Tag Archive for: theology

Who Made God A Cosmological Argument for Kids

Who Made God? A Cosmological Argument for Kids

,

By Mikel Del Rosario

Who Made God? Here’s a Simple Answer

Watching Phil Vischer’s Jelly Telly show with my little boy reminded me that accessible apologetics training is for kids, too! One day after church, we sat down to watch a little clip online. There was a puppet newscaster hosting a segment called “Buck Denver’s Mail Bag.”

At first, I wasn’t too excited about it. But then, Buck said that an 11-year old boy asked this question: “Who made God?” My ears perked up and began to lean forward.

What came next was something I’d never seen before: a puppet engaged in apologetics and using the cosmological argument to teach kids!

Video Transcript

Who made God? Easy answer: No one. You say, “How could that be? Everything I’ve ever known has been made by someone. How could God not be made by anyone?” Well, here’s the thing. Something has to have been not made.

Cause if you start with like, um, your car. Who made your car? Well, it came out of the factory. Who made the factory? Well, it was built by the builders. Who made the builders? Well, their mommies, kind of. And um, who made them? Their mommies and their mommies and going way, way, way, way back. It can’t go back forever. So at some point, it had to start with something that was not made. Something that just always was. That is God. God always was. He was never made. Pretty cool, huh? Something had to have started it all, and that something is God.

This reminded me of William Lane Craig’s wife, Jan, who responded in a similar way to a student who said she did not believe in God. Jan’s quoted in Reasonable Faith: “Everything we see has a cause, and those causes have causes and so on. But this can’t go back forever. There had to be a beginning and a first cause which started the whole thing. This is God” (122).

Here’s how William Lane Craig himself responded to the question, “Where did God come from?” He explained, “God didn’t come from anywhere. He is eternal and has always existed. So he doesn’t need a cause. But now, let me ask you something. The universe has not always existed but had a beginning. So where did the universe come from?”

Simple is Good

Whether it’s responding to kids, college students or anyone else, it’s not enough to have an answer to a tough question like, “Who Made God?” It’s also important to share it simply—at least at first. If the conversations get more technical, so be it. But let’s take a cue from Buck Denver and start with something simple.

Like This?

You’re gonna love this. The Jelly Telly crew got together and produced an awesome DVD series which incorporates accessible apologetics and theology for kids: Buck Denver Asks What’s in the Bible?

When it comes to introducing the Bible, theology, and apologetics to children in a way they can understand, this seriously rocks. It’s Bible literacy for a new generation. Whether you’re a parent, grandparent, Sunday School teacher, or just looking for a gift for that Christian kid on your list, check out Buck Denver Asks What’s in the Bible?

My kid loves this series. And I do, too!

 

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/2HcDa3U

/by
19 Essential Bible Verses and Passages on Apologetics

19 Essential Bible Verses and Passages on Apologetics

By Erik Manning

Sometimes you gotta make an apologetic for apologetics.  Often well-meaning Christians spout off pious-sounding platitudes like “faith isn’t based on reason, that’s why it’s called faith,” or “God doesn’t need us to defend him, just preach the gospel.” That sounds spiritual, but it isn’t biblical. That’s not the way Jesus operated, and that’s not the way the early church operated either.

Here I list off some verses and various passages that demonstrate that apologetics is one of the most biblical and spiritual things you can be involved in:

  1. 1 Peter 3:15-16“But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.”

This is every apologists’ “go-to” verse when defending the purpose of apologetics, and for a good reason. While not everyone is called to be a full-time minister, (Ephesians 4:11), Peter says that every Christian is called to give a reason for their hope in Christ. , Don’t leave out the “gentleness and respect” part!

  1. Jude 3“Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.”

Jude was writing to believers who were surrounded by heretics teaching the original “Hyper-Grace” message. In other words, they were saying grace means the moral law goes out the window. Sadly, we see a lot of that message resurfacing today. Jude urged them to be able to defend the original teaching handed down from the apostles. (Romans 6:1-2)

  1. Titus 1:9“He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.”

Paul is giving a checklist of qualifications for pastors. Pastors should not only able to teach sound doctrine but also able to refute those who oppose it. Pastors need apologetics as much as believers — if not more so — since it’s their job to help protect the flock against false teaching.

  1. 2 Timothy 2:24-26“And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.”

Here again, Paul is instructing ministers to be able to not only teach but to also be able to give a gentle answer to those who oppose the truth. We see here that apologetics can play a role in bringing people to repentance.

  1. Jude 22“Be merciful to those who doubt…”

For believers battling intellectual doubts, apologetics can be great mercy and help save their faith. We don’t want to offer pat answers. I know of several believers that can testify that studying apologetics during seasons of doubt saved their faith. We see that principle in action in the ministry of Jesus. That leads me to my next passage:

  1. Luke 7:19-22“When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’” At that very time, Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses, and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. So he replied to the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.”

John the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod and was sitting on death row. He previously baptized Jesus and identified him as the Messiah, but now that things were looking grim. John was wondering if he made the greatest life choices. He sent some disciples to get an answer from Jesus, and Jesus didn’t reply with a “just have faith” type of cliché. He pointed to the evidence from his miracles and fulfilled prophecy. Jesus had mercy on doubters. He repeatedly used his miracles as evidence of his identity. (see also John 5:36, John 10:37-38, John 14:11)

  1. Isaiah 48:5“Therefore I told you these things long ago; before they happened, I announced them to you so that you could not say, ‘My images brought them about; my wooden image and metal god ordained them.”

I love this verse because here God throws down the gauntlet. Can your idols predict the future? Can they declare the end from the beginning? Yeah, I didn’t think so. The apostles repeatedly used the argument from fulfilled prophecy in identifying Jesus. Just read the Gospels or any of the sermons in Acts preached to a Jewish audience.

  1. Acts 19:8-10“Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.”

Some people in the modern church will tell you that you can’t reason or argue someone into the kingdom of God. They’ll teach that if you’re just a nice person, then people will eventually give you the time of day. That’s not the way Paul operates,d. He proactively went into the synagogues and used his ability to persuade from the Bible that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah. Acts 17:2-4 says this was his custom.

What really sticks out to me is that when some of the Jews turned on Paul, he set up shop in a lecture hall and had an open forum for the next two years until everyone in the area heard the gospel. Daily discussions indicate that Paul wasn’t just preaching at people; he was having some conversations over spiritual things with whoever was willing. This sounds an awful lot like debates, which leads me to my next (and possibly favorite) passage on apologetics.

  1. Acts 18:27-28“When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers and sisters encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. When he arrived, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. For he vigorously refuted his Jewish opponents in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah.”

Have you ever watched a great debater, like John Lennox or William Lane Craig and feel like “Wow! I just had church!”? You probably came away feeling strengthened after witnessing the other sides’ arguments fall apart like a Chinese motorcycle while the Christian side came out smelling like a rose, even after tough scrutiny. Luke, by the Holy Spirit, calls this great help to the believer. And I think that’s pretty awesome. Apologetics can help persuade skeptics, but it also builds up the church.

  1. 2 Corinthians 10:5“We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”

Believers often apply this verse to guarding their own thought life. I’m not at all saying that’s wrong, but that’s not the actual context of the verse. Paul was concerned over the Corinthians being taken up with apostles who were flashy but empty talkers. He was saying that through the wisdom of God, he’d destroy their arguments. (Sounds like Paul would have made it in a lot of YouTube clips a la Ben Shapiro if he were alive today. I can see it now…. Paul of Tarsus DESTROYS and RIPS TO SHREDS religious opponent with LOGIC and FACTS)

Apologetics is a major way of doing spiritual warfare. It’s being able to deconstruct arguments and pretentious arguments that trip people up and keep them out of the kingdom.

