Tag Archive for: theology

Arguments Existence Free Will

5 Arguments for The Existence of Free Will

By Evan Minton

Free Will is a topic debated among Christians and even some non-Christians. The Christians who affirm that men have free will in the libertarian sense are Arminians, Molinists, and Open Theists. Christians who deny free will in the libertarian sense generally fall into the Calvinist camp. I have argued elsewhere that libertarian free will is the only true kind of free will that there is. Compatibilism, despite what the name suggests, doesn’t reconcile free will and determinism. Compatibilism, at most, would explain why we feel like we’re free when we make our actions even though we’re determined. Compatibilism would explain why I feel like a free creature despite being the puppet of God, my sinful nature, my desires, or the molecules in my brain ((depending on what kind of determinist you are)). But it doesn’t actually let us affirm the two propositions; (A) Man is determined, and (B) Man is free. Why? Because on compatibilism, man still cannot choose between alternatives. He can only choose what God, his sinful nature, his brain chemistry, or his desires caused him to choose. When placed with the options of choosing A or Non-A, God/Sin Nature/Neurological Processes/my desire will cause me to choose one, and I have no ability whatsoever to choose the opposite of what I chose. I fail to see how this is “free” will in any meaningful sense. Saying that “You’re free to choose what you’re determined to choose” is tantamount to telling a person who’s tied up “You’re free to stay put.”

Libertarian Free Will is the only true free will there is. If you deny that, you might as well deny that we have free will altogether. I believe we do have free will, and I have both philosophical reasons as well as scriptural reasons for holding this belief. Sometimes the philosophical reasons and biblical reasons coalesce (as you will see below). Below, I will list 3 arguments for the truth that man is a free creature. Before I do, let me make sure you understand the definition of “free will” I’ll be employing. As stated, I reject the idea of compatibilism (that determinism and free will can co-exist) because you cannot choose anything except what you were determined to choose. The Free Will that exists in man is libertarian free will.

Libertarian Free Will asserts that:

1: The Man is the origin and cause of his own actions.

2: The Man, in most cases, [1] will have the ability to choose between 2 or more options. And whichever option he chooses, he did not have to make that choice. He could have chosen one of the alternatives. For example, if presented with A and Non-A, man chooses A, but he didn’t have to choose A. He could have chosen Non-A instead. It laid within his power to choose Non-A. He just didn’t exercise that power.[2]

3: The Man’s choice was undetermined. Nothing internal or external to the man causally determined the man to make the choice he did. His choice was uncaused or undetermined.

Now, what reasons might be given for believing that God has endowed human beings with this kind of free will?

1: The Argument From Moral Accountability

It seems to me that if a man is determined to do what he does, then he cannot be blamed for his own actions. If God causally determined man to sin (as many Calvinists claim), then how can the man be blamed for that sin? Wouldn’t God be the one to blame? After all, God is the one who causally determined the man to do what he did? How does the human being get the blame but God magically gets off the hook? If our sinful nature causally determined us to sin, why blame us? Why not just blame the sinful nature within us? If, as on atheistic determinism, the molecules in motion inside our brains caused us to do what we did, why blame us? Why not blame our brain chemistry? “It’s not my fault! My brain chemistry made me do it!” Causes are always responsible for their effects. If God causally determines people to sin, then God is responsible for our sins. If our sinful nature causally determines us to sin, then our sinful nature is responsible for our sins. If our brain chemistry….you get the point. Whatever caused us to do what we do is ultimately responsible for what we do. This is common sense that determinists of all stripes willfully deny. If we are not the origin and ultimate cause of our actions, then we are not responsible for our actions. Whatever is the origin and ultimate cause, that thing is responsible. And it is that thing that will get the blame.

If I knock a ball off a table, is the ball to blame for falling to the floor? No! Well, who or what is? Obviously, I am. I’m responsible for the ball falling because I’m the one who caused the ball to fall.

At this point, the determinist who affirms compatibilism may respond, “But Man did what he did because he wanted to. He wasn’t forced against his will. His action was in line with his will.” Okay, but why did the man want to do what he did? Many Calvinists say that God causes people to want X and the want then determines them to do X. In this case, the problem is merely kicked upstairs. Man did X because he wanted to do X, but the reason he wanted to do X was that God caused him to want to do X. So, God is still to blame. Determinist Compatibilists who are atheists will substitute the word “God” or “Neurological processes” and make the same argument, but the argument fails on naturalistic determinism for the same reason it fails on divine determinism. From here on, I will only address theological forms of determinism. I only mention naturalistic determinism to point out that it suffers from the same flaw as Calvinism’s.

Some Calvinists believe that Adam had libertarian free will (LFW) and he sinned, from then on, no one was free. Our sinful natures causally determined us all to commit sins of various kinds. In this case, God isn’t on the hook, but neither is a man. You can’t blame a man for sinning on this view. It’s in his nature. Just as it’s in a lion’s nature to kill gazelles. You don’t blame the lion for not choosing a vegan diet, though, do you? If it is in X’s nature to do Y, we generally don’t have any moral outrage at X. We excuse X by saying, “It’s in X’s nature. X can’t help it.” Why do this with animals, but not humans?

Moreover, we generally realize that if a person could not choose other than what they did, they are not culpable. If I knock you over, you don’t hold me accountable if you realized that the reason I knocked you over was that my shoe was untied unbeknownst to me, and I tripped over my shoelace while running, causing me to slam into you and knock you over. If you knew my situation, you would most likely excuse me, yes? Now, on the other hand, if I took my hands and purposefully shoved you down, that would be a different story. You would hold me accountable because you knew I had it within my power to choose; otherwise, I did it on purpose, and the actions’ origin and the ultimate cause was my volition (not something external to me as in the former example).

If a man has no arms and you tell him to hug you, and he doesn’t because he has no arms, you wouldn’t penalize him, would you? No! Why not? Because the man was not able to hug you. Everyone intuitively believes that an “ought” implies a “can,” well, except for determinists who believe God penalizes man for sinning when he wasn’t able to choose otherwise, and penalizes man for not believing in Christ when they believe that man was unable to believe. But even they accept this premise in all other areas of life, just not theology. I could never accuse a Calvi of being consistent.

It seems to me that unless man is free in the libertarian sense, he cannot be held accountable for anything he does.

My argument for free will is as follows:

1: If Men Aren’t Free In A Libertarian Sense, They Cannot Be Held Responsible For Wrongdoing.

2: The Bible teaches that God will hold men accountable for wrongdoing.

3: Therefore, men have Free Will in a libertarian sense.

This is a logically valid argument. The rule of inference this argument goes by is “Modus Tollens.” So, in order for the conclusion to be reached, both premises must be true. I’ve given us good reasons to believe that premise 1 is true. In fact, premise 1 is the only premise in this argument that Calvinists will deny. No Calvinist will deny premise 2. Nevertheless, let me give some of the biblical evidence for 2 anyway.

“Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done.” – Revelation 20:11-13

“So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.” – Romans 14:12

“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.” – 2 Corinthians 5:10

These 3 passages are only a small sampling of passages stating that God will hold man accountable for his actions. Clearly, the second premise is true. It seems then that both premises are true, in which the conclusion follows: 3: Therefore, men have Free Will in a libertarian sense.

2: In Many Places, The Bible Asserts Or Implies That Man Has Free Will 

Free Will is implied throughout The Bible, but there are a few places where it is explicitly evident. For example, in 1 Corinthians 10:13, the apostle Paul wrote: “No temptation has overtaken you, except what is common to man. And God is faithful. He will not allow you to be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation, will provide a way of escape also so that you will be able to endure it.” This is probably the most powerful evidence of libertarian free will, the most explicit example of libertarian free will, and the most difficult-for-determinists-to-get-around passage in the entire Bible. Paul says that the temptation that afflicts his readers isn’t anything unusual, nothing unique to them. He then goes on to say that God is faithful, and won’t allow the temptation to sin to be so overwhelming that it’s impossible for them to resist it. Instead, God will provide “a way of escape” so that they’ll endure it and ergo avoid sinning.

Paul is assuming here that his readers don’t have to sin. Sin is not inevitable. God provides a way out so that we’ll be able to avoid sin. If we do sin, it’s because we refused to take “the way of escape” that God offered. If we don’t sin, it’s because we chose “the way of escape.” This verse presupposes libertarian free will. It presupposes that the listener does not have to sin. He’s faced with A (sin) and Non-A (The Way Of Escape). He can choose either and is responsible for whichever one he chooses. The determinist cannot make sense of this verse. If humans are causally determined to do everything we do, then “the way of escape” was not a possible option for those who sin. “The way of escape” on determinism, was nothing but an illusion! Only if man truly has the power to genuinely choose between alternatives, can we say that “the way of escape” was a possible option for those who sinned.

Paul is essentially saying in 1 Corinthians 10:13 “Look, you don’t have to sin. You don’t have to. God will provide a way out so you’ll be able to endure it. If you choose not to take His way out, it’s your fault, not God’s.”

“See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees, and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess. But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess. This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.” – Deuteronomy 30:15-19

In this passage, Moses was clearly giving the Israelites a choice to serve God or to serve idols. Now, if the Israelites thousands of years ago had a choice, why don’t we have a choice today? In this passage, Moses was saying, “I set before you A and Non-A. I’d prefer it if you chose A”. Sounds like the libertarian free will to me!

“But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.” – Joshua 24:14-15

Joshua is clearly giving the Israelites a choice to serve God or to serve idols. Now, if the Israelites thousands of years ago had a choice, why don’t we have a choice today?

Moreover, on the Calvinist view, God causally determines everything, so we’d have to conclude that the apparent offer to choose between the one true God and pagan gods was insincere. Is God insincere? Surely not! The most reasonable inference is that the Israelites had the legitimate option of choosing A (worshiping the one true God), or Non-A (worshiping idols). And whichever choice they made, they didn’t have to have made and could have chosen otherwise.

Moreover, several passages in The Bible talk about “Freewill offerings” (e.g., Leviticus 22:23, Numbers 29:39, Deuteronomy 12:6, Deuteronomy 16:10, Ezra 8:28). How can you give a “Freewill offering” if you have no free will!?

