Apprentice is a man”, and contrasts them with the new information that the current president is an Asian Woman. This is a distinguishing property. The alien concludes from this that Donald Trump must no longer be the current president and that the current president is an entirely different individual, an individual who did not host The Apprentice.

In the above illustration, the alien never actually saw pictures or videos of both of these U.S Presidents. He simply logically inferred based on the law of identity that Donald Trump was the president during his first visit, but that someone else became president before his second visit.

Donald Trump had properties (A) Prior host of The Apprentice, (B) Is U.S President, (C) is Caucasian, (D) is a man.

Years later, the alien found a person who (E) is U.S President, (F) an Asian woman, (G) was a Hollywood actress, (G) never hosted The Apprentice.

E, F, and G, are incompatible with  A, C, and D. On this basis, the alien concludes they aren’t the same person. They do not have 100% of their properties in common.

Or another illustration: suppose your wife called you on the phone and said that she bought a bag of red fruit and set them on the counter. You come home to find red apples sitting on the table. You infer that the apples were the fruit your wife was referring to because (A) apple is a fruit, and (B) the apples are red. Your wife’s description and your observation connect to tell you that what your wife was talking about on the phone and what you’re now seeing with your own eyes are one in the same thing. Now, if you came home and found Granny Smith apples, you would think something is up. Although apples are a type of fruit, there’s a property that distinguishes them from the fruit your wife described on the phone, namely the color. You would infer that either your wife was lying, she’s color blind, or she bought two kinds of fruit and the fruit you’re looking at isn’t the kind she was talking about on the phone. But you would never say that the fruit you’re looking at and the fruit your wife talked about on the phone are the same type of fruit because they do not share 100% of the same properties in common. There is at least one property to distinguish them.

It can be stated simply: If X is identical to Y, then whatever is true of X is true of Y and vice versa. But if something is true of Y that is not true of X, then X is not identical to Y.

Premise 2: There Are Things True Of The Mind That Are Not True Of The Brain.

Now we come to the most crucial premise. Is the mind like the green apples and an Asian woman in the above illustrations? Do they have distinguishing properties that would lead us to conclude that are two distinct entities? I believe they do.

The mind has mental properties, such as the property of feeling sad, happy, angry. The mind thinks “about” things. For example, when I go for walks with my dog, I think “about” God, Jesus, philosophy, science, apologetics, or how lovely the trees in my yard looks. Sometimes I think “about” my childhood. The mind has the property of “aboutness” to it. The mind also has the property of first-person perspective. I know myself more intimately than anyone else in the world. I know first-hand what it’s like to feel my own happiness, my own sadness, my own anger, my own anxiety. I know what it’s like to be me. Moreover, the mind contains these things called beliefs, and beliefs can be either true or false.

What about the brain, that physical organ that sits inside our skulls? Does the brain have these properties? No. The brain is never “about” anything. A neuroscientist could hook me up to a machine that could show in exact detail every physiological phenomenon that are going on inside my brain, and never once will he see any of my thoughts. I could be thinking about Pokemon Battle Strategies, and the neuroscientist wouldn’t be able to point to a group of neurons and tell his colleagues “You see that? Those neurons are about Pokemon Battle Strategies”. He would never be able to locate my knowledge of The Bible or of Natural Theology argument. The neuroscientist couldn’t put his finger on the screen of the machine and say “Here’s The Kalam Cosmological Argument!” Even if they cut open my brain and put every molecule under a microscope, they wouldn’t find any property of “aboutness” anywhere. But if the mind is the brain, and mind is undergoing various thoughts, one ought to be able to locate and discern those thoughts if they can simply know what physical processes are going on in my brain, right?
It is also impossible for someone studying a person’s brain to have that first-person perspective. He could have Bob hooked up to a machine to show all of the physical processes currently going on in his brain. The doctor could then hit Bob’s toe with a hammer. The machine would register a pain signal going from Bob’s foot to his brain, indicating that he is experiencing pain, and the doctor would rightly conclude that Bob is in pain. Nevertheless, the doctor would not know what it is like for Bob to experience that pain. He doesn’t have the first-person perspective of the hammer pain. Now, one may object “But Bob could retaliate and hit the doctor on the foot”. True, but that would only result in the doctor having the first-person experience of his own pain. He still wouldn’t have first-person knowledge of Bob’s pain. The doctor might infer that this is what it was like when he struck Bob. In fact, this seems obvious. We all seem to be able to empathize with someone who is going through physical pain. We say “I’ve been there” or “I know what that’s like”. But this is merely a logical inference linking two independent experiences. We don’t really know what it’s like for that person from their first-person POV. We can only infer what it’s like for them on the basis of what it was like for us.
I can infer what it’s like for Bob to have a toothache on the basis of my own experience of tooth-aches, but I do not and cannot partake in Bob’s firsthand experience of tooth pain. The most advanced technology in the world could only tell you the physiological processes occurring when Bob experiences things, but it would never let you step into Bob’s shoes and have that experience yourself.
Now let’s consider beliefs. Beliefs can be true or false, but brain states cannot be true or false. A brain state is just a brain state. It simply is what it is. A neuroscientist can’t hook me up to an EEG and tell me “You know what you’re doing right now? You’re having a false brain state. Cut it out.” This shows that beliefs and brain states are not identical. The thought I’m having can be true or false, but the electrochemical process that occurs when I’m having the thought cannot be true or false.
So, to sum up:
The Mind’s properties — (1) Aboutness, (2) first-person POV, (3) has beliefs that are true or false.
The Brain — (1*) Lacks aboutness, (2*) can only have physiological processes associated with the 1st person POV observed, (3*) has physical states that cannot be either true or false (they are what they are).
Whatever properties they might have in common, it is indisputable that one has properties the other doesn’t have, thus the second premise is true.
Conclusion: Therefore, The Mind Is Not Identical To The Brain.
Since both premises are true, the conclusion follows by the law of modus ponens.
Objection 1: Whenever Something Occurs In The Mental Life, There Are Neurological Processes Occurring In The Brain That Go Along With It. This Shows That The Mind Is Really Just The Brain.
The primary argument for physicalism is that whenever mental events occur in the mind, there are physical events happening in the brain that occur simultaneously. Take the phenomenon of fear. When you have fear, undoubtedly there is brain activity that is correlated with the experience of fear. Physicalists will also point out that certain mental diseases, like Alzheimer’s, affect the brain, but as a result of affecting the brain, the mind is also affected. People with this dreadful disease lose more and more of their ability to think clearly and remember. Eventually, they even forget who their relatives are. Doesn’t this loss of brain/loss of mind correlation show that the mind is the brain?
I don’t think so. For one thing, it’s important that you don’t miss that my arguments given for premise 2 presuppose that there’s a correlation of events between the brain and the mind. If you re-read those paragraphs again, you’ll see that.
Secondly, this objection doesn’t even address my points that the mind has the property of aboutness and the brain does not (no neuron, cell, or electrical impulse is “about” any of your thoughts), nor it does address my point that even an exhaustive knowledge of the physical process of the brain wouldn’t show you that person’s first-person point of view. This objection refutes neither premise of the argument.
Thirdly, mental diseases like Alzheimer’s affecting one’s mental life doesn’t necessarily point to the conclusion that they are one in the same. At most, this just shows that the brain and mind can affect or influence one another. In a lecture at the Truth For A New Generation conference in 2012 titled “The Argument For The Soul”, J.P Moreland gave the following illustration. Suppose you’re in a car that has defected doors that won’t open, and the seatbelt can’t be released either. Wouldn’t it be the case that your mobility would be limited by where you can drive the car? Yes. You could go anywhere you wanted to except for places where the car couldn’t fit. Suppose something happened to the steering wheel that caused it to be stuck turned left. In this case, you’d be stuck driving around in circles.
Now suppose that you wreck the car, and you do so in such a way that the seatbelt snaps, the windshield shatters, and you get hurled out of the vehicle. No problems that existed with the vehicle would matter anymore because you’re not inside of it anymore.
In a similar way, while we’re stuck in these earthen vessels, we are mentally limited by our brains and bodies. If the brain is malfunctioning, that’s going to cause our minds to malfunction as well even though our minds are distinct. Now, when the mind (soul) leaves the body, it’s no longer constrained by the physical defects of the brain it depended on. Just as the physical defects of the car didn’t matter once our driver was able to get out.
Philosopher William Lane Craig answered it this way: “Noble Prize winning neurologist Sir John Eccles lecture on the relationship between the mind and the brain. He said that the mind and the brain are like a pianist and his piano. In order to produce music the pianist must have a finely tuned piano, and then he can produce the music. But if the piano is out of tune, even though the musician knows how to play the piece correctly, the music will be discordant, and he will not be able to produce the beautiful music. Similarly, Eccles said, the mind and the brain work together to produce thought. If the brain is malfunctioning or injured or impaired then thought will be impaired; the soul will not be able to think properly. Its instrument will be impaired and so it cannot think correctly.” [2]
So, to conclude: brain-state correlation with mental events doesn’t prove the mind is the brain. It could just mean there’s a two-way relationship of cause and effect between them. There’s a reason my blog’s slogan is “Using the brains that God gave us”. That reason is that I believe we do indeed use our physical brains to think, just a pianist uses a piano to make music.
Objection 2: The Mind-Body Interaction Problem
Some physicalists try to argue that substance dualism is false because of what is known as “The Mind-Body Interaction Problem”. This dilemma stated is that there is no way to explain how an immaterial thing like the soul can cause effects in the brain and body and vice versa. How exactly does this mysterious substance called “The soul” cause effects in my physical brain? What mechanism is there for the soul to cause the brain to cause my fingers to type this sentence? No one can give an answer. I certainly can’t at least.
Now, one could perhaps simply appeal to mystery. As long as we have good grounds for affirming that the soul and brain do indeed interact, we can simply shrug our shoulders at the how.
On the other hand, some actually make a more potent argument than simply saying “You can’t explain how the soul and body interact, so substance dualism must be false.” Some frame the counterargument to substance dualism this way:
(A1) A soul can interact with a body only if the interaction is in virtue of the transference of motion from the soul to the body.
(A2) Transference of motion from a soul to a body is impossible (because a soul does not have motion).
(A3) Therefore, a soul cannot interact with a body.
Dr. Jacobus Erasmus explains that first step asserts that for A to causally interact with B, a transference of motion from A to B has got to happen, such as through a collision or some other kind of impact. Now, many philosophers, (e.g Jonathan Barnes, Joshua Hoffman, and Gary Rosenkrantz), have noted that (A1) presupposes the following erroneous principle:
(A4) For any two objects A and B and some property F, if A causes B to be F, then A is F.
Dr. Jacobus Arasmas explains that “According to (A4), if a soul causes a body to be in motion, then the soul must be in motion. It is, thus, easy to see why (A1) presupposes (A4). Unfortunately, (A4) is demonstrably false. A lump of clay, for example, can be caused to be square by a non-square object, such as a hand or a rolling pin. Or consider the Law of Gravity, according to which two pieces of matter can accelerate toward each other (or gain motion) without motion being transferred from one to the other. Hence, since (A4) is false, (A1) is false.” [3] As any philosopher will tell you, it only takes the falsification of one premise to make an argument worthless. So even if A2 stands, A3 doesn’t follow because A1 is fallacious.
So, although we still don’t know how the mind/soul causes effects in the brain/body, we certainly don’t have any positive reason (as the above syllogism attempts to show) that such an interaction is impossible. As long as the arguments for substance dualism are sound, we can simply leave this issue an open question. Just as if Kirk MacGregor’s argument for middle knowledge is sound, we can leave the issue of how God knows CCFs an open question.
Conclusion
Other objections to the argument could be addressed, but for the sake of keeping this article a reasonable length, I only opted to respond to the two primary objections most frequently brought up by physicalists. Any other objections can be saved for future articles. It seems that the identity argument for the soul is sound, which gives us good extra-biblical grounds for being substance dualists.
Notes
1: C.S Lewis, ChristianQuotes.com, Retrieved December 20th 2017, https://www.christianquotes.info/images/c-s-lewis-quote-soul/#axzz51p9eNMVl
3: Dr. Jacobus Arasmus, “Objections To The Existence Of The Soul”, November 20th 2017, http://freethinkingministries.com/objections-to-the-existence-of-the-soul/

