theology Archives - Page 32 of 46

Tag Archive for: theology

Why It Is Foolish To Insist There Is No God

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

“The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” If this passage from Psalms is correct, then many people today – including numerous scientists and other well-educated folks – are fools, for they insist that God does not exist. While name-calling is never productive, is there a way in which one might conclude that a person who denies God’s existence is indeed a “fool,” and not merely someone with whom we disagree?

Well, let’s begin with a look at the definition of “fool,” which includes “a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid.” Now, sometimes we trick ourselves and thereby make fools of ourselves. We might insist that a steady diet of fast food isn’t the reason that our clothes no longer fit the way they used to. On other occasions, it may be that we are misled. That tanning solution that promised to save you hours in the sun as left you looking a bit too orange to venture out in public. But whatever the source of our being misled, I think most would agree that a person who holds views that are inconsistent and contradictory has allowed himself to be deceived. Imagine a person proudly proclaiming that the prime rib he is about to eat is an important part of his vegetarian diet or the person who says that the only medicine that can save him is the one with no active ingredients. A person who proudly expresses views that are so in conflict has fooled himself, whereas a thoughtful observer would see things as they truly are.

Now, of course, some contradictions are not as obvious as the examples I just provided. Why, then, is it a contradiction to insist there is no God? It doesn’t appear to be contradictory – at first glance, anyway. For the answer to that question, we are indebted to St. Anselm of Canterbury, who lived and pondered these questions some ten centuries ago. I can’t do justice to Anselm’s argument in this brief piece, but perhaps some concepts borrowed from Anselm may help make the point.

The first avenue of inquiry requires consideration of just what it is that the human mind is capable of doing. We need to think about what “thinking” actually entails. Anyone who has seen a baby develop realizes that the human mind comes pre-programmed with an “operating system” of sorts. This system allows us to acquire language, to use reason, to recognize concepts such as fairness and truth and beauty, and other intangible things. It allows us to organize creation into categories, and perhaps most amazingly, to make use of the imagination. This ability for abstract thought lends itself to what we experience in an “I get that now” moment when a problem that has been puzzling us all of a sudden makes sense. We all use these systems of thought naturally and intuitively; they are part and parcel of the normally operating human mind. Of course, there is no other way since we could never use reason, for instance, to prove the validity or usefulness of reason.

One aspect of this ability for abstract thought is the ability to conceptualize or to place things into understandable categories. Food, for instance, can encompass a million different things, but to qualify as food, the object in question must be edible and serve to nourish, and not poison, us. We can call an ash tray food, but the underlying thing is not a matter of what we call it, but of what it consists. A tree trunk in the woods can function as a “chair,” but the surface of a swimming pool cannot.

So, with this observation in view, let’s turn to the question of God. Let’s consider for a moment, not what a definition of God might be, but what the conception of God is. What is it that we are struggling to grasp when we use that term? Anselm’s definition was simply this – God is that being a greater than which cannot be conceived. Whatever attributes God would have – omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, etcetera – if you can conceive of a being with all those attributes plus an additional one, then the latter being, the being with the greater attributes, would be God. So, imagine two beings then – each with exhaustive, infinite powers. Both beings have every possible attribute of perfection that can be conjured up in the human mind until one reaches the attribute of necessary existence. As I make use of my imagination and my ability to reason to flesh out what I am thinking about when I consider God, I realize that one of these two superlative beings has the attribute of necessary existence – it is not possible for this being to not exist. The other being, on the other hand, lacks this attribute. This latter being may or may not exist, or he may come into existence at some point and go out of existence and some other point. Now, as I compare these two conceptions, I immediately and clearly can see that the former – the one with necessary existence – would be the greater of the two. Consequently, to fully conceive of God, we must be conceiving of a Being who can’t not exist, whose existence must always have been and will always continue to be. Anything else –anything less – simply cannot fit the conception of God.

So, what does that prove? Maybe this conception of God is imaginary and, consequently of no value. Not so, Anselm would contend. And here’s why: the mind is not capable of conceptualizing something that does not in fact exist, that does not relate to something real. Now, this premise is a bit harder to get one’s mind around. The normal response to this part of the argument is that we create imaginary things all the time, from unicorns to tooth fairies to Jedi Knights. These things aren’t “real,” even though we can conjure them up in our fantasies. But each of these things, while imaginary, is the combining of things that are real: a horse and a horn; a person with wings and unusual powers; a warrior with special abilities and unusual weapons. And, and most importantly, neither a unicorn nor a tooth fairy nor a Jedi Knight would possess the attribute of necessary existence. If a unicorn did exist, it would have to consist of a horse with a single horn in its head; but its existence could have occurred briefly in the distant past, or could arise in the distant future or could not occur at all. We can fully conceptualize such a creature – we can place it in its proper category mentally – even if the creature does not presently exist. This is so because the conceptualization of these things does not require that them to actually exist in the here and now. For God, by contrast, the only way to properly conceptualize Him is as a necessarily existent being. If you are not seeing Him that way, says Anselm, you are not yet thinking about God, but about something lesser.

This foray into philosophy can be difficult. Fortunately, there are many other proofs for God’s existence, ones much easier with which to grapple, but this one stands out for its elegance. For if it has merit, then God has embedded within us the means to find Him in the one place we have exclusive and special access to: in the recesses or our very minds, there for us to uncover with a bit of critical thinking.

Getting back then to the initial question, if Anselm is right, the fool who denies God is saying something like, “I believe that the Being who must necessarily exist does not exist.” A rather foolish thing to say, when you see it clearly.

The Bible says that God has written His law on our hearts. Perhaps if we probe a bit deeper still, we can also begin to see in its depths the first faint scratching of His signature.

Was Jesus a Jerk? A Response to the Friendly Atheist

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

A few weeks ago, CNN Tonight host Don Lemon said: “But here’s the thing, Jesus Christ, if that’s who you believe in Jesus Christ, admittedly was not perfect when he was here on the Earth. So why are we deifying the Founders?”

As you can imagine, this caused quite a stir over social media and on the blogs, since the Bible clearly teaches Christ’s sinless perfection. While a few right-wing Christian leaders went a little overboard in their denouncements of Lemon, “The Friendly Atheist” took it as an opportunity to take some jabs at Jesus.

Hemant Mehta, the author of the blog, writes:

“Let’s talk about what Jesus did.

* Jesus once got so angry he flipped over tables and benches.

* Jesus cursed a fig tree because it didn’t have anything to eat — because figs weren’t in season — and then the tree died. Jesus killed a tree because He was hangry.

* Jesus admitted to speaking in parables that were difficult for people to understand… and then got mad when people didn’t understand them.

* Jesus got snippy when people asked Him why He didn’t wash His hands.

* Jesus’ actions led to the deaths of a whole bunch of pigs, angering an entire town.

So… either we have to acknowledge Jesus could be a jerk at times despite whatever other redeeming qualities we want to assign Him. Or, like the conservative Christians are doing, we can pretend Jesus was perfect because our faith requires it… even when the Bible itself has plenty of evidence to the contrary.”

So according to Mehta, Jesus was a jerk. But is he really being fair to the texts?

Jesus the table flipper?

Was Jesus just throwing an unjustified temper tantrum when he cleansed the Temple? To answer that, we need to give a little background. The temple market was established after the Babylonian captivity. JB Lightfoot says “There was always a constant market in the temple in that place, which was called ‘the shops;’ where, every day, was sold wine, salt, oil, and other requisites to sacrifices; as also oxen and sheep in the spacious Court of the Gentiles”

Josephus estimated there would be up to 3 million Jews traveling to Jerusalem for the Passover. Seeing their devotion, the money-changers saw an opportunity to get rich. They made a business of accommodating those who didn’t have the half-shekel temple tax. (See Mt 17:24)

Everyone was expected to pay it, rich or poor, in the month of Adar. So it became necessary to change a shekel into two halves, or exchange foreign money for the Jewish half-shekel. (Money that bore the image of “Divine Caesar”, in some cases) These men made a nice profit by charging a percentage for the exchange. The animals were in the courts to be sold as a sacrifice since people traveling from afar weren’t usually able to bring them.

