Tag Archive for: Timothy Fox

“How Would You Respond to This”

“How Would You Respond to This?”

,

By Timothy Fox

Once people discover that you’re a Christian thinker, they often start coming to you with all of the objections they hear:

“The Bible is hopelessly corrupt.”

“Jesus never existed.”

“Science disproves God.”

Your friends will offer you the objections and ask, “How would you respond to this?” And here is what I always say: “I wouldn’t.” I never respond to objections.

But wait, aren’t I an apologist? Isn’t it my responsibility to provide an answer to people’s objections? Not necessarily. Let me explain.

Offense and Defense

The same way that a football team has an offensive line and a defensive line, apologetics can be divided into offense – giving arguments for the truthfulness of Christianity – and defense – responding to objections against Christianity. So, when someone raises an objection to Christianity, they are trying to put you on defense. And while arguing against other religions and worldviews does take a lot of study, defensive apologetics is a whole lot easier. Here’s why: It isn’t your job to respond to a skeptic’s objection. It’s the skeptic’s job to defend the objection. So in reality, you aren’t on defense, the skeptic is!

Let’s look back at the objections above and ask some simple questions to deflate them:

Skeptic: “The Bible is hopelessly corrupt.”

Me: “Really? How do you know that?”

Now instead of me defending the reliability of the Bible, I’ve turned the tables and put the skeptic on defense. How does he know the Bible is hopelessly corrupt? What does he know about the transmission of the biblical texts?

Skeptic: “Jesus never existed.”

Me: “Why do you think that?”

Jesus mythicism is popular on the internet, but it’s a joke in scholarly circles. So force the skeptic to back up his claims. If Jesus isn’t real, who invented him and why? What do real historians think about this?

Skeptic: “Science disproves God.”

Me: “How exactly does science disprove God?”

Sure, you could have given a lecture on how science points us to a divine Creator, through the cosmological, fine-tuning, and design arguments. But why should you do all the heavy lifting? That’s the skeptic’s job! Let the skeptic try to make a scientific case against God’s existence, and if he can’t, then show how science actually provides evidence for God’s existence. That’s much more impactful.

Defending objections to Christianity is simple once you realize that it isn’t your job to defend against the objection; it’s the skeptic’s job to defend the objection itself.

Now, is it always this easy? Of course not. You may come across a very knowledgeable skeptic with a really tough objection that can’t be easily questioned away. But you can still keep your cool: “Wow, that’s an interesting objection and I’ve never thought of that before. I’ll look into it and get back to you.” Then you do your homework and resolve to never get stumped by the same question twice. But more often than not, some simple questions are all it takes to deflate a skeptic who hasn’t thought very much about his objections to Christianity.

Conclusion

Evangelizing and engaging in spiritual conversations can be very intimidating, especially when people have such a wide range of beliefs and may even be outright hostile to Christianity. But Jesus commanded his followers to go out and make disciples (Matt. 28:19). And when the tough objections come, we are called to defend our faith (1 Pet. 3:15). However, you don’t need hours and hours of study before you can begin sharing the gospel and defending your faith. Sometimes all it takes is a few simple questions.

To learn more about the tactical approach to engaging in spiritual conversations, check out Tactics by Greg Koukl. It’s the #1 book I recommend to anyone interested in apologetics. Seriously, buy it now.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Rns5B9

/by
Can Empathy Ground Morality

Can Empathy Ground Morality?

, ,

By Timothy Fox

One of the most powerful arguments for the existence of God is the moral argument. Basically, an objective moral law requires a Moral Lawgiver. But many skeptics still aren’t convinced. They claim that they don’t need God or some holy book to tell them how to live; they have empathy.

Dictionary.com defines empathy as “the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.” In short, it is feeling what others feel. Someone who endorses empathy-based morality will say that good is whatever makes others feel happy and evil is whatever makes people feel pain. This sounds a lot like the Golden Rule: Do to others what you would have them do to you (Matt. 7:12). It’s a great way to determine how we should treat others. But to use empathy as the basis of morality has problems.

Blatantly subjective

First, by the above definition, empathy-based morality is not objective; it is blatantly subjective since it is “the psychological identification” of someone else’s experience. It is based on my feelings about another’s situation. Objective morality means that morality is real and binding regardless of how anyone thinks or feels. In this, empathy fails as the foundation of morality.