 

Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). He is the author of “Inference To The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine”. He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.

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

/by
Evolution True Happen Adam Eve

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

,

By Evan Minton

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

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

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

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

“1. God exists and possesses omniscient middle knowledge.

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

3.The universe unfolds…

4. Our solar system and earth come into existence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

/by
God Forgive

Why Can’t God Just Forgive Us?

, ,

By Evan Minton

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

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

How should we answer this?

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

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

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

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

 

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

/by
Christmas Conundrums

Resolving Christmas Conundrums

,

By Evan Minton

Christmas is one of my favorite holidays and has been for as long as I’ve walked this Earth. As a kid, it was because I got a boatload of toys on Christmas morning that I got to play with as Mom and Dad prepared Christmas dinner for us and the rest of my family. As someone who is now a born-again Christian, my primary reason has shifted from getting gifts to praising God for taking on human flesh to begin His mission of redeeming fallen humanity. We all know the story: of how Gabriel appeared to Mary, told her she would become miraculously pregnant with Jesus, how Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem where Jesus would then be born, etc. However, those of us who witness to non-believers will encounter some objections about the reliability of the Christmas narrative.

It is the point of this blog post to wrestle with these challenges to the gospels’ reliability.

1: The Census 

Luke 2:1-3 says “In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to their own town to register.” 

The Bible is clear that Jesus was born when Herod The Great was in power and when Quirinius was governor, but (A) Flavius Josephus says Herod died in A.D 4 and (B) secular history attests that Quirinius didn’t become governor until A.D 6?  Did The Bible get it wrong?

First of all, I think we should give Luke the benefit of the doubt. In The Book Of Acts In The Setting Of Hellenistic History, the classic scholar Dr. Collin J. Hemer shows that archeology proves that the book of Acts got it right in 84 incidental details. The first chapter of Luke and the first chapter of Acts both give us clues that these books are written by the same author (Luke), such as the fact that they’re both addressed to a man named Theophilus and in Acts, the writer alludes “to my former work” (Acts 1:1). This is one piece of internal evidence that Luke and Acts had the same author. Now, if Acts gets it right in 84 different places, then is it really reasonable to suspect that this same writer would be so sloppy in his previous work? In fact, the famed scholar and archeologist Sir William Ramsay once said: “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense…in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians.”[1] Click here to read about some of the things Luke got right in both of his books.  

Secondly, there are proposed solutions which could resolve the issue. One proposed solution has been that there were two different men named Quirinius governing on two different occasions. That possibility isn’t entirely out of the question. After all, we’ve had more than one president whose first name is George. The two-Quirinius explanation would be analogous to George Bush’ presidency in the 90s and George W. Bush’ presidency in the 2000s.

Another proposal is that the Qurinius reigned on two different occasions. As Daryl E Witmer of ChristianAnswers.net explains: “There is good reason to believe that Quirinius was actually twice in a position of command (the Greek expression hegemoneuo in Luke 2:2 which is often translated ‘governor’ really just means ‘to be leading’ or ‘in charge of’) over the province of Syria, which included Judea as a political subdivision. The first time would have been when he was leading military action against the Homonadensians during the period between 12 and 2 B.C. His title may even have been ‘military governor.’ “[2]

Either of these proposals would solve the timing of Quirinius’ governorship. Either there were two governors by this name, or, as seems most likely, Quirinius was the governor on two separate occasions. This latter view is the one that archeologist William Ramsay endorsed.[3]

But what about the census itself? Was this really a practice that the Roman government did?

