Tag Archive for: Scripture

The Suffering Christian

We live in a troubled world, plagued by sin which leads to pain and suffering. This state of the world is nothing new, it has gone on since the fall of man. The entirety of humankind from Adam to us have dealt with a variety of suffering as a result of this fall. However, though we do not live in a more sinful time, for every age has overflowed with sinfulness, we seem to be facing a different struggle. Our society is fighting a battle of the mind, and losing.

We Just Can’t Even

We live in a world where many cannot seem to bear the slightest sorrow. This makes it all the more difficult to persevere through the most difficult situations anyone of us could face; such as the loss of a loved one, a severe medical diagnosis, the loss of a job, and other heavy burdens. This mental and emotional crisis has been the result of one of the Church’s failings — teaching how to properly handle suffering. This has spread outside of the church and into our society. To put it plainly, we have lost the ability to suffer well. In recent years, our minds have been flooded with messages telling us that we all need therapy, we need to talk about all of our emotions, we need to constantly think about and share whatever trauma we have over and over again

Where can we actually find help?

The problem is that this doesn’t seem to be helping. We are more depressed and more anxious than ever. But how should we deal with suffering? Where can we find comfort and help in our suffering? Our Lord has provided us three supports to comfort and strengthen us in this life: prayer, scripture, and the Church.

Prayer: The best guide to prayer that we have are the Psalms. If you need examples of prayers read through Psalms, and you will find a prayer for nearly every situation of life. But if you don’t know what to pray, or you can’t summon the strength to, remember Romans 8:26 “Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.”

The Spirit Himself will pray for us and understands our groanings when we don’t know what to say. In prayer we lift up our lives, the blessings and the sufferings to God, for only God our savior has the strength to carry us through.

Scripture: Studying the Bible, like prayer, is an essential part of the Christian life, especially in times of pain and suffering. The Bible is filled with a multitude of books such as Lamentations and Psalms to help us. I encourage you to read through the Gospels and through the sufferings that Jesus experienced. Scripture reminds us that Christ is with us in our sufferings. He understands and has experienced sufferings greater, and similar to our own.

Moreover, the Apostle Paul lets us know that our affliction is ultimately making us stronger and preparing us for eternity in 2 Corinthians 4:17 saying, “For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison . . .”

The Church: Another major tool that God has given us, is the Church, the body of believers. We are not alone in our sufferings. If you are not a part of a local Bible-believing church, join one, and if you have a church, reach out to them. You don’t have to share with everyone all the gory details about the circumstances you might be facing, but you need the support of your brothers and sisters in Christ. The responsibility is not yours alone — God has commanded the Body of Christ [fellow Christians] to stand with you and share your sufferings. Paul writes, “Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2).

We are all one Church. We must be unified. So, if you know another believer is struggling with loss or pain, reach out and help them. This is how we are to love one another.

How Should We Respond to Suffering?

These support structures will help you persevere when you are in the midst of affliction, but there is more that is needed for you to thrive in your suffering. On top of the practical help that we’ve been given, we must also have the proper attitude and emotional response to life’s hardships. To discover how we should respond, we must look at scripture. The most well-known example of suffering in the Bible is Job. In his story, God allowed Satan to take all of Job’s earthly possessions and to kill Job’s children. When this happened, Job’s first response was to worship the Lord and bless His name.

“Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped. 21 And he said, ‘Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.’ 22 In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong” (Job 1:20-22).

This by no means is an easy thing to do, but the Bible sets this up as the correct response to suffering. Our first act should be to worship and glorify the Lord. Our comfort should be in God. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians,

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. 5 For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too” (2 Cor 1:3-5)

Our Lord wants to comfort us. He is with us in our affliction. Cling to Christ and allow Him to carry your burdens; let Him bear the brunt of your suffering. If you are still in doubt of how to respond to suffering study the Bible, it is filled with examples of God’s servants and how their lives were filled with affliction, yet they sought God and found their comfort in Him.