Moral obligations

Second, what obligation do I have to act a certain way based on my empathetic feelings? If I feel bad seeing a hungry child suffer during a TV commercial, I could decide to volunteer at my local soup kitchen, or I could just change the channel. Those are two different responses to my empathy and to say which is right requires a moral judgment. Therefore, empathy isn’t the basis of right and wrong.

Furthermore, why should I care about a starving stranger, so long as my belly is full? And instead of following my empathy, why not act on rage, aggression, or sexual desire? Again, we must choose which of these feelings to follow by appealing to some moral standard.

Knowing vs. being

Third, empathy does not make things right or wrong; it is merely a tool to help discover morality. Philosophically, this is the difference between knowing (epistemology) and being (ontology). For example, I know the grass is green because I see that it is green. My sight is the tool to help me discover the color of grass. But I can only see – and know – that grass is green because grass has the property of being green. Grass would still be green even if I were colorblind or could not see at all.

The same applies to morality. If I say “Murder is wrong,” I don’t mean that I have the psychological identification that murder is wrong. No, murder has the property of being morally wrong the same way grass has the property of being green. Stating that murder is good is just as wrong as claiming that 2+2=5. Moral facts are true regardless of my opinion or whether or not my moral faculties are working properly.

Empathy is one way of knowing right and wrong. But it does not determine the rightness or wrongness of an action. We have deep moral intuitions that certain actions are right and wrong, but these intuitions are just the way that we know it. I could be a conscious-less psychopath with no conception of morality, but morality would still be real and objective.

A better explanation

So if morality is just as real as the physical world, how do we make sense of it? That is where the moral argument comes in. An objective moral law requires a Moral Lawgiver. God has provided ways for us to know this moral law: by sealing it on our hearts (Rom. 2:14-15), His Word, and, of course, empathy. But morality itself is grounded in a holy, morally-perfect God. Good is whatever aligns with God’s nature, and commands and evil is whatever goes against it.

Without God, we would be lost in a sea of moral subjectivity, where morality is just a trend, fashion, or evolutionary survival instinct. But we all know better than that. Morality is just as real as anything else in the world, and the best explanation of this is an objective moral law founded upon a good and holy God.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Nr71aC

/by
How to Get Men to Church

How to Get Men to Church

By Timothy Fox

There’s a critical gender gap problem in America: Christianity’s gender gap. Men attend church far less than women. Why? There are many reasons, from weak, whiny worship to emotions-based sermons. Church isn’t masculine, so men don’t go.

So what’s the solution? Churches create “manly” ministries and boot camps, involving sports and YELLING and other macho stuff. Now, as great as these can be to help form relationships with other Christian men, many men’s ministries are only indirect bridges to the church. How do we get men fully engaged and active within the body of Christ? I think the answer is apologetics, the rational defense of the Christian worldview. Here are three reasons why:

  1. Men are logical

I’m a pastor’s kid. I grew up in church. I always believed in Christianity, but I also always had a major disconnect. Church was completely feelings-based: sensing God’s presence through emotional worship and charismatic preaching. That wasn’t for me at all. I’m a logic guy. I have a B. S. in Computer Science, worked for many years as a software engineer, and now teach mathematics. Like I said, a logic guy. It wasn’t until I discovered apologetics that Christianity clicked for me. I found my place within the church. I finally belonged.

I’m sure many men have the same problem with church that I did. Fortunately, apologetics can show them the rational side of Christianity. We have a deep intellectual tradition that should not be forgotten. Our worldview is not based solely on blind faith and religious experience. There are good, logical reasons to think that Christianity is true. Of course, the affective side of man is important as well, that worship services can – and should – reach the entire person, both mind, and heart. But there is an imbalance in our churches. Apologetics can help fix that and draw in men.

  1. Men need to do something

Do you know any men who always find something to fix, even if it isn’t broken? They’re constantly tinkering here or making a home improvement there. Some guys just need to do something at all times (which is better than being idle!). They want to feel needed and important, to help solve problems. But men see nothing to do at church. It’s mostly passive.

