Tag Archive for: Skeptics

Apologetics as Conversation

Apologetics as Conversation

By Mikel Del Rosario

Hey, Can We Talk?

Seeing apologetics as a conversational ministry

There’s an Indian proverb that says, “You don’t cut off a man’s nose and give him a rose to smell.” I first heard this from Ramesh Richards, who applies this idea to apologetics. He says that sometimes, in the midst of talking about God, Jesus, or the Bible with skeptics, some Christians seem to “destroy them in the process of contest and debate.” That stuck with me.

While apologists often cite 1 Peter 3:15, focusing on the command to be “prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you,” some tend to neglect the rest of the command, “yet do it with gentleness and respect.” Think about apologetics training in a church or school context. Each lesson usually focuses on philosophical, theological, or historical issues, and the instructor often gives less attention to the personal aspects of practical engagement in everyday conversations. The content isn’t bad, but we need practical training for having conversations, too.

So how can we approach difficult spiritual conversations? At the Hendricks Center, we’ve dedicated a number of episodes on the Table Podcast dedicated to exploring the concept of dialogical apologetics—a practical approach which sees apologetic engagement not merely as a debate but as genuine dialogue.

In this post, I’ll share three ideas we need to incorporate into the way we think about engaging in apologetics: First, we need to see apologetics as a ministry. Second, we need to adapt our approach to a shifting culture. Third, we need to earn the right to be heard–especially in difficult spiritual conversations.

See Apologetics As Ministry

While some Christians seem reluctant to discuss the faith with their skeptical friends, others seem almost too eager to tear down objections and refute people’s challenges to Christian truth claims. What kind of attitude should we have as we prepare for difficult spiritual conversations? How can we alleviate some of the tension, so we don’t automatically get defensive? On an episode of the Table Podcast called, “How to Engage in Spiritual Conversations,” Mary Jo Sharp talked about seeing apologetics as a ministry. She said:

The first thing I want to demonstrate to a person is that I care about them. So, what we’re about to discuss is all wrapped up in, “Do I really want to serve this person?” I’ve had atheists tell me they felt like Christians made them a project. Like they just wanted to throw their [talking] points at them, and if they weren’t ready to accept those points, they just walk away. That makes them feel like a project rather than a person. I want to avoid that…

Many Christians don’t talk to other people about their faith because they don’t know their faith. They are not trained in essential Christian doctrine. They’re not comfortable in their Christian skin… We have to know what we believe and why we believe it. Early on in Christianity, I felt intimidated to share my faith with others, because I didn’t know why I believed it. And that’s just vital to having an effective conversation where you don’t get defensive—knowing your own beliefs.

So, knowing what you believe and why you believe it can give you the confidence you need to engage in spiritual conversations. But even before we start to engage, let’s look at apologetics as a ministry. Who says apologists have to be stern or super serious all the time? Sometimes we get a bad rap as the kinds of people who walk into conversations looking for a fight. But ministry means service. I believe there is apologetic value to remaining calm in difficult spiritual conversations and genuinely serving the other person.

When you have confidence in the truth of the Christian worldview, it should allow you to minister to the person by listening to their views and the stories behind them. Approaching these encounters with a desire to minister to the person can reduce the tension you feel. And it can help you avoid getting defensive or becoming argumentative.

Adapt to a Shifting Culture

While the truth hasn’t changed, challenges to the Christian worldview have evolved. And we need for a new generation of apologists who are sensitive to current conversations around transgenderism, religious freedom, and the intersection of faith and vocation. What kinds of issues are people already talking about as they try to sort out the tensions of life? These kinds of hot-button issues especially need to be approached from the standpoint of dialogue, not debate.

On an episode of the Table called, “Truth, Love, and Defending the Faith,” I sat down with Sean McDowell to talk about how the next generation of apologists can engage the culture in rapidly-shifting times. He said:

Truth remains the same, but culture changes. A new kind of apologist is [a Christian who says], “Let’s take stock, because a lot of things have changed around us today. Let’s make sure that we’re communicating the gospel and defending the faith in a way that’s God-honoring and effective in our culture today.”

Back in the second century, there was a group of Greek Apologists like Justin Martyr who defended the faith in a pagan, Greco-Roman context. They had to learn to “read and react” to what was going on in the public square. In the same way, we need a new generation of apologists who are able to address a variety of cultural issues as they make the case for Christianity in the public square today.

Earn the Right to be Heard

So a new kind of apologist sees apologetics as a ministry and adapts to a shifting culture. But he or she also knows how to earn the right to be heard in a society that often pushes back against Christianity. On the same episode, I asked my mentor Darrell Bock about this. Here’s what he said:

There are three important elements: One is earning the respect and credibility of someone by the way you relate to the person next to you, the way you engage them, their seeing your sincerity. Christianity has an inherent critique of the way people live. That’s not an easy thing to deal with. They won’t care about your critique unless they know you care. That’s step one.

The second requires a significant adjustment…We’re used to saying, “The Bible says [a proposition is true] and so it’s true.” That’s how we think about it. “It’s true because it’s in the Bible.” I like to reverse that and get people to think about maybe it’s in the Bible because it’s true…So what makes this true? What makes this authentic about a way to live that we need to probe in order to understand why God would put it in his inspired word?

Because what God is communicating to us are the realities of life and if we appreciate why those realities are the way that they are, why the truth is true…you don’t have to appeal to the Bible for it. You can also appeal for what this means for quality of life, or for human flourishing, the common good, [what] makes it valuable, and you can lead people into reflecting on the nature of what it is you’re arguing for in and of itself without appealing to the Bible for the warrant. For someone [for whom] the Bible is not a warrant—to  say “The Bible says it” doesn’t do them much good.

Third, there’s a way to have a conversation across a table with someone that emphasizes that aspect of the equation…[to see] apologetics as a conversation rather than thinking about it as a debate…that is the right tonal way into the conversation.

So there are three things here. One is how you relate, the second is knowing how to make the argument, and this third one is understanding you’re not in a debate, you’re in a conversation and it’s important to draw a person into the topic that you’re talking about.

Conclusion

The Indian proverb gets it right. There’s no point in giving someone a rose to smell if you’ve cut off their nose. But the flip side is also true. A gift of a rose and its smell is especially sweet when it comes from someone who actually cares about you. Let’s see apologetics as a ministry, adapt our approach to a shifting culture, and earn the right to be heard–especially in difficult spiritual conversations.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)

Practical Apologetics in Worldview Training by Hank Hanegraaff (Mp3)

The Great Apologetics Adventure by Lee Strobel (Mp3)

Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek (DVD Set, mp4 Download set and Complete Package)

So the Next Generation will Know by J. Warner Wallace (Book and Participant’s Guide)

Reaching Atheists for Christ by Greg Koukl (Mp3)

Living Loud: Defending Your Faith by Norman Geisler (Book)

Fearless Faith by Mike Adams, Frank Turek and J. Warner Wallace (Complete DVD Series)

 

Mikel Del Rosario helps Christians explain their faith with courage and compassion. He is a doctoral student in the New Testament department at Dallas Theological Seminary. Mikel teaches Christian Apologetics and World Religion at William Jessup University. He is the author of Accessible Apologetics and has published over 20 journal articles on apologetics and cultural engagement with his mentor, Dr. Darrell Bock. Mikel holds an M.A. in Christian Apologetics with highest honors from Biola University and a Master of Theology (Th.M) from Dallas Theological Seminary where he serves as Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center and a host of the Table Podcast. Visit his Web site at ApologeticsGuy.com.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2kTOY3P

/by
Forgery in the Bible: Were 1 and 2 Timothy really forged?

Forgery in the Bible: Were 1 and 2 Timothy really forged?

,

By Erik Manning

2 Timothy 3:16 says that all Scripture is “God-breathed.” Of course for Christians, this would include 2 Timothy, as well as the rest of the pastoral epistles. Skeptics find this verse to be ironic because many biblical critics think that the pastoral epistles were forgeries.

These letters claim to be written by the Apostle Paul, but they allegedly were really written sometime in the early 2nd-century, long after Paul was dead. Apparently, the forger wanted to address some doctrinal issues, and their own name wasn’t authoritative enough, so they borrowed Paul’s. So the “God-breathed” New Testament apparently contains some pious lies.

But are the critical arguments against the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles really an open and shut case? Not really. In fact, there’s some very good evidence that Paul did write these letters, and the arguments of the critics aren’t really all that strong.

This will be a 2-part series. First, we’ll first look at the positive case for Pauline authorship before digging into the critics’ objections in the next post.

The witness of the early church fathers

If there was anyone in a spot to know who wrote 1st and 2nd Timothy, it would have been the church father, Polycarp. In his letter to the Philippian church written in about 110 AD, Polycarp quoted 1 Timothy 3:8, 6:7, 6:10, and 2 Timothy 2:12. He also mentions Paul by name four times in his letter, including some indications that he was familiar with the apostle’s martyrdom.