Here’s a quote from an official governmental order dated AD 104. Gaius Vibius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt [says]:

“Seeing that the time has come for the house to house census, it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their provinces to return to their own homes, that they may both carry out the regular order of the census and may also attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotments.”[4]

As you can see, that practice is confirmed by this document. And another papyrus from AD 48 implies that the entire family was involved in the census. Moreover, there have been scholars who argued that Romans were known to occasionally allow a census to be taken according to local customs in order to avoid ticking off the population.

According to ancient Semitic culture, what this means is that Mary and Joseph would have had to trek to the home of their ancestors.

2: The Christmas Star

In Matthew 2:2, the magi appear before King Herod and ask him where the baby Jesus is. They said“Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” The Magi knew how to get to the town Jesus was born because a huge shining star in the sky acted like a celestial GPS system. This incident of the star that guided the magi has baffled historians and astronomers for years. What kind of event could this be? What astronomical phenomenon could have occurred in the universe to have caused a star to shine noticeably bright for the duration of the magis’ journey?

Some Christians have responded to this challenge by asking why it even has to be a literal star at all? Why can’t it just be a supernatural light caused by God? Or why couldn’t it be supernatural light given off by an angel? The problem is that the text specifically calls it a star, or at least some kind of celestial body in this universe. The Greek Word translated as “star” is aster, and according to Hugh Ross, this Greek word can indicate a number of different astronomical bodies, including a star, planet, comet, asteroid, or meteor. If we’re to read the plain meaning of scripture, we should probably conclude that this is a star, planet, meteor, or some other astronomical body rather than an angel or a miracle light. This would be to stick to the hermeneutical principle that The Bible should be interpreted literally unless good reasons can be given to take a term metaphorically.

The astrophysicist Hugh Ross once argued that the star was a recurring nova. He wrote “The brighter novae are rare enough that they could catch the attention of the Magi (who, it seems, were waiting for a sign), yet also dim enough to escape the notice of other observers. And, unlike supernovae, a few novae actually can erupt several times.”[5]

However, he himself said there was “a snag” in this explanation. He said that all the recurring novae that astronomers had observed had a recurrence rate of 10 years or even a century! Nevertheless, Dr. Ross said that believed it was possible for a nova to recur in less than two years. In 2014, new scientific evidence came to light to vindicate Ross. Ross wrote about these findings, saying “Astronomers observed nova M31N 2008-12a recurring within a period of only one year. Following this discovery, a team of four astronomers demonstrated that a certain kind of white dwarf star could exhibit recurring nova eruptions with a period as short as two months. Such a white dwarf star’s rotation rate would need to be close to zero and its mass would need to be 1.38 times the Sun’s mass. It also would need to be accreting mass from a companion star at a rate of 0.00000036 solar masses per year. The team also showed that a one-year nova eruption period requires a white dwarf with a mass = 1.30 solar masses and an accretion rate = 0.00000015 solar masses per year.”[6]

Dr. Ross says that this is a rare occurrence in the Milky Way Galaxy, but that nevertheless, these kinds of white dwarfs exist in a sufficient enough number to make the account of the star of Bethlehem credible.

3: Herod’s Slaughter Of Innocent Babies 

Matthew 2 records that King Herod sought to kill all of the babies in Bethlehem who were 2 years old or younger because he believed the prophecies in The Old Testament about the coming of the Messiah (the giant star talked about in the previous subheader being a sign that he had arrived). Historians and scholars of ancient history have doubted whether this incident ever really occurred. Why? Because the only place it’s recorded is in the gospel of Matthew. Surely a person of such prominence as King Herod committing an act as heinous as murdering all of Bethelem’s infants would have been talked about by more people than Matthew, right?. You would expect Josephus or Tacitus to have at least made a passing reference to this event, right?

What are we to do about this objection? Did King Herod’s genocide not occur? Did Matthew make the whole thing up? Lee Strobel brought this objection up in his interview with Archeologist John McCray in his book The Case For Christ. In that interview, McCray responds with the following:

“‘You have to put yourself back in the first century and keep a few things in mind. First, Bethlehem was probably no bigger than Nazareth, so how many babies of that age would there be in a village of five hundred or six hundred people? Not thousands, not hundreds, although certainly a few. ‘Second, Herod the Great was a bloodthirsty king: he killed members of his own family; he executed lots of people who he thought might challenge him. So the fact that he killed some babies in Bethlehem is not going to captivate the attention of people in the Roman world. And third, there was no television, no radio, no newspapers. It would have taken a long time for word of this to get out, especially from such a minor village way in the back hills of nowhere, and historians had much bigger stories to write about.”[7]

So, in other words, Bethelem was extremely tiny so the slaughter wouldn’t have been a major holocaust. Secondly, Herod was known for heinous acts (see the writings of Josephus), and thirdly, it would have taken a long time for this to have circulated. Given the second point, it wouldn’t have probably been of much interest to people outside of Bethelem.

I would add to McRay’s points by pointing out that much of ancient writings have been lost in the sands of time, decayed away. Sometimes portions of these writings survive as citations in other works, such as Thallus’ mention of the darkness at Jesus’ crucifixion quoted in a work by Julius Africanus which was itself quoted by a historian named George Syncellus[8]. Both Thallus’ and Africanus’ works are lost, but both partially survive in Syncellus’ work. That’s one way we know that they didn’t survive; because historians see these authors quoted yet the quoted works are nowhere to be found. So, it may be the case that some other historians did make mention of it, but their works either haven’t been found yet or none of the manuscripts survived to the present day. We just don’t know.

Conclusion 

Archeology and astronomy have helped to shed light on these Christmas Conundrums. We have reason to believe that Matthew and Luke accurately recorded the story of Jesus’ birth.

Notes 

[1] Sir William M. Ramsey, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, Hodder & Stoughton, 1915.

[2] Daryl E. Witmer, “When Did The Luke 2 Census Occur?”, https://christiananswers.net/q-aiia/census-luke2.html 

[3] John McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 155, emphasis added.

[4] William Mitchell Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Forgotten Books, 2012, reprint of 1909 edition), 277.

[5] Hugh Ross, “Astronomy Sheds New Light On The Christmas Star”, December 1, 2014, http://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2014/12/01/astronomy-sheds-new-light-on-the-christmas-star 

[6] Ibid.

[7] Strobel, Lee; Strobel, Lee. Case for Christ Movie Edition: Solving the Biggest Mystery of All Time (Case for … Series) (Kindle Locations 2256-2263). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

[8] George Syncellus, quoting Julius Africanus, “History Of The World, Book 3”.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2B4LwGg

/by
Josephus Gospels John Baptist

Why Do Josephus And The Gospels Contradict Each Other About John The Baptist?

