Luke Nix Archives - Page 4 of 6

Tag Archive for: Luke Nix

Book Review: The Beauty of Intolerance

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

Introduction

A few years ago, Sean McDowell gave a talk at the AMP Conference called “The Beauty of Intolerance.” In the talk, he spoke of two different views on tolerance that seem to be clashing in today’s society. He explained how the differences explain much of the political rhetoric of “hate” and “phobias” and “intolerance.” He focused specifically on the Church’s speaking truth in love and how this view is actually the most tolerant. This talk has been one of my favorites for a while. I discovered shortly after I first saw the talk that Sean and his father, Josh McDowell, coauthored a book, “The Beauty of Intolerance,” that went into the topic much deeper and focused on how Christian parents can effectively communicate moral truth to a morally relativistic generation. As a parent and one who defends the objectivity of morality (and, thus, the existence of God), this book was one I dare not pass on reading, which turns out was an excellent decision. Now, before I get to my usual chapter-by-chapter summary review and the remainder of my thoughts, here is the talk by Dr. Sean McDowell that originally caught my attention.

Chapter 1: True for You but Not for Me

The book begins with a fictional conversation between a college student coming home for the holidays and her parents. She and her boyfriend are expecting to be able to stay together in the same bedroom but her parents will not permit it. Both sides get into a heated discussion about morality and tolerance. The daughter wishes her parents to respect her moral decision and allow it even though they disagree, and her parents expect her to maintain the morality she grew up with. The conversation is designed to highlight the differences between the generations regarding the view of morality and tolerance. Josh and Sean McDowell use this as a springboard to begin their investigation into how the generations can respect one another yet still be guided by an objective moral compass.

They begin by pointing out that the different generations tend to recognize different sources for moral truth. One source of truth is God’s nature. It is objective and applies to every person whether they recognize it or not. The second source of moral truth is the individual. It is subjective and applies only to the person who maintains that particular view. The source that a person appeals to will not only affect the moral decisions they make, it will also affect their definitions of many words and phrases. Terms such as “tolerance” and “acceptance” are defined according to the source of moral truth. Drs. McDowell show the differences between the definitions of these words and several others. The two sources of moral truth often clash, and that is what causes much of the tension between the generations.

Chapter 2: When Tolerance Doesn’t Mean Tolerance

The second chapter starts with another fictional conversation; this one is meant to illustrate the difference between two radically different views of tolerance. The authors label the two views as “Traditional Tolerance” and “Cultural Tolerance.” They explain that Traditional Tolerance is grounded in the idea that morality is objective. This means that something is right or wrong whether someone believes it to be that way or not. It applies to all people in all cultures at all times. It has a hierarchy of morality that places some behaviors over others in objective goodness and truth value. Tolerance in this view means that even though people may not agree with another’s views, they are still to respect the other’s views and their decision to live by those views. Essentially, Traditional Tolerance is to love and respect the person despite what they believe and do.

Cultural Tolerance, on the other hand, is grounded in the idea that morality is relative and subjective. Morality is to be determined by the culture or the individual and does not apply equally to all people in all cultures at all times. Nor does this view hold a hierarchy of morality that places the goodness or truth value of one over another. In this view of tolerance, all behaviors and beliefs are equally good, equally true, and should be equally accepted by all people in all cultures at all times. Essentially, Cultural Tolerance is to celebrate the person’s behaviors and beliefs regardless of what they believe and do.

Chapter 3: The Irony: Intolerance in the Name of Tolerance

Ironically, many of those who hold to the cultural view of tolerance end up violating their own view in that they not only refuse to celebrate but instead condemn those who behave and believe differently from them. Yet, these same people do not believe themselves to be in such violation. So, who is truly being intolerant of whom, here? Josh and Sean explain that to answer this question, a standard of morality (thus tolerance) must be recognized by both sides. Just as claims of truth about reality must be tested against the standard of reality, truths about morality must be tested against the standard of morality. The source of morality that all humans are subject to (and can answer this question) is the biblical God. They explain that morality that is grounded in God is not decided by God moment-by-moment but is grounded in His nature. God does not decide what is good and true; He is what is good and true.

There was a point in history when God, as the standard of morality, was accepted in general by western culture, but it has slowly changed over the centuries. The authors take the reader through different periods of time that gradually brought in the change- the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, Darwin’s publication of his book on evolution, and modern rapid technological advancement. They explain how in these periods of time the source for answers in the culture gradually shifted from God to man, encouraged by many legitimate recognitions and much progress in the arts and sciences. However, despite the advancements in these areas, philosophy was regressing from recognizing the existence of objective moral truth to settling for subjective moral truth. This “modernist” philosophy is what many in the culture have adopted today and is the source for the cultural view of tolerance.

Chapter 4: When Anything Goes

Because God is no longer seen as the source of objective moral truth, the Bible cannot possibly contain objective moral truth. In the rejection of objective moral truth by this new culture, the Bible has become more of a “self-help” book. One that is not taken to have any objective truth, but one that is to be subjectively interpreted and applied where the reader is comfortable. Because there is no source by which to judge one action as “good” and another as “evil,” anything goes. Anything and everything a person wishes to do can be considered “good.” Everything from the beheadings carried out by ISIS to the dismemberment of babies moments before they are delivered into this world–all of these behaviors cannot be judged as objective evil because it is the culture, not a source above the culture that determines what is good and what is evil.

Further, because there is no objective “good” or “evil,” what is to be made of injustice? Without an objective standard by which to judge actions, what is “just” and “unjust” cannot be identified either. What we observe and positively identify as “unjust” cannot truly be considered unjust when differing cultures believe that opposite behaviors are “good.” This is one of the many ways that the idea of cultural tolerance goes against our better judgment as human beings. We know that certain actions are objectively evil, and we want to fight to right the wrong and see that injustice is stopped. The authors take the reader back to the early Church and point out that their intolerance of the injustices of the Roman Empire (leaving unwanted children in the streets to die) was objectively evil. No one, who holds to the cultural view of tolerance, can consistently believe that any act is evil or unjust. When they make such a claim of true evil and injustice, they are borrowing capital from the traditional view of tolerance.

Chapter 5: Love Makes It Right

One of the major tenants of the cultural view of tolerance is that love makes everything right. The way that this is expected to be applied is that if you love someone you will affirm whatever behavioral choices they make, no matter how strongly you disagree with them. While Drs. McDowell do agree that love does make right, they highlight the fact that cultural tolerance forces a truncated definition of love, one that focuses merely on the current feelings of the loved one and not their future wellbeing. The one who loves should not affirm a destructive behavior in the name of “love;” for to do so would be to send the “loved” one to their own destruction. This is the exact opposite of the goal of the person who loves them. By not including the future wellbeing of the loved person, cultural tolerance turns love upside down.

The authors explain that the biblical love that one must show involves the ideas of cherishing and nourishing the other person. And in the context of romantic love, one must cherish and nourish the other as they do themselves. These involve not just the present moment but also guarding against things that can hurt in the future and promoting things that will grow the person in the future. The marriage commitment is a commitment to cherish and nourish the spouse. The authors began the chapter with a fiction conversation between two parents and their daughter who wished to be affirmed in her sexual relationship with her boyfriend because they are in love (a fairly common situation in today’s world where the parents’ ideas of traditional tolerance and the children’s ideas of cultural tolerance are at odds). The problem is that the love protects security and commitment, which neither are in place because no commitment has been made between the boyfriend and girlfriend. To claim “love” at that point in their relationship is truly inaccurate, thus to have sexual relations would actually contradict what love is, and for the parents to affirm the relationship would also contradict their love for their daughter.

Chapter 6: True Love

But how do parents deal with such a situation? If they press too hard, they risk alienating their daughter. Can the truth be spoken and love demonstrated in such a way that the daughter can accept it and appreciate it? Josh and Sean emphasize the difference between “doing” and “being.” They explain that every person is created in God’s Image and that gives them intrinsic worth. They also explain that every person is sinful by nature, so that means that they will make wrong choices. Further, the environment and even some genes may make certain choices more difficult for some people than others, but we are still responsible for our choices. This makes for a legitimate distinction between who a person is and what they do. This is the view of traditional tolerance- Personal worth and personal choices are judged independently of the other. Cultural tolerance does not allow such a distinction, so it holds that judgment of one necessarily judges the other the same. To illustrate the beauty and importance of this distinction, the authors take the reader through Jesus’ encounter with the woman at the well in John 4. Jesus showed this culturally outcast woman love, respect, dignity, and value, yet he called out her sin- a message that she understood (as evidenced by her reaction) to be loving.

Chapter 7: Know the Truth and Speak It in Love

Every loving parent desires to protect their children from harm. The traditional view of tolerance allows a parent to love their child AND protect (or attempt to protect) them from harmful behaviors, where as the cultural view does not. A truly loving parent wants what is best for their child, and if they do not recognize that the child is making a wrong decision yet they do not address it and allow them to continue on the path, the “love” comes into question. Again, the traditional view of tolerance is quite intolerant of wrong choices yet alerts the person out of love and concern- that is beautiful. Ironically, the cultural view requires that even if a harmful decision is identified that we must permit and even encourage continuing on the harmful path. This is NOT loving and is NOT beautiful. Even though a parent may disagree with a child’s beliefs or behaviors, the traditional view of tolerance allows them to lovingly guide them away from harm.

To conclude the chapter, the fictional conversations that began the previous chapters were revisited. This time the conversations were guided by the parents’ intentional purpose of communicating their disagreement in the context of their desire for what is best (true love- the traditional view of tolerance) and keeping the lines of communication open about the wrong decisions. The new versions of these conversations were successful in keeping minds open and love being communicated. The authors caution that even though these fictional conversations seemed almost effortless, that in reality they require much patience and a long-suffering heart. Sometimes such a parent will be required to walk through the “hometown” of those who they disagree with in order to demonstrate their love and willingness to properly understand where that person is coming from to appropriately communicate the truth that their decision is, in fact, wrong.

Chapter 8: Cultural Tolerance and Education

The cultural view of tolerance is not just an idea that some people in society possess; it has permeated everything from education to government to the Church. The effect on the education system is quite evident when the cirricula are examined. Every subject, from math to history is taught through the lens of cultural tolerance. In many cases, the education system goes so far as to teach that if something cannot be tested then nothing about it can be known factually. Because many different cultures believe certain things that cannot be tested, it is taught, not only that these beliefs have not factual value but, that they are merely opinion, and students must simply accept that.

This is projected onto the students as well. They are taught that their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs have no claim on truth over another student’s thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. According to modern education, these are all just the product of opinions, and everyone needs to accept and even celebrate everyone else’s opinions. The authors are careful to emphasize that not every teacher is attempting to indoctrinate our kids; however, they do recognize that there are many in the system who are and who do so quite aggressively. This caution is provided not to cause alarm and to pull our kids from the public education system but to encourage us as parents to recognize that we are responsible for our kids’ education and that means that we need to prepare our kids at home to understand that and how such views are incorrect.

Chapter 9: Cultural Tolerance and the Government

Cultural tolerance has also greatly impacted governments in the West. But this is not to be a surprise for the Christian, for there are two kingdoms: the earthly kingdom and the Heavenly Kingdom, each having its own standards. Most of the time, both kingdoms’ standards are similar enough that Christians can live both objectively right and legally right at the same time, but if it ever comes to the time in which they are in conflict, the Christian must follow the Heavenly Kingdom because it is the one that holds to the objective standards that even earthly governments are supposed to follow. Our allegiance should lie with God, the foundation of objective moral truth; not the government, which is subject to the foundation of objective moral truth.

But how are we to respond when the time comes that the relative laws of the land come into conflict with the objective laws of God (such as when same-sex marriage was legalized a few years ago)? Drs. McDowell emphasize that our response must not just be a factual one but one given in love- a love that tells the truth with the person’s best interest in mind and in the context of a loving relationship, with traditional tolerance, not cultural tolerance, at the heart of our communication.

Chapter 10: Cultural Tolerance and Society

Because of the impact that cultural tolerance and moral relativism have had on our society, it is quite common for parents to feel helpless. This feeling of helplessness is often the cause of heated exchanges between parents and their children that leave both sides feeling unloved and disrespected. However, parents can increase their moral impact in their children’s lives by continually reminding them that God ultimately has their best interests and purposes in mind (true love), and His moral commandments are given so that those interests and purposes can be realized in their lives.

How can parents guide their children in their moral choices and focus on God’s loving interests and purposes for their lives? Josh McDowell takes parents through his process of the 4-Cs that he expounds on even more in his book “10 Commitments for Dads,” which has now been added to this reviewers reading list. The 4-Cs are:

1. Consider the choice

2. Compare it to God

3. Commit to God’s way

4. Count on God’s protection and provision

By equipping our children with this process and how to use it, our children can successfully identify when cultural tolerance is guiding them in the wrong direction and can adjust accordingly to God’s perfectly loving interests and purposes for their lives. It is not only important that parents teach this process but model it in their lives, so that their children not only hear it but see it and its results in real-life situations with real people.

Chapter 11: Cultural Tolerance and the Church

One of the things that makes teaching the correct view of tolerance (the traditional view) so difficult is that some of the concepts of the cultural view of tolerance have infiltrated the Chuch. This is not something that was (or even is) intended nor is it something that was (or is) blatant. Church leaders, while holding strong to the inerrancy of Scripture, have unwittingly adopted some of the language of cultural tolerance which communicates the concepts contradictory to what the leaders intend to communicate. Josh and Sean McDowell look at five common phrases that we hear in today’s church that are problematic:

1. The Old and New Testaments are the Bible of the Jewish and Christian faiths.

2. The Bible contains truth designed just for me.

3. There are 101 ways to interpret the Bible.

4. What’s true for you isn’t necessarily true for me.

The Bible is God’s Word, but experience determines interpretation.

Each of those contains is partially true, but they also contain error. Each one, in its own way, implies that either Christianity is not true for all people across all generations and/or that truth is relative. It is important that parents recognize when the language is used and reinforce with their children and in their own minds where the truth is and how it can lead to error if not properly understood.

Chapter 12: You Can Make a Difference

In the concluding chapter, Josh and Sean offer three ways that Christians can be effective in our culture in changing the view of tolerance back to the correct view. They recount instances in their own lives where each one has been successful. They also recommend resources, beyond their own work, that the Christian can use in their efforts. They emphasize that there is no “silver bullet” that will convert a culture or even a single person. This is an effort that can take days, month, or even years. We are called not to convert people overnight but to patiently build truly loving relationships with them and show them the love of Christ not only in our words but also in our lives.

