Tag Archive for: truth

Why Should We Trust the Extra-Biblical References to Jesus

Why Should We Trust the Extra-Biblical References to Jesus?

,

By Jeremy Linn

We received a great question on our Instagram page this week:

“How do we know that the extra-biblical sources which mention Jesus are trustworthy? Josephus, Tacitus, and the rest weren’t eyewitnesses; they never knew Jesus.”

The questioner here is referring to ancient historical accounts – especially written by the historians Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus – which mention Jesus and give us some information about him. Josephus describes Jesus as the brother of James in his work Antiquities of the Jews and also provides the most well-known extra-biblical reference to Jesus. Tacitus makes reference to Jesus’ death under Pontius Pilate in his work Annals.

As the questioner stated, Josephus and Tacitus both were not eyewitnesses to the events of Jesus’ life. Josephus was born a few years after the events of Jesus’ life and was mostly involved in Jewish political matters (and not in the early Christian church). Tacitus also lived after Jesus – a few decades later – and focused on the politics and history of Rome (an area not heavily reached by the Christian church at the time).

Since these two historians were not eyewitnesses, how can we know to trust their references to Jesus? There are a few things we need to consider when answering this question:

  1. Ancient accounts of historical events were often written by people who lived after the events happened

In other words, they were not eyewitnesses of the events. Still, in these cases, we can still learn basic facts about the events which took place. For example, the earliest source we have about the events of Alexander the Great was written by a historian who lived around 300 years after the life of Alexander. Even with this time gap, we can consider many facts about Alexander to be reliable and true.

  1. Almost all ancient historical accounts were written within a culture focused on oral tradition

This focus means the details of the events were transmitted verbally within a community that could check the facts of the events with each other. This method of transmitting information becomes powerful when multiple people witness an event, as all the eyewitnesses can work together to reach a reliable account of the events that took place.

This oral focus gives us a primary reason why the writing of historical events tended to happen later – there was little need to immediately preserve events through writing when people were used to preserving events orally within their community. It also explains how a written account written years after a historical event can still be reliable – a reasonably accurate oral tradition could have already solidified by the time the events were written down.

  1. The works of Josephus and Tacitus are generally reliable. 

Tacitus is praised by historians for being a reliable source on the history of ancient Rome. Josephus’ reliability has been called into question because of his tendency to exaggerate and because of a strong bias towards Jews. However, he has provided us with valuable information about historical figures like Herod the Great, and information about the inner workings of Jewish ritual and culture. Overall, Josephus is reliable in providing basic historical facts about the lives of Jews.

Once we establish the general reliability of these authors, we can turn to the reliability of specific historical accounts they wrote, and specific passages within those accounts.

  1. There is no reason to question Tacitus’ reference to Jesus being killed under Pontius Pilate. 

The language used in passage 15.44 – saying that Jesus suffered the extreme penalty under Pontius Pilate, is consistent with other works of Tacitus. There is nothing out of the ordinary noted in this passage which would make us think the text was tampered with. And we even have archaeological evidence for the existence of Pilate – through an inscription found 50 years ago, and a ring found this year.

  1. We can find basic facts about Jesus in the works of Josephus. 

The references to Jesus in Josephus’ Antiquities get a bit more complicated. There is one reference to Jesus as the brother of James, which appears in every copy we have of the Antiquities. The reference doesn’t seem to be out of the ordinary in terms of the flow and style of the writings of Josephus. It is reasonable to consider this passage reliable.

However, in the most well-known reference to Jesus called the Flavius Testimonium, there is some commentary we would not expect Josephus to make based on his other writings and based on the fact he is a Jew. For example, one copy of the Antiquities includes the comment that Jesus was “the Christ,” which would be highly unlikely for him to say (after all, that would make him more of a Christian than a Jew!).

The inclusion of this commentary makes us question the details given in the passage, and brings up the possibility of an error in copying the passage or an intentional change in the passage by readers who lived after Josephus. That doesn’t mean we need to throw out the entire passage – it just means certain details are in question. When we eliminate the questionable details, we can still pull basic facts about Jesus in the passage, such as he was someone who did “marvelous works.”

  1. These references are not the only sources we have on Jesus. 

Let’s say we do throw the references in Tacitus and Josephus out. We still have the letters of Paul, the synoptic gospels, the writings of early Church fathers, and a few other extra-biblical references that provide some information on Jesus. Even the Gnostic gospels from the 2nd Century point us to some very basic facts about Jesus (such as his existence!)

The references in Tacitus and Josephus give us a greater sense of confidence in Jesus’ existence, and some key facts about his life – especially his ability to do things that people considered to be miraculous or at least “wonderous.” The references also point us to his death, an event that most Muslims and some skeptics deny. And through other extra-biblical sources, we can see that early followers revered Jesus highly and elevated him to the status of God.

Again, I didn’t intend for this post to provide the definitive answer for the reliability of extra-biblical references to Jesus. But these six considerations will definitely give you something to think about. No matter how we view the references to Jesus in Josephus and Tacitus, one thing is for sure – we have a wealth of evidence supporting the existence of Jesus and the basic claims that Christians make about his life.

 

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

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2FZeFc9

/by
A Quick History Lesson

A Quick History Lesson

,

By Nick Peters

Objection:

The Bible is a compendium of fireside tales and fables recounted orally for generations by goat herders and primitive tribes from the stone age until writing was invented, and then again many different sources, transliterations, and versions were written down.

A Quick History Lesson

There were no grand central universities to organize the many various versions of these origin stories. They were for entertainment, and to answer the questions of the many fears and mysteries of our universe since there was no science yet. This is the Old Testament.

The ‘new’ Testes is also hearsay since these letters, ‘gospels’ and stories were written by the loyal faithful, the camp followers, not by objective historians at that particular time, or by any contemporary writers, and these tales were written many years after the supposed events of this mythical Jesus. Thus, there is no verifiable evidence of a Jesus in real history.

Then many of these stories, but not all, were compiled for one self-absorbed converted Roman Emperor for his expressed purpose of conquest and control of the people of Europe for his Holy Roman Empire. He recognized that this was the perfect religion/mythology for domination of the populace. Half the stories were ignored by the Nicean Bishops, and none have been proven to be based on fact.

This ‘Bable’ is backed up by absolutely no facts and evidence.

– Brien

Nick Peters’ Response:

I have been asked by Tim Stratton to write a reply to Brien as he has been making these same objections in various groups on social media — including the FreeThinking Ministries Facebook page. Tim refers to it as a “softball objection.” I really think that’s inappropriate because when you play softball, there’s an actual target to swing at.

Let’s go through and consider Brien’s objections:

“The Bible is a compendium of fireside tales and fables recounted orally for generations by goat herders and primitive tribes from the stone age until writing was invented, and then again many different sources, transliterations, and versions were written down.”

Let’s begin by noting that no evidence is given to support any of these assertions. It’s all a “just so” story. Somehow, Brien knows these stories go back to the Stone Age. How? What evidence has been brought forward? Nothing. There’s also this implication that people who are goat herders specifically — and all primitives — must be therefore stupid. It’s one of my favorite claims to see: “Ancient People Were Stupid!”