3: The Argument From True Love

If human beings don’t have libertarian free will, then it is impossible for love to exist. This argument for the existence of free will goes as follows

1: If man’s love isn’t given freely, it isn’t genuine.

2: Man’s love is genuine.

3: Therefore, man loves freely.

This is a logically valid argument as the syllogism takes the form modus tollens. Therefore, in order to affirm the conclusion, we’ll have to affirm that both of the premises are true. So, are the premises true, or are they false? Well, let’s look at them.

Premise 1:

If our love for God and one another weren’t given of our own free will, it would be impossible for our love to be genuine. Instead, we would have an artificial love, a programmed love, a forced love. Love, in order to be genuine, must be freely given. People who give true love must have the freedom to choose not to love. To see the point: imagine it’s the year 3,000 where robotics have been perfected to the point where robots look, sound, and behave 100% identical to real human beings. You go down to “Robot Depot” to buy yourself a wife. You buy this android that looks as beautiful as a supermodel. Based on her looks, you already know she’s got the attractiveness quality. But what of her character? The manual she comes with tells you that you can program her personality anyway you desire. So, you program her to always do whatever you want, to always put your needs above hers, and to always laugh at your jokes, etc. You program her to never leave you for another man. You program her to say “I love you” 20 times a day. You program her to never bother you while watching football. In fact, you program her to be just as into football as you are. You program her to be the perfect wife.

Question: would any of this be meaningful to you? Would you feel loved? No. You would clearly recognize that her love for you is artificial. Every act of kindness, every display of affection, and every “I love you,” was your doing, not hers. You causally determined her to do these things for you. They did not originate within her. All of her acts of love and selflessness would be empty gestures because you caused her to do them, and she had no capability of doing differently.

Similarly, if God causally determined everyone to love Him, praise Him 24/7, to never disobey Him, and to always do good, our actions would be devoid of meaningfulness. The only reason we praise Him is that He programmed us to praise Him. The only reason we abstain from sin is that He programmed us to abstain from it. It would be the same for our “love” for one another. If God causally determines a man to love his wife, I don’t see how that would be any more meaningful than when a little girl causes a Ken doll to show love to a Barbie doll.

I think premise 1 is most certainly true. Even if the Calvinist denies that God causally determines everything, and wants to scribe the determination to the sinful nature or our desires alone, that doesn’t help anything. Suppose in the aforementioned robot-wife illustration that I didn’t causally determine my wife to do all those things, but one of my close friends did. He got me a robot wife and programmed her to do all those things for me because he knows what kind of wife I would like. Even though the programming didn’t come from me, I still wouldn’t feel loved by this robot woman because she was still unable to choose otherwise. So, in a similar way, if my nature, desires, or brain molecules causally determine me to love God and my neighbor, it would be just as meaningless as if God were the One pulling the strings.

Premise 2:

Why think that our love is genuine? Maybe The Calvinist can bite the bullet and say, “Okay, I agree. Without libertarian free will, our love is worthless automata. But so what? Maybe our love is worthless automata?” First of all, I’d like to point out to my readers that I don’t think any Calvinist would deny premise 2. He’s more than likely to go after premise 1. Of course, that raises the question: Why would the Calvinist be reluctant to deny premise 2?

Because the Calvinist, like all Christians, realizes that God is perfect. God is a Maximally Great Being, and as such, has all great-making properties, including omniscience. If God omniscient, then He knows what kind of world would be one where true love could exist. If premise 2 is false, we’re forced to say that God created a loveless world! No one truly loves God; no one truly loves their neighbor! But, The Bible teaches that God wants our love for Him to be genuine. This is why the two greatest commandments are to love God with all of our hearts, souls, strength, and minds, and to love our neighbors as ourselves (see Matthew 22:37-39, Mark 12:30-31, Luke 10:27). God wants us to love Him with all of our hearts, souls, strength, and minds, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. If God did not want us to obey those commands, then why did He give them in the first place? Would God really create a world where love is impossible and then command us to love? That would be a rather stupid thing to do, wouldn’t it? Since God commands us to love Him and each other, that implies that we are able to love Him and one another. Given that only a world of free-will creatures is a world where fulfilling those two commandments is possible, it follows that God would prefer to actualize such a possible world, and since God would prefer such a world, it follows that He would actualize such a world.

Moreover, denial of premise 2 would entail a denial of biblical inerrancy. For The Bible implies that our love for God is real when it says, “We love because He first loved us.” (1 John 4:19). There it is, right in 1 John 4! “We love.” If you deny this premise, then you have to deny that this verse is true!

Conclusion:

Given the truth of the 2 premises, the conclusion follows logically and necessarily. Man loves freely.

4: The Appearance Of Free Will Problem

One of the problems I have with the Young Earth Creationist’s Argument that “The universe is really only 6,000 years old, God just made it look like it was billions of years old” is that it makes God out to be a deceiver. Yes, God had the freedom to make the universe in an advanced state, and He certainly made the wine at Cana in an aged state as it was the best-tasting wine (see John 4), and if the literal reading of Genesis is correct, God made Adam and Eve in adult bodies. BUT would God create Adam and Eve with an appearance of past history? There’s a difference between the appearance of age and past history. As Richard Deem wrote, “Did Adam have an appearance of history? Did he have a navel from a birth that never happened? Were his teeth worn at his creation, even though he had never eaten? Did Adam have calluses on his feet even though he had never walked? The Bible does not address these issues, and since Adam’s body is not available, we have no idea of the answers to these questions. Does the Bible compare Adam’s body to the creation? No! The analogy has no biblical basis and is based upon conjecture alone. Does the wine of Cana have an appearance of history? According to the biblical account, Jesus ordered water pots to be filled with water and, immediately, the water had become wine. Did it have an appearance of history? If the wine had been in wineskins (like the original wine), then one might say that it appeared to have been aged in the wineskins. However, the wine was still in the water pots. It had no appearance of history. Does the Bible compare the wine of Cana to the creation? No! Like Adam’s body, the wine of Cana analogy has no biblical basis and is based upon conjecture alone.”[3] For God to have created a universe like he did, He would have created an appearance of past history. History of millions of years of erosion, a bombardment on the surface of the moon, erosion of the canyons on Mars, starlight reaching us from millions of light-years away, but reaching us in thousands because it was created in-transit, etc. This would make God a deceiver, and The Bible teaches that God cannot lie (see Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18). Since God cannot lie, it follows that He could not have created a universe that appears to have endured through millions of years of history.

Well, it appears the same problem affects Calvinists in the realm of free will. Even Calvinists won’t deny that we appear to have free will. We feel like we have free will. Most of us think our actions are free. It certainly seems like when we make a choice; we could have done otherwise. Calvinists will just deny that this appearance and feeling is real. They will say it’s a delusion or illusion. The problem is that this entails that God created a universe with a deceptive appearance. Everyone is a puppet of His, but He has caused us to believe that our actions are free. He pulls all the strings, but He has implanted in us belief that what we do is done of our own volition, and that we had the power to choose other than what we chose.

In fact, I would not shy away from arguing that belief in free will is a properly basic belief. I think most people innately believe that they’re free, just as they believe objective morality exists, and that the external world exists. It’s only the case that people stop believing in these things when a determinist, relativist, and solipsist respectively talk them out of it. Why would God deceptively form our minds like this? Why would he plant an innate belief in libertarian freedom if that did not reflect reality? It seems to me that if man isn’t truly free, then God is a deceiver, just as God is a deceiver if the starlight hadn’t been traveling for millions of years.

5: The FreeThinking Argument 

This argument originated with apologist Tim Stratton, head of FreeThinking Ministries. The premises of the argument demonstrate both the existence of free will as well as the existence of the soul, and it indirectly points to the existence of God. So it simultaneously slays Calvinism and Atheism, at least if all of the premises are true. Stratton’s argument goes as follows

1- If naturalism is true, the immaterial human soul does not exist.

2- If the soul does not exist, libertarian free will does not exist.

3- If libertarian free will does not exist, rationality and knowledge do not exist.

4- Rationality and knowledge exist.

5- Therefore, libertarian free will exists.

6- Therefore, the soul exists.

7- Therefore, naturalism is false.

8- The best explanation for the existence of the soul is God.

Premises 1 and 2 seems obviously true to me. If Naturalism is true, then we’re just organic robots. If atheism is true, all there is matter, energy, space, and time. There are no “souls” or “spirits.” Most atheists would agree with premise 1. In fact, I’d be shocked if I found one who thought there was a soul inside of his body or thought spirits existed. If this is the case, if we are not souls in bodies, then it follows that we’re just “molecules in motion” as Frank Turek likes to put it. If Naturalism/Atheism is true, we are nothing but automata. All of our movements, feelings, thoughts, and opinions are causally determined by electrochemical processes in our brains, molecules, and atoms bumping about, and other physical processes. “You” are a meat machine. As geneticist Francis Crick put it “Your joys and your sorrows, your memories, and your ambitions, your sense of identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”[4]

So if atheism is true, we don’t have souls, and if we don’t have souls, we don’t have free will. We’re just “molecules in motion.” What about premise 3? Is it true that “If libertarian free will does not exist, rationality and knowledge do not exist?” I think so! Tim Stratton, in his article “The Freethinking Argument In A Nutshell,” wrote “Premise (3) is equivalent with ‘if all things are causally determined, then that includes all thoughts and beliefs.’ If our thoughts and beliefs are forced upon us, and we could not have chosen better beliefs, then we are simply left assuming that our determined beliefs are good (let alone true). Therefore, we could never rationally affirm that our beliefs are the inference to the best explanation – we can only assume it. Here is the big problem for the atheistic naturalist: it logically follows that if naturalism is true, then atheists — or anyone else for that matter — cannot possess knowledge. Knowledge is defined as ‘justified true belief.’ One can happen to have true beliefs; however, if they do not possess warrant or justification for a specific belief, their belief does not qualify as a knowledge claim. If one cannot freely infer the best explanation, then one has no justification that their belief really is the best explanation. Without justification, knowledge goes down the drain. All we are left with is question-begging assumptions.”[5]

Is Premise 4 true? Yes. I think it is. It is clear that human beings do possess rationality and knowledge. To contradict the claim that humans possess rationality and knowledge would be to affirm that humans possess rationality and knowledge. To deny the claim would be to affirm it. Why do I say this? Because the detractor of this premise would be saying that he’s giving us the knowledge to the contrary. Moreover, if one rejects knowledge, why should anyone listen to them? If one denies that he is a rational man, why should we listen to him? Why listen to someone who openly admits that he is irrational?