Reviewer’s Thoughts

“The Beauty of Intolerance” certainly did not disappoint. The conversational style (and conversations) that the McDowells used made this book’s deep philosophical ideas easy to comprehend and see how to apply in everyday life. The book keeps the reader engaged from beginning to end. As a parent, at nearly every turn of a page I discovered new ways to effectively communicate truth to my children and teach them how to discern moral truth from error in our relativistic culture. And as someone who discusses moral and political issues frequently with friends, family, and coworkers, I found the content to be extremely valuable. I, no doubt, will be referring readers of this blog back to this book in future posts.

As you can tell, I highly recommend this book for every Christian and especially Christian parents. Whether your kids are still at home or your children are now adults, this book will be invaluable for you and for them as you and they navigate through today’s culture. Once I got through the third or fourth chapter, I placed one of my Top 5 Books posts on hold simply to trade out one of the recommendations for this one. I also have the audiobook on MP3 CD and multiple copies to borrow out and give to fellow parents. Parents, DO NOT pass up this book; you will find it engaging and encouraging, and the philosophical and biblical insights throughout its pages will enhance your relationship with your kids and help you keep their eyes on Christ and remind them that God truly loves them by always having their best interests at heart.

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

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

March 24, 2019/by Guest

What Is The Intellectual Cost of The Pro-Choice Position?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

In recent months a major political and moral shift has been underway across America. The legality and morality of both infanticide and murder are actually being debated. But not under those terms. No, euphemisms are being used to obfuscate what is truly at stake- the lives of millions of people- your children’s lives, your grandchildren’s lives, for generations to come.

If we continue to ignore this debate and do nothing, we do so at a severe intellectual, moral, and personal cost. This post will help you see through the intentional obfuscation of those who are actively attempting to deceive you into supporting these atrocities.

The Terms Used

The debate over infanticide and murder are logical extensions of the debate over abortion. On one side, people argue that terminating a pregnancy (up to and including while the mother is in labor) can be justified (the “pro-choice” position), while the other side argues that there exists no such justification (the “pro-life” position). The pro-choice advocate gets emotionally heated because they believe that a mother has the right to exercise autonomy over the life of her unborn child.

The pro-life advocate gets emotionally heated because they believe that no human, including the mother, has the right to exercise autonomy over the life of any unborn child.

In the midst of the emotional exchanges, some advocates on both sides attempt to take a more objective approach and provide evidence for their position in an effort to bring a logical resolution the debate. If one side is successful in this goal, then their emotional responses may be justified by the evidence, but if that position is not justified by the evidence, then the emotional responses (and the position itself) is not justified and logically must be abandoned. The abandonment would include all laws and legal decisions that support the position as well. Today, I want to take some time to examine the available options and see how they square with reality and experience.

Is Abortion a Matter of Opinion?

I take the position of being pro-life. I do not hold this position to be merely my opinion that is only “true for me;” I hold this position to be objectively true, whether anyone believes it or not, and that it applies to all people in all cultures at all times. Not only is this a matter of fact position; I have the evidence to establish that this position accurately reflects reality and should be held by others as well.

In my discussions with pro-choice advocates, they will present any and every way they think may get them past the pro-life conclusion. Many of them believe that they can choose (true to their label) any number of ways to escape the pro-life position. Do they succeed? I believe they do, but it comes at a steep price. Today I want to present four options that the pro-choice advocate has to choose from in their effort to maintain their position in opposition to mine (the pro-life position), but I wish to also show that the cost is too high for any of the options to be reasonable or desirable.

Examining the Pro-Life Argument

To see what these options are, let us examine the pro-life argument:
If the unborn are human and if it is immoral to take the life of an innocent human, then it is immoral to take the life of the unborn (abortion).
There are three components to this argument that may be attacked by the pro-choice advocate. If one or more of those components are successfully defeated, then the conclusion fails. These three components are addressed throughout the book “The Case for Life” by Scott Klusendorf, but here is a video that gives an overview:

Simply stated, the unborn are human (component #1 is established by science), and it is immoral to take the life of an innocent human (most people agree with component #2 and evidence it in numerous ways), thus it is immoral to take the life of the unborn (the conclusion). This is a valid, logical argument (component #3- modus ponens).

The Options

If the pro-choice advocate wishes to deny its conclusion (“it is immoral to take the life of the unborn”), then he/she must deny that the unborn are human (which would be anti-science), deny that murder is immoral (which would be anti-human), or deny the validity of the argument (which would be illogical). The pro-choice advocate, indeed, has multiple options to choose from in their support of abortion:
A. Be immoral (accept the conclusion)

Be anti-science (deny unborn are human)
Be anti-human (deny immorality of murder)
Be illogical (deny logic and reason)

Every one of those options denies some feature of the world we live in; they violate the reality we all experience. The first violates what we know to be objectively good. The second violates nature. The third violates humanity. And the fourth violates logic.

Of course, none of those options is mutually exclusive (more than one can be chosen), but is any combination of those options really desirable?
I mean, who wants to be immoral? Who wants to be anti-science? Who wants to be anti-human? Who wants to be illogical? And who wants to be more than one of those, much less all four? The reality is that no one really wants to be any of those.

Avoiding The Options?

In an effort to ignore this argument and avoid those options, many abortion advocates will raise emotionally charged issues like financial hardships, career and life ambitions, future potential suffering of the child, the mother’s bodily autonomy, rape, incest, and many others. However, unless what they appeal to can successfully undermine the humanity of the unborn, the immorality of murder, or the validity of logic, the conclusion stands, and the abortion advocate is still stuck with at least one of the undesirable options. Some pro-choice advocates even appeal to the health of the mother to avoid these options; however, when further investigated we find that the conditions they say necessarily “medically indicate” abortion have alternatives (see this thorough analysis of this challenge by Clinton Wilcox of the Life Training Institute: “Are Late-Term Abortions Ever Medically Indicated?“)

For The Love of Truth, Is there Another Option?!

The emotional, financial, and physical difficulties, pain and other challenges are enormous, yet as we contemplate the intellectual and moral sacrifices that must be made, a struggle ensues between the head and the heart. This struggle is not to minimize, invalidate, or deny the difficulties, pain, challenges of these issues; rather it is to recognize the reality of those and the denials of reality that they push us towards. Perhaps abortion is not the only solution and remedy to the difficulties, pain and challenges. As we engage in this struggle, another option that can reconcile the head and the heart, reality and our challenges, does seem to emerge:

None of the above (Be Pro-Life)

True to Reality

Being pro-life is the only moral, pro-science, pro-human, and logical option available. Further, the pro-life position, contrary to the pro-choice position, is the only option that preserves the right of the little woman in the womb to make her own choices and exercise her own bodily autonomy in her life. This is precisely what the pro-choice position aims to do but ironically fails to accomplish every time an abortion is executed. The pro-choice position cannot avoid violating the right to choose of the women in the womb.

Many pro-choice advocates will accuse pro-life advocates at this point of being “anti-woman.” However, I must ask this question: if limiting the liberty of a woman is “anti-woman,” then what is killing a woman before she even has a chance to taste liberty?

The pro-choice position is self-defeating and self-destructs no matter which direction its advocates attempt to argue and no matter which of the previous options is chosen.

True to the Real Challenges

No one has ever claimed that choosing life is easy. In fact, it can be down-right difficult emotionally, financially, and physically. Being on the side of truth is rarely easy. False views must be easier, relatively speaking, than the true view; otherwise, they have no appeal. Those who value truth over increased difficulty and are willing to deal with increased difficulty for the sake of truth have a daunting task on their hands when the difficult situations arise regarding pregnancy and an uncertain future for both parents and child.

For those who are pregnant and are willing to accept difficulty for the sake of truth, numerous options exist to help with the various difficulties that will arise. I go through just a few of them in my post “Providing The Case Against and Solutions for Abortion.” I encourage you to investigate the options and choose which ones best fit your needs and goals. Talk with friends and family, who also value truth, so that they can help share the burdens and carry you through.
For those who have had an abortion and feel the weight of what has happened (whether chosen or coerced), there is healing, there is forgiveness, and there is redemption. I highlighted the “Silent No More Awareness Campaign” in a recent post because of their ministry to post-abortive mothers and families.

They, themselves, have been wounded by abortion and have become “wounded healers” for you. As emphasized by this ministry, the only hope offered through healing, forgiveness, and redemption for the post-abortive mother is obtainable because of the most important event in the history of the world: the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. From the words of the Apostle Paul:

If Christ has not been raised from the dead, there is no forgiveness for any sin, including abortion, and there is no healing from it. The Apostle Paul had committed murder before he met the risen Jesus, yet Paul was granted forgiveness for his sin by Christ. Jesus’ resurrection, as with the pro-life position discussed throughout this post, is not a matter of opinion; this historical event has been established as a real event through the evidence (see “The Risen Jesus and Future Hope” by Gary Habermas). Because of the evidence, you can be confident that Jesus’ Resurrection, and the promises of forgiveness, redemption, and healing are not mere platitudes to give false hope but that they are real and are offered to you by the Creator of life, Himself.

Conclusion- Pro-Life Eternally

No matter where you are, if you were once pro-choice but have now chosen to take the pro-life position, it not only leads to truth and life for the unborn, it leads you to the Giver of Life and eternal Life through Jesus Christ. It is pro-Life to the fullest extent.

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2V51JoT

February 17, 2019/by Guest

15 Quotes From Dr. Michael G. Strauss on the Big Bang’s Revelation of God’s Invisible Attributes

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

The Creator Revealed

In 2018 University of Oklahoma particle physicist Dr. Michael G. Strauss released his latest book. In this short non-technical volume, he introduces the reader to the astrophysical discoveries that reveal the characteristics of the Creator of the universe, hence the title “The Creator Revealed.” He strongly emphasizes the claim of Romans 1:20 that the Creator’s attributes are “clearly seen” in the creation, even by those who wish to deny the Creator’s existence. I gave the book a full chapter-by-chapter review available here, but today I want to highlight fifteen of my favorite quotes from the book.

The Christian and the Life of the Mind

“I think that when we as Christians do not fully investigate the truth of something because we are concerned that it might confront our beliefs, we forget one of the very basic characteristics of the God we serve, namely that he is a God of truth.”

“How can we, as Christians, stand firm when our faith is challenged intellectually? We can do this by learning to love the Lord our God with all our minds; by asking tough questions about God and the Bible and finding good, reasonable answers to those questions; by learning how to properly interpret the Bible in its context and according to its culture…and by understanding that all truth discovered by humans will ultimately reveal the creator of all truth.”

“I have found that the more one studies nature, the more one can see that it reveals God’s personality, to such an extent that many of the writings of even nonreligious scientists clearly declare God’s power and majesty.”

“When we find truth in nature or we find truth in scripture, we see God’s character revealed.”

Does The Big Bang Reveal God’s Invisible Attributes?

“If the big bang was God’s method of creation yet we as Christians deny its veracity, then we are building an unnecessary wall between us and other people who accept the big bang but don’t yet know God.”

“Most people already have heard of the big bang and agree with scientists that it accurately describes the origin of the universe. What most people don’t know is that the big bang also reveals the characteristics of the creator, the God of the Bible.”

“The evidence that the big bang was God’s method of creation is compelling for many reasons. For instance, it reveals the very nature of God, just as Romans 1:20 says creation should. It doesn’t just reveal God’s character to those who already believe in him or to those who only look superficially at nature; it reveals the very nature of his character to those who study the universe in depth. It drives people to realize that the creator is a transcendent designer who cares for humanity. It leaves them truly without excuse because they have rejected the creator, not for the record of creation.”

“Modern science and the big bang can be tremendous evangelistic tools when we realize that they reveal the character of God.”

“When we understand how the big bang reveals the person and character of God, we see him more clearly, and this shows his glory, majesty, and wonder.”

Why Do Scientists Accept The Big Bang?

“Based on the evidence from both observations and theoretical calculations, the scientific community eventually, and maybe reluctantly, has accepted the idea that the universe appears to have begun about fourteen billion years ago–because there is no other explanation that fits the evidence.”

“The evidence for the beginning of the universe in the big bang has become so powerful and so convincing that scientists have accepted it as true even though the philosophical and theological implications may be repugnant to some.”

“There are some Christians who say that most scientists today have misunderstood the facts of nature. They say that the facts clearly point to a universe created just a few thousand years ago. But such a belief is inconsistent with what Romans 1:20 implies. Paul says that the evidence left by the creator should be clearly visible so that all, even the scientists studying the universe, are without excuse if they fail to see it… [T]his is exactly the case with the big bang.”

“It doesn’t matter when the universe was created, whether it was six thousand years ago or fourteen billion years ago, to the naturalist who doesn’t believe in God, both ideas are equally repugnant.”

“It should not surprise you that the big bang reveals characteristics of the creator that (1) are clearly evident, (2) are apparent even to those who do not accept any kind of deity, and (3) correspond to attributes ascribed to God in the rest of the Bible. After all, that is exactly what Paul [in Romans 1:20] said the evidence should do.”

“An accurate understanding of the big bang and its implications can change lives. Truth has a way of doing that.”

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2R7yRJU

January 27, 2019/by Guest

Book Review: God’s Crime Scene for Kids

Apologetics for Parents, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

Several years ago, cold-case homicide detective J. Warner Wallace wrote the book “God’s Crime Scene” where he details his investigation, as an atheist, into the evidence for God’s existence. In the book, he explains that investigating the universe for an outside cause is quite similar to the investigation of a death scene. If the evidence at the scene can be explained by “staying in the room,” then an outside cause (murder) can be reasonably removed. Likewise, if all the evidence within the universe can be explained by “staying in the room” of the universe, then an outside cause (God) is not a reasonable conclusion. In both cases, though, when evidence requires an outside cause, then the conclusion cannot be avoided. You can read my chapter-by-chapter review of “God’s Crime Scene” here.

“God’s Crime Scene” is the second book in a trilogy that includes “Cold-Case Christianity” and “Forensic Faith.” Because of the popularity of this series, Wallace and his wife adapted the content of the books to a younger audience: kids! Today’s review is the second in the kids’ series: “God’s Crime Scene for Kids.“

The Story

In this second story, the young cadets find themselves investigating a new mystery: the source and purpose of the contents of an old box found in one of the cadets’ attic. Detective Jeffries takes the cadets through a new series of investigative principles, giving them new tools to apply as they investigate. Detective Jeffries, like he did with the previous mystery of the skateboard, uses the principles to guide the cadets through an investigation of ultimate concern: the purpose and cause of the universe. The cadets use the contents of the box to determine if they must look outside the box for a cause or if the explanation exists in the box; likewise, they use the contents of the universe to determine if they must look outside the universe for its cause or if the universe is sufficient to explain its own contents. As the investigation into the box, its contents, and possible explanations progresses, Detective Jeffries asks the cadets eight specific questions about the universe’s contents and possible explanations:

Was the universe an inside or outside job?
Who or what is responsible for the universe’s being here?
Does information require an author?
Is there evidence of an artist?
Are humans more than just the “stuff” of the universe
Can humans really make choices?
Is “right” and “wrong” more than just a matter of opinion?
Can an all-powerful and all-loving God exist with the evil in this universe?