 

Recommended Resources On This Topic

If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

Relief From the Worst Pain You’ll Ever Experience (DVD) (MP3) (Mp4 Download) by Gary Habermas 

Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

 

Thomas Moller began studying astrophysics at the University of Nebraska-Kearney, specifically in Cosmology. Through the study of the universe and the laws that guide it, a passion understanding the Creator and Fine-Tuner of the universe provided the catalyst for Thomas diving deeply into theology. He then left the study of astrophysics to go pursue a theology degree. Through his studies at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary, Thomas began to focus Christian Ethics. Through the lens of Christian Ethics Thomas tackles political, cultural, and literature topics. Though he no longer studies astrophysics at an academic institution, he still has a love for science and scientific arguments for God.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4b2tq8O

 

 

/by
33 Reasons Why We Need Apologetics

33 Reasons Why We Need Apologetics

By Jeremy Linn

I’ve written a bunch about what Apologetics is – a rational defense of the Christian faith – and what it all involves. But the “What” of Apologetics doesn’t matter if there are no reasons why we should use Apologetics or even have it on our minds. To show its importance on our daily lives as Christians, I created a list of 33 reasons explaining why we need Apologetics.

I placed the reasons into categories for easy reading and sorted the categories into alphabetical order.

CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY

  1. It prompts a deeper discussion between Christians. It’s simple – Apologetics topics drive deep discussion. This discussion starts to change the shallow habits of some Christian circles.
  2. It eases tension between Christians with different views. When you understand the array of views Christians can reasonably hold, you become more open to accepting a Christian who holds a different view on a specific topic.
  3. It unifies people from various Christian denominations. The defense of God’s existence and the evidence behind Jesus’ life crosses all Christian denominations – no Christian is excluded from the Apologetics enterprise.
  4. It provides opportunities to encourage other Christians. A community of Christians can come together and ask tough questions, talk through them, and encourage each other to use what they’ve learned in daily life. This kind of encouragement happens all the time in podcasts like Stand to Reason.

EVANGELISM

  1. We can use it to break down intellectual barriers to the gospel. Many people won’t instantly accept Jesus into their life after hearing the gospel. They may have questions or objections that hold them back from doing so. Apologetics starts the process of tearing down these intellectual barriers.
  2. We can use it to better connect with people that have passions different than ours. For example, by diving into Apologetics topics related to science, you can have a deep conversation with a scientist (say, about the origin of the Universe) even when science isn’t your top passion.
  3. It helps us to better understand another person’s perspective. When someone stars explaining a viewpoint we’ve already heard through Apologetics study, we can better understand how the person arrived to that viewpoint.
  4. It gives us greater empathy toward people with other views. When we wrestle through Apologetics topics and understand the difficulty of that process, it helps us identify emotionally with people who have wrestled through the same topics and came to different conclusions.
  5. When we use it, we carry on the work of Christian thinkers living throughout the centuries. There is a long list of Christians defending the truth of God through the ages – St. Augustine, Blaise Pascal, and C.S. Lewis instantly come to mind.
  6. We can use it to reach people who are naturally skeptical. Sometimes, Apologetics-based discussion is the only kind of spiritual discussion a skeptic will be open to.
  7. It prepares us for questions about faith people may ask. Many Christians shy away from evangelism because they’re afraid of the questions that might be asked. Apologetics eases this anxiety by increasing our confidence in answering the questions others have.

FAITH

  1. It gives us a well-rounded understanding of our faith. Apologetics doesn’t just hyper-focus on specific issues like the Trinity, divine providence, or the applicability of Old Testament laws. Through Apologetics, we can explore and understand a wide range of elements of our faith.
  2. It helps us wrestle through intellectual doubts. Doubts aren’t a bad thing to go through, but unanswered intellectual doubts can debilitate our faith over time. Apologetics provides the resources needed to wrestle through our intellectual doubts.
  3. It grounds the faith of young people and new believers. This grounding is hugely important as young people enter a skeptical academic environment and new believers encounter new challenges.
  4. It provides a foundation of truth to hold onto during difficult times in life. When difficult circumstances carry the potential to turn us away from God, we can instead turn to Apologetics and cling to the truth about God.
  5. It keeps our guard up. When we consistently immerse ourselves into Apologetics content, we prepare ourselves for sudden and unexpected intellectual challenges that come our way – challenges which could easily put us into a “crisis of faith.”