On the significance of these early patristic quotes, here’s Biblical scholar Kenneth Berding. He makes two main observations in regards to Polycarp’s use of 1 and 2 Timothy:

“Observation #1:  The first is that Polycarp clusters allusions to Paul’s writings around each of the three times that he mentions Paul’s name explicitly (in chapters 3, 9, and 11).  You see, Polycarp is like some elderly Christians you may have met in your life who are so immersed in the Bible that they almost talk like the Bible.  Polycarp had huge sections of the Old and New Testaments committed to memory.  His letter could almost be described as a pastiche of allusions to various writings, about half of which are originally Paul’s.  (His connection to Paul in this letter makes sense, of course, since he is writing his letter to a Pauline congregation….the Philippians!)  Polycarp pretty randomly mixes allusions to Paul’s writings (half of his total allusions) with allusions to other writings (e.g., Psalms, Matthew, 1 Peter, 1 John).  But there is one significant exception:  when he mentions “Paul,” he clusters allusions to Paul right after the mention of his name.  He does this all three times he mentions Paul, showing that this is a pattern.

Observation #2:  In the first “cluster” of Pauline allusions are two clear allusions to 1 Timothy (1 Tim. 6:10 and 6:7 found in Pol. Phil. 4.1) and in the second “cluster” is one clear allusion to 2 Timothy (2 Tim. 4:10 found in Pol. Phil. 9.2).  There are none from the Pastoral Letters in the third cluster.

The implication of the first observation is that Polycarp considers the phrases in each cluster to be Pauline.  The implication of the second observation is that Polycarp considers the phrases which he quotes from 1 and 2 Timothy also to be from Paul.

This, of course, doesn’t prove that Polycarp is correct in his assessment.  But, as Koester writes, Polycarp was “doubtlessly the most significant ecclesiastical leader of the first half of II C. E.”

Critics say that the writer of the Pastorals was addressing Gnostic heresies of the late first and early second-century, so they were written around 110. But Polycarp was writing around the same time and seems convinced Paul wrote the letters. Irenaeus of Lyons tells us that Polycarp knew some of the apostles, in particular, John, whom Paul met. (Galatians 2:9). And he was familiar with Paul’s death, so this theory that the pastorals were written in the early 2nd-century is pretty strained.

Writing some 40-50 years later, Irenaeus explicitly mentions that Paul is the author of the Pastoral Letters. In his work Against Heresies, Irenaeus writes regarding heretics and says: “Paul commands us, ‘after a first and second admonition, to avoid” (Titus 3:10). Irenaeus also writes that Paul says to avoid those who use “novelties of words of false knowledge” (1 Tim 6:20).

Furthermore, the author of the Didache (a very early Christian writing dated to the late 1st-century) clearly quotes 1 Timothy 3:4. The Pastorals are also quoted by Clement of Alexandria (180 AD), Tertullian (220 AD) and Origen (230 AD). The witness of the early church is pretty clear. They quoted the pastorals as authoritative, and they believed the letters genuinely be from the Apostle Paul.

Undesigned Coincidences

If you’re forging a letter from someone and you want to make it believable, you’re going to color it with some overt connections with their previous letters and life-details. Some critics say this exists when the writer of Timothy talks about Paul’s former life as a church persecutor. (1 Tim. 1:13-16) But there are some less obvious interconnections in the pastorals that seem very unlikely to be intentional. These point to Paul being the genuine author of the letters.

These come in the form of undesigned coincidences. What the heck is an undesigned coincidence anyway? An undesigned coincidence (named by J.J. Blunt and first popularized by William Paley) happens when one account of an event leaves out a piece of info which is incidentally filled in by a different account, which helps to answer some natural questions raised by the first. You can read more about them here.

Lydia McGrew has recently revived and updated this older argument in her fantastic book Hidden in Plain View. It’s a must-read for anyone interested in defending the reliability of the New Testament.  For our purposes, we’ll look at three undesigned coincidences where Acts and 1 and 2 Timothy seem to incidentally interlock.

Timothy’s Upbringing

The first is about Timothy himself. 2 Timothy 1:5 says “I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well.”. 2 Timothy 3:15 gives us some more details about Timothy’s upbringing: “and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” 

So Timothy was steeped in the Jewish scriptures and in the faith. These details fit well together with what we read in Acts 16:1-3: “Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.”

In Acts, we learned Timothy’s father was Greek and apparently drew the line at circumcision, but his mother was a Jewish convert to Christianity. That’s why he would’ve been familiar with the scriptures since he was a child. 2 Timothy mentions his grandmother but not his father. Neither group of details seems to be in connection with the other. McGrew concludes that “this undesigned coincidence has the ring of truth. Timothy’s father was a Greek, and his mother was Jewish, he was raised from childhood in the knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures, and both the author of 2 Timothy and the author of Acts knew about him and described him accurately.” (HIPV, 200) 

Timothy’s familiarity with Paul’s trials

2 Timothy 3:10-11 says: “You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me.” This raises an interesting question. Paul went through a lot of persecutions, so why mention Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra as ones that Timothy would be familiar with?

In Acts 16:1, we read that Timothy was known as a believer when Paul came to Derbe and Lystra. Both cities are near Iconium, so Timothy must have been from one of them.

In the run-up to these verses, Acts gives us the rundown on the persecution of Paul experienced during his first missionary journey in Antioch (13:44–52), Iconium (14:5), and then Lystra (14:19). Paul was stoned and thought dead in Lystra in particular, so surely word got around about this event. It must’ve made quite an impression on a young believer like Timothy. Furthermore, Paul calls Timothy his “beloved child” (2 Timothy 1:2), suggesting he played a role in him becoming a Christian.

McGrew sums up this undesigned coincidence as follows: “Notice how indirect all of this is. One infers from II Timothy that Paul had some special reason to mention those persecutions to Timothy and to say that they were known to Timothy. One notes the point in Acts 13–14, where the narrative describes persecutions in those towns. One then infers from Acts 16 that Timothy was already a disciple from that region and had been converted during Paul’s previous visit to the region, described in Acts 13–14, during which the persecutions took place.” (HIPV, 203)

The Roster of Widows

For our last undesigned coincidence, we notice that in 1 Timothy 5:9-10 there are some instructions on how to help widows: “Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work.” 

The conservative dating of 1 Timothy is in the early 60s, three decades after some of the stories related in Acts, which includes details of a ministry devoted to assisting widows. With that in mind, check out Acts 6:1-4: “Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”

So Paul implies that this listing of widows has been a tradition that’s been well-established, and he’s laying out some specifics how Timothy is to carry it out in his neck of the woods. We’d expect this kind of clarification if this practice had been carried out for a while and there needed to be some further practical instructions given since some women were abusing the system. (1 Tim 5:13-14)

Here’s William Paley’s summary on this particular undesigned coincidence: “Now this is the way a man writers, who is conscious that he is writing to persons already acquainted with the subject of his letter; and who, he knows, will readily apprehend and apply what he says by virtue of their being so acquainted: but it is not the way in which a man writes upon any other occasion” (Horae Paulinae, pp 300-301)

Personal References

There are a lot of personal references made in the pastorals. The writer mentions a lot of individuals that he had a connection with during his missionary journeys. In 1 Timothy 1:20, he names Hymenaeus and Alexander as false teachers.

In 2 Timothy, he not only mentions Eunice and Lois by name (which we touched on earlier) but he also blesses Onesiphorus for his kindness that he showed him at Rome and Ephesus (2 Tim 1:16-18) He talks about a number of disciples forsaking him during his trials, such as Demas, Crescens and Titus.  (v. 4:10-11) He mentions Mark and Luke and asks Timothy to bring him his scrolls. (v11-13) He then asks Timothy to greet Priscilla and Aquila. He mentions Erastus and says he left Trophimus sick in Miletus. (v. 19-20)

In Titus 3:12, he asks Titus to join him once Artemas or Tychicus arrive to replace him. He also mentions some fellow workers, like Apollos and Zenas the lawyer (Titus 3:12-13)

If such allusions to people and circumstances were spun out of thin air by a forger pretending to be Paul, you’d think that such a sham would be easily exposed. But as we said earlier, none of the church fathers doubted the letters’ genuineness.

Paul wrote the Pastorals

There’s some very good evidence for the genuineness of Paul’s letters to Timothy that seems to go ignored by critics. They tend to focus on more granular internal inconsistencies and quibbles about grammar, which we’ll discuss in my next post. But as we’ve seen, the witness of the early church strongly favors that Paul wrote these letters based on their statements and use of the letters. And the internal evidence of undesigned coincidences between Acts and the pastoral letters is another strong argument in favor of the genuineness of the letters. The claim that Paul wrote these letters stands on solid ground.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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)

The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (Mp3)

 

Erik Manning is a former atheist turned Christian after an experience with the Holy Spirit. He’s a freelance baseball writer and digital marketing specialist who is passionate about the intersection of evangelism and apologetics.

/by
12 Reasons to Trust The New Testament

12 Reasons to Trust The New Testament

,

By Bob Perry

If you claim to believe the Bible, you better be able to trust that what it says is true. Trusting the Bible means knowing two things. First, that the original authors recorded historically accurate information. And, second, knowing that the Bible we have today contains what the original authors wrote down. “Textual criticism” is the science that analyzes these kinds of issues. It’s a complicated discipline. But the conclusions we can draw from it are simple to understand. Here are 12 reasons you can trust the New Testament manuscripts.

Multiple, Independent Sources Contributed to It

We tend to think of the Bible as a book. And it is … today. But that book is a collection of letters, poems, and historical documents that span thousands of years of human history. There are really 66 books in the Bible. They were written by about 40 different authors (35 of which we are very confident of). And they offer us a remarkably coherent story from beginning to end. We should judge the new testament manuscripts just like we would any other historical document. And one mark of reliable documentation is that it comes from multiple, independent sources.

