Tag Archive for: John Ferrer

Dangerous Homefront, part 2: NT Prooftexts we Know and Love

,

In part 1 of this series, we looked at a few Old Testament passages that people often misinterpret. In part 2 we shift to the New Testament. It’s worth noting that sometimes the error is just an innocent mistake. It’s not always from bad intentions, or false teachers, or heretical theology. Sometimes there are malicious forces at work here, but often it’s just well-meaning people getting confused about what the Bible says. The list of verses below is just a sample of commonly misinterpreted texts. There are many more too choose from, but I’m willing to bet that if you are a church-goer you’ve heard at least one of these misinterpretations before.

Matthew 7:1

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

This is perhaps the most quoted verse of Scripture surpassing even John 3:16. The love of God is succinctly portrayed in the one-verse Gospel message of John 3:16 and this was considered a beautiful redeeming truth to be shared and enjoyed – perhaps more than any other verse until now. In recent times, the most prized message in Scripture is more often to abstain from “passing judgment.” So Matthew 7:1 has risen in popularity. But this anti-judgement verse does not promise freedom from judgment. For all will eventually be judged by God (Revelation 20:11-15). Nor does it even disbar judgment between believers (Matt. 18:15-20; 1 Cor. 5:12-13; 1 Tim. 1:20). Rather, in context, this verse cautions against hypocrisy. The immediate passage following this one chastises hypocrites who attempt to remove a speck from another man’s eye when all the time there is a plank in his own (Matt. 7:1-5). This verse communicates a boomerang effect to one’s actions consistent with the rest of the Sermon the Mount – and this verse is part of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).[1]. Scripture encourages Christians to judge sin, at least among believers – “let judgment begin with the church” (1 Peter 4:17). Now, Christians shouldn’t be condemning other people to hell, or acting on their own initiative (individually) to disbar people from becoming Christians. In those senses Christians “shouldn’t judge.” But Matthew 7:1 isn’t saying to never judge anyone else, it’s saying to never judge in this hypocritical and condemning ways. We should still use judgment to exercise church discipline, to administer righteous verdicts and punishments, to recognize and extinguish sin, to distinguish between truth and error, discern between wise and unwise, and identify good and evil.

Matthew 10:28

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

The problem that rides on this verse is that Satan gets too much credit. One may think, from this verse, that Satan is the one to fear, the one who can “destroy both soul and body in hell.” This misunderstanding seems to be more the product of poor theology than malicious exegesis. For the One who is truly Lord over Hell is not Satan but God (1 Chron. 29:11-14; Ps. 103:19). God is sovereign over everything—hell included. Satan is but a prisoner; God is the warden (Job 1:6-12; Rev. 20:1-3, 10). God is to be feared above all else, above even Satan.

Matthew 18:19-20

Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

This little passage is one of the most victimized in all of Scripture. First, this verse is often used to justify all shades of “health and wealth” theology, namely the belief that God must give believers whatever they ask (no matter how self-centered it may be) as long as they ask God in groups. The second offense is a little more innocent. Christians often quote verse twenty as an invocation of God’s presence be it at prayer meetings, worship services, or whatever else. The answer to both of these problems is, again, context. Matthew 18:15-20 is about church discipline. And the reason the numbers “two or three” are mentioned is because those are the numbers of witnesses that would testify in the case of a legal or religious offense. To prevent “he said she said” arguments, two or three witnesses were brought forth to establish trustworthy testimony (Deut. 17:6; 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19; Hebr. 10:28). Moreover, since only God has the ultimate authority to judge (Deut. 32:39; Rom. 12:19), any human judgment over other men was to be done with God’s conferred authority. And in these verses we see God conferring His authority for judgment only to groups of believers, that is, to a church, the “body of Christ.” God’s presence to creation is a universal fact (Ps 139:7-12; Jer. 23:23-24; Acts 17:27-28). So, He hardly needs to be invoked at prayer meetings or at church services (recognized, yes, but not invoked). His presence is mentioned here in reference to His conferring authority to believers for the exercising of judgment within the church.

Revelation 3:15-16

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

These verses do not mean that God prefers spiritual coldness (disbelief, hostility, inactivity, uselessness) to lukewarm spirituality (hypocrisy, casual Christianity). That interpretation would mean that God wills disbelief (or hostility, inactivity). Thus God not only permits disbelief, but He prefers it. That is, He wants it. This idea is dangerous enough in that it suggest that God is guilty of evil, but it also presents a stiff challenge to Scriptures such as 1 Timothy 2:4 which says, “[God] wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” Such a misinterpretation also suffers contextual blindness. John was addressing the wealthy Church of Laodicea which was inconveniently located south of Heiropolos, known for its therapeutic hot springs, and north of Colossae with its cold refreshing waters.[2] Laodicea, not having an adequate water source of its own brought water in from these outside sources. Thus the water they acquired was lukewarm and dirty by the time it reached them. John, therefore, is drawing the contrast between the therapeutic hot springs and the revitalizing cold springs–both good options–and between these two is the feted lukewarm water of Laodicea.

Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

This verse is usually treated as an evangelistic invitation, however the context reveals that John is still talking to the Church at Laodicea. That is, John is addressing believers. This knocking and calling is not unto salvation, for that much is already assured to these believers. Instead the invitation is to a deeper fellowship with God.

Stay tuned for Parts 3 in this series!

Endnotes

[1] This boomerang affect is visible in Matthew 6:14-15, “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (See also Matt. 7:2, 12).
[2] Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation Rev. Ed. in The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 109-10.


Recommended resources related to the topic:

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)
The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)
Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Is the Bible Historically Reliable? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, Mp3 Download.
How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (MP3 Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (DVD Set)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

John is a licensed minister with earned degrees from Charleston Southern (BA), Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv), and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD). His doctorate is in philosophy of religion, minoring in ethics. As a new addition to Crossexamined in 2023, John brings a wealth of experience to the team including debating atheists, preaching the Gospel, teaching apologetics in schools and churches, publishing books and articles, and creating websites. John is also a teaching fellow with Equal Rights Institute and president of Pella Pro-Life in his hometown of Pella, Iowa. There he resides with his lovely and brilliant wife Hillary Ferrer, founder of Mama Bear Apologetics. Together they specialize in cultural apologetics with an emphasis on family-based apologetic training.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3r0C5qp

/by

Dangerous Homefront, part 1: OT Prooftexts we Know and Love

,

Years ago, on a trip to Washington DC I found myself going through a few different airports and learning a life lesson along the way. The flights led me through several security checks. I had no problem with the baggage scans and the metal detectors till I got to LaGuardia airport in New York. I was stopped. I had forgotten about a small pocketknife on my key-chain. Not being a terrorist, or John Wick, I don’t think of a one-inch blade as a weapon. My pocketknife was confiscated. It was no big loss, but it was enough to teach me something. One airport let that pocketknife slip by unnoticed. But in New York they spotted it instantly. In New York they knew the threat of terrorism. Their sensitivities were keen, their awareness raised. They knew that a few box cutters can be used to highjack a plane and kill thousands. I miss my little pocketknife. But I’m glad that the airport security was as tight as it was. New York is safer because of it, and so is America.

What was the difference between those airports? They all knew that terrorism still happens, and plane crashes are a real threat. They all had undergone the same security regulations training. They all had to adopt heightened security standards since 9/11. They were all big enough airports, seeing thousands of passengers every day. But in New York they took their job a little bit more seriously. They had to. The danger was not only real, but obvious, and – since this pocket-knife incident was around 2002 – 9/11 was still a fresh memory, painted in somber living colors of gray dust and red blood.