Apologetics can give men a purpose in their church. Teaching a class or helping the pastor research for a sermon. Being a resource, on-call when needed. Apologetics make men a vital part of a church instead of being a passive attendee.

  1. Men need to protect

I found it interesting how many of my male classmates in Biola’s Christian Apologetics program had either military or martial arts background. These men had an instinctive need to protect their country, community, and family, and now sought to protect their church. And that’s exactly what apologetics is: providing a defense for the Christian faith (1 Peter 3:15).

More and more young people are leaving the church. Statistics show that once your children leave for college, they’re probably going to abandon their faith. Men, what are you going to do about that? Are you going to sit back and watch that happen, or are you going to fight for your children’s faith? Studying apologetics will give you the tools to inoculate your children against the false worldviews and beliefs they will certainly encounter in school and on social media.

Conclusion

My argument isn’t that apologetics needs men, although we can always use more (and women too, of course!). No, my argument is that men need apologetics. It meets specific masculine needs that the church is unfortunately lacking. So if you want to get the man in your life to become passionate about spiritual things, introduce him to apologetics.

 

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

/by
God’s Origin Story

God’s Origin Story

, ,

By Timothy Fox

In my last article, I compared superhero origin stories to the beginning of the universe. Every superhero needs an origin story, and so does the universe. We need a reason why it exists. I argued the best explanation is a God who caused the universe to come into existence. But doesn’t that just push the origins problem back one step? What is God’s origin story? Why is he here? That’s the focus of this article.

Whenever cosmic origins is discussed and God is offered as the explanation for the beginning of the universe, the skeptic is near certain to object “Yeah, well, who created God?” as the ultimate refutation. But this just shows the skeptic doesn’t understand who God is.

God’s Superpowers

When Billy Batson, an ordinary boy, says the word SHAZAM! he is transformed into the superhero Shazam (formerly Captain Marvel – it’s complicated). Shazam has the wisdom of Solomon, the strength of Hercules, the willpower of Atlas, the lightning blasts of Zeus, the invulnerability of Achilles, and the speed of Mercury. (An alliteration of all of their names spells Shazam.) That’s a pretty awesome list of superpowers, isn’t it? But even with all that, Shazam still isn’t God.

In fact, superheroes aren’t even in the same league as God. God isn’t just really strong; he is infinitely powerful. God isn’t just smart; he has infinite knowledge. God isn’t just good; he’s morally perfect. Take everything that makes superheroes great and crank it up to infinity. That’s God. God isn’t just great; he’s a Maximally Great Being. God can’t be beaten; he can’t be killed; he can’t not exist. He lacks nothing, needs nothing. God is the standard of goodness.

Maximally Great

Now look at how silly the question “Who created God?” is. If something created God, that thing would be greater than God. But nothing could be greater than a Maximally Great Being; therefore, nothing could have created God.

But couldn’t there be two Maximally Great Beings? No, as then neither one would be maximally great; it would be a tie. Which one would win an arm wrestling contest? Which would beat the other in a race? Which one would win at chess? Each might be a great being, but neither would be maximally great. Thus, there can only be one Maximally Great Being.

Last time we saw there were only two options for the existence of the universe: either it has always been here or it came into existence at some finite point in the past. If it came into existence, it needed a cause. God never came into existence; therefore, he doesn’t need a cause. He is what Aristotle called the First Cause, or Unmoved Mover. God set the universe into motion.

God’s Origin Story

I’m sorry if I’ve disappointed you, but God has no origin story. He simply is. God is eternal. As the Bible describes: “Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God” (Psalm 90:2). God is a Maximally Great Being, having every great-making property to the maximum.

Superheroes are strong. They’re brave. They’re fun to read about and watch. But God is no mere superhero. God is the greatest being in the universe, and as such he is the only one worthy of our worship.

“Who among the gods

     is like you, Lord?

Who is like you—

    majestic in holiness,

awesome in glory,

     working wonders?” – Exodus 15:10

 

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

/by
Comics and Cosmic Origins

Comics and Cosmic Origins

, ,

By Timothy Fox

Every superhero has an origin story. Spider-man was bitten by a radioactive spider. Batman’s parents were murdered before his very eyes as a child. Superman’s parents sent him on a rocket to earth where he was discovered and raised by the Kents. Origin stories tell the tale of how a superhero gained his powers or what event drove him to fight for truth and justice.

