Tag Archive for: Skeptics

Why It’s Okay to Doubt Your Faith, Part 2

[Editor’s Note: In “Why It’s Okay to Doubt Your Faith, part 1” Miguel Rodriguez raised the question of how should we handle our doubts. He proposes we do Christian apologetics. He then defines “apologetics,” and points out how doubt can be a sign of a living faith. Doubt can be healthy. In this second installment, Miguel offers more practical advice on how to turn your doubt and questions into learning and spiritual growth through Christian apologetics].


Some Arguments for the Truth of Christianity

Today, like in Biblical times, apologist makes use of a multidisciplinary knowledge like cosmology, philosophy, ethics, biology, history and more. Some of those popular classical arguments are:

  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument: Seeks to show that the universe is not eternal, that necessarily had to have a beginning.
  • The Fine Tune Argument: Seeks to show that the universe fine tuning of its constants isn’t do by physical necessity nor chance and that it is by design.
  • The Moral Argument: Seeks to show that if objective moral values and duties exist, then God exist.
  • The Ontological Argument: Seeks to show that God exist in basis of what it means to be God as the maximally great being.
  • The Resurrection Argument: Seeks to show that the best explanation of the historical facts of an empty tomb, the postmortem appearances of Jesus and the sudden disciple\’s belief that Jesus rose are better explain by the hypothesis that Jesus rose from the dead.

These are some of the arguments and evidence people use to defend the truth of  Christianity.

Which Christianity Miguel?

There are hundreds of Christian denominations, so that’s a really good point. I’ve defined the term apologetics in “Christian Apologetics.” Now let’s define Christian.

With Christian apologetics we mean to defend only the essentials doctrine of Christianity held by orthodox Christians throughout history. We call these essential doctrines dogmas. Doctrines so foundational that to negate even one of them you will no longer be a Christian. Doctrines like the humanity and deity of Jesus, salvation by grace through faith in Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the gospel, human sinfulness and the Trinity. These don’t mean you must never question them or believe them differently. For example, two brothers in Christ believe that salvation was possible by the death and resurrection of Jesus, but they hold different theories to explain how Jesus made this salvation possible. One can accept the penal substitutionary atonement theory while the other the Christus Victor theory. These theories are the doctrines. Doctrines are the explanation and application of the dogmas.

The key here is that the focus of apologetics is the defense of the dogmas – the essentials – not necessarily the different (disputed) doctrines surrounding those dogmas. Apologetics is not the defense of a theological system. Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, and other -ism’s can hold to the same dogmas, yet differ greatly on the doctrines that explain and apply those dogmas.[1] Specifically in the doctrine of salvation. The response a Calvinist has for the relationship of God with evil and suffering is not the same as the Arminian.

We all need to believe in the dogmas. We can differ in the expressions of those dogmas.

The following succinct quote sums it up well.

In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.

 Although these theological debates are important, these is an intramural issue here. Granting that while in the act of debating you are defending a point that is technically an exercise in apologetics, the term has been coined only in its evangelistic and discipleship contexts with a focus on the dogmas of the faith.

In other words, “Christian apologetics” doesn’t normally refer to defending a denomination. Each denomination has their own liturgy, government and dogma’s expression. You can be Catholic, Pentecostal or Reformed and be united in the essentials of the faith.[2] In short, apologetics is the art of presenting arguments and evidence in favor and defense of mere Christianity.

Pitfalls to Avoid While Learning Apologetics

As I mentioned in the beginning, you are entering into a turbulent but exciting phase in your journey faith. In some sense, you’re going to re-discover your faith. You will appreciate the richness and power of your Christian faith so much that you will start to think you need to be rebaptize.

In this process you will learn new things, but equally important, you will unlearn others. Be patient. Discern judiciously. Don’t rush to adopt a new position because it’s new and shiny and don’t throw out what you know because it appears old to you now. And don’t lose your relationship with your Church.

Humbly share what you have learned with your brothers and sister in Christ but remember there might be some friction sometimes. Don’t be pushy. Be patient. It means nothing how much you know if you don’t have genuine love for others (1 Corinthians 13.2).

Above all else, don’t lose your relationship with God for learning about God. Your endeavor will not be fruitful. Never ever leave behind your devotional reading of Scripture, your praying life or any other spiritual disciplines and you will grow in knowledge and spirit. Now, let’s keep fueling the passion to know why you believe what you believe.

Now you know what apologetics is and is not. You’re fired up and ready to dive in into the classical arguments for the existence of God and Christian evidence. I recommend starting with the book On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision by Dr. William L. Craig to get your feet wet.

If you haven’t already, check the links about the popular classical arguments for God’s existence. Those are gorgeous short videos to start familiarizing with the arguments better. No more being ashamed. No more being terrified of witnessing to others. You’re not going to waste more of your time. You no longer are going to have a blind childish faith. As the apostles you will say “[I don’t] follow cleverly devised tales” (1 Peter 1.16). From now on you will have a smart faith.

References:

[1] Editor’s Note: The original author included “Open Theism” in this list. Since Open Theism is more than just a denominational dispute, it was deleted from the list here. The key reason is that Open Theism treats God’s nature as “open” and thus not fully actualized, that sort of “God” is more like a demigod – subject to time, change, error, spatial limitation, finite knowledge, finite power, growth, subjugation, dependencxe, etc. To my knowledge [John Ferrer] There is no Christian denomination, within the realm of historic and orthodox Christianity, that aligns on Open Theism.

[2] Editor’s note” And people from different denominations can discuss and debate different doctrines. That’s just not, normally, what would is called “Christian apologetics.”

Recommended Resources:

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

Macro Evolution? I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be a Darwinist (DVD Set), (MP3 Set) and (mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek

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

 

Miguel Rodriguez is the founder of Smart Faith, a platform dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith with clarity and confidence. After experiencing a miraculous healing at 14, he developed a passion for knowing God through study and teaching. He now serves as the Director of Christian Education and a Bible teacher at his local church while also working as a freelance email marketer. Living in Orlando, Florida, with his wife and two daughters, Miguel seeks to equip believers with practical and intellectual tools to strengthen their faith. Through Smart Faith, he provides apologetics and self-improvement content to help Christians live with wisdom and integrity.

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

 

/by

Why It’s Okay to Doubt Your Christian Faith

  • “Why is there evil and suffering in this world?”
  • “No one naturally can resurrect from the dead after three days. It’s impossible.”
  • “The Bible was written by fallible men thousands of years ago, how can I be sure that what I have is what was written?”
  • “How can I know that Christianity is the one true religion when there are thousands of other religions?”

 

Odds are, you don’t have an answer to these sorts of questions, or worse, they seem persuasive . . . compelling.

You feel some sort of shame to admit this. You have been a Christian for some time now but never knew the answers to these fundamental questions. Now you’re second guessing.

And why not? You already tried to ask your parents, your pastor and/or Bible study teacher of your questions and doubts, but their responses was, well, unsatisfactory (to put it mildly).

  • You need to have faith.
  • Don’t worry about those things, in Heaven we will have all our questions answered. Just believe.
  • (My personal favorite) The Bible is not to understand it, it is to obey it.