In the Christian church how often do we allow dangerous elements to slip under our radar? What bad interpretations of the Bible have we adopted because we did not let their imminent threat rouse us to action? As tragic a disaster as 9/11 was, more hangs in the balance when it comes to Biblical interpretation. Here eternal souls are at stake. Here whole denominations are tottering. Here is where God’s voice is most clearly heard. But, in spite of the gravity of this issue, God’s Word is still constantly mishandled, even among well-meaning Christians. Let’s look at a few examples. As you’ll see, Biblical apologetics is not just for counteracting cults. It’s useful for some church house-cleaning too.

The Danger with Prooftexts
Correctly interpreting the Bible is an exercise in humility. We should approach the Bible, with the humble posture of a teachable student, willing to learn, and wanting to hear what God has to say. It doesn’t matter what we would prefer to hear. God’s message is the reference point, and that’s what we’re trying to reach. Sometimes, however, people pull a single verse or passage out of context, to make it “mean” something it probably doesn’t mean. That’s called “prooftexting.” Any verse or passage used that way is called a ”prooftext.” Sometimes people resort to prooftexting on accident. But other times, people use prooftexts to put words in God’s mouth, to make God say something He never said. When God’s words are taken out of context, they can be distorted to say most anything. That’s the danger of prooftexting.

We’re going to look at a few prooftexts from the Old Testament. Then in Part 2 of this series, we’ll look at prooftexts from the New Testament. Finally, in part 3, we’ll offer guidance to correct against prooftexting errors. I encourage you to look these passages up in their original context and read the surrounding verses. See if you can identify what the verse more likely means and how people might miss that target.

1 Chronicles 4:9-10[1]

“Now Jabez was more honorable than his brothers, and his mother called his name Jabez, saying, ‘Because I bore [him] in pain.’ 10 And Jabez called on the God of Israel saying, ‘Oh, that You would bless me indeed, and enlarge my territory, that Your hand would be with me, and that You would keep [me] from evil, that I may not cause pain!’ So God granted him what he requested.”

Perhaps you read the book, The Prayer of Jabez. It was popular a few years ago, and it’s resurfaced now and again. The book was easy to read, simple, and seemed to offer a straight-forward method for lining one’s life up with God’s blessing. It wasn’t quite “health and wealth” theology, but it was close enough that a lot of people liked it for the same reasons. Stepping back a bit, we can see that, first, the story is descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, the story describes what did happen not necessarily what should happen, especially in our day and age.

Second, the passage is much too brief an interjection to support the volumes of theologizing that have been put upon it. If the passage was enriched by a greater historical or circumstantial context or perhaps prescriptive in nature, then more could be said of it. But as it stands, there are only two verses in Scripture which deal with Jabez (1 Chron. 4:9, 10) and one verse that mentions a city by that name (1 Chron. 2:55).[2] That’s not a lot to work with.

Third, the common interpretation that Jabez’s prayer is somehow special in its profound insights on blessing is undermined by the facts that Jabez could equally have been blessed for his being “honorable” or for his being an otherwise cursed person under a name that means “pain”, for God has always had a heart for the “nobodies” and the “underdogs.”[3] The prayer may have been mentioned to demonstrate how God blessed Jabez in spite of his words rather than because of them.

Fourth, perhaps the most troubling thing about the way this passage has been handled is that it’s used as a magic formula, as if there are magic prayers that unlock God’s stored up blessings. The text makes no suggestion that this prayer is prescriptive nor that it mechanically brings about the desired effect. Prayer for Jabez works just as it does for us. Prayer is a relational activity that should be God-centered and the results are guaranteed only to fit what God wants, whether or not people agree.[4]

Psalm 118:24

“This [is] the day [which] the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.”

The passage is often cited as a reminder that God makes every day and we should be glad about this fact. One might hear this verse quoted, perhaps in hymn form or in a prayer, bright and early Sunday morning as a commencement for the day’s worship service. But this verse is not referring to just any day, but one day in particular. If we examine the larger passage we can find another memorable line in verse twenty-two, “The stone [which] the builders refused is become the head [stone] of the corner.” This memorable verse would be repeated by the Apostle Peter hundreds of years later in 1 Peter 2:7 with specific reference to the ministry and work of Christ as a foundation for the building of the church. Furthermore, Psalm 118:22 suggests that this “day” refers to the day of salvation, and indeed the larger context of Psalm 118 agrees with this interpretation.[5] The Psalmist is celebrating God’s work of salvation and, in verse twenty-four, the particular day in which it occurs. This is the day of salvation, the LORD has brought about salvation, and that’s cause for rejoicing.

Proverbs 29:18

“Where [there is] no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy [is] he.”

The word hazon interpreted as “vision” is often misunderstood to mean a “vision” in the sense of goal-setting, vision statements, and strategic planning in the corporate world. That is, people need to have a clear “vision” of their goal so they are inspired to work harder, work together, overcome obstacles, and achieve that goal. Whatever truth there is to that sense of “vision” that’s not what this verse is about. Nevertheless, in church settings the idea is usually that chaos erupts when the church does not have a set ministry plan, a singular vision of ministry agreed upon by the head pastor, church leaders, or the denomination.

I’m not trying to dismiss the value of goal-setting and clear vision statements for your church or business, but that’s just not what this verse is about. The word here is hazon, and it refers to divine communication to prophets.[6] In context, the “vision” here is about divine revelation through a prophet, namely, God’s revealed law (Scripture). This sense fits best with parallel structure of the verse.[7] The first line tells of perishing for lack of vision.[8] But the second line of the verse explains the object of this vision – what are they looking at with their “vision. It says, “But he that keepeth the law, happy is he.” This vision refers to seeing God’s law, specifically God’s standard as revealed through the prophets. And for those who do not have the law, they can’t keep the law, they don’t benefit from it, and they suffer and perish without it.

Isaiah 53:5

“But He [was] wounded for our transgressions, [He] [was] bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace [was] upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.”

This verse, or at least the last line of it, “by His stripes we are healed,” is often quoted in reference to physical healing from diseases and disorders. This passage, however, is talking about eternal salvation. Usually the common error in cases like this is to flatten out one’s soteriology (theology of salvation) reading eternity into every earthly deliverance. But here the opposite is done. Isaiah 53 is one of the clearest Messianic and soteriological passages in Scripture. The nature of Christ’s eternally redemptive work is explained in this prophecy. To reduce this passage to physical healing is to say that Christ died on the cross so you wouldn’t have lower back pain. Or Christ rose from the grave to deliver you from migraines. But the whole thrust of this passage is that the Messiah is not simply assuming the pains and sufferings of the world on her behalf; He is bearing the load of her sin-punishment. In summary, the thrust of this entire chapter is that Christ dies a substitutionary death for the atonement and spiritual redemption of men. To be fair, Jesus does heal people – that was a major part of his earthly ministry. But full and final healing isn’t guaranteed for all believers until heaven. That completed sense of healing is still in view here, as Christ isn’t just delivering people from the wages of sin (justification), and from slavery to sin (sanctification), but also delivering believers ultimately from the presence of sin through glorification in heaven. Isaiah 53:5 does not however guarantee that Christians will be, in this life, physically healed by Christ’s suffering. Were a person to make an argument from Scripture for physical healings today, he would do better finding his support elsewhere.

Stay tuned for Parts 2 and 3 in this series!