Then we are told writing was invented and many different sources, transliterations, and versions were written down. Well, a source is something that’s used when writing, so that part doesn’t make sense. Then transliteration supposedly, but that’s using another alphabet to write a message, so what message was being transliterated if the alphabet hadn’t been written? Then he claims there are many versions, but where are these versions? Can Brien show them? We could recommend that he read a book like this, but that’s likely too much work. (By the way, for those financially challenged libraries offer these books for free.)

“There were no grand central universities to organize the many various versions of these origin stories. They were for entertainment, and to answer the questions of the many fears and mysteries of our universe since there was no science yet.

This is the Old Testament.”

That’s true. There were no grand central universities. After all, there was no Christianity yet, and Christians started the majority of those universities, including the universities that were founded in America. In the medieval period, there were plenty of universities founded by Christians. As for why the stories were written, again, we have a “just so” story. It’s also assumed the accounts are meant to be read as scientific accounts. I disagree. I go with John Walton in saying the accounts are aimed at dealing with God declaring the function of creation in being a cosmos for Him to dwell in. Still, Brien has given zero evidences or sources for any of this.

“The ‘new’ Testes is also hearsay since these letters, ‘gospels’ and stories were written by the loyal faithful, the camp followers, not by objective historians at that particular time, or by any contemporary writers, and these tales were written many years after the supposed events of this mythical Jesus.”

Awwww. “The New Testes.” Isn’t that cute? I bet Brien sure feels like a big boy using terminology like that. Well, give him a cookie. So the first statement we have is that the Gospels are hearsay. On what grounds? First, they were written by the loyal faithful.

I was not aware that being loyal to a cause meant that your account was hearsay or even dare I say it, unreliable. They are also contrasted to objective historians. Keep in mind, Jews today have the best holocaust museums out there, and I’m quite sure they have a bias. As for objective historians, no historian is purely objective. If you write about something, it’s because you care about it.

Besides that, which historians should have written about Jesus? How many of them are going to take seriously the claims of a crucified criminal in the backwaters of Judea being a Messiah figure? No more than most elite will go and track down a Benny Hinn claim.

‘Finally, these were not by contemporary writers and were written many years after the events.’

Well, usually historical accounts are written after the events. That’s the way it works. Next, this is also common in the ancient world. Plutarch would write about events that took place centuries before he lived. The first biographies of Alexander the Great that we have come centuries later.

Next, there is still no evidence given. Perhaps Brien could someday learn to interact with a work like this one. Does Brien have any methodology whereby to date an ancient manuscript? Does he have a methodology to determine authorship?

Finally, this would only apply to the Gospels. Seven of the thirteen epistles attributed to Paul are universally accepted in scholarship, and those seven are all we need to make a case for the resurrection of Jesus.

“Thus, there is no verifiable evidence of a Jesus in real history.”

At this point, we just put our heads back and roar in laughter! Jesus mythicism is to history what Intelligent Design (ID) is said to be to science. (I am not a supporter of ID anyway.) Wait. That’s not accurate. There are far more Ph.D.’s in science that will give some backing to it than there are Ph.D.’s in the New Testament or ancient history that will support mythicism. In other words, if you think ID and/or any denial of evolution is junk science, you have no grounds to be supporting mythicism.

Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey are both serious NT scholars who have written on this topic. They definitely represent the position of most skeptical scholars on this issue. It’s just not a serious claim. It leaves too many questions to explain and lacks much explanatory power itself.

“Then many of these stories, but not all, were compiled for one self-absorbed converted Roman Emperor for his expressed purpose of conquest and control of the people of Europe for his Holy Roman Empire. He recognized that this was the perfect religion/mythology for domination of the populace. Half the stories were ignored by the Nicean Bishops, and none have been proven to be based on fact.”

Poor Brien doesn’t know his history. The Holy Roman Empire started in 800 with Charlemagne. The Council of Nicea was under Constantine in 325. Constantine didn’t have much to do with it and Athanasius, the grand hero of the event, went into exile numerous times afterward as Arians took power. Brien tells us half the stories were ignored by the bishops. No evidence is given of this, and the Council of Nicea was about the Arian controversy. It was not about the canon of Scripture. The first listing we have that mirrors the Protestant Bible comes from Athanasius in 367.

Brien tells us this was the perfect mythology to control the populace. Why? No reason is given. All we have is assertions of faith.

“This ‘Bable’ is backed up by absolutely no facts and evidence.”

You might think this if you ignore all scholarship and archaeology and everything else. It seems as if Brien has never read any scholarship. In an irony, he is like many pastors in many pulpits that he would decry. Reading Brien’s writing reminds me of the joke about the fundamentalist pastor writing the sermon outline for Sunday and putting on the side, “Weak point. Pound pulpit harder.” It would remind me more if there were any points here at all. Brien is just a “fundamentalist pastor” for the other side giving statements of faith without evidence.

Irony is funny, isn’t it?

 

Nick Peters has a passion for apologetics. He has a Bachelor’s Degree in preaching and Bible from Johnson University and is currently working on a Master’s in the New Testament. He and his wife are both diagnosed with Aspergers and have a cat named Shiro. His other interests include reading, video games, and popular TV shows like The Big Bang Theory and The Flash. Nick says that he is extremely sarcastic, so you’ve been warned! Make sure to check out his Deeper Waters website here at www.deeperwatersapologetics.com

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

/by
Do You Know What’s True And Can You Handle It

Do You Know What’s True And Can You Handle It?

,

By Alex McElroy

IS IT TRUE, O Christ in Heaven,
That the highest suffer most?
That the strongest wander furthest,
And more helplessly are lost?
That the mark of rank in nature
Is capacity for pain?
And the anguish of the singer
Makes the sweetness of the strain?
Is it true, O Christ in Heaven,
That whichever way we go
Walls of darkness must surround us,
Things we would but cannot know?
That the infinite must bound us
Like a temple veil unrent,
Whilst the finite ever wearies,
So that none’s therein content?
Is it true, O Christ in Heaven,
That the fullness yet to come
Is so glorious and so perfect
That to know would strike us dumb?
That if ever for a moment
We could pierce beyond the sky
With these poor dim eyes of mortals,
We should just see God and die?

by Sarah Williams

People will always settle for a feel-good lie until the truth is fully presented. What is true about your nature, your identity, and your purpose? What criteria do you use to assess what’s true? We live in a day and an age when the truth has migrated from the boundaries of objectivity into the fluid realm of preference. If it is possible for two individuals to live by separate truths, even if one of those truths is not actually true, we are content with the ramifications as long as no one’s truth harms the other person.

However, is it possible to live in a world where we no longer know what to trust or even how to determine the standard to assess what we should trust? How can we rear our children in such a world where what we teach today may not be palatable tomorrow and therefore deemed as ‘not true’? Do you truly know who you are? Is that something that can be known? Is it possible that there is only One who has the potential to know all of us equally and perfectly? I believe so, but many will say that the existence of such a One is not true at all.