Jesus was upset that in the Court of the Gentiles, the place where non-Jews were designated to worship, people were being deprived of the opportunity to pray because of greedy, irreverent people and this happened under the watch Jerusalem’s religious leaders. Jesus quotes Isaiah 56:7 that the temple was to be a place of prayer for all nations.

This would be like trying to have worship in the middle of Walmart on a normal Black Friday. The Gentiles were pushed out of participation with the Passover. Matthew previously writes “I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt. 8:11)

This event is called “The Cleansing of the Temple” for good reason. Jesus was purifying the temple from defilement. Nearly 200 years before, Judas Maccabeus cleansed the Temple after it was defiled by Antiochus Epiphanes. By cleaning out the Temple, Jesus is saying that the present Jewish leadership had defiled the Temple in the same way the Greeks did when the sacrificed a pig inside of it. Talk about an act of defiant protest! Shortly afterward, Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple and the coming judgment upon the nation for their lack of response to Jesus’ Gospel. (Mark 13, Matthew 24)

So to sum up, you have noisy people who care nothing for God there to make an easy buck in the place where Gentiles were to worship, exploiting the poor in the process. Jesus taught that we can’t serve both God and money, and to him, this was both oppression, greed, and idolatry blatantly in his Father’s own house. Jesus said that this was to be a place of prayer, not a den of robbers. (Jeremiah 7:11) He was rightfully ticked off.

Not only that, but there’s not a hint that Jesus harmed any human or any animal. He flipped some tables. He fashioned a whip and gave it a good crack or two, but this would sort of like firing a gun in the air in a crowd. It would clear the people and the animals out in a hurry.

Was Jesus angry when he cursed the fig tree?

So what’s going on with the cursing of the fig tree? Jesus and his audience knew the writings of the prophets. They would’ve picked up on what Jesus was laying down. The Old Testament prophets used fig trees and vineyards to typify spiritual fruitfulness (or a lack thereof). Just see Isaiah 28:4, Jeremiah 24:1-10, Hosea 9:16-17, Micah 7:1. Let’s read Micah 7:1 to illustrate.

Woe is me! For I have become as when the summer fruit has been gathered, as when the grapes have been gleaned: there is no cluster to eat, no first-ripe fig that my soul desires.

Jesus cursing the fig tree was allegorical of judgment on fruitless Israel. How do we know that? Just look at the story. First, Jesus curses the fig tree. Then he cleanses the Temple, itself a symbolic judgment of the religious leaders. Then the disciples come back and notice the tree is withered. Shortly after that in Mark 12:1-12 and Matthew 21:33-46, Jesus tells the parable of the vineyard.

This parable tells of Israel’s unfaithfulness, their rejection of God’s prophets and ultimately God’s Son, and their impending judgment. Sandwiched between this is the cursing of the fig tree.

Now you might think this is me stretching things, but I’m not. Here are just a few examples of God’s prophets acting strangely to drive home a serious point:

The prophet Ahijah ripped his clothes in twelve pieces, symbolizing that God was going to tear the kingdom from Solomon and give Jeroboam 10 of the 12 tribes of Israel. (1 Kings 11:29-31)
Isaiah walked around basically naked for three years to warn the Egyptians and Cushites of impending doom against Assyria. (Isaiah 20:1-6)
Ezekiel publicly cooked his food over cow poop (!), warning Jerusalem of impending judgment and famine. (Ezekiel 4:1-15)
And who could forget God commanding Hosea to marry a prostitute as a symbol of Israel’s unfaithfulness? (Hosea 1:2)

Jesus cursing a fig tree is pretty tame in comparison. You might not like that God commanded his prophets to do weird stuff, but extraordinary incoming judgments call for unusual warnings to get people’s attention. God isn’t willing that any should perish and apparently is willing to go to great lengths to shake up the complacent so they would repent and be saved. Last I checked, a nation is more important than a single tree that lacks a nervous system.

So what about the pigs?

Was Jesus a pig-killer? If this incident with the demoniac and the pigs happened today, I can just imagine the headlines: NAZARETH PASTOR CAUSES DEATH OF 2000 PIGS, PETA LAUNCHES PROTEST. Does this put Jesus in the same category as Michael Vick?

For starters, the demons asked if Jesus was going to torment them now, meaning that their time hadn’t yet come to be judged, so he couldn’t make them just go away. (Mark 5:7) While Jesus is omnipotent, he chose not to fully operate that way as a man. For instance in Mark 6:1-6, we read that Jesus could do no mighty work in Nazareth due to their unbelief. So asking why Jesus didn’t just get rid of the demons is like saying, “why didn’t Jesus get rid of all evil people, evil spirits and every disease and affliction while he was here?”

Not only was Jesus not functioning in full-omnipotence, but he also wasn’t operating in omniscience, either. In the same chapter, he asks, “who touched me?” when the woman with the issue of blood is healed. (Mark 5:31) How can we be sure that Jesus knew what was going to happen to the pigs? That seems unclear.

There’s also nothing in these passages that show that Jesus drove the pigs into the sea and caused them to drown. Satan is the killer, not Jesus. (Jn 8:44) And it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say the demons caused the pigs to commit suicide since they just pleaded with Jesus to use them as their new hosts. One answer that Greg Boyd offers is that the demons just drove the pigs crazy, just the same way that parasites can drive animals crazy and cause them to hurt themselves.

I mean, these demons already drove two men into living naked in tombs, screaming and cutting themselves, and they couldn’t be restrained by chains. This is pretty freaky stuff. If Jesus felt like he had a better option, we can see from his character elsewhere in the Gospels that he would’ve taken it.

What stands out is that after seeing the destructive power of Satan and the delivering power of Jesus, the townspeople ask Jesus to leave. They could see the man now clothed and in his right mind, but they seem to care more about the pigs than the people!

In Matthew 10:31, Jesus says that human lives are worth more than many sparrows, and the same can be said for the pigs. While the man delivered begged to follow Jesus, the townspeople urged him to leave. They valued their unclean livestock more than Jesus and the man.

This shouldn’t need to be said but people are more important than pigs. You see this animals-first attitude in our day with groups like PETA, who’ve said tons of outrageously weird things.

This isn’t a case of Jesus acting carelessly. The man went from cutting himself to testifying throughout the region about what Jesus had done for him. This is an epic battle scene in the spiritual war that was being fought for the souls of people in the city. Don’t miss the deliverance for the pigs.

Was Jesus getting snippy over hand-washing?

There’s a lot more going on here than sanitary issues here, but Mehta conveniently leaves that out. Let’s look at the hand-washing passage in question:

“Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites!” (Matthew 15-1-7)

The concern has little to do with the spread of disease, it’s regarding Jewish laws about uncleanness. If you ate something wrong, you were ritually defiled. These hand-washing traditions of the Pharisees went beyond what the Law actually prescribed — as if accidentally eating something microscopically unclean is sinful.

The Pharisees were constantly criticizing Jesus for healing on the Sabbath. Jesus called them out for their hypocrisy of adding traditions on top of the word of God, which ended up negating the point of the law, which was loving their neighbor ⁠— including their mother and father. He saw people as more important than religious traditions.

I saved this example for last because I find some irony here. Mehta’s blog is chock full of posts dedicated to calling out religious hypocrisy. He should find that Jesus hated phony religious hypocrisy as an admirable trait, not as a character flaw.

Calling Jesus a jerk isn’t a real friendly thing to do, especially when you take a more “friendly” way to look at these texts. I’d argue that it’s probably more of a jerk move to dump a list of gripes against Jesus’ character with no explanation of the context. Contrary to Mehta, we don’t have “plenty of evidence” contrary to the traditional understanding of Jesus’ sinless perfection.

Busting One Of Bart Ehrman’s Favorite Bible Contradictions

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

Skeptics say that the gospels are riddled with contradictions and therefore are not reliable historical sources. And these same skeptics say that some of these contradictions are downright absurd. For example, agnostic NT scholar Bart Ehrman points out one of his favorite Bible contradictions in his book best-selling book, Jesus, Interrupted.