  1. Colossians 2:8 “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.” 

CS Lewis famously said “Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy must be answered… The learned life then, is for some, a duty.” We are in a war with the hallow and deceptive philosophies of our time: Relativism, religious pluralism, nihilism, naturalism, scientism, critical theory, Marxism, – you name it, it’s all out there. These things have a major impact on individuals and our society. Our job is to give the world a real alternative.

  1. Luke 1:1-4 “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”

Luke’s not writing fairy tales or folklore here.  He interviewed eyewitnesses. He carefully investigated everything and being meticulous with his research. He’s writing as a historian giving a thorough report so that our confidence in what we believed would be increased.

  1. 2 Peter 1:16“For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”

Similar to Luke’s prologue, Peter isn’t spinning some pious myths or fables here. His message was based on what he was an eyewitness to.

  1. 1 John 1:1-3 “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us.”

John is encouraging a church that is going through a rough time. Some believers were abandoning their faith in Jesus because of the prevailing Greek philosophy around them that taught that the flesh is bad and spirit is good. Considering Jesus was resurrected in the flesh, this was a big problem. He appeals to them by the truth of Christ that he experienced with his own senses. He wasn’t preaching a spiritual, shadowy Jesus.

  1. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last, of all, he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”

The central claim of the gospel is Christ has been raised. If Christ isn’t raised, Paul says the whole Christian faith is a bad joke and a waste of time. (1 Corinthians 15:14, 1 Corinthians 15:17) Here Paul passes on a creed he was given by other believers before him that list off a host of resurrection appearances to individuals and groups. This creed has become the linchpin for most arguments for the historicity of the resurrection.

  1. Romans 1:18-20 “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness since what may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

We know from Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill (Acts 17:21-32) that he appealed to nature and their own moral intuitions.  Here Paul says there’s some revelation freely available to everyone, so much so that they have no excuse. The word excuse is “apologia,” which is the same word we get apologetics from. In other words, unbelievers have no defense for their rejection of God.

  1. Psalm 19:1-4 “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech night after night they reveal knowledge. They have no speech; they use no words; no sound is heard from them. Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.”

This might be the passage that Paul had in mind when he said the truth of God is evident to everyone through creation. The very existence of an orderly, fine-tuned universe created in the finite past speaks volumes, and you really have to plug your ears to say that it came about through purely natural processes.

  1. Colossians 4:5-6“Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.”

As believers, we are to make the most of every opportunity we get with people outside the faith and graciously know how to answer their worldview.

  1. Philippians 1:16 “…I am put here for the defense of the gospel.”

It’s interesting to note here that Paul was writing this letter from prison. He used the words rejoice and joy over and over, and he says he’s there for the defense of the gospel. Even being put in a dirty, dark prison wasn’t going to stop Paul from proclaiming and defending the Gospel with joy. He knew his purpose. It’s always to remind yourself why you are put here.

Bonus: To see apologetics in action, read Mark 12:12-37. Jesus was asked tricky questions from his opponents. Using logic, reason, Scripture, he left his critics speechless. Jesus was an intellectual heavyweight. He didn’t shy away from debate and “just preach the gospel.”

While this list isn’t completely comprehensive, I hope it helps you see the importance of apologetics and gets you motivated to get involved!

 

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.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2IW4qXO

/by
The Deity of Christ in the Old Testament

The Deity of Christ in the Old Testament

,

By Ryan Leasure

Most readers of the Bible affirm that the New Testament unequivocally proclaims the deity of Christ. It’s hard to read texts such as John 1:1-4, John 8:58, Romans 9:5, or Hebrews 1:8, and come to any different conclusion. This clarity is why the Council of Nicea (AD 325) affirmed that the Son shares the exact same nature with the Father. That is to say, from the earliest times, the church affirmed the full deity of Christ, and rightly so.

Yet the Jewish expectation was for a human Messiah. After all, the Christ, according to the Old Testament, would come from the human line of David. Wouldn’t it make sense that the Messiah would be human as well?

Be that as it may, while the Old Testament predicts a future human Messiah, I believe it tells us to expect a divine Messiah as well. And to demonstrate this claim, I want to highlight four different texts — two from the Psalms and two from the prophets.

Psalm 45:6-7

Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore, God, your God, has set you above your companions.

Notice a few key points. First, this Psalm is a wedding song and is addressed to a Davidic son who is about to take his bride.

Second, the psalmist addresses this song specifically to “the king” (v. 1) and at the same time calls him “God” (v. 6). That is, this Davidic son is both “king” and “God.”

Third, his description of this king is so superfluous — most excellent of men (v. 2), mighty one (v. 3), majestically rides forth in victory (v. 4), the nations fall at your feet (v.5), reigning eternally (v. 6), and nations will praise you forever and ever (v. 17) — that this cannot be a predictor of any mere human king.

Fourth, while the psalmist declares that this king is God in verse 6, in verse 7, he refers to his God. In other words, another person exists, beyond this king, who is also God. It seems the psalmist is planting Trinitarian seeds in this text.

And finally, the author of Hebrews applies this text specifically to Jesus. In Hebrews 1, the author declares the superiority of Jesus to the angels and then drives his point home in verse 8, “But of the Son he says, Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.” Hebrews emphatically states that it’s the Son who is the eternally reigning God described in Psalm 45.

Psalm 110:1

The LORD says to my Lord: sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.

This psalm of David is the most quoted Old Testament text in the New Testament. Jesus, striving to make a point to his contemporaries, references it in Mark 12:35-37 by asking:

Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet. David himself calls him Lord. How then can he be his son?

Jesus wanted his audience to understand the implications of David’s words. How could David refer to the Messiah as his Lord? Wasn’t the Messiah David’s future son? This claim — suggesting the son is greater and more authoritative than David — would no doubt have shocked the Jewish audience who always showed deference to the Father over the son.

Furthermore, notice, under the direction of the Holy Spirit (Mk. 12:36), David distinguishes between LORD (YHWH) and Lord (Adonai). That is, even though the Messiah would be Lord, there is another who is also LORD.

And finally, it was unthinkable, from a Jewish perspective, that a mere human could sit at YHWH’s right hand and rule from a position of authority. Make no bones about it. David said his Son would be divine.

Isaiah 9:6-7

For unto us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the greatness of his government and peace, there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever.

Here are a few key points to consider: First, Isaiah exuberantly declares that this son — the one who will reign on David’s throne (an obvious reference to the Messiah) will be called “Mighty God.”

Second, Isaiah tells us that this son will reign eternally when he calls him “Everlasting Father” and tells us that he will uphold his kingdom of “justice and righteousness from that time on and forever.”

Third, the phrase “Everlasting Father” need not throw you off. No such Trinitarian terms existed at this point in redemption history. Rather, the term Father should be understood as one who provides (Job 29:16), guards (Isa. 22:11), and guides (2 Kgs. 2:21). By giving the Messiah the label of “Everlasting Father,” it was just one more way to declare his deity.

Daniel 7:13-14

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Who is this son of man — this human-like figure who also has divine-like qualities? Daniel says he’ll come on the clouds of heaven which is always an expression to deity (Ps. 97:2; Isa. 19:1). This son of man will have all authority, glory, and sovereign power. All the nations will worship him, and his kingdom will last forever! Nobody can read this text and conclude that this Son of Man was not a divine figure.

