Gospel Archives - Page 24 of 27

Tag Archive for: Gospel

Wanda, Westview, and Free Will

A lot can be said about Marvel’s first Disney+ series, WandaVision (Spoilers ahead!), from its weird, off-putting sitcom beginning to the broader impact the series’ events will have on the MCU. But, being that we’re named FreeThinking Ministries, obviously, we have to talk about what WandaVision confirms to us about free will.

This show isn’t the first MCU story to address free will, determinism, and human responsibility (see my article “Captain America, Bucky, and Moral Responsibility”). Superhero movies all contain moral themes such as the struggle of good vs. evil, the dangers of power, and our obligations to one another. But no discussion of morality seems to make any sense without first assuming that we have some ability to choose between right and wrong. In the case of Bucky Barnes, he has his freedom overridden at times and is compelled to do terrible things. But when he is “himself” and in control of his choices, Bucky chooses to be a hero, which is really what matters most.

WandaVision begins with Wanda and Vision in a weird sitcom reality, and it’s obvious to the viewer that something just isn’t right. The people of Westview start doing and saying odd things and it seems that they are somehow being controlled by someone or something. Eventually, we discover that someone is Wanda. Due to her immense grief, Wanda creates her own bubble around the town of Westview, the Hex, and transforms the town into her perfect world. She creates her own Vision and controls the minds and actions of (almost) every human inhabitant in town. Vision, one of the few “free thinkers” inside the Hex, eventually realizes that something is wrong and temporarily breaks the spell of some of his neighbors. He discovers that they are not only being controlled but that this control causes them great suffering since their “real” selves are locked away inside of them.

It should be obvious to the viewers of WandaVision that what Wanda has done to these people is terrible, that they are just being used to create Wanda’s own perfect world. Even if the residents of Westview were not internally suffering and were completely oblivious that they were being mind-controlled, that would still be truly evil. Freedom is a great good, and controlling or manipulating people is evil.

But let’s move from Wanda’s actions to those of the residents of Westview. She has made them all to be her perfect neighbors. However, are the people actually being good neighbors? Are they doing anything that’s actually praiseworthy? No, they are simply doing whatever Wanda wants them to do. If Wanda had made the people terrible neighbors who hurt each other instead, should they be blamed for their bad behavior? Again, they should not, since Wanda is the one in control of their actions, not the townspeople. When the residents of Westview were under Wanda’s control, they would not be responsible for any of their actions, Wanda would.

There are many philosophers and theologians who deny human freedom, thinking that we are in some way similar to the citizens of Westview. Maybe we are not being directly controlled by a Scarlet Witch, but we simply “dance to our DNA,” follow our animal instincts, or pursue our heart’s greatest desire. Regardless, if we are not free in some meaningful sense, how can we deserve praise or blame for any of our actions? We can’t. Furthermore, we would not even be persons, but merely an extension of whatever controls or programs our thoughts and behaviors. If I’m a nice guy, don’t praise me; thank God or the laws of physics. If I’m a jerk, that’s not my fault—I was born this way.

Sometimes smart people think dumb things regarding human freedom and moral responsibility. But it doesn’t take an advanced degree to realize that the residents of Westview could not possibly be responsible for any of their actions while they were under Wanda’s control. And neither can we if all of our thoughts, beliefs, and actions are caused and determined by someone or something else. Once again, we see the importance of good stories and how they can illustrate basic truths about reality. In the case of WandaVision, we plainly see the value of freedom and, with further thought, its connection to moral responsibility.

Killing Homicide: On Missing Fathers & Redemption In Prison

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

The senses recoil when you walk into a high-security prison. A pungent mix of mildew, old food, and rancid mop water buries itself in your nostrils. Drab cinderblock walls and cracked linoleum floors stretch to infinity, screaming of dehumanization. But the faces and body language of those who watch you walk by are the most painful part of the experience. A mix of contempt and bewilderment accompanies their silent stares. “What are you doing here?” Responding with a smile and a nod seems out of place when you know that the only reason you don’t share their despair is that in a little over two hours, you will walk back out.

Navigating The Bureaucracy

It took a year-and-a-half of applications, training sessions, interviews, background checks, watching videos, and signing waivers before the bureaucracy gave me permission to walk down that hallway. Only then was I allowed through the five sets of steel-barred doors, past the administrative offices and the mess hall (where that smell originates), and into the educational area. A prison guard checked my identification one last time before I was finally allowed to enter the classroom. And there, a group of men I would surely cross the street to avoid on the “outside” approached me to shake my hand and greet me … with a hug.

Before I experienced it, it would have been hard to imagine the level of gratitude and openness those men are willing to show someone who hails from a completely different universe. There is no façade of authenticity in a prison Bible study group. No questions held back to save a reputation. No Christianese words used to sound pious. Just a genuine search for answers and a yearning for someone to tell them why they matter – a concept they have rarely, if ever, heard someone apply to their lives.

The Abstract Becomes Personal

Even inside those walls, there are times I have to remind myself that I am among men who have committed serious, and in some cases, violent crimes. When they recite large swaths of the New Testament from memory, pausing only to point out the Old Testament references contained within the passage they’re quoting; when they provoke deep discussions about God’s nature and purposes; or when they display genuine humility and concern for us and their peers, all the stereotypes attached to their baggy blue prison garb disappear.

Montel is one of those men. A little over six feet tall, with a chiseled jaw, muscular, tattooed arms, and a stoic countenance, I was a little intimidated the first time he entered my personal space. In over a year of meeting him in that classroom since, I can never remember seeing Montel smile. I probably wouldn’t smile either if, at age 42, I had spent nearly half my life in prison. I don’t know exactly what Montel did to end up in the dreadful setting where I talk with him each week – we’re not allowed to ask. But I do know this.

Montel’s nickname is “Homicide.”

The Common Thread

Montel is not a unique character inside these walls. He shares much in common with the other inmates who attend our weekly discussion group. Each of them grew up in the inner city, engaged in criminal activity beginning in their teen years or earlier, were members of a gang, and were involved in both the use and trafficking of illegal drugs.

If you have them write down the names of friends they’ve had throughout their childhood, teen, and adult years, most of the names they list from each timeframe will be the same. There’s nothing unusual about that. But if you and then asked them to circle those who have been in trouble with the law, 85% of the names will get circled.

Bad company corrupts good character.

Missing Fathers

But it’s not just a matter of hanging out with the wrong people. There is a more fundamental issue that lies behind the criminal behavior that lands them there. It is a cancer that eats at the foundations of our society at every level but is most pronounced among those who end up inside those concrete walls. It turns out that none of the inmates in our study grew up with a father in his house.

Not one.

None of them recall stories of throwing a ball with their dad or wondering if they would grow up to be like him. None of them ever had a father who set boundaries they dared not cross. It turns out the drugs and the gangs are only substitutes and symptoms – the ill-conceived diversions of little boys trying to escape the pain, or fill the void, of never knowing a father’s love. They grow up without their fathers, then produce children who grow up without their fathers. The cycle has been repeating itself for generations.

The Relentless Turnstile

Before I made the decision to start visiting these prisoners, I was familiar with statistics about the war on drugs and violent crime, the allegations of racial injustice, and the high rates of recidivism among the incarcerated. For me, those were all facts I had attached to a group of people. But a strange thing happens when you actually meet those people and force yourself to listen with different ears. When you try to imagine inserting yourself into their stories — as the perpetrator.

The truth is that I cannot relate to the plight of the men I meet every Thursday. I have no context for it. And that’s the point. Having a father and being a father are foreign concepts to men who have never lived outside their vortex of hopelessness. Hearing the pain in their voices as they tell their stories has a way of softening your heart. It’s hard not to empathize with a man like that when you have to look him in the eye. When you know and understand that his community never really modeled other options for him. When you realize that you are the closest thing to an earthly father he has ever known.

Montel’s Dilemma

During one of our recent weekly discussions, Montel seemed more melancholy than normal. It took a while, but we finally prompted him to let us know what was bothering him.

“Some kids from my old hood are showing up on the block. I was talking to some of them on the yard a few days ago. They told me how much money they be makin’ and what kinda guns they wanna buy when they get out. But then they told me …”

His voice trailed off. His eyes grew red. Then he muttered, “They told me ‘Homicide’ was a legend.”

The room went silent.

“I kinda like bein’ a legend. Makes me feel big, you know? … But here’s the thing though … I don’t wanna be ‘Homicide’ no more.”

The tension was palpable. Montel was a living embodiment of Romans 7. This man, who had never seen his own status or identity as anything other than the parasitical echo of his own band of thieves, was wrestling with the image of God he now sees in himself as a reflection of his heavenly Father.

Montel is at war with Homicide, and Homicide is dying.

No Illusions

I am under no illusion that our efforts to reach the imprisoned are going to spark a revival in that place. The reality is that there are nearly 2500 inmates in the prison I visit, and less than twenty of them ever show up for our meetings. But for those few, the profound vision of being made in the image of a Father who loves and forgives them is a world-changing reality. In fact, the recidivism rate among those who participate in “long-term, intensive, faith-based training” is less than half what it is among those who don’t.