PRACTICAL

  1. It exercises our mind. Reading books exercises our mind and thinking ability the most, and book reading is plentiful in Apologetics study.
  2. It connects some of the main areas of thinking together. Philosophy, science, history, and theology become an interwoven venture rather than separated subjects.
  3. It prompts us to be life-long learners. There is always more Apologetics content to learn, which leads us to yearn for a life of gaining knowledge and wisdom.
  4. It informs our voting decisions. Studying ethical issues helps us decide where to stand on key election topics.
  5. Sharing it builds up various skills. Sharing through blogs develops writing skill, sharing verbally shapes public speaking skill, and sharing through video builds production skill. My own graphic design skills have increased greatly from sharing Apologetics content on Instagram.
  6. It causes us to check our biases. People tend to listen only to data which affirms their own beliefs – this is a well-known phenomenon called confirmation bias. Apologetics prompts us to reflect on our biases and push against confirmation bias when we dig into views which oppose our beliefs.
  7. It helps us to recognize the false ideas in our culture. Recognizing these false ideas is key to ensure we don’t start to follow those ideas and suffer from their damaging consequences.
  8. It teaches us basic logic and formation of arguments. We can understand and assess arguments more effectively and identify logical fallacies in other people’s thinking.

SCRIPTURE

  1. Scripture commands us to use it. Paul says in 1 Peter 3:15 – “Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.” Apologetics gets us prepared to make this defense.
  2. It allows us to follow the example of Jesus. Jesus used Apologetics methods (such as asking questions) in conversations described in Mark 12:18-27 and Matthew 22:15-22.
  3. It allows us to follow the example of the earliest Christians. They used Apologetics to affirm God’s existence by pointing to the events of Jesus resurrection – see especially Acts 2:29-33.
  4. It shows us the importance of the events of Jesus’ life. What did Jesus’ sacrifice accomplish? Why does it matter that he rose from the dead? Apologetics provides answers to these key questions.
  5. It coincides with reading scripture correctly. Apologetics helps us to read Bible passages in proper context, through an understanding of the historical background behind the passage and through the idea that we can’t just read one Bible verse (we need to read the verses around it to gather the flow of thought).

SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT

  1. It can deepen our relationship with God. When you’re in a relationship with someone, knowing more about that person can take that relationship deeper. The same goes with our relationship with God as we learn things about him through Apologetics!
  2. It gives us a greater sense of awe towards God. When we can acknowledge true things about God and see his power more through Apologetics content (on topics like miracles), our sense of awe towards him increases.
  3. It puts us in a position where we need to trust God. We don’t know the results of using Apologetics in conversations with others. We also don’t know what path our investigation of truth will lead us down. We need to trust in God through these unknowns.
  4. It brings us to a place of humility. The more we study Apologetics, the more we realize there is much we don’t know. At some point, humility is needed to accept we won’t have all the answers, which opens up an opportunity for faith.

This list is not exhaustive – I’m probably missing some reasons in it. But the list is sufficient to show that Christians truly need Apologetics in their daily lives.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Fk4orK

/by
Why The Apocrypha Isn’t In The Bible

Why The Apocrypha Isn’t In The Bible

By Ryan Leasure

I’ve had more than a few conversations about the Apocrypha. From my experience, this group of a dozen Jewish books written between the Old and New Testaments (400 BC-AD 50) perplexes most Christians. A couple of reasons exist for this confusion. First, most have never read these books. That is, nobody knows what they say. And second, Catholics include these books in their Bible. Why would they include them in their Bible while Protestants do not?

Because much confusion exists around the Apocrypha, let me give four reasons why I believe the Apocrypha shouldn’t be included in our Bible.

1. THE APOCRYPHA ITSELF INDICATES IT’S NOT SCRIPTURE

The authors of the Apocrypha acknowledge that they aren’t prophets and don’t speak with divine authority like the Old Testament authors. The author of 1 Maccabees writes:

So there was great distress in Israel, the worst since the time when prophets ceased to appear among them (1 Macc. 9:27).