However, we don’t just like origin stories. We need to know how these heroes were created. Why did the Avengers first assemble? How did Wolverine get those awesome claws? We won’t accept a superhero has powers just because. There needs to be a reason why.

And it isn’t just superheroes. We need an origin story as well. Why are we here? How did the universe begin? But while you get to pick your favorite superhero – or even your favorite version of that superhero – that doesn’t work for reality. The universe can have only one true origin story.

Origin of the Universe

So what are our options? One story may start with a God (or gods) who created the universe. Another story may tell that the universe – or at least the materials that formed into the universe as we know it – has always been here. A third option is that there was absolutely nothing in the beginning – no matter, no deities, nothing – but that it still somehow came into existence at some time in the past.

Those are our three options for the universe’s origin story: the universe is eternal, it was created by some deity, or it simply came into existence. How do we know which is the true origin story of reality? Let’s look at the facts:

Big Bang cosmology teaches us that the universe came into existence at some finite point in the past. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states the universe is running out of usable energy, so if the universe were here forever, it would have run out of energy by now. It hasn’t; therefore, the universe must have a starting point. From a logical standpoint, the impossibility of an infinite regress also makes it impossible for the universe to be past-eternal. Thus, our universe must have a definite time of origin.

Now, we would never accept a superhero simply having powers for no reason. Something had to cause The Flash to gain super speed. Something must cause Bruce Banner to become The Hulk. We need some kind of explanation, no matter how bizarre or farfetched. Likewise, would you accept the universe coming into existence without a cause? I should hope not!

The Best Explanation

So then what would be an adequate explanation for the universe coming into existence? It would have to be pretty powerful to create a universe. It must be pretty smart too. It wouldn’t be made up of any of the same stuff of the universe, so it must be immaterial. Since the beginning of the universe is also the beginning of time, the cause of the universe must also be timeless. It must also have a mind to be able to willingly create something. If you put all of these properties (superpowers?) together, it becomes clear that the universe must have a personal creator, one that we would simply call “God.”

The same way that superheroes must have an origin story to explain how they got their powers and decided to battle the forces of evil, the universe must also have an origin story. But unlike fictional stories, there can be only one true origin story for the universe. If we look at the facts of reality and understand that all effects – and superpowers – need causes, the origin story of our universe becomes clear: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

…

But wait!

If every superhero needs an origin story, if the universe needs an origin story, what about God? Doesn’t God need an origin story too?!

To be continued…

 

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

/by
Better Apologetics Communicator

How To Become a Better Apologetics Communicator

Timothy Fox

So you want to be an apologetics writer or speaker. Or maybe you already are one. How can you be a better communicator? Here are five quick pointers:

  1. Watch Your Language

No, I don’t mean profanity. I mean your vocabulary. If you’re like me, you’re immersed in the apologetics world. You read apologetics books, you listen to apologetics podcasts, you devour all things apologetics. So you’re used to the language, the ideas, the jargon. But your audience may not be. Find ways to communicate without using “insider” language. Always imagine what someone completely new to apologetics would think of your writing or talk. Have an “outsider” review your material (more on this later). And if you absolutely must use special apologetics vocabulary, be sure to carefully – and simply– define your terms.

  1. Hone Your Craft

Did you ever have a teacher who was a genius but terrible at teaching? It’s easy for apologists to fall into the same boat. Knowledge is not enough. Sincerity is not enough. If you want to be an effective Christian apologist, you must hone your craft. Read books or blogs on communication. Attend writing workshops or public speaking conferences. A book that has impacted my writing tremendously is On Writing Well by Howard Zinsser. If you’re a writer, buy a copy. Now. And make sure you proofread! Nothing will bring you from professional to amateur in a reader’s eyes faster than spelling and grammatical mistakes. Give your best in all you do. Hone your craft.

  1. Stay on Target

One of the best pieces of communication advice I’ve ever received is to make one point and make it well. Everything you say should strengthen or reinforce your one point. I’ve read many apologetics articles where I was halfway through and wondered “What was the point again?”