The last time I saw Montel, he handed me a piece of notebook paper on which he had carefully crafted a poem titled, Let It Rain God Love.

“Let It Rain God Love”

“I wrote this,” he said. “I want you to read it and tell me if it’s good.”

The handwritten poem filled a piece of tattered notebook paper. It included these heartfelt words:

“Who am I to tell you not to cry, but I suggest you let it all go,

because holding on to the past pain prevents you from seeing growth.

Even the heart needs sunshine, or darkness will prevent it from seeing joy.

If we don’t let God love rain, many souls will be destroyed.”

The verse continues in much the same way. It’s not polished or profound but the beauty of Montel’s poem is that it is something Homicide could never have conceived.

The Promise of Fatherhood

Montel is a sincerely repentant man. He sees himself as the unwitting beneficiary of his own flawed past. No one would choose the life he has lived so far. But Montel takes comfort in knowing that he may never have been driven to his knees without the circumstances that brought him to this place. One can only imagine how different the trajectory of his life would have been if Montel had had an earthly father to guide him from the beginning.

Each week Montel and his fellow inmates leave our meeting room and amble back down the halls to the drab, concrete confines of their cells. Each week they thank us profusely for coming to visit them. They hug us and tell us they will pray for us. And each week, I leave that place haunted by the stark reminder that, at its root, all the pain and tragedy these men have caused and experienced is not as complicated to cure as the sociologists try to make it.

Fatherhood is the answer. It always has been. Even in a place filled with the darkness of what seem to be hopelessly corrupted human souls, the Gospel – and the Father who offers it – still brings light.

Here’s Why Christians Should Avoid the Teachings of Richard Rohr

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Alisa Childers

Tracy grew up in the church, but when her identification as queer contradicted her Evangelical upbringing, she decided she no longer fit within that tradition. Through the teachings of Richard Rohr, she found a spiritual home with the practice of contemplative spirituality. Tracy’s experience mirrors that of many millennial ex-Evangelicals who have discovered a spiritual mentor and teacher in the Franciscan priest, author, and founder of the Center for Action and Contemplation (CAC), Richard Rohr.

The CAC website describes Rohr as “a globally recognized ecumenical teacher bearing witness to the universal awakening within Christian mysticism and the Perennial Tradition.” Rohr’s teachings are gaining influence, especially among millennials who grew up in the Evangelical church. He is particularly influential in the progressive Christian movement and is referred to as a spiritual father, hero, and mentor by well-known progressive voices. He is endorsed by progressive leaders like Rob Bell, Jen Hatmaker, William Paul Young, Michael Gungor, and Brian McLaren, to name just a few. As Rohr gains popularity, it becomes increasingly more important for church leaders to be aware of his teachings and their widespread influence. In this article, I’ll take a look at Rohr’s view of the Bible, the cross, and the gospel.

Richard Rohr’s view of the Bible

Historically, Christians have believed that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God. Following Jesus’ own example, Christians have affirmed over the centuries that the Scriptures are internally coherent, without error, and infallible. However, Rohr holds a much different view of the Bible:

The Jewish Scriptures, which are full of anecdotes of destiny, failure, sin and grace, offer almost no self-evident philosophical or theological conclusions that are always true. . . . We even have four, often conflicting versions of the life of Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There is no one clear theology of God, Jesus, or history presented, despite our attempt to pretend there is.

Rohr interprets the Scriptures using what he calls the “Jesus Hermeneutic.” He writes:

…The text moves inexorably toward inclusivity, mercy, unconditional love, and forgiveness. I call it the “Jesus Hermeneutic.” Just interpret Scripture the way Jesus did! He ignores, denies, or openly opposes his own Scriptures whenever they are imperialistic, punitive, exclusionary, or tribal.

Contrary to what Rohr teaches, Jesus never ignored, denied, or openly opposed the Old Testament Scriptures. In fact, as I argue in this paper, Richard Rohr’s “Jesus Hermeneutic” not only fails to offer any legitimate Scriptural support, but taken as a whole, the biblical data gives us an entirely opposite view of how Jesus handled the Scriptures. The truth is Jesus never once declared or implied that the Scriptures were anything but fully truthful and to be obeyed. Jesus affirmed the Old Testament to be the inspired, authoritative, historically reliable, inerrant, infallible, imperishable Word of God—and that it was all about himself.

Richard Rohr’s view of the cross

Historically, Christians have believed Jesus died on the cross for our sins, taking our deserved punishment upon himself. This is not only affirmed in Scripture, and taught by Jesus himself, but it goes back to the earliest creed in Christianity, which pre-dates the New Testament by about twenty years. However, according to Rohr, the idea of a God who would require the blood sacrifice of his son is “problem-oriented.” Of the atonement, Rohr writes:

I believe that Jesus’ death on the cross is a revelation of the infinite and participatory love of God, not some bloody payment required by God’s offended justice to rectify the problem of sin. Such a story line is way too small and problem-oriented.

According to Rohr, Jesus didn’t need to die on the cross. It’s your “false self” that needs to die, not someone else. He refers to substitutionary atonement as a “strange idea” that leads to a “transactional” theology. Contrary to Rohr, Scripture teaches substitutionary atonement, Jesus affirmed it, along with early Christians.

Richard Rohr’s view of the gospel

Historically, the Christian gospel is the proclamation of the good news of salvation. This has been understood through the lens of God’s redemptive acts throughout history. It began with the creation of the universe and mankind. After sin was introduced into the world by the rebellion of Adam and Eve, God provided a means of redemption and reconciliation through the atoning work of Jesus on the cross. Those who accept this provision of salvation will be given eternal life with God. But for those who reject this gift of grace, the Bible describes their eternal punishment separated from God’s love and goodness.

However, according to Rohr, the idea of a God who “doles out punishment” is unhealthy, cheap, and toxic. He does believe Jesus died, was buried, and was resurrected. However, he separates Jesus and Christ into two separate entities, with Jesus being nothing more than a “model and exemplar” of the human and divine united in one human body. And in Rohr’s view, Christ is a cosmic reality that is found “whenever the material and the divine co-exist—which is always and everywhere.” He implicitly denies the deity of Jesus. He writes: “We spent a great deal of time worshiping the messenger and trying to get other people to do the same… [Jesus] did ask us several times to follow him, and never once to worship him.” This “Cosmic Christ” is a New Age idea that Rohr is promoting as “Christian.”

Rohr also believes all religions share the same core truth and are all paths to truth (perennialism). He openly affirms panentheism, a view of the nature of God that teaches God is in all, all is in God, but God also transcends the world. This carries troubling implications for his view of the Trinity and the nature of Christ. He said: “The Universe is the body of God…yes, it’s the second person of the Trinity in material form.”

He denies original sin, the atonement, the exclusivity of Christianity, and he has an unorthodox understanding of heaven and hell, and the literal second coming of Christ. Rohr’s views stand in stark contrast to the historic Christian view of the gospel.

Through his books and his highly popular teachings on the Enneagram, Richard Rohr is rapidly gaining influence in the Christian church. But church leaders would do well to be aware of what Rohr actually teaches about the Bible, the cross, and the gospel. Faithful Christians should avoid his teachings at all costs.

Matthew: Jesus’ Genealogy and Biblical Inerrancy

4. Is the NT True?, Jesus Christ

By John A. Limanto

The first genealogy within the Gospel of Matthew is an important cornerstone of the Gospel. This genealogy—a relic of the pre-Jewish-Roman War—contains, at the very heart of it, a Jewish tapestry that may only be deciphered by a thoroughly Jewish mind. In interpreting the genealogy, we find that it is indeed the pinnacle of the Jewish message of the Gospel. Containing within it is the stupendous claim that Jesus of Nazareth—the carpenter and the Son of Mary—is in the line of King David and is worthy of the Throne of Israel. Lingering deep within this chapter is the Messianic priority that has been reserved for the Jews. As the words of St. Paul proclaim, “for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”[1]

However, far from being considered as a scrupulously precise report, Matthew’s genealogy has been widely regarded as incomplete. The differences that it bears with its Lukan counterpart along with the omissions of the names of several kings are demonstrably palpable. At surface value, these details may indeed impugn Matthew as a reliable source. Furthermore, the supposed symmetrical structure of the genealogy that Matthew posited seems to contain asymmetrical number of persons. This issue is critical especially when it is put in relation to the traditional doctrine of Biblical inerrancy—which is the doctrine that requires for there to be no error within the Scripture. How can this be accomplished when even the first genealogy in Matthew contains such follies? Have Matthew really crossed the unpardonable line of errancy?