Prophets only existed in their ancient memories. This text, written around 100 BC, refers back to a time when the prophets were in their midst. The logical conclusion is that no prophet existed at this time who could speak from God. First Maccabees 14:41 also says as much:

The Jews and their priests have resolved that Simon should be their leader and high priest forever until a trustworthy prophet should arise.

Again, none of the Jews knew of a prophet who was speaking from God during the time of these events.

Additionally, these books contain theological and historical errors. For example, the Book of Wisdom indicates that God created the world out of preexisting matter (11:17) which contradicts the rest of Scripture’s teaching that God created the world out of nothing. Moreover, the book of Judith incorrectly states Nebuchadnezzar was king of Assyria, when in fact, he was the king of Babylon (1:5).

It’s hard to imagine how the Spirit could inspire documents containing both theological and historical error. When you couple the errors with the authors’ acknowledgment that no prophets existed during this time, we have good reasons to reject the Apocrypha as sacred Scripture.

2. JEWS HAVE NEVER ACCEPTED THE APOCRYPHA AS SCRIPTURE

The Jews don’t believe the Apocrypha belongs in their Bible, and they never have. Josephus, the greatest Jewish historian of the first century, explained:

It is true, our history has been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but has not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers.1

Josephus’ quote is especially helpful here. He indicates that ever since the reign of Artaxerxes (465-424 BC), the Jewish writings (the Apocrypha) have “not been esteemed of the like authority with the former (the Old Testament) by our forefathers.” In other words, the Jewish consensus was that while these writings might contain some helpful history and content, they don’t belong in the same category as the Old Testament texts.

Rabbinic literature during the first couple of centuries also affirms this distinction. The Babylonian Talmud reports:

After the latter prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi had died, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel.2

Based on this text, the Jews recognized that the Spirit stopped speaking through the prophets after Malachi died. Thus, the Apocryphal documents, which were written after Malachi, are not Spirit-inspired Scripture.

In fact, no early or recent Jewish canon includes the Apocrypha. That the Jews reject these Jewish documents as Scripture is a strong indication that they don’t belong in our Bible.

3. THE NEW TESTAMENT DOESN’T REFER TO THE APOCRYPHA AS SCRIPTURE

When reading the New Testament, you will find hundreds of quotations from the Old Testament. According to one count, Jesus and his apostles quote various portions of the Old Testament as Scripture 295 times.3 Not once, however, do they quote a text from the Apocrypha.

The absence of references to the Apocrypha speaks volumes. After all, if these books were from God, why wouldn’t Jesus or his apostles quote from them? They don’t, because they believed the Old Testament canon was closed, and it didn’t include the Apocrypha.

We see a couple hints of this in the New Testament. Jesus indicates in Luke 24:44 that the Jewish Scripture include, “The Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.” In other words, Jesus breaks down the Jewish canon into three sections — the law, the prophets, and the writings (the Psalms represented the writings). Notice he doesn’t mention the Apocrypha.

Jesus gives another indication of a closed Jewish canon in Luke 11:51. When talking to the Jewish leaders, Jesus says the Jews will be held accountable for all the martyrs from Abel to Zechariah. At first glance, it might appear that Jesus is making an alphabetical list, but that’s not what he’s doing. Remember, his alphabet was different from ours. Instead, Jesus makes a chronological list. Abel was the first martyr in Genesis (the first book), and Zechariah was the last martyr in Chronicles (the last book in the Jewish Bible). Note, the Jewish Bible contains all the same books as our present Old Testament, but their ordering of the books is different.

Again, the New Testament provides strong evidence that the Apocrypha doesn’t belong in our Bible.

4. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DIDN’T DECLARE THE APOCRYPHA WAS SCRIPTURE UNTIL THE REFORMATION

The Roman Catholic Church officially declared that the Apocrypha was canonical at the Council of Trent in 1546. One must ask though if these books were authoritative, why wait over fifteen hundred years to declare their authority? It seems that Rome declared their canonical status as a direct response to the teachings of Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformers who rejected these books and their teachings.