You may have an awesome quote or anecdote. But does it really strengthen your point? If not, remove it. You have an objection that kinda, sorta relates to your topic. Delete it. If you have more to say about a subject, write another article. Stay on target so your audience always knows exactly what your point is. Make one point and make it well.

  1. Get Feedback

I hate criticism. Hate it, hate it, hate it. But getting others’ feedback has improved my writing greatly. Have other people review your material and give their honest opinion. You need someone to tell you “this doesn’t make sense,” “your logic is faulty here,” or “this is worded poorly.” I have apologetics “insiders” check my argumentation and logic and I have “outsiders” make sure my content is understandable and readable. Both are important!

  1. Reach the Head and the Heart

The rise of apologetics is a wonderful thing, showing that there is a place for logical types (such as myself!) within a Church that has been largely feelings-driven. However, we apologists run the risk of being too cold and rationalistic, turning into emotionless “apolo-bots.” But not everyone is like us. Some will never be argued into the kingdom of God through evidence and logic. They want to see that Christianity is good and beautiful, that it meets humanity’s greatest needs and desires.

Apologetics doesn’t need more syllogisms. It needs more stories! There’s a reason why C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton have withstood the test of time. They engaged the imagination to bridge man’s reason and passions. If we apologists truly want to impact the culture, we need to reach both the head and the heart.

Conclusion

These are just some pointers on how to be a better apologetics communicator. It takes work, but stay at it. Keep it simple. Keep it clear. Hone your craft and get feedback. Target both the head and the heart of your audience.

For more advice on being a better apologist, check out Sean McDowell’s articles “Why Apologists Need to ‘Lower the Bar’” and “Why Apologetics Has a Bad Name.”

This article originally appeared at SeanMcDowell.org.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Cf3FBb

/by
God Behaving Badly

God Behaving Badly? – Destruction of the Canaanites

By Timothy Fox

This is the second article in my series God Behaving Badly? where I address passages of the Bible where God seems to do some immoral things. In the introductory article, I discussed what it means for an action to be immoral, that it goes against some moral code. However, I argued that God is the best explanation of an objective moral code, so to call something really wrong is actually to provide evidence for God’s existence.

But still, this does not resolve some of the more troubling passages of the Old Testament. God commits and commands some actions that seem to contradict his all-loving, morally perfect nature. So we must examine the actual act or command and see if God had a morally-admissible reason. The one cited most often is the destruction of the Canaanites.

Destruction of the Canaanites

In the Old Testament, God commanded the Israelites to completely wipe out the Canaanites living in a certain region (Deut. 7:1-5; 20:16-18): “you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy” (7:2), “do not leave alive anything that breathes” (20:16). And Israel obeyed. How could a good and loving God possibly command something like this?

King of the Universe

We first must understand who God is. God is not just another ruler of some earthly kingdom. God is Creator of all things and King of the Universe. He gives life and he can take life whenever he wants, however he wants.

Furthermore, there are times that we think it is justified for humans to take another’s life, like in self-defense, to protect others, or in a just war. A general can order his troops to attack and kill enemy combatants. So was God morally justified in destroying the Canaanites?

Judgment, Not Genocide

The Bible is clear that God did not arbitrarily order Israel to kill the Canaanites. They were evil. God told the Israelites “It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations” (Deut. 9:5, emphasis mine). And while the Canaanites committed many wicked acts, I think only one example would suffice: child sacrifice. They would burn their children alive in a fiery furnace as a sacrifice to the god Molech. Just that one act alone would be justification for their complete annihilation.

The irony is that many skeptics question why God doesn’t prevent great evils in the world. But here we have an example of God eradicating a wicked culture, and yet skeptics complain about it!

God did not act impulsively or arbitrarily when he commanded the destruction of the Canaanites. He was judging the wicked. And He even imposed harsh judgment upon his own people, Israel, when they partook of the same wicked actions of the nations surrounding them. After all, one of the reasons God gave for destroying the Canaanites was so Israel would not adopt their evil practices (Deut. 7:3-4; 20:18).

But surely they weren’t all bad, right? Recall the account of Abraham bargaining with God to spare Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18). God played along, knowing that Abraham could not find ten righteous in the cities, and God also knew that the Canaanites were completely and utterly evil. So he commanded them to be destroyed.