Endnotes
[1] Since many misinterpretations have ties to the KJV, or at least were first proliferated under the KJV-popular era, all Scripture verses are from the KJV unless otherwise noted.
[2] James Strong, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Lynchburg, VA: Old Time Gospel Hour, 1890, reprint ed. N.D.), 534.
[3] This point hardly needs defense. Nonetheless for God’s Word as it concerns the care of the poor, destitute, and otherwise “lowly” see: Ex 22:25-27; 23:11; Le 19:9, 10; 23:22; 25:25-28, 35-37, 39-43; De 14:28, 29; 15:2-14; 24:12-21; 26:12, 13; 1Sa 2:7; Ne 8:10; Job 5:15, 16; 31:15; 34:18, 19, 28; 36:6, 15; Ps 9:18; 10:14; 12:5; 14:6; 34:6; 35:10; 37:21, 26; 41:1-3; 68:10; 69:33; 72:2, 4, 12-14; 74:21; 102:17; 107:9, 36, 41; 109:31; 112:4, 5, 9; 113:7, 8; 132:15; 140:12; 146:5, 7; Pr 22:2, 22, 23; 28:27; 29:7, 13; 31:9, 20; Ec 5:8; Isa 1:17; 11:4; 14:30, 32; 16:3,4; 25:4; 29:19; 41:17; 58:7, 10; Jer 20:13; Eze 18:7, 16, 17; Da 4:27; Zep 3:12; Zec 7:10; 11:7; Mt 5:42; 11:5; 19:21; 25:35, 36; Mr 14:7; Lu 3:11; 4:18; 6:30; 7:22; 11:41; 12:33; 14:12-14; 16:22; 18:22; 19:8; Ac 20:35; Ro 12:8, 13, 20; 1Co 13:3; 16:1,2; 2Co 6:10; 9:5-7; Ga 2:10; 6:10; Eph 4:28; 1Ti 5:9, 10, 16; Heb 13:3; Jas 1:27; 2:2-9, 15, 16; 5:4; 1Jo 3:17-19. Naves Topical Bible (No Bibliographical Data given) in Gramcord [CD ROM] (Vancouver, WA; Gramcord Institute, 1998), “Poor.”
[4] The intimacy of the Psalms, which themselves tend to be as much prayers as songs, bear witness to the personal and relational nature of prayer. And it is a plain fact that prayers often go unanswered or at least answered with a “No.” But God also accomplishes everything He intends to accomplish (1 Chron. 29:11-14; Ps. 104:27-30; Isa. 14:24, 26-27; 55:11). Therefore prayer is only guaranteed to bring about the desired results when those desired results align with God’s plans. Furthermore, the only prayer in the New Testament era that can be argued as a formulaic prescription is the Lord’s Prayer found in Matt. 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4. But even this appears more to be an outline rather than a formulaic prescription, for of all the prayers to be found in the rest of Scripture, nowhere else is the Lord’s Prayer repeated verbatim.
[5] “Salvation” refers here both to temporal salvation (earthly deliverance) and eternal salvation. Psalm 118 is rich with imagery of God’s immanence and direct earthly salvation. Indeed, temporal salvation is the predominant kind suggested in Psalm 118 but in verse nineteen the setting begins to shift saying, “Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, [and] I will praise the LORD, 20 This gate of the LORD, into which the righteous shall enter. 21 I will praise thee: for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation.” This reference to “gates of righteousness,” like the “gates” in Psalm 100:4, suggest God’s abode. And the Petrine interpretation of Psalm 118:22 as seen in 1 Pet. 2:7 bolsters this interpretation. Indeed the Psalmist believes God to be his savior in warfare, but also His savior unto heaven. For more on the ancient Hebrew expectations of the Kingdom of Heaven see Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom: An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God (Winona, IN: BMH, 1987).
[6] Allen P. Ross notes, “The word hazon refers to divine communication to prophets (as in 1 Sam 3:1) and not to individual goals that are formed . . . . The prophetic ministry was usually in response to the calamitous periods, calling the people back to God– hazon meaning revelatory vision should be retained. If there is no revelation from God, people can expect spiritual and political anarchy” (Allen P. Ross, Proverbs in Expositor’s Bible Commentary Vol. 8 [CD ROM] [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997], Prov. 28:19).
[7] Parallelism is the pairing of related lines for literary affect be it emphasis, contrast, development, cause and affect, question and answer, etc. For excellent studies on Hebrew parallelism see James L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ., 1981); and Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry.
[8] The term for “perish,” para means to “let go,” “unbind,” or “uncover” and is variously rendered as “unrestrained” (NASB), “cast off restraint” (NIV, ASV, NKJV), or “made naked” (Young’s Literal). Francis Brown, S. R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic, Reprint from the 1906 ed., 7th printing (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003) 828, Strongs #6544.


Recommended resources related to the topic:

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)
The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)
Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Is the Bible Historically Reliable? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, Mp3 Download.
How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (MP3 Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (DVD Set)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

John is a licensed minister with earned degrees from Charleston Southern (BA), Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv), and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD). His doctorate is in philosophy of religion, minoring in ethics. As a new addition to Crossexamined in 2023, John brings a wealth of experience to the team including debating atheists, preaching the Gospel, teaching apologetics in schools and churches, publishing books and articles, and creating websites. John is also a teaching fellow with Equal Rights Institute and president of Pella Pro-Life in his hometown of Pella, Iowa. There he resides with his lovely and brilliant wife Hillary Ferrer, founder of Mama Bear Apologetics. Together they specialize in cultural apologetics with an emphasis on family-based apologetic training.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3r0C5qp

/by

Why is God’s Word so Hard to Understand?

,

The following question comes from one our Crossexamined Community members.

“Why did God allow the Bible to be written in a way that gives Christians an opportunity to misunderstand it?”

This question intrigues me because it’s a universal problem. Everyone who’s ever tried to dig into the Bible has found it difficult sometimes to understand what God is saying. And some passages are so difficult that theologians across Church history can’t agree on what they mean.

Of course we could all benefit from learning how to interpret the Bible correctly. Sometimes we struggle over a passage and it would be easy to understand if we just knew a few basic principles for interpretation. But even if you had the best education and years of practice, there are still some passages that will baffle you. No amount of schooling will be enough. God’s word can still be difficult.

Moreover, this interpretive problem points to a theological problem. If God’s word is so easy to misinterpret and so hard to understand, then what does that say about God? Is God just playing games with us? Is this some big game of “keep-away” and He’s eluding us, refusing to let us understand what He’s saying? That sounds like a capricious, mischievous God. Not a good look.

1. Much of the Bible is Easy to Understand

First, we should note that a lot of the Bible is straightforward, fairly easy to understand, and there’s no real challenge in figuring out how to rightly apply it. That’s important to remember, so we have a sense of balance between the easy and hard parts of the Bible. Jesus was able to translate the Gospel message so that an uneducated foreign woman – the woman at the well – was able to understand exactly what He meant (John 4). God can, and does, communicate in ways that anyone, with ears to hear, can understand Him.

But one chapter earlier, Jesus was confusing the well-educated Pharisee, Nicodemus (John 3). Pharisees were some of the most educated and biblically literate scholars in their day. To this day, we don’t know if Nicodemus ever grasped what Jesus meant by “born again.” Sometimes, God communicates in ways that challenge and confound the most educated among us. Other times, God speaks clearly, His words cutting like a knife so that everyone understands what He’s saying.

2. Sometimes We’re the Problem

We also should admit that often the problem isn’t in the Bible. A passage can be straightforward and easy-to-understand. But if we don’t like what God is saying to us, we might play dumb, thinking we aren’t responsible to follow directions that we don’t understand. But playing dumb is a dangerous game. If you keep acting dumb, eventually you won’t be acting. I call this phenomenon: “sin-stupid.” When people suppress God’s truth long enough, their conscience is seared (1 Timothy 4:2), their hearts become hard (Romans 2:5), their spiritual discernment gets dull, till they can’t understand things that used to be obvious. Repeated unrepentant sin makes people stupid over time.