One of my favorite apparent discrepancies—I read John for years without realizing how strange this one is—comes in Jesus’ “Farewell Discourse,” the last address that Jesus delivers to his disciples, at his last meal with them, which takes up all of chapters 13 to 17 in the Gospel according to John. In John 13:36, Peter says to Jesus, “Lord, where are you going?” A few verses later Thomas says, “Lord, we do not know where you are going” (John 14:5). And then, a few minutes later, at the same meal, Jesus upbraids his disciples, saying, “Now I am going to the one who sent me, yet none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’” (John 16:5). Either Jesus had a very short attention span or there is something strange going on with the sources for these chapters, creating an odd kind of disconnect.

Jesus, Interrupted, pp. 9

So there you have it. Either Jesus or John were having a ‘brain fart’. Take your pick.

Did Jesus Or John Have A Painfully Short Attention Span?

If you look at the Bible in a wooden fashion, this contradiction does seem to be absurd on the face of it. So how should we understand this so-called discrepancy?

It seems to me that the writer of John is dealing with the disciples’ immediate reaction to Jesus’ words. The thought of him leaving fills them with sorrow, but if they had asked where he was going and grasped that it was to the Father, they would have recognized it was for Jesus’ advantage and theirs. Just look at the next verse: “But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you.” (Jn 16:6-7)

Looking back at the previous times Jesus was questioned that Ehrman points out, Peter had a bit of a bodyguard complex and didn’t want to hear about Jesus taking off by himself. So when he asks the question in John 13:36 about where Jesus is going, he doesn’t get it.

And in John 14:1-5, Jesus talks about going to his Father to prepare places for them. Thomas asks a question, but it’s because he’s not picking up what Jesus is laying down. He doesn’t ask what Jesus means by any of these things. And we know Thomas is a bit slow on the uptake, as we find out later in John’s Gospel. Thomas and Peter were both thinking naturally.

The Disciples’ Silence Became Deafening

We see that Jesus is disrupted with another question in John 14 but isn’t asked another question in John 15. Jesus so far has mentioned his departure, but then in John 15:22-16:4, he talks about persecution headed their way. You know, some heavy stuff. Now their hearts are sorrowful. They fall silent with sadness after being so inquisitive earlier.

It’s at 16:5 that Jesus is saying, “guys…you still don’t get it. You went quiet on me with all these hard sayings of persecution and me leaving. But I’m not leaving you alone. I’m sending the Spirit in my place. Now is the time to be asking questions again, but this time let’s be a little sharper and ditch the gloomy pessimism.”

After this, they interrupt Jesus again twice more in John 16, showing they still don’t understand what he’s talking about. Read John 16:17-19:

So some of his disciples said to one another, “What is this that he says to us, ‘A little while, and you will not see me, and again a little while, and you will see me’; and, ‘because I am going to the Father’?” So they were saying, “What does he mean by ‘a little while’? We do not know what he is talking about.” Jesus knew that they wanted to ask him, so he said to them, “Is this what you are asking yourselves, what I meant by saying, ‘A little while and you will not see me, and again a little while and you will see me’?

The Disciples Finally Get It, But Does Ehrman?

Jesus then answers their questions, and finishes by saying “I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”

The light bulb finally seems to turn on. They quit looking at earthly things and start to see the spiritual realities Jesus is talking about. In John 16:28-30 the disciples exclaim, his disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech! Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.” Jesus answered them, “Do you now believe?“

The metaphors are over in their minds. Jesus is now speaking clearly. They fell silent after some heavy sayings from Jesus, but now it’s dawning on them after Jesus prompts them to probe further. This interpretation doesn’t just come from me but is also supported by commentators and exegetes like CK Barrett, RCH Lenski, Craig Blomberg, John Gill, Christian Kuinoel, and Hermann Olshausen.

Only when we leave no room for conversational nuance would we have to conclude Jesus had a mental lapse or that something strange is going on with the writer of John. It seems like Bart’s reading is pretty wooden, and dare I say, fundamentalist. Many of his examples of alleged discrepancies in Jesus, Interrupted that are much more worth investigating and wrestling with. But this isn’t a golden moment for Ehrman here. And unfortunately, there are more bad ones like this. There’s nothing all that strange here.

Reflecting God’s Character in Apologetics

CrossExamined

By Mikel Del Rosario

Character Counts

Our spiritual conversations should reflect God’s character

Explaining reasons to believe doesn’t have to strictly be an intellectual thing. In fact, it shouldn’t be—especially when we’re talking to our skeptical friends, neighbors, and others who see Christianity differently. No, apologetics is way more profound in terms of its role in cultural engagement.

Character plays a key role in this. And it isn’t just about adding memorized apologetic answers to your life. Developing a Christian character needs to be part of our discipleship to Jesus. I can’t tell you how many times the importance of character has come up in my work with other apologists, in my ministry, and in my teaching at William Jessup University. Let me give you just four examples from my work at Dallas Theological Seminary.

The Relationship of Confidence and Character

First, I talked to my friend Sean McDowell about an activity he uses to help Christians think about how we can tend to approach engaging with atheists. We agreed that many times, it seems like your confidence in the faith is linked to your ability to stay respectful in difficult spiritual conversations. Sean said:

One of my favorite things to do at churches, camps, conferences, is this: I show up. People know it’s me, that I’m a Christian professor, but I go into role play and I put on glasses and [play the role of] an atheist…then I open it up for questions from the audience. I respond and I shoot them down…graciously and kindly as an atheist to break their stereotypes of how they think atheists may be. Almost every time I do it…people get frustrated. They get upset. I’ve been called names. I’ve literally had a guy stand up and threaten me! People get angry and you can feel the tension coming over the crowd.

Then I’ll stop, I’ll take the glasses off, and instead of saying, “How do we defend faith?” I’ll say, “Here’s my first question. How did you treat me as your atheist guest?” And the eyes of people, it’s like, “Oh, my goodness. I hated you. I wanted to bash you. I was angry at you.”

And then I’ll say, “Why did people get so defensive? I think it’s because you don’t really know what you believe and why.” When I push back, it shows an insecurity so you lash out with anger and defensiveness.

So, if we want to be able to talk about difficult subjects, we have to have a confidence in terms of what we believe. Then we’re not threatened when people challenge our faith.

Next, I’m reminded of another one of my friends, Mary Jo Sharp. She explained her early experiences of feeling intimidated at the thought of sharing her faith. But now, she says that knowing what you believe and why you believe it can help you avoid that feeling of being flustered, defensive, or angry. I agree. I’m a firm believer that we, as Christian apologists, must reflect the character of God while engaging with people form different backgrounds.

The Blending of Conviction and Compassion

Third, I remember very clearly, John Dickson sharing this image of what he called “part of the genius of Jesus,” which was “flexing two muscles at the same time: The muscle of conviction and the muscle of compassion.” That stuck with me.

There’s also an exchange between John and my mentor, Darrell Bock, that happened later that day that comes to mind as part of this. We need to reflect God’s loving character and his engagement of the world. What do the Scriptures say about how we should engage?

John Dickson: 1 Peter 3:15 says that you’re to give an apologia but do this with prouteitos kai fobos: gentleness and respect. Because you can’t defend this Lord that you set apart in your heart…without gentleness and respect.

Darrell Bock: Colossians 4:5 and 6 goes to the same place: “Let your speech with outsiders always be gracious.” There’s an interesting combination of moral challenge and invitation that’s part of the way the Christian’s supposed to function…conviction and compassion together…you’ve got to have both. It can’t be one or the other or else it will absolutely fail.

Here, the Apostle Paul is emphatic about how grace should characterize a Christian Ambassador at all times. This, along with the demeanor commanded in 1 Peter 3:15-16, should inform the way we go about having spiritual conversations. Because the people we talk to about God, Jesus, and the Bible cannot just be “another notch in your belt.” We don’t get to do that. We have to love them.

The Importance of Listening and Loving

That imagery comes from Nathan Wagnon at Watermark church and it’s another one that’s stuck with me. Nathan’s the only person I know whose job title is “Pastor of Equipping and Apologetics” and he shared that idea while we were talking about the importance of loving people while doing apologetics. He’s the fourth example that comes to mind. He told me:

One of the greatest mistakes that I think a lot of evangelicals make is we think of evangelism as like closing the deal…You start to feel like a used car salesman, ’cause you’re trying to push people towards, ‘Yeah, but do you want to pray this prayer? Do you want to accept Jesus?’ And unfortunately there’s a lot of people who are trying to push toward that because of insecurities in their own lives. Their spiritual life, a lot of times, is deficient. And so they’re trying to fill that void with ministry activism, so that they can raise their hand and go, ‘See how the Lord used me?’ so that they can get this sense of self worth.