Given the truth of the 4 premises, steps 5-7 follow. Libertarian free will exists, therefore the soul exists; therefore naturalism is false.

As Stratton will tell you, this argument has 3 deductive conclusions and 1 inductive conclusion. The deductive conclusion is that naturalism is false; the inductive conclusion is an inference that God is the best explanation for why the human soul exists. An atheistic universe with spirits is implausible prima facie. It makes more sense to me to think that if souls exist, immaterial minds, then there was a “Mega Mind” that created all of them. Given that this article is pretty lengthy as it is, I won’t go any further into The FreeThinking Argument’s inductive conclusion than that.

This argument kills 2 birds with 1 stone. Those birds are named Atheism and Calvinism.

For a full, in-depth defense of this argument, check out this 48-minute lecture by Tim Stratton. –> http://freethinkingministries.com/test-video-2/

Conclusion

For these 5 reasons, I believe human beings have libertarian free will. I cannot bring myself to embrace any form of determinism. There are too many reasons both philosophically and exegetically to believe man has free will.

Footnotes 

[1] When I say “most cases,” I mean that there will be some instances in which only one choice will be available for us to choose from. Libertarians aren’t committed to the view that we must always in all circumstances, be able to choose between alternatives. For example, if you jump off a building, clearly your only option is to fall to the ground. If a man snorts cocaine, he is addicted and now can do nothing but snort it unless either God miraculously frees him or rehab rehabilitates him. In the case of jumping off of buildings and additions, man cannot choose Non-A, but man can choose Non-A in many circumstances. Ken Keathley calls these “freedom permitting circumstances.” The circumstance before jumping off the building was a freedom permitting circumstance. The circumstance after you jumped off was not.

[2] This does not apply to salvation. I am not a Pelagian. I believe man is free to either choose to receive Christ or to reject Him, but man must be given this ability by The Holy Spirit. Man must be given what Arminian theologians call “Prevenient Grace.” To see the biblical case for the doctrine of Prevenient Grace, see my blog post “What Biblical Evidence Is There For Prevenient Grace?”  I believe man’s will must be freeD in order for him to come to Christ.

[3] Richard Deem, from the online article “Appearance Of Age — A Young Earth Problem,” http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/appearance.html

[4] Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis, 1994 cited in Mariano Artigas, The Mind of the Universe: Understanding Science and Religion, Templeton Foundation Press, 2001 p. 11.

[5] Tim Stratton, “The FreeThinking Argument In A Nutshell,” November 30th, 2015, http://freethinkingministries.com/the-freethinking-argument-in-a-nutshell/

 

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/2h6DKqx

/by
Modern Thinkers Designe Universe

Modern Thinkers Increasingly Confirm a Designed Universe

,

By Joel Furches

The idea that the universe might bear some marks of design has traditionally been denied in academic circles. Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins has famously stated that:

“The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” [“God’s Utility Function,” Scientific American, November, 1995, p. 85]

And writer Raj Bains points out that:

“Right now, it is raining methane on Titan. The planet Uranus is orbiting the sun sideways, while Venus spins backwards. There are stars exploding, black holes gorging, galaxies colliding. And here we sit, on a planet pock-marked by collisions, rocked by earthquakes, shaken by storms. A planet doomed to be fried in radiation as its magnetic fields collapse, until finally the sun grows into a red giant and leaves nothing of the Earth but dust. Here we sit, glasses on our noses, inhalers in our pockets, braces on our teeth, waiting to die as our heart muscle expires, our cells become cancerous, or a blood vessel just pops, and sometimes in unnatural ways too. Here we sit, and some of us say, behold, look at the order of it all.”

In fact, scientists who have affirmed that the universe might contain marks of design have found themselves the subject of hostility in academic environments. Dr. Jeffrey Schloss, who is the Professor of Biology at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, says:

“…it is absolute professional suicide to be a young earth creationist in a geology department or an anti-evolutionist in a biology department at any institution outside of a few parochial colleges. And it may be just as bad to be an [Intelligent Design] advocate in any science department.” [emphasis added]

And Edge journalist John Brockman writes:

“To date, scientists have held back with regard to engaging the proponents of ‘intelligent design’ on the battlefield of scientific discourse, reasoning being that by simply having a discussion, the ID crowd gains a respectable platform for their views.”

For years, any idea that there might be some kind of “design” in the natural world has been regarded as the domain of religious ideologues and conspiracy nuts – not of any serious scientist. However, there have been a number of prominent figures in technology and science fields who have recently affirmed the idea of a designed reality – whether implicitly or openly.

Take Elon Musk: Musk is the CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, who recently had a conversation on stage at a tech conference in California about video games. Musk made the following statement:

“40 years ago we had Pong – two rectangles and a dot. That’s where we were.

“Now 40 years later we have photorealistic, 3D simulations with millions of people playing simultaneously and it’s getting better every year. And soon we’ll have virtual reality, we’ll have augmented reality.

“If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then the games will become indistinguishable from reality, just indistinguishable.”

Musk went on to say that if, in the future, simulations were indistinguishable from reality, and, that billions of such simulations would be running at any given time, that the chances of any given person is living in the real world is a billion to one. That is to say, any person at this point in time is more likely to be a simulated character inside a simulated world, than they are to be a real person in the physical universe.

Musk is not the only person to chase down that line of thought. Science popularizer Bill Nye, who once stated “You can believe what you want religiously. Religion is one thing, but science, provable science, is something else,” said in answer to the simulation hypothesis: “I think you can argue that whoever has written the simulation – whatever super entity has written the simulation – could make it so sophisticated that even your memories are a result of this being programmed by the simulator or simulatrix,”

Astrophysicist and popular media figure Neil deGrasse Tyson, who once made the statement that “God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time goes on,” hosted a discussion on the simulation hypothesis at the 17th annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate this year at New York’s Hayden Planetarium. Interestingly, the discussion wandered into questions previously explored only by theologians: things like “why would a simulator choose to put certain features into the simulation” and “would a simulation allow for such things as resurrection and eternal life.”

In fact, at one point one of the panel suggested that there is no way to know that the world was a simulation unless the programmer were to directly reveal it to humans – like re-ordering the stars to spell out “YOU ARE IN A SIMULATION.” This rings surprisingly close to Lawrence Krauss’ statement about what he would accept as evidence for God.

It must be pointed out that in order for this to even be a discussion, those involved would have to concede some aspects of design in the natural world. If the world could not possibly be the product of design, then it is clear that it is not a simulation. If people such as Tyson are willing to even entertain the concept that the observable world might be a simulation, then they would have to admit that it could be the product of design.

However, the simulation argument is not the only thing in current news that puts forth the possibility of design in the natural world. Recently, world-leading theoretical physicist Michio Kaku made waves by announcing that he had discovered proof of design in the natural world.

Kaku’s evidence comes in the form of String Theory and the Grand Unified Equation which, he says, would “…allow us to unify all the forces of nature, and allow us to read the mind of God.”

Says Kaku:

“All this is pure mathematics. And so the final resolution could be that God is a mathematician. And …the mind of God, we believe, is Cosmic Music – the music of strings, resonating through eleven-dimensional hyperspace.”

Kaku makes a great deal of Supersymmetry and the unification of physics and mathematics in order to explain the functioning of the natural world, such that, even if he was using the term “Mind of God” metaphorically, it could not escape notice that he frames his understanding of the order and functioning of the universe in terms of “mind.”

It is becoming less and less clear in academic and scientific circles that the universe is without order or intent. As science and philosophy advance, discussions about reality cannot avoid the language of design.

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

 

 

/by
Nabeel Qureshi Muslim

Remembering Nabeel Qureshi

,

By Brian Chilton

The Christian community lost a wonderful man of God this past Saturday, September 16, 2017. Nabeel Qureshi entered his eternal home after a year-long battle with stomach cancer at the tender age of 34. While Nabeel has left us, he has left behind a wonderful legacy that will impact countless individuals for years to come. How will Nabeel be remembered? I think that he will be remembered in three major ways.

(1) Nabeel Qureshi will be remembered for his miraculous conversion. Nabeel recounts his miraculous conversion in his book Seeking Allah: Finding Jesus. Nabeel was raised in a loving Ahmani Muslim home by his Pakistani-American parents.[1] While attending medical school, Nabeel was challenged by his good friend David Wood to examine the evidence for the Christian faith. Because of the challenges given by Wood and Christian apologist Michael Licona, Nabeel looked into the evidence and was amazed to find that Christianity had a compelling case for authenticity.

After heavy investigation, Nabeel finally came to the point where he laid down a copy of the Bible next to a copy of the Qu’ran and prayed to God to reveal himself. Was he found in Jesus or the writings of the Qu’ran? After that moment, Nabeel had visions and dreams that clearly indicated that the Bible was true and the Jesus was God come to humanity. Nabeel, then, received Christ as his Savior despite the problems that would come from his family and friends because of his decision. Nabeel Qureshi will forever be remembered for his amazing conversion.

(2) Nabeel Qureshi will be remembered for his passion for the lost. Nabeel was highly educated. He received his M.D. from Eastern Virginia Medical School, a M.A. in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, and a masters degree in religion from Duke University. Nabeel was pursuing a Ph.D. from Oxford University before he died. Nabeel had a passion for the lost. He had joined the RZIM team, headed by famed apologist Ravi Zacharias, had frequently lectured to crowds across the globe, and was featured in a few debates in his young career. Zacharias noted that Nabeel was “not just an evangelical; he was passionately evangelistic. He desired to cover the globe with the good news that God’s forgiveness was available to all. I have seldom seen a man with such deep conviction and proportionate passion and gifting. When he spoke, he held audiences spellbound.”[2]

(3) Nabeel Qureshi will be remembered for his desire for love. In the last video Nabeel Qureshi posted before his untimely death, Nabeel said, “I hope my ministry leaves a legacy of love, of peace, of truth, of caring for one another. That is my hope and purpose behind all of this.” Nabeel never intended his ministry to be used as a means to attack Muslims, but rather as a means of exposing the truth of Christianity. Nabeel went on to remind everyone that our God is a God of love. You can find Nabeel’s video below. One would be egregious to use Nabeel’s materials to attack Muslims when his goal was to demonstrate love. May we all be reminded through Nabeel’s life that God is a loving God.