This is why you are terrified of witnessing. You are scared to death that someone may ask you a question you can’t answer. Sure, you’ve had positive experiences since you were born again, but these doubts are keeping you up at night, slowly eroding your faith. Now you’re starting to doubt even those positive experiences.

What if I’ve believed something that isn’t true? Maybe it’s all a fairy tale! How would I even know?

You don’t just need sleep. You need answers. Fortunately, there are some solid reasonable answers to your tough questions that will revive and bolster your faith. I’d like to show you, in this blog, that contrary to popular belief, faith is compatible with reason and consistent with reality. I’d like to show you the intellectual side of Christianity. Welcome to the exciting discipline of Christian Apologetics!

Apolo-what?

If you are new to the term, let’s get the first misunderstanding out of the way. No, this is not the course husbands should take, or apologizing for being a Christian. The word apologetics comes from the Greek word apologia which means “to give a verbal defense”. It’s a legal term. It was used when someone responded to an objection or accusation in a court. Dr. William Lane Craig, philosopher and theologian defines apologetics as the branch of Christian theology that seeks to provide justifiable reasons to the truth claims of the Christian faith.

Simply put, apologetics responds the question “Why should I believe Christianity is true?” Apologetics is an intellectual tool for evangelism and discipleship. It helps to remove intellectual objections against the faith for unbelievers and helps to intellectually anchor the faith of the believers.

“Apologetics” isn’t a modern made-up word. It appears 8 times in the Bible. In fact, did you even know that we are commanded in the Bible to give a defense of our faith? Of course not! Bet that not even your parents or Sunday school teacher knew this. 1 Peter 3:15 (NVI) commands us as Christians to defend the faith with gentleness and respect: “Always be prepared to give an answer [apologia] to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”

This is not something for theology nerds or intellectuals in the church. This commandment is for the whole body of Christ. The fact that the church has largely abandoned this duty is a major reason why young people are leaving Christianity.

The 2016 Pew Research study shows that, and I quote,

“About half of current religious ‘nones’ who were raised in a religion (49%) indicate that a lack of belief led them to move away from religion. This includes many respondents who mention ‘science’ as the reason they do not believe in religious teachings, including one who said ‘I’m a scientist now, and I don’t believe in miracles.’ Others reference ‘common sense,’ ‘logic’ or a ‘lack of evidence’ — or simply say they do not believe in God.”

Some of the reasons why young people were abandoning their faith given in the study were,

  • Learning about evolution when I went away to college.
  • Rational thought makes religion go out the window.
  • Lack of any sort of scientific or specific evidence of a creator.
  • I’m doing a lot more learning, studying, and kind of making decisions myself rather than listening to someone else.

Check a more recent study of the pew research regarding parents and their teens answering if religion is very important in their lives

When there are religious differences between adults and their 13- to 17-year-old children, however, it’s usually the teens who are less religious than the parents. For instance, far fewer teens (24%) than parents (43%) say that religion is very important in their lives.

Less than one of four teens deems their religion very important in their lives. That’s a tragedy. It shouldn’t be this way since there are, in fact, reasonable responses to such doubts and questions. What if I told you, that doubting and questioning your Christian faith might be a positive phase you’re entering into?

Doubts: Sign of a Maturing Faith?

Rethinking one’s worldview is one of the most mentally turbulent phases in anyone’s journey of faith. This gets to the very core of your being, of who you are. While it can be scary, it can also be (and will be) exciting. Because when you doubt, it can be a sign of a maturing faith.

“Isn’t doubt the opposite of belief?”  Doubt is not the opposite of belief. The opposite of belief is nonbelief.

  • Faith is defined as complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
  • Doubt is the voluntary and transitionary suspension of judgement between decisions.
  • Reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for some belief, act, fact, event, etc.
  • Reason is the mediator between doubt as reflection and faith as trust, and these do not contradict.


“But how do I reason correctly?” Awesome question! In an interview with Dr. Dallas Willard by John Ortberg in 2010 about doubt and belief in the Christian life, Willard answers:

“Knowledge grows not only for doubting your belief and believing your doubts, but also from doubting your doubts and believing your beliefs.” (para. 135).

Use this like some sort of mental filter to see which questions and objections (as well as beliefs) are good ones and which are bad. Bad objections usually commit logical fallacies. Good ones don’t.

For example: Only science can give us truth. Is that a true statement? Because if it is, then its false. This truth was not acquired through the scientific method. This is a self-refuting statement.

Another example: faith is belief without or on in spite of evidence. As you already saw above (and will expand a bit more below), this is not true. This is what is called a strawman. Attacking the concept of faith by replacing the definition of what faith really is with an incorrect one.

As you can see, there is no logical contradiction between doubt and faith by definition.

Permission to Doubt

Let’s talk a bit more about what faith really is. “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” (Hebrews 11:1. NIV. Emphasis added). By this definition, biblical faith entails three components:

  • Understanding the content of the Christian faith,
  • Trust, and
  • Assent of the intellect to the truth of some proposition

You can’t have trust in someone or something you do not understand at all nor agree with. For example, some people would never go on a cruise ship vacation because of their fear that the cruise will sink. They do understand that cruise ships are way much safer than before, but since they watch the movie Titanic, they don’t assent intellectually to it.

Biblical faith is not an irrational blind leap into the darkness. The biblical notion of faith requires you to have confidence and assurance in that which you understand and have good reasons to assent to (in this case, the object of faith is God). Therefore, embrace your doubts. Go ahead, doubt your faith, but also doubt your doubts. Question your questions. See if they hold water.

God Wants You To Think

While doing this you’re transitioning from a childish faith to a mature faith. You’re owning your faith. You will know not only what you believe but why you believe it.

Recommended Resources:

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek 

Macro Evolution? I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be a Darwinist (DVD Set), (MP3 Set) and (mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek

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

 

Miguel Rodriguez is the founder of Smart Faith, a platform dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith with clarity and confidence. After experiencing a miraculous healing at 14, he developed a passion for knowing God through study and teaching. He now serves as the Director of Christian Education and a Bible teacher at his local church while also working as a freelance email marketer. Living in Orlando, Florida, with his wife and two daughters, Miguel seeks to equip believers with practical and intellectual tools to strengthen their faith. Through Smart Faith, he provides apologetics and self-improvement content to help Christians live with wisdom and integrity.

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

/by

Why Is God’s Word So Hard To Understand?

The following question comes from one our Crossexamined Community members.

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

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

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

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

Not ALL the Bible is Hard to Understand    

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

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

Sometimes We’re the Problem       

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

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

God Has Other Purposes Besides Clarity    

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

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

1. God Is Sorting Out the Followers from the Fans

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

“The disciples came to him and asked, ‘Why do you speak to the people in parables?’ 11He replied, ‘Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables: ‘Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.’” (Matthew 13:10-13; NIV)

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

2. God is Beautiful, Not Basic

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

3. God Promotes Wisdom   

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

4. God Promotes Personal Growth 

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

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

Yes, we can still learn what God has said through Scripture. But beyond mere head knowledge, God imparts character, wisdom, and beauty through His written word.