Occupy Promised Land

God did not command the Israelites to destroy every Canaanite on earth, only the ones living in the land he was giving to Israel (Deut. 7:1; 20:16). It is definitely possible that many Canaanites fled their cities once they saw the Israelites coming and only the defiant who remained to fight were killed.

What About the Children?

This is extremely hard to comprehend and I admit that it does trouble me. How could a loving God command the Israelites to kill innocent children? Now, it is possible that every child was evacuated from the land. But still, God gave the command to kill them. How do we make sense of this?

As stated above, God gives life, and he can take it however and whenever he wishes. No one is guaranteed a long, peaceful life and to die of old age in one’s sleep. And a child’s quick death by the edge of a sword would be much more merciful than being burned alive as a sacrifice to Molech, wouldn’t it? Plus, what if God knew that if these children were to grow up, they would be just as wicked and depraved as their parents? I strongly believe that young children who die are saved by God’s grace and will inherit eternal life, which is infinitely greater than being raised in the wicked culture of the Canaanites. Thus, God was actually showing these children mercy and calling them home to himself.[1]

God Is Patient and Merciful

God does not enjoy the death of the wicked but patiently waits for us to repent of our sins (Ezek. 18:23, 2 Peter 3:9). Yet, he will only permit evil for so long until he finally passes judgment. God gave the Canaanites 400 years to cease their wickedness. But when their evil reached its peak, then God had the Israelites destroy them (Gen. 15:16).

Conclusion

God commanding the destruction of the Canaanites is a difficult passage to comprehend. But as creator and king of the universe, God has the right to give and take life as he pleases. This was not an act of genocide but divine judgment, as the Canaanites were a thoroughly wicked people. God is patient and merciful, always willing to show mercy and forgive our sins.

Now, if you are not convinced by any of these arguments and believe the destruction of the Canaanites was an immoral act, what moral standard are you judging God by? You cannot call any action truly evil unless an objective moral standard exists, and the best explanation for objective morals and duties is God. But if you choose to reject objective morality instead, then there was nothing wrong with God commanding the destruction of the Canaanites.

As for me, I choose to trust that an all-knowing, all-loving, morally perfect God always does what is best for mankind, even if I cannot always understand it.

For a further discussion of the destruction of the Canaanites, see:

Tim Stratton: TEN Problems with the Canaanite Objection

Clay Jones: http://www.clayjones.net/category/canaanites/

William Lane Craig:

Paul Copan has a different take on the Canaanite destruction. He argues that the passages are hyperbolic, which some disagree with, such as Clay Jones. But his books on the topic are still worth exploring:

[1] In case you’re wondering, this in NO WAY justifies infanticide. This was a unique incident in history in which Israel was a theocracy and directly commanded by God to carry out these actions.

This blog was originally published by FreeThinkingMinistries.com here: http://freethinkingministries.com/god-behaving-badly-destruction-of-the-canaanites/

/by
Canon Conspiracy

The Canon Conspiracy

By Timothy Fox

I’ve always been intrigued by conspiracy theories. New World Order, Illuminati, stuff like that. Christianity has its own share of conspiracy theories, like the existence of “lost” gospels suppressed by the Church. However, we all must wonder why the Bible contains the books that it does. What if there really are texts purposely omitted from the canon that would have produced a radically different Christianity? Far from being mere conspiracy theory, this is an important claim to explore. So, let’s briefly examine four of the most infamous “lost” gospels:

The “Lost” Gospels

Gospel of Thomas

The Gospel of Thomas is the most popular of all “lost” gospels. It was discovered in 1945 within a collection of texts near Nag Hammadi in Egypt.Thomas seems very primitive, being a collection of sayings with no clear narrative and no mention of Jesus’ death and crucifixion. Thus, its proponents consider it an extremely early gospel source.

However, scholars believe Thomas was heavily influenced by the synoptic gospels, and possibly Paul’s writings and the Diatessaron, another ancient Christian text. Also, gnostic elements within the text discredit an early origin, as gnostic reinterpretations of Christianity hadn’t surfaced until the 2nd century. Thus, Thomas should be rejected as an early, independent account of Jesus’ life.