Just as in the first mystery, the cadets simultaneously build their case for the source and purpose of the contents of the old box and the same for the universe. As each question is asked and possible explanations are considered, the possible explanations are narrowed down until only one for each remains reasonable given the contents of box and the universe.

The Case-Maker’s Academy

The Wallaces designed the book to not just be read but to be interactive. They bring the kids into the story by providing the Case-Maker’s Academy online for the kids to follow along with the story’s cadets as they go through the investigations. Once completed, the kids receive their own certificate they can show to their friends.

Reviewer’s Thoughts

As with the first book in the series (Cold-Case Christianity for Kids), the Wallaces did another masterful job of taking the content of a more advanced book and presenting it in an entertaining and easily understandable way for our children. I can’t wait to get my kids into this book (really, the whole series). No doubt, this book will help spark many conversations about God and the universe, and the Wallaces made it easy to find answers, for even those beginning to become familiar with this material, by having the content follow the order of the original “parent’s” edition (God’s Crime Scene). Just as I highly recommended the first book, I highly recommend this one as well. Now, on to the third in the trilogy- Forensic Faith for Kids, but something tells me there is no need for you to wait for a review… just go get it!

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

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

January 7, 2019/by Guest

Is Genesis History?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

A couple of years ago the documentary “Is Genesis History?” was released. This documentary aims to defend the truth of the Christian worldview by defending the historicity of the early chapters of the Bible from a scientific perspective. The documentary attempts to accomplish this by demonstrating evidence in support of intelligent design and a young (~6000 years old) creation. As those who follow this blog know, I do not hold to the view that the universe is 6000 years old, as Del Tackett and the other contributors to “Is Genesis History?” do, yet I affirm the historicity and scientific accuracy of the Genesis accounts of origins.

Because many people (including those in this documentary) believe that the historicity of these early chapters and a young earth interpretation of them cannot be separated, a friend has asked me to offer some comments in the way of clarifying this common misunderstanding and some other concerns in the movie. There is much unnecessary confusion and heat in the Church concerning the debate over origins, so I am hoping to provide a charitable critique in the context of Christian unity and love.

Areas Of Agreement

Since this post will focus primarily on some points of disagreement, I do want to start with what I agree with that was presented in the documentary. First, obviously, we agree that the Christian worldview accurately describes reality (is true). That alone means that our agreements outnumber our disagreements dramatically; we are brothers and sisters in Christ, part of one Body, neither greater nor lesser in the Kingdom or more or less useful in the Kingdom (1 Corinthians 12).

Second, there are actually numerous areas specifically related to origins that we do agree upon. A couple of years ago I wrote a post that lists out 40 of these points of agreement on origins: What Do Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists Agree Upon Regarding Origins? It is important to keep these points of agreement in mind so that as unbelievers view our behavior towards one another in the midst of disagreement, they will see love and reconciliation in Christ modeled. As Dr. Hugh Ross states in his latest book “Always Be Ready: A Call to Adventurous Faith“:

Third, we agree on the inerrancy of Scripture. It is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16-17); thus it is true in all that it affirms. We also agree upon the authority of Scripture. All disagreements are not regarding what Scripture is or its authority in our lives but rather on what it means in the particular areas of disagreement (disagreement on meaning in one area does not necessitate disagreement on meaning in another).

Fourth, there were many things explicitly said throughout the documentary that I also find strong agreement with. These agreements range from agreements about the failure of high criticism to the denial of common ancestry. As I was taking notes while watching, I kept a running list of these agreements, and here it is (with links to my reviews of books that dive deeper into a defense of the particular item):

Genesis is an accurate historical account (Navigating Genesis)
Literal days, narrative, historical (Navigating Genesis)
Genesis is one long historical narrative (The Bible Among The Myths)
The historical basis of Christianity, however, is not lost if Genesis is not history (we have the gospels). (The Historical Jesus)
Fossil record shows creation of organisms, stasis of that organism, and disappearance of the organism (no evolution). (More Than A Theory)
Deny blind faith- there is no conflict between science and faith (Forensic Faith)
Microevolution is valid, while macroevolution is not (More Than A Theory)
Animal similarity in genetics and patterns, but not in ancestry (More Than A Theory)
Designed/engineered ecosystem (Improbable Planet)
Earth/Moon system is sized for perfect eclipses (Improbable Planet)
Literal Adam and Eve (Who Was Adam)
Higher criticism is wrong (Navigating Genesis)

Finally, as a computer technologist, I was excited to hear that Del Tackett’s formal training was as a computer scientist. I really was hoping that he was going to bring our field into the documentary in support of God as the Intelligent Creator (there are many areas where computer science can be appealed to argue for a beginner, a designer, free agency, and the validity of cumulative cases, just to name a few). Unfortunately, he did not, but I do hope that he does in a future documentary. Check out “The Programming of Life” for an example of one of these arguments.

Now, as I mentioned in the introduction, there are several areas regarding origins which I believe “Is Genesis History” got wrong. I am going to attempt to keep my explanations short in this post because there are quite a few, so the case that I present for each inaccuracy is not meant to be comprehensive, but it is still meant to be sound. I will include links to articles and/or books throughout for further investigation. I have categorized the disagreements into three different categories for easy location later if you want to refer to this post in the future. Let’s begin with the philosophical issues.

Philosophical Issues

False Dichotomy

At the very beginning of the documentary, it is proposed that only two options exist regarding origins: either naturalism or a young-earth creationist view. Because of the fact that they intend to investigate an important historical event, it is important that they do not preclude any options before their investigation even begins. If an investigation reveals that neither option is viable, then what is the Christian to do? Because of this drastic philosophical mistake from the beginning of the film, if a Christian is ever convinced that the universe is ancient, then it is implied (if not explicit) that the creators of the film believe that the logically consistent person must reject Christ as well. However, other views do exist, so when a Christian sees the compelling evidence from God’s creation that it testifies to an ancient universe, there is no need to jettison Christ or even the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis.

Old earth creationism as proposed by Reasons to Believe holds firmly to the historicity of the Gospels and the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis and does not fall by the fatal critiques against either naturalism or young earth creationism. Contrary to what is implied at the beginning of “Is Genesis History,” rejection of young-earth creationism does not logically necessitate rejection of the historicity of the life, death, and bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ (see “Origin Science: A Proposal For The Creation/Evolution Controversy“), and a rejection of young-earth creationism is not a compromise of truth but a compromise of falsehood, which is precisely our goal- reject falsehood and follow the evidence from God’s creation exactly where it leads. If you are interested in the evidence for a historical reading of Genesis and the gospels, check out these awesome books:

Logical Fallacy- Hasty Generalization

In the documentary, Tackett and the contributors make the logical mistake of arguing that since quick processes created a few things (some geologic formations) that they created all things (all geologic formations). This is problematic for two reasons. First, it is a logical fallacy, so it invalidates their conclusion that the Flood of Noah is responsible for the formation of the Grand Canyon (and all other geological features). Second, in this argument, they assume that old earth creation models allow for only slow processes, when in fact they allow both slow and quick processes. If the young earth creationist finds solid evidence for a quick process, that evidence is perfectly compatible with an ancient earth. The task before the young earth creationist is to provide solid evidence that the other formations also came about by a geographically global flood. In fact, when the evidence of these long processes is examined in the context of each other, we see powerful evidence of a grand orchestrated project culminating in a home for humanity (see “Improbable Planet; How Earth Became Humanity’s Home“).

Logical Fallacy- Conflation

Perhaps the first issue described above is the result of the fallacy of conflation. Naturalism and an ancient universe are not the same. Naturalism is a philosophical position that denies the existence of anything outside this universe. An ancient universe simply is a measurement of the amount of time that has passed since the creation event. Through the use of this conflation, the argument is made that since naturalism is false so must any view that holds that the universe is ancient. Because the argument employs the use of a fallacy, its conclusion is invalid. Naturalism can be false while the universe is ancient, and the same evidence that has forced scientists to concede a finite (but ancient) universe is the same evidence that argues powerfully for God as Creator and Designer. See these three books:

Philosophy of Science- Investigating the Past

It is quite common for young-earth creationists to claim that the past cannot be known with any level of certainty like the present can be. According to “Is Genesis History” present processes cannot be used to figure out what happened in the past. If they affirm Jeremiah 33:25-26, then they affirm that the laws of physics are as unchanging as God is. This is important because the past can be known by observing the present and using this “principle of uniformity” (not uniformitarianism- they are different), we can deductively conclude what has happened in the past. By working our way backward in time, using God’s actions (current observations) and God’s words (Jeremiah 33:25-26), we discover that the universe did not reach its point of creation 6000 or even 10,000 years ago. Rather it goes all the way back to roughly 13.8 billion years ago. God’s creation testifies powerfully of its creation out of nothing (affirming the historicity of Genesis 1:1, and the rest of Genesis along the way). See these articles and book for more on this philosophy of science:

Philosophy of Science- Changed Laws of Physics

In the above section, I mentioned that the incorrect philosophy of science may be corrected by simply affirming Jeremiah 33:25-26 (unchanging laws of physics). However, several times throughout the film, changing laws of physics were affirmed (specifically at the Fall of Adam and Eve). This is problematic for numerous theological and philosophical reasons, the least of which is the unknowability of the past (thus they cannot even critique alternative views based on evidence from the creation) and possibly the worst of which is denying God’s unchanging nature that He explicitly compared to the laws of physics (and in turn, denying the doctrine of biblical inerrancy). For more on the details of this issue see the book “Peril in Paradise.”

Since that last issue addresses both a philosophical and a theological issue, it provides a good segue into the second category of issues.

Theological Issues

Nature Cannot Interpret Scripture

This issue can also be seen as both philosophical and theological. When it is restated, the theological implications become more apparent: “God’s actions cannot be used to interpret God’s words.” This is the result of denying Jeremiah 33:25-26 (affirming changed laws of physics). For changed laws of physics means that the creation does not reflect God’s actions. However, since God has told us that the current observations of the universe do reflect His original creation (Jeremiah 33:25-26, Psalm 19, and Romans 1), we cannot deny that God’s actions can be used to interpret His words. Affirming that God’s actions (the creation) can be used to interpret God’s words (Scripture) is not a matter of “man’s fallible ideas versus God’s infallible Word,” rather it is a matter of affirming that God’s infallible actions are necessarily consistent with God infallible Word. And when God’s actions unequivocally reveal an ancient universe, we need to change our interpretation of what God’s Word in Genesis means to reflect His actions and not our fallible ideas. See the following three articles that go deeper into the relationship between God’s Word and God’s actions:

Article: Man’s Fallible Ideas vs. God’s Infallible Word
Article: Deconstructionism, The Constitution, and Biblical Interpretation
Article: Are Nature And Scripture Compatible?
Book: A Matter of Days: Resolved A Creation Controversy

Christians Who Disagree With Young-Earth Creationism Are Denying Genesis Is Historical

By using God’s creation to help us interpret His words (thus concluding an ancient universe), we are not denying the historicity of the Genesis account; we are affirming its historic and scientific accuracy and our own fallibility in interpreting the words and actions of an infallible God. In fact, when Genesis 1 is interpreted from the proper perspective (the surface of the planet, according to Genesis 1:2), we discover perfect alignment between the events described in Genesis 1 and what scientists have discovered about the history of our planet and life. This is far from denying historical accuracy; this is providing solid scientific evidence of the historical accuracy of the account. For more on this, see these books:

A Global Flood and the Judgment of Sin

In “Is Genesis History” the contributors asserted that the only way that God’s judgment (the whole purpose of Noah’s Flood) is that it be global in extent. The purpose was to judge humanity for its evil, so its geographical extent need only be to everywhere that humans had inhabited. The debate about the geographical extent of the flood comes down to the extent to which humans had migrated around the globe. If they had not migrated far from the place of Adam’s and Eve’s creation, then God could still accomplish His purpose 100% by merely flooding that geographical area. Given the strong evidence for the lack of migration of early humans (see Who Was Adam) and the fact that no geological evidence exists for a worldwide flood (see the Hasty Generalization above), the interpretation of the Flood as a universal event (affected all humanity but not the whole globe) affirms both the historicity of the Flood account (God’s words) and the accuracy of the record of nature (God’s actions). See “Navigating Genesis” for more on this.

Scientific Issues

Evolution Can Take Place in Billions of Years

The first scientific issue that I want to describe with is the idea that naturalistic evolution can produce the origin (and diversity) of life we see today in just billion years. As more and more research is conducted into the cosmic, galactic, planetary, geological, and chemical conditions required just for life to originate, 13.8 billion years is actually numerous orders of magnitude too young! This is one of the reasons why the big bang (establishes that the universe began merely 14 billion years ago) was so vociferously opposed. Since the evidence is so strong for the universe’s beginning (ex nihilo) in the finite past (see “Creator and the Cosmos“), naturalists have attempted to exponentially increase their chronological resources by positing a multiverse (which includes a near-infinite number of universes) to accommodate the necessity for amounts of time orders of magnitude more than 13.8 billion years.

Young earth creationists (including those in “Is Genesis History”) constantly accuse scientists and other Christians, who hold to an ancient universe, of needing 13.8 billion years to accommodate evolutionary processes. The reality is that that is simply not the reason. The evolutionary process is simply not that efficient by many orders of magnitude. It is not feasible by any stretch of the imagination! The only reason naturalists have accepted that the universe is only 13.8 billion years old is because the evidence from God’s creation (Romans 1) is so strong that they can no longer deny it logically or scientifically (again, see “Creator and the Cosmos“). If anyone tells you that the old earth creationist needs or is trying to force 13.8 billion years into the Bible to accommodate evolution, please understand that they really do not understand just how inefficient the evolutionary process is. See “A Matter of Days: Resolving A Creation Controversy” for more on this chronological impossibility for evolution.