Thanks for the great question, Vinnie B.

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

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)

The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Is the Bible Historically Reliable? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, Mp3 Download.

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (MP3 Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (DVD Set)

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is an educator, writer, and graduate of CrossExamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

/by

Resurrection: Fact or Fiction – An Easter Sermon

,

By Bobby Conway

Following Easter Sunday, it didn’t take long for skeptics to fabricate fictitious claims to debunk Christ’s resurrection. It’s easy to understand why. These critics knew that if they could dispel the resurrection, Christianity would crumble. And they weren’t wrong about that. Even Paul indicated, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, and you are still in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:17). The problem is none of the objections raised by skeptics have been able to explain the resurrection away. That’s because they’re flimsy. For a mere sampling, here are three such theories.

First, Some Skeptics claimed, “Jesus’s body was stolen” 

This was the first theory to emerge which attempted to deny Christ’s resurrection. But think about it, if Jesus’ body was stolen, don’t you think the thieves would have brought the body to bear once the disciples claimed he’s alive? No doubt, their bluff would’ve been called. And if the disciples stole the body, what motivation would they have to die for a hoax which they created? As we’ve all heard before, “Many will die for what they think to be true, but who will die for what they know to be false?”

 “Many will die for what they think to be true, but who will die for what they know to be false?”

Second, some skeptics claimed, “The People Were Hallucinating”

Now we’re getting desperate. Perhaps one could argue in this fashion if there were only a few random encounters. But that’s not the case. In fact, Jesus appeared to his disciples on several different occasions, and one time, even appearing to 500 people at once. To think that a crowd that large collectively believed they set their eyes on the resurrected Christ is seemingly absurd. Adding to this, it’s hard to interpret the radical life change experienced by disciples such as Saul following his encounter with Christ on the Damascus Road, or the transformation of James, the half-brother of Jesus, or Thomas, or even Peter apart from an actual resurrection.

“Hallucination theory doesn’t explain the radical life-change of some Jesus’s harshest critics like Saul the Pharisee and James brother of Jesus?”

Third, some skeptics claimed, “Jesus Merely Passed Out.”

This is known as the “swoon theory.” A view popularized in the 18th century, which suggested that Jesus never died on the cross, but merely passed out. To cast aspersion on the resurrection, adherents to the swoon theory contend that after Jesus was placed in the tomb and mistaken for dead, he was restored to consciousness at which point he then rolled away the tomb stone and announced, “Check it out, folks, I’m alive.” Are we so naïve as to think after being severely scourged, having his hands and feet nailed to a cross, his head punctured by a crown of thorns, his side stabbed, and his body wrapped in 75 pounds of burial cloth following his death, that Jesus somehow mustered the strength after regaining consciousness to unwrap himself, move a two-ton stone out of the way, bi-pass the guards only to then convince his disciples that he’s alive? I don’t think so. If that did happen, the only place he would’ve been discovered is at the nearest hospital.

The fact is, these desperate attempts to explain away the resurrection show that it’s easier and frankly, even more rational to simply believe the truth than to ascribe to one of these far-fetched fictional theories.

Happy Easter!

Recommended Resources Related to the Topic

The Resurrection of Jesus: The Tomb is Empty, Our Hope Is Not by Gary Habermas and Michael atton (Self-Paced Course)
Examining Historical Evidence for the Resurrection with Mike Licona (Podcast)
Doubting towards Faith by Bobby Conway (Self-Paced Course)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

The Footsteps of the Apostle Paul (mp4 Download), (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bobby serves as lead pastor of Image Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is well known for his YouTube ministry called, One Minute Apologist, which now goes by the name Christianity Still Makes Sense. He also serves as the Co-Host of Pastors’ Perspective, a nationally syndicated call-in radio show on KWVE in Southern California. Bobby earned his Master of Theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary, his Doctor of Ministry in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary, and his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from the University of Birmingham (England) where he was supervised under David Cheetham and Yujin Nagasawa. Bobby’s also written several books including: The Fifth Gospel, Doubting Toward Faith, Does God Exist, and Fifty-One other Questions About God and the Bible and the forthcoming Christianity Still Makes Sense to be published by Tyndale in April 2024. He’s married to his lovely wife Heather and together they have two grown kids: Haley and Dawson.

 

/by

Scientism And Secularism

By Luke Nix

All scientific research, discussion, and education is affected by a series of underlying beliefs that include what one grants as sources of knowledge. It is quite common in today’s culture for people to accept “scientism,” which limits sources of knowledge entirely to the sciences to the exclusion of any other claimed knowledge source or places all other sources of knowledge under the authority of the sciences.

Both of these philosophies stifle scientific discovery, places knowledge of anything outside of the natural realm beyond reach and erects seemingly impenetrable barriers in discussions about ultimate reality (including morality, beauty, and theology). This has serious implications in the sciences, education, politics, and basic everyday life. In his book “Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology” Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland aims to demonstrate the dangers of scientism, how it is (unwittingly?) accepted and exercised in culture even by Christians, and provide an alternative philosophy of knowledge that will avoid the dangers, expand humanity’s knowledge of reality in general, and move forward Christians’ internal discussions of theology and the world and give them another tool in their evangelical toolbelts as they provide “…reasons for the hope that [they] have…” (1 Peter 3:15). In this review, I’ll provide some of the key points, several important quotes, and my recommendations.

Key Points:

  • Strong scientism is the idea that the sciences are the only legitimate sources of knowledge about reality. Other sources of knowledge are not even entertained.
  • Weak scientism “allows” for other sources of knowledge but holds that science is the ultimate arbiter of truth. Thus it has forced all other knowledge disciplines to reinterpret their findings according to the science of the day. Ultimately it is strong scientism by a “less-threatening” name.
  • Because there is no other (ultimate) source of knowledge outside the sciences, there is no moral knowledge, historical knowledge, philosophical knowledge, or theological knowledge. This has resulted in the relativism we see in the university and culture today.
  • Numerous examples of non-scientifically verifiable claims and knowledge do exist.
  • In fact, the very claim of scientism is one such example, making scientism a self-refuting claim. Thus it is necessarily false and is actually an enemy of science (and knowledge) in the long run.
  • Science judges philosophy, and philosophy judges science. Depending on which claim must be established before the other can be judged.
  • Proper order placement of knowledge disciplines has effects on claims about the beginning of the universe, origin of life, existence of mental states, and the existence of objective morality and beauty among many others.
  • Scientism has stunted the debates surrounding theistic evolution and intelligent design by precluding non-scientific knowledge disciplines from the debates.
  • There are at least five different models for how science and theology can move forward together in their discovery of what is real and true.

Some Important Quotes:

“In order for science and certain other intellectual disciplines to be possible, we humans must be able to use our reason to go beyond our sense, reach into the world’s deep structure, and grasp, formulate, and verify the theories we form about that deep structure.”

“To the extent that scientism is embraced in our culture, our moral and spiritual claims will be ‘de-cognitivized.’ In other words, our deepest beliefs about life, knowledge, history, and reality will seem to be utterly implausible–not just untrue, but unworthy of rational consideration.”