And that expresses itself, a lot of times, by people who don’t listen. They’re using the space, when someone else is talking, to formulate in their own minds how they’re gonna respond, instead of actually listening to what the person is saying. And what I would say to that is, ‘We don’t get to do that.’ Jesus has called us to love people. And that looks like treating them with value and worth, because they are valuable, and they do matter to God, who’s deeply loved by God, who deeply matters…we don’t get to just mow over people. We have to love them.

Confidence Leads to Compassion

As apologists, we are keenly aware of our responsibility to give reasons for the hope we have in Christ. But it’s that very hope—along with the confidence that comes with knowing what we believe and why we believe it—that allows us to be compassionate, gentle, and respectful. This is so important for engagement and dialogical apologetics.

Apologetics shouldn’t just be an intellectual pursuit. Our character and our tone must communicate our love for those we challenge with the gospel. And that means approaching apologetics as dialogue—a more relational, holistic, person-centered conversation—rather than an issue-centered debate. May God grant us the grace to reflect God’s character as we engage the culture, make the case for Christianity, and defend the faith.

What Does Paul Say About Homosexuality?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

In this post, we’re asking the question: What does Paul say about homosexuality? To find out, we need to investigate Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Let’s consider each text in turn.

Romans 1:26-27

This passage is probably the most significant biblical text addressing homosexuality. In the broader context, we read that God reveals his wrath from heaven against all ungodliness. Even though people know God exists through natural revelation, they have suppressed the truth and worshipped idols instead. Therefore, God hands them over to their depraved minds. Verses 26-27 give us an example of this depravity:

For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature (para physin); and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So what exactly does Paul condemn here? Matthew Vines, author of God and the Gay Christian notes, “Paul wasn’t condemning the expression of same-sex orientation as opposed to the expression of an opposite-sex orientation. He was condemning excess as opposed to moderation.“¹ Elsewhere he states that Paul “explicitly described the behavior he condemned as lustful. He made no mention of love, fidelity, monogamy, or commitment.”²

That is to say, and Paul doesn’t condemn homosexuality in general. He merely condemns the excesses or abuses that were common in the ancient world. These excesses included pederasty, master/slave rape, or prostitution. If Paul, according to Vines, would have seen examples of committed, monogamous same-sex partners, he would have celebrated them.

In response to Vines, I simply note that nowhere does Paul limit his condemnation to specific types of homosexuality like master/slave relations, pederasty, or prostitution. Rather, he condemns homosexuality in general terms.

If he wanted to condemn pederasty, for example, he could have simply used the Greek word paiderastes. If he meant to condemn a master appeasing his sexual desire with his male slave, then why state that they were “consumed with passion for one another?” Doesn’t that sound like two consenting adults? Furthermore, why mention the women engaging with one another when we have no record of female master/slave or pedophilia relations from the ancient world?

Contrary to Vines, Paul condemns homosexuality in general (not limited to specific abuses) and roots his condemnation in creation itself. This explains why he writes that homosexual activity is an “exchange of natural relations that are “contrary to nature” (para physin in the Greek). Other revisionists (not Vines) take this to mean that some men’s sexual appetites were so insatiable, that they went against their heterosexual nature to have sexual relations with other men. In other words, “going against nature” simply means going against one’s heterosexual orientation. Thus, the text doesn’t condemn those with a homosexual orientation engaging in sexual activity.

But this explanation fails on multiple fronts. Not only do ancient authors repeatedly use the phrase “para physin” to refer to homosexual activity (not going against one’s orientation), Paul goes to great lengths to state that his position is rooted in the creation narrative of Genesis 1-3. In the surrounding context, he uses phrases such as “creation of the world” (1:20), “creator” (1:25), “birds and animals and creeping things” (1:23), “women” and “men” (1:26-27), “image” (1:23), “lie” (1:25), “shame” (1:27), and “death” (1:32). These allusions to the creation narrative indicate that Paul sees homosexuality as an affront to God’s design for marriage as outlined in Genesis 1-2.

Self-professed lesbian Bernadette Brooten writes in her scholarly book Love between Women:

I believe that Paul used the word “exchanged” to indicate that people knew the natural sexual order of the universe and left it behind. . . . I see Paul as condemning all forms of homoeroticism as the unnatural acts of people who had turned away from God.”³

Romans 1:26-27 doesn’t merely condemn excesses. It condemns homosexual activity in general as an affront to God’s design for sexuality.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 And 1 Timothy 1:9-10

I lump these two together because they are similar in nature.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality (malakoi and arsenokoitai), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. — 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality (arsenokoitai), enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine. — 1 Timothy 1:9-10

Paul’s use of arsenokoitai is the first known use of this word in the ancient world. It’s a compound word of man (arsen) and bed (koite). The word literally means “bedders of men.” It’s a term that conveys action, which is why the NIV translation of the word “men who have sex with men” is preferable to one like the NASB’s which simply reads “homosexuals.” Scholars are in agreement that Paul coined this term using the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 20:13:

If a man lies with a male (arsenos koiten) as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

This text clearly condemns both partners for participating in homosexual activity. It says that “both of them have committed an abomination.” In the same way, 1 Corinthians 1:9-10 appears to condemn both partners as well. Not only does Paul condemn arsenokoitai (bedders of men), right before that he condemns malakoi (soft ones).

The Greek word malakoi has a broad range of meaning. It can refer to men who have long hair, wear makeup, have a fondness for expensive clothing, gluttons, the lazy who avoid manual labor, or the acceptance of being penetrated by other men. So which of these does Paul condemn here?

It’s noteworthy that the Jewish philosopher Philo twice uses the word malakoi to refer to passive homosexual partners. It’s also noteworthy where Paul places this word in his list of vices. He places it right between moikoi (adulterers) and arsenokoitai. When a word has a broad range of definitions, context usually is the strongest determiner of the author’s meaning. Considering malakoi’s placement in the sentence, it’s likely that Paul’s referring to a passive male partner in homosexual sex. After all, it’s hard to imagine that Paul would say that men who like designer clothing or a good chick flick will not inherit the kingdom of God. He must be referring to something more blatant.

Was There Really No Concept Of Homosexual Orientation In The Ancient World?

As I’ve alluded to numerous times in this blog series, revisionists argue that when the Bible condemns homosexuality, it condemns abuses — not lifelong, monogamous relationships. Revisionists argue that homosexual orientation and committed homosexual relationships were completely foreign in the ancient world. Therefore, the biblical authors didn’t condemn them. But is this an accurate assessment?

Louis Crompton, a gay man and scholar of queer studies states in his book Homosexuality and Civilization:

Some interpreters, seeking to mitigate Paul’s harshness, have read the passage [in Romans 1] as condemning not homosexuals generally but only heterosexual men and women who experimented with homosexuality. According to this interpretation, Paul’s words were not directed at “bona fide” homosexuals in committed relationships. But such a reading, however well-intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstances. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any Jew or early Christian.”⁴

In other words, while Crompton supports homosexuality, he says the revisionists’ arguments don’t work. It’s a massive leap in logic to think that Paul would have embraced homosexual relationships if he had only seen good examples of them.

Furthermore, the idea of homosexual orientation wasn’t completely foreign to the ancient world. Thomas K. Hubbard, a non-Christian classical scholar notes in Homosexuality in Greece and Rome:

“Homosexuality in this era may have ceased to be merely another practice of personal pleasure and began to be viewed as an essential and central category of personal identity, exclusive of an antithetical to heterosexual orientation.“⁵

Notice what Hubbard says here. He argues that people in the ancient world experienced homosexual orientation and self-identified as homosexuals.