Interestingly, during Jesus’ arrest, the Jewish leaders interrogated him by asking who he claimed to be. Here is Mark’s description of the conversation:

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. “You have heard the blasphemy.” — Mark 14:61-64

Truth be told, “Son of Man” was Jesus’ favorite title for himself. And here in Mark 12, Jesus most certainly claims to be the divine son of man figure in Daniel 7. We know this is the case because the high priest tore his clothes and accused Jesus of blasphemy.

The Deity of Christ in the Old Testament

Yes, the Messiah would come from the line of David. And yes, he would be human. But based on these four texts, we can confidently assert that the Old Testament also predicts a divine Messiah. And, of course, this is what we find in the New Testament. Jesus, while human, was fully divine as well.

 

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

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

/by
Reconciling a God of Love with the Problem of Evil

Reconciling a God of Love with the Problem of Evil

,

By Daniel Merritt

Theologians and philosophers when engaged in explaining the mysteries of life, wrestle with two mysteries that challenge the mind and the soul. Those mysteries have to do with the problem of evil, which has two components: moral evil and natural evil. Of the two, moral evil poses the easiest solution, as we grasp that bad things happen as a result of man’s capacity to choose between good and evil. The choices one makes brings about consequences; bad choices bringing about consequence that can adversely affect the individual who made the choice and have a ripple effect that affects the lives of others.

It is a lot more difficult, though, to provide satisfactory answers in the face of natural evil. Natural evil would include “evil” or “acts” that is the result from natural events that would include floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, disease and other “events” that occur which bring in our lives tragedy, pain, suffering, and even death. Devastating natural disasters in life often leave one pondering: “Where is God in the midst of all this suffering, loss of life, and destruction? It is not fair or just that these often disastrous acts occur (insurance companies call them ‘acts of God’)!”

The age-old dilemma was posed by Epicurus (341-270 BC): “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil, is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” While simplistic answers are not forthcoming, approaching the subject from a Christian perspective does yield some thought-provoking insight. Six will be considered.

First insight, the Bible teaches that the sometimes “bipolar behavior” of nature is the result of The Fall. Natural evil is a result of man’s sin, the consequences of having a ripple affect which reverberates throughout creation. The Bible teaches that natural evil is a consequence of deliberate rebellion against his Creator, the result being that in addition to man being affected by sin, creation suffered negative consequences, as well. The present world is not the way it was created to be. As a result of man’s disobedience to God, pain, suffering and death entered the world. Paul tells us that all creation was affected by The Fall and that all creation groans and is in travail from the consequences of man’s sin and awaits the time when it is freed from the bondage of sin and death (Romans 8:20-22). The sometimes-unpredictable acts of nature were not present prior to sin entering the world. The world is broken as the result of man’s rebellion against his Creator. Creation has been subjected to the curse of man’s sin and as a result, the present world is functioning abnormally from God’s original design, bringing forth “acts” that are a distortion from the way God originally created the world and man.

Regarding the consequences of the curse of sin that affects man and creation, Francis Schaefer succinctly writes, “I do not think Christians take the Fall and the present abnormality of the world with practical comprehension and seriousness. I mean by this that although Bible-believing Christmas certainly do hold to a historical Fall and the present abnormality of the world as a theological truth, when it comes down to living, this is often forgotten. In other words, we forget that everything is abnormal today and that much of the sickness in the world and sorrows in other areas are a result of this abnormality. or to say it another way, there is so much in history that God did not mean to be there, in the way that He created the world and created

man” (Schaeffer, Letters, IL: Crossway Books, 1985, 157). Schaefer’s words are most insightful in regard to the “why?” of natural evil.

Second insight, God respects the freedom of man to choose, whose decisions can lead to dangerous acts of nature being destructive. It is understood there is natural evil/acts in nature that arise through no fault of man, but man’s choices, actions, and neglect can sometimes put people in harm’s way when nature turns dangerous. When man builds houses, and cities on fault lines in earthquake-prone areas the inevitable will happen. When homes are built on the side of mountains that are prone to mudslides the house will eventually disappear from the mountainside. When one builds businesses and homes near flood-prone areas or on the ocean front there is the risk that hurricanes will sooner or later bring devastation. Human freedom allows one to construct homes, businesses and cities being in places susceptible to earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes; however, when one does, acts of nature can result in grave damage and loss of life. Also, if corners are cut on building materials or construction in order to build quickly or cut expenses, the devastation can be even worse. The Lord respects our freedom to plan and create where we choose, even though eventual disaster may lurk in the future. We want the Lord to intervene in such cases, but for Him to do so, He would have to suspend our freedom to choose (John Hick, Evil and the God of Love, London: Saffron House, 1966, 12).

Third insight, God created the world to operate according to certain laws, and even though sin may have skewed some of nature’s laws as originally designed, there is a cause and effect in nature in regard to how the world works. These are more than impersonal forces; behind it all there lays the Creator God. Scientist-theologian John Polkinghorne advocates that God has created a universe with particular natural laws that make life on earth possible for the existence of humanity. Polkinghorne states that while our “knowledge of the physical world is patchy and incomplete,” the same weather systems that create F-5 tornadoes also creates rainstorms that bring water to the needed soil and plants. The same wind patterns that refresh us on a hot day can turn into destructive gale force winds. The same earthquakes that destroy buildings are part of the very dynamic in the regulation of soils and surface temperatures needed for human life. The same kinds of bacteria that can make one sick and even bring death also yields substances that are used to bring healing. As Creator, God has created the world to work in a certain way and even though creation has been affected by sin, what we assume to be inherently bad or unjust contains within its processes that which also brings about good and sustains life (Polkinghorne, Science and Providence: God’s Interaction with the World, Boston: New Science Library, 1989, 3-7). That our Creator God doesn’t change the laws of nature to coincide with our idea of what is good and just brings us to our fourth thought-provoking insight

Fourth insight, in addressing the problem of “natural evil” one must approach it from the perspective that the problem is not with God, but the problem begins with our assumptions about who we think God ought to be, what God ought to do, and how we determine what is just or unjust. We expect God to act in a certain way according to the way we perceive Him. We presuppose that if God is good and omnipotent then “bad” shouldn’t happen, that God should be and act in the way our mind conceives Him to be. However, we define just and unjust from a near-sighted, sin-tainted perspective. Basing whether something is good or bad, just or unjust on the premise of whether it fits into one’s own understanding what those terms mean is not the basis on which such a judgment should be made. One is not to affirm the goodness of God’s

character according to one’s own experience and presupposing. Surely God, who sees all thing from the beginning to the end, sees the bigger picture. His thoughts and ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8).

What appears to be unjust or bad from our rationale, experience and perspective could actually be something that is very good from a longer-range perspective, but we are only seeing from our short-sighted perspective. In our view of God, we tend to project our narrow-sighted view and experiential definitions of good and bad onto God and assume that if He is good, He must be good by our own limited standards of what constitutes good and just. When one says God needs to be “just,” most often one makes such a statement in terms of what one thinks justice ought to be or in relation to what one perceives to be just from one’s restricted viewpoint. In the process, one doesn’t grasp how justice for one might be an injustice to someone else in a different setting or vice-versa. After all, do we only want a God that fits into our box of understanding or One whose basis for what is just and unjust goes beyond one’s limited intellectual capacity?