“These days, if an accepted scientific claim comes into conflict with an accepted nonscientific claim from another discipline (such as theology), which claim must be set aside? In our culture, the scientific claim always wins. Why? Simply because it is scientific. Scientism seems so obvious and pervasive to people that it can be stated without any need to defend it. Appealing to science to back one’s claim is a conversation stopper that settles the issue.”

“The first problem with weak (and strong) scientism is that it diminishes the intellectual authority of other important fields, especially biblical studies and theology.”

“Advocates of weak scientism are confused about the relative cognitive strength of an assumption and a claim that is based on that assumption. Weak scientism believes that a claim based on an assumption has greater warrant than the strength of the assumption itself. In reality, though, the claim is only as good as the assumption upon which it rests. And because the assumptions are not scientific assumptions, but rather philosophical assumptions, philosophy has a kind of primacy over science. Therefore, weak scientism’s claim that science always take precedence over other disciplines is false.”

“…a culture, which has a set of background assumptions–or, a plausibility structure–sets a framework for what people think, which affects how that they are willing to listen, evaluate, feel, and behave. The framework shapes what people consider plausible or implausible.”

“Often, in order to get people to hear the gospel, we have to address solely a person’s private, felt needs and promise that Jesus will change their lives and help them. There’s nothing wrong with this as long as it is rooted in the deeper claim that Christianity is true, is based on solid evidence, and can be known to be true. But scientism has forced the church to offer the gospel simply because it works rather than because it is true and can be known to be such.”

“Classically, freedom meant the power to do what one ought to do…Contemporary freedom has come to be understood as the right to do whatever one wants to do…By undermining moral knowledge, scientism has provided the context for the contemporary view of freedom and, consequently, it has led to moral chaos.”

“It is not enough just to know Scripture; as Christians, we must also understand the systems of thought, practice, and value in our culture that are worldly, and be able to make this clear to fellow Christians and explain how to refute those ungodly systems using both biblical and nonbiblical evidence (cf. 2 Cor. 10:3-5).”

“Christians must be taught not only what they believe but why they ought to believe it. This will especially involves exposing and undermining scientism, and dealing with issues relating to science and the Bible.”

“The very concept of ‘faith’ has been redefined and has now replaced reason. Today, faith is choosing to believe something in the absence of evidence or reasons for the choice. Faith used to mean a confidence or trust based on what one knows. Given the current definition, ubiquitous throughout the church, we Christians have unintentionally played right into the hands of advocates of scientism. By thinking of faith in this way, we are tacitly implying that we believe in the tenets of Christianity without any evidence or reasons at all.”

Recommendations

  • The first recommendation I will give is for any Christian involved in scientific research, education, and/or discussions(whether it is internal with other Christians or external in apologetic and evangelistic efforts). Moreland shows not only how we may be allowing some version of scientism to limit our own knowledge, but he also shows how we can identify that it may be limiting others and ways in which we may be able to make others aware so they overcome that foundational barrier and be able to move conversations (and discovery) forward.
  • My second recommendation is for Christians involved in discussions of morality and politics. Scientism has been a primary driving force for the moral relativism, thus the reliance in politics on who has the most power. As you learn more about scientism and how it came to be the dominant philosophy in culture, you will see how to address moral and political issues at a more foundational and wider reaching level.
  • My third recommendation is for a more focused audience of my first: those who are involved (either in research, education, or discussion) of origins from a Christian perspective. I often hear Christians claim that we cannot allow our philosophy or theology to interfere with our science. Unfortunately, that is a direct application of weak scientism that needs to be removed from our thinking. This book help you understand how even weak scientism fails and should be abandoned in our discussions of origins.
  • Finally, a general recommendation for all Christians. As we proclaim (and often defend) the truth of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, scientism (even the weak version) can get in the way of people accepting this historical fact- no matter the strength of the case for the resurrection of Jesus as the best possible explanation, a philosophy of scientism will preclude the person from accepting even the possibility of a supernatural miracle. It is important that we understand where these people are coming from and how to show the inadequacies of such a philosophy.

 

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)     

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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: https://bit.ly/3xTWJZu

 

/by

Are There Colossal Contradictions in the Gospels? A Reply to Rabbi Tovia Singer

,

By Jonathan McLatchie

Rabbi Tovia Singer is an orthodox Jewish rabbi and the founder and director of Outreach Judaism. He is widely known for his counter-missionary polemics and his criticism of the New Testament presentation of Jesus as the Hebrew Messiah (see his two volume set, Let’s Get Biblical: Why doesn’t Judaism accept the Christian Messiah? [i]). In a recent series of videos published on Rabbi Singer’s YouTube channel, he responds to remarks made by Professor R.L. Solberg following their recent debate in Nashville, Tennessee on whether Jesus is the promised Hebrew Messiah. In this and subsequent articles, I want to address some of the claims made by Rabbi Singer in this series of videos that I hold to be in error. In this article, I will address the most recent video in this series, which is provocatively titled, “Colossal contradictions in the Gospels!” In this video, Singer advances two supposed instances of contradiction between the gospel accounts, one relating to the timing of Jesus’ passion, and the other relating to the resurrection. Let us address both in turn.

On What Day Was Jesus Crucified?

In the video, Tovia argues that John has Jesus crucified on the eve of Passover, contrary to the synoptic gospels that have Jesus crucified on the first day of Passover. The motivation for this redaction on John’s part supposedly is that John wanted to have Jesus crucified on the eve of Passover, when the Paschal lambs were being slaughtered, since Jesus is thought by John to be the fulfilment of the imagery associated with the Passover lamb.

Rabbi Singer reads John 19:14 as indicating that it was the day of preparation for Passover. However, this is not a necessary translation of the genitive word for Passover, πάσχα and in fact English translations usually render this expression “day of preparation of the Passover.” In fact, this term (‘day of preparation’) is also used by Mark (15:42), who defines it as the day before the Sabbath. This accords with John 19:31, which says, “Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.” Verse 42 also indicates the hurriedness of the burial of Jesus in a tomb that was close at hand, since it was the Jewish day of Preparation. Therefore, John concurs with Mark that Jesus’ death took place the day prior to the Sabbath. This is what he means by “preparation.” Though he adds that this Sabbath was a high day, this most probably means that it wasn’t any ordinary Sabbath day, but rather a Sabbath during the feast of unleavened bread — that is to say, it was a particularly special feast day.

Singer also misreads John 18:28, where the Jewish leaders are concerned about entering Pilate’s dwelling, lest they be defiled and thereby become unable to eat the Passover. According to Singer, this undermines the contention that the Passover Seder had already been consumed. Singer apparently misses that, supposing them to be concerned about the Passover Seder, their worry would make no sense since their defilement would expire at sundown (and they could partake of the meal after washing). Therefore, their worry must concern some meal other than the Seder. And, in fact, the initial Seder, or supper, that commences the Passover celebration is not the only ritual meal that is eaten during Passover. There is even another ritual meal, the chagigah (“food offering”), that is consumed during the following day. This is supported by Numbers 28:18-23, in which we read,

18 On the first day there shall be a holy convocation. You shall not do any ordinary work, 19 but offer a food offering, a burnt offering to the LORD: two bulls from the herd, one ram, and seven male lambs a year old; see that they are without blemish; 20 also their grain offering of fine flour mixed with oil; three tenths of an ephah shall you offer for a bull, and two tenths for a ram; 21 a tenth shall you offer for each of the seven lambs; 22 also one male goat for a sin offering, to make atonement for you. 23 You shall offer these besides the burnt offering of the morning, which is for a regular burnt offering.