Or perhaps we aren’t rebelling against God or suppressing His word. We might just be a little lazy or distracted, and we aren’t paying close attention to see what God is saying to us. If God’s word were on billboard, we at least need to stop speeding, stop multitasking, and slow down enough to read what He’s telling us. God’s word might be easy enough to understand, but if we’re just sprinting past, paying little attention, then we’re liable to misinterpret Him. That’s not God’s fault. That’s ours   .

3. God Has Other Purposes Besides Clarity

At the heart of this question is the assumption that God wants to be understood. And, yes, God relates with mankind in ways that invite us to know Him more, understanding who He is, how He works, and what He wants. But we cannot assume that God’s only purpose in communication is clarity.

Sometimes God speaks in riddles, or indirectly, or in downright incomprehensible ways. If God was aiming primarily at being clear, then He’s failed. But we have no good reason to think that clarity is God’s only aim here. Indeed, we have reason to believe He’s trying to be murky and confusing to some people.

4. God is Sorting Out the Followers from the Fans

Jesus famously explained his use of parables saying they were not just to clarify kingdom principles among believers but also to confound non-believers (Matt 13:10-17).

“The disciples came to him and asked, ‘Why do you speak to the people in parables?’

He replied, ‘Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. This is why I speak to them in parables: ‘Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.’” (Matthew 13:10-13; NIV)

Scripture has some passages for easy-reading and some for difficult-reading. And this is an intentional sifting method to bless those believers who have “ears to hear” without rewarding non-believers with kingdom insights that aren’t fit for them.

5. God is Beautiful, Not Basic

Another reason for these difficult passages is that God isn’t a “bread-and-water” God. He’s not basic. He could have made a world without tastes, and colors, and smells, and experiences. But He included all that stuff because He’s an artist, an aesthete. Likewise, God’s word isn’t reducible simply to information, any more than food is reducible entirely to fuel. It’s designed for an aesthetic interaction. It’s a beauty to be enjoyed. It’s an encounter to be experienced. Just as food is more than calories, so God’s word is more than information. It has flavor, and texture, and ambience so that there’s more to imbibe than just raw information. If Scripture were just about information transfer, then we could hurry through it. Get the info and go. But Scripture is to be experienced, and that means ruminating on it sometimes. Let the flavors simmer a bit.

6. God Promotes Wisdom

Sometimes the difficulty we face in God’s word is a matter of wisdom. By that I mean, there’s supposed to be a wrestling match with the language and ideas in Scripture, a struggle to pry wisdom from those obtuse words. The struggle is part of the path to wisdom. Without the struggle people might gain some head-knowledge, but they’re liable to miss the deeper application of wisdom. Plus, as Jesus explained, not everyone will understand the hard language sometimes. So, the challenging parts of the Bible can be a filtering mechanism that way, separating the wise and foolish, the teachable from the unteachable.

7. God Promotes Personal Growth

Besides wisdom, and aesthetics, there’s also personal growth to be found as we struggle through God’s word. If everything was laid out for us easy-peasy, then we might never face the kind of resistance-training needed to get strong. Then we’d never grow strong enough to live out the tasks God has for us.

In sum, there is more to God’s purposes than just being clearly understood. Sometimes God speaks in ways that keep his Kingdom truths out-of-reach, out of the “wrong hands” so to speak. For disciples, the difficult passages in Scripture slow us down so we can relish experiencing God’s word, chewing and savoring what He’s saying. The same passages can also lend a sense of mystery, so that in searching for the answers we can find wisdom along the way. And they can present obstacles for us to press into, and struggle over it. There we can gain strength and grow through the experience.

Yes, we can still learn what God has said through Scripture. But beyond mere head knowledge, God imparts character, wisdom, and beauty through His written word. Thanks for the great question Crossexamined Community!


If you want to find out more about our Crossexamined Community
you can sign up here for your own free trial.

 

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)
The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)
Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Is the Bible Historically Reliable? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, Mp3 Download.
How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (MP3 Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (DVD Set)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

John is a licensed minister with earned degrees from Charleston Southern (BA), Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv), and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD). His doctorate is in philosophy of religion, minoring in ethics. As a new edition to Crossexamined in 2023, John brings a wealth of experience to the team including debating atheists, preaching the Gospel, teaching apologetics in schools and churches, publishing books and articles, and creating websites. John is also a teaching fellow with Equal Rights Institute and president of Pella Pro-Life in his hometown of Pella, Iowa. There he resides with his lovely and brilliant wife Hillary Ferrer, founder of Mama Bear Apologetics. Together they specialize in cultural apologetics with an emphasis on family-based apologetic training.

/by

God Wants You Well… Or Does He? A Closer Look at the “Health and Wellness” Gospel

Does God want everybody to be well? By the power of your faith can you abolish all sickness from your life and your loved ones’?

In this midweek podcast episode, Jorge and John take a close look at the “Health and Wellness Gospel” and how it fails to embrace the whole council of Scripture. At its best, this idea has some basis in the Bible, but stretches the text beyond recognition. And at its worse, it sets people up for disappointment, disillusionment, and even deconversion.

To be clear, God wants all of us well (eventually), but in the mean time, we live in a fallen world marked by sickness, death, and disease. Miraculous healing does happen (sometimes), but that’s God’s prerogative and not in our power to control. We’re left to minister in this war torn landscape, through the sickness and suffering. There we find perhaps the greatest testimony to the truth of Christ is when we suffer well. In that way, Jesus’ words still shine through as a ray of hope: “In this world you will have trouble, but take heart I [Jesus] have overcome the world.” (John 16:33).

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians while providing financial support for our ministry.

 

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

Are You a Wise Apologist (or Just a Wise Guy)?

There comes a time in every Christian’s life when their faith will be challenged. Apologetics has become a resource for many Christians who have the desire to learn how to defend the faith with confidence. Oftentimes that confidence can morph into contention when people lose sight of the reason why they studied apologetics in the first place. When used properly, apologetics can be a tool used for evangelism. But when the need to win an argument trumps the desire to spread the Gospel, apologetics can quickly become an outlet for friendly fire.

In this midweek podcast episode, guest hosts and CrossExamined speakers Jorge Gil and Dr. John Ferrer guide us through steps we can take to avoid becoming combative apologists. They also touch on the issue of social media and how it has impacted the field of apologetics. Some of the questions addressed in this episode are:

  • What can and cannot be accomplished through apologetics?

  • What motivates you to learn apologetics?

  • Are you loving people through your apologetics?

  • Has apologetics replaced your devotional life?

  • Are you spreading truth or hurling truth bombs?

  • How do we balance truth and grace when defending Christianity?

Defending the faith is a skill that all Christians can be excited about developing as long as we remember the WHY of our defense. Don’t let your passion for apologetics kill your compassion for people!

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into great discussions with like-minded Christians while providing financial support for our ministry.

Want to learn how to become a better apologist? Come join us at CIA this summer!

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

 

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

A Christian Apologist Responds to Sam Smith and Kim Petras’s Satanic Grammy Performance

If you watched the 2023 Grammys, then you probably saw Sam Smith and Kim Petras’s blasphemous pop hypnotic hit “Unholy.” This song has been buzzing. It has more than a hundred million views and earned a Grammy for “Best Pop Duo/Group Performance.”