In Plato’s Symposium, a philosophical text depicting a contest of extemporaneous speeches by notable men, speaks to the reality of homosexual orientation. Consider these excerpts from two of the speeches:⁶

“For they fall in love with boys only at the point when they begin to have in their possession a mind; and this moment approximates the time when they begin to get a beard. For, I think, those who begin from that moment to fall in love with them are prepared to love in the expectation that they will be with them all their life and will share their lives in common.” — Pausanias

In other words, he speaks of a loving, life-long commitment between homosexual partners. Or consider this other speech:

“So of course when he also happens upon that very person who is his half, whether the lover of boys or any other, then they are wonderfully struck with affectionate regard and a sense of kinship and love, almost not wanting to be divided even for a short time. And these are they who continue with one another throughout life. . . . Each desiring to join together and to be fused into a single entity with his beloved and to become one person from two.” — Aristophanes

Here, again, is another example of life-long homosexual commitments. Commenting further on this subject, N. T. Wright argues:⁷

“As a classicist, I have to say that when I read Plato’s Symposium, or when I read the accounts from the early Roman Empire of the practice of homosexuality, then it seems to me they knew just as much about it as we do. In particular, a point which is often missed, they knew a great deal about what people today would regard as longer-term, reasonably stable relations between two people of the same gender. This is not a modern invention; it’s already there in Plato. The idea that in Paul’s day it was always a matter of exploitation of younger men by older men or whatever . . . of course there was plenty of that then, as there is today, but it was by no means the only thing. They knew about the whole range of options there.”

In the end, the revisionist arguments fall short. Nowhere does Paul limit his condemnation to homosexual abuses. Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that Paul was ignorant of homosexual orientation.

Concluding Thoughts

Based on the above evidence, Paul condemns homosexual behavior in general — not just abuses. He condemns both men and women in Romans 1, and both the active and passive partners in 1 Corinthians 6. The revisionist arguments that Paul had no concept of homosexual orientation, and therefore, couldn’t have condemned it lacks historical backing.

Marx Attacks!

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Phil Bair

If I were to ask you who the most influential philosopher of the 21st Century is, what would your answer be? The correct answer might surprise you.

It is Karl Marx.

Karl Marx believed that class struggle would occur naturally on its own without the help of any social engineer. He believed the Communist Revolution was the inevitable outcome of socio-economic forces, and it was only a matter of time.

He was wrong.

The marxists of today believe in the class struggle, just like Marx did in his day. Except that now, the new Marxists recognize that it won’t naturally happen on its own. They have forged a new agenda to bring about a social revolution similar to the one Marx imagined. Except this time the intended outcome will be a cultural and social revolution they hope to control through deliberate measures rather than an unpredictable result left to chance.

A Worldview and its Weapon

A study of this cultural marxism can be summarized as the movement to apply classical marxist ideas of economic class struggle to cultural classes and identities primarily based on proportionality. The majority classes (e.g., white anglo-saxon male, cisgender Christians) are seen as oppressive just because they are the majority. Minorities are seen as oppressed just because they are minorities. Power is perceived as an automatic property of having greater numbers in your group, and that alleged power is always seen as villainy.

Whenever you see and hear people use language like “American racism,” or “systemic racism,” or “American original sin,” or any other expression of built-in institutional or structural bias cited as the cause of socio-economic disparities, cultural marxism is behind it. It is blaming imaginary policies and systems for what it sees as institutional discrimination rather than identifying the real causes of the disparities. It is the myth that the whole system is rigged against minorities and in favor of the “privileged.” It is the idea that what was institutional discrimination in the past still exists, despite the fact that Jim Crow laws and the earlier scourge of slavery have been eradicated. It is blaming society for disadvantages rooted in individual dysfunction and/or cultural pathology.

The left-wing marxist soldiers are engaged in a systematic and widespread attack on Western Civilization. They use an insidious tool known as “critical theory” to accomplish their objectives. It is important to understand that despite having the word “theory” in its name, critical theory is not technically a worldview or an ideology. It is a methodology. It functions as a weapon designed to torpedo social frameworks that are healthy and beneficial for all mankind. The worldview behind the methodology of critical theory (cultural marxism) sees those frameworks as evil and oppressive. Critical theory poisons the minds of those in society against those frameworks and deceives them into thinking they should be dismantled and replaced by an anti-Christian collectivist framework that becomes the true oppressor and destroys the freedom and rights of God’s image-bearers. Critical theory is not the ideology itself, but the blueprint for aggression and activism that is designed to pulverize the existing social fabric and establish the new order the marxist ideology visualizes.

The weapons of the critical theory include challenges from radical feminism, identity politics, the weaponization of homosexuality and transgenderism, and the accusations of systemic racism, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, and evangelical religious oppression. The battle is waged against what they view as the establishment of “whiteness.” The Equinsu Ocha, the white devil, is the enemy, and has to be destroyed at all costs in order to bring about social justice and cultural transformation.

The strategy? Criticize, demonize, disrupt, divide, and destabilize Western society and its institutions by cultivating resentment and grievance culture so that they can be dismantled more easily and a new social order can replace them. The criticism and accusations of critical theory don’t have to be true, and they rarely are. Truth doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is the marxist narrative, to be accepted as dogma through blind ideological conformity. Critical theory seeks to turn people against each other by fostering tribal warfare and victim culture. It stirs up hatred and animosity based on false narratives people have been brainwashed in for decades in our colleges and universities.

One of the largest flaming arrows critical theory has been shooting at us over the last few years is the idea that evangelical Christians have abandoned the Gospel to embrace a power-centered “right-wing” political agenda. We are told that our efforts to promote the Kingdom of God in this life and in our society have been co-opted by a fawning devotion to the spiritually and morally problematic “orange man” occupying the White House. (And by the way, it’s called the “White House.” Hello? The White House.) The purpose of this accusation is to shame and intimidate us into silence when it comes to speaking into our current socio-political climate. After all, we are subordinate to the Son of God, not the Republican Party. This has taught us to avoid politics in the church so as not to offend those in the laity whom the marxist ideology has infected, and to avoid any potential divisiveness taking a stand may cause. Very clever.

The reality is, God is the author of all truth. Truth always has political implications, whether we like it or not. Therefore to avoid politics is to avoid truth. To avoid truth is to ignore the author of all truth: God. Which group of people are terrified of getting political more than any other, and which community avoids it like the plague with unrelenting tenacity? The church. Take your time.

The easiest way to establish a new order is to silence the most vocal opponents of that order. Social engineering is just as much about silencing dissent as indoctrinating the credulous. Critical theory has had overwhelming success in this regard.

Marxism vs Freedom

What does this new social order look like? No classes. No racial “inequality.” No “oppression.” No white “privilege.” No wealth or income, “inequality.” Absolute uniformity of outcome through the coercive power of the state. No dissent. No opposing ideas. Utopia.

Oh, and by the way, no freedom. Free people are at liberty to think and speak as they wish, based on their convictions, and this is not allowed. Nothing contrary to the marxist narrative of class ideology is permitted, no intolerance of the state ideology will be tolerated.

Every outcome is equalized through force. The state is greater than the individual, and until the revolution is complete, people will be treated and judged according to their class, not as stand-alone human beings created in the image of God. If you are white, you are privileged, and you are damned in the name of social justice. Whether you enjoy any personal “privilege” or not, and whether you are personally racist or not, you are guilty, privileged, and racist anyway — period. None of the details about who you are as a person matter. The only thing that matters is that you belong to the white class, and therefore you are a target.

It is almost impossible to dislodge this ideology from its acolytes. The false accusations carried into our minds by the pathological vector called critical theory are so deeply embedded and so thoroughly pervasive in our society that they have been elevated to the status of axiomatic certitude. Anyone who challenges these presuppositions is seen as a drooling hateful neanderthal and will be treated as a pariah. The mechanism to silence dissent is known as “political correctness.” You are not allowed to question the narrative nor attempt to refute it by speaking the truth. Truth is offensive. This is what happens when myth has been implanted in the minds of multitudes of people through indoctrination (from the entertainment industry, the media, and academia) and repetition for so long that people are no longer capable of seeing the world any other way.

The Infected Church

Now this poison has invaded the Body of Christ. Untold numbers of Christians are redefining the principles of their faith to conform to the agenda of social justice rather than personal redemption. The Gospel articulates and endorses a well-defined concept of true justice. But it stands in sharp contrast to the false justice in modern marxist ideology that now has so much of the Church in its death grip.

The monolithic ideology of “white guilt” is wreaking havoc in the Church by pressuring white Christians into “apologizing” for things they didn’t do, and to adopt an attitude of self-condemnation as a means to redeem themselves before the judgment seat of social justice. It comes in the form of progressives (which are now almost identical to marxists) insisting on whites becoming “woke” to their alleged implicit racial bias and defining themselves by their newly enlightened status as pathetic inferiors.