We Have Thousands of New Testament Manuscripts

When you have lots of copies of a document, it is easy to compare them and see where variations in the text may occur. For instance, we have about 1800 known copies of Homer’s Iliad. This is by far the most copies of any ancient document. By comparison, the next closest is the writings of Demosthenes at 400 copies. Then there are the writings of Julius Caesar (10 copies), and the Roman historians Tacitus (20 copies) and Pliny (7 copies). No one disputes the authenticity of these manuscripts.

But when it comes to the New Testament, we have 5824 copies in the original Greek. When you count other languages (Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Arabic), there are more than 20,000!

New Testament Scholar Daniel Wallace puts it this way:

“The average classical Greek writer has less than 20 copies of his works still in existence. Stack them up, and they’re 4 feet high. If you stack up copies of the New Testament manuscripts, they would be over a mile high.”

The Manuscripts Were Written Early

We have good evidence to suggest that most of the New Testament was written before 70 A.D. This is not a unanimous conclusion by any means. But it is reasonable. And it is based on historical facts.

After a Jewish uprising against the Romans that began in 66 AD, the Roman Emperor dispatched his General, Titus, to the region to gain control. A conflict ensued that lasted nearly four years. Finally, in 70 AD, Titus surrounded the city of Jerusalem and attacked. In the end, he destroyed the city and burned the Jewish Temple to the ground.

These are not minor incidents. The Temple was the center of the Jewish culture and the home of Judaism. Yet none of the New Testament authors even mention these events. In fact, John 5:2, contains the following passage: “Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate, a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades.”

John’s description of the Temple is in the present tense. This suggests he wrote these words before the Temple was destroyed. And most scholars believe John’s was the last Gospel written. The other Gospels and the Book of Acts were penned well before it.

The Documents Are a Collection of Eyewitness Accounts

There is no denying the New Testament reads like a collection of eyewitness accounts about the life and teachings of Jesus. But that doesn’t mean it is. Details count. And details are exactly what the New Testament provides.

In his book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist, Frank Turek lists 84 specific details documented by classical scholar and historian Colin Hemer. And these occur just in the last 16 chapters of the Book of Acts. They include the names of people, places, and other details that have been confirmed by history and archeology.

Likewise, the Gospel of John contains 59 confirmed details. None of them are the kind of detail someone would fabricate. And there is no other set of ancient manuscripts that contain this level of historically verifiable authenticity.

Non-Christian Sources Confirm the Most Important Details

There are 10 non-Christian sources who mention Jesus within 150 years of his life. These people have no motivation to confirm anything about him. But they verify every detail of what the New Testament says about his life, death, and resurrection. By contrast, only 9 non-Christian sources who mention the Roman Emperor of that time, Tiberius Caesar. And, if you count Christian sources, Jesus gets 43 mentions. Tiberius only gets 10.

There is no reason these non-Christian sources would confirm details contained in the New Testament unless they were actually true.

We Can Reconstruct It Using Just Quotes of Early Church Fathers

Writing between about 95 – 110 AD, three leaders of the Christian Church cited nearly the entire New Testament. These early “Church Fathers” (Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp) quoted every book in the New Testament except Jude and 2 John. And since they were quoting the New Testament letters, this serves as further evidence that those letters must have existed well prior to 100 AD.

Historical and Archeological Evidence Corroborate It

There are 30 characters mentioned in the New Testament whose names and positions have been verified by history and archeology.

For instance, we have the actual burial box (“ossuary”) that contains the bones of the High Priest, Joseph Caiaphas, who sentenced Jesus to death. And we have the infamous “Pilate Stone.” This engraved sign authenticates the name and title of the Roman Prefect who released Jesus to his trial by the Jewish authorities.

There are plenty of other examples where archaeology has corroborated the claims of the New Testament, including:

  • The Pool of Siloam (John 9:1-12) uncovered in 2004.
  • The Pool of Bethesda (John 5:1-9) excavated in 1888.
  • Syrian Governor Quirinius (Luke 2:1-3) name discovered on a coin and a statue
  • King Lysanias (Luke 3:1) listed on an inscription near Damascus

It Fulfills Ancient Prophecies in Amazing Ways

There are 9 specific Old Testament prophecies that foretell the origin, nature, and life of Jesus of Nazareth. These were written between several hundred and a couple of thousand years before his birth. Yet, they predict the events of his life with deadly accuracy. Daniel 7, Psalm 22, and Isaiah 53 all contain prophecies about his birth, death, and resurrection. These are so accurate many thought they were written after the fact. But the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 put that notion to rest.

In all, Bible scholar J. Barton Payne identified 71 Old Testament prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus Christ.

It Contains Embarrassing Details

If you were going to make up or embellish a story about a heroic figure and his henchmen, you certainly wouldn’t include details that embarrassed them. But that’s just what the New Testament manuscripts do. His followers are bumbling fools and cowards who doubt his teachings. His disciples — even his own family — consider Jesus to be out of his mind and a deceiver. Some call him a “drunkard” and “demon-possessed.” But, most amazingly, he suffers the worst kind of defeat any devout Jew could ever imagine. He is hung on a tree (the ultimate curse in the Jewish culture) and killed.

These are not the kind of things that anyone would use to convince you that their hero was a God. They are the kinds of things that a writer includes because he is documenting events that actually occurred.

It Includes the Difficult Sayings of Jesus

Along the same lines, the New Testament writers make Jesus a very difficult figure to serve. He sets new — and unattainable — standards for justice, judgment, lust, marriage, finances, and love. Try to imagine a salesman or storyteller who exhorts you to follow him by imposing those kinds of standards on others. It just makes no sense. Unless the writers were telling the truth.

A “Chain of Custody” Confirms The Content of the Originals

The Monastery of Saint Catherine contains the oldest known complete copy of the New Testament. This manuscript is called Codex Sinaiticus because the monastery was located on the Sinai peninsula. Scholars have dated it to 350 AD.

That’s great. But how do we know it contains what the original authors wrote?

J. Warner Wallace, a retired Los Angeles cold-case detective, applies his methods for evaluating evidence to the biblical manuscripts. In his book, Cold-Case Christianity, Wallace connects the dots between the New Testament authors (Paul, John, Peter, Mark) and their students that leads directly to Codex Sinaiticus. Wallace shows that we have a reliable chain of evidence between the words of the oldest copy of the New Testament and the men who wrote the words contained in it.

It Contains “Undesigned Coincidences” That Verify Its Authenticity

One of the most powerful ways to tell if a story is authentic is to compare how different eyewitnesses tell it. If the accounts are exactly the same, you suspect collusion. If they’re wildly contradictory, you suspect that somebody is lying or that the story just isn’t true. But when two accounts tell the same story from different points of view, that is the hallmark of authenticity. This is especially true if one version inadvertently provides complementary details to another. Some scholars call these “undesigned coincidences.”

As an example, compare Matthew’s account of Jesus’ appearance before the Sanhedrin in Matthew 26:67-68. After they spit in his face, strike him with their fists, and slap him, they say, “Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit you?” That’s a weird question to ask someone who you just slapped across the face.

Until you read Luke’s account.

In Luke 22:64, we find out that before the Jewish leaders began questioning Jesus, they blindfolded him.

This is a “coincidence” that no one planned. It’s a powerful indication that the accounts are real. And the Bible is littered with these kinds of harmonizing features. Links to detailed resources about these “undesigned coincidences” are available below.

The New Testament Verifies the Old Testament

The reliability of the New Testament is beyond dispute. And that means we can trust its purpose — to give an account of the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus is exactly who he said he was. His resurrection confirmed it. And Jesus certifies what the Old Testament says. That means the Old Testament is also reliable for many of the same reasons.

There are plenty of resources (some offered below) that give more detail about these issues. Check them out. Study them.

You can have confidence in the fact that there are plenty of reasons we can trust the New Testament. And knowing why that is true goes a long way toward helping you own your faith.

Resources

Books on “Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences”

Lydia McGrew, Hidden In Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts

Eric Lounsbery, J. J. Blunt’s Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences

Books On the Reliability of the Bible

Walter C. Kaiser, The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable and Relevant?
F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
Mark D. Roberts, Can We Trust The Gospels?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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)

The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (Mp3)

 

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at: truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal, and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and a M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.

/by
5 Steps Every Christian Should Take When Talking with Skeptics about Miracles

5 Steps Every Christian Should Take When Talking with Skeptics about Miracles

,

By Jeremy Linn

When talking with skeptics about the resurrection of Jesus, it seems obvious to go straight to the historical evidence for the resurrection. But for many skeptics, there is an intellectual barrier that needs to be broken down before historical evidence can even be considered.

The barrier is: A strong skepticism towards miracles.

I came across this barrier in a discussion I had with a skeptic about Jesus’ resurrection. When the discussion began, I immediately started talking about historical sources that provide the best evidence for the resurrection. The skeptic responded back with a request for empirical evidence in order to show an event like the resurrection – a miracle – could actually happen.

At this point, I knew we would need to talk about miracles before getting any further in our discussion about historical evidence. I requested permission to turn the conversation towards miracles. When the skeptic agreed, I ran through five steps – all of which are important to incorporate conversations with skeptics about the topic of miracles:

1. Define what you’re talking about

Both people involved in a discussion need to agree on the definition of keywords they will use in the discussion before significant progress can be made in the discussion. With the topic of miracles, a keyword that needs to be defined is, of course, “miracle.” The agreed-upon definition of miracle will impact discussion on the possibility of them occurring, evidence needed to verify them, and other topics that could come up in the course of conversation.

In my discussion with a skeptic, I asked immediately for a definition of a miracle, knowing the definition would impact the rest of our discussion. The skeptic did not have a definition for a miracle in mind and asked me to provide my own definition. He agreed to use my understanding of miracles – which involves natural laws as we understand today being altered or broken into by a supernatural force – as a starting point for our discussion.

2. Understand what evidence is required by the skeptic

With the definition of “miracle” set, it’s now time to understand what type and degree of evidence for a miracle the skeptic would require. This step provides an excellent opportunity to listen as you ask a question like, “What evidence would you need in order to be convinced that a miracle occurred?” The key here is to understand and ask clarifying questions if needed, rather than to assess or go on the attack.

In my conversation with a skeptic, it took a while to get to the specifics of what “convincing evidence” for a miracle would look like. For this skeptic, the only acceptable evidence would be repeatable events, tested and verified by a team of scientists multiple times under the same conditions. Now I understood exactly what evidence would be required for the skeptic, and could continue on to the next step.

3. Assess if the required level of evidence is reasonable

This step helps you determine which direction to take at this point in the discussion. If the skeptic’s requirement for evidence exceeds a level that is reasonable or even possible, then the skeptic likely won’t be convinced no matter what evidence is presented. In that case, it may not be worth continuing discussion about evidence for miracles. Instead, the discussion may need to turn to the nature of evidence itself.

In my discussion, I didn’t know exactly how to assess the requirement for a team of scientists to repeatedly test miracle events – it’s a requirement I had never heard before. But upon later reflection, it became clear that the requirement in not reasonable. If a repeatable event was tested and verified by groups of scientists over time, that event would be considered by the skeptic to be a natural event – not a miraculous one. Thus, the potential for miracles is immediately ruled out by the skeptic’s requirement.

4. Provide any case examples that could satisfy the requirement of evidence

If the skeptic does provide a requirement for evidence that appears reasonable, then you can provide some case examples which may satisfy the requirement. There are a few ways to approach this part of the discussion. One way is to bring up a miracle account that is based on eyewitness testimony and ask how the skeptic would explain the details of the account. Many eyewitness accounts are provided in books like Miracles by Craig Keener and The Case for Miracles by Lee Strobel. For another idea, you could point the skeptic to miracle accounts that include medical documentation people can view for themselves, such as the miracle story of Sean George.

In my discussion with a skeptic, I didn’t provide specific miracles examples since I didn’t come prepared with examples. That is one thing I would change in my next discussion about any topic related to miracles – to have specific examples written down or memorized so they can be used when needed.

5. Don’t expect the evidence will immediately convince the skeptic

This “step” may be more of a principle to keep in mind as you enter into a discussion about miracles. Even if a skeptic requests a specific level of evidence, and you provide satisfactory examples, don’t expect the skeptic to suddenly embrace the miraculous. Factors beyond evidence can hold someone back from accepting the reality of miracles – factors like a naturalistic bias, a difficult emotional experience in the past, or a negative perception of the supernatural.

Ultimately, God is the one to change someone’s mind and heart regarding spiritual topics such as miracles. We have a role to play in this process, but our goal is not to convince a skeptic by our own power. Our goal is to listen, to understand, and to be open to God using us in leading a skeptic one step closer to the truth.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Case for Miracles: A Journalist Investigates Evidence for the Supernatural by Lee Strobel Kindle Edition

Miracles: The Evidence by Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

Two Miracles You Take With You Everywhere You Go by Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

Defending the Faith on Campus Complete Package by Frank Turek DVD

 

Jeremy is the co-founder of the ministry Twin Cities Apologetics and is an accountant for a law firm in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He’s also going to Bethel Seminary for a graduate degree in a program called Christian Thought (basically Apologetics!). Outside of Apologetics, Jeremy enjoys sports, playing guitar, and making videos.

 

/by
How Do We Know The Truth Is Out There?

How Do We Know The Truth Is Out There?

,

By Bob Perry

There are two kinds of truth. One depends on our opinion of things. This is called subjective truth. The other depends on the way the world actually is. This is called objective truth. Most people never think about the difference between the two. And that makes any discussion of the concept of truth a difficult one to tackle. But we must tackle it. The way we understand truth impacts every aspect of our lives. And the way we answer life’s biggest questions depends on it implicitly. Truth is an objective feature of the world we live in. It’s foundational to reality itself.

Subjective Truth

When I say cookies and cream ice cream is the best kind of ice cream, that statement is true. For me. It’s my opinion. And my opinion may be completely different than yours. We are both subjects making observations about the world. But our observations about which flavor of ice cream is best say nothing about the nature of ice cream itself. They may be true statements, but they are only statements about us and our preferences. That’s why it’s called subjective truth.

Unfortunately, most people treat all truth the same way they treat their ice cream preferences. They’ll say things like, “Well, that may be true for you, but it’s not for me.” And while that’s a perfectly valid statement when it comes to our favorite kinds of ice cream, it’s wholly inadequate when it comes to our assessment of the nature of reality.

Objective Truth

Making claims regarding the nature of reality requires that we recognize a different kind of truth. It’s called objective truth. And it’s called that because it says something about objects outside of us. Objective things do not just exist inside our heads. They are real features of the real world.

For instance, if I say the Earth revolves around the Sun, I am making a statement about the nature of the Earth-Sun relationship. I am making a statement about an objective fact. My opinion about it doesn’t matter. Neither does yours. The only way to determine if the statement is true is to look at the objects themselves and see if what I say about them matches the way they really are. If it does match, I have made a true statement.

Think of it like gravity. You don’t have to believe in gravity. But saying you don’t believe in gravity doesn’t allow you to step off tall buildings without consequence. Gravity is an objective reality. It doesn’t matter if you believe in it or not. Objective truth is no different.

The Correspondence View Of Truth

This is called the “correspondence view” of truth. And the technical definition of it is this:

If what I believe about the world matches the way the world actually is, my belief about the world is true.

This way of understanding truth is perfectly natural. Our minds are wired to recognize it. You evaluate the world you live in using this definition of truth all the time. In fact, you’re unconsciously doing it right now. You’re reading these words and comparing what the words say to the reality you experience every day. You do that because you are a truth-seeking being. Your Maker made you that way. You want to know the truth. And you don’t (at least, you shouldn’t) accept things other people say unless they correspond to reality.

The truth is out there. And we are made to find it.

Alignment with The Truth

We really can’t escape the truth. Even someone who says, “There is no truth!” is making a truth claim about the world. They are saying that “there is no truth” … is a true statement.

Living in the real world requires that we recognize this definition of truth. We should be doing all we can to align our beliefs with the fixed features of that world. Those features are external to us. We don’t create them. We discover them. And we rely on them to keep us safe. We do it all the time.

If you’re about to step out into the street, you look both ways for a reason. You want to know the truth about whether a car may run you over. Knowing true things means properly aligning yourself with reality. If you believe something false about the world — if you deny reality — we have a word for that. It’s called being deluded. And being deluded will quickly get you in trouble.

False beliefs lead us to act in defiance of the way the world actually works. And that’s why we need to know the objective truth about the existence and nature of God, and our relationship with Him.

A Post-Truth Culture

Most people do not believe in objective truth. In fact, in 2016, the Oxford Dictionary Word of the Year was “post-truth.” Some say we live in a post-truth culture. This becomes especially evident when the subject of moral truth comes up. But the answers to life’s most important questions depend on us finding the truth. In fact, the truth lies at the heart of the Christian worldview. And that means Christianity doesn’t allow us to accept the assumptions or demands of a “post-truth” culture.

The Truth of Christianity

Whatever belief system you hold to should reflect the way the world actually is. This is why I believe in Christianity. Not because it “works for me.” And not because it makes my life easier. Christianity doesn’t claim it will do either of those things. It actually warns us of the opposite.

What Christianity does do is offer the most reasonable explanation for the origin and nature of the universe. And it offers the most reasonable explanation for the origin and nature of the human beings who inhabit that universe.

Christianity corresponds to reality. More than any other religion, it makes sense of the world. I believe in Christianity because it’s true. Or, as my favorite Christian apologist put it:

“I believe in Christianity as I believe the Sun has risen;
not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
C. S. Lewis

This video by J. Warner Wallace gives a quick overview of how to think about the difference between objective and subjective truth…

 

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at: truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal, and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and a M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/33LF1qT

/by
God & Evil: A Rapid-Fire Response

God & Evil: A Rapid-Fire Response

, ,

By Timothy Fox

The problem of evil (pain or suffering) is probably the number one argument against the existence of God. While it is definitely not a problem that can be answered quickly and simply, I’d like to offer some short, rapid-fire responses that can be used to begin a deeper discussion:

Free will – Freedom is a great good that God has granted us. But God can’t give us free will and then forbid us from using it. He can’t give us commands and force us to obey them. And when we disobey God, we – and others – get hurt…

Consequences – Bad decisions often have bad consequences. If there were no consequences for our wrong choices, what do any of our choices matter?

Learning from experience – When we face evil or experience the suffering of others, we (should!) learn from it. Evil teaches us what not to do and should inspire us to stop it.

God is king – God is not a beat cop or a superhero. God is King of the universe. A king makes commands and delegates authority to others. He is not a soldier; he commands soldiers. God has authorized parents to guide and protect their families. He has authorized rulers to promote good and punish evil (Rom. 13). God does not micromanage the universe, and neither is he a helicopter parent. Similarly, …

Minimal interference – What if God simply wants us to make the best of this world – problems and all – with minimal interference? Maybe he wants us to grow and to learn, to solve our own problems.

Inspiration – People who overcome great obstacles are an inspiration to others. The greater the pain, suffering, and other hardships, the greater the inspiration.

Priorities – Tragedy reminds us that life is short, fragile, and should not be wasted. It teaches us to pursue what really matters in life. Similarly, …

Life-altering events – There have been major events that have altered human history, such as the Holocaust and terror attacks of 9/11. Likewise, there are events that impact our individual lives and can steer them into a different direction. Experiencing an act of evil may not result directly in a “greater good,” but it can simply shift the trajectory of our lives and result in a greater end.

Evil chases us to God – What if someone had a perfectly pain-free life but never came to faith in Christ? Instead, what if someone experienced a great evil that led him or her to turn to God for strength? If knowing God is the greatest possible good, then a life with great pain and suffering that leads us to God is infinitely better than a pain-free life in which we never come to faith in Jesus.

Suffering binds us together – Suffering brings us to God, and it also draws us to each other. When friends and family suffer, we learn to lean on each other for strength and help. We develop love and compassion. Suffering can create a community that would not have otherwise existed.

Perspective – We experience evil from the “bottom-up.” We witness it firsthand and don’t understand it, causing us to question the existence of a good God. But we need to view evil – and everything else in life – from the “top-down.” Everything has a purpose. All of our actions are connected. We don’t have a God’s-eye view of reality. God does

When God prevents evil, we still complain – The great flood. The destruction of the Canaanites. The Bible gives accounts of God punishing the wicked and preventing further evil, and yet skeptics complain that God acted immorally. So no matter what God does or doesn’t do, some people are going to be unhappy.

Unknown evil – The previous point refers to evil; we know that God has stopped. But what about the evil that God has prevented without us even knowing? It’s possible that God has prevented far more evil than he has permitted, and only as much evil necessary to bring about the greatest amount of good.

Evil awakens our consciences – Because of sin, our moral compasses are misaligned. We believe some evils are good and are even apathetic towards evil. Great instances of evil may jolt our consciences awake, or snap them back into alignment.

Soul-building – Pain, and suffering strengthens us and builds our souls (Rom. 5:3-4, 2 Cor. 4:17). We develop virtues such as patience and determination and gain compassion towards others who suffer. Our suffering molds us into citizens worthy of the Kingdom of God. Remember, the purpose of life is not happiness but holiness.

Fallen world – Living in a fallen world, we should expect pain and suffering. Suffering reminds us that things are not the way they ought to be and to hope for a world in which there is no pain or suffering…

Heaven – Once we reach heaven, all of our sufferings, no matter how great it may be here on earth, will be a distant memory. There will be no sadness or pain there, and perhaps our past sufferings on earth will help us to appreciate heaven all the more.

Jesus – God did not sit idly by and watch us suffer from a distance. God entered into history and lived among us. He also suffered and died for us. Jesus Christ is the solution to the problem of evil.

These are some rapid-fire responses to the problem of evil. Remember, they are not exhaustive, but are simply starting points for deeper discussions. Maybe you can think of more responses yourself, or you can use the ones here to reflect on the pain and suffering you or your loved ones have faced. And for greater study, I highly recommend The Problem of Pain by C. S. Lewis and Why Does God Allow Evil? by Clay Jones.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Z03V2k

/by
Safeguarding Yours from the Modern Cult of Experts

Safeguarding Yours from the Modern Cult of Experts

,

By Terrell Clemmons

[Although this essay was written at another time, Cross Examined considers its content to be current and relevant to share]

Few years ago, Current Biology, a research journal published by Cell Press, carried an article titled, “The Negative Association between Religiousness and Children’s Altruism across the World.” The report, authored by seven psychologists from four continents, related the findings of experiments with approximately 1,200 children ages 5-12 from six nations. The study was funded by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation, Science of Philanthropy Initiative.

The article highlighted three findings: (1) that children from religious households are less altruistic than children from secular households, (2) that they are more harsh and punitive than children from secular households, and (3) that their parents don’t see them as less altruistic and more punitive but rather as kinder than other children in terms of empathy and sensitivity to injustice. “Together these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children’s altruism, challenging the view that religiosity facilitates prosocial behavior,” the summary concluded. In other words, if you’ll pardon the snark, kids exposed to religion are anti-social, and their parents are clueless. Religion is a social pathogen.

As you can imagine, this was a windfall for the secular press. “Religious upbringing linked to less altruism,” announced Science Daily. “Children from nonreligious homes are more generous, altruistic than observant ones,” trumpeted Newsday. And the UK Guardian‘s header bordered on the childish: “Religious children are meaner than their secular counterparts.” Science Codex at least showed enough restraint to headline its report in the form of a question, “Does religion make kids less generous?”

Well, does it? Science said it. Does that settle it?

Of course, it doesn’t. As apologist Frank Turek says, science doesn’t say anything. Scientists do. And because scientists, science writers, and mainstream journalists are all fallible human beings, a level-headed response calls for some critical thinking every time a new finding is being heralded in the name of science.

Experts, Shmexperts

Critical thinking begins with examining exactly what is being said and by what authority. Let’s start with the question of authority. In Shmexperts: How Ideology and Power Politics Are Disguised as Science, Marc Fitch addresses what he calls “the modern myth of experts.” He begins by defining “experts” for his specific purpose. (Personally, I like “shmexperts” better, but I will go with his terminology for now.) First, an expert is not the working professional informed by relevant experience and skill—the man or woman “whose motivation in their work is to produce a result: an actual, testable piece of hardware or a theory that can be proven empirically.” A professional whose product is subject to external standards in this way is not what Fitch is talking about. Second, he’s not necessarily referring to intellectuals—those who make their living in the realm of ideas, although the lines between intellectuals and experts are apt to get blurred.

Experts, for Fitch’s treatment, are primarily defined by their transgression of the boundaries inherent to their fields of expertise. For example, a cell biologist may have a perfectly good, morally sound opinion on the social advisability of religion-based models of childrearing. Or he may be a cold-blooded moral monster. The point is, knowledge in the realm of science does not make him a credible authority in the realm of values. This should not need pointing out, but apparently, it does. Whenever anyone makes statements about non-material realms of thought, or pushes a moral argument, under the banner of science, then the science is not being used in its proper context. It is being coopted to advance an agenda.

When expert “authorities” advance an agenda this way, they are “avoiding an ethical, moral, or political argument,” Fitch points out, and are imbuing “the realm of human ideals with the faulty notion that somehow chemical, biological, or physical sciences can offer an answer to the human condition.” When scientists do this, they are not acting as scientists. They are acting as philosopher kings. The same goes for the gullible (or complicit) media granting them platforms from which to reign.

Critical Examination 101

Now let’s take a look at the Current Biology report on children, religion, and altruism. The first question that ought to come to mind is, What exactly does religion have to do with biology? What has philanthropy to do with biology? Or altruism? Or generosity? Of course, the answer is nothing. Although the study itself was done by psychologists, its publication in a biomedical journal raises a glaring red flag. Realms of thought have been mixed, boundaries blurred.

Now, let’s look at how the experts reached their findings. To assess altruism, they conducted an experiment called the Dictator Game. Children were allowed to choose ten stickers, which they were told: “are yours to keep.” They were also told that not all the children in their group would get stickers because the experimenters didn’t have time for everyone. The children were then given an opportunity to share the stickers they were given, right there on the spot. The experimenters counted the number of stickers each child shared, and that number became the measure of that child’s altruism. So, if a child opted to take his stickers home to share with his little sister or his buddy next door, he did not count as altruistic.

Here’s how they measured moral sensitivity. The children were shown short videos depicting mean actions—one child shoving another, for example. Then their reactions were somehow categorized according to how they judged the mean act they’d been shown. So if the same child exhibited judgment when he saw a boy shove a girl to the ground—if he said, Hey, that’s not fair; that boy should be punished! For example—then he counted as harsh and punitive.

Technically, that may be accurate, but ponder the perverse moral reasoning by which moral sensitivity is being assessed here. Those children exhibiting an indifference to injustice are being appraised as the “nice” ones, the pro-social ones. Meanwhile, those who censured meanness counted as, well, mean.

Should nothing be punished? We might ask. Toward whom should the child have shown sensitivity? Toward the boy doing the shoving? Or toward the girl who was shoved? Wouldn’t a fair-minded observer say the child objecting to meanness is actually more sensitive to injustice than the one who’s indifferent?

To be sure, these are judgment calls. And that is precisely the point. Judgment calls were factory-installed into this study. Either the experts knew it and have not been upfront about it, or they’re blithely clueless regarding their own massive bias.

How they defined “religiousness” is equally overripe for critical deconstruction, but you get the point.

Bad Science

If psychologists want to try to map people’s altruism or generosity or philanthropy in relation to their religiosity—however, they choose to define and quantify such non-exact entities—that’s fine. They can define their terms and presuppositions and have at it. But “The Negative Association between Religiousness and Children’s Altruism across the World” is, at best, bad psychology. And whatever it is, it certainly isn’t biology. It might better be called secular snobbery masquerading as objective science.

Cell Pressbills itself as “a leading publisher of cutting-edge biomedical research and reviews.” How such bunk qualified as biomedical research is a question every self-respecting biologist should be asking every sitting member of Current Biology‘s editorial board. All 103 of them. Anyone with a working baloney-detector can see the egregious transgression of boundaries.

In his book, Fitch touches on several agenda-driven narratives that have been or are (still) being foisted on the public by “experts”: population control; the supposed scientific basis for a host of “victimhood” narratives; the politics of health care; pot legalization; and—the granddaddy of global political agendas—environmentalism. And there are others that he doesn’t take up, but we should: psychiatry, for example, and the deluge of sex and gender “science” flooding the pipeline. To avoid subversion by shmexperts, everything must be put through a critical filter—everything.

Bad Religion

There’s a lot at stake. The ramifications of the modern cult of experts include:

A heightened generalized anxiety. How does one know whom among the “authorities” or what out of the swarming buzz of opinions to believe? The cacophony is enough to tempt anyone to tune it all out because it’s just too hard or too upsetting or too confusing. But tuning out leads to—

A softening of the mind. Widespread outsourcing of thought—and worse, of moral reasoning—renders the public increasingly subject to demagoguery, fear-mongering, and mob mentality. Groupthink sets in like dry rot and totalitarian thought control follows. This creates an environment hostile to sustaining basic political liberties. We already see a soft tyranny suffocating freedom of thought and conscience at the university.

A devaluing of the individual. When awe-inspiring reverence is conferred on those with degrees and titles over the non-academic-but-supremely-practical working Joe, a gap—real or perceived—widens between the intellectual haves and have-nots. This serves no one’s best interest. It breeds narcissism among the elite and a menacing mix of servile dependency and brooding discontent among the rest.

An outsourcing of salvation. The media cite and defer to experts who, for various reasons, sow fears and recommend government interventions. Politicians for their part are happy to promote policies they see as contributing to their immortal legacy. And they will, of course, need the experts to administer the policies, so the ruling class expands. “We rely on a small troupe of Chicken Littles,” Fitch writes, “each telling the world that the sky is falling, the earth is warming, markets are collapsing, diseases are spreading, and people are starving. They present the world of death as a great beast slouching toward your homes [and] they call upon the government to intercede and take further control to alleviate the ‘crisis.'”

It is just assumed that we unthinking, unwashed masses need the anointed elites to save our poor, helpless souls from the big bad world out there. Fitch doesn’t frame it in religious terms, but at some point, the would-be ruling class does assume the role of in loco savior and lord. Except that it can never save. It can only lord.

Sound Minds, Sound Society

Fitch offers some good suggestions for filtering shmexpert fare. Learn to separate empirical data from ethics and morality, and the hard sciences from the inexact, soft humanities. In many cases, bad science doesn’t so much need to be countered as it needs to be exposed to the light of scrutiny and deconstructed, as we have done with the Current Biology mashup on religiousness and altruism.

Most of all, learn to think in broader worldview terms. It is true that the world is not a safe place, and there is a role for government and legitimate experts to play in meeting the challenges people face. And while it is also true that we all stand in need of a savior, no government nor any shmexpert is up to that task.

 

Terrell Clemmons is a freelance writer and blogger on apologetics and matters of faith.

This article was originally published at salvomag.com: http://bit.ly/33l73Jm

/by
NO, THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES HAS NOT BEEN DEBUNKED (PT. 2)

No, The Argument from Miracles Has Not Been Debunked (Pt. 2)

,

By Erik Manning

Is the argument from miracles hopelessly fallacious? Stephen Woodford, AKA ‘Rationality Rules,’ believes so. In his popular YouTube video ‘The Argument From Miracles-Debunked’ Woodford says the argument from miracles commits four major fallacies.

In my last post, I looked at Woodford’s first two objections saw that they didn’t really hold up under scrutiny. I’d recommend giving it a read before continuing in this post. Go ahead; I’ll be right here when you get back.

Alright, now let’s turn to his final two objections and see if they do any better. Oh, and if you want to watch Rationality Rules’ video in full, here you go:

God of The Gaps? 

Here’s Stephen’s 3rd objection:

“a third fallacy that ravishes miraculous assertions – this question is, “how exactly can we distinguish a miracle from an unlikely natural occurrence that we are yet to comprehend?” It’s a very simple question, but it’s a brilliant one (if I do say so myself) – because it forces the proponent to bare their Burden of Proof rather than allowing them to shift it to you by appealing to ignorance. or they simply appeal to ignorance – then guess what – their assertion is unsubstantiated, and therefore their argument is too – meaning that it’s game over; no ifs, no buts, it’s over.”

What Stephen is saying here is the argument from miracles commits the God of the gaps fallacy. The popular atheist website Rational Wiki says the God of the gaps fallacy: “is a logical fallacy that occurs when believers invoke ‘Goddidit’ to account for some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument) explain. This concept resembles what systems theorists refer to as an “explanatory principle.” “God of the gaps” is a bad argument not only on logical grounds but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of “gaps” being filled and the remaining gaps for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting “we don’t know yet” as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena always remain possible, especially in the future where research may uncover more information.”

There’s a problem with this line of argument, however. As I argued in my previous post, the resurrection of Jesus would strongly imply theism and critics would agree. This is exactly why they attack the evidence. For example, they’ll argue against the historicity of the empty tomb or claim that the disciples’ experienced hallucinations to explain the data.

Since most skeptics clearly get the implications for Jesus’ resurrection, it seems crazy for Woodford to agree with Christians that Jesus was resurrected, but then to say that someday science will have a natural explanation for such an event.

As Christian thinker Michael Jones notes, this kind of reasoning commits the “future humans of the gaps” fallacy. A future human of the gaps argument would say “I don’t know the answer to the evidence we have, but I know that intelligent people in the future will have an answer and that it will confirm my atheistic worldview.” This is just blind faith and question-begging to the extreme.

Furthermore, the argument from miracles isn’t just about plugging God into gaps in our understanding. It just depends on the evidence that we have.

For example, if I were to come home and my back door was kicked in, my house was trashed, and my TV and computer was missing, I’d call the cops. If the police came, assessed the evidence and then accused me of committing a “burglar of the gaps” argument, I wouldn’t accept that. No sane person would.

Some things are clearly caused by agents, and not impersonal, natural causes. If Jesus’ resurrection happened, that would count as one such event. This is why we have to look at the evidence we have and see what best explains the data. We can’t just shrug and say, “we don’t know, but future humans will figure out that it happened naturalistically.”

Are Miracle Stories Just Based On Personal Anecdotes and Appeals to Emotion? 

In the last part of the video, Stephen refers to fake faith healers. He claims that these miracles are just based on personal anecdotes and emotional experiences, and hence reasons that all miracle claims are like these examples.

These objections certainly could explain some so-called faith healings. That said, I’d recommend Woodford check out Dr. Craig Keener’s two-volume work on miracles and see if he still thinks all prayer-healing testimonies are fake. But let’s set that aside for now. If we don’t rule out miracles from the start, we could see if they pass some minimum, religiously-neutral criteria to see if they could be reasonably accepted:

  1. Are they reported from far, far away?
  2. Are they reported a long period of time after the alleged events?
  3. Do they fit the prejudices of those whom they are reported to?
    What happens when we look at the resurrection through this filter?

While there was a messianic expectation during Jesus’ time, no one expected the Messiah to be crucified and resurrected ahead of the general resurrection that was to occur at the end of time. Tom Wright belabors this point in great detail in his magnum opus, The Resurrection of the Son of God.

Not only that, this miracle didn’t pass without inspection. Jesus’ opponents could have produced a body, and yet we read in Matthew and in Justin Martyr that the story given to explain the empty tomb was the disciples’ stole the body. (Matthew 28:12-13, Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 108) Moreover, the disciples preached the resurrection in the city where Jesus was killed, in front of a hostile audience, within weeks after his death.

For comparison, if you want to start a faith-healing cult, you’re not going to go to Mecca to do it. You might not make it past baggage claim. But the disciples’ risked their necks to proclaim what they believed they witnessed.

For these reasons Jeff Lowder, one of the founders of infidels.org, says: “I remember thinking to myself that if I took the time to investigate the resurrection, I could make anyone who believed it look like a fool. Or so I thought… I was about to discard it as ‘another illogical religious belief,’… yet I found it extremely difficult to deal with as a critic.”

So far from debunking the argument from miracles, I think Woodford’s charges of fallaciousness miss the mark. We can’t excuse ourselves from looking at the evidence for miracle claims; they have to be judged on a case by case basis.

 

Erik Manning is a former atheist turned Christian after an experience with the Holy Spirit. He’s a freelance baseball writer and digital marketing specialist who is passionate about the intersection of evangelism and apologetics.

/by
What Biblical Books are Included in the Earliest Canonical Lists?

What Biblical Books are Included in the Earliest Canonical Lists?

By Ryan Leasure

There are two opposing ways to view the history of the canon. One would be to believe that the church, in its entirety, uniformly accepted all twenty-seven books of the New Testament as canonical from the very beginning. The other would be to suggest that the canon didn’t exist until an arbitrary church vote in the fourth or fifth century.

While either view might fit one’s preconceived agenda, the fact of the matter is that both views are terribly naive. The truth is, neither adequately deals with what history tells us.

I believe there’s a better, more balanced approach to the canon. It’s one that recognizes the canon’s development wasn’t as neat and tidy as some conservative scholars might think. Yet at the same time, it wasn’t a wild free-for-all like some other liberals suggest.

Instead, we find that the church affirmed a majority of the New Testament books at the beginning stages of Christianity. We might call these books the canonical core. Then as time progressed, the church, likewise, affirmed the peripheral books of the canon. To demonstrate this balanced approach, I want to highlight some of the early canonical lists from the first few centuries.

Irenaeus (AD 180)

While earlier church fathers quote New Testament books as Scripture, our first clear canon list comes from the Bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus. While he doesn’t include all twenty-seven books, Irenaeus gives us most of the New Testament. His canon includes:1Michael Kruger, The Canon Revisited, 228.

  • Matthew
  • Mark
  • Luke
  • John
  • Acts
  • Romans
  • 1 Corinthians
  • 2 Corinthians
  • Galatians
  • Ephesians
  • Philippians
  • Colossians
  • 1 Thessalonians
  • 2 Thessalonians
  • 1 Timothy
  • 2 Timothy
  • Titus
  • Hebrews
  • James
  • 1 Peter
  • 1 John
  • 2 John
  • Revelation

While Irenaeus’ list excludes four New Testament books (Philemon, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Jude), his list is impressive nonetheless. He’s clear on the Gospels as evidenced by his famous yet unscientific quote, “It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer than the number they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live and four principle winds.”2Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.8.

Moreover, his list contains the entire Pauline corpus (minus Philemon), Revelation, and about half of the shorter general epistles.

Muratorian Fragment (AD 180)

Named after its discoverer, Ludovico Antonio Muratori, this canonical list dating to the later part of the second century also confirms a core group of canonical books. The list includes:

  • Matthew
  • Mark
  • Luke
  • John
  • Acts
  • Romans
  • 1 Corinthians
  • 2 Corinthians
  • Galatians
  • Ephesians
  • Philippians
  • Colossians
  • 1 Thessalonians
  • 2 Thessalonians
  • 1 Timothy
  • 2 Timothy
  • Titus
  • Philemon
  • 1 John
  • 2 John
  • Jude
  • Revelation

Notice the similarity to Irenaeus’ list. Both include the four Gospels, Acts, and the entire Pauline corpus. It also includes 1 and 2 John and Revelation.

It’s worth noting that the Muratorian Canon includes the Apocalypse of Peter but with the caveat, “though some of us are not willing for the latter to be read in church.”3Muratorian Fragment, Line 72. Additionally, the fragment rejects the Shepherd of Hermas because it was written “quite recently, in our own times” and thus not backed by apostolic authority.4Muratorian Fragment, Line 74, 80.

There’s an important observation here. Both Irenaeus and the Muratorian Fragment indicate that the early church agreed on the core New Testament canon. And with that core agreement came an established theology.

Think about it. Almost all of Christian theology can be established using the four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters, 1 John, and Revelation. Not to downplay the importance of books like 3 John or Jude, but Christian theology doesn’t hang in the balance without them. This canonical list, then, should give us confidence that the early church agreed on key Christian doctrines (Trinity, creation, fall, salvation through Christ alone, the deity of Christ, etc.).

Eusebius (AD 320)

While much canonical development occurred over the next hundred years — especially with Clement of Alexandria and Origen — we now turn our attention to Eusebius of Caesarea. Known for writing the first church history, Eusebius gives us a canonical list recognized by the church. What’s interesting about his list is that he breaks it down into four distinct categories.5Eusebius, Church History, 3:25.

The Recognized Books

This list includes the books universally received by the church:

  • Matthew
  • Mark
  • Luke
  • John
  • Acts
  • Romans
  • 1 Corinthians
  • 2 Corinthians
  • Galatians
  • Ephesians
  • Philippians
  • Colossians
  • 1 Thessalonians
  • 2 Thessalonians
  • 1 Timothy
  • 2 Timothy
  • Titus
  • Philemon
  • Hebrews
  • 1 Peter
  • 1 John
  • Revelation

Disputed Books

Some disagreement surrounded the following books:

  • James
  • 2 Peter
  • 2 John
  • 3 John
  • Jude

While Eusebius included these books in his disputed list, he makes an important statement about their validity. He writes that these books “are disputed yet known to most.”6Eusebius, Church History, 3.25. In other words, Eusebius indicates that most regarded these books as canonical even if a few were doubtful. Therefore, we shouldn’t think that most were on the fence with respect to these books — just a small minority.

What we find here, then, is the complete New Testament canon when you combine both the recognized and disputed books. The recognized books are essentially the same canonical core from the second century, plus the disputed books which most recognized as canonical.

Spurious Books

These books were ones that early Christians found helpful, but not canonical. They included:

  • Acts of Paul
  • Shepherd of Hermas
  • Revelation of Peter
  • Epistle of Barnabas
  • Didache
  • Gospel of Hebrews

These books would have been considered orthodox in their theology (much like a modern book by an orthodox Christian writer), but they weren’t backed by apostolic authority, and thus not canonical.

Heretical Books

These books were universally rejected by the early church:

  • Gospel of Peter
  • Gospel of Thomas
  • Acts of Andrew
  • Acts of John
  • Gospel of Matthias

Eusebius goes so far to argue that these books “ought not be reckoned even among the spurious books but discarded as impious and absurd.”7Eusebius, Church History, 3:25. His sentiments seem to fly in the face of modern liberal scholars who argue that the Gospel of Thomas is just as credible and authoritative as our four Gospels.

The Canon and Beyond

Following Eusebius, Athanasius gives us our precise twenty-seven book New Testament in his Festal Letter (AD 367). Additionally, regional church Synods at Hippo (AD 393) and Carthage (AD 397) both affirm the twenty-seven book New Testament canon.

You might ask what took so long to get all twenty-seven books affirmed? There could be a couple of reasons for the delay.

First, the peripheral books were generally shorter and made less of an impact on the church than the core books. It’s not hard for us to see how the church read Romans or Luke more than 3 John. For this reason, peripheral books didn’t circulate around the Roman Empire with the same frequency as the core ones. The truth is, many in the early church probably never read Jude or 3 John.

Another possible reason for the peripheral book’s late acceptance is the persecution of the early church. For example, in AD 303, Emperor Diocletian ordered all Christians to sacrifice to the pagan gods and to hand over all their biblical texts to be burned. It’s easy to see how Christians couldn’t just circulate their books willy-nilly.

Once Constantine legalized Christianity (AD 313); however, Scripture circulation came much easier. And quickly after that, we start finding complete canon lists.

So, did the early church have a neat and tidy agreed-upon canon at the end of the first century? No. But was the canon like the wild-wild West? No again. Instead, the church recognized a core canon from the very early stages, and they came to recognize the peripheral books later once all the books had time to circulate the Empire.

 

Ryan Leasure Holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity 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/2OsHxhX

/by
4 Questions Everyone Investigating The Case For Christianity Should Ask Themselves

4 Questions Everyone Investigating the Case for Christianity Should Ask Themselves

,

By Evan Minton

When it comes to investigating the evidences and arguments for and against worldviews, we need to realize that we human beings are not mere thinking machines; only considering the facts and logic, and generating conclusions based on hard, cold rationality. We’re not perfect, and one of the effects of the fall said by theologians is said to be “The Noetic Effect,” that the sin nature affects our ability to reason properly. Sin doesn’t completely debilitate us from reasoning. If that were the claim, it would be self-refuting in nature for we could ask, “Did you use your reason to come to the conclusion that you cannot trust reason?”

Nevertheless, we need to be aware that biases, emotional like or dislike of implications, and other things can lead us away from the truth. None of us is immune, whether we are Christian or Non-Christian, and each one of us needs to do deep introspection when we’re evaluating competing systems of thought. In this blog post, I will mention 5 questions we need to pose to ourselves and meditate upon when it comes to evaluating whether Christianity is true or false.

Question 1: If I Knew Beyond a Reasonable Doubt That Christianity Were True, Would I Follow Christ? 

The first thing you need to decide is whether or not if Christianity were demonstrated to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, you’d become one of Christ’s followers. If you knew God existed, would you worship Him? Would you try to live the life that God wants you to live? Would you give up anything in your life that He considers sin? If you hesitate or if your answer is no, then your problem is not with regards to the strength of the evidence for Christianity or lack thereof, your problem is either emotional or moral. In other words, you simply don’t want Christianity to be true. If Christianity were true, then you would have to repent or else face judgment. Rather than live life in open rebellion against God knowing that Hell awaits, they comfort themselves by talking themselves into believing that The Bible is nothing but a book a fairy tales. It’s much easier to live your life in sin if you can convince yourself that there isn’t someone who’s going to hold you accountable beyond the grave.

If Christianity is true, then several implications follow. It means that if you’re living in sin, you’ll have to repent. Jesus said that if you even look at a woman with lust, you’ve committed adultery in your heart (Matthew 5:28), and adultery is one of the things God said not to do (Exodus 20:14). If you like to spend your evenings downloading and looking at pornography, you’ll have to get that out of your life or answer to God for it (2 Corinthians 5:10). But porn watchers don’t want to do that. Watching porn is fun! It’s exciting! Porn watchers don’t want to give up porn because they enjoy it too much. Others may want to sleep around, bouncing from woman to woman.

According to Hebrews 13:4, this is a no-no. If someone engaged in this behavior doesn’t repent, they’ll be facing judgment. Romans 1:26-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and 1 Timothy 1:9-11 prohibit homosexual relationships. Some people don’t want Christianity to be true because it means they’ll have to stop having sex with their same-sex partner. 2 Corinthians 6:14 prohibits a believer marrying an unbeliever. Some people may not want Christianity to be true because they know that if it is, they need to become Christians, or else they face Hell, and if they’re Christians themselves, they’ll be prohibited from marrying their boyfriend or girlfriend who is also an unbeliever.

For many people, it’s a purely intellectual issue. Merely being presented with the evidence for Christianity, as I’ve done in several posts on this blog and as I’ve done in my books, will be sufficient to persuade them to become Christians. For others, they will talk themselves out of any argument, no matter how compelling it otherwise would be. They have to. Their autonomy is at stake.

This is why the Christian Apologist and Oxford mathematician John Lennox said: “If religion is a fairy tale for people afraid of the dark, then atheism is a fairy tale for those afraid of the light.”[1] Lennox was echoing the words of Jesus; “This is the verdict; that light has come into the world, but people loved the darkness rather than the light for their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light and will come nowhere near the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.” (John 3:19-20).

Ask yourself, am I suppressing the truth in my unrighteousness? Is my love of sin overriding my love for finding the truth? Do I love truth when it enlightens me, but hate it when it convicts me?[2]

Love of sin is not the only non-intellectual “reason” you might have for rejecting Christ. Perhaps, like Charles Darwin,[3] you know that if Christianity is true, someone you loved who died as a non-believer is in Hell. If you can convince yourself there is no God, and there is no Hell, you don’t need to walk around with that uncomfortable thought. But, our feelings do not determine truth. How you feel about Christian doctrine is irrelevant to whether or not it’s true.

Question 2: What Evidence Would I Expect There to Be If Christianity Is True and Is This Expectation Reasonable? 

The second question you need to ask yourself is how what kind of evidence you would expect to find if Christianity were true? What kind of evidence are you looking for that would lead you to say there is or is not any evidence?

For me, a universe with an ex nihilo beginning that is impeccably fine-tuned to permit life to exist on both the cosmic and local levels, the existence of the moral law, the modal possibility of the existence of a Maximally Great Being, and five historical facts about Jesus’ death and what happened afterward and the fact that only the resurrection can account for all five of those facts is exactly what I would expect if Christianity were true.

If Christianity were false, the universe should have always existed, the possibility of biological life should be way more probable, we should have no moral law written on our hearts, a Maximally Great Great Being should be conceptually incoherent, and Jesus’ tomb should have remained occupied with all of his disciples moving on with their lives as they did before they even met Jesus. But we don’t live in that kind of world.[4]

However, that’s just me. What kind of evidence are you looking for? If you say “there’s no evidence,” you must either have not encountered the aforementioned evidence, or else they don’t fit your definition of evidence. Moreover, is what kind of evidence you’re looking for reasonable to expect if the Christian worldview is true?
Perhaps your epistemology is too restrictive. There are those who hold to a view called Scientism. This view asserts that the only truth that can be known is what can be tested by science. If this view is true, then supernatural entities like God, angels, demons, souls, et al. cannot be known since they cannot be tested by science. Although, I do think that science can provide evidence in a premise in a philosophical argument for God’s existence (e.g. The Kalam’s premise that “The universe began to exist”).

If scientism is your epistemology, then it’s no wonder why you aren’t convinced by philosophical arguments for God’s existence or the historical evidence for Jesus’ divine self-understanding and resurrection from the dead. This is because philosophy and history aren’t scientific enterprises. Science is great, and it has provided us with much knowledge of our world over the past several centuries. However, it is fallacious to say that science is the only path towards truth. Think about it. Can the statement “Only science can provide knowledge” subject to scientific testing? Can you put the claim “Only what science can establish as true is true” underneath a microscope or a super collider? No! These are philosophical statements not subject to scientific testing. Since they cannot be verified through science, and only that which can be verified through science can be known, then the epistemology of scientism cannot be known! Scientism is self-refuting. It collapses under its own criterion.

Question 3: Am I Setting Too High of a Standard of Proof? 

How much evidence is enough evidence? You need to reflect on whether or not you’re setting the bar too high. Are you a skeptic or a hyper-skeptic? What’s the difference? I’ll never forget a Facebook post my friend Luke Nix made several years ago. He said, “Hyper-Skepticism is having to drink an entire carton of milk before concluding that the milk is bad and should have been thrown out after the first sip.” 

The fact is that the vast majority of the conclusions we reach, even in our daily lives, are based on probability, not absolute certainty. I don’t even have 100% certainty that I’m sitting at my desk right now typing up this blog post. It’s possible that I’m just a brain in a vat of chemicals with electrodes hooked up to my brain, and there’s a scientist sending stimulates into my brain to make me experience the sensation of sitting at my desk, typing up a blog post. There is a possibility that that is the case, but that possibility is so unfathomably tiny that I don’t give such a scenario any serious consideration. I am 99% certain that I am not a brain in a vat, but I still can’t get up to 100% certainty.

If you can’t believe with 100% certainty that you are not a brain in a vat of chemicals, yet you still give mental assent to the claim that the external world is real, why wouldn’t you give mental assent to the truth claims of Christianity?

J. Warner Wallace wrote that,

“In legal terms, the line that must be crossed before someone can come to the conclusion that something is evidentially true is called the ‘standard of proof” (the ‘SOP’). The SOP varies depending on the kind of case under consideration. The most rigorous of these criteria is the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard that is required at criminal trials. But how do we know when we have crossed the line and are ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’? The courts have considered this important issue and have provided us with a definition:

‘Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: It is not a mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.’

This definition is important because it recognizes the difference between reasonable and possible that we discussed earlier. There are, according to the ruling of the court, ‘reasonable doubts,’ ‘possible doubts,’ and ‘imaginary doubts.’ The definition acknowledges something important: every case has unanswered questions that will cause jurors to wonder. All the jurors will have doubts as they come to a decision. We will never remove every possible uncertainty; that’s why the standard is not ‘beyond any doubt.’ Being ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ simply requires us to separate our possible and imaginary doubts from those that are reasonable.”[5]

Question 4: I Find Theological Position X Unreasonable. Is This a Central Tenet of Christianity or Is This Debated Within the Church? Can I Be a Christian and Still Reject X? 

Just can’t bring yourself to believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old? Don’t believe a good God would causally determine people to sin? Don’t think a just God would leave people in eternal conscious torment? It’s possible that these seem unreasonable because they are unreasonable. And guess what? Many Christians would agree with you. Not every position you find a Christian defending is central to the Christian worldview. Some are. You can’t be a Christian and not believe that God exists, that God is one being who consists of three persons (The Doctrine of the Trinity), that we’re sinners in need of salvation, and that Jesus died on the cross and bodily rose from the dead. However, other issues are debatable, such as how to interpret Genesis 1, whether humans have free will or whether God causally determines all things, and whether or not God lets human experience eternal conscious torment or whether God annihilates the condemned from existence (a view known as Annihilationism).

Don’t reject Christianity simply because you find some secondary doctrine unreasonable. I myself find two of the three secondary issues mentioned above unreasonable. That’s why I’m an Evolutionary Creationist and a Molinist rather than a Young Earth Creationist and a Calvinist.

Conclusion

These are 4 questions that everyone who’s investigating the truth claims of Christianity needs to ask themselves. More importantly, you not only need to ask them to yourself; you need to reflect on them. Do introspection. We can be our own worst enemy. Don’t let yourself trip you up! Eternity is at stake!

NOTES

[1] I can’t find a written source for this quote anywhere. Evidently, it was something Lennox uttered publicly in a debate with Stephen Hawking, but this quote was never put into writing.

[2] I’m alluding to a quote attributed to St. Augustine that goes, “We love the truth when it enlightens us, but hate it when it condemns us.” Whether Augustine was the original person to say this is, like so many quotes often attributed to him, debatable. Certainly, someone at some point said it, and I have found it to be one of many true statements about humanity.

[3] Charles Darwin didn’t become an atheist because of his theory of evolution. In fact, Darwin may rightly be called the very first evolutionary creationist. He believed God used evolution to create life. I believe two things caused Darwin to turn away from God, the death of his father and the death of his
daughter, and the doctrine of Hell amplified the power of the former. Darwin wrote “I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the [New Testament] text seems to show that the men who do not believe, & this would include my Father, Brother & almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.” — Charles Darwin, as cited in the online article “The Evolution Of Darwin’s Religious Faith,” October 20, 2016, | By Ted Davis on Reading the Book of Nature – http://biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis-reading-the-book-ofnature/the-evolution-of-darwins-religious-faith#sthash.g2ZJUuV0.dpuf

[4] Check out my book The Case for The One True God: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Historical Case for The God of Christianity, where I go into these arguments and evidence in far more detail, even in more detail than I do in the articles on The Cerebral Faith website, which I linked to in the paragraph this footnote proceeded.

[5] J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity, Kindle Locations 2163-2195, David C Cook.

 

Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). He is the author of “Inference To The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine.” He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.

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

/by