We also impose within our narrow scope of God’s omnipotence, that He should use His power to conform to our understanding of how His power ought to work in the world and in individual lives. When we superimpose our concept of how God’s omnipotence should operate in the world, we have reduced Him to our level. God’s power is not subservient to our thinking or our whims of how we perceive He ought to operate in the world and in our lives. Our conception of God too often projects our preconceived assumptions onto God whose omnipotence we contend should be within the scope of our control. What we actually want is to manipulate God to fit into our parameters of how we think He ought to flex His powerful muscle over the forces of nature. How much better it is to come to terms with the understanding that God desires to work in us and with us in the world, and help us to better reflect the image of God He has stamped on each soul even when we encounter “acts” that from our perspective are deemed unfair, unjust, or bad (Dennis Bratcher, The Problem of Natural Evil, The Voice, www.crivoice.org, 2018).

Fifth insight, “Natural evil fulfills a higher divine purpose” (Augustine) (Robert Francis Allen, “St. Augustine’s Free Will Theodicy and Natural Evil,” Ars Disputandi, 3:1, 2003, 84-90). Pain, suffering, and disorder associated with natural evil providentially bring about a higher divine purpose in the larger plan of the Lord. Natural disasters often bring out in humanity the very best of human character, as neighbors and strangers aid one another in recovery. While natural disasters are often tragic, glimpses of the marred image of God within us is seen sparkling in the wreckage. As well, it is only after such natural disasters that some people actually have their hearts made tender enough to call on the Lord for help and strength in daily life. Many times only when one’s present situation is drastically changed does one find themselves thinking about the brevity of life, eternity and one’s accountability before the Lord. Further, it is in the aftermath of “acts of God” that one develops positive and strong character traits that would not have been formed if the disaster had not occurred. If difficult times one is prompted to grow stronger and become better human beings. So, even in the midst of disaster, the Lord can direct what appears to be bad or unjust to fulfill a higher divine purpose (Romans 8:28) (Barry L. Whitney, What are they Saying about Evil? Paulist Printing, 1989, 6, 25)

Sixth insight, one whose reasoned reaction to the calamitous effects of natural disasters, instead of disproving the existence of a benevolent and omnipotent God is in reality strong evidence for

His existence. In his book Mere Christianity, former atheist C.S. Lewis acknowledged he thought the injustice he perceived in the world was an ironclad argument against the truth of Christianity. But as he reflected on what he considered injustice in the world, he asked himself, “How had I gotten the idea that just and unjust existed?” How can one appeal to an objective standard of just and unjust, if there is not a standard outside of one’s self? For if there is no God and we are only the sum total of a collection of random atoms, one’s appeal to events or acts being declared just and unjust is no better or worse than that of anyone else. Such deducing resulted in C.S. Lewis becoming a Christian and one of the great Christian thinkers and writers of the twentieth century.

While we have sought to look at six insights in regard to the problem of natural evil, ultimately we must acknowledge our inability to answer every question posed. Our finite minds can only take us so far, and we will never be able to penetrate the infinite mind of our benevolent and omnipotent God. It is not a weakness to admit that we do not have all the answers, but this know…in the midst of disastrous acts of nature, God is able, willing and desirous to bring comfort, hope, and encouragement to the hurting heart. He is a God who walked among us in Jesus Christ and He is not oblivious to our pain. Having wept through human eyes (John 11:35), He comes to embrace us in our pain that in His divine providence will bring treasure out of a tragedy.

 

Daniel Merritt received his Ph.D. in Ministry from Luder-Wycliffe Seminary and a Th.D. from Northwestern Seminary. He also received his M.Div. from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and studied philosophy and religion at Campbell University. Dr. Merritt has pastored six churches in North Carolina and is currently the Director of Missions for the Surry Baptist Association in Mount Airy, North Carolina. Dr. Merritt has written several books including A Sure Foundation: Eight Truths Affirming the Bible’s Divine Inspiration; Writings on the Ground: Eight Arguments for the Authenticity of John 7:53-8:11; and Bitter Tongues, Buried Treasures. 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2F5ftcx

/by
Is There a Difference Between Apologetics and Evangelism

Is There a Difference Between Apologetics and Evangelism?

By Robby Hall

Many have an idea that the discipline of Apologetics is limited to showing some esoteric point to be true or getting into long debates with atheists. The truth is, apologetics is about one thing – bringing people to Christ. Some see evangelism and apologetics as differing from each other in their end goal. But is this the case?

The late Dr. Francis Schaeffer referred to apologetics as “pre-evangelism”. He believed that most were not ready to hear the Gospel as they had many questions or objections that were in their way. Apologetics was the way to prepare the person to hear the Gospel so that they could respond without the obstacles of those questions. One could say that apologetics correctly done would be the “handmaiden” of evangelism. Apologetics is there to help our evangelistic efforts, not to get into fights over doctrine or ideas about evolution.

In, The God Who Is There[1], Dr. Schaeffer wrote:

​They (non-Christians) are valuable, so we should meet them in love and compassion. Thus, we meet the person where he or she is. Consequently, if I were with Paul and Silas in the Philippian jail, and the Philippian jailer said to me, “sir, what must I do to be saved?” for me to start talking about epistemology would be horrible. I would say what Paul said, “Believe on the LORD Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved” because the jailer was, on the basis of previous knowledge and events, ready for that answer.  ​Now on the other hand, if we are dealing with someone who has honest problems and who really believes that truth is truth – things are true and things are false, it would then be a different need.  In that situation, if he or she had questions on the historicity of Christ’s resurrection and so on, we would deal with those questions – because he or she already accepts that truth is truth.

Evangelism and Apologetics go hand in hand and we should, as Christians, be prepared beforehand to engage in both disciplines so that we can follow the command of Christ to make disciples of all nations.

Notes

[1] Scheaffer, Francis A. , The God Who Is There, InterVarsity Press, 1968.

 

Robby Hall is in the Secure Access industry for Information Technology. He has been married for 3 years and has just welcomed his first child, Bridget. He is graduate of the Cross Examined Instructor’s Academy and leads apologetics small groups at his local church.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2TL2SEW

/by
Responding to Sam Burke's Argument That Christianity Entails Anti-Natalism

Responding to Sam Burke’s Argument That Christianity Entails Anti-Natalism

By Evan Minton 

In the comment section of one of the posts on the Cerebral Faith facebook page, Sam Burke commented “If I found out Christianity was true, I would do everything in my power to stop people from having kids so that more people don’t go to Hell. According to Matthew 7:13 only a few people will find the way to Heaven. Almost everyone who is born will end up being burned in eternal conscious pain for eternity according to the Bible. A trillion years and the person will not be a second closer to being out of Hell. Any parent who truly believes and understands this, and knows their kids will statistically probably end up in Hell and has kids anyway hates them. Having children violates “love your neighbor as yourself” on that viewpoint. If Hell, then Anti-Natalism.

And not to mention if the Age of Accountability is true we should conceive kids just for the sake of aborting them and therefore “populating Heaven.” And I am Pro-Life!! Or infants are damned unless they accept Jesus as their savior from the time they are born. Christianity is utterly hopeless, depressing, etc. No compassionate person could want Christianity and all that it entails to be true.”