Affirmation of Macro-Evolution

One of the major problems with the global flood hypothesis is Noah fitting all the different animals on the ark. The diversity we see today could not be represented if there was a one to one representation. Global flood proponents, including in “Is Genesis History” have posited that all animals descended from a collection of ancestral “kinds” that were on the ark. They believe this process was either fully naturalistic or could have been theistic (preloaded into the genes at original creation). Several problems exist.

First, “kind” can be roughly comparative to either “genus” or “family.” While creationists (old earth and young earth) believe that micro-evolution (adaptation within a species) does happen and speciation (evolution from one species to another) is possible, they believe that evolution beyond this level crosses into macro-evolution (evolution from genus to genus or family to family) and either does not happen or is impossible. Young earth creationists (including those in “Is Genesis History”) are quite critical of both naturalistic and theistic macro-evolutionary models for numerous reasons. These same reasons serve to falsify their own affirmation of macro-evolution.

Second, even naturalists and theistic evolutionists understand that the macro-evolutionary process would be slow and not as quick as the global flood proponent would need to explain today’s observed diversity. The global flood proponent would have to posit not just a mechanism that they already claim to have falsified but one that works at orders of magnitude more quickly. If a process is not possible, speeding it up does not make it more possible. It would also be akin to punctuated equilibrium- one of the evolutionary answers to sudden appearances of animals in the Cambrian and Avalon explosions. The proposed solution to the diversity problem will not work by any standard. See “Navigating Genesis” and “Peril in Paradise” for more on this issue with the necessity of global flood proponents to affirm macro-evolution.

Dinosaur Soft Tissue Affirm A Young Earth

In “Is Genesis History” one of the proposed evidences to defeat an ancient universe and earth (and cause doubt about other dating methods) is the discovery of dinosaur soft tissue. This is a really cool discovery that has been in the news for a few years now and has spurred on much more scientific inquiry. The idea behind this evidence is that, by current understandings of soft tissue degradation, the dinosaur soft tissue should have decayed a long time ago, if they had been dead for 60+ million years. The discovery of dinosaur soft tissue adds a huge question mark behind two beliefs: the date of the dinosaurs’ death and the current understanding of soft tissue decay processes. In “Is Genesis History,” they posit that the current understanding of soft tissue decay processes is complete and that scientists should rather doubt the ancient date for the death of the dinosaurs (and affirm a young earth).

The problem is that this is only one piece of evidence that seems inconsistent with current dating (among many pieces of evidence that falsify a young creation), so scientists have opened up more research into decay processes for soft tissue. These have been quite fruitful in producing discoveries of multiple conditions that would result in longer decay times. As biochemist Fazale Rana describes in his book “Dinosaur Blood and the Age of the Earth,” these newly discovered conditions defeat the claim that soft tissue is incompatible with an ancient date for the death of the dinosaurs. So, this evidence, contrary to what those in “Is Genesis History” claim, it does not provide evidence against an ancient universe or earth. But again, as described above, this does not mean that Genesis is not history; it just means that the young earth interpretation is not accurate.

Conclusion

So, is Genesis history? Yes! But the history recorded in Genesis does not teach that the universe is only 6000 years old. While the answer to the title question of the documentary is in the affirmative, one does not have to accept the scientific, biblical, theological, and philosophical inaccuracies in the “Is Genesis History” documentary to believe that Genesis is history. In fact, when investigated, we find that the historical record in Genesis is perfectly compatible with modern scientific discoveries of God’s creation. What secular scientists are discovering about God’s actions is revealing more details of the general events that Moses recorded thousands of years ago. Moses had no way to know such things (especially since he was in the middle of an ancient near eastern culture that held to the eternal past of the universe and its lack of design and purpose [see “The Bible Among The Myths“]). This provides powerful evidence that the Bible was inspired by the Creator of the universe, and consequently, such evidence points directly to the truth of biblical claims about our sinfulness and need for a Savior. The reality of the antiquity of the universe (and big bang cosmology, properly understood) does not undermine Christianity; it provides solid evidence, from God’s own actions (creation) for the truth of the Bible, that no Christian should fear or be reluctant to affirm.

If you are ready to explore God’s creation and see how, as Romans 1:20 proclaims, God’s attributes are so evident in His work that skeptical scientists cannot escape public acknowledgment of them, definitely pick up any of the many books linked to in this post or check out these excellent ministries:

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

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

December 7, 2018/by Guest

Book Review: The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ

4. Is the NT True?, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

In my late teens and early 20s, I was wrestling with many questions about what I believed. I had several challenges to my Christian faith that ranged from the philosophical to the scientific to the historical. One of the challenges that would not go away, due to some college professors and some friends, was the challenge to the historical Jesus and the gospels. Of all the worldviews one can hold, Christianity can be easily falsified by simply demonstrating that a single person did not actually exist in history: Jesus of Nazareth. Did he really exist in history? If so, what can we really know about him? Does that match was the Bible claims? Was there any evidence that Jesus actually came back to life after being dead? How do we know that the right books were included in the New Testament? Why not the books are known as the “Gnostic Gospels” too?

When I was looking for some answers to these questions, I came across the work of Dr. Gary Habermas. The first book of his that I read was the one I present to you today: The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. Reading through this book provided the answers to more than just the questions that I was asking but also to questions that I did not know would eventually come too. This was well over a decade ago, and it is time for me to revisit the book and publish a proper review of this most important work. The review will follow my usual chapter-by-chapter summary style and conclude with my thoughts and specific recommendations.

Part 1: Contemporary Challenges to the Historicity of Jesus

Chapter 1: The Modern Quest for the Historical Jesus

In the introductory chapter, Habermas introduces the reader to the historical quest to discover the historical Jesus. He goes over some of the history of the studies, what different scholars proposed at different times regarding Jesus’ historicity and how to handle the different miracle-claims of the New Testament. He describes the popularity of the liberal approaches of the fictitious lives of Jesus and the idea that the gospel accounts were purely mythologies in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the deemphasizing of the historical Jesus in the early twentieth century. He brings the reader “up to speed” by describing the re-emphasis on the necessity of the historical Jesus near the mid-1900s and onto today. While most scholars today recognize that Jesus was a historical figure, there is a small group that still does not. Habermas reminds the reader that the popularity of a particular position does not provide legitimate evidence, in or of itself, for the historicity of Jesus, so this book will examine the evidence that has convinced the majority of scholars that the historical Jesus existed, and it will make the case that the historical Jesus is the Jesus of Christianity.

Chapter 2: Did Jesus Ever Live?

Even though most scholars reject the idea that Jesus never lived, the idea that he did should not be taken for granted in an investigation about the historical Jesus. Habermas addresses the two most common theories to explain the records of the New Testament without Jesus living in history. The first view addressed is that of G.A. Wells, while the second view is more modest and is promoted by Michael Martin.
G.A. Wells dates the gospels in the late first century to early second, and Paul’s letters earlier. He believes that the gospels were too late to contain accurate historical information, so he leans on Paul for historical information of Jesus. He holds that Paul’s writings include very little information about the historical Jesus and concludes that Paul neither knew or cared about the historical Jesus. Wells believes that, at best, Jesus was a much earlier historical figure that legend grew around, and at worst, Jesus was based upon pagan mythologies. Of the many issues with Wells’ view, Habermas address five of them. He provides textual and historical evidence that Wells is incorrect on issues of Paul’s lack of record of and/or concern with historical information about Jesus, the idea that Jesus may have lived prior to the first century AD, Jesus’ connection to pagan mythologies, the late dating of the gospels, and his overall historical methodology.
Recognizing the failure of the more extreme views of G.A. Wells, Michael Martin softens some of the positions to make them more compatible with the textual and historical evidence. For instance, Martin grants that some historical data can be gleaned from the Pauline epistles, but he does not allow for much. He does retain the late dating of the gospels, and he adds that extrabiblical sources either do not contain historical data of the historical Jesus or that the information is inaccurate. Habermas addresses each of these claims briefly as they were either addressed in the section on G.A. Wells or will be covered in greater detail later in the book.

Chapter 3: Limitations on the Historical Jesus

Even though the extreme view that Jesus never existed in history is widely rejected among scholars, many do still believe that what can be known about the Jesus of history is greatly limited. This view is born out in a few different ways. Habermas describes these various attempts to limit historical investigation of the Jesus of history and demonstrates how each of them fails, thus leaving wide open a historical investigation of the life of Jesus as a person that actually existed in the past.

The first view that Habermas addresses is the idea that the gospels record what early Christians believed about Jesus, not necessarily what actually happened. This view removes the gospels from the historical investigation because they would not be claiming to record what actually happened but just what a group of people believed. Habermas explains that this view fails on four accounts. The first is that it removes all historical grounding for the origin of Christianity (from where did the recorded beliefs come?). The second is that without even attempting to investigate the claims of the gospels as historical claims, it rejects them as mythological (how did they come to the conclusion that the gospels recorded beliefs and not events?). The third is that the view assumes that, unique among all historical authors, the early Christians’ records were to not be trusted to be true because they believed their records to be true (how does belief of an event necessitate an incorrect recording of that event?). And fourth, the view holds that due to the few copies of the gospels, we cannot trust that we have what the early Christians originally wrote (given the mountain of copies compared to other ancient writings, how then are we to trust that we know what other ancient writers originally wrote?).

Another optional view is that while the Gospels do record historical events, the only historical events that are correct are ones that are not miraculous. Habermas addresses four ways in which this view fails as well. The first here is that it presumes to reject the miracle claims without even investigating whether they happened or not. Such a priori assertions exhibit neither good scientific investigation nor good historical investigation. The second problem is that the view does not even allow for the investigation of miraculous events because they are miraculous. However, if an event takes place in reality, that it happened can be investigated independently of its source or cause. Third, when the second problem is removed, investigation of Jesus’ being seen after his death and burial is well established, and no naturalistic explanation can account for the event. If no naturalistic explanation can account for an event that has been historically investigated and confirmed happened, then only a non-natural or supernatural explanation (miracle) is possible; thus miraculous events were recorded in the gospels. Fourth, if it can be established that Jesus did rise from the dead (to be investigated later in the book), then his metaphysical (and theological) teachings and actions must be considered relevant to the reader.

Chapter 4: Reinterpretations of the Historical Jesus

Many scholars grant the failures of the views critiqued in the previous chapter, yet they still wish to reject the Christian worldview. So many have attempted to reinterpret the historically established events of Jesus’ life. Habermas investigates these attempts in this fourth chapter.

The majority of these proposed alternate lives of Jesus depend upon the idea that Jesus did not die by crucifixion as recorded in the gospels. Many offers that Jesus merely appeared to be dead and after being removed from the cross and placed in the tomb, he recovered enough to escape and went on to live a secret life. While there are numerous versions of this “swoon” theory, all of them fail on three major accounts. The first is that Roman crucifixion was extremely brutal and would have left Jesus in such horrific condition that he could not escape from a sealed tomb, much less, convince anyone he had “overcome” death. Second, crucifixion caused death by asphyxiation due to the inability to breathe while hanging from the cross when the muscles are relaxed. This means that it was not possible to appear dead on the cross without actually being dead. Third, the Roman executioners ensured Jesus’ death by thrusting the spear into his side and puncturing his heart. Even if faking death on the cross was possible, this final blow would have killed Jesus immediately. Because of these reasons, the swoon theories have all been rejected by scholars.

Even though the failure of this foundation of the alternate lives of Jesus theories is enough to reject those theories, they fail on other accounts as well. These theories, of course, come in many different versions. Some hold that the Gospels and Paul recorded incorrect information and the real events of Jesus post-crucifixion life is unknown, and others hold that Jesus traveled to other places in the world. All of the theories fail for multiple reasons. They contradict already established historical records (the Gospels). They appear late. They have no historical grounds. And the arguments require multiple fallacies to come to their conclusions. Along with those commonly held failures, Habermas also discusses several additional failures that are unique to the various theories. He ends by stating that, because of the incredible list of reasons that these theories fail, they are not taken seriously by historians today, but they needed to be addressed due to their continual recurrence within popular culture.

Chapter 5: The New Gnosticism

One of the more popular challenges in historical Jesus studies comes from the discovery of several texts dated from the mid-to-late second century to the early third century. These are the Gnostic writings, with The Gospel of Thomas probably being the most familiar to the public. Some scholars believe that these text raise a power challenge against orthodox teachings about Jesus due to their traditionally early dating. The Gospel of Thomas is dated as early as AD 140 (all the others are date much later). Supporters of the Gnostic view attempt to date the tradition that is contained within the Gospel of Thomas in the first century, and they contend that due to the early sourcing, it should at least be held on the same authoritative level as the Gospels. Now, the significance of this dating is that, if the dating is correct, then it is possible that there were multiple expressions of Christianity at the time. The competing claim is that the New Testament that we have today is incomplete and that these Gnostic writings are the “lost books” of the Bible that tell a very different story about the historical Jesus. The Gospel of Thomas lacks mention of the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus, so the Gnostics claim that these events did not take place (what makes the view incompatible with orthodoxy). They claim that what is known as orthodoxy today merely won a “cultural war” among the different views and is not a reflection of actual events in history.

Having presented this strong challenge of the Gnostic view against the orthodox view of the historical Jesus, Habermas turns to a four-pronged critique of the view. First, even if The Gospel of Thomas is accurately dated early at AD 140 and its tradition is still earlier, the gospels have all been dated a minimum of half a century earlier than even that, which places their source material closer to the events they record than the source material of the Gospel of Thomas. This means that the Gnostic gospels and the Gospels were not co-circulating at the earliest times; the Gospels were present at least fifty years before the Gnostics showed up and (as will be seen later) within only a few years of Jesus’ death. Secondly, Habermas presents four standards of ancient historiography that establish the accuracy of the Gospels’ historical records. This serves to hold authority over later writings that present contradictory stories (the Gnostic writings, in this case).

Thirdly, based upon the testimony present in various books of the New Testament and in the writings of the apostolic fathers, we can see that the canon of Scripture was well established prior to the dates of many of the Gnostic writings. This means that Christians had recognized the earliest writings as accurate and authoritative before the greater body of Gnostic writings (and their contradictory content) were even present. Fourthly, even though the death and Resurrection of Jesus are not mentioned in the Gospel of Thomas, that is not evidence that it did not happen, especially when we have four earlier records that record that they did happen. Interestingly enough, proponents of the Gnostic view hold that the proposed document “Quelle” or “Q”, that is the source for the similarities among the synoptic Gospels, did not contain information of Jesus’ death and crucifixion, but this is speculation as both the existence and content of the document are hotly debated. Even if they were right about the content’s absence, its absence still would not argue against its actually taking place. For these four reasons, scholars generally do not consider Gnosticism a viable alternative view for the historical Jesus; Gnosticism or elements of it is vastly more popular among non-scholars.