Musically, it feels a bit like R&B meets belly dancing. Its Middle Eastern lilt and thumping rhythm lend a dark allure, as the lyrics spin a sordid tale of excess and adultery. One philandering husband neglects his wife and kids at home, sneaking out to a gender-bending strip club — “Body Shop.” Sung from the perspectives of the club’s prostitutes, the story is laced with luxury name brands, product shots for condoms, and vivid descriptions of sexual deviance.

Visually, the music video and live Grammy performance portray a kind of satanic drag cabaret, with the lead singers Sam Smith and Kim Petras as Satan and a stripper, respectively. In the video, the “Body Shop” translates into a speak-easy strip club in the backroom of an auto-body garage. The dancers crowding and piling on top of each other rub and writhe in ecstasy.

Allusions to kink and orgies abound. The story ends with the husband dying for his sins in a car crash, as the wife sheds her coat and wig to reveal she’s really a male stripper. At the Grammys, the story is streamlined. Kim Petras swoons and sings in a stripper cage. Pyrotechnics and red lighting create a hellish ambiance, as gender-bending demon dancers worship a devil-horned Sam Smith. This song has all the subtly of a jet engine.

Scrolling through social media, one can see a predictable partisan divide. Right wing pundits aired their grievances (rightfully so), as the left sang its praises, making sure to point out that Sam Smith is gay and gender queer, and Kim Petras is a transgender woman (male identifying as a woman).[i]

What should we make of this megahit?

With all the hype surrounding this song, it invites critique from several angles. We’ll consider some of the more obvious ones here. First, we’ll ask whether this is just an elaborate marketing ploy. Second, we’ll address whether it’s just art. Third, we’ll ask whether it’s satanic. In answering those three questions, we’ll cover a fourth angle, LGBTQ ideology. Lastly, we’ll ask what wisdom we can glean from this song. It’s clearly not just a song. It’s a symbol, perhaps even an anthem. And we do well not to downplay or exaggerate it. Instead, we can practice discernment and draw from it ministry insights into our cultural milieu.

Is this just a marketing ploy?

Behind the garish lights and red leather, it’s easy to see the machinations of marketing strategists. It has the feel of choreographed controversy, like a well-rehearsed dance number between left-wing libertines and right-wing moralists.

It’s been said that “all publicity, is good publicity.” By that measure, this song does not disappoint. It’s obviously meant to offend. It displays fire shows, hellish lighting, gender-bending kink, and burlesque aesthetics. But more than that, it’s blasphemy. The dance numbers are choreographed sexcapades punctuated by the Catholic sign of the cross (i.e., crossing oneself). This gesture connotes a blasphemous kind of sexual sacrament.

It would be too simplistic to dismiss this song as a gimmick, as mere shock-value. Sure, controversy draws crowds, but this song is more than that. It’s not just offensive. It’s transgressive. It’s an affront to Christianity, traditional marriage, monogamy, binary gender, heteronormativity, chastity, modesty. And it does all that with a wink and a smirk. They know what they’re doing. It’s supposed to upset people like you and me. It’s supposed to drive us to anger-blogging on social media, giving it free publicity at our expense. Meanwhile, we come off looking like puritanical luddites with no taste in music.

Don’t get me wrong, I think that marketing strategy is well underway. I just don’t think this song is reducible entirely to a marketing ploy. We cannot say it’s just orchestrated outrage, because if that’s all they wanted, they could have gotten a bigger response by putting Sam Smith in blackface with Kim Petras in a MAGA hat. Now that would have taken some real courage!

The point isn’t merely to offend. It’s to offend the right people. That is, offend the people on the right. “Unholy” is strategically marketed to offend the right people by celebrating irreverence, sex-positivity, and LGBTQ practice.[ii]

Is it just art?

Whatever else this song may be, it’s still art. And that might be its strongest defense. For those who see this song as a defiant strike against oppression and moral busybodies, this song sounds like artful indignation.

Historically speaking, music has often been a fulcrum for toppling authority and transgressing boundaries. Who can think of the Civil Rights Movement without the resonant refrain of “We Shall Overcome”? Or think of women’s equality without hearing Aretha Franklin demand “R.E.S.P.E.C.T.” (1967)? Communist Russia and East Berlin undoubtedly took a hit from the punk rock movement in the 1970’s and ’80’s. I like to think that the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 to the tune of “We’re Not Gonna Take it!” (Twisted Sister, 1984). We could likewise note the cultural sway in Elvis’s hips, Liberace’s hats, Mick Jagger’s lips, and Ozzy’s bats. Music, if nothing else, is powerful. It has a long history of deliberately breaking cultural norms, for good or ill.

In that vein Sam Smith and Kim Petras are nothing new. They are challenging moral norms about marriage, family, and gender identity, and they’re framing it as an anti-religious dig at Christian conservatives. The question remains, however, is all that justified in the name of art?

That “art defense” might go something like this:

Premise 1: Art can be a justified way to break cultural mores.

Premise 2: This song is art.

Conclusion: Therefore, this song is justified in breaking cultural mores.

I won’t dispute premises one and two. I don’t need to. The argument is invalid. It has an undistributed middle term. Simply put, neither premise is talking about all art. “Art” is the undistributed term here. We can explain this fallacy with a question distributing the middle term: Is everything done in the name of art justified?

Clearly no. Art doesn’t justify murder, or rape, or animal sacrifice. Evil is still evil, even in artistic form. The same is true of misdemeanors and “poor taste.” Imagine if Smith and Petras used this song to come out as “trans-Black,” or to celebrate Christopher Columbus, or came out as pro-life? It’s hard to imagine their progressive supporters still saying, “It’s just art!”

In reality, this song was never just art. It’s also marketing, fashion, entertainment, and culture. It’s a commentary on family, identity, sexual ethics, and religion. And it’s a socio-political statement endorsing the LGBTQ movement. Sam Smith leaves no question about that. Speaking of his[iii] experience in this song, he says he felt “courageous to step into the queer joy of it all,” and “[i]t feels like emotional, sexual, and spiritual liberation.”[iv] The rest of the album (Gloria, 2023) reinforces that message. Yes, that messaging is framed in a piece of music. So, it can be artfully indirect. But the message still comes across loud and clear.

Is it Satanic?

If you’re thinking this is what Satanism looks like, however, you’re only half right. “Unholy” clearly uses hellish satanic imagery, but compared to modern-day Satanism, it’s a cartoon. The main streams of Satanism today deny the existence of any literal devil.[v] They’re atheistic. They deny any supernatural realm, along with all gods, angels, demons, and devils. Satanists today are more likely to be edgy, humanistic, liberal activists, with a serious authority complex.[vi] So it’s no surprise when the Satanists said of the Grammy performance, it was “alright,” “nothing particularly special,” and “red clothing, fire and devil horns…[are] all kind of passé now.”[vii]

But “Unholy” doesn’t need formal ties to Satanism to reflect the essence of Satanism, namely, radical autonomy.[viii] Variously identified with “self-determinism,” “pleasure-seeking,” the “left-hand path,” or even the “Witch’s Rede” (Do what thou wilt), this radical autonomy is the beating heart of Satanism. As one source explains, “Satanists emphasize being your true self, personal achievement and living life to the fullest….with one of the key [tenets] being individuals are their own Gods.”[ix] In that way, Smith and Petra’s “Unholy” is satanic. It’s just not unique, since Satanism absorbs almost the entire pop music industry.

What wisdom can we glean from “Unholy”? 

“There is nothing new under the sun” (Eccl. 1:9),[x] and “Unholy” is no exception. We do well to expect incendiary ploys, sexual depravity, and even blasphemy from the entertainment industry. St. Peter foresees in the first century that “many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed…Those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority… have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed” (2 Peter 2:2,10,14).