,

By Evan Minton

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus was born in A.D 37. In about A.D 90, he wrote his book “Antiquities Of The Jews” in which he writes a history of the Jewish people. In this work, he mentions several individuals who appear in The New Testament such as Jesus, James’, the brother of Jesus, Caiaphas, King Herod the Great, and John The Baptist, among several others. With regards to John The Baptist, Josephus says that King Herod (Antipas) killed him, just as The New Testament does. Josephus writes “Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against John called the Baptist. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God, and having done so join together in washing. …. And when others massed about him, for they were very greatly moved by his words, Herod, who feared that such strong influence over the people might carry to a revolt — for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise — believed it much better to move now than later have it raise a rebellion and engage him in actions he would regret. And so John, out of Herod’s suspiciousness, was sent in chains to Machaerus, the fort previously mentioned, and there put to death; but it was the opinion of the Jews that out of retribution for John God willed the destruction of the army so as to afflict Herod.” (Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119)

Josephus said that the reason Herod killed John The Baptist was that Herod feared that John might lead a rebellion against him, and ergo overthrow him. However, this is not what The Bible says. Read Matthew’s account of John’s death in chapter 14. Matthew says that the reason Herod had John killed was that John was speaking out against Herod Antipas’ marriage because it was unlawful under The Old Testament law. Herodias had divorced her husband and married Herod Antipas. Now, this would have been fine if Herod’s brother had died, but since he was still alive, this was considered adultery. Matthew 14 says that it wasn’t Herod’s idea to have John killed, but that he was instead backed into a corner by promising Herodias’ daughter Salome that if she danced for him, he would give her anything she asked for. She danced, and, at the nudging of her mother, asked for John The Baptist’s head delivered on a platter.

So which is it? Who’s right? Is Josephus right or is Matthew right? Well, we might say; “Well, since The Bible is God’s word, it cannot err. So we must conclude that it was Matthew who is right and Josephus who is wrong”. Of course, this answer won’t suffice for the non-believer who doesn’t believe that The Bible is inspired.

Luke 8, I believe, provides us with the answer. Didn’t you ever wonder how would Matthew have gotten this information in the first place? After all, this happened in the privacy of Herod’s home. None of the disciples were there. Jesus wasn’t there. How did Matthew know what was going on behind closed doors? Luke 8:1-3 says “After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.” (emphasis mine)

Luke tells us that one of Jesus’ followers had a family member who was the manager of Herod’s household. This would provide a plausible explanation for how Matthew could have known what was happening at Herod’s birthday party. Chuza told Joanna about this incident, and then Joanna told Jesus and the disciples. Matthew would then have this information to later record in his gospel.

What we can conclude, then, is that Matthew is right because he had better source information than Josephus! Matthew was actually told by someone who had a family member who worked for Herod Antipas why Herod Antipas had John The Baptist killed. Josephus was only speculating on Herod Antipas’ motive based on what appeared to be the case to him.

Now, one may object “But couldn’t Luke have simply made this Joanna person up simply to give us an explanation for how they knew about Herod’s motives?” My answer: No. It’s unlikely that Luke made up Joanna or lied about her husband working for Herod Antipas simply to answer the question of how they knew Herod Antipas’ motive. For one thing, this small detail isn’t mentioned in the context of Herod Antipas’ party. Herod Antipas’ party isn’t even mentioned in Luke 7, 8, or 9. If Luke provided this small detail simply to solve the problem, why didn’t he do it in the context of the party? Moreover, scholars have made good arguments that Luke’s gospel was written sometime in the 50s’ A.D when all of the eyewitnesses were still around and could have corrected Luke if he were making this up. Though it’s beyond the scope of this blog post to get into dating arguments. Thirdly, this is what New Testament scholars Tim and Lydia McGrew would call “Undesigned Coincidences”. An undesigned coincidence is when one gospel says something that raises a question, but another gospel mentions an incidental little detail that answers it. From what I recall, Luke never talks about Herod Antipas’ banquet. Matthew does, but Luke doesn’t. Matthew raised a question (i.e “how would he have known what went on at Antipas’ place?”) but Luke answered it (i.e “One of Jesus’ followers had a husband who was his household manager”).

 

Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). He is the author of “Inference To The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine”. He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.

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

/by
Being Good Apologist

Being A Good Apologist Is More Than Knowing The Right Answers

By Evan Minton

1 Peter 3:15 says to “Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have, yet do so with gentleness and respect” and 2 Corinthians 10:5 says “We demolish argument and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ.” These two verses are the primary verses that make Christian Apologetics a precedent for the follower of Christ. We are to give the unbelievers reasons to believe Christianity is true and we are to demolish every argument that tries to show it isn’t. However, being a good apologist is more than just knowing the right answers to peoples’ objections and questions, and knowing how to make a case for Christianity. To be a good apologist, you must know more than “If this person says X, then I’ll respond with Y”. Giving a defense to anyone who asks is not like giving the answer to a mathematical equation.

Being a good apologist means being a good communicator, and that involves utilizing certain skills. Not everyone has these skills, but thankfully, if you know what skills you need, you can train yourself in these areas. Now, what are these skills you need?

The Accordion Tactic
You can learn the evidence for The Minimal Facts Case For Jesus’ Resurrection, or the evidence behind the premises of The Kalam Cosmological Argument, and you may even be able to do a good talk on this at your church. But can you relay these arguments in 5 minutes or less? In evangelism encounters, sometimes that’s all the time we have to talk with this person. Or even we do have more time to talk to them, not everyone wants to listen to your monologue for 45 minutes. If you want it to be a dialogue, you need to be able to compress your presentation of the arguments for God’s existence and the resurrection to 5 minutes or less. This skill comes in handy not just in one on one evangelism, but even in internet conversations. With some people, if a comment becomes way too lengthy, they’ll lose interest and comment ‘TL;DR” which means “Too long, didn’t read”.

This isn’t easy. I’ve struggled with brevity my entire apologetics career, but this is a practice that I keep practicing and practicing on. I do believe I’m getting better. With regards to my 6 favorite arguments, I can expand them like an accordion to do a 45-minute talk, or I can compress them to explain an argument to a friend in the time it takes to listen to a song. Compare my treatment of The Kalam Cosmological Argument, Fine-Tuning Argument, Local Fine-Tuning Argument, etc. in my book Inference To The One True God: Why I Believe In Jesus Instead Of Other Gods with my treatment of them in part 6 and part 7of my blog series on the problem of evil. The former is when my apologetic accordion is expanded. The latter is when my apologetic accordion is contracted. Learn this skill of playing the apologetic accordion and you’ll be able to defend the faith no matter how much or how little time you’re allotted. Oh, and, having a monkey wearing a fez isn’t required. Don’t worry about that.

Learn To Listen
At the National Conference On Christian Apologetics, Dr. Ray Civero gave a talk called “Turning Skeptics Into Seekers”. In this talk, one of his points is that we need to listen to what the other person is saying, and we need to listen not merely to respond to the argument, but to understand the argument. Listen to understand, don’t listen to respond. If you’re not paying attention to what the non-Christian is saying regarding his objections to Christianity, you will most likely (1) Attack a straw man in your response, (2) give the unbeliever the impression that you don’t care what he has to say, (3) Give the unbeliever that you just like to listen to yourself talk, and (4) turn him off to anything you have to say. (5) You will be like two ships passing in the night. In other words, you’ll be talking past each other.

Be like Ray Civero’s character Ike The Investigator. Ike doesn’t listen to anticipate. Ike listens to understand. Ike doesn’t listen to his opponent’s position trying to find some way to tear it apart. Ike listens to understand where the other person is coming from, to understand what the other person is actually saying.

Jesus said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Luke 6:31). I can’t tell you how often I’ve been frustrated with a non-Christian when I’ve explained something over and over, as clearly and concisely as I possibly could, mustering all of my effort to get them to understand what it was that I was actually saying, just to have them attack a straw man for the umpteenth time in their response to me. For example, there have been conversations where I bent over backwards trying to get the non-Christian to realize that The Minimal Facts Case For Jesus’ Resurrection isn’t question-begging, it doesn’t “cite The Bible to prove The Bible”, but instead treats The New Testament documents like a historian would treat any document claiming to be telling history (e.g A letter written by George Washington, a biography of Abraham Lincoln, Josephus’ writings). Christian and Non-Christian historians alike arrive at the minimal facts by applying the standard historical methodology to the text (e.g the principle of multiple attestation, the principle of embarrassment). It isn’t a circular argument.