Chapter 6: The Jesus Seminar and the Historical Jesus

Another way to dismiss the historical Jesus (as recorded in the gospels) is put forth by people in the Jesus Seminar. The Jesus Seminar tends to see their position as a compromise between those who reject all historicity of the records in the gospels and those who take every word of it historically. Their position begins philosophically with, not just the rejection of the supernatural, but the very incompatibility of the supernatural with reality. Using this filter, they reject all records in the gospels that include any kind of non-natural event, including all experiences with Jesus after his crucifixion; however, they do tend to believe that the events that required no such non-natural mechanism are historically accurate.
Habermas explains that the Jesus Seminar does not really offer as much of a “compromise” position as they like to think. The primary reason for this is before any investigation on their part has begun, they have already ruled out even the possibility of many of the historical events taking place. They have already rejected the only explanation of the events, so they are unable to perform an unbiased investigation of the historical data. With this critique in place, some Seminar scholars have pulled back on some of the extreme conclusions and have opted for agnosticism on the historicity of different non-natural events. These more moderate Seminar scholars offer several naturalistic explanations for the records of the non-natural events; however, Habermas shows how they fail to account for the historical data and/or commit various fallacies. He also demonstrates how their hypotheses are often contradicted by the historical evidence. Ultimately, he concludes that the various positions offered by Jesus Seminar scholars are not historically viable and should be rejected.

Part 2: Historical Data for the Life of Jesus

Chapter 7: Primary Sources: Creeds and Facts

Having surveyed and dismantled the many different attempts to separate the historical Jesus from the Jesus of the gospels, Habermas now turns to an investigation of what can be known about the historical Jesus and early Christian theology apart from the New Testament gospels. He begins by evaluating the creeds, hymns, and traditions that were closest to the death of Jesus. These sources originated prior to the formation of the New Testament and are recorded within it. Several, among many others, can be found in the following passages of the New Testament:

1 John 4:2
2 Timothy 2:8
Romans 1:3-4
1 Timothy 3:16
Phillippians 2:6
Romans 10:9
1 Corinthians 11:23
1 Timothy 6:13
1 Peter 3:18

Taking the reader through the many early sources, Habermas demonstrates over forty different characteristics of Jesus Christ that were both believed by the early Christians and passed down through the centuries to today. In this exercise, Habermas demonstrates that the Jesus of Christianity is indistinguishable from the Jesus believed by the earliest Christians. These orthodox beliefs were not the product of any single or series of events that took place over time; the beliefs appeared early and suddenly.

Habermas also spends a considerable portion of the chapter evaluating the creed in 1 Corinthians 15. This creed is often considered to be one of the most important because it ties the beliefs of the earliest Christians to eyewitness testimony of those who walked with Jesus and had experiences of the risen Jesus. Because of this eyewitness connection, this early creed not only opens the door to historical testing of the events surrounding Jesus and the claims that He and the early Christians made, but it compels such testing. Thorough testing has been performed on at least twelve unique claims of the historical Jesus regarding the most important event: the Resurrection. That testing has revealed the facticity of those twelve claims; however, Habermas believes that only four of them are sufficient to establish the historicity of the Resurrection event. He spends a small portion of the chapter explaining this “minimal facts” apologetic, but for those who wish to go deeper into this specific historical event, check out Habermas’ book “The Risen Jesus and Future Hope” along with his many other writings at GaryHabermas.com.

Chapter 8: Archaeological Sources

Archaeology has provided evidence of the historical context surrounding the life of Jesus, has provided corroboration for several of the historical claims within the gospels, and may even provide compelling evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. One of the most contested (non-miraculous) events recorded in the gospels is that of the census described by Luke. Habermas explains how archaeology has not only helped answer some of the questions this event but has also provided calibration tools for identifying the year of Jesus’ death. Archaeology has also yielded much information about the ancient practice of crucifixion that corroborates reports in the gospels. For instance, the skeleton of “Yohanan,” a crucifixion victim, was discovered in 1968. This particular discovery has provided information regarding the condition of the victim as they were nailed to a cross, the excruciating way a victim was nailed to a cross, many painful events that happened to the body while on the cross, and the ultimate cause of death. This data has given medical and historical researchers ways to test the claims surrounding Jesus’ mode of execution and have found them to be accurate.

Probably the most controversial archaeological find surrounding the historical Jesus is the Shroud of Turin. Tradition has it that this linen is the actual burial cloth of Jesus. Many visual commonalities provide a powerful case for this claim, including the blood stains that are common to victims of a crucifixion and other stains that are unique to Jesus’ crucifixion. The absence of evidence of bodily decomposition suggests that the victim was not in the cloth for long. And some Christians believe that the “scorch” marks that are inconsistent with foreign materials provide evidence of a resurrection. However, carbon dating has seriously challenged the identification of the Shroud with the first century AD, but even these studies have come under scrutiny due to lack of peer review and blind testing, possible contamination, and inconsistency with other pieces of evidence. Habermas explains that even if the Shroud is not that of Jesus, it could still be that of a victim who suffered a remarkably similar fate, thus still providing powerful evidence of the practice of crucifixion. He also explains that if the Shroud is, in fact, the burial cloth of Jesus, archaeologists have powerful tangible evidence not only Jesus’ mode of death but the historical event of His Resurrection as well.

Chapter 9: Ancient Non-Christian Sources

Of all the figures in ancient history, Jesus is the most mentioned. The mentions not only come in ancient Christian writings but also in those of non-Christian sources. Habermas takes the reader through the different ancient historians’ and other writers’ material that mentions Jesus. Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger are just a few. As Habermas describes these writings (and several others) and how they have been preserved in antiquity, he quotes directly from them, highlighting not just the mention of Jesus but also all the information about Jesus’ life, His teachings, and His death that are recorded.

He also discusses the most controversial of them all: Josephus. He quotes the disputed and undisputed texts along with a proposed “original version” of the disputed text that would be more consistent with Josephus’ worldview as a Jewish historian. Habermas takes the undisputed portions along with the proposal to demonstrate several facts recorded by Josephus regarding Jesus. Habermas even cautiously uses Gnostic writings to help support certain claims about the historical Jesus that are found in other non-Christian sources. Habermas concludes from all these ancient non-Christian sources that even if Christian sources (discussed in the next chapter) are disregarded, it is established that the Jesus of the Bible existed in history and many true things can be known about Him.

Chapter 10: Ancient Christian Sources (Non-New Testament)

Of course, the ancient writings of the historical Jesus are not limited to non-Christian sources. Many Christian sources outside the New Testament were also composed and circulated. These authors included Clement of Rome, Ignatious, Justin Martyr, among others. These early sources give historians an understanding of early Christian doctrine and what the early Church believed about the historical Jesus. Habermas discusses each author that builds a total description of Jesus’ life, teachings, death, and resurrection that echoes the claims of the New Testament. These records indicate that the early Church already believed what was written in the New Testament; they did not wait to see who the “winners” were regarding orthodoxy.

Many people believe that the fact that these writers were Christian made them unjustifiably biased in their beliefs and that makes them unreliable sources. However, because much of their beliefs about the historical Jesus were based upon the material in the New Testament (only one generation removed, in some cases), which was shown to be trustworthy in the previous chapters, these early Christian authors were certainly justified in their beliefs. Because they were justified in believing what they recorded, their records stand firmly as a testimony of the beliefs of the earliest Christians.

Chapter 11: Summary and Assessment

Having concluded a survey of the historical evidence that could speak to the historical Jesus and various challenges to his existence, Habermas succinctly summarizes what can be known from the historical evidence alone. He lists out 129 things that can be known about the historical Jesus relating to His life, work, death, and resurrection. These facts are gathered from 45 different ancient Christian and non-Christian sources. The sheer number of ancient sources that give pertinent information about the life of Jesus is more than enough to conclude by the standards of historiography that the historical Jesus is the same Jesus that is recorded in the Bible. If the Jesus of the Bible is to be separated from the Jesus of history, the entire enterprise of ancient historical studies is called into question.

Reviewer’s Thoughts

The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus was an exciting read! I came to the book originally with many questions about what could be truly known about the historical Jesus, but as I read through it, my questions were answered. As my original questions were answered, more questions formulated in my mind that Habermas seemed to almost anticipate. It has been over a decade since my initial read through the book when these questions were answered. It was refreshing and encouraging to read through it again because over the last decade, some curiosities have come up that I had forgotten were addressed in the book. When these come up in conversation, I am now more prepared to “give a reason for the hope that I have” (1 Peter 3:15).

When I first read the book in my early 20s, it was very understandable at that time (it answered my basic questions), yet it is comprehensive and deep enough to have addressed the more nuanced challenges that I have been exposed to over the years. Habermas really made the historical facts come to life for me and give me a more connected feeling to the actual events of history. This not only excited me but gave me a profound sense of satisfaction that my belief is justified true belief, justified by the evidence of history.

If you are having serious doubts about the historical Jesus, you definitely need to get this book. And if your church has a library, it needs to be on the shelf for those who have these deep questions and are honestly looking for answers. For any Christian who regularly discusses the truth of Christianity (that should be all of us), you also need this book. It will give you a resource to always be prepared to answer both the basic and the deeper challenges of those who are skeptical of the historical foundations of our worldview. Nearly two thousand years ago, the Apostle John proclaimed, “The Word (Jesus) became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth,” and history bears a fantastic witness to this truth.

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

November 4, 2018/by Guest

A Deeper Understanding Of Christ’s Love Through Suffering

2. Does God Exist?, Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

How can you helplessly watch as a child dies from agonizing cancer? Doesn’t the love you feel tell you that that suffering is evil and a God who is all loving and all powerful would rescue that child? How can God be all loving and all powerful if He allows such a child to suffer and die?

This is a challenge that is often raised by atheists to reject the God of the Bible. But today, I am not going to answer the atheist who raises the challenge as an armchair hypothetical that they have never experienced; instead I want to speak to the person who either has experienced this tragedy or is in the middle of it, and it causes them to be skeptical of the goodness and even existence of God.

This Is What Love Feels Like

But could God have a purpose for the pain that you feel? Before I get to that, please watch this tribute to those who have cared for a loved one at the end of their life: This Is What Love Feels Like, by dc Talk, inspired by Toby McKeehan‘s experience:

Knowing Love Through Suffering

Jesus knew the suffering that would take Him to His physical limits, yet He persisted and conquered: This was His love for you as He suffering the torture of crucifixion. If you have been taken to your limits through the suffering of a loved one, you know this love.

Without the suffering of a loved one, we would not know this love for someone else that takes us to our limits (and live to tell of it), what love truly feels like. Without the suffering of a loved one, we would not have the privilege of getting a trace of understanding of the depth of Christ’s love for us that took Him to the end of His physical limits. Caring for a spouse, parent, or child as they leave this world has to be one of the most painful experiences, and we do not escape it unchanged by the suffering it has caused. We are wounded, but we can use those wounds to heal. We can become the wounded healer (see my post “The Wounded Healer: Finding Ultimate Purpose In Your Suffering” for more on this concept). And just as we are alive today to be wounded healers, Jesus conquered death through His bodily resurrection to be the Ultimate Wounded Healer that we point to.

While it is a privilege to experience what this kind of love feels like (though it comes at a great cost, just like it did for Christ), our experience only scratches the surface of the love that Christ has. And our experience is only one person (or maybe a few people in extremely tragic situations) at a time. But Jesus’ love, as He suffered death, was not just for you or just for a few people, it was for every person (John 3:16).

Conclusion

We must not forget that our suffering in this life will come to an end. It is finite, and this finite suffering is not worth comparing to the infinite glory that will one day be revealed in us (Romans 8:18) and can be revealed in others to enjoy with us if we are willing to be used by God to be wounded healers. Do not be discouraged. Our perfect God has a purpose for your suffering. Without Him, your experience is a gratuitous pain with no purpose or meaning. But because God exists and Christ is resurrected from the dead, your experience is both purposeful and meaningful. Through your experience, God has blessed you with a deeper understanding of His love for you, and now He gives you the privilege to speak hope, life, love, meaning, and purpose to the brokenhearted suffering and struggling the same as you are.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2RFk6Ql

October 16, 2018/by Guest

Book Review: Always Be Ready – A Call To Adventurous Faith

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross is a well-known voice in the scientific and evangelical Christian communities for his scientific defenses of the Christian worldview. Over the last few decades, he has written incredible books powerfully defending the arguments for God’s existence from the beginning and design of the universe. A few of my favorites have been:

The Creator and the Cosmos

Why The Universe Is The Way It Is

Improbable Planet

The primary focus of these books (and many of his others) have been on developing the arguments, presenting the evidence, and answering challenges from skeptics for the truth of Christianity. All these books contain pastoral elements that show how nature can be used to discover much about God’s character and His purposes for His creation. They all provide Christians with the content to follow Peter’s command in 1 Peter 3:15.

“Always Be Ready: A Call To Adventurous Faith” is Dr. Hugh Ross’ latest apologetics book. Usually, Dr. Ross’ published work focuses on the scientific evidence for the truth of Christianity, but this time he decided to do something different. In this book, he decided to focus on the apologetic influence of the evidences not only in his own life but in the lives of those he’s evangelized. In this book, he takes stories from his decades of scientific research, evangelistic efforts, and pastoral experiences to show to the reader the breadth and depth of what Peter’s command to “always be ready” means. Speaking primarily from his heart for those who are lost without Christ, Dr. Ross presents an engaging, encouraging, and essential book for those who wish to follow Peter’s command to always be ready.

This review will follow my usual chapter-by-chapter format concluding with my thoughts about the book. Because Dr. Ross tells many stories that are most effective told in his own words, I have left out all spoilers. First, though let me start with a short video of Dr. Ross speaking about the book:

Now, on to the review:

Chapter 1: Ready for What?

In the introductory chapter, Dr. Ross describes the phrase “always be ready” as meaning that someone is to take a defensive stance in different situations to protect or guard. He explains that, though, it is often understood in this context, that “always be ready” is often used in a more positive sense of being ready for an opportunity or experience. He explains that the purpose of this book is to focus on, like with his others, the positive side of being prepared to give a reason for the hope that we have in Christ (1 Peter 3:15)- always on the lookout for the opportunity to give the logical reasons for the hope that we have. Dr. Ross explains that in Peter’s command, there are three distinct parts: the “why,” the “what,” and the “how.” While his other books (many are reviewed on this blog) have focused on the “what” (the content to be defended), this book will focus more on the “how” and “why” of Peter’s command to the Church. The exciting opportunities that we should always be ready for are the situations that God, through His sovereignty, places us in to give the reasons for our hope and positively affect the person’s life for eternity. This book is written to be both a guide for the eager Christian case-maker and a personal testimony of the power of God when our hearts are committed to always be ready.