Within this essay, I would like to present a case in support of the inerrancy for the Gospel of Matthew in light of the supposed problems found within Matthew’s genealogy. I believe that when we look at the case fairly—examining the evidences to their roots—we will begin to see how the first genealogy is not just inerrant, but has effectively accomplished its designed purpose. I will begin by providing some context to the Gospel of Matthew before moving on to the structure of the genealogy, the alleged “problems” before finally ending in my reconciliation between Biblical inerrancy and the Matthean genealogy

Context Regarding the Gospel of Matthew and the Genealogy

The Gospel of Matthew was likely written around the late AD 60’s.[2] Although this has placed the Gospel at a later date in comparison with Mark, it is likely that the information in the gospel has been gathered from the Gospel of Mark itself.[3] However, as the Gospel of Mark itself does not contain the names in the genealogy, Matthew must have had garnered the names from both the Old Testament and the extrabiblical sources found in Temple of Jerusalem prior to its destruction in AD 70[4]Thus, Matthew bears witness to names of kings that are not found anywhere else in the surviving Jewish Literature. R.T France wisely remarks, “While most of the names between Zerubbabel and Joseph conform to familiar Jewish types of name, there is no reason to link any of the individuals listed with anyone who is known to us from other sources.”[5]

One of the interesting things about genealogy is its etymology. The word used in Matthew (translated in the NIV as: “genealogy”) is the Greek word γένεσις (“genesis”). This alludes to the creation of the world; the coming of Jesus was supposed to mark a new creation—a new beginning. Moreover, Genealogies are particularly important within the Jewish tradition. It is said that out of genealogies, disputes were settled regarding properties and extensive genealogies were scrupulously preserved as records of the family.[6] Thus, it is very unlikely for Matthew, as a Jew himself, to contrive the names of the descendants of Jesus. As Matthew himself was writing very early after the death of Jesus, any fraudulent contrivances will be easily verified (assuming that the Matthean Gospel is written before the fall of the Temple of Jerusalem in AD. 70)

Structure of the Genealogy

The genealogy is divided into three main sections as Matthew himself claimed:

¹⁷So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.[7]

What importance does this hold? Matthew here seems to be designing his genealogy in a way that is symmetrical and easy to memorize. Thus, Matthew asserted that the genealogy contains fourteen generations per section. However, any shrewd reader will be apt to point out that the number does not correctly correspond to each section. Grant. R. Osborne points out,

There are fourteen names in the first series if David is counted. The problem is that there are only thirteen generations (periods between names)… In the second series, there are fourteen names only if David is not counted, so there are fourteen full generations (periods between names). In the third series, there are fourteen names if you count Christ.[8]

Here, Osborne rightly points out the numeral discord in each section. Let us consider the names in each series:

Series 1 (from Abraham to David): Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Aminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David (14)

Series 2: (David to Jeconiah): David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehosaphat, Jehoram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekieh, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jeconiah (15)

Series 3 (Jeconiah to Jesus): Jeconiah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abihud, Eliakim, azor, Zadok, Akim, Elihud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, Jesus (14)

Osborne offers a creative escape as a way of interpreting this without asserting inaccuracy: “This is resolved by simply assuming that Matthew is counting the generation leading to Abraham.”[9] Thus, counting from Jesus, one can omit either Jeconiah or David from the second series—assuming the former to belong to the third series and the latter to belong to the first series. Our new series will thus be:

Series 1 (from Abraham to David): Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Aminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David (14)

Series 2: (David to Jeconiah): Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehosaphat, Jehoram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekieh, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jeconiah (14)

Series 3 (Jeconiah to Jesus): Jeconiah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abihud, Eliakim, azor, Zadok, Akim, Elihud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, Jesus (14)

This strategy would satisfyingly do justice to Matthew’s original claim that there are fourteen generations each, while retaining the structural format.

The question as to why Matthew has chosen this particular format has perplexed the Biblical Scholar world. It is unclear as to what the number fourteen is supposed to represent. Nonetheless, many suggestions have been given.[10] One of the main suggestions has been gematria. This is the suggestion that even Osborne himself called as “the most likely.”[11] Gematria is the Jewish practice of using letters and alphabets for numbers. Every name and vowel has their own numeral significance—the word David in Hebrew consists of the three consonants dwd. Here, “d” equals to four and “w” equals to six (counted in Hebraic consonant order). In sum, the three letters produce the number fourteen. Scholars such as R. T. France, on the other hand, prefer the simpler explanation that fourteen is merely twice seven.[12]

The Omission of the Kings

This is the crux of the problem. The seemingly contrived structural format might have already given it away, but the genealogy has omitted—for some reason or another—the names of five kings along the line: Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Jehoahaz, and Jehoiakim. Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah are supposed to be in between the line of Jehoram to Uzziah, while the two brothers Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim are in between Josiah and Jeconiah.

Analysis of the Kings

Any robust analysis of the omission of the five kings must contain a discussion of each of these kings. A pattern that of unrighteousness can be noticed within each of the kings. Ahaziah was blatantly described as an evil king who “walked in the ways of the house of Ahab.” (2 Chronicles 22:3). He was later captured in Samaria and killed by the men of Jehu, the tenth king of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. His successor, Athaliah, was subsequently executed and succeeded by Joash (2 Chr. 23:12-15)—who was the biological son of Ahaziah. Joash, in contrast, was first described as a righteous king (2 Chr. 24:2), but soon fell away at the end of his life. He was said to have served the Asherim and the idols and was later assassinated by his own servants (2 Chr. 24:18, 25). Likewise, Amaziah was a righteous king from the outset, but turned away later after striking the Edomites (2. Chr. 25:14).

It is obviously tempting for one to sway away the problem by merely attributing the omissions to the vile and the treacheries of these kings. Indeed, this solution has been proposed by R. T France himself. A clear success of such an approach is ambiguous, however—especially when the topic at hand is in regards to Biblical inerrancy. Such motives may give the opponents of the Scripture the necessary ammunition to impugn the Gospel of Matthew based on what they would perceive as “embellishments.”

Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim enters the picture as the two of the few ungodly kings recorded in 2 Kings 23-31 and 2 Kings 24:20. The Old Testament remarked that these kings include: Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin/Jeconiah, and Zedekiah. What does it, then, even mean when Matthew says “Josiah [is] the father of Jeconiah and his brothers?” A possible explanation is provided by Wilkins who points out that in the LXX (the Septuagint from where Matthew may have derived his genealogy from), the Greek word loakim denotes both Jehoiakim and Jeconiah.[13] It is possible that Matthew really intended for the word to have a double entendre—referring to both Jehoiakim and Jeconiah. Such an explanation will come more naturally when we understand the word “brothers” to not only mean the other rulers of the time, but also of the whole brotherhood of the Israelites sent to the exile—thus the whole clause is referring to a much greater scope than its literal meaning. Although this may be a possible interpretation, I shall adopt the worst possible scenario in this essay—that Matthew has actually omitted five kings from his genealogy.

In overall, the omission of the kings is a tougher issue to deal with for the inerrantist in comparison to the miniscule problem of the symmetrical structure. This understanding of Divine Inspiration is ubiquitous through the Christian tradition—and to deny such a doctrine costs a great price. Before we can proceed, however, it is good to inquire on what the biblical doctrine of inerrancy means.

Inerrancy

A solid understanding of what Biblical Inerrancy means will be vital to our discussion at hand. The most common misconception is that Biblical Inerrancy means that whatever the Bible says is true. However, this seems highly confused and misleading. For if whatever the Bible says is true, then the illustrations within the book of Revelation, would too, be literally true. But surely, this is absurd. The illustration in the book of Revelation is obviously a figure of speech or some sort. Thus, with this at hand, we can understand that defining inerrancy in its barest, narrowest sense will be counter-productive for any sincere truth-seeker. MacGregor avers:

“This classic doctrine of inerrancy stipulates that for each periscope within every document of the scriptural canon, when we first take into consideration that periscope’s original literary genre and the rules for what does and does not constitute an error in that genre, the periscope contains no errors.”[14]

The doctrine of Inerrancy does not concern what the Bible say on surface, but rather what the Bible teaches in its depth. We must determine the certain genre, literary tools, and context within a certain passage and determine whether it is correct in those senses.

Incompleteness and Inaccuracy

The best strategy for Christians, it seems, is to admit that there is incompleteness within the genealogy, but not inaccuracy. Herein, the difference is apparent. The Bible, for example, does not teach astrophysics or medicinal science. Does this mean the Bible is unqualified? By no means! Omissions of such details only signify an incompleteness of the Bible in discussing those topics.

However, here, we can go a step even further and ask ourselves, “is it appropriate for the Bible to omit such details?” Obviously, with regards to subjects such as astrophysics or medicinal science, one will adamantly agree that it is in all of a Bible’s propriety to leave out details that are not conducive to what the Bible focuses—the message of Salvation and knowledge of the One true God.

From here, we must likewise ask, “is it appropriate for the Gospel of Matthew to omit certain names within the genealogy?” If Matthew here meant to be precise and complete in his genealogy, doubtless that an incomplete genealogy would be Matthew’s errancy. However, does Matthew really intend for his genealogy to be perceived in such a way? Modern scholars think not.