TRUTH IS A PERSON

Many people make audacious statements. We are left to decipher them and determine which are valid and which are mere boasts. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6a). In John 18:37, Jesus is talking to Pontius Pilate and says, “Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” First, we must notice that Jesus didn’t claim to know the truth. He claimed to be the truth. Only in the Christian worldview is truth not simply a concept, but a person. This cannot be overstated. The claim is significant but can it be trusted?

By rising from the grave after being fully executed, Jesus demonstrated in undeniable fashion that He was telling the truth about everything He said, including His claim to “be” the truth. Some deny the resurrection, but how do they account for the inexplicable conversion of Saul to Paul or of Jesus’ half-brothers Jude and James who mocked His claims to be the Messiah (John 7:3-6) but later became faithful followers of Him? The tomb is still empty, and over 500 saw a resurrected Jesus (1 Cor. 15:6). Is it possible that some are still willing to settle for a ‘feel good’ lie because they aren’t prepared to deal with the ramifications of the clear and present truth? Do you know the truest person to ever live?

TRUTH IS IN YOUR PURPOSE

The poet above asks God, “Is it true, O Christ in Heaven, that the fullness yet to come is so glorious and so perfect that to know would strike us dumb?” The apostle Paul writes, “Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory” (2 Cor. 4:16-17). Yes, the fullness yet to come will be glorious, and we may very well be awestricken, but until then we have a purpose to fulfill.

“The Lord will fulfill his purpose for me; your steadfast love, O Lord, endures forever. Do not forsake the work of your hands” (Psalm 138:8). The truth is that you and I have a purpose for being here. How we got here is irrelevant as are many of the unanswerable questions that we ask in this life. But we must remember that our forever has already begun, and our purpose is for such a time as this. The role you and I play in advancing His holy plan can only be played well if we adhere to what is true and live our lives accordingly.

He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him alright. – Blaise Pascal

 

Alex McElroy is an international speaker, author, blogger, leadership advisor, and the Pastor of Education at New Life Covenant Southeast Church, with over 20,000 members led by Pastor John F. Hannah.  Alex has been serving in both youth and teaching ministries at New Life for over 12 years.  In his role, he teaches Discipleship class designed for adults to learn, fellowship, and grow in their faith within a small group setting. Alex also trains hundreds of teachers and ministers to deliver lessons in proper lifestyle, Biblical study, focused preparation, and Apologetics in order to maximize their effectiveness in and for the Kingdom of God.

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

/by
Book Review Scientism and Secularism by J. P. Moreland

Book Review: Scientism and Secularism by J. P. Moreland

,

By Timothy Fox (Orthodox Fox)

J. P. Moreland is one of the most prominent Christian thinkers of our time, and I’ve been greatly impacted by his works, such as Love Your God With All Your Mind and Kingdom Triangle. In his latest popular-level work, Scientism and Secularism (Crossway, 2018), Moreland addresses one of the most dangerous ideologies facing our culture and church. But the true danger of scientism is not that is necessarily being argued for, it is simply assumed to be true. So Moreland’s task in this book is not just to refute scientism but to first expose it and how it has influenced society and Christianity.

But first, what is scientism? It “is the view that the hard sciences – like chemistry, biology, physics, and astronomy – provide the only genuine knowledge of reality” (26). Obviously, this would place theology outside the bounds of knowledge and leave religion to the realm of mere belief, feelings, and opinions. Thus, Moreland has quite the hill to climb.

Content

In the first three chapters, Moreland defines scientism and explains its influence on the church and the university. The following three explain the failings of scientism: how it is self-defeating, how it is the enemy of science, and how weak scientism – the belief that science is the best way to know truth – is no better than strong – the belief that science is the only way to know truth.

In chapter 7, Moreland discusses three areas that we all know internally or intuitively and that science cannot account for logic and math, our personal conscious states, and moral knowledge. In the case of logic and math, science cannot operate without them. I view chapter 8 as a bonus chapter that delves deeper into consciousness and neuroscience. Those interested in science will love it, and those who aren’t can skip it. But laypersons who wish to learn more about these topics will definitely need a few thorough reads through the chapter.

Chapter 9 explains the importance of philosophy in science, how it forms the foundation and framework by which proper science can be performed. This is another of the more challenging chapters, containing a lot of philosophical content and terminology. But since scientism is a philosophical assumption about the nature of truth, it is an extremely important chapter and should not be skipped. Moreland continues explaining the importance of philosophy in science in chapter 10, in which he provides examples for the authority and autonomy of philosophy.

The next three chapters deal with how we explain reality. Chapter 11 shows the difference between scientific and personal explanations and introduces the concept of methodological naturalism, the idea that “one must seek only natural causes/explanations for scientific data” (121). Then in the next two chapters, Moreland outlines the shortcomings of methodological naturalism. Chapter 12 is another critical chapter in that it discusses five things that theism can explain but science cannot: the origin of the universe; the origin of the laws of nature; the fine-tuning of the universe; the origin of consciousness; and the existence of moral, rational, and aesthetic laws. While this chapter is only a few pages long, every Christian should explore these topics more as they not only undercut scientism but are also powerful arguments for the existence of God. Chapter 13 discusses two competing Christian views to the origin of life, Intelligent Design, and Theistic Evolution, which are also important topics that require further study.

The final two chapters discuss integrating science and Christianity, explaining why it is important and offering five ways to do it.

Assessment

This is a critical book for the Christian as scientism is possibly the number one enemy facing the church today. As the belief that science is the only way to know truth becomes more widespread, the claims of Christianity simply cannot be taken seriously by society.

Depending on your prior knowledge, this may be a challenging read – not because of Moreland’s writing style but by the nature of the content. Moreland himself urges the reader to read it again in the book’s epilogue, and it may require multiple thorough reads to fully grasp. Thankfully, the book is only around 200 pages in length, and it includes plenty of footnotes and a selected bibliography for further study, as well as a glossary since technical vocabulary cannot be avoided.

Pretty much everything Moreland writes is a must-read, and Scientism and Secularism is no different. Every Christian is going to encounter scientism of some form, and so we all must be on our guard to defend against it. J. P. Moreland has provided us another valuable resource in our ongoing struggle with a secular culture.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2DTflz1

/by
10 Signs the Christian Authors You’re Following are...

10 Signs the Christian Authors You’re Following are (Subtly) Teaching Unbiblical Ideas

By Natasha Crain 

My friend, Alisa Childers, recently wrote a review of the bestselling book, Girl, Wash Your Face, by Rachel Hollis. It started a firestorm of online discussion about what makes someone a “Christian” author, what responsibility a self-identified Christian author has in promoting ideas consistent with biblical faith, and what harm there can be for Christians reading books that contain nonbiblical ideas.

I personally haven’t read the book, so I’m not going to comment on it specifically. But I will say I was extremely disappointed and saddened to see the kinds of comments supporters of the book wrote:

“It wasn’t meant to be a devotional.”

“She’s not teaching theology.”

“Our job is not to seek people out and hate them.”