Nabeel Qureshi is a man whom one should never forget. His life and legacy serve as a reminder that life is short and that while one is on earth, God has a purpose and a plan for that person. Join me in praying for Nabeel’s family and that God will be glorified through the loss of his young servant. While I never had a chance to meet Nabeel Qureshi on this side of eternity, I look forward to talking with him when I reach the heavenly home promised to us by Christ Jesus.

Additional Video Lectures by Nabeel Qureshi

“Death and Life in Jesus: 1 Corinthians 15 and the Ailing Christian”

“Can We Know if God is Real?”

“My Journey to Christ”

 

Notes

[1] Kate Shellnut, “Died: Nabeel Qureshi, Author of ‘Seeking Allah: Finding Jesus,’”ChristianityToday.com (September 16, 2017), retrieved September 18, 2017,http://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/september/died-nabeel-qureshi-author-seeking-allah-finding-jesus-rzim.html.

[2] Ravi Zacharias, “Ravi Zacharias Remembers His Young Protégé, Nabeel Qureshi,”ChristianityToday.com (September 17, 2017), retrieved September 18, 2017,http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2017/september-web-only/ravi-zacharias-nabeel-qureshi-apologist-rzim.html.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2ykpKO8

 

About the Author

Brian 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 in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian is full member of the International Society of Christian Apologetics and the Christian Apologetics Alliance. Brian has been in the ministry for over 14 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

 

 

/by

Why Apologetics Won’t Work

By Dan Grossenbach

If apologetics is so great and its arguments compelling, why isn’t everyone convinced of Christianity? This is where the doctrine of election debate between Calvinists and Arminians normally comes in, but I think both sides are overlooking a simpler and self-evident truth of human nature – one they can both agree on. People aren’t robots. Each of us view new truth claims through a unique lens formed by our conditioning, cares, and community.

I’ve been writing, debating, and teaching apologetics for 15 years and I’m often asked by my students why their friends aren’t compelled by the same arguments they are. Those in my Reason Why class love apologetics for how it’s played a role in their spiritual development so they naturally want the same thing for their friends. Discovering the gospel is true based on independent evidence changes everything. Faith of wishful thinking becomes faith based on reality and the focal point of our life. Despite this, apologetics doesn’t play the same role for everyone.

It took me a while to realize this. At first, I thought everyone would openly consider the evidence and either confirm or change their beliefs accordingly. Not so. I’ve learned how we respond to our beliefs aren’t a matter of evidence and reason alone but just a part. Failure to appreciate this really frustrated me at first. I got discouraged when a powerful case for Christianity and logical fallacies were shrugged off so quickly by my friends. Once I understood other factors at play in worldview development, I became a better apologist. I now shake my head wondering why I didn’t see this earlier. The very same factors for those I’m trying to reach were there for me too. My life conditioning, my cares, and my community were far more important than the evidence ever was.

Conditioning

I once was interviewed by a news reporter about hosting Dr. Gilbert Shapiro, the leader of a local atheist group, to speak at our church. I pointed out how Dr. Shapiro and I each have been conditioned throughout our lives to form a perspective on things that matter. We may even come to the same conclusions at times, such as the value in protecting orphans and feeding the poor. Christians and atheists may agree on many things – even that there’s an underlying truth regardless of what either of us believe. I say God exists and Dr. Shapiro thinks He doesn’t. We both can’t be right. There’s a truth behind it all that we should be seeking. I see the world through the lens of of my life which makes sense of everything for me. Dr. Shapiro does likewise.

Atheists, like all of us, can grow accustomed to their understanding that we live in a world without God. In a guest lecture at our church, Dr. Shapiro told us “things are exactly as we would expect them to be if God does not exist.” Growing up in a traditional Jewish family, he couldn’t reconcile a God who would allow the holocaust. In tears, he described an emotional experience he had touring a Nazi concentration camp years earlier. “That could have been me!” he lamented from our stage. For him, his personal experiences made it harder to fit God into his worldview. Absent any contrary influence, this view is strengthened over time so that everything he experienced going forward was made to fit into an atheistic worldview thereby reinforcing his view.

With this information, I could put myself into his shoes, at least a little. If I shared the kind of life experiences Gil had, perhaps I might share this perspective. At the very least, I could sympathize with it. The knee jerk reaction to disagreement on such core beliefs might be to lodge arguments. No doubt, there are plenty of good ones to use, but they only work as far as prior conditioning of life experiences will allow.

Cares

We crave what we care about and avoid what bothers us. Yet somehow we expect people to set aside their cares when we share reasons to believe the gospel. When there’s a conflict between reality and our cares, the cares often trump our quest for truth. Part of being human is having personal tastes or aversions that make up our personality. Taken to excess, we slide into addiction on the one hand (desire) or paranoia on the other (aversion). Both cripple our choices and distract us from reality.

I see this as a daily part of my job as a criminal investigator. People living a stable life one day before that extra dose of drugs lose all control the next. The decisions they make going forward are less about reality and more about craving the high and avoiding the crash. You don’t have a drug problem? Not to worry, we all have something far worse: a sin problem.

It’s no coincidence God called the forbidden fruit-bearing tree the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” (Get 2:16-17). Foreknowing their choice, God knew in advance their free-will would teach them a valuable lesson:  the world has natural laws that operate independent of what we want or believe. Namely, acting contrary to God’s will is the knowledge of evil.

This wasn’t just a truth lesson on the existence of evil, but specifically how choosing desire over godly obedience leads to terrible things. It was clear to them God could be trusted and was the source everything needed for human flourishing. Despite knowing this, Adam and Eve chose their desire for the forbidden fruit anyway. If it were only about knowledge of the truth, humans may have permanently changed course after seeing the tragedy of this bad decision. We would have learned the lesson and never been fooled by our desires again. Clearly that’s not the case because we’ve followed their lead ever since. We procrastinate, smoke, gamble, eat junk food, get drunk, overspend, fail to plan, lust, lie, cheat, gossip, or do countless other self-deprecating things knowing well aware of the consequences. This only can happen if humans have the capacity for choosing desire over truth. We all do it, so why expect our friends to fall at the cross when we give them the knowledge we think they need? That’s not to say arguments aren’t worth making. They are, but give it some time and understand the power of desire when you do.

Community

We’re all influenced by people closest to us and surround ourselves with people we admire. From childhood, our conditioning and cares are shaped by our parents, teachers, coaches, and peers. As we grow older, relationships become bound together by common values and beliefs. Eventually, we raise or mentor young people and we become leaders in the community that once shaped us.

I interviewed the local Mormon stake president on stage at our church recently and we’ve met a few times since then. He joined the Mormon church with his parents as a teenager and raised four kids and now has four grandchildren (all Mormons) in addition to his prestigious position as the leader of several LDS churches in a relatively large town. Do you think he has any motivation to skirt around difficulties involving his worldview? The fear of losing his entire community is very real.

How about you? Imagine what would happen to your relationships if you were to leave your church to join Mormonism. Do you remember how your friends in high school and college influenced you in the groups you were in? The pressure of acceptance or fear of rejection in a community is so strong it actually causes us to see the world differently than it really is. We deny truth because community matters more.

It’s no wonder occasionally a conservative Christian is willing to change their view on biblical passages because someone close to them, especially a son or daughter, announces their same sex attraction. A recent Barna study reveals how a shockingly high proportion of Christians hold to beliefs such as new age spirituality or secular scientism which directly conflict with core doctrine of the faith they claim to hold. They are part of a Christian community while rejecting it’s core beliefs. The contradiction is valued less than the power of peer influence. As long as we recognize there’s more at play than reason alone, this won’t catch us off guard in our mission to evangelize the lost and build up the saints.

Conclusion

When I look back at my return to Christianity, it was apologetics that sold me only after I had the conditioning, cares, and community lined up for that to happen. Growing up in a pleasant Christian home, it was easier for me to return to the faith I was already fond of. Some people experience the opposite. For them, harsh memories associated with Christianity (or Christians) repel rather than attract them. Our apologetics training normally doesn’t account for the intangible and moving targets involved with raw human emotion. This must change.

I find apologetics to be much more successful when learning about the person before making a case. For me, Paul’s illustration in 1 Cor 13 is helpful here. Whenever I’m tempted to focus solely on an argument before considering the person’s circumstances, I envision myself frantically banging a gong until they agree with me. That’s not love. Jesus didn’t shy away from debate and was blunt about the consequences of error. Yet, he cares about people enough to get to know them – even today. During his earthly ministry, he related to each person on an intimate level and it changed them (John 4:4-26, Mark 10:17-27, Luke 18:19). Arguments work, but it’s only part of the process.

Dan Grossenbach (M.A. – Biola, 2008) teaches apologetics at Catalina Foothills Church, is a Veritas Forum board member (University of Arizona chapter), Ratio Christi chapter advisor (U of A), and works full time as a federal criminal investigator in Tucson, Arizona.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2uxv8dz

 

 

/by
God Loves Devil

Why Does God Love Satan?

By Rajkumar Richard

The question, “Does God love Satan?” seemingly yields diametrically conflicting answers from conservative Christian theologians. Some assert that God cannot love Satan. In contrast, others claim that God loves Satan. So does God love Satan or not? 

Answers to the question, “Does God love Satan?” cause further complications. If God does not love Satan, how could God be maximally and perfectly good? (If God does not love one being, then HE cannot be maximally and perfectly good.) Moreover, if God hates Satan for being evil, does HE also hate all those humans who reject and slander HIM? If God hates those who reject and slander HIM, HIS love is conditional. But isn’t God’s love unconditional?