Since we know it’s coming, we can “brace for impact.” We can be prepared. That may be as simple as turning the channel, skipping a track, or just unplugging. Most everyone could benefit from more classical music and less screen time. Avoidance isn’t everything. But it is an important step toward a deliberate discerning approach to media. We can’t afford to be passive recipients, swallowing whatever is fed to us.

Sometimes we need a media fast. Maybe get rid of your TV. Or unsubscribe from a music or streaming service. Or maybe avoid genres of music or shows that, for the most part, aren’t glorifying God. The rest of the time, when we’re not fasting, we should still be dieting. The bewildering mass of trash and distraction doesn’t deserve near as much attention as we give it.[xi] Our money, time, and attention are all votes of support. So, we do well to support only those causes that we believe in.

But what about Sam Smith and Kim Petras? 

Those mega stars are probably not in your immediate sphere of influence. They aren’t likely your “neighbors” in that sense. We can still pray for them. If we love like Christ, we can find encouraging truths to say about them. We shouldn’t mock or insult them. They’re created in God’s image just like you and me (Gen 1:26–28). Even when we criticize their behavior, beliefs, or their music, we should still speak from a position of love and compassion.

Meanwhile, we have an abiding responsibility to live and love like Christ in our home and our communities and to guard our hearts (Prov. 4:23; Eph. 5; 1 Tim. 5; Titus 2). Guarding our hearts includes handling music and other media with the discernment of a dietician. To use St. Paul’s language, “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Phil 4:8).

Footnotes

[i] Curtis M. Wong, “Sam Smith and Kim Petras Take Grammys to Hell with Fiery Performance of ‘Unholy,’ HuffPost Entertainment, February 5, 2023, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sam-smith-kim-petras-grammys-2023-unholy-performance_n_63e06afae4b01a4363956e2a; “Satanic Smith: Watch Pop Singer Go Full Satan During Grammy Performance,” Sean Hannity, February 6, 2023, https://hannity.com/media-room/satanic-smith-watch-pop-singer-go-full-satan-during-grammy-performance/; Derrick Clifton, “Sam Smith’s They/Them Pronoun Backlash Highlights an Ongoing Cultural Disconnect,” Think, September 19, 2019, https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/sam-smith-s-they-them-pronoun-backlash-highlights-ongoing-cultural-ncna1056136.

[ii] “Sex positivity” is defined as a permissive and nonjudgmental attitude toward all consensual sexual expression and sexual behaviors, regarding all of it as healthy. For more on this, see Hillary Ferrer and Amy Davison, Mama Bear Apologetics: Guide to Sexuality (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2021), 131–48.

[iii] Sam Smith identifies with “they/them” pronouns. Sophie Lewis, “Sam Smith Announces Their Pronouns,” CBS News, September 13. 2019, accessed February 10, 2023 at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sam-smith-pronouns-sam-smith-announces-their-pronouns-are-they-them-2019-09-13/. With no disrespect intended, I refer to Smith in conventional “he/him” pronouns for the sake of clarity. Being an individual biological male, Smith is not a biologically neutral plurality as suggested by “they/them” pronouns.

[iv] Lea Veloso, “Unholy’ by Sam Smith and Kim Petras Lyrics Are ‘Liberating’ — Here’s How They Explore ‘Queer Joy,’” Stylecaster, February 5, 2023, accessed February 8, 2023 at https://stylecaster.com/unholy-sam-smith-kim-petras-lyrics/.

[v] See “Church of Satan vs. Satanic Temple,” The Satanic Temple (c.2014), accessed February 10, 2023 at https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/church-of-satan-vs-satanic-temple.

[vi] I explain this characterization in greater length in “Satanic Lessons on Religious Freedom: A Review of Hail Satan?” Christian Research Journal, October 28, 2019 at https://www.equip.org/articles/satanic-lessons-on-religious-freedom/.

[vii] “Sam Smith and Kim Petras’ ‘Unholy’ Grammy Act Underwhelms Satanists,” TMZ, February 8, 2023, accessed February 10, 2023 at https://www.tmz.com/2023/02/08/sam-smith-kim-petras-unholy-grammy-performance-church-satan-underwhelmed/.

[viii] “There Are Seven Fundamental Tenets,” The Satanic Temple (2014), tenets 3-4, accessed February 10, 2023 at https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/about-us.

[ix] “Sam Smith and Kim Petras’ ‘Unholy’ Grammy Act Underwhelms Satanists,” TMZ (8 Feb 2023).

[x] All Scripture quotations are from the ESV.

[xi] I discuss a lot of examples in John D. Ferrer, “Sabrina the Teenage Anti-Christ,” Christian Research Journal, July 11, 2019 at: https://www.equip.org/articles/sabrina-the-teenage-anti-christ/.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World (Mp3) by Frank Turek

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD) by Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

John is a licensed minister with earned degrees from Charleston Southern (BA), Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv), and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD). His doctorate is in philosophy of religion, minoring in ethics. As a new edition to Crossexamined in 2023, John brings a wealth of experience to the team including debating atheists, preaching the Gospel, teaching apologetics in schools and churches, publishing books and articles, and creating websites. John is also a teaching fellow with Equal Rights Institute and president of Pella Pro-Life in his hometown of Pella, Iowa. There he resides with his lovely and brilliant wife Hillary Ferrer, founder of Mama Bear Apologetics. Together they specialize in cultural apologetics with an emphasis on family-based apologetic training.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3Ee681K

/by

Do We Need a PhD to Understand the Bible? | with Dr. John Ferrer

Do we need a Ph.D. in ancient Near East culture to understand what the book of Genesis really means? Some Bible scholars make it sound like we need to go way beyond just basic grammar skills to get a firm grasp of what is truly happening in the text. Why would God do that?

In the first half of this week’s podcast episode, Frank continues the conversation from the past two weeks on Bible interpretation and the Book of Genesis and gives listeners a broad introduction to biblical hermeneutics. Then, CrossExamined speaker Dr. John Ferrer joins the program to do a deep dive into the interpretation of Genesis 1 and Exodus with a special emphasis on the striking differences between the Bible and Mesopotamian + Egyptian creation stories. Fascinating stuff! You’ll walk away with two helpful acronyms to keep in mind whenever you read the Bible as well as a better understanding of how God chooses to reveal Himself to us.

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians while simultaneously providing financial support for our ministry.

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

 

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

When Your Opponent Cheats, What Should You Do? | with Dr. John Ferrer

Is it ever OK for a Christian to lie or cheat? What if you know your opponent is being dishonest? What examples can we find in Scripture that demonstrate our ethical duties based on God’s will?

To help us answer those questions is the newest member of the Cross Examined team, Dr. John Ferrer (yes, dedicated husband of Hillary Morgan Ferrer from Mama Bear Apologetics)! John received his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Southern Evangelical Seminary and sits down with Frank to discuss a question we received from an international listener who is currently struggling with the imbalance of political power between Christians and Muslims in Nigeria.

They also have a very interesting discussion on the topics of football, spiritual warfare, and what we can learn from the Damar Hamlin incident and the public display of prayer.

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians while simultaneously providing financial support for our ministry. Remember, our team members all work remotely, this allows us to allocate 100% of your donations to ministry work and 0% to buildings!

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

 

 

Download Transcript

 

/by
IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN SCIENCE?

Is Intelligent Design Science?