“Stop competing! Just imagine what the non-Christians think about the McJudgies! We need to focus inward because the project within ourself is the most important work we will accomplish. Don’t use your blog to bring someone down.”

Unfortunately, such comments are representative of the lack of discernment common in the church today. If Alisa fairly characterized the claims of Hollis’s book, Hollis is promoting ideas that conflict with a biblical worldview. And when there is a concern that millions of women are consuming content from a Christian author that can lead them to embrace unbiblical ideas, we should be raising a warning flag and calling out for discernment in the body of Christ.

It’s not about being a “McJudgey.”

It’s about discerning biblical truth from non-truth…something the Bible consistently tells us to do.

While this post isn’t directly related to parenting (which I normally write about), it’s something that affects parenting. When parents readily incorporate popular but unbiblical ideas into their worldview, those ideas will affect how they raise their kids and the nature of the worldview they pass on.

The following are 10 signs that the Christian authors you’re following may be subtly teaching unbiblical ideas. I say “subtly” because I think most people would spot a problem immediately if a Christian said they didn’t believe in the Trinity. But it’s just as important to identify when less obvious warning signs—like the following—are present.

  1. They say, “I love Jesus but…”

It’s become popular for writers to trumpet that they love Jesus but (fill in the blank). When you see a sentence start this way, be prepared for one of two things to follow.

First, it may be something that the author knows is contrary to what Jesus would have approved of. For example, if you Google “I love Jesus but,” you’ll find a whole industry of shirts, mugs, and other things that say “I love Jesus, but I like to cuss.” Is this really something that glorifies the God you say you love? If you have to use “but” as a contrasting word between loving Jesus and making a statement about what you do and/or say, it’s probably not something to be proud of. When authors do this to be more likable to their audience, it’s often a sign that other unbiblical ideas will follow.

Second, it may be something that isn’t in contrast to loving Jesus at all, but the author wants you to think they’re different than the negative stereotype of Christians. For example, they’ll say something like, “I love Jesus, but I’ll never claim I have all the answers”… implying, of course, that Christians normally claim they have all the answers. Non-believers may think Christians feel this way because Christians believe Christianity is a matter of objective truth, but that doesn’t mean Christians claim to have all answers or that acceptance of objective truth is problematic.

  1. They make it a point to separate a relationship with Jesus from religion.

Unfortunately, the idea that Jesus somehow hates religion has become popular even amongst Christians who otherwise hold biblically solid beliefs. If Jesus truly hated religion, the popularity of this idea wouldn’t be an issue. The problem is that Jesus doesn’t hate religion. He hates false religion. Without writing an entire post on this (there’s a whole chapter in my next book about it), the bottom line is that there’s no need to separate Jesus from religion that is true. Christianity is simply the name for the religion whose set of beliefs center on who Jesus is and that calls us to know, worship, serve and obey Him. In other words, Christianity is a religion centered on a relationship.

When authors start writing negatively about “organized religion” in general, and place that in opposition to their own personal relationship with Jesus, it’s often because they are going to 1) challenge the idea of objective truth (thereby suggesting that uniform religious belief found in “organized religion” is bad) and/or 2) value their personal spiritual insights over God’s revelation to humankind through the Bible (personal experience becomes authority).

True religion glorifies God (James 1:27) and isn’t something Christians should denounce.

  1. There’s a lot of talk about authenticity and messiness.

Authenticity simply means honesty. At first blush, it doesn’t sound like that has anything to do with the Bible, and, if anything, it seems like it should go hand-in-hand with the Bible. However, in practice, authors who emphasize how “messy” their lives are and how “authentic” they are going to be with you about that messiness often use the opportunity to normalize sin.

As with several of these points, this is not always the case. Some authors who speak in these terms use it as an opportunity to point back to God. But I’ve seen it go the other way more often than not, so it makes the list.

  1. They promote the value of questions over the value of answers.

Another approach to “spirituality” that has become trendy is focusing more on raising questions about faith than sharing biblically sound answers. Authors who identify as progressive Christians sometimes go so far as to accuse other Christians of being afraid of questions and look skeptically upon anyone who attempts to answer the questions they raise.

Now, if you’ve read my blog for any amount of time (or my books, for that matter), you know that I’m all about raising tough faith questions with your kids…questions are extremely important. But questions also need to be addressed to the extent we can, given what the Bible tells us.

People who value questions more than answers are often uncomfortable with the idea of objective truth—that there is a truth independent of our personal experience. Everything Jesus taught assumed that there is truth independent of our personal experience and that He is that truth. If an author is uncomfortable with the idea of objective truth, they’re uncomfortable with Jesus.

  1. They confuse uncontroversial statements with moral positions.

One extremely popular author wrote on her Facebook page recently that she wanted to make it very clear where she stands on social issues. Getting “clear” on these things included making a completely uncontroversial statement for any Christian: she “cherishes the humanity of the LGBT community.”

All Christians should cherish the humanity of every community because we are all made in the image of God.

That’s never been a question.

But, of course, she said this implying that anyone who holds to a biblical view of marriage somehow does not cherish the humanity of the LGBT community. It’s a very misleading move to make a statement that no Christian should disagree with in order to suggest it’s something that those who take a different position than the author on a moral issue would disagree with.

  1. They focus almost entirely on Christian action to the exclusion of belief.

Someone recently told me that people in his denomination don’t value apologetics (why there’s good reason to believe Christianity is true) because their apologetics are in their actions. This attitude, effectively, is what you see with many popular Christian authors today, even when they say nothing about apologetics specifically. For them, Christianity is all about what you do in the world; it’s no longer about believing in Jesus as Lord and coming to a saving knowledge of Him. This kind of Christianity is hardly different than secular humanism. It just comes with a fond but relatively mild appreciation for Jesus on top…like a candied cherry on a sundae of good works that can easily be removed.

The Bible is clear that belief matters…in an eternally significant way. For more on this, see my post, Is How We Live More Important Than What We Believe?

  1. They use the word “faith” to mean some kind of unbounded belief system about God.

One bestselling Christian author shared the following quote on social media recently: “Faith is not a belief. Faith is what is left when your beliefs have all been blown to hell.” This, sadly, was met with thousands of likes, loves, and shares. It’s also a biblically inaccurate definition of faith.

The Bible does not present faith as blind belief or as believing in spite of evidence. The Bible repeatedly shows that faith is believing in what you have good reason to believe is true.

 Biblical faith is not the broken pieces that remain when you’ve lost a bunch of other beliefs, as this quote suggests. Any time you see an author promoting an inaccurate idea of faith, it should be a warning flag. In this case, the author is well known for writing books about her struggles with the Bible. It’s not surprising at all that she would share such a quote.

  1. They regularly encourage you to “be true to yourself.”

If you frequently hear from an author that you need to be true to yourself, you can bet they’re on the shaky theological ground. As my 9-year-old daughter said when I asked if she thought people should be true to themselves, “You shouldn’t always be true to yourself, because if you want to be a murderer that would be really wrong.” #basiclogic

Simply put, this kind of “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” secular wisdom is just that…secular. It’s not very inspirational to be more true to yourself. As Christians, we should be inspired to be less like our sinful nature and more like Jesus.