Chapter 2: Reasons in Review

Even though this book’s focus is on the “how” and “why,” a quick review of the “what” should certainly not be missing. Dr. Ross explains that since many people automatically believe that science argues against the truth of Christianity and the Bible when we present a case for their truth from science, it garners immediate attention and interest. Dr. Ross has found that in his many opportunities to speak with skeptics, four areas of science seem to be the most effective: the beginning of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe and earth, the origin of life, and the origin and advance of humans. Dr. Ross provides a quick overview of the evidence provided by science for what the Bible claims on each of these topics. He concludes the chapter by explaining how the earth is designed for the effective and efficient presentation of the Gospel to all nations of the earth: an encouraging and exciting reason to always be ready for the opportunities God is preparing for us to present the reasons for our Hope in Christ. For more details on the arguments and evidence presented in this chapter, see the books I linked to in the Introduction.

Chapter 3: Readiness in the Early Days

Dr. Ross takes the reader back to the early days of the Church, recorded in the book of Acts to describe was always be ready was like then. In the context of a “great persecution,” the Church thrived and grew. This was nothing but miraculous, the result of God exercising His sovereignty in arranging “chance” encounters with the Apostles and key people who could spread the Gospel most effectively. Dr. Ross describes seven unique instances recorded in Acts that he calls “divine orchestrations.” He argues that while any one of these events may be explainable as a “chance” event, the fact that they all happened in their respective contexts (including rejected opportunities by the Apostles to avoid persecution and numerous changed plans) argues powerfully for intentionality behind their happenings- that intention being the spread of the Gospel and the growth of the Church. Luke (the author of Acts) gives no indication that these divine orchestrations ceased with the early Church, so Dr. Ross reasons that God continues to prepare such encounters for Christians today. Like the Apostles, we must always be ready, intently searching for opportunities to communicate the reasons for the hope that we have in Christ.

Chapter 4: How God Reached Me

Dr. Ross uses his own life to demonstrate that divine orchestrations are common even today. He describes a series of unlikely events, severe challenges, and various circumstances that took place from his preschool years through high school that all seemed to have a singular purpose: His salvation through Jesus Christ. Not only does Dr. Ross testify to God’s purposefulness and sovereignty as he presents his story, he emphasizes the immense power of prayer for those who are unsaved and the great influences people can have on others even if exposure is only for a few minutes, which highlights the need for the Christian to always be ready.

Chapter 5: How God Readied Me

Dr. Ross continues his story. He takes the reader through his investigation of the various religions of the world, his doubts regarding naturalistic explanations for life’s origins, and his discoveries about the amazing congruence of Genesis 1 with what scientists have discovered. He discovered too that Genesis 1 answered the big “enigma” of the history of life. While his previous studies had already convinced him that a God of some kind created and fine-tuned the universe, it was not until he had spent two years testing the scientific, historical, and geographical claims of the Bible that he understood that the God who created and fine-tuned the universe is the God of the Bible. After battling pride and fear and trying to simply act like a Christian (and failing at it miserably), he realized that Christ was calling him to actual salvation and a life of surrender. Once Dr. Ross gave his life to Jesus Christ, his desire to tell those around him was strong but he was unsure how to start the conversations. He discovered that the divine orchestrations in his life did not end at his salvation, rather he became an instrument of divine orchestrations in the salvation of others. Through his willingness to always be ready, God placed him in situations, starting almost immediately following his salvation, to evangelize to others using the knowledge and talents that God had been cultivating in him since he was born.

Chapter 6: Readiness and “the Gift”

Among the spiritual gifts listed in Ephesians 4, evangelism is the one that is said, in the rest of scripture, to be given to every believer. Dr. Ross explains that since everyone has different talents, skills, and circumstances (and different combinations of these) that can all be used in evangelism, so every believer will express this gift differently. Further, Ephesians 4 also speaks of its list of spiritual gifts as being used to equip the Church for evangelism. So, evangelism is not only to be practiced to bring others into the Kingdom, it is to be used to strengthen fellow believers. Dr. Ross explains that his initial hesitancy in evangelizing was due to the fact that his being on the autistic spectrum provided communicative challenges (such as the inability to interpret or even recognize non-verbal communication) that are not identified with effective evangelists. However, this challenge caused him to realize the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit (it is not the Christian who is responsible for changing the heart), and he realized that God could actually use his “handicap” in the unique circumstances (divine orchestrations) that He placed him in. Dr. Ross learned that evangelism is not just a gift as an ability, but a gift from God that when we engage in it, we are more conformed to the character of Christ.

Chapter 7: Ready for Change

Dr. Ross then described the years that led to a dramatic change in the direction of his life. He talks about several exciting and intense evangelistic opportunities that he experienced while he was excelling in his studies and beginning his fellowship within a local church body. He was seeing how God was using his research, even way beyond Dr. Ross’ direct interaction, to bring people into the Kingdom. He also saw how God was preparing others to come alongside him in ministry. However, there was a point that his scientific career was taking off so strongly that he began to become prideful in his own accomplishments. This is when the most dramatic event happened to him that changed his attitude and the direction of his life into full-time ministry. (Sorry, no spoiler here!)

Chapter 8: Ready for Anything

As Dr. Ross began his full-time ministry, he became active in and led many ministries, including a door-to-door ministry, that saw numerous lives changed for Christ. Those who were involved in this ministry saw the power of Christ working and how God prepares the way for those who are ready. Dr. Ross details several specific experiences that seem to only make sense if God was, in fact, guiding the ministry. Several people (including a skeptic of the effectiveness of his approach), who co-labored with him in his ministry, also gave their accounts of various events and testified to the work of the Holy Spirit. Included in these stories, Dr. Ross recounts when it has been clear that the message of the Gospel was accepted in contrast to cultic groups messages, even when the two groups, going door to door, were doing so in the same neighborhood at the same time. He tells a story of an event that, by all naturalistic mechanisms, should not have taken place, and the person who Dr. Ross spoke with had to convince him that it was a direct intervention by God in an answer to prayer. Dr. Ross demonstrates how effective Christ can make His Body in evangelism if we make the commitment to always be ready.

Chapter 9: Ready for the Road

God took Dr. Ross and those who joined in his ministry beyond merely working in the local community to traveling nationally and internationally. He describes speaking trips to (at the time) communist Russia. He describes various challenges that arose from issues with everything from locations to translators. He saw how these challenges were turned, by God, into dramatically multiplied opportunities. These unlikely series events led to the acceptance of the Gospel by numerous attendees to the events, including top Russian government officials and scientists. Dr. Ross describes even more miraculous events that took place during trips to Mongolia and China. Throughout these stories, Dr. Ross emphasizes the role of prayer and consciously always being ready.

Chapter 10: Ready to Fly

“Always being ready” is not limited to just being ready on the ground but in the air, as well. With how often Dr. Ross travels via air, God works out divine orchestrations there as well. He has had numerous conversations on airplanes about evidence for the truth of Christianity with those who are deeply interested. Rarely are the conversations started by him, though; they are usually started by a fellow passenger making simple conversation about their career or seeing what Dr. Ross is either reading or working on with his laptop and wanting more information. These conversations are with both skeptics who are unaware of the evidence for Christianity and with Christians who are struggling with science/faith issues. Dr. Ross has found that these are to be expected and a quiet flight is rarely the case.

Chapter 11: Always Means Always

Dr. Ross has also discovered the extent to which “always” goes. God orchestrates encounters to build His Kingdom through our circumstances even when we do not feel up to it, whether emotionally or physically. Dr. Ross tells stories of God orchestrating apologetic encounters for him in the oddest of circumstances including an inconvenient stop at a supermarket and when he had bypass surgery. Dr. Ross emphasizes that no matter how inconvenient, uncomfortable, or just plain odd the situation, God is always prepared to use it if we commit to always be ready.

Chapter 12: Readiness Together

Through all the stories provided by Dr. Ross in the previous chapters, it is, no doubt, evident that it is important and effective to follow Peter’s command and “always being ready.” But being ready is not something that we cannot prepare for alone; it must be done in the community of the Church. In order for the Church to be a place where the Christian’s faith can be so vibrant that people will ask about its Source, the Church must not be afraid of doubt and tough questions. It is a doubt that drives tough questions that drives the search for answers- answers to questions that skeptics will also ask. Dr. Ross explains that intellectual doubters (and scientists, in particular) are not necessarily opposed to Christianity; they just either haven’t been presented with scientific evidence or have not seriously contemplated the existence of God; this is a ripe mission field. He emphasizes the importance of group leaders in the Church to be open to challenging questions from skeptics during the group meetings; this builds trust and opens spiritual doors for those who are seeking Christ. As questions and challenges are raised, sometimes disagreement upon the correct answer will arise among Christians. Dr. Ross emphasizes that part of “always being ready” includes being ready to deal gently and respectfully, being reconciled to one another as we model the Gospel of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19-20; John 13:35) to unbelievers.

Chapter 13: Readiness and Demeanor

Always being ready not only requires a readiness to give answers to questions but readiness to do so gently and respectfully. Many Christians approach giving answers by placing the questioner on the defensive regarding their claims, but instead of this resulting in an openness to alternative views (the Gospel) the intentions behind the approach are misinterpreted and cause a loss of trust which either results in the conversation abruptly concluding or an emotional “shouting” match to ensue. Dr. Ross encourages taking an approach that will encourage the building of trust between the Christian and the skeptic and help keep emotional barriers (caused by our demeanor) to Christ low. He encourages allowing the skeptic to put us on the defensive; encourage them to ask their tough and honest questions, and when we have the opportunity to ask questions, ask ones that are open-ended and designed to draw out the source of their hesitancy to accept Christ. Always being ready involves not only being prepared in our knowledge but also in a winsome presentation of that knowledge.

Chapter 14: The Readiness Bonus

Always being ready results in much joy as God uses us continually to build His kingdom, but there exists an added bonus that Dr. Ross sees in Scripture but is rarely mentioned. This is that we grow in our faith as we share it and present reasons for it. As we obey Christ’s command of the Great Commision (Matt 28:19), God brings us closer to Him in our knowledge, character, and relationship (Philemon 6). In actively sharing our faith, we discover that even though we are not perfect at presenting it, the Holy Spirit can still draw people to Him. We also discover that the Holy Spirit does not limit His work in only the person we are answering; often others are listening in and their hearts are being ministered to and being prepared by the Holy Spirit to enter the Kingdom. Dr. Ross explains several other biblical bonuses that come with always being ready, including proper responses to fear, doubt, and ridicule. He explains that always being ready is a life-long pursuit; no matter how much we know about God, He is infinite, so there will always be more to learn, and that increased knowledge further prepares for more of what God has in store for us.

Chapter 15: Ready for Action

In the concluding chapter, Dr. Ross calls the reader to action. He tells of several creative ways others have demonstrated their readiness. He reminds the reader that if they commit to follow Peter’s command to always be ready, God will always be ready to use them in any and every situation to build and strengthen the Kingdom.

Reviewer’s Thoughts

“Always Be Ready” was an exciting, engaging and encouraging read. I can never get enough of hearing how God works through the Body of Christ to build His Kingdom. Dr. Ross’ stories not only speak to the power of the Christian always being prepared to give a reason for the hope that we have, but it demonstrates powerfully how God is sovereignly working through those who make the decision to strive for that preparation. It is amazing how God works through the people and the circumstances to bring these Christians in contact with those who hunger for salvation and a personal relationship with their Creator. I not only enjoyed the stories but I garnered much wisdom as to how to cultivate my own preparedness for the use of our Savior. Our God is truly an awesome God with an awesome plan, and it is exciting to see how He works out this plan through the evangelistic efforts of His faithful children. This book serves as a tremendous encouragement to all Christians to wish to see how God uses evidence from His creation to work in the lives of the unbeliever and the believer. The evidence of God’s work presented in this book will, no doubt, bring much joy to the Christian’s heart and get you excited to be used by your Creator and Savior for an eternal purpose. For every Christian who is passionate about completing the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19), “Always Be Ready: A Call To Adventurous Faith” is for you.

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

September 30, 2018/by Guest

Book Review: The Creator Revealed

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

Today I am excited to bring you a review of a book that I have been anticipating for a little over a year and a half. In January 2017 particle physicist and University of Oklahoma professor, Dr. Michael G. Strauss (check out his blog and YouTube channel) and I were talking, and he informed me that he had been working on a book about science and faith for a while. He gave me an overview of the content and even let me in on a sneak peek of the book. After reading through what was already “on paper,” I was incredibly excited to see it published. Dr. Strauss’ goal with “The Creator Revealed: A Physicist Examines the Big Bang, and the Bible” was to provide the scientific, theological, and biblical evidence for the big bang in a non-technical and more conversational tone.

The book is relatively short (126 pages, not counting the appendices) compared to other works on this topic, and the seventeen chapters are bite-sized. This review will be my usual chapter-by-chapter summary followed by my thoughts (as if the first line above didn’t give you an indication). Before we get to the review, check out this interview with Dr. Strauss about science and faith and his experience with scientists and students:

Now, on to the book review…

Chapter 1: An Important Question

Strauss begins his book with a discussion of the importance, for the Christian, of seriously and critically investigating the beginning of the universe. He explains that since God created the universe, it accurately reveals His character and His glory (Psalms 19:1). An investigation of the universe will present evidence for its Creator and the proper worldview. Those who are presented with this evidence should follow it where it leads. If evidence for God is presented by the creation, then it follows that the investigator should believe that God exists.

The reigning model among scientists is the general big bang model. Many scientists claim to hold to this model due to the evidence that the creation has presented to them for its truth. Strauss explains that if some form of the big bang model does accurately explain the beginning of the universe, it has great implications for the discussion of God’s existence, His character, and whether someone should follow Christ. Thus it is imperative that the Christian approach this topic with an open and evangelistic mindset that is committed to not only the inerrant truth and authority of God’s Word but also the truth revealed by God’s actions (His creation). With this, Strauss transitions into a description of the general big bang model and some of the evidence that convinced even atheistic scientists that it accurately describes the beginning of our universe.