Perhaps the biggest reason these books were even up for discussion is because St. Jerome hesitantly included them in the Latin Vulgate Bible in AD 404. Because this was the official Bible of the Western Church for over a thousand years, it’s not hard to imagine how Christians began to think the Apocrypha was also Scripture.

While Jerome included these books in his Vulgate, he specifically differentiated them from the rest of the Bible. He indicated that these books were “not for the establishing of the authority of the doctrines of the church.”4 That is to say, Jerome recognized that these books didn’t carry the same authority as Scripture. Only Scripture establishes Christian doctrine. The Apocrypha doesn’t have authority to do that.

Knowing the origins of their inclusion in the Latin Vulgate and the late declaration of their canonical status is yet another reason to reject these books as Scripture.

NOT SCRIPTURE

Based on these four reasons, we can say with confidence that the Apocrypha doesn’t belong in our Bible. This doesn’t mean, however, that it’s completely useless. The Maccabees, for example, give us some useful history and tell us why Jews celebrate Hanukkah. Some of the books, like Tobit and Susanna, contain entertaining stories. Protestants even sing — albeit unknowingly — Christmas songs based on Apocryphal texts (It Came Upon a Midnight Clear). In other words, the Apocrypha is interesting and contains some historical details. In the end, however, it’s not Scripture and doesn’t belong in the Bible.

 

Ryan Leasure holds an M.A. from Furman University and an M.Div. from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

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

/by
Are Nature and Scripture Compatible_

Are Nature and Scripture Compatible?

,

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:

Are Nature and Scripture Compatible? 1

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):

Are Nature and Scripture Compatible? 2

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:

Are Nature and Scripture Compatible? 3

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:

Are Nature and Scripture Compatible? 4

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

/by
Morality Meaning Hope

Does Scripture Ground Morality, Hope, and Meaning?

By Luke Nix  

Introduction

I saw this meme on social media the other day. It states “Scripture abandoned in the culture leads to relative morality, hopelessness, and meaninglessness.” It caught my attention because of how its author attempts to ground morality, hope, and meaning. Even though skeptics of Christianity do not have the correct worldview, they still have the ability to identify contradictions, unsound arguments, and false claims made by adherents of other worldviews (in virtue of their being created in the Image of God). If a defender of the Christian worldview attempts to ground morality, hope, and meaning in an invalid source and defend that incorrect grounding, a knowledgeable skeptic will be able to identify the faulty claim and use that as a reason to remain skeptical of the claims of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, this meme offers the incorrect grounding for morality, hope, and meaning. It is important that we understand how the grounding is incorrect, the implications of its being incorrect, and what the proper grounding is, so that we can be prepared to give a reason for the hope that we have when a skeptic challenges the claims of this meme.

Grounding Morality, Hope, and Meaning in Scripture Morality, hope, and meaning are important components of any religious worldview. They provide a worldview’s adherents an explanation for their existence and a framework by which to fulfill their purpose, according to that worldview. For any worldview adherent, these components come with deep, emotional connections that are difficult to overcome.

Almost every religious worldview has some kind of “holy writings” commonly called “scripture.” Christianity has the Bible; Islam has the Qu’ran, and Hinduism has the Vedas, just to name a few. All these “holy” books speak about morality, meaning, and hope (to some extent). But they all make conflicting claims about each of these, and adherents to each may make the claim that meaning, morality, and hope are all grounded in their “holy” book(s). So, adherents to each of these worldviews logically also make the claim that a culture that abandons their scripture (for another scripture, or nothing at all) is doomed to live with relative morality, hopelessness, and meaninglessness.

The Problems and Implications

For the defender of a worldview, appealing to an abandonment if their scripture is not believed and followed seems logical because they know that others seek these things as they do. But, if all the worldviews are making the same claim (that their scripture grounds morality, hope, and meaning), what is to keep a skeptic from going to one of the other worldviews to find the same type of claims that have content that seems more palatable (such as a different ethic or different way to heaven or nirvana)? What is the reason that a person should believe and follow any one particular scripture?