Is this the case? If Christianity is true, does it entail that you should either abort your children or refrain from even having them? I’ve already dealt with the Age-Of-Accountability-Entails-That-Abortion-is-ok argument in this blog post here and in chapter 4 of my book A Hellacious Doctrine: A Biblical Defense Of The Doctrine Of Hell. So I won’t rehash those answers here. Rather, I’ll address the more modest argument that if Christianity is true, and if more people statistically end up in Hell instead of Heaven, then it’s basically our moral obligation to refrain from even conceiving!

First, God Has Made Salvation Available to All, Anyone Damned Has Only Themselves to Blame

Jesus said that “For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only son so that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. Everyone who believes in Him will not perish but whoever does not believe in Him is already condemned because he has not believed in God’s one and only son.” – John 3:16-18 (emphasis mine).

God The Father gave up God the Son (i.e., Jesus) to die for the sins of the world! The Greek word translated “world” here is kosmos, and it is most often used to either describe all of humanity, the entire planet, or the entire physical universe. If you are a part of the world, then God loves you and became a man to atone for your sins. I’m a part of the world. You’re a part of the world. Adolf Hitler was a part of the world. Osama Bin Laden was a part of the world. The random person who drove by my house yesterday is a part of the world. Every human being is included in this passage. Moreover, whosoever out of the group that God loved (i.e., the world) who places their faith in Jesus will not perish but have eternal life. Jesus said that God didn’t send His Son into the world to condemn it, but to save the world through him.

Because “God so loved the world”, he therefore “wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4), and is “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). As a result of this love and desire, He “gave his only begotten son” and by that is meant that Jesus “gave himself as a ransom for all people” (1 Timothy 2:6, cf. 1 John 2:2, Hebrews 2:9).

God offers this salvation to all. We’re not able to accept it on our own (see John 6:44, John 6:65), so God sends His Holy Spirit to enable us and persuade us to receive His offer of salvation at the preaching of the gospel (Acts 16:14, John 12:32). This grace can be resisted (Acts 7:51), resulting in the persons own damnation if they continue to resist God’s grace until they die (John 3:36). The choice is up to you. Will you resist The Holy Spirit or will you yield to Him?

God became incarnate, died on the cross to take the punishment we deserved and then rose from the dead. God sends grace to all people to draw them to salvation. Some choose to resist God’s grace and others choose not to. The ones who resist cannot indict either God or their parents for the choice they made. They have no one to blame but themselves. This is why it is often said that God doesn’t send people to Hell, but rather, people send themselves. No one who ends up in Hell has to be there. Their damnation could have been avoided.

Secondly, He Is Assuming That Parents Have No More Say in The Eternal Destiny of their Children Than Birthing Them. 

Sam Burke is assuming that parents have no more say in the eternal destiny of their children than merely birthing them and letting them decide for themselves. However, Proverbs 22:6 says “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.”

It is generally true that if you raise your child right, he’ll grow up right. Theologically, one should expose their children to sound doctrine at a young age, and teach them apologetics from a young age. You can start with having them read books like “The Case For Christ For Kids” by Lee Strobel, “The Case For Faith For Kids” by Lee Strobel, “The Mystery Of The Picture: Where Did The Universe Come From? Did It Come From Nothing?” by Mary Katherine Mammen and Neil Mammen, and “The Awesome Book Of Bible Answers For Kids” by Josh McDowell and Kevin Johnson. When they enter high school, you can move them on to more advanced material like the regular “The Case For Christ” by Lee Strobel, “My Redeemer Lives: Evidence For The Resurrection Of Jesus” by Evan Minton, and others. See my blog post “Teach Your Children Apologetics” for a larger list.

While your kids should look at the evidence for Christianity’s truth, You should be a well-informed Christian and be able their questions as well. As J. Warner Wallace once said, you are the first apologist your child will ever be exposed to. I think fewer young people would leave the church if we were prepared to make a reasonable case for Christianity instead of emphasizing feeling based experiences, and (this especially goes for youth pastors) entertainment. When I become a father, I will ensure that if my child grows up and apostatizes, it won’t be for intellectual reasons (John 3:19-20).

The answer to the problem of your offspring going to Hell isn’t to refrain from having them, but to make sure that they know the Living God.

Thirdly, While Jesus Said More Would Be In Hell Than Heaven, He Never Gave Exact Numbers

You have no idea the ratio of damned to saved and neither do I.  It’s difficult to read Matthew 7:13-14 and not get the idea that Jesus said there would be more damned than saved. However, Jesus didn’t give an exact ratio. For example, Jesus never said that for every 1 person who is saved, 100 are lost. For all we know, for every 1 saved, only 2 or 3 are lost. You can’t calculate the probability that your offspring will, by the end of his life, have spurned The Holy Spirit. We’re not in a position to tally the exact number of saved to lost. All Jesus said is that many would enter the death gate and few would enter the life gate. That’s not exactly what I’d call mathematical precision.

Revelation 7:9 observes, “After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands.” Millions and millions of people will be in Heaven from all over the world.

Finally, Annihilationism Is an Option

Burke’s criticism presupposes a very specific view of Hell; the Eternal Conscious Torment view. However, what if Annihilationism is true? Annihilationism is the view that the damned do not, in fact, suffer eternal conscious torment. Rather, on some forms of annihilationism, they suffer for a little while are eventually annihilated, or they annihilated immediately upon being judged by God. Thus, annihilationism is absolutely no different than Atheism and Deism concerning the afterlife. The only difference is that Atheists and Deists believe that everyone is annihilated, whereas the Christian annihilationist only believes some are.
Since I do not adhere to annihilationism, I have tried to respond to Burke’s argument while presupposing ECT. However, in the case that Burke or others find my response unsatisfying, I would advise them to look into the case for annihilationism. I don’t want Burke or others to reject Christianity on the basis of a secondary doctrine that I could be wrong about. If I did that, I’d be no different than Christians who require people to give up assent to Darwinian Evolution. If I’m wrong and annihilationism is true, then it has even less force than it would on ECT.

 

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/2tXr0Wu

/by
Who Was Jesus God Man Or Both

Who Was Jesus? God? Man? Or Both?

,

By Ryan Leasure

Who was Jesus? Can you think of a more important question? After all, it’s hardly controversial to suggest that he’s the most significant figure in history. And, I dare say, it’s not even close. Yet much confusion exists over his nature. This confusion, of course, dates all the way back to Jesus himself. In Matthew 16, he asked his disciples, “who do people say that I am?” The answers were all over the board.

Today, some suggest he was God. But how can that be since he was confined to a human body and experienced death? Isn’t it basic knowledge that God is omnipresent and can’t die?

Others suggest he was just a man. But if that’s the case, why did he claim deity and allow others to worship him? And on what authority was he able to forgive sins? Wouldn’t that be blasphemy and imply he wasn’t a great moral teacher as some claim?

These are complex issues to say the least. Yet, if Jesus is, in fact, the most important person in the history of the world, it’s worth thinking deeply about him. Scholars have dedicated volumes to expounding all the complexities that relate to the nature of Jesus — often known as Christology. The conversations can get really deep and technical in a hurry. The purpose of this post, however, is to provide a general overview of what the Bible teaches about the nature of Jesus, and to look at how the church has thought about him throughout the centuries.

Jesus, God The Son Eternal

The Scriptures teach, and the church has affirmed that Jesus is God the Son. That is, he’s the second member of the eternal Triune Godhead. John 1:1-3 emphatically declares this point: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.”

Notice how John describes the Word — a clear reference to Jesus. First, he was “with” God. The Greek word for “with” is pros which literally means “before the face of” or “face-to-face.” So John declares that this Word, from the very beginning, was face-to-face with God. Moreover, John states that this same Word “was” God. Clearly, John is planting Trinitarian seeds already in his prologue.