Verse 18 indicates that the food offering was to be offered on the first day of unleavened bread (which would be the fifteenth of Nisan), the same day — as the Jews reckon days — that the Seder was consumed. Verse 23 indicates that these were to be offered in addition to the regular morning burnt offering, which implies that the Chagigah was eaten during the day time. The first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus indicates multiple times that the Jews used the term “Passover” to refer to the entirety of the feast of unleavened bread:

  • “As this happened at the time when the feast of unleavened bread was celebrated, which we call the Passover…” Josephus, Antiquities 14.21
  • “As the Jews were celebrating the feast of unleavened bread, which we call the Passover…” Josephus, Antiquities 18.29
  • “And, indeed, at the feast of unleavened bread, which was now at hand, and is by the Jews called the Passover…” Josephus, Wars 2.10

Therefore, John’s account in fact dovetails perfectly with Mark’s. The concern of the chief priests could not have been about the initial Passover seder, since their defilement would have expired at sundown and, following washing, they would have been able to partake of the seder in the evening. The seder was already over, having been consumed the previous evening, and they must be concerned about some other meal in Passover, most likely the chagigah.

Rabbi Singer claims that John 13 does not concern a Passover seder. However, this again is false. We read in John 13:1-2:

Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. 2 During supper…

In Greek, the text does not say that the supper was before the feast. Rather, it says that before the feast, Jesus loved his disciples to the end. D.A. Carson notes rightly that “there is nothing in the words themselves to discourage us from taking the clause as an introduction to the footwashing only, and not to the discourses that follow the meal.” [ii]

Indeed, the most natural reading of the reference to the supper in John 13:2, in light of 13:1, is that the last supper was in fact the Passover meal. Craig Blomberg concurs [iii]:

Verse 1 thus stands as a headline over the entire passion narrative (cf. Ridderbos 1997: 452). Because Passover began with a supper-time meal as its most central ritual (and 1 Cor. 11:20 speaks of the Last Supper explicitly as a deipnon), to hear then that the supper was being served (v. 2) would naturally suggest that the Passover had begun (Ridderbos 1997: 455; cf. Michaels 1983: 230; Kleinknecht 1985: 370–371; Burge 2000: 365–367), not that this was some separate supper prior to the Passover (as for Casey 1996: 20–21). If there is still any doubt, as Cullen Story (1989: 317) explains, ‘The presence of Judas, Jesus’ prediction of his betrayal, Judas’ departure from the table (implicit in the Synoptics, explicit in John), the affirmation by Peter of unswerving loyalty to Jesus, and Jesus’ prediction of his denial—all of these circumstances together form solid lines of connection between the meal in John 13 and the Synoptic account of the holy supper.’ Almost certainly, then, John intended his audience to understand that he was beginning to describe events that took place on ‘Maundy Thursday’ night, as part of the Passover meal, just as they would already have learned in the oral kerygma.

Though Singer appeals to John 13:29 where some speculate that Judas has been charged with getting what they need for the feast, this argument doesn’t work either since the feast of unleavened bread continues for another week, which easily could be the meaning of the phrase ‘the feast’ in this context. One might object to this that, if there were indeed Passover night, the shops would not have remained open. However, as D.A. Carson notes [iv],

One might wonder, on these premises, why Jesus should send Judas out for purchases for a feast still twenty-four hours away. The next day would have left ample time. It is best to think of this taking place on the night of Passover, 15 Nisan. Judas was sent out (so the disciples thought) to purchase what was needed for the Feast, i.e. not the feast of Passover, but the Feast of Unleavened Bread (the ḥagigah), which began that night and lasted for seven days. The next day, still Friday 15 Nisan, was a high feast day; the following day was Sabbath. It might seem best to make necessary purchases (e.g. more unleavened bread) immediately. Purchases on that Thursday evening were in all likelihood possible, though inconvenient. The rabbinic authorities were in dispute on the matter (cf. Mishnah Pesahim 4:5). One could buy necessities even on a Sabbath if it fell before Passover, provided it was done by leaving something in trust rather than paying cash (Mishnah Shabbath 23:1).

Another aspect of John 13:29, curiously omitted by Singer — which actually supports my contention that this meal was in fact the Passover seder — is the disciples’ speculation that Judas had been charged by Jesus to give something to the poor. Carson notes that “it was customary to give alms to the poor on Passover night, the temple gates being left open from midnight on, allowing beggars to congregate there. On any night other than Passover it is hard to imagine why the disciples might have thought Jesus was sending Judas out to give something to the poor: the next day would have done just as well.” [v]

In addition to the foregoing considerations, two undesigned coincidences confirm that the last supper in John 13 is the same meal as spoken of in the synoptic gospels. In the parallel account of the last supper in Luke 22:27, Jesus says, “For who is the greater, one who reclined at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.” What does Jesus mean by this phrase, and to what could he be referring? When we turn over to John 13:4-5, we learn that Jesus on this same occasion gave the disciples an object lesson in servanthood: “[Jesus] laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet…” This act (not reported by Luke) casually dovetails with Jesus’ statement in Luke 22:27 (not reported by John) that, though he is the greatest among them, he nonetheless acts as their servant. One may ask, however, why Jesus washes the disciples’ feet on this particular occasion. Luke 22:24 gives us a detail not supplied by John that provides us with some relevant background: “A dispute also arose among [the disciples], as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.” Luke, then, reports the occasion that gave rise to Jesus’ object lesson in servanthood, but not the object lesson itself. John reports the object lesson but not the occasion that gave rise to it. The accounts dovetail so casually and artlessly that it supports that these are in fact the same meal, and rooted in historical memory.

The Mary Magdalene Problem

Tovia also gives another alleged discrepancy regarding the resurrection accounts, where he points out that, according to Matthew, the women all met Jesus (Matthew 28:9-10), whereas in John it looks like Mary, in her report to Peter & the disciple whom Jesus loved, has no idea what had happened to Jesus’ body (John 20:1-2). One would predict, supposing those accounts to be both anchored in historical memory, that Mary must have left the larger group of women prior to their encounter with the risen Jesus. Indeed, I can hardly see any other viable way of harmonizing those accounts. But this is precisely what is suggested by a close reading of John 20:2: “So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know (οὐκ οἴδαμεν) where they have laid him.” The use of the plural verb there suggests that she had in fact left the larger group of women and that there had in fact been others with her (which comports with the synoptics). This harmonization is not owed to us by the text, supposing them to be in conflict, but the fact that the only viable harmonization is suggested by a close reading of John suggests that these accounts are in fact based on historical memory, being independent accounts that dovetail.