The most virulent lie in the arsenal of critical theory in our present moment is the idea of systemic racism, belief in which is a form of mental illness (a mind detached from reality). Those who are brainwashed by it will attack you like rabid animals if you so much as question their holy article of faith or offer evidence that systemic racism doesn’t exist. Facts don’t matter. The only thing that counts is subjective interpretation of personal experience guided by junk ideology. That is why they spray such toxic venom at their own black brothers and sisters who are trying to teach them a different way of understanding their condition — a way that embraces the truth. For them to admit, that possibility would force them to stop blaming their favorite scapegoat (whiteness), and to honestly examine the real roots of their suffering.

Make no mistake: those who believe in the lie of systemic racism have no desire to see that alleged racism eradicated — ever. If it did exist, and if it came to an end, their precious grievance culture and celebration of their own victimhood would cease to exist. They must believe it’s true, and they will never believe otherwise. The accusation of racism toward whites is what they live for. It is what nourishes and sustains them. That their psychotic security blanket could ever be taken from them is unthinkable. Do not believe for a second that movements like Black Lies Matter really care about black lives or true justice. They only care about one thing: the obliteration of the foundations of Western Civilization. Their web site speaks of dissolving the nuclear family. Their leaders openly inform us they are trained marxists. Their marches advocate deadly violence against the police. Meanwhile, they ignore the over 300,000 black victims of homicide at the hands of other blacks over the last 40 years. The only time they protest and riot against the loss of a precious black life is when it occurs at the hands of the police. And they don’t give a flying rat’s patoot whether it was justified or not. I repeat: they don’t care about black lives — at all. Black Lies Matter is a race-baiting hate group, and the only thing that matters to them is the perpetual decomposition of our society. They are the most high profile puppets of critical theory you can possibly find.

Conclusion

This is the essence of the attack of left-wing marxist pathology in our society. It has achieved the lofty status of a militant social cult. It has already destroyed Europe, and we are next in line. The invasion has already begun. The most tragic aspect of all this is that gullible Christians, especially the millennial variety, have been brainwashed into the new marxist ideology and are busy helping the left do the dirty work of destabilizing American society, and worst of all, invading the Body of Christ like a metastasizing flesh-eating disease that is exterminating the true Gospel of Christ and replacing it with a demonic substitute.

What Is The Fine-Tuning Argument For God’s Existence, And Does The Multiverse Counter It?

2. Does God Exist?

By Wintery Knight

One of the best arguments for the existence of a Creator and Designer of the universe is the cosmic fine-tuning argument. The argument argues that individual constants and quantities in nature cannot be much smaller or larger than they are, because it would remove the ability of the universe to support life of any kind. Dr. Michael Strauss, an experimental physicist, explains some examples of the fine-tuning in a recent post on his blog.

He writes:

I liken the finely-tuned universe to a panel that controls the parameters of the universe with about 100 knobs that can be set to certain values. If you turn any knob just a little to the right or to the left, the result is either a universe that is inhospitable to life or no universe at all.

Consider the knob that controls the strength of the strong nuclear force that holds quarks inside the neutrons and protons and binds the nucleus of the atom together. If the strength were increased by 2%, the element hydrogen would be either non-existent or very rare. Without hydrogen, there would be no water (H₂O) or stars that burn hydrogen as their nuclear fuel like our sun. Without hydrogen, there would be no life. If the strength of the strong nuclear force were decreased by about 5%, then hydrogen would be the only element in the universe. That would simplify the periodic table and make Chemistry class very easy, but it would render life impossible.

All known life in this universe is based on the element carbon, which is formed in the final stages of a star’s life. The carbon you and I are made of is the result of the nuclear processes that occurred as previous stars ended their lives. One nice recent study showed that if the mass of the quarks that make up neutrons and protons were changed by just a few percents, then the process that makes carbon as stars die would be altered in such a way that there would not be sufficient carbon in the universe for life. The masses of the lightest sub-atomic quarks are the precise value that is required for carbon to form and for life to exist.

Regarding the multiverse, let me just quote from MIT physicist Alan Lightman, writing in Harper’s magazine about the multiverse:

The… conjecture that there are many other worlds… [T]here is no way they can prove this conjecture. That same uncertainty disturbs many physicists who are adjusting to the idea of the multiverse. Not only must we accept that the basic properties of our universe are accidental and uncalculable. In addition, we must believe in the existence of many other universes. But we have no conceivable way of observing these other universes and cannot prove their existence. Thus, to explain what we see in the world and in our mental deductions, we must believe in what we cannot prove.

Sound familiar? Theologians are accustomed to taking some beliefs on faith. Scientists are not. All we can do is hope that the same theories that predict the multiverse also produce many other predictions that we can test here in our own universe. But the other universes themselves will almost certainly remain a conjecture.

The multiverse is not pure nonsense; it is theoretically possible. But even if there were a multiverse, the generator that makes the universes itself would require fine-tuning, so the multiverse doesn’t get rid of the problem. And, as Lightman indicates, we have no independent experimental evidence for the existence of the multiverse in any case. Atheists just have to take it on faith and hope that their speculations will be proved right. Meanwhile, the fine-tuning is just as easily explained by postulating God, and we have independent evidence for God’s existence, like the origin of biological information, the sudden appearance of animal body plans, the argument from consciousness, and so on. Even if the naturalists could explain the fine-tuning, they would still have a lot of explaining to do. Theism (intelligent causation) is the simplest explanation for all of the things we learn from the progress of science.

It’s very important to understand that if these values were any different, then it’s not like we would bridges on our foreheads, or have green skin, or have pointy ears, etc. That’s what science fiction teaches you. And many atheists form their view of science by watching science fiction entertainment. But the truth is that the consequences of changing these values are much more consequential: no stars, no planets, no hydrogen, no heavy elements, the universe re-collapses into a hot fireball. You’re not going to have complex, embodied intelligent agents running around making moral decisions and relating to God in a world like that.

Questions like the existence of God should be NOT decided by feelings and faith and superstitious nonsense. They ought to be decided by evidence. Specifically, scientific evidence. Everyone has to account for this scientific evidence for fine-tuning within their worldview, and they have to account for it in a way that is responsible and rational. Punting to the multiverse, without any evidence for it, is neither rational nor responsible. Holding out hope that the evidence we have now will all go away is neither rational nor responsible.

By the way, if you are looking for a good book on the cosmic fine-tuning, especially for evangelism and debating with atheists, you really need to get a copy of “A Fortunate Universe. “ Although it is from one of the most prestigious academic presses, it is pretty funny to read, and the main points are made clear, even if you don’t understand science. Two astrophysicists wrote it – one who believes that God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning, and one who doesn’t. I really think that Christians need to get used to the idea that evangelism can be pretty easy, so long as you are arguing from peer-reviewed facts. When you get a good book on evidence for God that is not in dispute, then you are invincible. Everybody ought to believe in God in a universe with this much overt scientific evidence spilling out everywhere. Whether this Creator and Designer is the God of the Bible, who visited us as Jesus of Nazareth, takes more work to establish. Working through the emotional objections people have to God, and coaching them to take on the difficulties of living out an authentic Christian life (very unpopular!), is even harder.

Book Review: How Reason Can Lead To God by Joshua Rasmussen

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Stelman Smith Jr.

“I write for a specific sort of person. You value reason, science, and independent thinking. You question beliefs propped up by ‘faith’ without sufficient evidence. Maybe you would like your life to have a deeper purpose, but you cannot believe something based on a mere wish. Whether you are a student, an academic, or just a curious person, you want one thing: the truth. If you can relate, this book is for you” (Rasmussen).

In what promises to be one of the great Christian Apologetics books of all time, Dr. Josh Rasmussen leads us across a bridge of reason. A bridge that begins with his own doubts and questions as a teenager. A bridge built by the tools of reason, on which we can learn to think clearly, and discover the foundations of the world in which we find ourselves. A bridge that if followed honestly and openly, can lead to a real treasure on the other side.