Verse three also highlights the fact that it was the Word who created the world. The author of Hebrews made a similar claim when he wrote that God “appointed [the Son] the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world” (Heb. 1:2). Furthermore, Paul wrote, “For by [the Son] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible” (Col. 1:16).

Who alone can create space, time, and matter, except someone who is transcendent beyond space, time, and matter? If it’s through the Son that all things were created, that means he himself was never created, but is instead eternal.

Let me offer a few more supporting texts. In John 8:58, Jesus tells the Pharisees who were questioning him, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” This is a significant claim by Jesus. Not only does he claim preexistence, he claims the divine name for himself. You’ll recall that when God spoke to Moses from a burning bush in Exodus 3, God declared that his personal name was I AM. So by claiming the name I AM, Jesus was claiming to be the God of the Old Testament.

Paul also refers to the deity of Jesus in Romans 9:5. He declares, “To them (the Jews) belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.” It’s hard to get any clearer than stating Christ is “God over all.”

I could give other examples, but that should suffice for now.

God The Son Became Man

We’ve already established that Jesus is God the Son — the eternal Word who created the world from the beginning. At the same time though, we know that Jesus was a man of flesh and blood. For example, he got tired and hungry, experienced pain and sadness, and ultimately died on a Roman cross — all activities that only humans can do.

John 1:14 describes this transition to manhood when it announces, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” Traditionally known as the incarnation, God the Son became a human in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

Today, in our anti-supernatural biased culture, it’s common for people to embrace the fact that Jesus was truly human. They have a hard time, however, believing that Jesus was truly divine. Interestingly, the exact opposite was true in the early church.

One of the earliest heresies in the church was known as Docetism — taken from the Greek word dokein which means “to seem” or “appear.” This view taught that Jesus wasn’t really human, he only appeared to be human. The rationale for this view was that it seemed impossible for someone who is so powerful, holy, pure, and spiritual to be mixed up in something so vile and shameful. Crucifixion was, after all, the most degrading and shameful way to die. Thus, in order to protect the integrity of the divine Jesus, many in the early church believed his human nature was merely a facade.

The apostle John encountered this heresy near the end of the first century. Listen carefully to his words: “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.” That is to say, John had to combat those who denied Jesus was really “in the flesh”— a clear defense against Docetism.

Divine Emptying?

Perhaps no other text in the New Testament highlights the beauty and majesty of Jesus better than the Christian hymn in Philippians 2. Despite its beauty, much debate surrounds its contents. Paul writes:

Have this mind among yourself which is yours in Christ Jesus, who though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped. But he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men (Phil. 2:5-7).

The hymn goes on to describe Jesus’ death, resurrection, ascension, and exultation. Much could be said about this text, but I want to focus in on only one word — emptied. What does it mean that Jesus emptied himself? The text clearly affirms that Jesus existed as God and was equal with God in eternity past, but in the incarnation, he emptied himself.

Scholars have written volumes and debated vociferously over the meaning of this word. Many theories exist about its meaning, but I think the meaning of the word is pretty straight forward.

When the Son emptied himself, he didn’t empty himself of any of his deity, as if he became less divine in the incarnation. The text doesn’t tell us that. Instead, the text tells something completely different. It says that Jesus emptied himself BY taking the form a servant being born in the likeness of men. For Paul, emptying didn’t mean less deity. Rather it meant an added human nature. It was a subtraction by an addition. The Son, who eternally existed with a divine nature, added a human nature to himself in the incarnation.

One Person with Two Natures — The Hypostatic Union

So far, we’ve established that Jesus was both God and man. But how does this all work together? As you can imagine, the early church had lots of disputes over how to synthesize all of the biblical data. In the end, the church agreed at the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451), that Jesus was one person who subsisted in two natures. Here is an excerpt from the creed:

Our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Son, the same perfect in Godhead and the same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man…one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, made known in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation… coalescing in one prosopon and one hypostasis — not parted or divided into two prosopa.

The creed is much longer than this, but notice a few key phrases:

“Truly God and truly man” indicates that the early church believed that Jesus was both God and man. He didn’t cease being God in the incarnation. Furthermore, he wasn’t half God half man. He was fully God and fully man.

“Two natures without confusion” meaning the church didn’t believe that the divine nature blended together with the human nature to form a new quasi divine nature. This was in direct response to the heresy monophysitism which taught that Jesus only had one blended nature.

“Coalescing in one prosopon (person) — not parted or divided into two prosopa (people)” meaning they believed that even though Jesus had two natures, he was only one person — or one acting subject. This was in direct response to the heresy Nestorianism which taught that Jesus was two separate persons.

In sum, the Scriptures teach and the Church has affirmed that God the Son has existed from eternity past with a divine nature, but in the incarnation he added a human nature to himself. Thus, he’s one person (God the Son) with two distinct natures (divine and human).

Theologians have labeled this union of two natures in one person as the hypostatic union.

Thinking Deeply About the Hypostatic Union

More questions exist with respect to the hypostatic union. How do we explain that the Son knew all things as God but at the same time grew in wisdom? How should we think about Jesus still maintaining full deity as the eternal creator and sustainer of the universe while simultaneously being in the manger? Since Jesus was God, could he really sin?

Theologians debate all these various questions, but understanding all the different nuances and, at times, mysteries isn’t a requirement for orthodoxy. What is necessary, though, is that Christians affirm the Chalcedonian Creed (AD 451) which declares that God the Son exists as one person with two distinct natures. Once you get that down, you can study all the different complexities later.

 

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

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

/by
Salt and Light_ Finding the Legitimate Balance in the Christian Life

Salt and Light: Finding the Legitimate Balance in the Christian Life

By Brian Chilton

Life is often about finding the right balance. Too much of anything is bad for a person, even water. Consuming too much water will cause one to lose electrolytes and minerals which could lead to death—a condition called hyponatremia. The point is, balance is important with nearly everything. This same is true of the Christian life and Christian theology. Consider the issue with divine sovereignty and human freedom. If a person accepts the sovereignty of God without human freedom, then a person accepts a determinist philosophy in which human beings become nothing more than preprogrammed robots. If a person accepts human freedom and neglects divine sovereignty, the person’s perception of God becomes flawed to the point that the person contends that God does not know anything about the future. Both concepts are beyond the teachings of Scripture in my estimation. Balance is important in one’s interpretation of Scripture.

Jesus presents two concepts concerning the Christian life in his classic message: the Sermon on the Mount. On the one hand, Jesus says, “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt should its taste, how can it be made salty? It’s no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet” (Mt. 5:13, CSB). On the other hand, Jesus says, “You are the light of the world. A city situated on a hill cannot be hidden. No one lights a lamp and puts it under a basket, but rather on a lampstand, and it gives light for all who are in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven” (Mt. 5:14-16, CSB). One trait without the other leads to an illegitimate Christian lifestyle and an erroneous biblical interpretation.

  1. Salt – Light = Legalism.

First, Jesus instructs the Christian to be the salt of the earth. Salt was used in biblical days as a purifying agent as well as a substance to add flavor to food. If the salt lost its flavor, then the salt was not good for anything except to be thrown out. The worthless salt would be thrown out to do nothing but kill the grass on which it fell. Salt represents the righteousness of a person as well as the person’s stand for truth.