Gospel of Peter

In the late 19th century, fragments of a supposed Gospel of Peter were found in Akhmim, Egypt. Its proponents argue that Peter contains elements of an older Christian tradition that may predate the canonical gospels. However, documents must be dated by existing textual evidence, not by their hypothetical roots. Peter shows signs of dependence on the synoptic gospels and also contains obvious embellishments, including fantastical elements such as a talking cross and giant angels. Most scholars date it to the late second century, and so Peter is not a reliable, independent witness of Jesus’ life.

Gospel of Mary

The idea that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers was popularized by Dan Brown’s bestselling book, The Da Vinci Code. However, its roots lie in the so-called Gospel of Mary. Fragments of it were found in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries and it advances a radically different message than what is contained in the Bible. Mary’s proponents herald it as proof of the patriarchal suppression of women within Christianity.

But while its small size makes dating difficult, scholars place it at the end of the second century, much too late to be considered reliable. Also, no scholar takes the Jesus-Mary coupling seriously as it is mentioned nowhere else in any other early Christian writings.

Gospel of Judas

A gospel written by the scoundrel who betrayed Jesus?! Now this is juicy. Do we get to see the other side of the story? Sorry, Judas is an obvious fake. In fact, church father Irenaeus smacked down this false gospel way back in 180 AD, condemning it as heretical, Gnostic fan fiction.

General Arguments

Let’s now examine some general arguments and statements concerning “lost” gospels:

Bible “Buzzfeed”

The Internet loves lists, and so did the early Christians. In The Canon Debate, Lee McDonald compares thirty lists of New Testament books ranging from the second to sixth century. And of these, the Gospel of Thomas is the only “lost” gospel to appear on any list, and at that, only on one. That’s right, one. Out of thirty. If the Christians closest to Jesus’ time did not consider these “lost” gospels worthy to be included in the biblical canon, then why should we?

Canon by Chance?

If there really is a God who inspired the Bible, do you honestly think he’d leave its compilation to chance or human opinion? Of course not. We should be confident that the Bible contains exactly the books God wants.

Ehrman Closes the Case

For the final nail in the coffin, let’s turn to Bart Ehrman, agnostic (thus, non-Christian) New Testament scholar. In Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code, he writes:

“The oldest and best sources we have for knowing about the life of Jesus… are the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This is not simply the view of Christian historians who have a high opinion of the New Testament and its historical worth; it is the view of all serious historians of antiquity of every kind, from committed evangelical Christians to hardcore atheists.”

Conclusion

Theorizing about secret gospels and canon conspiracies may be fun for some, but there is no truth behind it whatsoever. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the only legitimate Gospels that contain reliable information about the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

 

For a more in-depth examination of these and other alleged “lost” gospels, check out chapter 5 in the updated Evidence That Demands a Verdict, “Gnostic Gospels and Other Non-biblical Texts.”

 Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2r6nJWc

 

/by
% Common Answers Kids God

God Behaving Badly? – Introduction

By Timothy Fox

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

– Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Christians maintain that God is all-good, all-loving, and the ultimate standard of morality. However, many atheists hold the opposite view of God, evidenced by Dawkins’ infamous rant above. They claim that God is a moral monster who committed or commanded many immoral actions in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament.

The purpose of this series, God Behaving Badly? is to respond to these claims. But before examining any specific instances of God’s supposed immoral behavior, we first need to define what we mean by immoral.

Objective vs. Subjective Morality

For an action to be called immoral, it must be contrary to some moral code. So what is this moral code that the atheist is accusing God of breaking? If it is his own personal opinion on how people should act, then who cares what the atheist thinks? It’s tantamount to him saying “I don’t like what God did in the Old Testament.” Well, so what? That’s your opinion.

This is known as subjective morality, meaning that every person, or group of people, decides for him- or herself what is right or wrong. I have my moral code, you have your moral code, and there’s no way of judging between them. But is that really how morality works? No. There are certain actions that are really right or wrong for everyone. For example, it is truly good to love and care for a little child and it is truly evil to harm and abuse her. This applies to all people at all times. And this is what is known as objective morality.

Grand Moral Authority

But where does this moral code come from and why must we follow it? We know that human laws come from a human authority, like a ruler or government. And an objective moral law that binds every human being across all of the time requires a grand moral authority who rules over everyone and everything: God.