The Purpose of the Genealogy

Matthew’s personal obsession in scrupulously arranging a symmetry is to be baffled about. Such an obsession, fortunately, helps to reveal to us Matthew’s original intent for the genealogy—an easy, memorisable, family data to help act as “signposts” for his Jewish audiences to identify Jesus within the line of the family of David. This identification of Jesus resonates with the unanimous view of New Testament scholars. Thus R. T. France says,

“But its [genealogy] main aim is clear enough: to locate Jesus within the story of God’s people as its intended climax, and to do it with a special focus on the Davidic monarchy as the proper context for a theological understanding of the role of the person whom Matthew, more than the other gospel writers, will delight to refer to not only as “Messiah” but also more specifically as “Son of David.”[15]

For such a purpose, the omission of the four kings will indeed be a beneficial tool in catalysing a compact genealogy for the purpose of easy memorization. In such a case, only the key people will be necessary within the genealogy with the purpose of acting as “signposts” pointing to the right direction. In fact, Craig S. Keener pointed out, “Matthew opens his Gospel by showing both Jesus’ historic inseparability from the history of Israel… The opening verse of the Gospel introduces two ancestors who become pivotal characters in the genealogy: Jesus is the son of Abraham (the ideal Jew) and the son of David (the Messiah).”[16] Here, Keener has even gone on to reduce the pillars of the genealogy to merely two characters: Abraham and David.

Keener goes on to argue that the main purpose of Matthew’s genealogy is not at all to show the genetic ancestry, but the emphasis has always been on His spiritual ancestry.[17] Ergo, he asserts, “Matthew thus establishes rhetorical community with his audience in his proem; proems typically appealed to audience sympathy.”[18] Keener’s view that such a genealogy is intended to build an emotional relation to the audience echoes well with Matthew’s colloquial and symmetrical format. Matthew here is not writing formally, but as a fellow Jew in his own relation to his brethren.

This theme of Jewish relation is indeed the majority view of Bible commentators with regards to Matthew’s purpose through the genealogy. Often times, this has been marked by the interpretation that Matthew has a theological focus more than one that is historical. Again, the theme is brought up that Matthew is not acting just as a historian in his writing, but also as a theologian. Wilkins’ statement is typical: “Matthew’s opening verse gives an important clue to his overall purpose and perspective. It had special meaning for those with a Jewish background, attempting both to awaken the faith of Jews and to strengthen the faith of Jewish Christians, insofar as Jesus is the “Messiah,” the “son of David,” the heir to the promises of Israel’s throne through King David.”[19] Some commentators have even gone so loose and say that for Matthew, this theological focus trumps over his historical focus. Thomas G. Long comments,

“It seems here that Matthew is more interested in making a theological point than in being genealogically precise. Almost every commentator has noted that this pattern of sets of uniformly numbered generation is an artificial creation, for each of these three time periods cover too many years to be spanned by only fourteen generations.”[20]

Comparison to Lukan Genealogy

A much broader issue appears once we compare the Matthean genealogy to its Lukan counterpart as expounded within Luke 3:23-38. Wilkins has formulated a list of five main differences that rifts apart the two genealogies.[21] 1) Matthew gives a descending genealogy, beginning with Abraham while Luke gives an ascending genealogy, starting with Jesus and tracing it backward to Adam. The Matthean genealogy here is more faithful to the Jewish tradition of genealogies while the Lukan genealogy adhere to genealogies more commonly found in Greco-Roman tradition. 2) Mathew places special emphasis on the covenants made with Israel, by tracing Jesus’ lineage to David and Abraham. Meanwhile, Luke places special emphasis on Jesus’ relation to all of humanity and to God by tracing his lineage to Adam and God himself. 3) The names of several persons after the Babylonian deportation differs between the two genealogies. Matthew follows the line through Jeconiah, Shealtiel, and Zerubbabel. Luke follows the line through Neri, Shealtiel, and Zerubbabel. 4) Matthew omits several names that are found in the genealogy of Luke. 5) Matthew puts emphasis on Jesus’ kingly lineage. David is not simply the son of Jesse—as Luke titles him—but that he is “King David”. Matthew traces Jesus’ genealogy through David’s son Solomon, while Luke traces the line through David’s son Nathan, who never reigned as king.

The issue of our interest regarding Matthean genealogy and Biblical inerrancy concerns third, fourth, and fifth point. The difference in the genealogy between Matthew and Luke itself is enough to crumble down the Biblical inerrancy. In the next passage, I shall attempt to reconcile the two together and provide a possible solution.

Reconciliation with Biblical Inerrancy

Henceforth, I will be arguing my last point—that by the context and the Biblical data that we have, we can see how the Matthean genealogy may be vindicated from accuses of errancy with regards to the omission of the four kings, differences with the Lukan genealogy and further, with regards to its symmetrical structure.

With regards to its symmetrical structure, we have observed that it is possible for us to view the genealogy in a way that will circumvent the issue of the asymmetrical number of people in each set. Although the first and third set contains fourteen people on its own, while the second contains fifteen, an easy way out would be to assume that Matthew was simply counting the generations leading to Abraham. Such a trick allows us to bypass the problem and retain the symmetrical structure of the genealogy that Matthew postulated.

With regards to the omission of the five kings, we have seen previously how this is consistent with the context of the Matthean genealogy—written colloquially in a structure that is memorisable to form an emotional relation with Jews who are reading the gospel. By the scrupulosity of Matthew towards its structural rigidity (despite the messiness that still ensues nevertheless) we can understand that Matthew never intended for his genealogy to be written as a complete, formal genealogy. Rather, his symmetrical focus and the unnecessity for the completion of the genealogy points to how Matthew deliberately omitted those kings in favour of the structural format.

Within such genre and context—there is no necessity for the genealogy to be precise. It ought to be precise only with regards to its theological and literary purposes—which it did. Therefore, form here we can infer that Matthew has indeed fulfilled its context, literary genres, and purposes; this is precisely what is needed to sufficiently fulfil the criteria for inerrancy. David L Turner is correct in saying, “Matthew has omitted three names … and other omissions can also be noted. But it is not that Matthew has erred, since he did not intend to work exhaustively and precisely.”[22]

Moreover, considering the insignificance of these five kings as signposts in the line of David, it would do little if those kings were omitted. To accomplish his purpose in the context of providing an informal genealogy for the lay people, the structural format has to be prioritized. In this regard, Matthew’s decision may even be praiseworthy as it shows his shrewdness as an author. It is further worthwhile to mention Keener’s remark that within the genre of ancient genealogies, it is not uncommon for such omissions to happen.[23] If this is indeed true, it would imply that not only such omissions permissible, but also in line with the mainstream tradition of ancient genealogies.

More, however, needs to be added with regards to the Lukan genealogy. There have been several possible suggestions posed as to how we can construe the differences in the Lukan and the Matthean genealogy. Luther has suggested that Matthew offered the Joseph’s ancestry while Luke offered Mary’s. This position, however, runs aground when we see the explicit wording in Luke 3:23 (cf. Luke 1:27). R. T France further excoriate this position by pointing out that ancient Jewish genealogies were not traced through the mother.[24] Another view that sprung up would be that either Matthew or Luke has simply invented names. But again, such a case is very unlikely. Genealogies are simply too important for any Jew to treat them so cavalierly.[25] Thus, Contemporary scholars have now opted for a third position that Matthew emphasized the royal lineage of Jesus by tracing the “throne-succession of the actual, and, after the exile, the putative kings of Judah.[26] Meanwhile, Luke may have emphasized the actual biological lineage of Jesus. France confesses that such a view may be speculative, but it is indeed possible that biological and dynastic line run on separate lines while converging on multiple occasions.[27]

Conclusion

I hope to have established a firm case for a reconciliation between the Matthean genealogy and Biblical inerrancy. As we have thus far seen, the obstacles into reconciling the two of them have fallen short. Though it is not at all unreasonable to doubt Matthew’s inerrancy—especially in light of its differences with the Lukan genealogy—, by the strength of the evidences, it seems more plausible for us to adhere to its inerrancy. Such a view is far more supported by our present understanding of Jewish tradition—their scrupulous preservation and recording of genealogies. With regards to the omission of the five kings and the asymmetrical number of people in the genealogy, I hope to have shown that there can be no reasonable doubt that Matthew has intended for the omission and this, too, fulfils the context, genre and purpose of the genealogy. The purported “asymmetry,” on the other hand, may be resolved simply with a quick re-evaluation as provided above.

Notes

[1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ro 1:16). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

[2] The date of the authorship of Matthew has been clouded with much obscurities. The general scholars have been divided into two camps: the pre-70 AD camp and the Infra-70 AD camp. The position posed within this essay is the traditional position of the early Church Fathers. See Iraneus’, Against Heresies, 3.1.1. For a complete discourse regarding the debate of Matthew’s date of authorship, see R.T France, The Gospel of Matthew, 18-19; Michael J. Wilkins, Matthew, 24.

[3] K Lachmann, 1835; C. H. Weisse and C. G. Wilke, 1838; H.j. Holtzmann, 1863; B. Weiss, 1886; B. H. Streeter, 1924. This impressive list of 19^th century scholars who have persuasively argued for the primacy of the Gospel of Mark is gathered in Edwards, James. R. 2002. The Gospel According to Mark. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

[4] Genesis Rabbah 98:8; j. Taʿanit 4:2; see Anthony J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1988), 204–6.

[5] The genealogy in 1 Chr. 3 ends in Zerubbabel. See R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 109

[6] Wilkins, Michael J. 2004. Matthew. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 57

[7] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Mt 1:17). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

[8] Osborne, Grant. R. 2010. Matthew. Michigan: Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 60.