If a person has salt in one’s life with no light (representing God’s love and grace), then the person will become a legalist. Legalistic Christianity has led more individuals to atheism than Karl Marx and Charles Darwin combined. Legalism can also lead to the creation of cults and cultic churches which is extremely troubling! Legalism is an inauthentic Christian worldview which Jesus and Paul often combated. Don’t let yourself become Pharisaical or a Judaizer in your stance for truth. As Paul says, “And if I give away all my possessions, and if I give over my body in order to boast but do not have love, I gain nothing” (1 Co. 13:3).

  1. Light – Salt = Liberalism.

Jesus also tells his disciples to be the light of the world (Mt. 5:14). This is intriguing as Jesus also says that he is the light of the world (Jn. 8:12). Light is a symbol of God’s presence (Ps. 27:1; Is. 9:2; 2 Co. 4:6) as God is light (1 Jn. 1:5). Light represents God’s love, grace, and goodness. Jesus said that if we follow him, we “believe in the light so that you may become children of the light” (Jn. 12:36). Thus, people can only be the light of the world if they have received the Light of the World into their lives. Furthermore, shining forth the light of God means that we share God’s love and grace to a dark world.

However, if a person lives his or her life with light that is not tempered with salt, then the person accepts a liberal mindset which is as destructive as legalism. Liberalism, in this sense, shares God’s word and extends God’s love but does not hold a standard of truth and moral righteousness. The result is a life that is not undergirded with God’s truth and eventually becomes watered down. This person is ironically one who becomes more susceptible to cults and cult-like movements due to his or her naivety.

  1. Salt + Light = Legitimate.

The only legitimate construct is one that combines both salt and light. Salt with no light leads to legalism, light with no salt leads to liberalism, but salt and light leads to a legitimate Christian walk. Paul notes that a life of love is one that “finds no joy in unrighteousness but rejoices in the truth” (1 Co. 13:6). You might say, “Yeah, but I don’t like telling anyone that they may be wrong.” Consider this: If you witnessed someone who was unaware that he or she was standing dangerously close to a cliff’s edge, would you advise them to be careful or just let them fall to their death? The loving thing to do would be to caution the person of the danger. Likewise, Christians should lovingly stand for truth and lovingly extend God’s grace to all they encounter by acts of kindness. As Jesus said, we need to both be the salt of the earth and the light of the world. As a friend of mine once said, “Only Jesus had the appropriate balance. We need to attempt to find that balance ourselves.”

Note: Bellator Christi is trying to change the URL on the YouTube channel to match the name of this site. We need 100 subscribers to make this happen. If you haven’t already, please subscribe to my YouTube account at https://www.youtube.com/bcpowerman. We are almost there! Click subscribe to the YouTube channel to help me out. Thanks!

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern North Carolina.

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

/by
Is Isaiah 7 14 a Messianic Prophecy

Is Isaiah 7:14 a Messianic Prophecy?

,

By Brian Chilton

More and more scholars are becoming skeptical of Messianic prophecy in the Hebrew Bible—that is, the Old Testament. Michael Rydelniknotes that “Although evangelical scholarship still recognizes that there is something messianic about the Hebrew Bible, for the most part, it sees it as a story that finds its climax in Jesus, not as predictions that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled” (Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope,3-4). Yet, such skepticism is not justified. Sure, some passages in the Hebrew Bible have been stretched beyond its scope, something that can become a dangerous trend. Nevertheless, certain passages in the Hebrew Bible enjoy a status of being both Messianic in context and in its history.

Is Isaiah 7 14 a Messianic Prophecy

One such Messianic prophecy is found in Isaiah 7:14. Four schools of thought have developed on how one should interpret Isaiah 7:14. Some hold to direct fulfillment indicating that the text only speaks to the fulfillment found in Messiah. Others hold to a historical fulfillment which claims that the text only addresses the birth of a child in Isaiah’s day. A third view holds to a double fulfillment in that the prophecy was fulfilled to a degree in Isaiah’s day and later in the Messiah. A fourth view is espoused by Arnold Fruchtenbaum. He calls it a double reference (Fruchtenbaum, Yeshua, 364). A double reference “states that one piece of Scripture actually contains two prophecies, each having its own fulfillment” (Fruchtenbaum, Yeshua,364). After researching the passage, I must agree that in Isaiah 7:14 one finds a double reference. Although Isaiah 7:14 is among the most controversial of Messianic prophecies (Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope, 147), several good reasons exist to accept the prophecy as Messianic in scope.

  1. King Ahaz and House of David. To understand the passage, one must understand the chapter in which Isaiah 7:14 is found. Isaiah comes to King Ahazwhile Ahaz, and King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah of Israel were reigning. Yahweh (the personal name for God) tells Isaiah to bring his son Shear-jashub with him to meet Ahaz (Is. 7:3). Yahweh speaks to Isaiah again telling him to ask Ahaz for a sign (7:10-11), but Ahaz refuses (7:12). After Ahaz refuses, Isaiah turns his attention to the house of David (7:13) asking if they would try the patience of Yahweh. It is then that Isaiah delivers the Immanuel prophecy. From keeping the text in context, Yahweh through Isaiah is addressing two distinct groups of people. On the one hand, he is addressing King Ahaz. On the other hand, he is addressing the house of David. The Immanuel prophecy is given to the house of David and not to King Ahaz. King Ahaz’s sign was found in Isaiah’s son Shear-jashub who already reached the age of accountability and chose to do what was right. Ahaz was much older and still chose to do what was evil. Thus, Ahaz’s kingdom was coming to an end.
  2. Singular and Plural Language. A close examination of the Hebrew text shows a difference in the language used directed toward Ahaz as opposed to the house of David. When Isaiah is addressing Ahaz, he uses singular language and uses plural language when speaking to the house of David. As Fruchtenbaum noted earlier, the text appears to be giving two differing prophecies—one to Ahaz and one to the house of David. Since the Immanuel prophecy is directed to the house of David, it is not necessary to hold that the prophecy only addresses Ahaz and even his time.
  3. Present and Future Language. In the Immanuel prophecy, Isaiah uses the Hebrew imperfect verb yitten, which means “he will give,” to describe the timing of the prophecy. The imperfect verb in Hebrew describes something that is incomplete and will transpire at some point in the future. Thus, the sign for the house of David was a sign given byGod to transpire at some point in the future. When? The text does not say. Therefore, it is completely appropriate to think that the text could find its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus the Messiah.
  4. ‘Almah and Parthenos. The Revised Standard Version translation made a great deal of waves in the Christian community when it translated ‘almah as“young woman” instead of the classical translation of “virgin.” Does the term refer to a young woman or a virgin? The answer is both. ‘Almah is almost always used in the Hebrew Bible to denote a young woman who has just reached the age of marriage who had not yet wed. ‘Almah is used in the following passages in the Hebrew Bible: 1) Gen. 24:43 used of Rebekah; 2) Ex. 2:8 used of Miriam, Moses’s sister; 3) Ps. 68:25 used in the divine royal procession, the virgins symbolize purity; 4) So. 1:3 refers to the purity in marriage; 5) So. 6:8 contrasts the purity of virginity with the impurity of concubines; 6) Pr. 30:18-19 also contrasts virginity with adultery, and 7) in Is. 7:14 (Fruchtenbaum, Yeshua, 364-365). In Jewish culture, a young woman who just reached the age of marriage most certainly implied the woman’s virginal status. The translators of the Septuagint (LXX) understood this to be the case. The LXX translates ‘almahin Isaiah 7:14 with the Greek term parthenos which most certainly means “virgin.”
  5. Current and Future Understanding. Isaiah connects the birth of the child from Isaiah 7:14 to the prophecies given in 9:6-7 and in 11:1-10. Thus, the prophet took the view at the time the prophecy was given that this promised child would come at some point in the future. This child would be linked intrinsically with God in some fashion. But not only did Isaiah understand the prophecy in this way, other did also. Micah is one such example. Micah, a contemporary of Isaiah’s, linked his prophecy in some sense with that of Isaiah 7:14. Micah notes that “Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are small among the clans of Judah; one will come from you to be ruler over Israel for me. His origin is from antiquity, from ancient times” (Mi. 5:2). As already noted, the translators of the LXX understood Isaiah 7:14 to refer to a virgin in the 100s BC. Therefore, Isaiah 7:14 was recognized to be Messianic, or at least more prophetic than some modern scholars, as well as by early Christians, such as Matthew 1:23.