, , ,

The purpose of this post is not to prove that Intelligent Design is true, nor that it is superior to naturalistic alternatives, but simply to raise awareness over some of the lines of evidence where Intelligent Design seems to be science. Let me also reject in advance those who dismiss ID with casual comments like, “There is no evidence whatsoever for ID,” “ID is creationism in a tuxedo, but still has no ticket for the party,” or “ID is no more scientific than astrology” or the like. These aren’t necessarily ridiculous positions to hold, but they require a lot more substance than most claimants (that I’ve encountered) are usually willing to muster. ID does not necessarily deserve credit or acceptance, but if satisfies the criteria for admission into scientific consideration, then one cannot in good-intellectual-honesty dismiss it out of hand and still claim to be science-minded.

First, ID employs a theory drawn from science, namely, information theory (see, Dembski’s The Design Inference)–information theory is a staple in SETI, Forensics, Archeology, Cryptology, Anthropology, etc.

Second, the problem with ID is not whether information theory is scientific, but whether astronomy, biology, and chemistry are valid fields of applying information theory. Properly casting the nature of this debate is key to understanding the lines of argumentation. Those rebuking ID for elaborating “information theory” should instead focus their argument on the illegitimacy of applying information theory to fields like astronomy, biology, and chemistry.

Third, ID does achieve claims that are, at least on a low level, falsifiable. For example, the Bacterial flagellum may be irreducibly complex if no more basic alternative-use formulations such as a (Type III secretory system [syringe type rod]) can be found which are constitutionally older than the flagellum. Applying ID theory to the flagellum renders a testable prediction, namely the falsifiable theory that if the flagellum is irreducibly complex, then there will never be discovered a simpler same-function form nor an older alternative-function form.

Fourth, neither naturalism nor materialism has been, historically, a necessary precondition for doing science, given the preponderance of religious scientists throughout history. It may be argued, weakly, that if one allows for supernatural causes, one is discouraged or distracted from the hard task of finding natural, reliable, or material causes for natural phenomenon. While that possibility makes sense, it has not been the reality. Despite there being many non-theists (i.e.: no kind of God-belief) in the sciences, there are still a host of theists who have little trouble employing a methodological naturalism for much of their work while suspending that assumption where it might bias the data (such as, dismissing evidence for a miracle claim simply because naturalism demands dismissing all miracle claims). Stephen Jay Gould’s Non-overlapping Magisterium is a nice theory to safely quarantine religion and science from effecting each other, but both make metaphysical claims on history, humanity, and the natural world. And many scientists exist in the overlap for, despite the claims of casual anti-ID theorist, these science-minded theists can readily admit the possibility of an active God without descending into a “magical” irrational view of nature.

Fifth, ID does bear fruit in further predictions and study. We can, for example, study and apply irreducible complexity theory anywhere in biology to see where it fits and where it does not. At a minimum, such applications of ID force evolutionary alternatives to mount a more comprehensive/compelling set of unintelligent mechanisms since the known unintelligent mechanisms fail pretty badly on many cases. Pure evolutionary theory, for example, has the difficulty of explaining the reality of “true belief” given the non-intelligent mechanical causes of Newtonian forces as it’s only physical forces, or, natural selection and genetic variations as it’s overriding biological forces. Sure one can appeal to conceptual models and thought experiments to argue for an evolutionary answer to this problem Plantinga calls “the Evolutionary Argument Against naturalism,” but that effort is bound to circularity, begging the question, since naturalistic answers ostensibly presuppose that intelligence arises from non-intelligence though that is precisely the premise needing defense.

For another example, ID predicts that the more irreducibly complex and higher specified complexity of something, the less capable we will be at demonstrating a viable evolutionary account. By testing evolutionary mechanisms against a given object–such as the Giraffe’s neck or the woodpecker’s tongue–we can see, according to the prediction, whether the known mechanisms of evolution easily explain it or not. If the Giraffe’s neck, which supposedly is irreducibly complex, then there would be no immediate and demonstrable explanation from naturalism for its appearance. If the Giraffe’s neck is slightly or greatly complex, and irreducible in either case, then evolutionary theory will have an easier or harder time, respectively, providing a viable account from natural causes that does not betray the kind of incrementalism espoused by Darwin nor, if one is okay with being in the scientific minority, the punctuated equilibrium espoused later. Remember though, that both sets of theories have their own burden of proof whereby they ought to exceed the (low) test of “explanatory” sufficiency and reach some kind of testability.

Still a third example of how ID is fruitful with testable predictions, ID predicts that high-information content within organisms can devolve, but does not greatly evolve. Hence, we can subject microorganisms to generations of forced mutations to see if any give rise to sustainable gains in specified complexity. Fourth, ID presents tremendous applications for the search for extra-terrestrials (i.e., non-human intelligences), and reapplication of information theory in forensics, cryptology, computer programming, Artificial Intelligence, and archeology. Fifth, and implied above, ID also presents a valuable frame of reference for critiquing the monopoly of evolutionary theory (such that many evolutionists are not aware of any explanatory gaps or weaknesses within evolutionary theory). And what is science if not a free-exchange of alternative theories and findings achieving the market-capitalism of ideas whereby poorly framed hypotheses can be honed and improved, or ground down into oblivion.

Sixth, it is not very scientific to put faith in evolutionary theory to IN THE FUTURE resolve present ignorance. Evolution-of-the-gaps is no less dogmatic and faith-based than is God of the gaps. And frankly, a great deal of force behind the rejection of ID is fueled by faith in evolutionary theory to explain aspects of nature that are yet unknown. Though evolution, according to typical evolutionists, has been well verified on many accounts, scientists pride themselves on respecting no authorities and refraining from all faith or dogma in place of their science. Where evolution has not been DEMONSTRATED to explain a certain phenomenon, it remains a theory, or, at best a hypothesis. But any use of said hypothesis prior to experimentation risks being philosophy or even theology. Scientists are more than allowed to do philosophy; they just have to sacrifice the authority and credibility of “Science-says-so-and-so” when they are philosophizing.

Seventh, NO scientific claim is DEDUCTIVELY verifiable–as that would entail the kind of certainty achieved only in logic and math. It would not be fair to demand of Intelligent Design a degree of certainty that the rest of science rarely if ever achieves. All scientific claims, even the strongest ones, are limited to INDUCTIVE probability never deductive certainty since they are fundamentally empirical (not rationalistic or formalistic in their metaphysics or epistemology).

Eighth, any theoretical streams within science are deemed “scientific” though they conceptually and practically defy testability (whether verification or falsification)–just as Theoretical Physics like String Theory.

Ninth, whatever else “science” means, there would seem to be something inherently unscientific about disqualifying what may be true and treat any related questions as uninteresting since they are not bound by naturalism. Science should not be too proud to investigate the mating habits of insects nor the possibility of non-human intelligence.

Tenth, science itself could not exist without philosophy of science to establish it’s nature and parameters. Truth be told, ID tests the demarcation problem for Science though many scientists themselves may have never known there was any problem demarcating Natural Science from other fields of study like theology or philosophy. Scientists hate to admit this, as there is a generally negative view of metaphysics entire even though every scientist is, by the nature of the field, a part-time metaphysician. To illustrate, it was the philosophy of science that gave birth to the scientific method which gave modern birth science. This point is relevant because the natural sciences rightly incorporate under the title of “science” things that were never purely “science. The scientific method was not hatched in a lab but in the mind of philosophical-theological-scientists. We would sacrifice too much if we cut off any “philosophy” or “theology” as non-science simply because it is not testable in a lab as that would forbid the scientific method itself–which is philosophy, and not itself testable within the parameters of science.