  1. They treat judging others as the ultimate sin.

For many people today, the ultimate sin is judging another. Jesus doesn’t tell us not to judge…He tells us not to hypocritically judge and to judge with right judgment (e.g., John 7:24). Friends, we have to be discerning! Discerning between truth and non-truth doesn’t mean you are spiritually condemning a person, as people so often believe. Only God knows the human heart, and we are surely not called to determine whether someone else is saved. But we sure can and should address what the Bible says about right belief and right action. If you’re following someone who says things like, “Don’t stick around if want to judge others!” “Our job isn’t to judge, it’s to love!” or “This is a judgment-free zone!” steer clear. It likely means something very different than you think.

  1. They make claims about what it means to love others without addressing what it means to love God.

When we follow the greatest commandment—to love God—it informs what it means to follow the second commandment—to love others. It’s not up to us to define the word. There are many authors (who identify themselves as Christians) today who champion unbiblical ideas of what it means to love others, and it’s rooted in ignorance of the commandment to first love God. I saw one such author this week say that Christians are unloving for being opposed to abortion, for example. But when we first love God and understand that we are made in His image and every human, therefore, has extraordinary value, we simply can’t conclude that loving others means allowing them to take the life of another human, no matter the circumstance.

Be vigilant. Test everything. And hold fast to what is good and true.

 

Natasha Crain runs her Christian apologetics blog for parents, ChristianMomThoughts.com. She obtained her MBA in Marketing and Statistics from UCLA and obtained a Christian apologetic certificate from the University of Biola. She currently resides in California with her husband Bryan along with her three young children.

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

/by
Worldviews Shaping Culture Can You Name America’s Top 3

Worldviews Shaping Culture: Can You Name America’s Top 3?

By Mikel del Rosario

You’ve got a worldview. Everyone does.

What’s a worldview? It’s everything you believe about what’s real and what really matters in life. Ronald Nash defines it like this in his book, Worldviews In Conflict:

A worldview is a set of presuppositions (or assumptions) which we hold (either consciously or subconsciously) about the basic makeup of our world.

J.P. Moreland observed that there are three major worldviews dominating the debate in our culture today. Here’s a quick rundown of America’s top three:

  1. Historic Christianity

This is the main version of something called ethical monotheism. This is the idea that God’s real; that God created us and gave us a real moral law. And all people everywhere are obligated to obey the moral law—whether they want to or not. Some things, like loving your parents, are really good. Other things, like hurting a little girl for no reason, are really wrong.

The next two represent the major movements of the opposite camp.

  1. Scientific Naturalism

What’s this? Think X-Men. No matter how out there something might seem (like bending metal just by thinking about it), absolutely everything can be boiled down to physical processes (like a genetic mutation). This view says only the physical world is real. You’re pretty much just your brain. And everything you do is just the result of things like your genetics and how you were raised.

Another key idea: Science is the only way we know things. If you can’t measure something in a lab or use science to prove it, you can’t know it. So you can say you know Advil will help with your headache. But you can’t say you actually know God exists.

  1. Postmodern Relativism

For this one, think Oprah. All truth and reality is relative to you or your community: “That’s true for you but not for me.” It’s supposed to be a feel-good, politically correct worldview where no one’s perspective is ever wrong about anything—especially when it comes to spiritual things (unless you happen to think Christianity is actually true).

Another key idea is words don’t really mean anything. You decide what words mean to you. For example, it doesn’t matter if this post is about worldviews. Maybe to you, this article means I’m giving away iPads to everyone who shares this post on Facebook! I’m not.

Really, I’m not.

These two worldviews agree you can’t know things about stuff you can’t see, touch, taste, hear or smell. This directly challenges historic Christianity which teaches that we can know the truth (John 8:32). J.P. Moreland says: “We are in a struggle for the hearts and minds of the American people against scientific naturalism and postmodern relativism…Our religion is a religion that is based on knowledge.”

So, there you have it. The top three worldviews shaping American culture: Christianity, Naturalism, and Postmodernism. Which one most shapes your views?

 

Mikel is a Ph.D. student in New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center, and Adjunct Professor of Apologetics and World Religion at William Jessup University. 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2LW1rvx

/by
Science And Imperialism

Science And Imperialism

, ,

By Terrell Clemmons

The Wall Street Journal commissioned Richard Dawkins and Karen Armstrong to respond independently to the question, “Where does evolution leave God?” Their answers became an article in the Life & Style section called Man vs. God.

Richard Dawkins said of Darwinian evolution, “We know, as certainly as we know anything in science, that this is the process that has generated life on our own planet.” Evolution, Dawkins concluded with his characteristic wit, is God’s “pink slip.” In other words, since science says Evolution is, we say God isn’t. (I discussed Dawkins’s argument for the non-existence of God in an earlier Salvo article.)

Karen Armstrong’s response was more artistic. She spoke of two complementary ways of arriving at truth, which the Greeks called mythos and logos, both of which were recognized by scholars as legitimate. Logos was reason, logic, intellect. But logos alone couldn’t speak to the deep question human beings ask like, What is the meaning of life? and, Why do bad things happen to good people? For that, she said, people turned to mythos – stories, regardless of whether or not they were true, that helped us make sense out of the difficulties of life. They were therapeutic. We could think of them as an early form of psychology.

“Religion was not supposed to provide explanations that lay within the competence of reason but to help us live creatively with realities for which there are no easy solutions and find an interior haven of peace; today, however, many have opted for unsustainable certainty instead. But can we respond religiously to evolutionary theory? Can we use it to recover a more authentic notion of God?

Darwin made it clear [that] we cannot regard God simply as a divine personality, who single-handedly created the world. This could direct our attention away from the idols of certainty and back to the ‘God beyond God.’ The best theology is a spiritual exercise, akin to poetry.”

Not only is the veracity of any religious story irrelevant, she seems to be saying, it is incorrect to believe any account concerning God as objectively true. To do so is to construct an idol of certainty. How do we know that? Because of the certainty of Darwinian evolution.

Her response, at bottom, isn’t much different from the atheist’s. Evolution is. God isn’t. But some of us like to imagine that he is.

Notice the source Dawkins and Armstrong consult for certain truth: Science. Why? Because Science proclaims what is.

The questions I’m pondering and posing are (1) At what point do the proclamations of science become imperialistic? and (2) At what point does an appropriate respect for science morph into worship?

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2w17uJN

/by
Is Naturalism a Good Reason to Rally_

Is Naturalism a Good Reason to Rally?

,

By Mikel Del Rosario

Today, I’m featuring a special guest post from one of my former mentors, R. Scott Smith, Associate Professor of Ethics and Christian Apologetics at Biola University. Dr. Smith was my adviser while I was doing my graduate studies in the Christian Apologetics Program at Biola University. I studied under him in the areas of ethics, philosophy and historical theology.