The answer, “God loves Satan,” is also riddled with complications. If God loves Satan, how could a good God love the evil Satan? Could there be a semblance of evil in God because HE loves the evil Satan? Furthermore, if God loves Satan, should we also love Satan?

God Cannot Love Satan

Christian Q&A website, Gotquestions.org affirms that God cannot love Satan, “No, God does not love Satan, and neither should we. God cannot love that which is evil and unholy, and Satan embodies all of that. He is the enemy (1 Peter 5:8); the evil one (Matthew 6:13); the father of lies and a murderer (John 8:44); the accuser of God’s people (Revelation 12:10); the tempter (1 Thessalonians 3:5); proud, wicked and violent (Isaiah 14:12-15); a deceiver (Acts 13:10); a schemer (Ephesians 6:11); a thief (Luke 8:12); and many more evil things. He is, in fact, everything that God hates. The heart of Satan is fixed and confirmed in his hatred of God, his judgment is final, and his destruction is sure. Revelation 20 describes God’s future plan for Satan, and love for Satan has no part in it.”1

God Loves Satan

Dr. William Lane Craig claims that God loves Satan, “I feel no awkwardness whatever in affirming that God most certainly does love Satan. Indeed, what I should find awkward would be affirming that He does not! God is a perfectly loving being, whose love is not based on a person’s performance. Satan is a person, indeed, on the traditional conception an angelic person of unparalleled beauty and perfection among creatures. How could God not love him? The fact that that person is now fallen and unspeakably evil does not imply that God ceases to love him, any more than He ceased to love us when we fell and became enemies of God (Romans 5.10).”2

(Dr. Craig’s claim was in response to this question, “…Is it not true then that His love for all includes the Devil? For if it were not the case then there would be at least one eternally damned being whom God does not love or loves less, i.e., He is not all-loving or the greatest conceivably loving being.”)

Is Satan Totally Evil?

In his blog, Tough Questions Answered, Bill Pratt quotes Dr. Norm Geisler to contend that Satan is not totally evil, “Many people mistakenly believe that while God is totally good, Satan, or the Devil, is totally evil. They are polar opposites of each other.

This idea, however, is false. Satan, while being totally evil in a moral sense, is not totally evil in a metaphysical sense. Theologian Norm Geisler explains the distinction in his book If God, Why Evil?: A New Way to Think About the Question. Geisler writes:

The Bible speaks about Satan as “the evil one” (1 John 5:19) who is a liar by his very nature (John 8:44). Surely there is no good in Satan – is he not totally evil? Yes, he is completely evil in a moral sense, but not in a metaphysical sense. Just like fallen humans still have God’s image, even so Satan has the remnants of good that God gave to him as a created angel.

For example, Satan has good insofar as he is a creature of God, insofar as he has intelligence, and power, and free will. Of course, he uses all these God-given good powers to do evil; he is ever, always, irretrievably bent on evil. But this is only to say he is totally depraved morally, not that he is totally deprived of all creaturely good metaphysically.” (Emphasis Mine).3

Understanding God’s Love For Satan

The assertions, “God loves Satan” and “God hates Satan” need not be construed as being diametrically opposite or absolutely conflicting. Both these assertions could be true in a particular sense – the metaphysical or the moral.

Since Satan retains a remnant of the goodness of God’s creations from a metaphysical sense, we could reasonably sustain the notion that God loves Satan. In other words, God loves Satan only from a metaphysical sense.

But Satan is morally depraved. God cannot love the consequential deeds of a morally depraved being. So from this sense – the moral sense – the notion that God hates Satan (his evil deeds) could be sustained.

Significantly, an absolute denial of God’s love for Satan cannot be sustained. Just one reason may be sufficient to corroborate this assertion. If God hates Satan absolutely or totally, then should God not hate all those who reject and slander HIM?

But the Bible clearly teaches that God loved us when we were sinners (Romans 5:8). Therefore, if God loves a sinful, rebellious and slanderous man, on what grounds could God not love Satan? While it is true that both Satan and those men and women who rebel, reject, and slander God are doomed to an eternal damnation, the judgment of God need not violate HIS love for those who disbelieve and abuse HIM.

God’s judgment is contingent on the exercise of free will in the case of Satan and the unbelieving mankind. But God’s love for HIS creation is not contingent on HIS judgment. It is contingent on the goodness of HIS creation (God created all things good). Moreover, as it has already been asserted, neither Satan nor the unbelieving mankind is totally evil, for they still retain their creational goodness in the metaphysical sense. (The unbelieving humans could be morally good in certain or most instances. Satan too could, arguably, be morally good in certain situations, albeit in a passive sense, when he does no harm to his followers – not from the perspective of eternity, but from a worldly perspective.)

To conclude, the understanding that God loves Satan could only be sustained if the entailing complications could be resolved. These are the complications. If God loves Satan, then “how could a good God love the evil Satan?” Could there be a semblance of evil in God because HE loves the evil Satan? Furthermore, if God loves Satan, should we also love Satan?

How could a good God love the evil Satan? Satan is morally depraved and irretrievably bent on evil, but this is from a moral sense. However, Satan does retain a remnant of the goodness of God’s creations (intelligence, power, free will etc.). If Satan retains even a remnant of the metaphysical goodness of God’s creation, there is enough latitude for God to love Satan. So an absolute assertion that God hates Satan cannot be sustained. Therefore we could reasonably affirm that God loves Satan from the metaphysical sense and yet assert that God hates Satan from the moral sense.

Could there be a semblance of evil in God because HE loves the evil Satan? A maximally good and perfect being cannot be evil in the sense of both the metaphysical and the moral. If God loves Satan from a moral sense, then an argument that God could be evil may be valid. However, God’s love for Satan is from a metaphysical sense (not from a moral sense), hence there cannot be a remote semblance of evil in God.

Does God’s love for Satan imply that we should love Satan? The Bible mandates us to stand against the evil schemes of Satan and his entourage (Ephesians 6: 11). Moreover, Satan works against God’s people, so Christians cannot love Satan.

Notes

1https://www.gotquestions.org/does-God-love-Satan.html last accessed on 18th June 2017.

2http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-love-the-devil last accessed on 18th June 2017.

3http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2015/03/02/is-satan-totally-evil/, last accessed on 18th June 2017.

 

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

/by
Gospel Mark Author

Who Wrote the Gospel of Mark?

By Brian Chilton

Last week, we began a series on the authorship of the New Testament documents as we discussed the Gospel of Matthew. This week, we continue our series as we consider the authorship of the Gospel of Mark. We will consider the internal and external evidences, as well as the date of the composition, and the area where Mark was located.

Proposed Author by Tradition:       John Mark, who transcribed the teachings of Simon Peter, is traditionally held to be the author of the Second Gospel. John Mark was the son of a widow woman named Mary (Acts 12:12-17). The disciples met in Mary’s home. Her home may have even served as the location of the Last Supper. John Mark was also the cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10). John Mark accompanied Paul and Barnabas on their missionary journeys. He was, however, scolded by Paul and was disallowed to continue after Mark left the missionaries for unknown reasons (Acts 13:13). Paul and Mark later reconciled. Paul added that Mark was useful for the ministry (Colossians 4:10).

Internal Evidence:    Internally, there isn’t much to mark the author of the Gospel. The Second Gospel does hold several traits to be considered. First, the Second Gospel is fast-paced. The author uses the term “immediately” often. Second, the Second Gospel focuses on the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth often discussing his emotions. Third, the author writes with a Latin audience in mind as he explained Jewish customs and used Latin terms. Some example of the author’s usage of Latinisms include the terms census (Mark 12:14), centurion (15:39, 44, 45), denarius (a Roman coin, 12:15), among others.[1] Fourth, the author describes the man who carried Jesus’s cross as Simon of Cyrene who is identified as the father of Alexander and Rufus. Alexander and Rufus were known to the believers in Rome.[2] Fifth, the Second Gospel focuses upon the life of Simon Peter quite a bit. One of the highlights of the Second Gospel is Peter’s declaration that Jesus was the Messiah (8:27-9:1). Sixth, the author emphasizes the Messianic Secret.[3] Seventh and finally, the author describes a man who is unknown except for a bizarre instance in the Garden of Gethsemane where the unknown man is caught as Jesus is arrested, only to escape the clutches of the Roman guard losing his clothing in the process (Mark 14:51-52). Many have postulated that this unknown man is in fact the author.

While the clues are not conclusive, they do point to a man writing to a Roman audience; who directly, or indirectly, knew Simon Peter; who knew the members of the Roman church. Of the possible candidates, John Mark fits best.

External Evidence: Like the other three Gospels, the early church was unanimous in their acceptance that John Mark was the writer of the Second Gospel and that he documented the teachings of Simon Peter. Papias provides the earliest account. Papias of Hierapolis (A.D. 60-130) writes,

“And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.”[4]

Papias confirms John Mark as the writer of the Second Gospel. Irenaeus (A.D. 130-200) also writes, “After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.”[5] Thus, the early church unanimously concurred that John Mark was the author of the Second Gospel. John Mark would make for an odd candidate unless he were in fact the author.

Date:   If one holds that Irenaeus’s reference to Peter’s “departure” indicates Peter’s execution, then Mark was written in the mid to late 60s. If, however, “departure” indicates Peter’s establishment of the Roman church, then the date is much earlier. It seems that Irenaeus addresses Peter’s martyrdom. However, he is writing after having received the Gospel when Mark moved to Alexandria, Egypt. Thus, the Gospel could have been written much earlier than Mark’s distribution of the work to the Alexandrians. Most scholars hold that Mark was written first, while others hold that Matthew was the first to be written. Good evidence suggests a date for Mark’s Gospel at some time in the 50s, with some even suggesting a date to the late 40s. Personally, I am comfortable with a mid-50s date.

Location and Audience: It is clear that John Mark wrote his Gospel while still in Rome. Mark writes primarily for a Roman Gentile audience. Mark could have written in Rome at any point. I hold that Irenaeus indicates merely that his community received the Gospel after Peter’s death. However, this is not a point which I strongly hold.