[9] Ibid.

[10] See Davies and Allison, Matthew. They discuss eight views of this arrangement.

[11] Osborne, Grant. R. 2010. Matthew. Michigan: Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 59.

[12] France, R.T. 2007. Gospel According to Matthew. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 103.

[13] Wilkins, Michael J. 2004. Matthew. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 62.

[14] See Kirk MacGregor’s Luis de Molina, Life and Theology of the Founder of Middle Knowledge, 177. In the book, MacGregor offers a compelling model for Biblical inerrancy that ought to draw our attention.

[15] France, R.T. 2007. Gospel According to Matthew. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 103.

[16] Keener, Craig S. 1999. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 73

[17] Ibid. 77

[18] Ibid.

[19] Wilkins, Michael J. 2004. Matthew. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 65.

[20] Long, Thomas G. 1997. Matthew. Westminster John Knox Press. 10

[21] Wilkins, Michael J. 2004. Matthew. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 57-58.

[22] Turner, David L. 1994. Matthew. Baker Academic. 27.

[23] “But skipping some generations was common enough in ancient genealogies, and Matthew would have seen no harm in approximating generations.” Keener, Craig S. 1999. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 75

[24] France, R.T. 2007. Gospel According to Matthew. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 104

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.

Modern Pelagianism and Its Failure to Recognize the Power of God

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

Pelagius was a fifth-century British monk who caused a stir during his time. He denied the doctrine of original sin. As such, he believed that no one was truly impacted by sin, but rather chose to do evil rather than good by one’s own free will. Concerning salvation, Pelagius believed that Christ served as a salvific example. Therefore, God’s grace was not necessary to save a person, and neither was the atoning work of the cross. Rather, a person was saved by choosing God. Pelagius held to a doctrine that focused on man rather than God. A derivative of the doctrine is found in what is called semi-Pelagianism, the belief that God bestows grace after a person chooses God. Many have erroneously credited Wesleyanism and Arminianism as adhering to this viewpoint. Both John Wesley and Jacob Arminius believed that God’s grace first moved on a person before the person was given the opportunity to embrace or reject that grace. Semi-Pelagianism held that the person first chose God before God’s grace was granted. There is a nuanced difference between the two perspectives. While the nuance seems small, it holds major implications. Nonetheless, I digress.

Augustine of Hippo confronted Pelagius’s beliefs and noted that the grace of God was essential to overcome a person’s sinful inclinations. While still accepting the person’s freedom of the will, he noted that the grace of God was necessary to bring about a person’s salvation. Rather than emphasizing humanity as did Pelagius, Augustine rested the emphasis on God. In matters of trouble, God’s grace was needed. Augustine writes, “Therefore, also, does grace aid, good men, in the midst of present calamities, so that they are enabled to endure them with a constancy proportioned to their faith” (Augustine, City of God 22.22.4, 501). Even in matters of adopting a true philosophy, God’s grace was required. Augustine notes, “So that even those against whom we are disputing have been compelled to acknowledge, in some fashion, that the grace of God is necessary for the acquisition, not, indeed, of any philosophy, but of the true philosophy” (Augustine, City of God 22.22.4, 501). In Augustinian thought, God’s grace was necessary to overcome the sinful inclinations of human beings. As such, salvation was truly God’s gracious gift to humanity.

The Church recognized the errors of Pelagianism and condemned the view as heretical in 415 at the synod of Jerusalem. It is important to note that despite their differences, Augustine always treated Pelagius with the utmost respect, something from which modern believers could learn. (For a fuller treatment on the issue, see Wyatt Graham’s article “Augustine’s Surprising Treatment of Pelagius” at the Gospel Coalition. It can be found here)

Far too often, people think that they must do things or accomplish certain tasks to earn God’s favor. They think that their efforts politically, socially, or otherwise determine their standing with God, siding with the idea that a person must be x, y, or z to be a Christian. However, such thinking illustrates the adoption of a modern form of the Pelagian heresy. The apostle Paul reminds us, “For you are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift—not from works so that no one can boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time for us to do” (Eph. 2:8–10). Relish in the grace that God has afforded to you. Allow that grace to shine in your life so that others can see Jesus in you. Finally, trust in God’s sovereign plan. For me, the latter is the most difficult, as faith does not come easy to this cynical mind.

Source

Augustine of Hippo. “The City of God.” In St. Augustine’s City of God and Christian Doctrine. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Volume Two. Edited by Philip Schaff. Translated by Marcus Dods. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887.

Postlude

Concerning human freedom, one example of Augustine’s acceptance of human freedom is found in the following quote.

“It is He who, when He foreknew that man would in his turn sin by abandoning God and breaking His law, did not deprive him of the power of free-will, because He at the same time foresaw what good He Himself would bring out of the evil, and how from this mortal race, deservedly and justly condemned, He would by His grace collect, as now He does, a people so numerous, that He thus fills up and repairs the blank made by the fallen angels, and that thus that beloved and heavenly city is not defrauded of the full number of its citizens, but perhaps may even rejoice in a still more overflowing population” (Augustine, City of God 22.1.2, 480).

Can We Know Anything for Sure?

1. Does Truth Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Doug Potter

The following is an excerpt for our Why Trust the God of the Bible? Ebook.

Many today fail to see the importance of grounding their reasoning process in reality in spite of the fact that whatever is not based on reality is un-reality, in other words, unreal. The slippery slope of subjectivism and relativism is the result of such “reasoning” manufactured in the imaginations of the mind rather than in reality, on Truth. This distinction is especially important for Christians who desire to share their reasonable faith. Sadly, subjectivism has crept its way into the church with the assumption that we do not need to defend our faith with reason; we only need the Bible.

Despite the claims of subjectivism and “blind” faith, one of the most fundamental observations anyone can make of physical reality is that it changes, and yet something about it remains the same. This observation is the first step in a complete apologetic for Christianity. What remains the same in this physical piece of reality is its essence. What changes are called accidental properties. We can observe anything in reality, natural or man-made, for example a real tree, and see that it changes over time—grows larger, develops branches, colorful leaves, etc.—and yet it remains the same tree such that it is distinguishable from all the other trees. Its change is accounted for by the principles of actuality (act) and potentiality (potency) that are present in all created things. Actuality is the existence of some thing. Potentiality accounts for the capacity of some thing to change or become other than what it is. Change could be substantial, in that I could destroy the tree, and it could no longer exist. Or it could be accidental, such as cutting off a limb. The change could be internal, such as its growing a new limb, or the change could be external if I cut the tree down.

Everything in the world that we experience is a composition of form (actuality)—or what something is—and matter (potentiality to change) that individuates the form to be this thing and not that thing. For example, a cat is a cat because of its form or catness (what it is), and its matter individuates it to be this cat as opposed to that cat. Matter, as used here, should not be equated with physical matter, and form should not be equated with the shape of something. Instead, these are principles found in things or substances. As already explained, there are things essential and accidental to a particular substance. Something essential cannot be removed without changing what it is. Something accidental could be otherwise and would not change what something is. For example, it is essential to the nature of a cat that it be an animal nature. If that is changed or removed somehow, it ceases to be a cat. But it is accidental if the size and color of the cat change. Despite the change, it stays a cat. Such a description is possible for every created thing, from the smallest subatomic particle to the largest galaxies.

We come to know reality in an act of existence, in other words, by its actual existence. This knowing relates to its form (essence) and its matter (potential to change). The form of something is related to its actuality. Again, form is what something is (i.e., an essence). For example, a cat has the form of catness, and a dog has the form of dogness. Matter is related to the individual potentiality (to change). It is that which individuates an essence to be this cat or that cat. The form of a substance is immaterial. The matter of a substance is what individuates the essence to be a particular thing that gives it extension in space, which is limited to its form. We can say a dog is not a cat because of their different form or essence. We can say this cat is not that cat because of their different matter or individuation of matter.

The Process of Knowing

The soul is the substantial form of the human body. The way in which we know something is by its form, which is united to matter. We know things via our five senses. Since the form of a substance is immaterial, it is able to enter our mind, and we are able to know the thing, know the form extracted (in our mind) from its matter, as it is in itself. Contrary to what some philosophers have proposed throughout history, the form that enters the mind is not a different substance or copy of the substance that comes to exist in the mind of the knower. Rather, the same form that is united with matter unites with the mind of the knower; in a sense, the knower and the thing known become one.

Once the form enters our minds, in an act of existence, our internal senses combine all the available external sensitive input. Our intellect is able to extract the universal catness, for example, from the particular cat. We are able to form mental images (phantasms) of particulars by using the internal senses combined with other intellective powers such as remembrance and the abstracted universal. We are able to make judgments and form concepts and ideas about the known thing. All of this and much more happens effortlessly, almost without awareness.