God is the ultimate standard of right and wrong. Behaviors that align with God’s nature or commands are good and actions that contradict them are evil. This is how we determine right and wrong. So for an atheist to accuse someone of performing a truly immoral act, he is actually providing evidence for God’s existence.

Conclusion

To complain that God has committed immoral acts is also to admit there is an objective moral law. But God is the best explanation of objective morality. Therefore, calling certain actions truly immoral actually provides evidence for God’s existence.

However, a skeptic may instead argue that God has done things in the Old Testament that contradict his all-loving, morally perfect nature. Then we must examine the actual act or command and see if God had a morally-admissible reason for it. The one cited most often is the destruction of the Canaanites, which will be the subject of my next article.

 

This is an edited version of an article that first appeared on The Mentionables blog.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2AA2dwp

/by
Story of Reality Koukl

Book Review: The Story of Reality by Greg Koukl

,

By Timothy Fox

I’ve waited for this book for a long time. I’ve been listening to Greg Koukl – one of my personal apologetics heroes – on the Stand to Reason podcast for years and he would occasionally mention this book he was working on, The Story of Reality (originally entitled Credo). I had been (not so) patiently waiting for it ever since.

In a sense, I felt like I’ve read the book before since it contains ideas Greg weaves throughout all of his podcasts and talks. But now we have a full survey of the Christian worldview in one location. And it’s fantastic.

Content

The Story of Reality is obviously about a story. But not just any story, the Story, with a capital S. Greg argues that Christianity is not just a mere religion; it is a complete understanding of all reality. And as any story is comprised of four major components – introduction, crisis, resolution, and ending – so does the Story: creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. If any of those pieces are missing from your understanding of the Story, you have an incomplete view of Christianity.

So what is the Christian Story? Greg explains it through the five parts of his book: God, Man, Jesus, Cross, and Resurrection. The Story begins with God because He is the main character, the creator of all things. This part explores competing explanations of what reality is composed of, Matter-ism (materialism) and Mind-ism (pantheism).

Part 2 tells how God crafts man in His own image, which makes humans beautiful and valuable. But man disobeys God, triggering the crisis of the Story and bringing pain and suffering into the world. So now mankind is both beautiful and broken. This explains what every human knows about reality: there is something deeply wrong.

Part 3 introduces us to the Hero, Jesus Christ, the God-man, who came to fix what mankind broke. It answers two important questions: Who is Jesus? and What did Jesus come to do? Greg also briefly discusses a common modern objection that Jesus never existed as an actual person of history.

Cross teaches how the Hero saves us, by sacrificing Himself through a brutal crucifixion. Jesus bears the punishment we deserve by making a divine trade with the Father. All we do is place our trust in Him and accept God’s saving grace.

In Part 5, Greg uses what is known as the minimal facts approach to show that Jesus’ resurrection is a true historical event. The resolution of the Story shows mankind’s two alternatives: perfect mercy or perfect justice. We can either accept God’s offer of salvation or face his wrath as a just God.

Assessment

In my opinion, The Story of Reality offers the best way of explaining Christianity: as a complete Story or worldview. You cannot take the parts you like and leave the ones you don’t. Similarly, there may be aspects of reality that are difficult to understand but best fit within the Christian Story and not into others, like the pieces of a puzzle.

Greg tells the Christian Story simply and thoroughly, packing a ton of truth in under 200 pages. Every part is divided into multiple chapters which span only a few pages each. If you have ever listened to Stand to Reason, you know how skilled Greg is at explaining complex topics, which also applies to this book, making it very readable. This book is appropriate for Christian and seeker alike, so buy a copy for yourself and your unbelieving friend.

Conclusion

Greg has created a hard decision for me. Whenever anyone asked for a recommendation for an apologetics book, my number one choice without hesitation was always his previous book, Tactics. That is the book to learn how to navigate any conversation with ease and grace. But now I’m torn because The Story of Reality is so foundational. It surveys the entire Christian worldview simply and thoroughly while handling common objections.

Maybe next time some asks for my number one apologetics resource, I’ll just flip a coin. But either way, the top honor belongs to Greg Koukl.

―Tim Fox (FreeThinkingMinistires.com)

To purchase “The Story of Reality” visit STR.org

STR logo

 

 

/by