Part 1: The Big Bang Reveals God’s Character

Chapter 2: The Big Bang

While many Christians have heard of the big bang model for the creation of the universe, there are some dire misconceptions of it that prevent an accurate assessment of the scientific and biblical evidence for it. Strauss begins by correcting these misconceptions, including the ideas that the big bang was an explosion of preexisting matter and that it was an explosion at all. He explains that the big bang merely posits that the universe began from literally “no thing” some time ago in the finite past.

Strauss uses an analogy to the game of Mouse Trap to explain how we can reasonably conclude how the universe formed. Beginning with the proper setup of the elaborate trap and knowing how the laws of physics operate, without ever turning the crank, we can still accurately imagine how the process will unfold to finally trap the mice. Likewise, we can begin with the most fundamental particles of the universe and the laws of physics and use computers to “imagine” how the process will unfold to create a universe. As these computer simulations go through the process, we see that they generate what we observe in the universe today, thus it is reasonable to believe that the big bang model that they simulate accurately represents the beginning conditions of our universe and the elapse of time since that beginning.

Chapter 3: How Do You Know?

Many Christians raise many challenges to the idea of the big bang that question the certainty of the conclusion and that conclusion’s compatibility with the Bible. Strauss will address the biblical challenges later, but in this chapter, he addresses the strength of the observational and theoretical case. He begins by explaining how we can know the events of the past even though no person was “there” to observe them (a common objection). For instance, observing the presence of a snakeskin on the ground is evidence that a snake had shed its skin, even though no one was present to witness this past event. Just as if a snake shed its skin in the past, we would expect to find a snakeskin, if the big bang happened, we would expect to find certain features as we observe the universe.

Before getting into the observations and to keep things interesting, Strauss notes that at the time the evidence for the big bang starting coming in, scientists were perfectly satisfied with the current beginningless model of the universe at the time because it did not require any kind of Creator at all. However, when the evidence for a beginning of the universe started being discovered, it caused a huge philosophical uproar in the scientific community. Strauss describes the observations of the expansion of the universe, the radiation present throughout the universe, and the relative abundances of the elements. All the observations pointed strongly enough to the universe having a beginning. However, on top of that, theoretical physicists over the last century (including Einstein and Hawking) have done work that has been found accurate in their precise predictions of observations, and others have done work that solidifies the necessity of a beginning based upon both observation and theory. The beginning of the universe has been (reluctantly) accepted due to the certainty level demanded by the evidence even in the context of a philosophical presupposition against God’s existence.

Chapter 4: The Transcendent Creator

But the big bang does not stop at merely providing evidence for the universe having a beginning. The big bang provides evidence of the identity of the Cause of the universe. Strauss explains that as will any good crime mystery story, the perpetrator leaves behind clues as to his or her identity that allows the investigator to accurately identify them. According to Romans 1:20, these clues are not only there but were intentionally left there and are clearly seen by those who investigate the universe. So, even if scientists are philosophically committed against the identity of the Cause of the universe, they will still clearly see clues that point to the attributes (thus the identity) of the Creator. Strauss emphasizes that this is exactly what is happening with the big bang.

The first attribute of the Creator that Strauss shows is demanded of a big bang universe (thus evidenced in our universe) is the transcendence of its cause. If the big bang was the beginning of all energy, space and time, then the cause of the big bang has to exist outside this universe. Strauss explains that this is significant to identifying the Creator because only the Bible explicitly identifies the Creator as acting prior to the beginning of (thus being outside or transcending) the universe. This means that the Creator is not made of anything physical (matter or energy) and is something completely different: spirit, according to John 4:24.

Chapter 5: Design in the Universe

To identify further characteristics of the Cause of the universe, it is important to examine the fine-tuning of various features of the universe for life. Of the hundreds of characteristics that would be examined, Strauss has chosen to describe three to keep from getting too technical and losing the reader. Strauss takes a look at the amount of matter in the universe, the strength of the strong nuclear force, and the formation of carbon. All of these, if their numbers were slightly different, one direction or the other, from what they are, the universe would be not only be devoid of life but would be hostile to life. The fact that these values could have been different, yet are not, indicates that the Cause of the universe intended for the universe to be an eventual home for life.

Chapter 6: A Plan for Humans

Building upon the finely tuned features described in the previous chapter, Strauss explains that Romans 1:20’s claim that God’s “attributes are clearly seen” is being demonstrated in the scientific literature. Strauss cites the works of several skeptical scientists who explicitly state that the design characteristics of the universe, that have been discovered as a product of modern big bang cosmology, point exclusively to the cause having the intention, forethought, and ultimately a purpose for the universe. Some scientists believe this so strongly, yet they want to deny God as the Creator, that they believe that man (as an intelligent designer with purpose) will eventually be able to reach back in time to create the universe themselves. Even though they refuse to acknowledge God as Creator, His attributes are clearly seen and recognized by these skeptical scientists. This recognition of the intentionality and purpose of the Creator is exactly what the Christian should expect from the correct theory of the universe’s beginning. Big bang cosmology is directly producing the results the Christian expects- that the universe speaks powerfully that it was created intentionally for humanity.

Chapter 7: The Garden of Eden

Continuing on the topic of design for humanity, Strauss zooms in from the level of the universe as a whole to our galaxy, solar system, and planet. He explains how the type, size, and age of the Milky Way Galaxy must be just right for advanced life to not only survive but be even possible. Zooming in closer, to our solar system, Strauss shows the specific characteristics of our sun are unique (and also finely tuned), and he discusses the importance of gaseous giant planets like Saturn and Jupiter for protecting life from cosmic debris. Finally, Strauss looks at some of the characteristics of our planet that make is uniquely suitable for advanced life. Again, in all of these investigations, we see that the creation reveals that is was created with intentionality and purpose.

Chapter 8: Characteristics of the Creator

Summing up the previous chapters, Strauss emphasizes that the Christian not only has the testimony of God’s creation that the big bang is an accurate description of the beginning of the universe, but the Christian also has the incredible alignment between the characteristics demanded of the cause of the big bang and the God of the Bible. These characteristics are not evident only to those who glance at the creation, but it is unmistakable to those who investigate it deeply. The Apostle Paul’s claims about the clarity of the revelation of the Creator through the creation Romans 1:20 is borne out with every new discovery that confirms that the universe had a beginning and was designed for the benefit of humanity.

Part 2: A Biblical Beginning

Chapter 9: Mistakes of the Past

For the Christian, nature is not the only source of truth from the Creator. The Bible is the Creator’s written source of truth. Since both sources are from the same Author, when we interpret them, our interpretations cannot be in conflict because the sources themselves are not in conflict. Strauss explains to the reader that the Church has made mistakes in the past regarding interpretation that still make nonbelievers suspicious of the Church today, so it is important that we do not repeat the same mistakes as we search for the proper interpretation of debateable biblical passages. The two interpretive guidelines to always remember are that the passages are written from a particular perspective and that some passages do have multiple reasonable interpretations. While there is only one correct interpretation of these passages, honest disagreement on the correct interpretation can take place without questioning one’s commitment to the Bible as God’s inerrant and authoritative Word. These two guidelines are important in our humble pursuit of truth and will guide Strauss’ investigation of the creation passages and their possible agreement with the big bang.

Chapter 10: Rules of the Game

Before beginning to investigate the creation passages of the Bible, Strauss takes the time to describe three rules of interpretation. He emphasizes that if this step is not done beforehand, then those involved could easily be using different rules of interpretation that will result in very little progress. The rules that he covers are not new and have been used since the beginning of the Church, but since they may not be explicit in the mind of the reader, it is important to lay them out.

Strauss emphasizes the that the goal of interpretation is to discover the meaning that the author of a particular passage intended to communicate to the audience. The first of the rules is to always consider the literary context- the surrounding passages, the book, and the Bible as a whole. Driven by a commitment to biblical inerrancy, this rule requires that no two interpretations of two passages may be in conflict with one another. The second is to understand figurative language and recognize when it may be in use. Forgetting such an important thing can result in all sorts of misunderstandings, even in everyday life. Finally, we must consider the cultural context in which the passage was communicated. Strauss concludes the chapter with an exercise of interpreting 1 Corinthians 11:4-6 using these principles to demonstrate how they are properly applied.

Chapter 11: The Days of Genesis

One of the big questions Christians have about big bang cosmology is whether or not it is compatible with sound exegesis (reading things out of Scripture rather than into Scripture). Essential to this question is the proper meaning of the word interpreted as “day” when used to describe the periods of time of God’s creation. Using the principles and guidelines described in the previous two chapters, Strauss takes the reader through interpreting this word. Of the uses of the word “day” in Genesis 1-2 that do not refer to the days of creation, there are seven instances, four of which are unique in their meanings. Some refer to less than twenty-four hours, and others refer to a lot longer. All of these definitions are considered to be literal interpretations. Because of these possibilities, it is reasonable to consider that the original author used the word literally and that he meant it as a longer period of time.

Many Christians, who strongly oppose even the possibility of this exegetical conclusion, often appeal to the immediate context to undermine this possibility. They propose that “day” in the presence of either a number or “evening and morning” necessitates that “day” is twenty-four. Strauss examines the wider context of Scripture to provide examples of the presence of both of these (one even believed to also be penned by Moses) that do not mean twenty-four hours. The presence of these examples in Scripture undermine the claim that their presence in Genesis 1 exegetically demands a twenty-four interpretation. Another attempt to undermine the long-period-of-time interpretation is God’s comparing the work week to the creation week in Exodus 20:9-11. Strauss points out that the same pattern is applied to a different period of time (years) just a few verses later, so if the application of the pattern necessitates that the compared period of time is twenty-four hours, then it requires that years are also twenty-four hours. But that conclusion is false, so it is also false that the application to the days of Genesis necessitates that they are twenty-four hours. Consequently, while the days of Genesis are periods of time, the Bible does not tell us exactly how long they are.

Strauss has, thus far, shown how big bang cosmology is compatible with an exegetical, historical and literal interpretation of Genesis; thus it is perfectly compatible with Scripture.

Chapter 12: As God Sees It

Even though the Bible does not tell us the details of how long the creation days were or when the universe was initially created, it does provide many incredible details that could have only been known by an eye-witness to the creation. Strauss takes this chapter to describe just a few. He begins his discussion of these details by reminding the reader that for proper exegesis (again, interpreting out of Scripture and not into Scripture) that all of Scripture is told from a perspective. We have to determine where exactly that perspective is in Genesis. Genesis 1:2 tells just precisely where the Spirit of God was, thus the perspective of the rest of the chapter- the surface of planet earth.

Strauss notes that a confirmation of this perspective is that the sun and moon are described as “the great lights,” yet we know that they are quite puny compared to other lights in the universe. The descriptor of “great” is only true if written from the perspective of the surface of the earth. Now, from this perspective, Genesis 1 describes the initial conditions of earth as formless, empty, dark, and watery. As scientists continue their investigation into the history of our planet and they develop and test theories of planetary formation, they are discovering that the descriptions of formless, empty, dark, and watery are a perfect match for the initial conditions of our planet. This could only have been known by the Creator since there were no human witnesses; this provides powerful confirmation that the Bible is truly inspired by the Creator of the universe.

Chapter 13: The Order of Creation

The other incredible details provided by Genesis 1 about the creation are present in the descriptions of God’s actions on those days. Using the perspective established from Genesis 1:2 and being mindful of the original Hebrew and the context of the passages, Strauss takes the reader through properly interpreting the passages and clearly states the claims of each of the days of creation. He then shows that each of the claimed events has been shown to be accurate by scientists in the appropriate fields. He also demonstrates how presumably problematic passages are resolved when the proper perspective is utilized, and the original Hebrew words are considered.

Not only is the content of Genesis 1 accurate, but the order is accurate as well. The Genesis 1 account of creation, when reading literally and from the correct perspective, provides accurate (though not comprehensive) historical record of the formation of our planet and life. Considering how many different claims are made throughout Genesis 1 about the history of earth that the author could easily have gotten wrong but didn’t, this evidence further solidifies the case that the Bible was inspired by the Creator of the universe. This comes as no surprise to the Christian, for this is exactly what is expect since the Bible and nature have the same source: God.

Chapter 14: Sin, Death, and the Future

One of the main concerns of Christians who reject big bang cosmology is that it requires that animals died before the fall of humanity. They believe that God created the world perfect with no pain, suffering or death, and Adam’s sin spoiled all that. If this belief is true, then any view that allows for animal death before the fall of Adam and Eve cannot be true. Strauss’ goal in this chapter is not a comprehensive examination of this view but rather a few surface observations that will cause the reader to consider that this is not the best way to interpret the Genesis text.

As with before Strauss takes the reader into the greater context of the whole Bible to help interpret. Staying within Genesis, though, he notes that “very good” is used instead of “perfect;” God increases Eve’s birthing pains, but does not create them; Adam knew what “death” was when God gave him the warning to not eat of the tree (indicating that he may already be familiar with death), and Adam did not physically die in the same twenty-four period that he first disobeyed God. The immediate context certainly does not require that the creation was without suffering and death before Adam’s sin. Additionally, when the context is expanded to the New Testament, the death referred to in the context of sin is almost always spiritual death. Meaning that the death that was a result of the fall of Adam and Eve did not affect non-spiritual beings (such as plants and animals). Plants and animals could have died (physical death) long before sin entered the world (consequence: spiritual death). Since the New Testament describes death that cannot be experienced by plants and animals (spiritual death), the kind of death that they do experience (physical death) is not a theological nor biblical problem for the Christian who affirms that it took place before sin entered the world to bring spiritual death to spiritual beings.

Part 3: Truth Changes Lives

Chapter 15: The Truth Shall Set You Free

Many Christians are so zealous for Christ that they offer stories and evidence that are simply not true. Strauss begins the final part of his book by giving an example of one such story that is often repeated as scientific evidence of the truth of the Bible but is not a true story in the least. He explains that Christians must be careful of repeating such false evidence because it reduces the credibility of the rest of our witness for the Gospel. Strauss explains that some Christians fall victim to false evidences because they are unconsciously fearful that further investigation will bring a crisis of faith. An example of this would be when Christians have been repeatedly told that big bang cosmology is an atheistic theory and they are hesitant to study and accept the evidence because it would mean that Christianity is false. Strauss reminds the reader that there is nothing to fear on such studies (whether it is the big bang or something else) because we serve the God of all truth. And no matter what we find to be true, it will always be compatible with Christianity. Investigating and accepting what is true gives the Christian true reasons that they can provide to the unsaved as evidence of the truth of Christianity.