Conclusion:

From the evidences considered, John Mark is the only clear candidate for the Second Gospel. While John Mark was not a primary witness of the life of Jesus of Nazareth and while he does not necessarily record the events of Jesus’s life in chronological order, he does act as a scribe, or amanuensis, to Peter whom Jesus knew and selected to be an inner circle disciple. We have a great testimony preserved for us in the Second Gospel. I believe we truly have the eyewitness accounts of Simon Peter documented for us by his good friend John Mark.

Notes

[1] For a full list of Mark’s Latinisms, see Rod Decker, “Latinisms in Mark’s Gospel,” NT Resources (May 28, 2011), retrieved June 12, 2017, http://ntresources.com/blog/?p=1205.

[2] “Introduction to Mark,” CSB Study Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017), 1556.

[3] That is, Jesus telling the disciples to keep his identity a secret.

[4] Papias, “Fragments of Papias,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 154–155.

[5] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 414.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2syW4fy

/by
Matthew Gospel New Testament

Who Wrote the Gospel of Matthew?

By Brian Chilton

Over the course of the new few weeks, we will discuss the reasons for accepting the traditional viewpoints for New Testament authorship. We will begin with the Gospel of Matthew today and will then move towards the other three Gospels before looking at some of the letters in Revelation.

The New Testament begins with the Gospel of Matthew. But, what do we know about the origin of the First Gospel? In a world where traditional scholarship is often questioned and too often disregarded, several theories exist as to whom the author of the First Gospel may be. Traditionally, the church has ascribed the First Gospel to the apostle known as Matthew. But, what evidence do we find about the author of the first book in the New Testament?

Internal Evidence

When we discuss internal evidence, we are speaking of the evidence that we find within the book in question. What clues do we find about the author of the First Gospel from the text? Like the other three Gospels, the First Gospel is anonymous.

First, we find that the author of the First Gospel is thoroughly entrenched in Judaism. The author often quotes the Hebrew Bible (otherwise known as the Old Testament). He parallels the life of Jesus with the great prophets of Judaism. Additionally, he makes every effort to show that Jesus is the fulfillment of messianic prophecy. In many ways, the author of the First Gospel focuses on the Jewish aspects of the faith, even describing some areas such as Jesus’s exclusion clause for divorce. The writer of the First Gospel also focuses quite a bit more on Jesus’s messages than do some of the other Gospel writers.

Second, the author focuses on Jesus’s work within Galilee and does not so much focus on Jesus’s work with Gentiles as does Luke. Thus, the evangelist is mostly concerned with Jesus’s ministry to the Jews.

Finally, the author of the First Gospel adds financial details only found in the First Gospel. For instance, only the First Gospel records the incidence where those who collected the temple tax “approached Peter and said, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax” (Matthew 17:24)?[1]

From all the details considered with the internal evidence (one who is thoroughly Jewish in scope of the messages presented by Jesus, one who focuses on the prophetic fulfillment of Jesus, one who focuses on the ministry of Jesus to Jews, and one who focuses on financial matters especially in the area of taxes), Matthew best fits as the author of the First Gospel. Matthew was a tax collector before accepting Jesus as Savior and his role as an apostle. Thus, Matthew’s knowledge of shorthand to take notes as well as finances would far excel most others.

External Evidence

When we speak of external evidence, we are addressing information we have about a document’s authorship from outside the document. What do others say about the author of the First Gospel?

The early church is unanimous in their acceptance of Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. Papias, Irenaeus, Pantaenus, and Origen all report Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. Papias (c. AD 60-130) writes, “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.”[2] While we do not have a Hebrew or Aramaic edition of Matthew’s Gospel, there are reports that one may have existed in the early church.[3] Regardless, one should not be surprised that Matthew, who would need to have great knowledge of Greek in the business world, originally wrote his Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic, only to revise the Gospel in Greek. Even if his Gospel were written in Greek by another, even say an amanuensis,[4] this would not negate Matthew’s authorship. Craig Evans recently recorded a video where he claims that Matthew may have come about in phases.[5]

Pantaenus also confirmed that Matthew was the author of the First Gospel. The great church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, writes that Pantaenus, a church leader in the late 2nd to possibly early 3rd century, came across the Hebrew version of Matthew’s Gospel. Eusebius notes that Pantaenus was “a man highly distinguished for his learning, had charge of the school of the faithful in Alexandria.”[6] The following is Eusebius’s report of Pantaenus’s encounter with the Hebrew edition of Matthew’s Gospel:

“It is reported that among persons there who knew of Christ, he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language,6 which they had preserved till that time.”[7]

With the addition of Origen and Irenaeus’s acceptance of Matthew writing the First Gospel, one is hard-pressed to dismiss their claims.

In addition, scholars acknowledge that Matthew’s name was associated with the First Gospel from the earliest times. The writers of the CSB Study Bible denote that “the title that ascribes this Gospel to Matthew appears in the earliest manuscripts and is possibly original. Titles became necessary to distinguish one Gospel from another when the four Gospels began to circulate as a single collection.”[8]

Date and Location of Writing

It is certainly reasonable to accept that Matthew was written in the 50s due to the reasonable assumption that Acts was finished before AD 64, with Luke coming before Acts, and Matthew writing his Gospel before Luke’s. Scholars generally hold that Matthew composed his Gospel in or around Antioch of Syria.

Conclusion

Some may argue that a disciple like Matthew would not borrow material from Mark, if in fact it is true that Matthew did borrow material from Mark’s Gospel. However, when one considers that Matthew followed Jesus long after most of the apostles, and that Matthew was not an inner-circle disciple, then it stands to reason that Matthew would borrow material from Mark’s Gospel if it is true that Mark relayed information from Simon Peter—who was both an early apostle and inner-circle disciple.

While some will still disagree, it seems strange to me to ascribe the First Gospel to Matthew of all people, especially when the First Gospel was used as a church manual in many cases. Matthew was a tax-collector. Tax-collectors were held in slightly higher esteem than pond scum…but not by much. So, why ascribe the First Gospel to a tax-collector unless there was at least some merit to the claim?

In my humble opinion, I believe the First Gospel came to us in three phases. First, the apostle Matthew wrote the teachings of Jesus in Aramaic. Then, Matthew added the miracles and deeds of Jesus to his Aramaic and/or Hebrew edition of his Gospel adding his eyewitness testimony and the testimony of Simon Peter as found in Mark’s Gospel. Finally, either Matthew himself or a highly trained scribe translated the Gospel in Greek.

Notes

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).

[2] Papias, “Fragments of Papias,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 155.

[3] I believe it is Jerome who reports seeing a Hebraic Gospel of Matthew. But is this the same? We cannot know for sure.

[4] That is, a scribe who writes down the words that are dictated to oneself. Some amanuenses were given freedom to add their own expressions to a degree.

[5] Video recorded for Faith Life. I could not find the link. I will post the link if I am able to find it.

[6] Eusebius of Caesaria, “The Church History of Eusebius,” in Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890), 224.

[7] Eusebius of Caesaria, “The Church History of Eusebius,” in Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890), 225.

[8] “Introduction to Matthew,” CSB Study Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017), 1494.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2rapy3W

/by
Paul Christianity Founder

Was Paul the Founder of Christianity?

By Brian Chilton

Skeptics, such as Gerd Ludemann, charged Paul for being the actual founder of Christianity. Such ideas come from either a belief that Jesus never addressed difficult topics, or a belief that Paul was too radical in his teachings for it to have come from Jesus. Both views are inherently wrong. A closer examination of the New Testament reveals that Jesus and Paul are found to be in close alignment in their theological moorings. Evidence suggests that Paul often quoted Jesus in his epistles. Craig Blomberg, in his book The Historical Reliability of the New Testament, reveals six areas where Jesus and Paul’s theology are closely aligned. So was Paul the founder of Christianity? Let’s examine the evidence.

Jesus and Paul express the same views on justification. The kingdom of God is central to the Synoptic Gospels appearing more than 100 times.[1] In contrast, the term only appears a mere 14 times in the letters of Paul. The central theme of Paul’s letters is on justification by faith. However, noting the misunderstanding that the Greco-Roman world would have with the kingdom of God and the close-alignment that Paul’s justification by faith has with the teachings of Jesus, then one begins to see a marvelous parallel. Jesus says four times that a person’s faith has saved, or healed them. For instance, at a dinner one evening, Jesus was approached by a woman who anointed him with expensive oil from an alabaster jar. The Pharisees were critical of Jesus’s allowance of this sinful woman to touch him. After angering the Pharisees by telling the woman that her sins were forgiven, Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace” (Luke 7:50).[2] The Jesus tradition predates the writing of Paul’s epistles, therefore, one can postulate that Paul learned his theology on justification from Jesus.

Jesus and Paul express the same views on the law. For full treatment on this issue, I would direct the reader to Blomberg’s work. Nevertheless, one should note that neither Jesus nor Paul called for the overthrow of the law (e.g., Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:17-20). Thus, neither advocated antinomianism.[3] Jesus noted that the greatest commandments were to love God with all one’s being and to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:36-40). Paul reiterated the second in Galatians 5:14.[4]

Jesus and Paul express the same views on concern for Gentiles. Paul emphasized the church’s ministry to Gentiles. It was Paul who wanted the church to rid its requirement of Gentile converts to perform circumcision. In Galatians 1-4, Paul charges the Judaizers with not promoting a true gospel. While Jesus’s ministry was largely to Jews, it must be remembered that his emphasis was due to his location and not his final focus. Like Paul, Jesus envisioned his church expanding past Israel. Jesus commended the Roman centurion for his amazing faith (Matt. 8:10-12) and took time to heal a Syrophoenician woman’s daughter, even with a tongue-in-cheek life lesson. Jesus’s feeding of the 4,000 was among a largely Gentile crowd. Also, Jesus’s Great Commission to the church commanded the church to take the message to all nations (Matt. 28:19). Thus, Paul is not inventing a new concept for the church to be pro-Gentile, but rather expounds upon the idea set forth by Jesus himself.