According to John, Mary Magdalene ran back immediately upon noticing the stone rolled away and surmising or seeing the tomb empty (there may have been one or two other women with her, we don’t know). Notice that Matthew does not say that the angel appeared to Mary Magdalene, but rather that he spoke to the women. Thus, it was the women other than Mary Magdalene who left the tomb together as described in Matthew and, while going to tell the disciples, saw Jesus on the way. Matthew says that plural women left the tomb and that “they” saw Jesus on the way but does not expressly say that Mary Magdalene was with them at that time. Again, he may just not have known that she had left the group already, but he does not explicitly say either way. John knew since he was one of the two disciples (along with Peter) to whom Mary Magdalene reported the empty tomb and missing body of Jesus.

We can pick up Mary Magdalene’s story as reported by John. She ran back to get Peter and John immediately upon seeing the stone rolled away. They came back to the tomb with or slightly ahead of her. By this time the rest of the women have already seen the angels and left. They may even be seeing Jesus on their own route back into the city while Peter, John, and Mary Magdalene are on their way back to the tomb. It must be borne in mind that the old city of Jerusalem was a maze. There is no reason at all to expect that these groups would have run into each other. Mary Magdalene (as explained in John) still believes Jesus is dead at this point. She hangs around after Peter and John have looked at the tomb and left in puzzlement. She peers back into the tomb and the angels reveal themselves to her, but she does not understand. She turns around, grieved, and sees Jesus and has the dialogue with him of which we read in John 20. She then goes back to tell the disciples more about all of this. All this time she is not with the other women. When the other women have seen Jesus, they run and tell at least some of the disciples, though they might have to wait for Peter and John to get back from their tomb visit. Of course, we also do not know for sure that all of the disciples were staying together. The other women may actually have gone to see a different set of them in some different location.

Conclusion

In summary, though the alleged discrepancies offered by Rabbi Singer require some investigation to untangle, closer inspection — and more careful reading of the relevant texts — reveals the arguments to be unfounded. The solutions that I have offered to these challenges are not strained or forced harmonizations, but rather are suggested from within the texts themselves. As the nineteenth century Anglican scholar T.R. Birks once noted, “the very test of historical truth…is found in the substantial unity of the various narratives, their partial diversity, and the reconcilable nature of that diversity, when due allowance is made for the purpose of each writer, and the individual character of their separate works.” [vi]

Footnotes

[i] Tovia Singer, Let’s Get Biblical! Why Doesn’t Judaism Accept the Christian Messiah? Volume 1 (RMBN Publishers, 2014).

[ii] D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 460.

[iii] Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel (England: Apollos, 2001), 187–188.

[iv] D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 475.

[v] Ibid.,

[vi] T.R. Birks, Horae Evangelicae, or The Internal Evidencce of the Gospel History (London: Seeleys, 1852), 269-271.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3meSo0c

/by

Thoughts on Musician Plumb’s Deconstruction

,

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”4.19.5″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”]

How many times have you heard me cry out

“God please take this”?

How many times have you given me strength to

Just keep breathing?

Oh I need you,

God I need you now.

Though I walk through the shadows,

And I, I am so afraid.

Please stay… please stay right beside me,

With every single step I take.

These beautiful lyrics are from a 2013 song named “Need You Now by Tiffany Arbuckle Lee. But you probably know her by the name “Plumb.” In case you don’t know of Plumb, she was active until about 2018, and her songs regularly played on Christian radio. I remember listening to this song when I had a two year old, tears in my eyes knowing the feeling of this type of desperation.

I think anyone with a two year old gets this type of desperation, am I right?

She was inspired to write the song due to her suffering from debilitating anxiety when she was younger and the difficulties in her marriage. I remember hearing on the radio about the tough times that she was going through in her marriage. I recall thinking at the time how hard that must be for her to share something so personal. She shared how she and her husband had overcome so many obstacles. They were reconciled, were stronger than ever, and everything was made beautiful out of the ashes.

Until it wasn’t.

She and her husband are no longer together, and Plumb has been very quiet on the music scene. It’s now 2023, and she hasn’t released a single since 2018. It seems a lot has been going on for the singer in the last five years. I follow her on social media and didn’t really notice a lot from her until June 2022, when she made a controversial post about Roe Vs. Wade being overturned. She stunned her followers by implying that this isn’t something we need to be happy about and that the Church sometimes talks more about what we’re against than what we’re for. Granted, I have to agree to a point. But I would draw a hard line here and say that it would be exceedingly strange not to speak against killing innocent children, as this is exactly what many Christians believe abortion is!

It would be like a Christian speaking against child abuse, but then someone throws a rebuke at us, saying that because we’re Christians, we need to speak about what we’re for, not against. Is there actually a way to speak about the realities of abortion outside of speaking against it? Isn’t this precisely why it’s called “pro-life,” not “anti– Abortion”? But I digress.

She posted later in the year how she and her husband were officially done. I could tell it was a tough few years for her. She probably feels like she was in a toxic relationship that has left a wake of pain and confusion. No doubt this changed a lot for her. But it was the post from Wednesday, January 04, 2023 that stopped me in my tracks. It says:

Thx @walkingpastor for sharing this #richardrohr post…it’s a new year…begin again. I am. Asking questions I’ve been intimidated to ask. Being more open minded. Wanting to learn things I’ve been lazy to learn. Making space to love God and others well. That’s it. 3 years ago my life fell completely apart. In the process, deconstruction happened w/o me even realizing it at first. It’s been a long road. This year…I am starting a journey to piecing back together a new me. It’s not all gonna just magically happen in 2023…but it’s the year I am starting to begin again. And again. And…again. #GraceForSelf.

Richard Rohr. Deconstruction. I Am.

“Not Plumb!” I thought to myself! Another Christian singer has fallen for the Progressive Christian serpent speak. I thought about this post and prayed for days afterward for her and for those who have no idea of the consequences of these words. Though she hasn’t given many details in this regard, it would seem that Plumb is reading and aligning with the teachings of Progressive teacher Richard Rohr. This is an alignment with beliefs in a social justice gospel, inner divinity, a denial of many essential Christian doctrines such as the beautiful Atonement, that the Bible isn’t the Word of God, and much more. This made me sad.

“Two things happens when we hit rock bottom as Christians: We run from God, or we run to God.”

It seems it all started when her life fell apart, and I find that one of two things happens when we hit rock bottom as Christians: We run from God, or we run to God. They give up instead of look up. They look inward instead of upward.

I can’t sit here and say I understand her position or pain. But it seems that this was the turning point for her. How can someone who’s sung such beautiful lamented lyrics suddenly deny the God she claims to have sung for? Did she have someone to help guide and disciple her through this time? What questions has she been intimidated to ask? How well did she know her Bible? I naturally want more answers for clarification. The cultural climate is extremely aggressive toward Biblical Christianity. I think some are tired of running the race. I think some don’t want to be seen as being “against” the LGBTQ+ community. They want to seem loving, tolerant, open-minded, and non-judgmental. They are fatigued from fighting the good fight. So they stop fighting.