His guest post might sound a bit technical if you’re totally new to philosophy, but thinking hard about this stuff might help you understand naturalism more–maybe a bit more than your atheist friends. His latest work is aimed at the upper division undergraduate audience, or those with some philosophy training: Naturalism and Our Knowledge of Reality.

Guest Post by R. Scott Smith

A Good Reason to Rally?

At the “Reason Rally” in Washington, secular, atheistic people gathered in support of “reason” over [mere] “faith” of religious people. Not so hidden in the background was the widely-held cultural mindset that science uses reason and uniquely gives us knowledge of truth (the facts). But religion gives us just personal opinions and preferences, not knowledge. This bifurcation often is called the “fact-value split.”

Naturalism: “There Is No God”

This science is naturalistic; only what is scientifically knowable (i.e., by the five senses) is real. In principle, such things as God, souls, and mental states (i.e., non-physical things like thoughts, beliefs, and experiences) cannot be known to be real. Or, simplifying, they don’t exist. Yet, we can test natural, physical stuff scientifically, so that is what is believed to be real. That view of reality is the philosophy undergirding atheistic evolution by natural selection (NS) – naturalism. There’s only the physical universe, without anything non-physical.

Until Darwin, many believed there were non-physical essential natures that separated living things into kinds. Afterward, biological classification is understood as one interconnected “tree of life” – all living things share a common ancestor.

Naturalism, Truth, and Knowledge

Now, how do we know what’s true on this view? Consider Daniel Dennett, a leading philosopher, neuroscientist, and New Atheist, who takes evolution by NS very seriously. For him, NS is blind – without any goal planning, thinking about some desired outcome, believing something, or trying to make something happen. And since non-physical mental states aren’t real, the qualities they would have, e.g., their representing something (their being of or about something) also would not be real. There are only brain states, physical patterns, and behavior we take (interpret) to be about something.

Dennett realizes that if there were real, intrinsic (something that’s so due to what kind of thing it is), essential natures, there could be a “deeper” fact (beyond just behavior) of what our thoughts (or beliefs, experiences) are really about. Just due to what those mental states would be essential, they really could be of their objects, and not something else.

But, since evolution by NS denies any such essences, Dennett says we only interpret the behavior of people (and sophisticated computers and robots) as being “about” their objects. But that’s all we have to go on – just our interpretations, which we attribute to a person. Based on someone’s behaviors, we interpret them to mean the person is thinking “about” something (e.g., an errand to Lowe’s), but that’s just how we talk. In reality, there isn’t any real “aboutness” to us.

But, there could be other interpretations too. Maybe the thought is “of” something else (e.g., a movie on HBO). But, there’s no fact of the matter we can appeal to, to settle the issue. Dennett admits for that to be so, there would have to be an essence to the thought’s being of something so that it really is about the errand, not the movie.

But without essences, we’re left only with interpretations; but, of what? Apparently, another interpretation; but if we keep pressing that question, we’re left just with interpretations of interpretations, etc., without any way to get started and experience something as it is, simply because no mental state is really about anything.

Bu the same problem applies to our own mental life. Any mental state doesn’t have an essence to be about anything in particular. If they cannot really be about something, then how would we ever know how things really are?

Our Experience Tells a Different Story

Fortunately, that’s not how we experience life. Our mental states seem to have three essential features:

  1. They’re “particularized.” My thought about tonight’s dinner, or my experience of drinking a Starbuck’s chocolate smoothie, is not generic or unspecified. Each is about something particular.
  2. These mental states must be about something. It doesn’t seem we could have one that lacks this quality. (Try having a thought that isn’t about anything!)
  3. That “ofness” seems to be intrinsic, or essential, to each mental state. My thought about last night’s dinner could not be about anything else and still be the thought it is. I could observe the price of gas at the Exxon station, but that experience couldn’t have been of my dinner.

God: The Best Explanation

How do we best explain these three apparently essential features of mental states? Dennett realizes that if mental states had essential natures, they really could be of their intended objects, so we could know them.

If atheistic evolution by NS were true, we’d be in a beginningless series of interpretations, without any knowledge. Yet, we know many things. So, naturalism & NS are false – non-physical essences exist. But, what’s their explanation? Being non-physical, it can’t be evolution. So, maybe we have souls that use them. It seems likely their best explanation is there’s a Creator after all.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2B8gmT1

/by
Are Nature and Scripture Compatible_

Are Nature and Scripture Compatible?

,

By Luke Nix

The debate about the proper interaction of science and theology is raging as much as it has ever been. Hot tempers fly that result in ice-cold relationships. For as much discussion and debate that takes place, it seems that nothing is being accomplished. For those caught in the middle, questions still remain unanswered:

  • What do we do when science contradicts our theology, or our theology contradicts science?
  • Are they allowed to contradict?
  • If not, which should I choose?
  • Can’t they just agree to disagree?

These are all questions that shaped my spiritual struggle several years ago. I was constantly told that I could not trust science because it contradicted my theology, and at the same time I was told that I could not trust theology because it denied science. I felt like I had a choice: live a double life allowing one source of truth (religion) in one area of reality, but not allowing it relevance in the other areas. Or I could completely deny one of them as a valid source of truth, giving up my theology completely, or giving up science completely.

How could I live what I do not believe, and how could I deny what I know to be true? These further haunting questions demanded answers yet seemed unanswerable. Neither hypocrisy nor denial are very appealing traits. Unfortunately, these are often presented as the only options available in our search for the true worldview. In this post, my goal is to present a compelling alternative that grants that science and theology are valid sources of truth that often overlap in the aspects of reality that they claim to explain. I will also put forth a method for dealing with conflicts in the overlapping areas and explain the liabilities of not dealing with such conflicts.

The Overlap

I believe that science and theology are fully compatible with one another. Both often speak about the same features of reality, but because we are not omniscient, we often find that our science and our theology contradict one another. If we wish for our theology to inform our understandings of creation (scientific models) and behavior towards each other and the rest of creation (ethics- 2 Timothy 3:16), overlap is necessary. Likewise, if we wish for our science to inform our theology (Romans 1:20), overlap is necessary. If we are to believe that overlap is necessary, then contradictions cannot exist between science and theology. This will be the starting point for this alternative view. The next step is to make an important distinction.

Interpretation and Raw Data

The next step to this view is the distinction between raw data and the interpretation of the raw data. When we are attempting to reconcile science and theology, we are attempting to reconcile the raw data that each one interprets. For science that raw data is nature, and for theology that raw data is the scriptures (original language, where possible). Every piece of raw data must be interpreted. By interpretation, I mean that we examine the raw data and explain it in light of the other raw data that we have. It is common, and incorrect, for someone to confuse nature (the raw data) with science (the interpretation) and/or scripture (the raw data) with theology (the interpretation). The raw data is what is necessarily infallible (to use the religious term), while our interpretation (in virtue of our lack of omniscience) is necessarily fallible, but not necessarily false. The processes described below will help our interpretation of nature (science), and our interpretation of scripture (theology) reflect the full, true understanding of each.