Jesus and Paul express the same views about women. Paul gives an extraordinary view of women in his letter to the Galatians. Paul writes, “There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female; since you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). Paul also allowed women to pray and prophesy in public (1 Cor. 11:2-16).[5] Jesus shared the same elevated status for women. Jesus commended Mary for receiving theological training as the men (Lk. 10:38-42). Blomberg notes that “Jesus affirmed the woman at the well to such a degree that she became an evangelist o her own people (John 4:4-42).”[6] Therefore, Paul did not invent a new doctrine in his acceptance of women. He continued what he had learned from Jesus and the early Jesus traditions.

Jesus and Paul express the same views on Christology. Some skeptics believe that Paul elevated the status of Jesus to a new level—the level of the divine. Shows such as PBS’s special From Jesus to Christ hold that Paul elevated the status of Jesus to a new level and one that Jesus himself did not accept. Is this true? Not at all! Again, Paul learned his Christology from Jesus and the early church. Two of the loftiest claims of Jesus’s divinity in Paul’s letters are found in Philippians 2:6-11 and Colossians 1:15-20. However, further investigation shows that the two passages are not original to Paul. They are in fact pre-New Testament hymns that most likely date to within 3-5 years of Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection. Thus, Paul is relaying information that is original to the early church. Even still, one must note the examples of divine status that Jesus gave himself. The “I am” statements in John’s Gospel relate to the divine name of God (Yahweh means “I am what I am”). Jesus’s favorite title for himself is “Son of Man.” The Son of Man title holds a direct correlation to Daniel’s Son of Man who approaches the Ancient of Day. Thus, the name Son of Man relates Jesus to the divine. Paul is not inventing Jesus’s divine nature. Rather, he is continuing the teaching found in the earliest church—that which was found from Jesus himself.

Jesus and Paul express the same views on discipleship. Jesus often noted that discipleship was costly. Jesus taught that discipleship required one to die to oneself in order to find salvation in Christ (Matt. 10:39 and Lk. 17:33). Jesus taught that if one were to follow him, that person must take up their cross and follow him (Matt. 16:24). Paul, in like manner, teaches that the disciple is baptized into Christ’s death (Rom. 6:3-6), that sharing the cup of blessing was also to share the blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16-21), and that we die to the self as we live in Christ (Eph. 1-2). Again, Paul is not formulating a new doctrine, but promoting one that originated with Christ.

Conclusion

Was Paul the founder of Christianity? In a short answer, no. Paul was heavily influential with the development of the church. However, Paul did not create a movement. Neither did Paul change the church. Rather, Paul drew from the ideas of Jesus who was the true founder of Christianity. Craig Blomberg, the man who inspired this article, wrote quite succinctly, “Paul may have been the ‘second founder’ of Christianity but only by building on and in submission to the true founder—Jesus of Nazareth.”[7] A closer examination of the New Testament reveals that Paul certainly built upon the ideas of Jesus, but he did not invent them. Paul was a disciple of the true founder of Christianity—Jesus of Nazareth.

Notes

[1] Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament: Countering the Challenges to Evangelical Christian Beliefs (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016), 440.

[2] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).

[3] That is, the abolition of the law and moral principles.

[4] “For the whole law is fulfilled in one statement: Love your neighbor as yourself” (Galatians 5:14, CSB).

[5] The issue of head coverings was probably a cultural one. Thus, we do not have the space to cover the topic here.

[6] Blomberg, 449.

[7] Blomberg, 460.

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

/by
Worldview Assertions Philosophy

The Difference Between What A View Asserts And Implies

By Luke Nix 

Introduction

In any discussion in which we are defending a particular view, we must present both a positive case and the negative case. The positive case shows the evidence for the view we are defending, while the negative case shows the problems with the alternative being presented. Both are necessary in the overall case. The negative case is necessary because the adherent of the other view needs a logical reason to abandon their view for an alternative. The positive case is necessary because if an adherent is provided a logical reason to abandon their view, the other view being presented may not be the only option. The way that a view is shown to be incorrect is that its claims are put to the test against reality and reason. If the claims are found to not reflect reality or they are not logical, then the view is false. However, the claims of a view can be of (at least) two different types that require a different approach. Today I want to discuss the differences in the assertions and the implications of a view or model. Understanding the differences will help us be more aware of how to properly address them in other views, and the understanding will also assist us in our formation and critique of our own views. This applies to worldviews, scientific models, philosophical theories, and really anything view that makes claims about reality, regardless of which area of reality it is.

Assertions are propositions that a view or model explicitly claims to be true. When we are talking about worldviews, a worldview’s assertions are the collection of propositions that it claims are true about reality. This collection is explicitly stated and defended by the adherents to the particular worldview that makes those claims.

When critiquing a worldview, it is important that we properly understand the assertions of that worldview. If we fail to understand the assertions correctly, then we run the risk of arguing against a misunderstanding of the worldview- a strawman. If we argue against a strawman, then we have not shown the worldview we are attempting to critique as having any issues. Thus our critique has not provided the adherent of that worldview a valid reason to reject it in favor of an alternative. Our critique simply does not apply to the debate at hand, and we sound like some crazy person who has decided to just start telling a story that has no applicability to the discussion at hand. Unless we are willing to take the time to properly understand what a worldview asserts, there is really no point in attempting to argue against it.

Some assertions are essential to the worldview, so if they are shown to be false, the entire worldview falls apart. While other assertions are not so essential to the worldview, and if they are shown to be false, they can either be adjusted or removed altogether. What gets really interesting and often causes great disagreements among adherent to the same worldview is that they do not always agree upon what is essential to the worldview and what is non-essential. For details on this, see my post “Zombies of Christianity.”

Testing the assertions of a worldview or model is a direct way to test for its ability to accurately describe reality (truthfulness). If one of the essential propositions is found to be false, then the whole worldview or model may be rejected and an alternative needs to be found. If an assertion that is non-essential is found to be false, the worldview or model simply needs to be adjusted to accommodate the new data; however, that adjustment must not violate (it must be logically consistent) with the rest of the worldview or model. Sometimes what seems to be a minor adjustment affects the whole worldview or model, but not necessarily to the point of changing the essentials. As long as the essential assertions are not compromised, the main worldview or model remains intact, just with some different details. For those who are committed to a basic worldview (such as mere Christianity), the discovery that they need to adjust the details of their theology, science, or another part of the worldview does not undermine the historic event of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, so there is no need to be afraid or even resistant to change the detailed assertions of our worldview when the evidence demonstrates a non-essential detail to be incorrect.

What Are Implications?

While attacking the assertions of a worldview or model is a more direct challenge, one can use a more indirect method that is just as powerful. Many critiques of worldviews or models come in the form of critiquing, not the assertions of the view but, the implications. Implications are the collection of propositions that the assertions of a view necessarily leads to when the logic is carried to its end (or just a few steps from the assertion). Implications are not explicitly claimed by the worldview or its adherents, and in some cases, certain implications are not even held by the adherents because the adherents have not worked the logic through to discover them.

Necessary implications can be discovered using the assertions of the view and deductive reasoning. Any sound conclusion that results yet is not explicitly claimed, is an implication of the view. Since implications are necessarily dependent upon the assertions, it is, once again, extremely important to ensure that we properly understand the assertions of a worldview before attempting to deduce its implications.

As I mentioned earlier, implications can be used to critique a worldview indirectly but just as conclusively as testing assertions. If a validly concluded implication is false, then that indicates that one of the premises in the deductive argument is false. If that premise is an assertion of a worldview, then that worldview has been demonstrated logically to be false (as it is currently held- both essentials and non-essentials included). If an adherent wishes to maintain that worldview consistently, the false assertion would either need to be adjusted, so as to not lead to the false implication, or it would need to be removed from the worldview altogether. Of course, this flexibility would only apply to assertions that are not essential. If the false premise is an essential assertion, then the worldview has been completely falsified, and even the basic worldview cannot be believed reasonably, only emotionally- against reason, logic, and evidence.

Now, as I mentioned, not all implications are held by adherents to different worldviews or models. So it is extremely important to understand what an adherent believes. They may very well agree that a particular implication is false, but they may insist that they are being consistent. This is usually an opportunity to get them to go into further details of their worldview or model. If they are correct that they are being consistent with rejecting the implication, then it is likely that there is another assertion (or collection of assertions) that place a nuance on the “false” premise that adjusts it to avoid the implication (see my post “Providing Alternative Explanations“). The newly discovered nuances of the view may also make the implication not one that is necessary but one that is optional, which, of course, the adherent would simply avoid. Now, clarification does not always undermine a false implication; the adherent may simply not understand the deductive argument, or they are more committed to the false assertion than they are committed against the implication- they may be actually willing to accept the implication as true, which would demonstrate that they are actually more committed to a view than committed to truth.

Conclusion

The differences in assertions and implications are important to analyzing and addressing both properly. In our own views, the understanding will help us identify where a view can be flexible to follow the evidence where it leads. This allows us to adjust our own views as necessary and allows us to be more reserved and pointed, where applicable, in our claims of showing an opposing view to be inaccurate (which helps keep discussions cordial and respectful). In my discussions with people about different views, I try to identify if what I’m arguing against is an assertion or an implication; simply saying something like “I know you may not hold to this particular claim, but if you allow me to show you how your view logically leads to it by necessity, you may be able to more clearly see why I reject that view and why I think you should also, based upon your rejection of it.” In the effort to be more careful thinkers, recognition of the distinction between assertions and implications will also help in our effort to be more persuasive presenters and defenders.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2r59CLN

——————————

/by
Resurrection Jesus Easter

A Quick Case For Jesus’ Resurrection

By Evan Minton

I’ve always struggled with brevity some of my apologetic presentations. The trick is to keep it a decent length while simultaneously not skimming on important facts. A handful of my blog posts are kind of long due to my struggle, but fortunately, the vast majority of them are at a length you would want a blog post to be. Given that it’s Easter weekend, I thought I would rewrite one of my articles on the resurrection specifically for the person who wants to get his information quickly. That said, I’ll still leave the longer ones up for those interested in a more in-depth study.