This process of knowing can be applied to sensible reality and to the interpretation of any text or spoken word. We come to know a written or spoken word the same way we come to know any other thing in sensible reality. First, the author or speaker has an idea. Meaning exists as form (immaterially) in the mind of the author/speaker. The author/speaker causes a text to exist by imposing form (meaning) upon language (combining it with matter) to create a text or spoken word in sensible reality. The speaker expresses his thought, then the mind of the reader or hearer extracts the form (meaning) from the text or spoken word in reality through the senses, and then the meaning is processed by the intellect. In this way, a reader or hearer is able to know the meaning that is in the text or spoken words.[1]

Why Is This Important?

All humans have the same nature/essence; therefore, all human intellects have the same basic capacities. Since the forms, in reality, are the same as what comes to exist in the human mind, what something is is determined by reality and not the knower. This is what we mean by truth. Truth is that which corresponds to its object, or, more specifically, truth is the conforming of the intellect to reality. Knowledge, meaning, and the intended purpose of all things are grounded in reality and are objectively verifiable. This explanation supports all human endeavors in the sciences and humanities and particularly makes Christian apologetics, theology, and ethics worthy endeavors.

This unity of existence between intellect and reality is the basis for the two extremely important great apologetic goals: to demonstrate the existence of God and to demonstrate the historical truth that God raised Jesus of Nazareth from the dead.

Reference

[1] For a fuller treatment of epistemology, consider Frederick Wilhelmsen’s Man’s Knowledge of Reality: An Introduction to Thomistic Epistemology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1956).

The Woke-ing Dead and the Futility of Reason

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Tim Stratton

The COVID-19 “quarantine” wasn’t all bad. Sure, no one likes being sentenced to “house arrest,” but I enjoyed spending some extra time with my wife and 17-year-old son (I did not take those moments for granted). The dreaded coronavirus, however, shut down Hollywood, movie theaters, restaurants, and sporting events. Being sequestered at home, my family and I considered other entertainment options.

A friend told me about The Walking Dead — a series featuring survivors of a zombie apocalypse fighting to survive amidst a constant threat of attacks from mobs of the undead, colloquially referred to as “walkers.” I went to Netflix and saw nine seasons awaiting our binge-watching pleasure. My wife and I decided to give the first episode a shot, and the next thing you know, we had watched all nine seasons in just a few weeks.

I think there is much one can learn from this series. During “insane times,” for example, it is good to have several others to partner with to ensure mutual survival and flourishing. It is also vital to realize the importance of sharing the same set of core values and agreeing upon the same set of “rules” or morality for any group to flourish. If a group does not possess an agreed-upon “constitution,” the group will fall.

“I know this sounds insane, but this is an insane world!”

— Rick Grimes (The Walking Dead, Season 6: First Time Again)

Oh, and one of the most important take-aways is this: guns and ammunition are vital; never surrender your weapons!

Learning from Zombies

Aside from these practical lessons, The Walking Dead also provides a good opportunity to philosophize about the nature of zombies. These “walkers,” as the title implies, are technically dead. It seems the soul (the person) who previously inhabited the body has “left the building.” Thus, the zombies do not possess the ability to reason or think logically (the FreeThinking Argument Against Naturalism describes how the human soul makes rationality possible). The walkers (also referred to as “biters”) simply respond to stimuli, namely, to consume flesh and blood.

A single walking corpse is not a serious threat to a seasoned survivor. Even a handful of zombies can easily be dispatched by Rick Grimes and company. However, when the zombies accumulate to the size of a mob, all bets are off. These mobs are extremely dangerous and will overwhelm and destroy rational humanity with sheer brute force.

After binge-watching the entire Walking Dead series, I went to sleep that night, finding solace reminding myself that mobs of non-rational “walkers” seeking to destroy humanity do not exist. To my horror, I woke up the next day to the realization that zombies do exist! That is to say, mobs of seemingly non-rational “woke-ing dead” have taken to the streets seeking to destroy rational civilization as we know it.

If one attempts to reason with the woke zombies, the mob will simply raise their voices, scream louder, destroy property, break more windows, and physically assault those who disagree. Reason is not an option. Rational conversation is futile. In fact, appealing to logic, reason, and rationality is rejected as merely “western” or “racist” by the mob.

“You ever heard about the broken window theory? Boils down to this– you keep the windows intact, you keep society intact.”

— Rick Grimes (The Walking Dead, Season 5: Spend)

James Lindsay notes why it seems to be impossible to have a logical or reasonable conversation with a “woke zombie.” Lindsay explains that: “Debate and conversation, especially when they rely upon reason, rationality, science, [and] evidence . . . are not their methods and they reject them.” This irrationality is exemplified by Margaret L. Anderson’s assertion in Race, Class, and Gender: “The idea that objectivity is best reached only through rational thought is a specifically Western and masculine way of thinking.” In other words: rational thought is “racist” because it’s merely the product of old white males.

Not only is this lack of critical thinking sad, it is extremely dangerous. It is sad because if one rejects reason, they become unreasonable. If one rejects rationality, they become irrational. If one rejects science and evidence, what remains? Indeed, one can see that the comparison to modern mobs in the streets and zombies is not an extreme comparison at all. This rejection of rational thought is dangerous because, as I have noted elsewhere: “If one rejects logic, all one is left with is gibberish, temper tantrums, and perhaps physical violence.” Given the growing woke mobs of non-rational zombies flooding the streets, I fear mass-violence is on the horizon. Prepare for battle!

An Un-Perfect Analogy with the Un-Dead

Unlike the zombies in The Walking Dead, the mob of The Woke-ing Dead in the streets of America today — although they behave remarkably similar to the zombies in the show — are each human being created in God’s image. Believers are called to love them and to attempt to reason together with them (Isaiah 1:18). With that said, be careful — zombies are bad, but sometimes humans are worse.

Be that as it may, Christ-followers are called to love those who consider you an enemy (even when it’s not your greatest desire). You are called to share the Gospel and fulfill the Great Commission. But even if these “zombies” are not willing to listen, all hope is not lost. Rational Christians must be a loud voice of reason in the public square and on social media (while it is still possible) and reason with those who have not yet been infected with poisonous Marxist philosophy. Inoculate humanity with an epistemic foundation and reasons for reality before they are exposed to this pandemic of irrationality. Start here:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

The Moral Argument

The Teleological Argument

The Ontological Argument

The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism

The Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism

The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus (The Facts)

The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus (The Explanation)

When one has a proper grasp of ultimate reality — God — then certain political and cultural views usually fall into their proper place. When this occurs, the woke-ing dead often becomes born again and typically begin thinking clearly. Sharing the Gospel intertwined with apologetics is more important today than ever before. So be proud, loud, logical, and loving while telling the masses about the Good News! Be strong and courageous, for the Lord is with you (Joshua 1:9).

“We’ve been praying together. Praying that God will save our town. Well, our prayers have been answered. God will save Alexandria because God has given us the courage to save it ourselves.”

— Father Gabriel Stokes (The Walking Dead, Season 6: No Way Out)

If you succumb to fear, however, the zombies will eventually eat your face!

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton

Don’t Lose the Person When Winning an Argument

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

1 Peter 3:15 is a classic prooftext for the defender of the faith, otherwise known as the Christian apologist. Peter writes, “But in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, ready at any time to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15). While this verse is imperative to the modern Christian, we must also remember the next verse where Peter states, “Yet do this with gentleness and reverence, keeping a clear conscience, so that when you are accused, those who disparage your good conduct in Christ will be put to shame” (1 Pet. 3:16). Peter emphasizes how a Christian does apologetics as much as he stresses the need for apologetics.

Many times, a person may win an argument but lose the person. When presenting a case for the faith, we should never become haughty, seeking to appear intelligent or to demonstrate our superiority. Such attempts will eventually lose the person with whom you are speaking. Rather, we should seek to build friendships and bonds with others, especially those who differ from our point of view. This coincides with Paul’s teaching to the 1 Corinthians where he says, “If I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so that I can move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Cor. 15:2). You can be the smartest person in the world and still remain useless to the kingdom if you don’t have a loving spirit.

In your dealings this week, ask yourself if you are engaging people with a heart of love. If not, you might better go back to the drawing board and remember that it was love that created you, love that saved you, and love that grants you eternal life. Going back to Paul, he noted that there exist three things “faith, hope, and love—but the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor. 13:13). When engaging people in evangelism, ask yourself if your purpose is to win the person over to Christ or simply to win the argument at hand.

In my observations of online debates and forums, we as Christians have the habit of becoming nasty in our dialogues with others. Would we have come to faith if someone spoke to us the way we speak to others? Diplomacy and tact go a long way in building bridges and establishing friendships. In our conversations, it is important that we don’t lose the person in our attempts to win an argument. 1 Peter 3:16 balances 1 Peter 3:15 and is just as necessary in our approach. If we don’t have love, we don’t have anything.

Battling a Disease More Infectious & Deadly Than COVID-19

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Adam Tucker

As hundreds of thousands of people battle COVID-19 following thousands of deaths, lockdowns, and much fear, the world eagerly awaits a proven treatment plan to cure this dreaded virus. I’m sure many of you, like me, often pray for wisdom and protection for those on the frontlines battling this invisible foe. But there is another invisible enemy, one more formidable than COVID-19, that has wreaked havoc on millions of lives for centuries. This unseen tyrant takes many forms and can often be hard to detect. We are all susceptible to this disease, and without the proper precautions, anyone can fall victim. Sadly, the aftermath of this nemesis is often very visible, making it seem as though it is much more foreboding than it actually is. No, it’s not another novel virus. It is the always-lurking disease of bad ideas.