Nature and Science

Science is very dependent upon the assumption that the universe is consistent. No two features of reality will contradict one another, and under the same circumstances, observations will be repeatable. If experiments or studies are conducted in the same way, but they yield data that can only be interpreted to conflict with current science (interpretation of other data), the scientists will repeat again to find data that can be interpreted as consistent with current science and look for the unique factor in each instance of the experiment that yielded the data with the conflicting interpretation. All data that is found is interpreted in light of the rest of the data already yielded. If an experiment or observation (after repeated and thoroughly investigated multiple times) still yields data that demands an interpretation contrary to science, a reinterpretation of past data is necessary (a change in the science results). The process repeats for any and all new data that comes. Here is a flowchart to give a visual of this process:

Are Nature and Scripture Compatible? 1

Even though it is common for data to come that is compatible with current science, there is rarely a single interpretation that is compatible. Multiple compatible interpretations leads to the creation of multiple models of a phenomenon. Each one takes interpretations that are still “on the table” (since they have not been eliminated by other data yet), and use possibilities to make predictions about future data. As more data become available, models that predicted conflicting results are adjusted (interpretations are changed) to accommodate the only possible interpretations of the new data (if multiple interpretations exist, this can spawn variations of the model) or are abandoned completely because the conflict cannot be reconciled with the possible interpretations of the other data that are compatible with the model. While models are weeded out as accurately explaining reality, more detailed models are proposed, and the process starts all over again. Put plainly, nature interprets nature to eliminate incorrect scientific view and highlight possibly correct ones.

Scripture and Theology

Dealing with scripture (the Bible) is very similar to the process of dealing with nature described above. Many theologians begin by accepting that scripture is the inerrant word of God, who cannot lie. This means that the same consistency that allows for testing of scientific models exists to test theological views. No two scriptures contradict one another, so no correct interpretations of two scriptures can contradict one another. If it is found that a theological view holds an interpretation of a scripture that contradicts an interpretation of another, the interpretation of one of them (if not both) is incorrect, and reinterpretation is required. In the development of a correct theological interpretation of scripture, this process continues. Here is the flow chart (notice how similar it is to the one above):

Are Nature and Scripture Compatible? 2

Just like with science, multiple interpretations of scripture do abound, and even after going through this process to make certain that all scripture is taken into consideration and no contradictions exist in the view, several possible interpretations of scripture may still be valid. These are all considered compatible with scripture. Since there are multiple views compatible with the raw data of scripture, many different theological views exist within Christianity. As more archaeological artifacts are recovered and analyzed and more historical and linguistic studies are conducted regarding the original content of scripture, possible interpretations of scriptures can be ruled out or ruled in. This allows for adjustment or abandonment of theological views (if possible interpretations are ruled out), and allows for the recognition of compatibility of other theological views (if possible interpretations are ruled in). As more theological systems are weeded out as accurately reflecting scripture, more detailed interpretations are offered and tested against still more scholarship. Simply put, scripture interprets scripture to eliminate incorrect theological views and highlight possibly correct ones.

Worldviews and Reality

Both systems depend upon ontological consistency (nature does not contradict nature and scripture does not contradict scripture) that demands epistemology consistency (interpretations of nature cannot contradict other interpretations of nature and interpretations of scriptures cannot contradict interpretations of other scriptures). However, neither of these systems are complete.

While science may point to metaphysical reality, it cannot directly observe it. While theology may speak broadly about nature, it lacks much minute details. Both science and theology on their own have many views that are evidentially, equally valid. As a Christian, I believe that God created the universe and inspired scripture. I believe that God is not deceptive; thus his works (nature) do not contradict (the ontological foundation for science’s presupposition that nature is consistent) and his words (scripture) do not contradict one another (the ontological foundation for Biblical inerrancy). Here’s the simple flow chart:

Are Nature and Scripture Compatible? 3

Since both nature and scripture come from God, the two of them do not contradict. If we come to an interpretation of nature that contradicts an interpretation of scripture, one of the interpretations (if not both) is incorrect. We must reevaluate our interpretation of both in light of the other raw data to find the proper interpretation of reality. If all the data in science can be interpreted consistently in, say, ten different ways, but seven are incompatible with any compatible interpretation of scripture, the Christian must throw away those seven interpretations of nature. Likewise, if we have eight consistent interpretations of scripture, yet only three of those interpretations are compatible with nature, we must remove the other five (otherwise biblically compatible) interpretations from the table of accurately explaining reality. That would leave us with three possible interpretations of reality between nature and scripture. Now we have four points of interpretive interaction with nature and scripture:

  • Nature interprets nature
  • Scripture interprets scripture
  • Scripture interprets nature
  • Nature interprets scripture

Ultimately, this results in “reality interprets reality” to yield a correct worldview. Here is the completed flowchart that visually details the process:

Are Nature and Scripture Compatible? 4

This is certainly a rigorous and challenging but rewarding process. As scholarship in the sciences and humanities are constantly making new discoveries that provide more insight into the proper interpretation of both nature and scripture, the Christian is provided with more information; some of which fits easily into the Christians interpretations of nature and scripture. However, it is common that data will arise that challenges interpretations of nature and interpretations of scripture. The Christian must not ignore the data by refusing to reinterpret their views of nature or scripture.

The Dangers of Denial

When we hold an interpretation of nature (science) that does not reflect reality, we will be challenged by the raw data of scripture. When we hold an interpretation of scripture (theology) that does not reflect reality, we will be challenged by the raw data of nature. An unwillingness to reinterpret raw data of either nature or scripture, in light of no compatible interpretation from the other betrays our commitment, not to truth, but to tradition. Tradition is based on interpretation, which is necessarily fallible because we are not omniscient. This is dangerous to both evangelism and discipleship.

Dangers to Evangelism

When skeptics see that we hold fast to tradition (even though they may be doing the same thing) between nature and scripture (while we also claim that both come from the same honest God), it is no surprise that they are skeptical of our views. Reality has no contradiction in it, and they know that. If a worldview has even one internal contradiction, it cannot be the correct view of reality.

Those who read this blog often know that I interact with many internal discussions to Christianity because I believe it is important that we are defending a correct worldview, not just generally, but specifically. If people are looking for a reason to reject a general worldview, they will look at the details of certain views within that worldview to find contradictions with reality. When those contradictions are discovered, they become a stumbling block to the skeptic. And the Christian who promotes such contradictions (despite their noble intentions) become a liability to completion of the Great Commission. A willingness to reinterpret raw data of nature and scripture allows skeptics to understand that we are committed to discovering the truth and that if a challenge is valid, it will be addressed in a way that contradiction is removed from our worldview. When contradiction with reality does not exist in our presented worldview, there is no logical reason to deny its truth. Rather the truth must be suppressed.

Dangers to Discipleship

Of course, the dangers do not only end with evangelism. Our own relationship with God is limited when we refuse to acknowledge contradiction in our worldview. I want to be clear: I am NOT saying that a Christian without a perfect worldview cannot know God correctly, we can. However, every detail that we have wrong about God and what He has done places a limit on our ability to worship Him in spirit and in truth. Our willingness to recognize and abandon incorrect views within our worldview will be rewarded with a deeper understanding of more of God’s attributes and His works. This results in a more profound and rewarding worship of our Creator. A worship of our Creator that is based on a false idea of who He is or what He has not done, is not true worship.