Christian, keep up the good fight. Cross that finish line, even if you have to crawl to it. Anchor yourself in God’s Truth.

There’s a God-shaped hole in all of us,

And the restless soul is searching.

There’s a God-shaped hole in all of us,

And it’s a void only He can fill.

I pray these words from her own song to remind her that deconstruction and Progressive Gospel will leave her empty and hopeless. Only Jesus can fill her void. He is the Living Water, the Bread of Life. I have been praying for her, and I hope you will join me.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) downloadable pdf, PowerPoint by Dr. Frank Turek

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Melissa Dougherty is a Christian Apologist best known for her YouTube channel as an ex-new ager. She has two associate’s degrees, one in Early Childhood Multicultural Education, and the other in Liberal Arts. She is currently pursuing her bachelor’s degree in Religious Studies at Southern Evangelical Seminary.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

/by

Part 2 “When Your Opponent Cheats, What Should You do?”

By John D. Ferrer

In part one[i] we raised a question from one of our viewers in Nigeria at the contentious Islamic/Christian border there. He asked what should Christians do when the other guy is cheating? In this case, Muslims from the north are rigging elections to win political influence over the Christian south. Our answer is don’t sink to their level, but honor God above all. Unless you’re literally forced to lie or cheat, then don’t lie or cheat.

The next logical question is, “Okay, don’t ‘sink to their level.’ But how do we do that?” Here are seven principles for when our opponent isn’t fighting fair.

First, “live not by lies.”

In 1974, just before his exile from the U.S.S.R., Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote an essay that became his farewell address to Soviet Russia. Titled, “Live not by lies,” this essay answered how to stay spiritually grounded in the face of government oppression.  Solzhenitsyn distilled his  wisdom down to one clear warning: “live not by lies.” Oppressors will press you. They’ll hurt your body, restrict your freedom, and test your faith. But they can’t touch your soul unless you let them. When you let them make you a liar, you’ve volunteered for that corruption.

To be clear, “live not by lies” doesn’t mean be foolhardy. You don’t have to draw a target on your back or invite persecution. But neither should you let them make you a liar. You can be discrete. Measure your words. Be quiet where your words will be misconstrued. Just don’t let them make you a liar. Or a cheat, for that matter. Otherwise, you get pulled into their game. Why would you want to play their game? They’re masters at it. You’re not. And you’ll lose. Plus you’d betray your own conscience and faith just by playing it. Soon you’re no better than they are.

Second, get creative with the influence you do have.

You have more influence than you may realize. Get creative. Be savvy. You’ll be surprised at the ways you can affect positive change. Besides voting and public office, there’s also citizen journalism, signing petitions, starting “go-fund-me” campaigns, peaceful protests, concerts, graphic arts, social media, boycotts, rearing children, and more.

This is Biblical too. Scripture instructs people not just in the law but also in wisdom. There’s a whole genre of biblical books called “wisdom literature” (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon). Scripture guides us with law and wisdom as complementary traditions running parallel like train tracks so we can get where we need to go. We need more than just law-abiding moral behavior. We also need wisdom to find the best way to obey God’s laws.  Jesus implies as much when he says to his disciples,

“Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Mt 10:16)

Third, reframe the game

We should also remember the bigger battle happening here. Stolen elections aren’t just about politics. They’re not just earthly warfare or even just battles between church and mosque. This is ultimately spiritual warfare. When we understand that fact, we can reframe our earthly struggle in terms of the bigger picture.

We could dwell on this point, but for now, just remember that spiritual warfare isn’t a metaphor. It’s literal. It forces everyone to take sides. It engulfs every other battlefield. And it rewrites the rules of engagement. As Paul says, “our struggle is . . . against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God” (Eph 6:12-13).

Fourth, remember the real enemy

Our ultimate enemy isn’t other people but rather Satan and his forces. Before Paul describes this spiritual warfare in Ephesians 6 he points out that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood” (vs. 12). You may be tempted to treat your earthly opponent as the real enemy. But that person might not even be a rebel. He or she could just be a confused and deluded captive who doesn’t know any better. We fight differently against captives than against a rebel army. So don’t forget who the real enemy is.

Fifth, we don’t fight as the world fights

Since our battle is ultimately spiritual warfare, and Satan is the real enemy, it should be no surprise that we need to fight differently. I can’t explain this point any better than St. Paul does.

“For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)

Sixth, you can’t force divine justice ­

This world is fallen, it remains fallen, and will keep falling… until Christ returns. In the meantime, we have only hints and bits of justice. They’re like glimpses into the eternal perfection of heaven. God carved out lots of room for us to practice redemptive influence here and now. But be assured that justice isn’t guaranteed till Judgment Day.

If you try to “force” God’s hand, seeking divine justice now,  you’re probably using questionable methods. Plus, you might make the same mistake Judas did. Some scholars believe that Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus in hopes of triggering an uprising where Jesus would have to lead a revolt against Rome to claim his Messianic crown. We can’t be certain of Judas’s motives, but we can say that in betraying Jesus, even Judas’s best intentions couldn’t redeem those actions. You may be tempted to “force” justice on this side of eternity by taking “creative license” with the law. But this is quicksand. There’s no clear biblical case for vigilante justice in the New Testament.

Seventh, draw courage from believers who’ve gone before you.

We’re not alone in this struggle. Persecution and hardship are normal Christian living (John 16:33). Yet believers across church history have pressed on. And so can you. Whether it was from Roman laws, Jewish zealots, Muslim invaders, state authorities, or rude neighbors, persecution is part of normal Christian living. Countless believers have gone before us setting an example to follow. Some faced persecution. Some died as martyrs. But all of them ran their race and passed the baton to future generations. That’s us. As we “run the race” marked out for us, they are a “great cloud of witnesses” now cheering us on from the stands (Heb 12:1). For their sake, and for God’s, we cannot afford to take shortcuts, bending the rules for some “greater good.”

Final Warnings

So how do we answer whether “turnabout is fair play”? In We need to honor God above all – even when our opponent breaks the law. We talked at length about how to do that.  But a few more warnings are in order.

If we cheat because our opponent cheats, then we invite God’s judgment all the same. Plus, we risk losing our integrity. Our character is hard to earn and easy to lose especially if we forget that the ends don’t really justify the means. Also, remember that we represent our family, our church, and our God. So, if we ever lie and cheat for political gains it’s like spraying graffiti on the walls of our home or church: “LIAR!” “CHEAT!” Winning an election is not worth defacing our family name, our church, or the name of Jesus.

Are there any exceptions?

Earlier I mentioned some possible exceptions that don’t apply here. Stay tuned for part 3 in this series where we talk about dilemmas!

Footnotes:

[i]  https://crossexamined.org/when-your-opponent-cheats-what-should-you-do

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. John D. Ferrer is an educator, writer, and graduate of CrossExamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

/by

When Your Opponent Cheats, What Should You do?

By John D. Ferrer

You may have heard the phrase, “turnabout is fair play.” If your opponent on the soccer pitch, football field, or basketball court is illegally pushing, shoving, and elbowing you, then it’s only fair that you can push back, right? Turnabout, as they say, is fair play. And as long as it’s not against the law, immoral, or physically harming anyone, then that principle might work fine at least for ball games and boardgames. But what about the game of politics?