Yet, no matter how I strain to get the other person to see the point, they still just don’t get it. If he wants to disagree with my arguments, that’s fine. If he wants to say he doesn’t think the resurrection is the best inference to the minimal facts, that’s fine. I don’t loathe debate, I loathe having to repeat myself and draw a hundred maps with the result of the other person still not understanding the argument. Why don’t they understand the argument? I can only guess that they’re simply skimming my comments. They’re too eager to respond to my comment so they don’t stop and actually try to understand what it is that I’m actually saying.

I think we’ve all been guilty of this at least a few times, Christian and non-Christian alike. However, we need to guard against it. James 1:19 says “Be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry.” If we’re to obey the golden rule and James 1:19, and if we’re to have a fruitful dialogue, then we need to be good listeners.

Have The Patience Of A Saint
There are jobs where having a short fuse is a handicap inherent to the job itself: being a cop, being a lawyer, working in retail, and being a Christian Apologist. Because in all of these, you’re going to come against people who will really try your patience. You need to have a pretty long fuse or else you’ll fail the task you’re trying to do.

If you’re going to be a Christian Apologist, you need to have thick skin, because there will be people who ridicule you, demean you, insult you, and slander you. It can be tempting to respond in kind, but The Bible tells us “Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have, yet do so with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15, emphasis mine). I know of some apologists (won’t name names) who obey the first half of this verse, but not the second. They give a defense for the hope they have alright, but they make total donkeys out of themselves while doing it. If you don’t give a defense with gentleness and respect, you have failed to fully obey 1 Peter 3:15.

2 Timothy 2:24-26 says “The Lord’s servant must not quarrel, but be gentle towards all, able to teach, patient, in gentleness correcting those who oppose him: perhaps God may give them repentance leading to a full knowledge of the truth, and they may recover themselves out of the devil’s snare, having been taken captive by him to his will.”

Conclusion 
These are a few of the most important skills you need to master to be a good Christian Apologist. Simply having the answers is not enough. That would be like saying you can be a police officer if you have a uniform, a badge, and a gun. While those definitely are necessary conditions to being a cop, they are not sufficient conditions. Likewise, being well read in the apologetic literature is a necessary condition to being an apologist, but not a sufficient condition. You need people skills!

Suggested reading:
“The Open Minded Christian: How To Deal Charitably With Fellow Sinners” – by Richard Bushey
“Tactics: A Game Plan For Defending Your Christian Convictions” by Greg Koukl
“Arguing With Friends: Keeping Your Friends And Your Convictions” by Paul Buller

 

Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). He is the author of “Inference To The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine”. He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2AsAA82

/by
Cup Jesus Father Take Away

What Is The Cup That Jesus Asked The Father To Take Away?

By Evan Minton

“Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. On reaching the place, he said to them, ‘Pray that you will not fall into temptation.’  He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, ‘Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.’ An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.” – Luke 22:39-44

This passage records the events preceding Jesus’ trial, crucifixion, and resurrection. As anyone would be the night before facing a death sentence in which one is executed via long, drawn-out torture, Jesus was experiencing severe anxiety. The second person of The Trinity spent fervent prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane talking to the first person (i.e The Father). He asks if it is possible to remove the cup from Him, but that he doesn’t want His will to be done, but The Father’s.

Whatchu Talkin about Yeshu?
This one sentence out of the whole narrative raises questions in the minds of anyone who reads The Bible; Christian and non-Christian alike. Why did Jesus say “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done?” The usual explanation from apologists and preachers is that Jesus was asking for The Father to not allow Him to be crucified. Basically, Jesus was saying “Look, this is going to be extremely unpleasant. I don’t want to go through with this. If there’s any other way to save humanity from their sins, let’s do that thing instead. Yet, I want to what you want to do, not what I want to do.” Additionally, it is argued that this is an instance of Jesus’ human nature taking over. God cannot get hungry, thirsty, tired, or scared in His divine nature, but given that He took on human nature (John 1:14, Philippians 2:5-8), He can experience these things in His human nature. Jesus was willing to go to the cross, no doubt, but in this passage, He was just checking with The Father to see if there was a slightly more pleasant alternative to saving mankind.

These explanations never really set right with me, but I didn’t really know of any alternatives on the table. Why is the above explanation untenable

Why Are The Above Explanations Not Tenable?
There are three problems with the usual interpretation of the “Take This Cup From Me” passage.

First of all, if Jesus was actually asking for The Father to not allow Him to be crucified, it would mean that Jesus’ will is in contradiction to The Father’s will. If Jesus and The Father are both members of The Godhead, we would have God contradicting God. Moreover, it is a sin, by definition, to desire the opposite of what God desires. If Jesus desired the opposite of what The Father desired, then Jesus would be in sin. Yet, The Bible tells us “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are-yet he did not sin.”(Hebrews 4:15). Secondly, Jesus said that anything He asks The Father to do, The Father will do it (John 11:41-42). If Jesus was asking The Father to not let Him be crucified, there would be no atonement. Thirdly, Jesus knew all along that He was going to die and He knew why. In fact, He predicted it many times (e.g. Matthew 17:22). Fourthly, Jesus said that He lays His life down of His own accord, that He has the authority to lay it down and take it up again (John 10:18), so Jesus wasn’t forced to die against His will by anyone. He didn’t have to ask anyone “Don’t let this happen,” not even the Father.

So, What Did Jesus Actually Mean?
Recently, as you know, I attended The National Conference On Christian Apologetics in Charlotte North Carolina, staying at Jorge Gil’s house during the duration of the conference. After the second and final day of the conference, we went to an Applebees for dinner with some of Jorge’s friends. One of his friends who was pursuing a doctorate of divinity and currently holds a master brought up this question at the table and asked what we all thought about it. I had no clue. This part of The Bible had been a giant question mark for me for a long time.

After explaining the problems with the usual explanation of this passage, he then gave his own commentary on the issue, which I found much more intellectually satisfying. First, keep in mind that the specific account we’re examining is written by a doctor: Luke. Jorge’s friend pointed out that in the context of Luke’s account in which Jesus prays this prayer, he sweats drops of blood. This is a condition known in the medical literature as Hematidrosis. Hematidrosis occurs when someone is under such extreme stress and anxiety that their capillaries rupture and blood gets into the sweat glands. I knew about hematidrosis, but what I didn’t know is that it can be much more serious than a little bit of blood getting into the sweat. If the rupturing of the capillaries is severe enough, it can result in death by internal bleeding.

So, “This cup” that Jesus was asking The Father to take from Him could very well have been the death-by-internal-bleeding resulting from Jesus’ hematidrosis. When something is going on inside of your body, and it’s about to cause you to die, we sometimes know about it in advance. Not always, but a great deal of the time (e.g. heart attacks). Jesus probably knew He might die right there in the Garden of Gethsemane and not even make it to the cross, and therefore there’d be no atonement. He was asking The Father not to let that happen. Jesus was essentially saying “Father, don’t let me die right here in this garden. I need to die on the cross. Yet, I know that whatever your plan is, it’s right, and it’s my desire to do that.”

This interpretation is strengthened by the verse that says that an angel came and ministered to Him. In the Greek, this is a medical term. Its used in contexts of when doctors administer first aid or surgery to heal a sick or injured patient. So, basically what this implies is that the angel cured Jesus from the condition that would have lead to His premature death.

Jesus trusted that The Father could bring Him back from the dead even if it was His will that he experiences a pre-crucifixion death, much like how Abraham trusted that God would bring Isaac back if it was His will that he sacrifice Isaac on the alter (see Hebrew 11:19). This is an important lesson for us to: trust in God and submit to His will. He knows what He’s doing.

Conclusion
The explanation I just gave you is the one he gave. When I heard it, I was blown away! Now, Jesus’ prayer made perfect sense! When I got back to Jorge’s house, I jotted it down on 2 pages of notebook paper so that it wouldn’t leave my memory. I just had to blog about this. I never expected to learn something new post-conference. I thought it would be at the conference itself.