This disease’s most recent high-profile victim is Jon Steingard, lead vocalist for Hawk Nelson, the once very popular Christian rock group. Jon joins Rhett and Link (popular YouTube comedians and former Cru staffers), Marty Sampson (Hillsong worship artist), Michael Gungor (lead singer for Christian duo Gungor), and Joshua Harris (extremely popular Christian author and pastor) who have either renounced Christianity outright or expressed serious misgivings about the faith in recent years. This does not even mention the number of popular Christian leaders, authors, singers, etc. who are drifting, or have drifted, from biblical Christianity to a more liberal/progressive version of “Christianity.”

What can we do to combat this deadly contagion? The following guidelines may, or may not, be endorsed by the CDC. For the past 28 years, however, they are what Southern Evangelical Seminary and Bible College has trained men and women from all walks of life to do effectively.

Recognize the Symptoms

In our brief case study, we will examine Jon’s story since he is the most recent casualty, and the reasons for his “deconstruction” are similar across related cases. In fact, Jon says he shared his doubts with some of his close friends and was “shocked” to discover that his doubts were “shared by nearly every close friend [his] age” who has a similar background to his own.

Jon grew up constantly at church, surrounded by Christians. His dad is a pastor, and Jon says the church wasn’t just part of his family’s life; it was their life. He points out, “When you grow up in a community that holds a shared belief, and that shared belief is so incredibly central to everything, you simply adopt it.” It was in high school that, like many young people, Jon first began to encounter questions and doubts. He says, “I figured I was overthinking all these things. This was the beginning of my doubt, and I began to develop the reflex to simply push it down and soldier on. … I felt it must be true.”

This is symptom number one, putting feelings overthinking. So many Christians and formerly-professing-Christians experience this common symptom. Of course, it’s no wonder that this symptom is so widespread given the fact that our culture has by and large elevated man’s will over his intellect. This usually presents itself in one of two ways, or sometimes as a combination of the two. The first way is that many Christians, like Jon, simply “feel” better if they act as though Christianity is true and never seek answers to their questions or reasons for their beliefs. They ignore their doubts and simply attempt to muster up more “faith.” The second way, and perhaps more problematic, is that feelings cause others to question historic Christianity because they feel as though something like homosexual behavior, for example, must be OK. Or they feel that truly loving someone would never mean telling someone their thoughts or behaviors are wrong. Moreover, they seem certain that their feelings could never be wrong about such things. More and more people are presenting with this system, and it is something about which each practitioner should be aware of.

Like any normal human being, Jon finally began to wrestle with the difficult questions of the faith and attempt to think through things about which he was having trouble making sense. He specifically mentions the perennial problem of evil (specifically noting both natural and moral evil), the problem of a loving God sending people to hell, the “pissed off” God of the Old Testament who commands the killing of certain people, and the fact that Jesus would have to die for our sins in order for God to forgive us. Jon also shares that he wrestled with many things he considered to be contradictions in the Bible. He honestly laments, “Suffice it to say that when I began to believe that the Bible was simply a book written by people as flawed and imperfect as I am – that was when my belief in God truly began to unravel. … Once I found that I didn’t believe the Bible was the perfect Word of God – it didn’t take long to realize that I was no longer sure He was there at all.”

This is symptom number two, neglect or absence of prolegomena and natural theology. For those unaware, “prolegomena” is the study of the foundational truths that must be the case in order for Christianity to be true (ex. the nature of truth, the nature of reality, the existence of God, the nature of communication, the reliability of the Bible, etc.). “Natural theology” is the study of what can be known about the existence and nature of God apart from the Bible (i.e., using general revelation to reason from effect [creation] to cause [God]). The neglect/absence of these two areas is one of the most critical symptoms for which to monitor. It typically arises when believers, like Jon, have little or no exposure to philosophy and apologetics that provide the intellectual foundation for the truthfulness of Christianity. They typically make blind appeals to the Bible with no foundational truths upon which to build a confident trust in and proper understanding of the Word of God. Retired academic Dr. Bruce Charlton notes,

“Modern Christianity as experienced by converts tends to be incomplete – precisely because modern Christianity has nothing to build on [i.e., a basic understanding of the nature of reality, natural law, the existence of immaterial realities, etc.]. This means that incomplete modern Christianity lacks explanatory power, seems to have little or nothing to say about what seems to be the main problem of living. For example, modern Christianity seems to have nothing to do with politics, law, art, philosophy, or science; to inhabit a tiny, shrinking realm cut-off from daily concerns.”[1]

Because a solid foundation is often missing, even when believers do have some exposure to these disciplines, the “God” they are learning about is essentially the equivalent to a really big invisible Superman who’s just smarter, more powerful, and supposedly morally better than us; whose sole purpose often seems is to make our lives easy and provide us with endless warm fuzzies. This, however, is not the God of classical Christian thinking (more on this later). One should carefully note the connection between the first two symptoms. When the role of the intellect is neglected in the Christian life, it is easy for this second symptom to manifest.

Thankfully, Jon says that he is “open to the idea that God is there.” Openness is key. However, he goes on to say, “I know my parents pray that God reveals Himself to me. If He’s there, I hope He does.” He then laments the fact that he and his wife “always had this sense that [they] weren’t doing enough of the things [they] were supposed to do as Christians. … It all felt like an obligation, and [their] lack of enthusiasm about those things always made [them] feel like something was wrong with [them].” Jon admits that now they don’t think anything was wrong with them, they “simply didn’t believe” and “were too afraid to admit that to [themselves].”

Once again, Dr. Charlton observes,

“Modern Christianity often feels shallow – it seems to rely on diktat of scripture and the Church – this is because [as noted above] moderns lack a basis in the spontaneous perceptions of Natural Law, animism [i.e. the belief in a supernatural power], the sense of active supernatural power in everyday life. Modern Christianity (after the first flush of the conversion experience) thus feels dry, abstract, legalistic, prohibitive, uninvolving, lacking in purpose.”[2]

This is symptom number three, wrong motives based on false expectations. The disease of bad ideas has so infected vast swathes of Christianity that far too many professing believers simply end up living out a cultural Christianity that has little basis in reality due in large part to the first two symptoms above. When this happens, symptom three typically follows. I know this from my own personal experience. Whether driven by the drive to please loved ones, cultural expectations, fear, or simply a guilty conscience, many believers go through the motions of Christianity in a legalistic fashion with no real substance to their Christian convictions. Likewise, because God is viewed as an invisible Superman, many people struggling with doubts and questions expect God to supernaturally manifest Himself to them personally in such a way that all their questions are answered. They may even wish for God to be real and desire to worship Him, but they only want to do so on their own terms rather than His. Again, a failure to have a proper natural theology of God leads to these confused motives and false expectations.

The above symptoms, among others, are good indicators that someone may be in the midst of, or in danger of beginning, a deconstruction of their Christian convictions. Recognizing these symptoms is just the first step. Preventative measures and even post-infection treatment are both necessary and possible.

Prescribe the Proper Treatment

Imagine if you went to your doctor to get treatment for COVID-19, and you noticed he never washed his hands between patients, he didn’t wear a facemask, never cleaned his exam rooms, used the same tongue depressor for every patient, and used dirty needles to administer shots. Needless to say, he wouldn’t be in business very long. Rather than treating any patient’s condition, he would actually be making matters worse by sharing the same germs from patient to patient. The treatment would be as bad, or worse, than the original issue for which you visited the doctor in the first place. This is the sad state of affairs in which we too often find ourselves in modern apologetics.

So much of what passes for apologetics today is built upon modern philosophical assumptions which suffer from the same disease of bad ideas the apologist is trying to combat. As prolegomena and the classical view of God (derived from natural theology via classical philosophy) were abandoned, an “infected” and impotent version of Christianity began to be defended. Popular apologetics far too often simply shares germs back and forth with the skepticism it seeks to answer. I would refer the reader to HERE and HERE for more on that.

By contrast, a proper treatment for this disease will only occur when the patient is brought back to the basic truths of reality that provide the foundation upon which a full-orbed Christian faith can be built. This is why the classical apologetics approach we teach at SES is so critical (see more HERE and HERE). Starting with the undeniable fact that man knows some truths about reality, we can reason step by step to the truthfulness of Christianity. When done properly, we can see that God is not an invisible Superman. He is wholly other, and the divine attributes stand or fall together. We can also appreciate the thousands of pages that have been written through the centuries by classical Christian thinkers addressing every question and issue that Jon or any other patient has raised.