Frank and I had a podcast on this topic too. Check it out at:
When Your Opponent Cheats, What Should You Do? | with Dr. John Ferrer

How far should we take this idea of, “turnabout is fair play?” A gentleman from Nigeria by the name of Austin sent us a question about this last week.

“Imagine that you’re in the ring of boxing with an opponent who is breaking all the rules and nobody is calling him to order, would you keep following the rules? To be more specific, this analogy is to capture the imbalance of political power between the muslim north and the christian south of Nigeria. As I’m sure you already know, the survival of Islam is hinged on political power and domination. Our muslim brothers are extremely political, while the christians are, for the most part, passive. But besides the political docility of the christians, our muslims don’t really play fair. For example, muslims go as far as registering underaged voters. This is one of the major reasons northern votes beat southern votes in federal elections, not that the number of muslims is above that of christians. There’s a lot more of their shenanigans that I’d rather not name here. The situation is far uglier than I’ve decided to capture at this present time… So, how do you see this? How do you play fair with an opponent who doesn’t play fair?”

Austin is clearly concerned for more than just apologetics. He yearns for justice. Beneath the looming weight of political corruption and injustice, he is staring down one of the largest militant fronts of modern day Islam. He’s rightfully concerned that religious and political opponents have rigged the system. Of course, he wants to do something about it!

If his opponents in the Muslim north are cheating and abusing the system to stay in power, then perhaps Christians in the South can use the same tactics to stand against the spreading Islamic caliphate. The Christians would have good motives. The other guys cheated first. So, is it okay to lie and cheat if the other guy is doing it?

In short, no.

While I sympathize with Austin in Nigeria, I can’t condone that behavior. He’s asking a practical question, of whether the “ends justify the means.” That axiom is the centerpiece of Utilitarianism[i], a non-Christian ethical theory coined by Jeremy Bentham. Sure, lying and cheating might help you win elections. And you might be cheating the same way your opponents are. But the ends don’t justify the means. The means need to be justified themselves.

Moreover, lying and cheating won’t preserve the integrity of the church or showcase the light of Christ to the world. Now, we’ll get into some exceptional cases later. But at this point, if you aren’t literally being forced lie and cheat, then you shouldn’t lie or cheat.

Heart check

Perhaps the best starting point for unpacking that answer is to do a heart-check. Ask yourself: Do you fear and love God more than anyone else?

 “Do you fear and love God more than anyone else?”

By that I mean, do you fear God as the sovereign judge and King more than you fear anyone else? And do you love God as your heavenly Father, more than you love anyone else? When we can answer this heart-check with a resounding “Yes!” then we’re in a good position to face hardship and do the gritty work of apologetics.

This heart-check was Peter’s advice to first century believers. Apologists love to quote him in 1 Peter 3:15b, “always be prepared to give an answer.” But just before that classic call to defend the faith, Peter sets it inside a persecution context. In verse 14 he says, “But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” Answering how to do that, Peter says to put Jesus first. “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord” (vs15a). The surrounding passage, 1 Peter 3:9-17[ii] reinforces this point saying, “do not repay evil with evil,” “or insult with insult,” “repay evil with blessing,” “keep [your] tongue from evil and lips from deceitful speech,” and “suffer for doing good” rather “than for doing evil.”

That’s easy for you to say

Of course, it’s easy for me to say all this. My job, my family, my way of life, are all safe. There are no political enemies or religious invaders beating down our door. My home church faces no real danger of conquest, at the hands of radical Muslims, militant Hindus, or even snarky atheists. It’s easy for me to tell folks to endure persecution heroically when it’s their persecution and not mine. That’s why I’m not speaking on my own authority. Apostle Peter said it first. I’m just agreeing with him. If I ever face persecution like my brothers and sisters in Nigeria are facing, I pray I’d have the courage to take my own advice, I pray I would follow St. Peter in honoring Christ as Lord and suffering well.

 “Love and honor Christ as Lord, then suffer well.”

How do we do that?

At this point, you may be saying to yourself, “Okay, be righteous and don’t ‘sink to their level.’ I get it. But how do we do that?” That’s a great question. I’m glad you asked! Stay tuned for part 2 where I explain seven principles we should all follow when our opponent isn’t fighting fairly.

Footnotes:

[i] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/

[ii] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+3%3A9-17&version=ESV

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. John D. Ferrer is an educator, writer, and graduate of CrossExamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

 

/by

Who Made God?

, ,

By Bobby Conway

Have you ever found yourself in a conversation with a skeptic only to be asked in gotcha fashion, “Well, who made God?” Asking the question, “Who made God?” is like asking, “How did Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata taste?” It just doesn’t fit. The question is a classic category mistake. God wasn’t made and Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata can’t be tasted. Adding to this blunder, the famed atheist Bertrand Russell notoriously said, “If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.” Yet, it’s not true that everything must have a cause. Only that which begins to exist must have a cause. And herein God is perched up in a category all His own.

God is the uncreated Creator.

He is the beginning-less Beginner.

He is the uncaused Cause of all that began to exist.

Think about it. Everything that had a beginning had a cause. And every beginning had a Beginner. And every product has a Producer. And every initiative must have an Initiator. If there is an origin, there must be an Originator. And since there is a genesis, there is a Generator.

That generator my friend is, well, you guessed it.

God.

The Scriptures exclaim from the very first verse, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Far from being made, God is the maker of all things made.

Again, note the distinction. The difference between God and everything else that exists is everything else began to exist whereas God just exists. Do you remember what God said to Moses when He appeared to him in the burning bush? Moses said,

“If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you’” (Exodus 3:13-14).

What was God saying to Moses? He was revealing Himself to Moses as the self-existent one. As the one who wasn’t made. God was saying, “Moses, go tell them that the One who never began to exist sent you. The unmade One.”

Unlike us, God is what philosophers refers to as a necessary being, an independent being. And each of us, unlike God, are contingent beings and, therefore, dependent. The universe is also contingent because God spoke it into existence. This means that all things that began to exist are dependent on God for existence.

It turns out there is a problem with the question, “Who made God?” The word made can’t be said of God. For God is the unmade Maker. As expected, he’s in a league of his own.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bobby serves as lead pastor of Image Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is well known for his YouTube ministry called, One Minute Apologist, which now goes by the name Christianity Still Makes Sense. He also serves as the Co-Host of Pastors’ Perspective, a nationally syndicated call-in radio show on KWVE in Southern California. Bobby earned his Master of Theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary, his Doctor of Ministry in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary, and his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from the University of Birmingham (England) where he was supervised under David Cheetham and Yujin Nagasawa. Bobby’s also written several books including: The Fifth Gospel, Doubting Toward Faith, Does God Exist, and Fifty-One other Questions About God and the Bible and the forthcoming Christianity Still Makes Sense to be published by Tyndale in April 2024. He’s married to his lovely wife Heather and together they have two grown kids: Haley and Dawson.

 

/by