 

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

/by
Science Doctrine Creation

Should We Let Science Influence Our Doctrine Of Creation?

By Evan Minton

Science is an amazing thing! It’s enabled us to transcend so many of our previously existing barriers, from being able to walk on the moon to being able to carry on a live conversation with someone on the opposite side of the planet, from helping us know what makes fevers run hot to knowing what makes stars hot, from giving us the flashlight to the strobe light to the blacklight. It’s an amazing thing, but unfortunately, many seem dedicating to pitting science against Christianity and vice versa.On the one hand, you have the atheists who have tried to monopolize science as theirs and nobody else’s (Their symbol is an atom for Pete’s sake). On the other hand, you have Christians who insist that a strict, literal, face value reading of Genesis is the only way to read it, and if you deviate from the 7 24-hour day view, you’re a man pleaser and a compromise.

The Bible and Science both talk about our origins, so it’s no wonder that people would wonder if they’re simpatico. I would affirm that there is no conflict between God’s world and God’s word. There may be a conflict between science and theology, but not between the world and The Bible. Science and theology are both interpretations of God’s world and God’s Word respectively. If the universe and The Bible have the same author, then when both are interpreted correctly, there won’t be any conflict. If there seems to be conflict between our interpretation of Genesis or any other biblical passage with what the scientific evidence seems to be saying, then we should either (1) go back to the biblical passage and re-evaluate whether it seems to be saying what we initially thought it said or (2) carefully consider whether the scientists somehow erred in interpreting the data.

When it comes to apparent conflicts between The Bible and the universe, many Christians will gladly do 2, but scorn anyone who does 1 on the basis that they’re convinced that 2 is not the case. For example, if someone is convinced that the universe and Earth are both billions of years old on the basis of powerful scientific arguments, they may begin to reconsider whether the Callendar-Day view of Genesis 1 is actually correct. Perhaps The Day-Age view, championed by people like Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe, is the correct way to interpret the text. Maybe The Framework Hypothesis, defended by people such as Kirk MacGregor and Brad Kramer is the correct interpretation. Or maybe The Bible isn’t talking about material origins at all, but functional origins, as argued by Old Testament scholar John Walton. I think all 3 of these views have their strengths and weaknesses, and these views are totally compatible with what prevailing scientific thought says about the age of the universe and the Earth.

However, young earth creationists like Ken Ham would object to this. Ken Ham, in particular, would and has argued that we shouldn’t “Take man’s word over God’s word” and that allowing science to influence our interpretation of The Bible is putting God’s infallible word in submission to man’s fallible word. Ken Ham has said specifically “Talking about the six days, what we’re really talking about is does it really matter what God says. It’s an authority issue,” and “There has been a battle ever since the beginning between man’s word and God’s Word,”[1]

I think one can come to The Day-Age view, The Framework Hypothesis, and The Functional Creation view on exegetical grounds alone (see here, here, and here), but let’s leave the question of whether any of these (or others) are exegetically justified aside. The real question here is this: should we give science any voice whatsoever when it comes to formulating a doctrine of creation? After all, if God’s word is infallible and man’s word is fallible, then why should we care what the latter has to say? Should our interpretations of creation passages be hermeneutics-only, completely void of any scientific input? I’d like to argue that the answer is “no” and give a few reasons why.

Everyone Has Already Allowed Science To Color Their Doctrine Of Creation To Some Extent

First of all, for any YEC to say that his theological views on creation are 100% hermeneutics and 0% is outright false. He may not realize it, but he’s already allowed science to color the way he sees the doctrine of creation to some extent. For example, when he reads John 1:3 which says “Through Him [The Word a.k.a Jesus] all things were made through Him and without Him, nothing was made that has been made”  what does he think this means? Obviously, it means that anything that exists exists because Jesus Christ created it. But what encompasses “all things”? The YEC will most likely say that it encompasses atoms (and the protons, neutrons, and electrons that comprise them), spiral galaxies, DNA, the bacterial flagellum, and many other things. These exist, and according to John 1:3, anything that exists exists because Jesus created it, so that means Jesus made atoms, spiral galaxies, DNA, and the bacterial flagellum.

However, for most of human history, no one even knew these things existed. Concordism VS. Accomodationism debates aside, no one knew anything about atoms or DNA or even spiral galaxies prior to the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. Science discovered these things. The Bible never mentions them. If you believe Jesus created molecules, you’re holding a theological belief affected by scientific data. If you believe the billion trillion galaxies are an invention of God’s, then you’re holding a theological view that most people throughout church history have not held to.[2] If you believe that that the uncannily computer-code like genetic code, known as DNA, was programmed by God, then you are holding a theological view that was not held throughout most of church history. Did Peter believe God created DNA? Did Paul believe God created DNA? Did the apostle John believe that God created the bacterial flagellum? No, because no one knew these things existed until relatively recently.

Or what about the nature of the sky? Some argue that Genesis 1:2 is saying that God created the sky as a solid dome (what the word “firmament” means, raqia in Hebrew).[3] I know many YECs who would say that that can’t be what is being said in the text. Why? Well, because for one thing, The Bible is inerrant. For another thing, we know from science that the sky is not solid. If it were, the astronauts would have crashed into it in the 1960s. If the sky isn’t solid, then that can’t be what The Bible is saying. Is there any reason exegetically to reject the solid dome interpretation of Genesis 1:2? None that I can tell. It seems like a fairly reasonable interpretation to me, at least when viewing The Bible in a scientific void. This is, yet again, another theological view YECs hold on the basis of scientific evidence.

Many young earth creationists, including Ken Ham, are holding beliefs about creation that come from science and science alone. It would, therefore, be hypocritical to try to argue that science shouldn’t affect our views about creation. It would be hypocritical to argue that science shouldn’t have a voice in the creation controversy. It would be hypocritical for a YEC to say that someone is submitting God’s Word to “Man’s Word” when he concludes that God created over billions of years on the basis of science all the while believing that the reason Noah’s Ark could fit all of the animals was that a small number of “kinds” were put on the ark and then rapid micro-evolution occurred post-flood to give us the diversity of animals we see today. Moses wouldn’t have known anything about micro evolution, yet many YECs appeal to micro evolution to explain how billions of species of animals exist while Noah’s Ark could only hold thousands. Should we let science influence our interpretation of the biblical text? Many YECs are already doing this.

By the way, for reasons why the post-flood micro evolution explanation doesn’t work, see this blog post. 

The takeaway point is this: Every Christian allows science to affect their doctrine of creation, not just Old Earth Creationists, and Evolutionary Creationists. And I find nothing wrong with that. There is no biblical mandate that says we cannot take extra-biblical information into account in forming a robust view of reality.

The Bible Is Infallible, Biblical Interpretation Is Not 

Remember my contrast between The Bible and The universe with theology and science. The latter two are interpretations of the former. Neither are fallible. Young Earth Creationists are quick to point out man’s fallibility and the possibility that the prevailing scientific thought might be wrong, but scarcely do they consider that their interpretation of Genesis 1 may be wrong. It’s true that science is not always right. It’s true that scientists may possibly be wrong about something currently considered a fact. However, biblical interpretation is also fallible. There would not be an Arminianism/Calvinism debate or a pre-trib/post-trib rapture debate, or a Continuationist/Cessationist debate if our ability to interpret scripture was infallible. God’s word is infallible, but we can err when interpreting it.

Yet you can point this out to YECs time and again and they will refuse to recognize that they’re conflating their interpretation of scripture with scripture itself. Many will not see this as a matter of differing interpretations, but a matter of believing God’s word. In their eyes, to doubt the 24 hour day view is to doubt The Bible itself!