Evangelism is not the only place where investigating and accepting the evidence no matter where it leads is a blessing to the Christian. Strauss relates a story of a friend who was an amateur astronomer who knew the evidence for the universe’s antiquity yet he was taught all his life that the Bible only allowed for the universe to be young. This friend experienced a cognitive dissonance that resulted in his worship of God with his mind and heart being stunted. However, when the biblical compatibility of an ancient universe was presented to him, he was able to reconcile the evidence for an ancient universe with the truth of God’s Word. The truth set his mind free and heart free to worship God like never before. Because we serve a God of truth, following the evidence where it leads is nothing to fear, and God will honor you with a closer relationship with Him and a more powerful witness to Jesus Christ.

Chapter 16: With All Your Mind

Many surveys and statistics show that people lose their childhood faith in the college years. Strauss attests to this in his experience as a college professor. He attributes much of it to a serious lack of the North American church’s willingness to love God with all our minds. Our children are often discouraged from asking tough questions (see the previous chapter). They do not usually get intellectual recognition of their tough questions until they are in an environment where skeptics are all too eager to provide answers. When provided with evidence that contradicts what they have been taught about the first chapters of Genesis, they often reason that God is untrustworthy in the rest of His revelation, including the Gospel. If the Christian student does retain some semblance of faith, it is usually compartmentalized, but that compartmentalization does not last long; God is usually abandoned.

Strauss explains that there is hope, though, through our setting the example and loving God with our minds. We must investigate and follow that evidence (again, see the previous chapter). He provides an example of the results of such an effort. One student went through the process described above all the way to the end of leaving the faith. However, when the truth of what Scripture actually does teach about origins was shown to be fully compatible with the evidence being offered as defeaters by the skeptics he spoke to, his faith was renewed. He realized that God, in fact, was truly trustworthy in what He revealed in Scripture. He followed the evidence and the logical path of trust from Genesis to Jesus. Jesus commands us to love God with all our minds (Mark 12:30), and when we do so, we can be the instrument that Christ uses to bring others back to Him.

Chapter 17: No God or Know God

In the concluding chapter, Strauss tells the story of an atheist who heard one of his talks covering the content of this book. While the atheist already understood and accepted the big bang as the beginning of the universe, he was never presented with evidence that it also powerfully supported the God of the Bible. After hearing Strauss speak of how the big bang was a theistic theory that was rejected for so long by scientists on that fact alone, he became interested and started investigating the claims of Jesus to be God. After completing his investigation he was convinced that the big bang, indeed, pointed to the God of the Bible as the Creator and that Jesus was who He claimed to be. This atheist surrendered his life to Jesus Christ, and Dr. Strauss has had the joy of watching him grow and become an enthusiastic ambassador of Christ. God spoke clearly to this atheist through His creation, and the Truth changed his life.

Reviewer’s Thoughts

As I mentioned in the introduction, when I read the sneak preview of the book, I was extremely excited and couldn’t wait for Dr. Strauss to get his book published. This is the most succinct yet non-technical book I have read about the implications of the big bang on Christianity. I love that Strauss presents the basic case for the big bang from both nature and the Bible side-by-side. I loved his focus on Romans 1:20 and his clarifying that the big bang is inherently a theistic theory (it is not an atheistic theory, as many Christians incorrectly believe), and that is what actually caused the majority of the scientific community to reject the clear evidence for so long. I particularly appreciate his dedication to biblical inerrancy as he presents a careful and exegetical case from Scripture. He addresses the most common challenges and questions from Christians to help remove any fear that they are compromising Scripture or God’s character at any point by following the evidence where it leads.

Strauss’ concise descriptions, use of analogies, stories from his life, and the sprinkling of jokes throughout makes a rather dry subject very enjoyable, understandable, and exciting. The length of each chapter and the book as a whole are perfect for those who are curious but do not have the time to devote to the more in-depth and technical works available (although it may spark an interest in pursuing a deeper investigation). With all of these characteristics and the fact that it covers an extremely important evangelistic tool, “The Creator Revealed” is a must-have book for every Christian who is passionate about the Great Commission. This book needs to be in every church library and on the bookshelf of every Christian parent and educator and pastor. Most every Christian knows someone who has dismissed Christ from their lives because they believe that the creation, via the big bang, eliminates the need for the Creator. God has placed you in their life to show them how they have unnecessarily rejected their Savior. Get this book, and prepare yourself to “give [them] a reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15).

For more in-depth studies into the big bang and the Bible check out these great books:

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

September 11, 2018/by Guest

Are Nature and Scripture Compatible?

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

The debate about the proper interaction of science and theology is raging as much as it has ever been. Hot tempers fly that result in ice-cold relationships. For as much discussion and debate that takes place, it seems that nothing is being accomplished. For those caught in the middle, questions still remain unanswered:

What do we do when science contradicts our theology, or our theology contradicts science?
Are they allowed to contradict?
If not, which should I choose?
Can’t they just agree to disagree?

These are all questions that shaped my spiritual struggle several years ago. I was constantly told that I could not trust science because it contradicted my theology, and at the same time I was told that I could not trust theology because it denied science. I felt like I had a choice: live a double life allowing one source of truth (religion) in one area of reality, but not allowing it relevance in the other areas. Or I could completely deny one of them as a valid source of truth, giving up my theology completely, or giving up science completely.

How could I live what I do not believe, and how could I deny what I know to be true? These further haunting questions demanded answers yet seemed unanswerable. Neither hypocrisy nor denial are very appealing traits. Unfortunately, these are often presented as the only options available in our search for the true worldview. In this post, my goal is to present a compelling alternative that grants that science and theology are valid sources of truth that often overlap in the aspects of reality that they claim to explain. I will also put forth a method for dealing with conflicts in the overlapping areas and explain the liabilities of not dealing with such conflicts.

The Overlap

I believe that science and theology are fully compatible with one another. Both often speak about the same features of reality, but because we are not omniscient, we often find that our science and our theology contradict one another. If we wish for our theology to inform our understandings of creation (scientific models) and behavior towards each other and the rest of creation (ethics- 2 Timothy 3:16), overlap is necessary. Likewise, if we wish for our science to inform our theology (Romans 1:20), overlap is necessary. If we are to believe that overlap is necessary, then contradictions cannot exist between science and theology. This will be the starting point for this alternative view. The next step is to make an important distinction.

Interpretation and Raw Data

The next step to this view is the distinction between raw data and the interpretation of the raw data. When we are attempting to reconcile science and theology, we are attempting to reconcile the raw data that each one interprets. For science that raw data is nature, and for theology that raw data is the scriptures (original language, where possible). Every piece of raw data must be interpreted. By interpretation, I mean that we examine the raw data and explain it in light of the other raw data that we have. It is common, and incorrect, for someone to confuse nature (the raw data) with science (the interpretation) and/or scripture (the raw data) with theology (the interpretation). The raw data is what is necessarily infallible (to use the religious term), while our interpretation (in virtue of our lack of omniscience) is necessarily fallible, but not necessarily false. The processes described below will help our interpretation of nature (science), and our interpretation of scripture (theology) reflect the full, true understanding of each.

Nature and Science

Science is very dependent upon the assumption that the universe is consistent. No two features of reality will contradict one another, and under the same circumstances, observations will be repeatable. If experiments or studies are conducted in the same way, but they yield data that can only be interpreted to conflict with current science (interpretation of other data), the scientists will repeat again to find data that can be interpreted as consistent with current science and look for the unique factor in each instance of the experiment that yielded the data with the conflicting interpretation. All data that is found is interpreted in light of the rest of the data already yielded. If an experiment or observation (after repeated and thoroughly investigated multiple times) still yields data that demands an interpretation contrary to science, a reinterpretation of past data is necessary (a change in the science results). The process repeats for any and all new data that comes. Here is a flowchart to give a visual of this process:

Even though it is common for data to come that is compatible with current science, there is rarely a single interpretation that is compatible. Multiple compatible interpretations leads to the creation of multiple models of a phenomenon. Each one takes interpretations that are still “on the table” (since they have not been eliminated by other data yet), and use possibilities to make predictions about future data. As more data become available, models that predicted conflicting results are adjusted (interpretations are changed) to accommodate the only possible interpretations of the new data (if multiple interpretations exist, this can spawn variations of the model) or are abandoned completely because the conflict cannot be reconciled with the possible interpretations of the other data that are compatible with the model. While models are weeded out as accurately explaining reality, more detailed models are proposed, and the process starts all over again. Put plainly, nature interprets nature to eliminate incorrect scientific view and highlight possibly correct ones.

Scripture and Theology

Dealing with scripture (the Bible) is very similar to the process of dealing with nature described above. Many theologians begin by accepting that scripture is the inerrant word of God, who cannot lie. This means that the same consistency that allows for testing of scientific models exists to test theological views. No two scriptures contradict one another, so no correct interpretations of two scriptures can contradict one another. If it is found that a theological view holds an interpretation of a scripture that contradicts an interpretation of another, the interpretation of one of them (if not both) is incorrect, and reinterpretation is required. In the development of a correct theological interpretation of scripture, this process continues. Here is the flow chart (notice how similar it is to the one above):

Just like with science, multiple interpretations of scripture do abound, and even after going through this process to make certain that all scripture is taken into consideration and no contradictions exist in the view, several possible interpretations of scripture may still be valid. These are all considered compatible with scripture. Since there are multiple views compatible with the raw data of scripture, many different theological views exist within Christianity. As more archaeological artifacts are recovered and analyzed and more historical and linguistic studies are conducted regarding the original content of scripture, possible interpretations of scriptures can be ruled out or ruled in. This allows for adjustment or abandonment of theological views (if possible interpretations are ruled out), and allows for the recognition of compatibility of other theological views (if possible interpretations are ruled in). As more theological systems are weeded out as accurately reflecting scripture, more detailed interpretations are offered and tested against still more scholarship. Simply put, scripture interprets scripture to eliminate incorrect theological views and highlight possibly correct ones.

Worldviews and Reality

Both systems depend upon ontological consistency (nature does not contradict nature and scripture does not contradict scripture) that demands epistemology consistency (interpretations of nature cannot contradict other interpretations of nature and interpretations of scriptures cannot contradict interpretations of other scriptures). However, neither of these systems are complete.

While science may point to metaphysical reality, it cannot directly observe it. While theology may speak broadly about nature, it lacks much minute details. Both science and theology on their own have many views that are evidentially, equally valid. As a Christian, I believe that God created the universe and inspired scripture. I believe that God is not deceptive; thus his works (nature) do not contradict (the ontological foundation for science’s presupposition that nature is consistent) and his words (scripture) do not contradict one another (the ontological foundation for Biblical inerrancy). Here’s the simple flow chart:

Since both nature and scripture come from God, the two of them do not contradict. If we come to an interpretation of nature that contradicts an interpretation of scripture, one of the interpretations (if not both) is incorrect. We must reevaluate our interpretation of both in light of the other raw data to find the proper interpretation of reality. If all the data in science can be interpreted consistently in, say, ten different ways, but seven are incompatible with any compatible interpretation of scripture, the Christian must throw away those seven interpretations of nature. Likewise, if we have eight consistent interpretations of scripture, yet only three of those interpretations are compatible with nature, we must remove the other five (otherwise biblically compatible) interpretations from the table of accurately explaining reality. That would leave us with three possible interpretations of reality between nature and scripture. Now we have four points of interpretive interaction with nature and scripture:

Nature interprets nature
Scripture interprets scripture
Scripture interprets nature
Nature interprets scripture

Ultimately, this results in “reality interprets reality” to yield a correct worldview. Here is the completed flowchart that visually details the process:

This is certainly a rigorous and challenging but rewarding process. As scholarship in the sciences and humanities are constantly making new discoveries that provide more insight into the proper interpretation of both nature and scripture, the Christian is provided with more information; some of which fits easily into the Christians interpretations of nature and scripture. However, it is common that data will arise that challenges interpretations of nature and interpretations of scripture. The Christian must not ignore the data by refusing to reinterpret their views of nature or scripture.

The Dangers of Denial

When we hold an interpretation of nature (science) that does not reflect reality, we will be challenged by the raw data of scripture. When we hold an interpretation of scripture (theology) that does not reflect reality, we will be challenged by the raw data of nature. An unwillingness to reinterpret raw data of either nature or scripture, in light of no compatible interpretation from the other betrays our commitment, not to truth, but to tradition. Tradition is based on interpretation, which is necessarily fallible because we are not omniscient. This is dangerous to both evangelism and discipleship.

Dangers to Evangelism

When skeptics see that we hold fast to tradition (even though they may be doing the same thing) between nature and scripture (while we also claim that both come from the same honest God), it is no surprise that they are skeptical of our views. Reality has no contradiction in it, and they know that. If a worldview has even one internal contradiction, it cannot be the correct view of reality.

Those who read this blog often know that I interact with many internal discussions to Christianity because I believe it is important that we are defending a correct worldview, not just generally, but specifically. If people are looking for a reason to reject a general worldview, they will look at the details of certain views within that worldview to find contradictions with reality. When those contradictions are discovered, they become a stumbling block to the skeptic. And the Christian who promotes such contradictions (despite their noble intentions) become a liability to completion of the Great Commission. A willingness to reinterpret raw data of nature and scripture allows skeptics to understand that we are committed to discovering the truth and that if a challenge is valid, it will be addressed in a way that contradiction is removed from our worldview. When contradiction with reality does not exist in our presented worldview, there is no logical reason to deny its truth. Rather the truth must be suppressed.

Dangers to Discipleship

Of course, the dangers do not only end with evangelism. Our own relationship with God is limited when we refuse to acknowledge contradiction in our worldview. I want to be clear: I am NOT saying that a Christian without a perfect worldview cannot know God correctly, we can. However, every detail that we have wrong about God and what He has done places a limit on our ability to worship Him in spirit and in truth. Our willingness to recognize and abandon incorrect views within our worldview will be rewarded with a deeper understanding of more of God’s attributes and His works. This results in a more profound and rewarding worship of our Creator. A worship of our Creator that is based on a false idea of who He is or what He has not done, is not true worship.

These Dangers Plague Us All (Conclusion)

Since no person is omniscient, I am speaking to all of us (including myself). If we refuse to reinterpret when all attempts to find logical consistency fail, our dedication to a false view of reality will limit our effectiveness for the Kingdom and will limit our relationship with our Creator. God has given us multiple sources of revelation (nature and scripture) and has endowed us with minds capable of using logic to bring both revelations together to discover the truth of reality. God is brought glory when we commit to discovering truth — when we refuse to allow dearly held traditions to stand between our knowing who God truly is and our accurate representation of Him to the world.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2OAjkS9

August 21, 2018/by Guest