Isaiah 7:14 is a glorious passage that prophesies the birth of a royal, divine king that was to be born in the most miraculous of fashions. In our attempt to properly interpret the Bible, let us not be drawn to a hyper-skepticism that very well could combat the very thinking of the writers of the New Testament. They held the text to be Messianic not because they made it that way, but because that was the prophetic intention of the text.

Sources

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. Yeshua: The Life of Messiah from a Messianic Jewish Perspective. Volume One. San Antonio, TX: Ariel, 2017.

Rydelnik, Michael. The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? NAC Studies in Bible & Theology. Edited by E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010.

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at LibertyUniversity and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2zWk139

/by
Were Jesus’ Temptations Real If He Couldn’t Sin

Were Jesus’ Temptations Real If He Couldn’t Sin?

,

By Ryan Leasure

Historic Christianity affirms that Jesus Christ, though fully human, is also fully divine. He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end (Rev. 22:13) — the eternal creator of all things (Jn. 1:3). The Nicene Creed (AD 325) declares of Jesus that he is:

Were Jesus’ Temptations Real If He Couldn’t Sin

God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made; of the same essence as the Father. Through him, all things were made.1

With Jesus’ deity established, can we honestly say Jesus could experience genuine temptations? After all, James 1:13 declares that “God cannot be tempted by evil.” Doesn’t this present a bit of a dilemma for the biblical Christian? If Jesus was impeccable, that is, he was unable to sin, to what extent can we say that his temptations really affected him?

On the surface, it seems that Christians can’t take much comfort from Hebrews 4:15 which reads, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are — yet he did not sin.”

Can we really say he was tempted in every way as we are? I experience temptation all the time and give in to those temptations more than I’d like to admit. That wasn’t a problem for Jesus, though. He couldn’t give in to his temptations. Doesn’t this seem like apples and oranges to you?

While I affirm that Jesus was unable to sin due to being fully divine, in the remaining space, I want to demonstrate that he experienced genuine temptations as a human. And I want to show that we can believe both truths simultaneously.

A SPIRIT-FILLED HUMAN

I contend that the reason Jesus could not sin and the reason he did not sin are for different reasons. I believe Jesus could not sin because he is the second person of the Triune God who is incapable of sinning (Js. 1:13). The reason he didn’t sin, however, was because, as a human, he was filled and empowered by the Spirit. That is, Jesus lived his life on earth fundamentally as a human and relied on the Spirit to perfectly obey his Father. Let me give you a few texts of Scripture to support this claim:

And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon [the Messiah], the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD (Isa. 11:2).

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me (the Messiah), because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound (Isa. 61:1).

And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and a report about him went out through all the surrounding country (Lk. 4:14).

But if it is by the Spirit of God that I (Jesus) cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you (Mt. 12:28).

How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him (Acts 10:38).

I believe this small sample size of texts demonstrates that Jesus lived his earthly life fundamentally as a human. If, in the incarnation, Jesus lived primarily as a deity, the filling of the Holy Spirit would have been both redundant and unnecessary for his mission.

JESUS’ SINLESSNESS ILLUSTRATED

A few years back, daredevil Nik Wallenda tightrope across Niagara Falls on national television. As I watched Wallenda make the successful 1,800-foot journey across the falls, I remember feeling nervous for him, but I wasn’t worried he was going to die. Why? Because the television producers forced him to wear a safety harness to ensure he wouldn’t fall to his death while the entire world watched.

Now, could Wallenda have died on his walk across the tightrope? No, the safety harness protected him from falling. But, how did Wallenda make it across the tightrope? He balanced himself and walked across. The harness didn’t help him one bit. You see, the reason he could not ave died and the reason he made it across are for two completely different reasons.

In the same way, Jesus could not have sinned because he was fully divine. This was his safety harness if you will. But Jesus didn’t sin because he perfectly obeyed the Father as a human in the power of the Holy Spirit. That is to say, he experienced genuine temptations but never once did he give into them.

THE EXTENT OF JESUS’ TEMPTATIONS

Some still object and say Jesus’ temptations were of a lesser nature than ours. After all, he didn’t have a sin nature. He didn’t battle the same kind of internal temptations we do. This much is true. But it doesn’t mean his temptations were less severe than ours.

Think about it. Whatever internal temptations Jesus didn’t experience, he more than made for up it by going toe-to-toe with Satan. Satan gave Jesus his best shot. He knew what was at stake during Jesus’ life. If he could get Jesus to sin, he wins. Game over. You and I probably won’t ever get Satan’s full onslaught like Jesus did.

Also, consider the fact that you and I often break in the face of temptation. Whether we’re tempted to lust, lash out in anger, or grow impatient, we typically can only handle so much before we eventually give in. The temptation builds and builds until we can’t withstand any longer and we snap. Jesus, on the other hand, saw temptations all the way through to the very end, and even as the pressure built, he never once sinned. He stood firm in the face of the most intense feelings of temptation — something we often don’t get to because we cave earlier.

Consider, as an illustration, the world’s strongest man. He picks up a twig, holds it by both ends, and snaps it with ease. Next, he picks up an iron bar and attempts to do the same. He bends with every bit of force he can muster for a few minutes, but the bar remains unscathed. As you think about twig and the iron bar, which of the two-faced more intense pressure from the world’s strongest man? The iron bar of course.

Well, we’re like the twig and Jesus is like the bar. We snap before we can feel the full force of the temptation. Jesus, however, experiences the full force of the temptation and never once snaps. It seems naive, therefore, to suggest that we face more difficult temptations than he did.

WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT

When God the Son took on human flesh — or emptied himself according to Philippians 2 — he set out to live as much like a human as was possible for him to do. This means he couldn’t conjure his divine powers every time he got himself in a quandary. For example, when Satan tempted Jesus to turn the stones into bread, he tempted him to rely on his deity instead of his humanity in that situation.

Think about the problem we’d have if every time Jesus faced a difficult situation he simply performed a miracle to make his life easier. If he healed himself every time he got sick, or if he teleported to Jerusalem instead of taking the long journey just like everyone else, in no real sense could he be one of us and represent us as our high priest before the Father (Heb. 4:15). Jesus, however, can be our faithful high priest because he lived his life on earth fundamentally as a human (Heb. 2:17-18). And as a human, he perfectly obeyed his Father because he was filled completely with the Spirit.

So, could Jesus have sinned? No. He was God. But did he experience genuine temptations as a human? Yes. Both are true at the same time.

 

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

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

/by