However, one could challenge the YEC by saying “you are holding up your fallible interpretation against God’s infallible universe.” But that wouldn’t be very helpful. In the case of God’s world and in the case of God’s word, we are dealing with interpretations. The data cannot be wrong, but our interpretations of it can be.

Should we let science influence our doctrine of creation? God has given us two books: the book of scripture and the book of nature. We should let there be a two-way conversation between God’s two revelations, not a one-way conversation.

To Adhere To A Bible-Only (read that as YECist-Only) Way Of Viewing Science Results in YECs Being Guilty Of The Very Thing They Accuse Secularists Of

To start with a preconceived interpretation of biblical passages and then force-fit scientific data to conform to that interpretation is to fall into the very trap creationists often accuse secular scientists of doing. You can find the claim all over the creationist literature that the primary reasons scientists adhere to an old earth and evolution is because they’re starting with atheistic presuppositions and then they interpret the data in light of those presuppositions, so it’s no wonder that they come to the conclusions that they do. Regardless of whether or not this is true of atheist scientists, for YEC scientists to start off with their interpretation of Genesis and other creation passages and then do science in light of that interpretation commits the exact same error. An old earther or evolutionist can say “Well, it’s no wonder that AIG scientists come to the conclusions that they do. They start off with the presupposition that The Bible teaches the universe is 6,000 years old and then they interpret the scientific data in light of that presupposition.”

I for one am opposed to starting off with any preconceived notions when interpreting scientific data, with the exceptions of presupposing the reliability of logic, our cognitive faculties, and the intelligibility of the universe (the prerequisites to doing science). YECs say “We need to let The Bible speak for itself” all the while not allowing nature to speak for itself. This is hypocritical. When AIG has their scientists agree to a statement of faith that says the universe is 6,000 years old, they are not letting nature speak for itself.

I would argue that once you do that, you’ll find that the heavens are declaring themselves to be billions of years old and that one has to resort to explaining things away and avoiding the plain reading of the data to maintain YECism.

Conclusion 

Should we let science influence our doctrine of creation? Why not? We all have already let it interpret our view of the doctrine in many areas, why not let it have a voice in figuring out how long it took God to create and what processes (if any) He used to do so? Additionally, our ability to interpret scripture is just as fallible as our ability to interpret the universe, therefore human fallibility cannot be used as an excuse for ignoring what the science textbooks say on any issue. You wouldn’t just completely ignore a biblical commentary on the grounds of human fallibility. Thirdly, to presuppose any interpretation of the way the universe has to be inevitably leads to biased conclusions. This is true of both naturalists and young earth creationists. Good science is objective science. Good scientists say “Where does the evidence lead?” not “How can we make the evidence fit X”?

Notes

[1] Ken Ham, as cited in “Ken Ham Says That Believing In 6 Days Of Creation Is ‘Litmus Test’ On Biblical Authority”, by Stoyan Zaimov, September 16th, 2016, The Christian Post. http://www.christianpost.com/news/ken-ham-believing-6-days-creation-litmus-test-biblical-authority-169673/ 

[2] Before the invention of advanced telescopes, people believed that our galaxy was the only one that existed. Before that, people didn’t even know that there was such a thing as galaxies at all! It was mainly thanks to modern telescopes that we not only discovered that there were other galaxies out there, but also what types of galaxies exist (such as spiral galaxies and elliptical galaxies).

[3] As an accomodationist, I would agree with these scholars. The Bible is filled with what is called “Ancient Near Eastern Cosmology”. That is, the Bible reflects the cosmology of its day. I don’t think this calls the inerrancy of The Bible into question at all, as I don’t think it was God’s intention to teach the recipients of his word cosmology or any other science for that matter. He used the faulty science of the day to express theological truth. For more information on this, see my blog posts: “Hermenuetics 101 – Part 3: Understanding The Cultural Context” and “Why Did God Write A Book?” 

 

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

/by
Evidence Belief Shaky Grounds

Is An Evidence Based Belief On Shaky Grounds?

,

By Evan Minton

“If you were talked into your belief, you can be talked out of it”. This is what I read from one theologian in a book a while back. I cannot remember who said it, but that was a direct quote from the book. I think it came from one of the volumes of A.W Tozer’s The Attributes Of God, but I’m not entirely sure. I only remember what was said, not who said it. Anyway, the point this preacher was making is that if one rests on arguments and evidence to justify their belief in Christianity, then their faith stands on shaky grounds, for “If you were talked into your belief, you can be talked out of it”. If you were argued into believing the truth of Christianity by an apologist, then some atheistic philosopher or Muslim theologian or cultist could come along, give some arguments for their worldview, and you may find those arguments persuasive and abandon the faith. The preacher wrote that we should instead rely on the word of God (The Bible) and the inner witness of The Holy Spirit. We should spurn an evidential approach to knowing that Christianity is true and instead rely on faith and religious experiences.

I think that this argument is deeply flawed for a variety of reasons.

I Don’t Hang My Hat On One Argument

I cannot speak for everyone, but I personally don’t hang my hat on a single argument for Christianity’s truth. There is a wide range of arguments for God’s existence, The Bible’s historical reliability, and for Jesus’ resurrection. There’s The Kalam Cosmological Argument, The Cosmic Fine-Tuning Argument, The Local Fine-Tuning Argument, The Moral Argument, The Ontological Argument, The Contingency Argument, The Argument From Desire, The Argument From Science’s Doability, The Transcendental Argument, and there’s plenty of historical evidence indicating that Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross and rose from the dead (see here, here, and here). I defend all of these in great detail in my book  Inference To The One True God. 

What would happen if one of these arguments were ever shown to be unsound? Would my belief in God collapse? Let’s say that The Big Bang was overturned some day, the second law of thermodynamics was somehow shown to not imply a universe of finite age, and the arguments against actual infinities were also refuted, so that we could not evidentially demonstrate The Kalam Cosmological Argument’s second premise (i.e “The Universe Began To Exist”), thus rendering the argument unsound? Well, we’ve still got The Ontological Argument, which argues that if God’s existence is even possible, then it follows that God exists. I would still believe in God in this hypothetical scenario because although the Kalam was shown to be garbage, no one undermined any of the premises of The Ontological Argument. Moreover, The Contingency Argument doesn’t even need the universe to have had a beginning in order for it to be sound. All the Contingency Argument needs with respect to the universe is that it needs the universe to not exist by a necessity of its own nature, which, as you’ll know if you read the article I linked to on that argument, can be demonstrated apart from arguing that the universe had a beginning to its existence. I could still say “The best explanation for the existence of the universe is God” on the basis of The Argument From Contingency despite there being no way to argue that the universe hasn’t existed forever.

Or what if the Kalam always stands strong, but it’s The Local Fine-Tuning Argument that suffers a fatal blow. Well, I’d still have The Kalam, the cosmic Fine-Tuning Argument, The Moral Argument, and all of the others I mentioned above. Even if it could be argued that, maybe on the basis of the universe’s size or whatever, that the 400+ characteristics could come together by chance, that wouldn’t do anything to the Kalam or Cosmic Fine-Tuning Arguments. And it, again, wouldn’t do anything to The Ontological Argument.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RyhTm8GO-cI/Wcr48Nbu-mI/AAAAAAAAFbk/vvvp9C8rGWo82LJtljVniukeR6OOTCkogCLcBGAs/s1600/

A meme I saw on the Facebook Page “Philosophy Memes and Theology Dreams”

You see, if one basis their belief on a variety of arguments that all point to the same conclusion, then even if one or two of them were shown to be fallacious, it wouldn’t remove the epistemological justification for belief. The meme on the left-hand side gets this point across magnificently. In this meme, a person is about to be thrown into skepticism about the existence of the external world. Clearly, if the external world isn’t real, then The Cosmological Arguments (both The Kalam and The Contingency) will fail. You can’t say the best explanation for the origin of the world is a transcendent Creator if there is no world of which to have an origin. You can’t say God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe is there is no universe. However, the Ontological Argument doesn’t hinge on the universe at all, beginningless or eternal, existent or non-existent. The Ontological Argument, as even its detractors will tell you, all hinges on whether that first premise is true (i.e “It is possible that a Maximally Great Being Exists”). So, despite jettisoning the Cosmological Arguments on the basis of external-world skepticism, he still has a fallback argument to run to.