These Dangers Plague Us All (Conclusion)

Since no person is omniscient, I am speaking to all of us (including myself). If we refuse to reinterpret when all attempts to find logical consistency fail, our dedication to a false view of reality will limit our effectiveness for the Kingdom and will limit our relationship with our Creator. God has given us multiple sources of revelation (nature and scripture) and has endowed us with minds capable of using logic to bring both revelations together to discover the truth of reality. God is brought glory when we commit to discovering truth — when we refuse to allow dearly held traditions to stand between our knowing who God truly is and our accurate representation of Him to the world.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2OAjkS9

/by
A Call To An Intellectual Faith

A Call To An Intellectual Faith

By J. Brian Huffling

I would venture that if you asked people what is meant by ‘faith,’ they would likely say “believing something in spite of the evidence or in the absence of evidence.” However, such has not historically been the view of faith.

Faith has traditionally been understood as trusting a reliable source. For example, while it is possible to prove through historical means that Jesus died, it is not possible to prove through merely historical means that his death atoned for our sins. The former is demonstrable through reason, the latter by faith. This is not meant to say that faith is irrational. On the contrary, when a source is demonstrated to be reliable, we can trust that source even when we cannot prove something through empirical investigation. Jesus and his apostles have been verified to be reliable sources. Their message has been confirmed with miracles, and Jesus’ claims to deity were likewise confirmed via miracles. Given such reliability, we can trust, i.e., have faith in, what they say.

This is in stark contrast to the blind faith that so many in our culture accuse Christians of having. I have been asked on more than one occasion how I can be a philosopher and also a Christian. The answer is simple: Christianity is philosophically rational.

The Problem

However, sometimes Christians don’t help matters. Sometimes people assert that faith is all it takes to be a Christian. In a sense there is a ring of truth to this; however, that is probably misleading. We have to have faith in the right object. Discerning what object should warrant our faith and belief requires reason. Faith alone is not enough, for one can have (blind) faith in anything. To have faith in the traditional sense requires one to have reasons, and thus to have a reasoned faith.

It is sad that some Christians actually believe (blindly) that we should not base our faith on reason, for such supposedly subordinates God’s Word to human reason. However, understanding (let alone believing) the Bible requires one to rationally understand what it says. We cannot even know what the Bible says without using reason.

Some Causes of the Problem

With such notions in mind, our culture has ridiculed Christians for being irrational. Historically this is false, for many of the best minds have been Christians. But there is a very real sense of anti-intellectualism in the church nowadays. This is particularly noticeable to new seminary graduates who are eager to take various positions in church ministry or academia. I cannot begin to count the number of graduates that I know who have been disillusioned by the church’s disinterest in being intellectually fit.

Another problem is pastors. I wish I had a dollar for every time some pastor called for the congregation not to clutter their Christian faith with reason. Sometimes this call is subtle and sometimes it is overt. Many churches I have visited, even lately, have an anti-intellectual air about them, stemming from the person behind the pulpit. Such leads to disastrous consequences.

This can be seen in the gross ignorance of average Christians who don’t know hardly anything about their faith. I have had countless people talk to me about their Christian “faith” who do not even know whether or not they are Protestant, even though they have identified with Christianity for years. The average churchgoer cannot even articulate, let alone defend, such primary doctrines as the Trinity or the Incarnation. Many who have grown up for decades in the Church know next to nothing about the Bible, where certain books are, or have any idea whatsoever about how to interpret or study it. Most Christians cannot have an intelligent conversation about God’s nature regarding whether they think he is temporal, changeable, etc., or that these issues are even debated. Rather than have solid studies on the Bible or theology, most are more interested in 12 step programs, like how to better their lives. Several years ago I made a list of the top 10 books in Christian bookstores. There was maybe one book on theology, several on health and prosperity, and others on fiction. Why is this?

I think at least one problem is pastors. They are not the only problem, but they are our leaders of spirituality, and they definitely share at least some of the blame. (I realize this is a generalization, but I have seen and heard more pastors show off their ignorance as well as a desire for others to do the same than I would like.) In my experience and in talking to others, it appears that one reason that pastors want to downplay reason and intellectual faith is because it is difficult. It actually requires a lot of studying and learning. It is much easier to attack reason as an instrument of paganism or the devil than it is to devote one’s life to the intellectual pursuit. However, pastors have a responsibility to lead their flock in worship and devotion to Christ. A consequence of pastors downplaying reason is apathy and ignorance on the part of the parishioners. The Bible tells us explicitly (and many times implicitly) to worship God with our minds (Matt 22:37).

It is worth noting that when reason is downplayed false teaching is much more likely to abound. Both Mormons and teachers of the Word-Faith Movement downplay the use of reason. What is left is an attempt to judge what is true based on feelings.

Of course, pastors are not the only problem. Each person is responsible for his own mind and faith. It is also true that a church can have a marvelous pastor with uninterested followers. Church and Christianity have been so divorced from intellectualism in many circles lately that people either don’t care to learn or don’t know how. So what is the solution?

Part of the Solution

The anti-intellectualism issue has many causes and requires various solutions. One solution is for parishioners and pastors to realize there is a great need for pastors and church leaders to be educated. Some pastors realize the need, but either can’t afford to do anything about it or do not have the support of the church. We must support our pastors in this area. We should not settle for anything less. Most people would not get their hair done by someone who didn’t have a license and training to do it, so why wouldn’t we want the leaders of our churches who are supposed to lead our families and us in our faith to have an education?

In turn, churches should have programs in place to teach their parishioners the basics of the faith. The average Christian isn’t expected to be a theologian, but he ought to at least understand the basics of the faith. A good way to do this is to have studies on the churches doctrinal statement (if they have one!).

Another part of the solution is to be educated ourselves. This does not necessitate formal training, but it we should take an interest in what we claim to be the most important area of our lives: our faith. This means going to church and Bible studies (taught by trained teachers), reading books, and making it a point to learn what our faith is all about. (See my Recommended Booklist.)

Having a rational faith also allows us to apply it to every area of our lives, such as politics, ethics, and entertainment. This is how we love and worship God with our minds. The difference between humans and other animals is the human mind and the ability to reason. This is how God made us different and more like him. We should, in fact, seek to worship and know him through this important aspect of our nature.

 

J. Brian Huffling, PH.D. have a BA in History from Lee University, an MA in (3 majors) Apologetics, Philosophy, and Biblical Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), and a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from SES. He is the Director of the Ph.D. Program and Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SES. He also teaches courses for Apologia Online Academy. He has previously taught at The Art Institute of Charlotte. He has served in the Marines, Navy, and is currently a reserve chaplain in the Air Force at Maxwell Air Force Base. His hobbies include golf, backyard astronomy, martial arts, and guitar.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2LT9c9y

/by