Eleventh, it is a genetic fallacy and a fallacy of association to fault ID for having young-Earthers, religious people (who are presumed “biased”), or otherwise unliked characters among its members. We should remember that early chemists are largely indistinguishable from alchemists–yet we would not want to dismiss their work as “unscientific” just because they were still dabbling in pseudoscience. We would not want to morally fault science for its association among Nazi experimenters in WWII. Abuse does not bar use. And if the ID is abused or genetically tainted by some of its practitioners, we still have the theory itself to deal with lest we mistakenly burn the message because of the messenger. Conversely, we cannot rightly fault the findings of atheistic humanists in science because they, perhaps, have an anti-theological bias or might be “swayed” by their irreligion or humanism or atheism. Biased people can still do good science provided; there’s is not an overriding bias.

In conclusion, a compelling case can be made that ID is indeed a science and therefore, it deserves a hearing among science-minded people.

/by
Defining Atheism No belief in God or Belief in no God

Defining Atheism: “No belief in God” or “Belief in no God?”

, ,

“Atheist” is a translation of the Greek: atheos using the alpha privative “a” and the term for God “theos.” It does not merge the alpha private with the ENGLISH TERM “theist.” Rather “atheist” as a whole word is a translation of “atheos,” the whole word. Were the original meaning drawn entirely from etymology it would mean simply “godless,” “ungodly,” or “without God.” And this indeed is one of the definitions we find for the term in its Ancient sources. In that time, it also had the definition of “denying God/gods” which followed by implication from the notion of “godless;” if a person truly believed in a grand judge over all the universe he would not live/teach/think as if no such being existed.

 

However the idea of withholding/refraining belief about some God, though present in ancient Greece and Rome, tended to be subsumed under terms like “skepticism” (gk: skepticos) or “materialism” or “atomism” (a form of materialism). “Atheos” however was used to describe a different phenomenon. Thus the effective meaning of “atheos” is something like, “godless” or “disbelief in God.”Were someone to translate ancient and classical uses of “atheos” into “no belief in God” they would do an injustice to the text since that is simply not how Greeks and Romans were using the term when they first coined it, nor when they continued using it over the years.

Etymology (study of word origins, and composite meaning from word parts) is only one way that words take on meaning. When we apply etymology to the English word “atheism,” we have “athe” (from atheos “no God/Godless”) + “-ism” (belief). Belief then characterizes the “no God” hence we have, “Belief in no God.” And the alpha privative, as always, characterizes the word to which its affixed. So the belief is positive, the object of belief in negative. It is “belief in no God” or “belief in Godless[ness].” For etymology to achieve the negative definition of atheism, a popular definition today, from the term would have to be something like, “theos-a-ism” or, “No belief [in a] God.” The etymology argument then is not a friend but a foe of the negative definition of atheism.

In ancient Rome we find the positive form of atheism exercised when Christians were being persecuted and martyred for being “atheists.” They did not simply lack belief in the Roman Gods; rather they consciously rejected all God’s but one. Compared to the plethora of Gods in the Roman Pantheon, rejecting all but one is practically equivalent to atheism. Hence Christians were accused of atheism. Even ambivalence could have been tolerated among the Romans as they did with many agnostic philosophers (though the term “agnostic” had not be invented yet). But conscious rejection of the Roman Gods was seen as an intolerable affront to the State. As we can expect from ideas that are deeply rooted in human nature and the human psyche, the idea of “atheism” survived for centuries with both connotations intact: “godless” and “disbelief in God.”

However in recent times, the definition has come under question by atheist themselves. Three motivating factors can be identified. First, in debates, it is generally the better strategy to rebut the opponent’s case rather than to have to defend one’s one case. A softened definition of atheism allows for this. With negative atheism, the atheist doesn’t carry any burden of proof since that burden is on the participant/s making a positive case of some sort: “God exists” or “God does not exists.” But to claim, “I have no belief about God” is not a positive case, and therefore requires no defense in contemporary debate formats.

Second, Antony Flew’s important article “The Presumption of Atheism” argues that the default or neutral position for humanity is atheism. Building on the point just made, Flew argues that the burden of proof is on the theism to demonstrate that “belief in God” is reasonable. Essentially, Flew is arguing that negative/soft/weak atheism is man’s natural disposition, or if it is not, it is the intellectually justified default position. It is up to the theist to make a positive case for theism.

A third factor which might have played a part in this redefinition is the onset of British positivism, like that of A.J. Ayer. Ayer, among others, suggested that claims must be empirically verifiable or analytically (by-definition) true if they are to be linguistically meaningful. Theology, for Ayer, is not true, but nor is it even false. It is without meaning since its reference to God lacks analytic veracity and empirical testibility the notion cannot even be entertained as a proposition. It is like trying to argue “I believe in ‘ouch'” or “I don’t believe in ‘um.'” These terms “ouch” and “um” are emotive/gibberish terms that defy cognitive belief or disbelief. “Truth” and “falsity” do not apply to them, and, according to Ayer, nor does it apply to any God-talk. Ayer’s positivism was all the rage for a while, but today, few people are conscious advocates of this “logical positivism,” even though its scope and influence is incredibly widespread.

Understanding these three possible influences together: 1) The strategic advantage of donning a negative definition of atheism (“no belief in a God”), 2) combined with the argument of “The Presumption of Atheism,” and 3) a positivistic disposition–it makes complete sense why many contemporary atheists want to define their own camp in negative terms as “without theism, no belief in a God” instead of the historic and traditional usage of atheism as the positive position of “disbelief in God.” Addressing the complexity of the issue we find in the modern era. The term “agnostic” was coined by Thomas Huxley in 1889 with reference to his own conviction that knowledge about God’s existence or non-existence is impossible. He did not consider himself an atheist but found himself being called one.

Not surprisingly, the borders between “atheism” and “agnosticism” are often blurry or invisible. So for atheism to be distinct, defensible, and publically viable, it needs the help of some categorical distinctions since atheists are widely diverse and do not necessarily hold a party line when they don the moniker “atheist.” Somewhere in the Modern era, there seems to have been a division then in both Agnosticism and Atheism, rendering four categories from the previous two.

Negative/Weak/Soft Atheism–“no belief in God.”
Positive/Strong/Hard Atheism–“belief in no God.”
Weak Agnosticism–“knowledge of God does not exist.”
Strong Agnosticism–“knowledge of God is impossible.”
These categories are used by Michael Martin, Antony Flew, and William Rowe. I use these categories myself and find them quite helpful in clarifying some of the subtleties that arise in these debates. However, these are not standardized, and do not necessarily reflect the long history or widescale contemporary usage of “agnostic” and “atheist.” I recommend these categories for clarity of usage, but we should be careful not to follow, unthinking, the contemporary popular usage of “atheist” and “atheism” as being weak agnosticism. Etymology, history, and much contemporary standard sources defy that definition. Don’t believe me? Check some of the sources listed below. The latest entry is by atheist Kai Nielsen. William Rowe is also atheist. And I think Paul Edwards is too.

(historic usage) http://www.investigatingatheism.info/definition.html
(1942) Ferm, Vergilius. “Atheism” in Dictionary of Philosophy. Edited by Dagobert D. Runes. New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams & Co. Philosophical Library.
(1951) http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/e_haldeman julius/meaning_of_atheism.html
(1967) Edwards, Paul “Atheism” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 1. Collier-MacMillan, 1967. p. 175.
(1973) Edwards, Paul, ed., “Atheism” The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York: Routledge, 1973
(1998) Rowe, William L. “Atheism” in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Edward Craig. Routledge, 1998. (2009) Nielsen, Kai. “Atheism.” Encyclopædia Britannica.

/by