If The Sword Cuts At All, It Cuts Both Ways 

“If you were argued into Christianity, you can be argued out of it.” — If we were to take this statement’s logic and apply it consistently, it would undercut even belief in God on an experiential or emotional basis. For example, one could say “If you came to know God through an experience of Him, you could come to know a false god through an equally powerful experience.” Suppose a person feels God’s presence in a mighty and inexplicable way during a church service as the pastor was preaching. As a result of this powerful experience, he comes to believe that Jesus is the one true God, that The Bible is true, that he is a sinner whom Jesus died for, and that God wants Him to follow Him. But 10 years down the road, he enters a mosque and hears the Quran being read. He now has the same type of experience he had before, only this time, he believes it’s Allah who is trying to get his attention. He abandons Christianity and converts to Islam.

“That could never happen” you might say. Why not? “Because Allah isn’t the one true God. You can’t have an experience of a god who isn’t there.” Well, isn’t it possible that demonic forces could cause an effect in a person like the above in an attempt to deceive him and lead him to apostatize? Remember, I’m arguing against a preacher here who believes The Bible in its entirety. He has to admit that the devil might play with someone’s mind to get them to commit idolatry. After all, he’s “the father of lies” (John 8:44), who “seeks to kill and destroy” (John 10:10) and “prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8), and can even make himself come off as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14). This preacher has to keep open the possibility that demons could give people false religious experiences to get them to worship a false god. Why can’t we say “If you were experienced into the faith, you can be experienced out of it?”

If The Evidence Truly Did Point Away From Christianity, We Should Follow It

Thirdly, if the evidence truly did point to some other worldview, then we ought to hold to that worldview. It would literally be irrational to hold to a belief in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist, I would become an atheist. If it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the book of Mormon is divinely inspired, I would become a Mormon. Or if it could be shown that the Quran is inspired, I would become a Muslim. Of course, the evidence would have to actually be beyond a reasonable doubt. After all, this isn’t like deciding what kind of job to get. Eternity is on the line here! Being wrong can have devastating consequences. I’d have to be pretty darn sure that Christianity was false before I’d be willing to abandon it.

For any atheist reading this, you would have to (1) demolish all of the arguments for God’s existence and you would have to discredit The Minimal Facts Case for Christ’s resurrection, and then (2) you would have to provide a positive argument in favor of atheism. If you just do 1, I’ll just be left with agnosticism. For the Muslim, you would have to likewise discredit the historical case for Jesus’ resurrection, and you would have to either refute The Moral and Ontological Arguments or show that Allah is compatible with those arguments conclusion. As in chapters 4 and 5 of my book Inference To The One True God: Why I Believe In Jesus Instead Of Other Gods, I don’t think Allah is the one true God because He cannot be perfectly loving and He cannot be perfectly loving, because He isn’t a Trinity. God has to be a Trinity in order to be a God of perfect love because He wouldn’t be able to express love prior to the creation of any creatures to love. Love requires 3 things; (1) A lover, (2) A Beloved, and (3) a relationship between them. A Unitarian God doesn’t have all the requirements for love to exist until He creates other persons, which means He was lacking in the love department prior to making people. Since God must be morally perfect to be the standard of morality (The Moral Argument), and since a Maximally Great Being must have all great-making properties and have them to the greatest extent possible (The Ontological Argument), since love is a virtue and a great-making property then the God of The Moral and Ontological Arguments must have perfect love. Allah, a non-trinitarian god, doesn’t fit the bill. No polytheistic god fits the bill. No God consists of more than one person than Christianity’s God. Therefore, it is my inference that The Moral and Ontological arguments point to the God of orthodox Christianity. Pick up my book for other explanations for why Allah is not God. 

What If A Christian Isn’t Relying SOLEY On Evidence?

For me, the reason my belief that Christianity is true is so strong is that I have both a plethora of arguments evidence as well as The Holy Spirit’s witness to my heart. I think my faith would be a lot shakier if I relied solely on arguments or solely on the inner witness. I believe in God because I’ve experienced Him….multiple times. I also believe in God because He is the best explanation for the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, the fine-tuning of our local habitable region, the moral law, the possibility of doing science, the reliability of our reasoning faculties, and no explanation has been given over the past 2,000 years to explain the 5 minimal facts than “He is risen”.

Christianity is the inference to the best explanation, and moreover, God has been a living reality in my life. It seems to me that my belief has less of a chance of being destroyed if I lean on both of these epistemological pillars. If I relied on only one, either one, I think it would be a lot more fragile than it is.

Once Saved, Always Saved 

Not everyone will agree with me here, but I do affirm that someone who truly got saved will always be saved. He will never lose His salvation. First, we have Jesus’ statement in John 10:27-29. In this passage, Jesus says “My sheep hear my voice. I know them and they follow me. I give them eternal life and they shall never perish. No one can pluck them from my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” In this passage, Jesus says that no one is able to pluck us out of His hand. This seems to suggest that once you’re saved, that’s it. Nothing can cause you to be removed from Jesus’ hand. Now, people who believe salvation can be lost have responded to this passage by saying that this passage only means that no outside forces will cause us to lose our salvation against our will (e.g demons, the temptations of the world), but it doesn’t follow that we can’t freely choose to jump out of Christ’s hand. Point taken, but there’s more to take away from the passage than merely the “no one can pluck them from my hand” part. Notice that in the earlier part of the passage, Jesus says “I give them eternal life and they shall never perish.” Jesus’ words here are a blunt, de facto statement. He doesn’t say “they shall never perish as long as they don’t hop out of my hand.”. He just says “they shall never perish” period. If we freely chose to jump out of Christ’s hand, what would happen to us? We would perish, in contradiction to Christ’s words. There’s no conditional statement in this passage. Jesus just says point blank “I give them eternal life and they shall never perish”.

Moreover, 1 John 2:19 says “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” This sounds almost exactly like what eternal security advocates say. “They were never saved. If they were, they wouldn’t have become unsaved.” The apostle John says “They went out from us, but they weren’t of us. If they were of us, they wouldn’t have left.” When eternal security advocates say to a former Christian “you were never saved. If you were, you wouldn’t have lost it”, they are merely echoing the apostle’s words in 1 John 2:19.

Now, I hold to a more nuanced version of eternal security than most Christians do, but I won’t get into that here. Just check out my 3 part series on what I’ve dubbed “The Can/Won’t Model Of Eternal Security”, here, here, and here.

Given this, if a person truly has been born again (John 3:3) and become a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17), then regardless of how he came to believe that Christianity is true, he won’t stop believing it. He will be a Bible-believing Christ-Follower until the day he dies. So, the fact that some were “argued into the faith” doesn’t mean that they can be argued out of it, at least if they were truly born again.

Conclusion

This attempt by Tozer (or whoever it was) to undermine the legitimacy of an evidential faith fails. For one, most evidentialists don’t put all of their eggs in one basket. Secondly, this logic could be applied to believing in God on the basis of religious experience (what the preacher was arguing in favor of). Thirdly, it’s a false dichotomy to say that one’s belief is based on either evidence or religious experience (why not both?). And finally, given the doctrine of Eternal Security, even if a Christian did lean solely on evidence, if he were truly born again, he would never fall away. God would find a way to keep him from doing so.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2yEK2Wc

/by