If the Christian is to claim that morality, hope, and meaning are grounded in the Bible, then our claims are on even ground (ontologically speaking) with all the other worldviews from the perspective of the skeptic. This appeal does provide a reason to not abandon the Bible, but it provides the same to not abandon the Qu’ran, Vedas, etc. From the perspective of the skeptic, since all these “holy” books make claims about morality, hope, and meaning, and none of them are grounding them outside their cultural/relative “holy” books, it appears as though these actually are relative. And, logically, if the appeal is dependent upon a warning to avoid what is real, then that is more reason for the skeptic to run the other direction (and they know it and often do).

Further, all writings must be interpreted by the reader; in order to find the correct interpretation of the writing, the reader must attempt to discover what the original author meant. If morality, hope, and meaning are grounded in the writing, then the grounding is also tied to the interpretation (whether right or wrong). So if we have a Christian who interprets the Bible incorrectly and they ground morality, hope, and meaning in the Bible, then they will naturally confuse their interpretation for providing the grounding for their (likely wrong views of) morality, hope, and meaning. This would make all three not just relative (changeable/different based upon the cultural “holy” book) but subjective (changeable/different based upon the individual who is interpreting that “holy” book). A conflation of the reader’s interpretation with the author’s intent leads to this extra level of potential problems with the meme.

The Proper Grounding and the Proper Role

Let’s look at the claim again. “Scripture abandoned in the culture leads to relative morality, hopelessness, and meaninglessness.” The reason the problems that I just described exist with this claim is because the claim simply is not true. Morality, hope, and meaning do not find their grounding in the Bible (or any other “holy” book, for that matter). That is not the claim of Christianity. The Christian claim is that these find their grounding in God. God is independent of cultures and interpretations, thus there is no way that morality, hope, and meaning are relative or subjective if Christianity is true.

Now, this affects the defense of the Christian worldview from two different directions. First, the defense of objective morality, hope, and meaning grounded in God (the biblical view) can take place by providing the evidence for the existence of the Christian God to relativists. This is presented by taking the claims of the various “holy” books of the world and putting them to the test against reality. Scientific evidences for God’s existence, and for the idenfication of the Creator as the Christian God, by necessary implication are then arguments for objective morality, hope, and meaning.

Second, for an atheist who holds to objective morality, hope, and meaning, they must find the grounding for those in something that is independent of cultures or individuals. The claim that these are grounded in the Bible does not satisfy that ontological requirement; however, the claim that these are grounded in God does. Then the fact that the atheist already recognizes the objective morality, hope, and meaning, by necessary implication becomes a logical reason for them to believe that God exists. And combined with the other arguments for God’s existence and the specific identification of that God as the Christian God, provides a powerful case for the truth of the Christian worldview.

A Necessary Clarification

The implication of my critique is that it is not the abandonment of the Bible that leads to relative morality, hopelessness, or meaninglessness. Rather it is the abandonment of the Christian God that leads to those things. But I must be clear that the abandonment of the Bible will put us at a great disadvantage to discover what is true about objective morality, hope, and meaning. While scientific and philosphical arguments may be presented to demonstrate that God does exist, that would only establish that these three also exist (and may point us in the general direction of the correct content); it would not necessarily say anything about what is right or wrong (morality), why we are here (meaning), or our hope (what is wrong with us and the solution). We do need the Bible to learn the content. But we do not need the Bible to ground the content. This is the difference between the philosphical categories of ontology (what is real) and epistemology (how do we know what is real). Misunderstanding this distinction is likely the reason for the claim of the meme. It is important that we recognize this distinction and not conflate the two categories; otherwise, we run the risk of making the same mistake as the author of the meme.

Conclusion

The claim in the meme that the Bible is the ground for morality, hope, and meaning cannot stand when placed side-by-side against the same claim of competing worldviews. Because of that, it actually works against the very intended purpose of the meme. By recognizing that morality, hope, and meaning are not grounded in the Bible but in the God of the Bible, all the negative implications can be avoided and a reason for the hope that we have can be provided and demonstrated.

To Further Investigate This Grounding, I Recommend:

Can Man Live Without God?– by Ravi Zacharias

Christian Ethics: Options and Issues– by Norman Geisler

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2r5rSpE

 

/by