Remember that some diseases take longer to treat than others. Bad ideas can become ingrained and influence many areas of our thinking. Nevertheless, treatment is possible. As philosopher Edward Feser notes, “Even modern secularists know [the language of natural theology and natural law], for they are no less human than their pagan ancestors. The problem is that they speak it at only a grade school or even kindergarten level, whereas the greatest of the ancients at least had high school level proficiency. But through ‘remedial education,’ they, like the ancient pagans, can be prepared for the graduate-level work afforded by divine revelation.”[3]

We must begin to make progress in this area so that every parent, grandparent, Sunday School teacher, pastor, and missionary have themselves moved beyond grade school in the war against bad ideas and are able to inoculate and treat those entrusted to their care.

Don’t Neglect Underlying Conditions

That brings us to our last point. As we know, COVID-19 is much more serious for people with underlying conditions. Even though we could cure COVID-19, all of us will still die at some point. Likewise, every one of us suffers from the underlying condition of our own sin that makes the disease of bad ideas even worse and ultimately leads to death. We will all succumb to the disease of sin without the ultimate cure, which is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as payment for our sins.

Everything above regarding treating the disease of bad ideas is what Thomas Aquinas called the preambles to the articles of faith. They alone do not constitute the fullness of the faith. Rather, biblical faith is an active trust in the authority of what God has revealed because we have reason to believe He is trustworthy. Reason provides the foundation upon which faith can take root. Salvation through Jesus (i.e., the Gospel) is itself a revealed truth to which we cannot reason. Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable, and we have excellent reasons to believe it is true. Being a revealed truth is what makes the Gospel an article of faith to which we willfully ascent and act upon through the power of the Holy Spirit. Only then will we find ultimate healing.

In the meantime, wear your facemask, practice social distancing, and protect yourself from COVID-19. Be on guard, however, for the ever-present invisible contagion of bad ideas. Monitor yourself and others for symptoms, and remember the proper treatment. As Clement of Alexandria said regarding the foundational role of philosophy in the life of the believer,

“Perspicuity accordingly aids in the communication of truth and logic in preventing us from falling under the heresies by which we are assailed. But the teaching, which is according to the Saviour (sic), is complete in itself and without defect, being ‘the power and wisdom of God;’ and the Hellenic philosophy does not, by its approach, make the truth more powerful; but rendering powerless the assault of sophistry against it, and frustrating the treacherous plots laid against the truth, is said to be the proper ‘fence and wall [or facemask in this case!] of the vineyard.’[4]

Endnotes

[1] Please note that this reference does not imply agreement with all of Dr. Charlton’s views: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/12/six-problems-for-modern-christian.html

[2] Ibid.

[3] https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/01/point-of-contact.html

[4] Clement of Alexandria, “The Stromata, or Miscellanies,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 323.

Reflecting God’s Character in Apologetics

CrossExamined

By Mikel Del Rosario

Character Counts

Our spiritual conversations should reflect God’s character

Explaining reasons to believe doesn’t have to strictly be an intellectual thing. In fact, it shouldn’t be—especially when we’re talking to our skeptical friends, neighbors, and others who see Christianity differently. No, apologetics is way more profound in terms of its role in cultural engagement.

Character plays a key role in this. And it isn’t just about adding memorized apologetic answers to your life. Developing a Christian character needs to be part of our discipleship to Jesus. I can’t tell you how many times the importance of character has come up in my work with other apologists, in my ministry, and in my teaching at William Jessup University. Let me give you just four examples from my work at Dallas Theological Seminary.

The Relationship of Confidence and Character

First, I talked to my friend Sean McDowell about an activity he uses to help Christians think about how we can tend to approach engaging with atheists. We agreed that many times, it seems like your confidence in the faith is linked to your ability to stay respectful in difficult spiritual conversations. Sean said:

One of my favorite things to do at churches, camps, conferences, is this: I show up. People know it’s me, that I’m a Christian professor, but I go into role play and I put on glasses and [play the role of] an atheist…then I open it up for questions from the audience. I respond and I shoot them down…graciously and kindly as an atheist to break their stereotypes of how they think atheists may be. Almost every time I do it…people get frustrated. They get upset. I’ve been called names. I’ve literally had a guy stand up and threaten me! People get angry and you can feel the tension coming over the crowd.

Then I’ll stop, I’ll take the glasses off, and instead of saying, “How do we defend faith?” I’ll say, “Here’s my first question. How did you treat me as your atheist guest?” And the eyes of people, it’s like, “Oh, my goodness. I hated you. I wanted to bash you. I was angry at you.”

And then I’ll say, “Why did people get so defensive? I think it’s because you don’t really know what you believe and why.” When I push back, it shows an insecurity so you lash out with anger and defensiveness.

So, if we want to be able to talk about difficult subjects, we have to have a confidence in terms of what we believe. Then we’re not threatened when people challenge our faith.

Next, I’m reminded of another one of my friends, Mary Jo Sharp. She explained her early experiences of feeling intimidated at the thought of sharing her faith. But now, she says that knowing what you believe and why you believe it can help you avoid that feeling of being flustered, defensive, or angry. I agree. I’m a firm believer that we, as Christian apologists, must reflect the character of God while engaging with people form different backgrounds.

The Blending of Conviction and Compassion

Third, I remember very clearly, John Dickson sharing this image of what he called “part of the genius of Jesus,” which was “flexing two muscles at the same time: The muscle of conviction and the muscle of compassion.” That stuck with me.

There’s also an exchange between John and my mentor, Darrell Bock, that happened later that day that comes to mind as part of this. We need to reflect God’s loving character and his engagement of the world. What do the Scriptures say about how we should engage?

John Dickson: 1 Peter 3:15 says that you’re to give an apologia but do this with prouteitos kai fobos: gentleness and respect. Because you can’t defend this Lord that you set apart in your heart…without gentleness and respect.

Darrell Bock: Colossians 4:5 and 6 goes to the same place: “Let your speech with outsiders always be gracious.” There’s an interesting combination of moral challenge and invitation that’s part of the way the Christian’s supposed to function…conviction and compassion together…you’ve got to have both. It can’t be one or the other or else it will absolutely fail.

Here, the Apostle Paul is emphatic about how grace should characterize a Christian Ambassador at all times. This, along with the demeanor commanded in 1 Peter 3:15-16, should inform the way we go about having spiritual conversations. Because the people we talk to about God, Jesus, and the Bible cannot just be “another notch in your belt.” We don’t get to do that. We have to love them.

The Importance of Listening and Loving

That imagery comes from Nathan Wagnon at Watermark church and it’s another one that’s stuck with me. Nathan’s the only person I know whose job title is “Pastor of Equipping and Apologetics” and he shared that idea while we were talking about the importance of loving people while doing apologetics. He’s the fourth example that comes to mind. He told me:

One of the greatest mistakes that I think a lot of evangelicals make is we think of evangelism as like closing the deal…You start to feel like a used car salesman, ’cause you’re trying to push people towards, ‘Yeah, but do you want to pray this prayer? Do you want to accept Jesus?’ And unfortunately there’s a lot of people who are trying to push toward that because of insecurities in their own lives. Their spiritual life, a lot of times, is deficient. And so they’re trying to fill that void with ministry activism, so that they can raise their hand and go, ‘See how the Lord used me?’ so that they can get this sense of self worth.

And that expresses itself, a lot of times, by people who don’t listen. They’re using the space, when someone else is talking, to formulate in their own minds how they’re gonna respond, instead of actually listening to what the person is saying. And what I would say to that is, ‘We don’t get to do that.’ Jesus has called us to love people. And that looks like treating them with value and worth, because they are valuable, and they do matter to God, who’s deeply loved by God, who deeply matters…we don’t get to just mow over people. We have to love them.

Confidence Leads to Compassion

As apologists, we are keenly aware of our responsibility to give reasons for the hope we have in Christ. But it’s that very hope—along with the confidence that comes with knowing what we believe and why we believe it—that allows us to be compassionate, gentle, and respectful. This is so important for engagement and dialogical apologetics.

Apologetics shouldn’t just be an intellectual pursuit. Our character and our tone must communicate our love for those we challenge with the gospel. And that means approaching apologetics as dialogue—a more relational, holistic, person-centered conversation—rather than an issue-centered debate. May God grant us the grace to reflect God’s character as we engage the culture, make the case for Christianity, and defend the faith.

Tag Archive for: Gospel

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Navigating The Bureaucracy

The Abstract Becomes Personal

The Common Thread

Missing Fathers

The Relentless Turnstile

Montel’s Dilemma

No Illusions

“Let It Rain God Love”

The Promise of Fatherhood

Recommended resources related to the topic:

​Richard Rohr’s view of the gospel

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Context Regarding the Gospel of Matthew and the Genealogy

Structure of the Genealogy

The Omission of the Kings

Analysis of the Kings

Inerrancy

Incompleteness and Inaccuracy

The Purpose of the Genealogy

Comparison to Lukan Genealogy

Reconciliation with Biblical Inerrancy

Conclusion

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Source

Postlude

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Process of Knowing

Why Is This Important?

Reference

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Learning from Zombies

An Un-Perfect Analogy with the Un-Dead

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recognize the Symptoms

Prescribe the Proper Treatment

Don’t Neglect Underlying Conditions

Endnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Relationship of Confidence and Character

The Blending of Conviction and Compassion

The Importance of Listening and Loving

Confidence Leads to Compassion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Richard Rohr’s view of the gospel