In this blog post, I plan on giving an overview of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Contrary to popular opinion, belief in Jesus’ resurrection isn’t something one has to believe on blind faith alone, one can confirm the resurrection on the basis of powerful historical evidence. The resurrection is important because if Jesus has risen from the dead, then God has put His stamp of approval on everything Jesus said and did. God agrees with Jesus’ ministry. This means that we can put great stock into anything Jesus taught about, such as His claim to be God, the existence of angels and demons, the existence of Heaven and Hell, and that He Himself is the only way to get to Heaven. It gives good reason to believe The Bible is divinely inspired, for Jesus Himself quoted from the Old Testament and taught that it is the word of God, and He commissioned apostles who would go on to write The New Testament. After all, who would be in a better position to know whether or not the Old Testament is divinely inspired than God Himself, and since God chose Matthew, Paul, Peter, etc. it makes sense to think that God put His stamp of approval on their teachings as well. So, if Jesus rose from the dead, that gives good grounds for believing in the inspiration of The Bible and for accepting whatever The Bible teaches.

Historical Method, Not “Using The Bible To Prove The Bible”
I want to make it clear that while I’ll be appealing to The New Testament at certain points in this article, I won’t be “quoting from The Bible to prove The Bible”. No, instead I’ll be applying the historical method to the New Testament documents to determine certain aspects as fact just as I would any other ancient document. Historians apply what is known as “the criterion of authenticity” to secular documents all the time in order to determine whether something is historical or not. That’s what I and many other Christian Apologists do with The New Testament. We apply historical principles like multiple attestation, the principle of embarrassment, the principle of enemy attestation, etc. to the gospels to argue that X, Y, and Z are more likely to be historical than not. And by the way, even non-Christian historians, like Bart Ehrman and Gerd Ludemann, take this approach with The New Testament when trying to gather information about the historical Jesus, and have come to many of the same conclusions that Christian historians have via the same arguments. They are certainly not presupposing The Bible’s divine authority when they argue, for example, that Jesus’ tomb was most likely empty because it would have been embarrassing for the gospel authors to have women as witnesses to the empty tomb.

When I argue for Jesus’ empty tomb, or for the postmortem appearances, I do not quote the New Testament as scripture and declare that since it’s in The Bible, it must be true. Rather, I presuppose that The New Testament documents are purely human documents for the sake of the argument, I apply the same principles or criteria of authenticity to the text, and when one does that one comes up with certain pieces of data which I think can only make sense in light of the hypothesis: God raised Jesus from the dead.

Two Step Process To The Resurrection Inference 
In the case for the resurrection, there are two steps.

1: What Are The Facts To Be Explained?
2: What Is The Best Explanation Of The Facts?

Fact 1: Jesus Died By Crucifixion

*Jesus’ death by Roman crucifixion is multiply attested in 7 independent documents. 4 of those sources are secular, 3 of them are from The New Testament.
Secular Sources — Josephus, Tacitus, Mara-Bar Sarapian, Lucian Of Samosata.
NT Sources — The Synoptic Gospels, The Gospel Of John, Paul’s Epistles.

This makes it overwhelmingly more probable that Jesus’ crucifixion is an event of history. It is statistically impossible for 7 independent sources to all make up the same story. Denial of crucifixion’s historicity entails that 7 sources fabricated the same lie independent of each other.

*Jesus’ crucifixion is attested to by sources hostile to Christianity (i.e Tacitus and Lucian). 
These sources would have nothing to gain by saying Jesus’ crucifixion really happened if it didn’t.  In fact, they are ridiculing Christianity in the very same context of their passages referring to the crucifixion of Jesus.

*Historical Fit makes it plausible that Jesus died by crucifixion.
Secular History attests to the fact that Romans crucified people in the first century. That Jesus was crucified fits well with what we know of first century crucifixions.

Fact 2: The Empty Tomb

*The Jerusalem Factor
If Jesus’ body was not absent from the tomb, the enemies of Christianity could have easily stomped out the movement by removing Jesus’ body from the tomb and showing it to everyone. If they did that, Christianity would have died before it even began. It did not die back then. We can infer from this fact that they did not take Jesus’ body out of the tomb in order to parade it down the street to prove to everyone that the resurrection claims of the disciples were false. Why didn’t they do this? Most likely because Jesus’ body was not even in the tomb to be taken out.

*All four gospels feature women as witnesses to the empty tomb.
Women were considered second class citizens back then and their testimony was considered worthless. The empty tomb narrative is most likely historical because it would have been awkward for the early church to have women as the chief witnesses when their testimony wasn’t considered valid back then. They would have made males the first ones on the scene if they were just conjuring up this narrative. So, by the principle of embarrassment, we know that the tomb of Jesus was empty.

*The enemies of Christianity claimed that the disciples stole the body. This presupposes the empty tomb.
Even though our knowledge of this claim comes from Matthew 28, we can still count this as enemy attestation. Matthew said they were spreading the story “to this day”, which means if Matthew said the pharisees were saying this when they really weren’t, he would be easily found out by those alive “to this day”. Matthew wouldn’t open himself up to such easy falsification. Secondly, people don’t usually respond to accusations unless someone actually made that accusation of them. For example, you wouldn’t deny stealing your friend’s car unless he accused you of stealing it.

Fact 3: Jesus’ Post-Mortem Appearances To The Disciples 

*Paul’s List Of Appearances In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Gives Us Powerful Reason To Believe These Appearances Occurred. 
Paul’s citing an early creed that he himself received. We know this is a creed because he says “For what I received, I passed onto you as of first importance” This is ancient rabbinic language employed whenever oral tradition was being passed on. Plus, Paul’s word usage in verses 3-8 is foreign to Paul in the rest of his epistles. On top of that, Paralellism (long sentence followed by a short sentence followed by a long sentence again) implies that this is a creed since this structure was common to oral tradition to contribute to easy memorization.

Paul most likely got the creed from Peter and James during his fact-finding mission that he recounts in Galatians 1:18-19, which would mean this creed goes back to eyewitnesses of the resurrection. That this is when Paul received this creed is plausible from the fact that Peter and James are two individuals explicitly named, plus Paul’s use of “historieasi” which indicates they were talking about recent events.

Therefore, the creed goes back to within only a few years of Jesus’ crucifixion. This list of appearances is so early that anyone skeptical about them could question the witnesses to see if the creed were accurate. If these people did not see Jesus as the creed claims, then the cat would be out of the bag and Christianity would be discredited. Many scholars have noted that Paul’s mentioning of many of the witnesses still being alive is most likely a challenge from Paul to question these witnesses, as if Paul were essentially saying “Don’t believe me? Go talk to them yourselves! Go ask them yourselves!”

*The Appearance Narratives In The Gospels Provide Multiple, Independent Attestation Of The Appearances. 
The appearances to the disciples are mentioned in 3 independent sources.

1: 1 Corinthians 15
2: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
3: The Gospel Of John.

It is highly unlikely that three independent sources would all fabricate the same lie. Given that we have at least three sources for the post-mortem appearances to the disciples, we have good grounds for confirming that the disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus.

Fact 4: The Post-Mortem Appearance To Paul

*Saul Of Tarsus was hired by the Jewish Sanhedrin to persecute Christians by beating them, throwing them into prison, stoning them to death, etc. 
The Principle of Embarrassment makes it highly likely that he was indeed a persecutor. People don’t make up horrible things about themselves, and usually, don’t admit them even if they’re true. Yet in 3 different epistles, Paul says that he was a harsh persecutor of Christians before his conversion (see 1 Corinthians 15:9, Galatians 1:13, 1 Timothy 1:13).

Multiple Attestation — Both Paul’s epistles and the book of Acts say that Paul was a persecutor of the church.

*Saul Converted To Christianity all of a sudden and became an active evangelist who suffered for his faith. 
Multiple Attestation — Paul attests to his own suffering for the sake of the gospel in his epistles. The book of Acts also records Paul’s suffering.

The early church fathers, Polycarp, Tertullian, Clement of Rome, and several others record the account of Paul’s martyrdom under the emperor Nero.

*Saul — who later became known as Paul — claimed that he went from being a Christian destroyer to being a Christian maker because the risen Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus. This is the most reasonable explanation for why he went from being someone who killed Christians to being a Christian himself virtually overnight. 

Fact 5: Jesus’ Post Mortem Appearance To James

*Jesus had a brother named James who did not believe He was God incarnate or the messiah during Jesus’ lifetime. 
Multiple Attestation — The Gospel Of John (chapter 7) and The Gospel Of Mark (chapter 3) both attest to Jame’s skepticism. Very unlikely that they both fabricated the same lie independent of each other.

The Principle Of Embarrassment — Casts Jesus in a bad light given the stigma back then of any Rabbi whose family opposed his teaching. Casts James in a bad light, particularly in John 7 because in John 7, James and Jesus’ other brothers are trying to goad Him into a death trap by showing himself publicly at a feast when they were well aware that the Jewish authorities were seeking to kill Him. Why would John paint James and Jesus’ other brothers in such a bad light if this is not what actually happened?

*A short time after Jesus’ death, James came to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead
Multiple Attestation — The book of Acts as well as Paul’s letter to the Galatians (Galatians 2:9) reveals that James had become a leader of the church in Jerusalem.

*James was Martyred for his Christian faith
Multiple Attestation — Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement Of Alexandria all record that James were murdered by the Jewish Sanhedrin for his belief in Jesus as the risen Messiah.

*The Most Likely Explanation for why James went from being a skeptic to being a believer virtually overnight is because the risen Jesus appeared to him as 1 Corinthians 15:7 says. 

Conclusion
This is the historical evidence for the 5 facts undergirding the inference to the resurrection. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” is the best explanation of these 5 facts. It meets all 6 of the standard criteria for confirming a historical theory.

1: It has great explanatory power.
2: It has great explanatory scope.
3: It is plausible.
4: Not ad-hoc.
5: It is in accord with accepted beliefs.
6: It outstrips rival theories in criteria 1-5. None of the naturalistic theories raised over the last 2,000 years to explain these 5 facts are tenable. They all fail.

For a more in-depth treatment, check out chapter 8 of my book “Inference To The One True God”, and the longer article this one is based on, “The Miminal Facts Case For Jesus’ Resurrection PART 1”. 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2q4d761

/by