But this is not an ideological bridge; one based on affirming prior conclusions and forcing the reader to think a certain way. This book is not even written primarily for those who are already believers. Rather, it is for the skeptic. As someone who is naturally skeptical himself, Josh does not compel anyone to step onto the bridge. But he extends his hand and invites one to use their own reason. Josh has no interest in leading anyone blindly according to his own reasons. He invites his readers to test his arguments and conclusions every step of the way – even teaching them how to use powers of reason they may not have even known they had to investigate the world for themselves.

Taking nothing for granted, Rasmussen looks at some of the most fundamental questions we can ask ourselves: What is reality? How do we know anything exists? How do we even know we exist? How do we know we are thinking? Using the light of reason and sophisticated philosophical thought, Rasmussen investigates competing theories about the foundation of all reality to explain how anything at all can exist. He explains that our theory about the foundation must consist of the materials capable of constructing all the aspects of the reality in which we exist.

He shows us how we can use logic to discover what the foundation of reality is like; that materialism and naturalism fail to account for all the aspects of reality around us – but that a Mental Foundation can serve as a robust theory that provides us with simplicity, uniformity, and the explanatory depth needed for all the aspects of reality, including Mind, Matter, Morals, and Reason. And this foundation also serves as the pillars for our bridge of reason; Independence, Necessity, Ultimacy, and Eternal Power.

Libertarian Freedom

In one of my favorite chapters, FOUNDATION OF MIND, Rasmussen helps us understand ourselves and our own minds better through self-reflection and reason. In his section on free will, he shows us that our sense of ourselves making free choices is a window into a world where we really do have libertarian free will:

“Stop reading this. Can you? Is it up to you whether you continue reading? If so, then you have some measure of ‘free will.’ In other words, you have the power to choose between options.

You might be unsure whether you actually have free will. It is understandable: the particles in your brain follow the laws of physics, and the laws of physics are not up to you. In other words, if particles pull all the strings, then you are a puppet of their powers.”

This section lends greatly to the defense of the FreeThinking Argument which deductively demonstrates that naturalism is incapable of providing the foundational materials needed for building minds that have the capacity to reason. But that Theism provides the best explanation for why

“… you have the power to choose whether to focus on these words or to release your focus. This power is within the options available to you, at least if it is within the options available to the particles. Choose your focus, and the particles in your brain will thereby take a path. (Recent science of the mind-brain connection supports this result).”

This chapter helped me personally see how it is possible for God to know my thoughts. God is the foundational mind of all other minds. Minds made in his image.

All along the way, Rasmussen does an excellent job of communicating deep ideas at a personable level that makes it easy for even the laymen to grasp tough thoughts.

The Bridge to Reason

Even the entire argument of the book boils down to a simple form:

Premise 1. Reality in total is self-sufficient (with no outside cause or explanation).

Premise 2. Nothing can be self-sufficient without a perfect foundation.

Conclusion. Therefore, reality has a perfect foundation.

I’ll leave it to Rasmussen to defend the premises in his book. He does so with stunning brilliance and clarity.

Now, construction of this bridge does not come without its obstacles. But Rasmussen helps to remove these barriers by answering some of the toughest objections to his worldview, including the logical problem of evil and some of its sub-categories, such as why God would condemn people for being born into the wrong religion, and why God would allow innocent children to suffer. And in what I think is one of the best answers to this problem, Rasmussen shows us how we can use reason to see that not only does naturalism fail to provide a satisfying explanation for why any moral creatures exist, but that on theism, we should expect the existence of certain mysterious evils. In doing so, he presents a meaningful view of a world in which God creates us to be coauthors in His grand story of reality.

And on the other side of the bridge, we get access to a secret argument that our journey has made for us. But more importantly, if we seek with an honest and open heart, we might find a treasure that’s value is immeasurable. There is a risk, but “… there is value in seeking treasures in the face of uncertainty.”

One risk is the collapse of one’s worldview. But Rasmussen identifies with this, and provides consolation in the discovery of truth:

“My original vision of the world was too limited. My research helped me see that the world is far greater and more complex than I had imagined. I began to feel thankful that my childhood vision of reality was shattered, for it was too simple.”

The other risk is disappointment. Rasmussen points out that “… it takes courage not only to face cold truth, but it also takes courage to look for a treasure before you know whether the treasure is real.”

“This book is about the search for a treasure. Many treasures are not obvious, but we can find them without leaping into the dark. In this book, I will attempt to construct a bridge of reason that can help truth-seekers explore a pathway to a valuable discovery.

You will be the judge. My goal is to bring you encouragement about the big picture of your life through the unalterable rules of reason. I invite you to put the bridge to the test. Without a rational basis for our steps, we walk blindly.

Reason will give us Light.”

Conclusion

When having the conversation about the greatest Christian Apologetics books of all time; books that every serious Christian and non-Christian alike ought to read: No doubt that in the years to come, among mentions such as Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, or Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig, How Reason Can Lead To God, by Joshua Rasmussen will find itself in that conversation.

Christian Naivety is Harming the Church’s Engagement with Today’s Culture

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Natasha Crain

I had no idea my last article, “5 Ways Christians are Getting Swept into a Secular Worldview in This Culture Moment,” would resonate with so many—it’s been liked and shared over 250,000 times to date (!). Although I no longer leave comments open on my site (I just don’t have the time to moderate and respond), I had the opportunity to observe a flurry of conversation threads on social media related to what I had written. Those conversations threads generated all kinds of ideas for future articles, but the one that pressed on me most over the last few weeks was this one.

As I considered the types of pushback I received from some fellow believers (not skeptics!), I started to realize that their comments had little to do with the facts, logic, or manner in which I wrote that particular article. Rather, they were the same kinds of reactions I’ve see to any post other Christians, or I write involving a call to better discernment in the church. Articles of this nature are often met with the same types of broad pushback about 1) the need for love, 2) the need for action, 3) the need to not be fearful, and 4) the need for unity (the implication being that these things are all somehow in tension with discernment).

I want to show today why there’s a certain biblical naivety in such comments—one that actually harms the church’s ability and opportunity to effectively engage with culture.

1. There’s a naivety about the relationship between discernment and love.

This, perhaps, is one of the greatest naiveties in the church today. If you have anything to say that is perceived to be negative, there will be plenty of Christians ready to tell you you’re not being loving. Others won’t directly make that accusation but will instead point out that they’re “just going to keep on loving people,” as if it’s impossible to offer truth while loving people.

Now, there are certainly times when Christians deliver truth in unloving ways. That’s a whole other conversation. But what I’m addressing here is the aversion some Christians have to any sort of statement that suggests a person, group, or action is wrong from a biblical perspective. In a lot of cases, those Christians even agree that the person/group/action is wrong, but they think there’s a negative tradeoff between drawing attention to our disagreement and being loving.

Please hear me out: It is not more loving, biblically speaking, for Christians to be a group of Pollyannas in a hostile culture. It’s naïve.

Jesus didn’t create the church to be an endless source of warm fuzzies to the world around us. That approach may draw some people to some version of Christianity, but it won’t be a Christianity based on the teachings of Jesus himself. As Christians, we’re called to be salt and light in the world. But how can we “preserve” God’s message when we refuse to share what He’s said in the name of our own definition of love—one rooted in either comfortable silence or superficial niceties? Surely, this is not a biblical love for others, as I explained in my last post. A biblical love is one that loves others in the context of what it first means to love God.

Furthermore, it’s extremely naïve to think that the more we look like the world—cheerfully glossing over the worldview differences that should drive our thinking and living—the more people will seek Jesus. Why seek Jesus when who He is and what He taught apparently makes no tangible difference in the lives of Christians, other than that they (sometimes) go to church on Sundays and pray in the quiet of their homes? How does this challenge people to consider the radical claims that Jesus was God himself, has authority over our lives, made reconciliation with our Creator possible through his sacrifice on the cross, was supernaturally raised from the dead, and is our only hope for eternal life?

It doesn’t.

We can keep on smiling and nodding along with culture, but let’s not be deluded that we’re doing Jesus any favors with complacency in the name of “love.”

2. There’s a naivety about the relationship between discernment and action.

I received several well-meaning comments and messages in response to my article suggesting that what Christians need to be focusing on right now is how to help those who are suffering due to inequality and discrimination…not on being critical of how people are doing that. In other words, don’t worry about the underlying (neo-Marxist) worldview of an organization like Black Lives Matter, just jump in and serve alongside of them—why can’t we all just work together, even if we have some disagreements?

To be clear, I didn’t say or imply that Christians should never work side-by-side with nonbelievers. That would be ridiculous. Once again, however, nuance is called for. There are many non-Christian organizations in the world working toward causes that Christians should care about as much as non-Christians, and in ways that don’t conflict with a Christian worldview. If we want to help save an endangered species side-by-side with an organization that assumes a naturalistic worldview (in which that species developed through blind, purposeless chance), there’s probably not an issue. Our approaches and end goals, in that case, can align despite divergent underlying worldviews.

But what if a non-Christian organization seeks to achieve a common goal using approaches in conflict with a Christian worldview?

And what if it turns out that what we think is a common goal is only superficially in common? That when we dig deeper, we find out that we may be using similar words but have a wildly different ending vision in mind?

This is exactly the issue in the case of Christians and the BLM organization. BLM’s specific vision and desired policy approaches for getting there are decidedly hostile to a Christian worldview. Al Mohler does a good job of explaining why in this article, so I’ll encourage you to click here for further explanation if you’re unfamiliar with the issues.

As Mohler says, “Black Lives Matter did not emerge merely as a sentence. Those three words function as a message and a platform making a significant political statement—one guided by a Marxist ideology that seeks to revolutionize our culture and society.”

And to be sure, the label of “Marxist ideology” is not something being unfairly thrust upon BLM. You can see a video here of BLM founder Patrisse Cullors assuring her interviewer that the group has an underlying ideology: “We’re trained Marxists.”

I have no doubt that Christians are well-meaning when they say they just want to get involved and do something to show their concern and support for the black community. But the choice isn’t BLM or nothing, and pointing out major issues with BLM doesn’t imply an encouragement to do nothing! (As just one alternative, you can bring training to your church on how to better support biblical justice through the latest efforts of the Center for Biblical Unity.)

Discernment must go hand-in-hand with action. If we’re unaware of how our actions are working toward a society opposed to our fundamental beliefs, we’re just naïve lambs being led to the slaughter. Well-meaning Christians may not realize it along the way, but make no mistake…those leading the lambs most certainly do.

3. There’s a naivety about the relationship between discernment and fear.

Another common response I see to articles written about the distinction between biblical and non-biblical thinking is that the activity of discernment is inherently fear-based.

“Do we really have to fear anything that isn’t explicitly Christian?”

“Why are you scared of people who believe differently?”

It’s unfortunate and sad when Christians think that the motivation behind discernment is somehow rooted in fear, as common statements like these assume. When someone attempts to clarify the line between biblical and non-biblical thinking, they’re not “scared” of what others believe or suggesting that there can be no common ground at all; they’re illuminating important differences because Christians should be able to see clearly enough to guard God’s truth from error (1 Tim. 4:16).

As Christians, we should be concerned when the lines between biblical and secular thinking are becoming so muddled in the minds of many believers that we’re losing our ability to impact culture. But concern isn’t some kind of unhinged emotional response that’s anxiously scrambling to get people to see your way because you’re afraid you’re losing a battle (the idea I think people have in mind when they make statements like the examples here). We know how the battle ends, but we’re called to preserve and fight for truth in the meantime. To not do so because we assume discernment is rooted in fear is a naivety about the need to think and live differently than the secular world. It’s a failure to understand just how different a biblical worldview and all of its implications for our lives really are.

4. There’s a naivety about the relationship between discernment and unity.

Finally, another common refrain from Christians when discernment-related questions are raised is that those questions cause “division” in the body of Christ. The basic idea is that we need to prioritize unity over differences.

But take that thinking to the extreme: Should we align ourselves with Christians who think blowing up buildings is “biblical”? Of course not. I can’t imagine that the same people who comment about our need for unity would say we should. We all recognize that a line must be drawn at some point. The problem is that many Christians are subjectively drawing that line based on cultural comfort rather than biblical direction.

In Ephesians 4:11–15, Paul tells Christians to speak the truth in love rather than being like infants “tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching.” The result, he says, is that we will “grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ.”

Discernment is part of spiritual maturity.

Paul speaks to the importance of sound doctrine in his instructions to Timothy as well: “Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” (2 Tim. 4:2–4)

The Bible in no way suggests that we are to accept all ideas put forth in the name of Christ as equally valid or to remain silent. Championing a superficial unity to avoid working through disagreement naively allows many harmful ideas to infiltrate the church. [For help talking about this with your kids, see Part 2 in Talking with Your Kids about Jesus.]

In sending out his twelve disciples, Jesus said, “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16). Just as today, the world the disciples would be preaching to was hostile to their message. Jesus’s command to them was to navigate what they would encounter by being shrewd—having “sharp powers of judgment,” as the dictionary defines it. We, too, should be both shrewd and innocent, but we’ve lost a lot of that balance to the naïve confusions I described here.

How do we fix it? That will be the subject of my next article.

God is the Good

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

At our church, we often say, “God is good all the time, and all the time God is good.” But do we really contemplate what that means? What is the good? What does it mean to say that God is good? Around 420 BC, the famed Greek philosopher Socrates conversed with a gentleman named Glaucon about the nature of goodness and justice. Socrates held that an objective standard of the Good existed which transcends personal opinion and belief. Plato, Socrates’s student, analyzed their conversation in his book The Republic. Plato likened the Good to the sun as both provided individuals clarity of sight. As the sun allows one to see in the visible realm, the Good allows one to see in the realm of rationality and metaphysical truths.

Like Socrates, the apostle John contended that “God is light, and there is absolutely no darkness in him. If we say, ‘We have fellowship with him,’ and yet we walk in darkness, we are lying and are not practicing the truth” (1 John 1:5, CSB). Is John contending that God is physical light, or does “light” in this case hold a metaphorical meaning? While the Bible indicates that God exudes light in God’s appearance (Ps. 104:1-3; Ezek. 1:26-27; Dan. 7:9-14; Rev. 1), John references the good nature of God by his usage of “light” in the passage. The apostle notes that God is the standard of the Good and clears one’s path to live in a state of holiness and righteousness. What does this mean?

God is absolutely good.

God’s nature is holy and pure. He is morally good and just in all that he does and says. God has no sin and is morally perfect.

God establishes the absolute good.

God is the moral basis for morality. Without God, it is impossible to know the Good. Even when espousing moral claims, a person appeals to the existence of God. While some have contended otherwise, it makes better sense of the evidence to hold that God is the basis for knowing objective morality.

God reveals the absolute good.

Seeing that God is the absolute Good, then it only follows that God is the revealer of good. Some will hold, “Well if God is the absolute good, then why does he permit bad things to happen?” God may permit bad things to occur to bring about a greater good in the end. We may not always know what the greater good might be, but God does. Thus, God reveals morality to humanity either by natural revelation or specific revelation.

In a world of information overload, one in which everything is deemed a conspiracy by conservative and liberal extremists alike, truth and goodness can seem quite murky and dim. However, when we realize that God is the source of goodness and truth, then we may be more inclined to spend less time on Fox News, CNN, and social media, and more time with God who is the standard of goodness. God is the absolute good. Even the bad he allows is meant for a greater good. Trust in God’s goodness and follow the light of his path.

Tag Archive for: theology

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Was Jesus angry when he cursed the fig tree?

So what about the pigs?

Was Jesus getting snippy over hand-washing?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Did Jesus Or John Have A Painfully Short Attention Span?

The Disciples’ Silence Became Deafening

The Disciples Finally Get It, But Does Ehrman?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Relationship of Confidence and Character

The Blending of Conviction and Compassion

The Importance of Listening and Loving

Confidence Leads to Compassion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Romans 1:26-27

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 And 1 Timothy 1:9-10

Was There Really No Concept Of Homosexual Orientation In The Ancient World?

Concluding Thoughts

Recommended resources related to the topic:

A Worldview and its Weapon

Marxism vs Freedom

The Infected Church

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Libertarian Freedom

The Bridge to Reason

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

1. There’s a naivety about the relationship between discernment and love.

2. There’s a naivety about the relationship between discernment and action.

3. There’s a naivety about the relationship between discernment and fear.

4. There’s a naivety about the relationship between discernment and unity.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic: