The Huntington Apologetics Team

Ben Witherington and Dan Wallace Tackle Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus

2006-03-17T12:40:00.000-08:00

Bart Ehrman, a "former Christian" and professor at UNC, has released a popular volume called Misquoting Jesus. This book has made the New York Times bestseller list and has won Ehrman great acclaim. In the interest of keeping everyone informed on apologetic issues, I will link to a post to Dr. Ben Witherington's blog that contains both his critique of Misquoting Jesus and that of Dr. Dan Wallace. Enjoy!

Wallace and Witherington critique Misquoting Jesus

HT: Victor Reppert

Did Jesus Promise to Meet Our Every Desire?

2006-01-18T13:07:00.000-08:00

I was recently directed to an interesting website called "Why Won't God Heal Amputees?" The site and the book by the same name were written by Marshall Brain, of "How Stuff Works" fame. The purpose of this project, however, is to demonstrate that "the Bible is nonsense." I was asked to read the first chapter of Brain's book and provide a Christian response.

Brain claims that the death of Neva Rogers, a teacher who was murdered by a student in the classroom, shows that a few statements made by Jesus in the Gospels about prayer are wrong. The statements in question are:

"Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." Mark 11:24 (ESV)

and

"If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it." John 14:14 (ESV)

Does Brain succeed in proving the nonsensical nature of the Bible? I do not think so. I think the problem Brain presents really rises from our desire to force modern standards for communication on an ancient document. Jesus wasn't an idiot. Being a 1st Century Jew he would be quite aware that the Old Testament has many examples of faithful men and women praying and receiving a 'no' from God. Jesus was using a common means of communicating a point: hyperbole. Jesus' statement about casting down the mountain is meant to demonstrate that.

We must view Jesus words with the words of James 4:3 in mind:

"You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions." (ESV)

If we make requests selfishly then we are not asking in faith. Then, hyperbole or not, it is meaningless to invoke Jesus' statments in Mark 11:24 and John 14:14. There is more to asking something in Jesus' name that just saying, "...I ask this in Jesus' name."

Someone will probably say, "Do you mean to tell me that someone praying for their own lives to be saved can be praying selfishly?!?!?"

Yes I do. And that is where many people will throw up their hands and call me crazy or foolish (if they haven't already). I think that is a result of the deeply different perspectives we hold. It's a tension that we must live with, I think. So my answer is probably not satisfying on an emotional level for many people, but I honestly didn't intend for it to be.

God bless.

How Aslan Challenges Popular Assumptions About God

2005-12-20T11:52:00.000-08:00

The evangelical Christian community has been in a furor over the release of The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. Whether you love C.S. Lewis or hate him, these days he's probably on your mind. Though I do disagree with him on a number of issues, I do consider myself a bit of a fan of his. There is one thing that I particularly enjoy about Lewis, and that is that he challenges popular conceptions about the nature of God.

This past Sunday I eagerly chatted with some fellow Christians about our favorite parts of Chronicles. I don't think that mine was a common choice, but everyone I talked to recognized the power of my scene. If you have seen the movie you will probably remember the scene I have in mind.

Just after the White Witch and Aslan struck their deal for Edmund's life they emerge from Aslan's tent. The Witch confidently walks to the throne she was carried in on and turns toward him. "How do I know you'll keep your promise?" she asks. Aslan's response was a single, mighty ROAR that sat the queen down in her seat and prompted cheers from his followers. The moment brought tears to my eyes.

This may seem very strange to those of you who read it, but the reason is simple. In that moment C.S. Lewis demonstrated something that is missing from today's popular concept of God. It is in the Bible to be sure, but not in many passages that people like to preach from today. In that moment the character of God (Aslan) was challenged. He did not respond with a tender, tearful discourse on how his love makes him trustworthy, though God is tender toward those He loves. Aslan responded to the White Witch in a manner not entirely unlike the way God responded to Job's challenge.

Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: "Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be in the right? Have you an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his? Job 40:6-9 (ESV)

In essence, God's response to the challenge of Job was like Aslan's response to the White Witch: Sit down and be silent. God did go further in Job and demonstrate the fact that Job did not have the right to challenge Him, but the result was the same.

What possible apologetic impact does this have? In a way, the Job passage can be considered a "problem passage" in that the content is generally unpalatable to our non-Christian friends. The point of this essay is to remind everyone that the God we worship is not the same God that our unsaved friends have pictured in their heads. In an age where postmodern tolerance is promoted as the highest good the God of Job, and Aslan as a picture of that God, do not fit into the zeitgeist. It is incumbent upon us to acquaint ourselves and our friends with this side of the God of the Bible. It may not make them comfortable, but the truth can be hard. And do not worry about the impact these passages will have on evangelism. You may risk your popularity, but the results of evangelism are up to the Holy Spirit. Share the truth and trust in His power to save.

What's That I Hear!?!?

2005-12-20T11:46:00.000-08:00

Ah, it's the click-clack of fingers dancing across a keyboard. We have returned to the internet with the goal of putting out more helpful apologetic content for popular consumption. We all apologize for the the long silence, but we're back. Hopefully this has been last of such silences. Meaningful content is coming soon.

I Will Be Sanctified: Understanding the Deaths of Nadab and Abihu

2005-11-01T10:56:00.000-08:00

Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them.  And fire came out from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.  Then Moses said to Aaron, ‘This is what the Lord has said, “among those who are near me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.”’  And Aaron held his peace.  (Lev. 10:1-3, ESV)

The Vital Lesson of Leviticus
Leviticus is perhaps the most often ignored book of the Old Testament.  Few preachers care to wind through the maze of legal requirements and narratives for fear of 1) putting their congregations to sleep and/or 2) rousing the specter of legalism by emphasizing a book that speaks so much of the Mosaic Law.  However, even in his worst moments any preacher would acknowledge that every book of the Bible is useful for the building up of the saints (2 Timothy 3:16).  Leviticus is no different.  In fact, the book of Leviticus carries a message that today’s Church is in dire need of hearing.
     The Church needs Leviticus.  Not in the sense that we need to return to the keeping of the Mosaic Law.  That question has long been settled.  No, a study of Leviticus will reveal in no uncertain terms what Christians only think they understand:  God is holy.
     Few passages are more effective in hammering home the holiness of God than Leviticus 10:1-3, which recounts the death of Nadab and Abihu, the sons of the high priest Aaron.  On the surface, this passage looks very much like one a preacher would avoid.  God consumes two young men for offering unauthorized fire?  That is not exactly what most evangelical Christians like to hear preached from the Sunday pulpit (or lectern or podium if you prefer).  Worse still, many would try to explain it away by saying, “That was the wrathful God of the Old Testament, not the gracious God of the New Testament!”  Ignoring the fact that this sounds like a statement straight out of a skeptic’s attack on the Bible, I would direct such a person to Acts 5:1-11, the account of Ananias and Sapphira.  It is neither needful nor useful to make such distinctions in the character of God.
     Faithful Christians must seek a true interpretation of Leviticus 10:1-3, even if it is an uncomfortable process, and even if we do not care for the results.  Why would God, who had graciously saved the Children of Israel from slavery in Egypt and delivered them at the Red Sea, now take the lives of two men who were attempting to serve Him?  Let us first examine the underlying assumptions that lead us to ask this question.

Christianity and the American Mentality
“I consider myself very spiritual, just not particularly religious.”  What statement is more common to the American religious vocabulary than this?  Many people recognize their need for God.  Their desire for contact with the transcendent is intact, but it has been strangely altered by the individualism we cherish here.
     American spirituality begins with the assumption that it is proper to pursue it individualistically.  We assume that God should be satisfied if we just take a stab at acknowledging Him every once in a while.  In fact, most are not particularly concerned over whether God is satisfied or not.  Spiritual life for Americans consists of exercises in self-fulfillment and self-actualization.  It is the religious corollary to the “if it feels good, do it” philosophy.
     Christians have proven to have no immunity to this trend.  We seem to be too concerned with being as much like our surrounding culture as possible to notice that we too have individualized our spirituality.  Many Christians have deemphasized the Church in favor of “quiet times” and “personal devotions.”  Do not misunderstand:  personal devotions are integral to the Christian life, but it is a severe problem indeed when Christians feel no strong ties to their local Church.  We have forgotten that God has given us the Church as His means of service.  This brings us back to Nadab and Abihu.
     Nadab and Abihu had been consecrated as priests.  They were to serve the Lord in His temple, and if you have read Exodus and Leviticus you know that His instructions were quite specific.  There were certain things that the priests were commanded to do in God’s service, and they were to do nothing else.  One such service was the burning of incense, as detailed in Exodus 30:1-10.  This is the command that the sons of Aaron disobeyed.
     What lead Nadab and Abihu to so quickly violate God’s command?  Was it carelessness?  It is difficult to say.  There did not seem to be an indication that they were consciously rebelling against God, but that was not enough to save their lives.  They disobeyed and explicit command of the Lord in how He was to be approached, and He made known His displeasure.
     How do we justify such an action?  The world may never understand passages such as this, but we as Christians must come to grips with them.  Why was it appropriate for God to take their lives?  Why not something like the temporary leprosy that God gave to Miriam in Numbers 12?  We must keep in mind that Miriam’s affront was primarily against Moses, while Nadab and Abihu were an affront to God Himself.  They did not act properly with respect to the means by which God commanded that He be worshipped.  They took Him lightly.
     Ultimately the only justification that matters is God’s own:  “Among those who are near me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.”  There were two reasons for God’s actions, and one actually enfolds into the other quite nicely.  The priests were the mediators between men and God.  They were to demonstrate the holiness of God.  This is why the rituals they performed were so closely scripted.  Through the rituals God meant to show everyone that He was not to be approached lightly.  If even the priests did so, what example was left for the people to follow?  How would God be glorified by the people of Israel?  In order to preserve His glory before the people and demonstrate His holiness and perfection, Nadab and Abihu had to die.  Such was the seriousness of their error.

Conclusion
Preachers who gloss over books such as Leviticus do a great disservice to the Church, as we have seen.  We must become acquainted with the holiness of God, and store in our hearts the truth that He will be worshipped as He desires to be worshipped.  No man can approach the Lord in his own way and hope to have any fate other than that of Nadab and Abihu.  Let this be an admonition to the Church today.  God is Holy, and He will be approached as such.  Take heed of the Lord’s commands, and do not let pride or carelessness sneak into His worship.

Christian Bloggers are Gearing Up for The Da Vinci Code Movie

2005-10-21T11:06:00.000-07:00

I've noticed that a number of Christian bloggers have started to prepare for the pop culture storm that might surround the release of the Da Vinci Code movie. La Shawn Barber is trying to stir the rest of us up so that we will be present and accounted for when needed. See her posts here:

The Da Vinci Code Movie is Coming

and here:

Christians, Are You Ready For The Da Vinci Code?

Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries has also blogged on the topic:

Heads Up, Folks. It's Coming

Dr. Andrew Jackson of "Smart Christian Blog" second's Barber's call to action:

Are Christians Ready for the Da Vinci Code?

And readers with elephant memories will recall that the first substantive post on this site dealt with the Da Vinci Code movie:

The Da Vinci Code Movie: What's a Christian to Do?

Buckle down, Christians, and get ready for lots of questions!

You Will Be Called a Fool

2005-10-17T12:48:00.000-07:00

Why do we do apologetics? What motivates the quest to answer each and every objection raised against God and His gospel? There are, of course, the Biblical answers. For instance, every apologist worth his or her salt knows 1 Peter 3:15:

...[B]ut in your hearts regard Christ as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you;
[ESV]

We must give a reason for our hope when people ask. Also, 2 Corinthians 10:4-6 show that we need to dismantle the arguments that men use to attack God and His gospel.

For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete. [ESV]

Biblically we know why we do apologetics, but there is another way to answer this question that I want to explore, and then I will offer a warning to every apologist, and would-be apologist, who reads these words.

To begin, think back to the time before you knew verses like 1 Peter 3:15 or 2 Corinthians 10:4-6. Did you already have the "apologetic impulse?" I know I did. I wanted to be able to answer every objection raised against the faith, and I was ready to study and think deeply in order to do so. Before I had a Biblical justification, I think there were at least two layers to my motivation fo apologetics. Layer one of my motivation was a belief in the truth of Christianity. This, obviously enough, a good thing, and every apologist must believe similarly.

Layer two of my motivation is, however, a bit less honorable, and it is upon this layer that I will focus. The second layer to my motivation for defending the faith was a desire to maintain my intellectual credibility before men. I would not be surprised if this has played a role in the lives of many apologists.

What's Wrong With Intellectual Credibility?
It is natural to ask at this point, 'what is wrong with intellectual credibility?' The answer, of course, is 'nothing.' If we honor God with our answers and maintain the respect of the world, wonderful. However, if credibility is my true motivation for apologetics, what glory then goes to God? If, at the end of the day all I can say is that I have preserved my standing amongst my peers each answer I have given is nearly worthless because I have not honored the Lord (I say "nearly worthless" because the Lord can turn anything to His purpose, but as far as honoring the Lord, answers to defend only my credibility are worthless).

Please don't misunderstand; I am thrilled whenever evangelical scholars go toe to toe with liberal heavyweights and come through. I think this honors the Lord when it is done to defend Him and His word. The danger lies in motivation. If the scholar is motivated by a desire for his own intellectual credibility he is ignoring a major warning that came from the pen of the apostle Paul.

Folly to the Gentiles
In 1 Corinthians 1:23 Paul writes, "but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles". The Christian message makes no sense to the non-Christian mind. Most of us have probably interacted with atheists who are amazed that anyone in the Western world is a Christian. This is perfectly in line with what Paul had to say. We should not expect intellectual credibility because people are predisposed to think us foolish due to our message.

That brings me to my admonition for this week's post. To each and every Christian apologist out there I say, "You will be called a fool." Do not fear it. Do not be offended by it. It has taken me a long time not to care what people think of my intelligence and I still struggle with it occasionally, but I am comforted by the words of Peter in 1 Peter 3:14:

If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you [ESV]

So yes, you will be called a fool. I will be called a fool. My first impulse is to say, "get used to it," but you should do more than that. Embrace it. Revel in it. When we are called fools for representing Christ well we should cry out for joy, for then we know that He alone receives glory, and that in Him alone we find our satisfaction.

Lost Gospel Problems

2005-10-07T07:37:00.000-07:00

Since the appearance of The Da Vinci Code, (and even before) many Christians have faced challenges from people regarding “lost gospels.” The Gospel of Thomas is usually a favorite example. It is held up as an example that early Christianity was not monolithic and that the Church Fathers suppressed the lost Gospels due to their prejudice and desire for power.

There are, however, a couple problems with this attack on orthodox Christianity. First, it assumes that all of the gospels have the same standing, when that is a claim to be proven. Even if the documents are as ancient as the four Gospels that does not mean that they should be given as much credence. If the Church Fathers sided with the four Gospels, why must we assume they were wrong to do so? It boils down to the fact that people like Gnostic teaching. It has a higher view of us as human beings. The guiding factor must be the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. That brings us to the second problem with the “lost Gospels” attack.

What do we know about Jesus and the Apostles? For one thing, we know they were Jewish and their background lies in Judaism. Why then, would Thomas pen a Gospel that draws so heavily on Greek philosophy, not on Jewish thinking? Why should the Church Fathers be compelled to accept documents that are far from the Jewish context in which Christianity was born?

It seems to me that some people just don’t want the Bible to be true, and they will use whatever method they can to discredit it. So, Christian, don’t be dismayed when a critic says there are “lost Gospels.” The early Christians were wise to discard these overly Greek-influenced forgeries.

Contradictory Creation Accounts?

2005-09-22T11:54:00.000-07:00

Inerrancy is an unpopular doctrine in the world at large.  Advocating the complete veracity of the Bible will put on the fast track to ridicule in many circles.  Ridicule is something, however, that we need to be able to endure for the sake of Christ.  One thing that can help us stand up to ridicule is having confidence in the Scripture.  A fine way to do that is to take supposed contradictions and Biblical problems and resolve them.  With that in mind, we will take a look at an important one today.  I have been confronted with this one personally, and it is quite easy to rebut.

The small group I attend at Church has always been geared more toward intellectual things.  I do not mean to say that the others are “stupid,” but they are not as interested in covering philosophical and logical issues like we are.  As a result, visitors of an intellectual bent have occasionally stopped by.  One such man, who was a theologically liberal Christian, presented us with what he perceived to be a problematic Bible passage.

In the course of discussing creation and evolution, he said that he didn’t have any qualms about accepting evolution because the Bible had two contradictory creation accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis anyway.  Naturally, I opened my Bible and read both accounts.  What I found was not contradiction, but unwillingness on the part of this man to read the text charitably.

The meat of the objection has to do with the order of creation.  Did God make plants first, or did He make humans first?  The account in Genesis 1 says that the plants came first, and in Genesis two, the objector insisted, states that people did.  Read Genesis 2:4-9:

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground-- then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.  And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (ESV)

It might seem that the passage is saying, “there were no plants, then God made man, and then He made some plants.  This is where understanding the intent of the author becomes important.  Moses was setting about telling the story of the Fall of Man.  At this point chronology was not as important as it probably was in Genesis 1.  We can think of similar situations in our every day lives.

If I were to describe to you the way a particular class session at Tri-State Bible College (the school I attend) went, I could do it in a couple of ways.  One would be the chronological way.  I could say, “first we had chapel, then we discussed the book of Genesis, then we went home.”  Alternately, I could say, “we discussed the book of Genesis today.  We also had chapel and such and such a person spoke.”  In this instance chronology is not important.  I am simple recounting events.

It is also helpful to understand exactly what “bush of the field” and “small plant of the field” mean.  According to the study notes on Genesis 2:5 in the Reformation Study Bible, the “bush of the field” referred to “inedible growth, such as thorns.”  The “small plant of the field” referred to “cultivated grains.”  This is a way of establishing the pre-fall context and the antiquity of the events.  These two terms do not cover plants comprehensively.  If you take an old earth perspective, you can also acknowledge that the “then” at the beginning of verse 7 does not indicate that the two events happened in one immediately after the other.

Once again it becomes apparent that a careful reading of the Bible yields a harmonious result.  Our confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture should be growing by leaps and bounds by now, and it will only grow more as we deal with other objections to the Bible and Christianity.

Mercy or Selfishness?

2005-09-09T10:15:00.000-07:00

The recent furor over issues relating to euthanasia has faded. Terri Schiavo has been gone for several months now, and her case no longer remains to fuel the fires of controversy. Still, it is incumbent upon the defenders of the Biblical worldview to deal with bioethical issues such as these. Proponents of euthanasia use several tactics to support the practice, some of which we have already dealt with on this site. Today, we will be dealing with a reason for euthanasia that is ends up appealing to one's emotions. Typically emotional appeals are hardly worth answering, but I have often encountered this sort of reasoning, and I think it is reasonable to assume that others have encountered it as well.

Let's say the conversation begins with a statement that euthanasia is morally wrong and that you would never participate in it. Sometimes this rejoinder will follow:

"Have you ever had to change your grandmother's diaper because she had lost control of her bodily functions? Have you ever had to spoon feed her? Once you've done that come back and talk to me."

What is the substance of this objection? What is the respondent trying to say? The idea is that you, the opponent of euthanasia, lack the necessary life experience to see that euthanasia is perfectly legitimate and even merciful. Once you have had such experiences, the respondent is sure you will change your mind. The problem with this response is that it has no bearing on the morality of the act of euthanasia.

No one would deny that care for the elderly is difficult on almost every level. It can be physically demanding, mentally exhausting, and emotionally it can be heart breaking. Especially if you were close to the one for whom you are caring. You can remember them when they were sharp and full of life. Now that spark in the eye is gone, but still they linger. However, there is no connection between these facts and the morality of the acts.

We in the United States have experienced untold tragedy due to Hurricane Katrina. There will come a time when all that is left is to find the bodies of those who died. The work will be physically demanding, mentally exhausting, and emotionally heart breaking, will it not? Does this mean it would be morally acceptable for the workers to stop doing their jobs? No. These factors do not influence the morality of an act.

It boils down to this: some seek euthanasia for their elderly relatives because caring for them is hard. That has nothing to do with showing mercy or compassion. It is actually selfishness. They don't want to deal with the difficult road ahead, so they take the easy way out. I realize that this sounds like a harsh thing to say about an emotionally charged subject, but we must not let poor excuses for reasoning such as this stand. It can be generally stated that the morality of an act is unaffected by the difficulty of carrying the act through.

How Not to be a Good Apologist

2005-08-23T06:42:00.000-07:00

By now I think most everyone has heard Pat Robertson's comments advocating the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (See the video here). In my opinion, and hopefully in the opinion of most others, this was a vile thing to do. First, I question what Biblical grounds Robertson has for such a statement, and the fact that it might be in the best interest of America does not qualify.

From an apologetics standpoint, the fact that a high profile Christian like Robertson has said these things gives us an extra bomb to defuse when sharing the gospel. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we try to remove all offense when we share the gospel. However, the message is offensive enough in itself. It cuts right through the core of human pride, but outrageous remarks like this add man-made offense. Certainly the Holy Spirit can cut through the aforementioned offense to save a soul, but it is not our job to put as many obstacles in the road as we can.

My advice to Christian apologists is to denounce Robertson's folly early and often. Make it known that you don't think Christianity is a spring board for advancing "America's interests." I love America as much as the next conservative Christian, but when you are a representative of Christ there are larger issues at stake.

Must We Obey the Law of Moses?

2005-08-08T11:45:00.000-07:00

Most Christians today realize that many non-Christians will use any weapon they can find to undermine the Faith. Of course, a large part of attacking Christianity is attacking the Bible, which is our only rule for faith and practice. I have taken a look at a couple of different attacks on the Bible in the past, and I will be addressing another in this post.

I recently participated in an exchange in which an atheist accused Christians of interpreting the Bible merely to suit our own ends. Now, I will be the first to admit that this sort of thing does happen, and it happens more and more with today's Evangelicalism, which is intently focused on deriving "personal meanings" from each verse. However, deriving personal, devotional meanings from the text did not form the basis of this atheist's objection. Rather, he accused Christians of being inconsistent in that we do not practice things like abstaining from eating lobster (Lev. 11:10), but we do insist that there is still a ban on homosexuality (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:26-27). Further, he insisted in the name of consistency we should practice the stoning of homosexuals (Lev. 20:13).

Many Christians can begin a rudimentary defense of the Bible from this attack, but it takes a little more theological know how to fend it off completely. Usually the starting point is to assert that the Old Testament (Mosaic) Law has passed away and we are no longer bound by it. The problem with this approach is that it is an assertion with no facts listed to back it up. The best way to begin, in my opinion, is to show that far from being unfaithful to the Bible, following only certain of the Old Testament's commands reveals a better understanding of Scripture than my atheist friend thinks.

For the sake of this essay we will divide the Mosaic Law into three categories: Food Laws, civl laws, and laws regarding sexual morality. I do not mean these to be any sort of normative method for categorizing OT laws; I am merely using it for practical purposes. First let's take a look at one of the food laws:

These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. Lev. 11:9-10 (ESV)

Does this mean that I, as a Christian, am sinning when I go to Fazoli's and eat my whole wheat penne pasta with marinara and garlic shrimp? I don't think so. To hold that I am sinning in eating shrimp would require me to ignore a number of clear Biblical passages. The book of Acts has a number of references that reveal the change in God's commands regarding food. Peter's vision, for instance, indicates that what was unclean under the OT Law is no longer to be considered unclean ("What God has made clean, do not call common." Acts 11:15b ESV). Couple this with the fact that Peter was later known to live in a manner that would have been considered unclean by the OT Law (Gal. 2:11-14), and you have the beginnings of a good case for partial adherence the Law.

"So what?" the objector might ask. "All this does is show that some of the food laws might have been repealed. What does that have to do with stoning homosexuals?"

The first thing it does is reveal that some things in the Law were permitted to change. To understand why we must look at the nature of the Law as it is explained by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:24-26.

So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
(ESV)

In Paul's day a child was often put under the care of a slave who would attend its day to day needs. The slave, or guardian, as Paul puts it, would also have the job of educating the child. This was the Law's relationship to the people of God. It was a guide for us until the time came when we reached maturity and became children of God through the sacrifice of Christ. Once Christ came and sacrificed Himself for us the work of the OT was largely finished, though it can still serve a purpose in exposing sin in our lives.

"But you're just proving my point!" the objector exclaims. "If you want to be consistent you must also reject the OT's judgment of homosexuality." Here we must be careful to make a distinction between those different portions of the Mosaic Law. The key difference between food and civil laws as opposed to sexual laws is that by and large the sexual laws were in place before God gave the Law to Moses. As Jesus states in Matthew 19:3-9 and Mark 10:1-9, God created human beings as male and female, and that is the rule for sexual relations. Any sexual activity outside of that framework is sin, and always has been.

So we see that moral rules that precede the Mosaic Law were not eliminated when the Mosaic Law passed away. Let's return to the guardian metaphor to demonstrate this further. If the guardian is teaching a child, he would probably have a set of rules. "Read pages 1-50," or "Sit up straight in your chair," or "Address me as 'sir.'" It only makes sense that when the guardian's authority over the child ends, these rules are no longer applicable. However, rules that were not derived from the authority of the guardian, but from a higher source, would still be in effect. In addition, it is important to remember that civil laws, such as the penalty for homosexual acts, were established to govern the kingdom of Israel. Since we are not a part of that physical nation, we are not compelled to carry out the punishments demanded by those civil laws.

This is just another in a long line of reasons we can be confident in our faith and in the Bible. We are being perfectly consistent with Scripture in not keeping the Mosaic Law. In Christ we are free from it, and this is a fact that should bring us no small amount of joy. If you've made it to the end of this essay, take a few minutes to thank Christ for His obedience to the Law and His sacrifice, which has taken away the punishment for our own disobedience.

Thank you, Jesus.

Would You Like Poison With Your Popcorn?

2005-07-26T08:05:00.000-07:00

There are an estimated 30 million evangelical and fundamentalist Christians in the U.S., and Hollywood -- mired in a prolonged slump at the box office -- is making a concerted effort to mollify and attract that audience.

So reads an e-mail I received from NewsMax.com. Generally I delete my NewsMax e-mails as soon as I get them (and no, I have no idea why I haven't cancelled my subscription yet), but when the subject line reads "Hollywood Finds Jesus" it grabs my attention. Apparently, as evidenced by the above quote, "finding Jesus" consists of a Christian-friendly marketing strategy.

I've read the e-mail a number of times now, and it seems we are supposed to take this as an encouraging sign. The e-mail notes that 'Actor Peter Sarsgaard said that while shooting the Disney thriller "Flightplan," he was told to strike the word "Jesus" from his dialogue; the directors didn't want him to "take the Lord's name in vain."' I hope the reader will forgive me if I am less than enthusiastic about such changes.

Now, I know what you might be thinking. "Wow, Josh, you're being pretty negative. Sure, it's not a mass conversion we're talking about, but this is a step in the right direction, right?" I'm going to say, "yes and no." It is certainly good that movies are being changed to come closer to Christian morality. I like that movies are being made with some decent standards in mind. The problem is, these changes are only cosmetic. The same faulty, anti-Christian worldview will come through in these movies, and that is more insidious than any bit of foul language. We must not think that surface level tinkering will make these movies "safe." There is real danger that we will be ingesting poison with our popcorn.

The e-mail also states:

Marc Shmuger, vice chairman of Universal Pictures, said the Christian audience is "a well-formed community, it's identifiable, it has very specific tastes and preferences and is therefore a group that can be located and directly marketed to."

According to Mr. Shmuger, we are now seen as a valuable target audience. I am not against watching movies, but you must know that when marketing is directed at you, it is an attempt at manipulation. They don't just want to satisfy the appetite you already have, they want to create new ones so that they can fill those as well. Our satisfaction must come from Christ, not from any form of entertainment. So enjoy your movies this summer and beyond, but please, as good Christian apologists, keep your mind engaged and look beyond the surface at the theme the movie conveys. Analyze it in the light of Scripture. Only then will you be able to sort the popcorn from the poison.

Twisting Jesus

2005-07-15T11:26:00.000-07:00

Christians, out of everyone, should know that invoking the name of Jesus is a lightning rod for controversy. Some claim that He was a good man who was, after His death, deified by weak people. Others, like myself, believe that He was and is the Son of God. In today's politically charged culture most parts of the political spectrum would be happy to claim Jesus as one of their own. Here in Huntington a billboard on 3rd Avenue boldy proclaims "Democrats are Christians, Too!!" And many democrats are Christians. Republicans certainly have no monopoly on Christian belief.

Involving Jesus in political debates often involves the twisting of what Jesus actually believed. In the context of the debate about homosexuality, for instance, many whose sympathies lie with the gay rights movement point to Jesus' progressive attitudes. For instance, they will often say that they are more in line with the spirit of Jesus' actions because He lambasted the religious hypocrites (i.e. conservatives) and elevated the status of women. He was loving and caring toward the outcasts of society. This plainly distorts Jesus' message.

Jesus did indeed elevate the status of women, and He did criticize religious hypocrites, but He also did a number of things many "progressive" people would dislike. For instance, He spoke a great deal about the reality of hell. No single person in the New Testament spoke more on Hell than Jesus. Also, Jesus was a religious exclusivist. He did not think that sincerely believing in a way to heaven other than Himself could secure anyone's salvation. Also, people must keep in mind that when Jesus spent time with the "outcasts of society" He did so in order to bring them to repentance. In other words, He wanted them to leave behind the very things that made them "outcasts." That paints a different picture than many more liberal people would want us to believe.

Please do not think that by this short essay I mean to indicate that conservatives are perfectly in line with Jesus' teachings. I think this is false as well. What I think we should do is, rather than trying to co-opt Jesus for our political agendas, we should strive to understand what He was saying in His own context. He was a faithful Jew who believed firmly in what we now call the Old Testament and His so-called "progressive" convictions grew out of that, not a general desire for a more tolerant society. In the same way, we as Christians must hold our culture up to the Bible and reject all that does not fit with what it says. Be ruthless!! I have heard it said and believe that the church is most effective when it is least like the culture.

Should We Defend Doctrines?

2005-06-28T10:57:00.000-07:00

Is there any reason for Christians to defend specific doctrines? We live in an age bent on unity, and there is good reason for unity. Christ spoke of it, St. John does as well. It is supposed to mark us. But, say some, doctrine divides, so why should we defend doctrines? There is good reason, though you can go overboard.

Good Reason

"I don't want to know about God, I want to know God." Most of us have heard this phrase, or perhaps one like it, in discussions on the importance of doctrine. I understand the motivation behind this phrase. It doesn't take most Christians very long to think of someone they know who, while he/she loves to know facts about God and the Bible, has no real love for God Himself. Often such people are argumentative and spiritually dry, and they end up being a detriment to evangelism. Avoiding this pitfall is a good goal indeed.

Conversely, we must ask ourselves if the catch phrase mentioned above gets us where we need to go spiritually. Is jettisoning doctrinal discussion the right approach to take? I fear there is an inherent problem in refusing to learn the doctrines that have been handed down to us. You see, our minds, like nature, abhor a vaccuum. There is a compartment for God in our minds which cannot stay empty. We cannot prevent concepts and indeed doctrines from rushing in, filling the God-comparment with ideas about God's nature, whether they be true or false. These ideas are subtle, subconscious assumptions about what God should be like. You can see it in the surrounding culture.

People in America often like to think of God as only a loving God with no reference to justice. Consequently, if a Christian makes a statement about God's justice he is met with blank stares, or worse, outright anger. "A loving God doesn't condemn people!" someone might say. It is easy to see that, Biblically speaking, their perspective is skewed.

We must recognize that doctrines have consequences, whether we self-consciously adopt them or not. When we ignore doctrine we ignore the truth that God has revealed about Himself We should not believe that our concept of God will herefore remain a vaccuum. Rather, true concepts will be replaced with concepts of our own making. In other words, we will remake God in our own image. This is a violation of the 1st and 2nd Commandments!

Going Overboard

One thing that has turned a lot of people off of doctrine in general is when we go overboard in defending it. As I mentioned above, many who enjoy doctrine have little to speak of in the way of a spiritual life. What does this 'going overboard' look like? If I refuse to associate with a fellow Christian because I am a Calvinist and he is Arminian, I am going overboard. There are doctrines over which principled, civil disagreement should reign.

How do we avoid going overboard? The first thing is to take a look at one's self and determine how much we enjoy arguing. Do you take pleasure in really nailing your opponents? Do you enjoy watching your 'combatant' squirm? Watch yourself in debate, then. Ungodliness can rear its ugly head if we are not careful to behave in a gentle, Christlike fashion. This is not to say that we should soften the truth. Rather, we should be truthful in a gentle, winsome fashion.

The second step in avoiding going overboard is to understand the relative importance of each doctrine. Some doctrines are more vital to the Christian faith than others, and should therefore be defended more vigorously. The deity of Christ, for instance, is absolutely essential to the Christian faith. If you do not believe this, you are not a Christian. This must be defended to the end, though without losing one's temper.

Third, in avoiding going overboard we must become very familiar with the doctrines we defend. The reason for this is that we often lose our tempers when all of our arguments are exhausted. Like an animal backed into a corner, when we are trapped we lash out. This is an unhelpful behavior.

Finally, we must maintain a vibrant spiritual life if we are to avoid going overboard in defending doctrines. Knowledge of God and intimacy with Him must go hand in hand. We drift off the path if we abandon either wing of our spiritual lives. So can we know God without knowing about Him? No. We will get to know something or someone (perhaps ourselves), but it will not be God.

Dr. Washington's Argument From Harm

2005-06-17T11:29:00.000-07:00

A couple of weeks ago I posted some analysis of Dr. Corey Washington's argument that the Christian conception of God is contradictory. In that spirit, I decided to post analysis of his "Argument from Harm," which is a sort of argument from evil. And here it is:

One of the most important areas of philosophy is the philosophy of religion. This area is vital because it has such a bearing on how we should structure our lives. For instance, it would make sense, if God exists, to live differently than we would if He didn’t exist. This paper deals with that very question: Does God exist?

The Argument from Harm
Dr. Washington’s salvo is what he refers to as the Argument from Harm (AFH). AFH is more commonly called the Argument from Evil. The first thing Dr. Washington does is lay the groundwork for AFH by providing a definition for God:

“…God is all-knowing, or as I’ll say sometimes omniscient. God is all-powerful, or as I’ll say omnipotent. God is morally perfect or all-good, or as I’ll say omnibenevolent. We’re also assuming that God is personal. And we believe this God can causally interact with the world.”

According to Dr. Washington an argument for a God that does not have all of these characteristics will not help the theist in this situation. He states that the theist must argue specifically for the Christian conception of God. This will come into play below, but AFH is our current problem. Let’s examine:

Dr. Washington lays out the argument itself in this fashion:

1. Given God’s omnibenevolence, He should desire to have a world in which there is as little suffering as possible, perhaps none.
2. God is omniscient, so God is supposed to figure out how to design a world that has basically no harm at all.
3. God is omnipotent so, so any design that God brings into being, God can actually implement.
4. Given these premises, there should be very little or no harm in the world.
5. There is a great deal of harm.
6. Therefore, the Christian conception of God does not exist.

Dr. Washington has made his argument a deductive argument. Therefore, all the theist has to do is demonstrate that it does not follow that the existence of evil necessitates the non-existence of God. AFH as it is presented is susceptible to what has been called the Free-Will Defense (FWD). Dr. Alvin Plantinga raised this line of argument in a paper called, appropriately enough, “The Free Will Defense”. How can this be done? We must first see if the argument is valid. Does the conclusion follow from the premises? Even if we grant that it does the argument still will not stand because not all of the premises are true.

Premise 3 in particular is problematic for Dr. Washington. At first blush, one would think that it is true that God should be able to create any world He desires. After all, He is omnipotent! Surely God could conceive of some possible world in which we all do rightly of our own free will! As Dr. Plantinga shows, this is not the case.

Say that two friends, Thomas and Bill, are standing in a field. Perhaps neither are particularly bright, or they’ve had a few too many, so they decide to go ‘cow tipping’. They come upon a particularly large cow and both hesitate. Neither Thomas nor Bill want to tip the cow because of its size. It just so happens that Thomas has $100, which he offers to Bill to tip the cow. It also happens that Bill would have never tipped the cow for less than $100, but since he has been offered $100 he tips the cow.

Under no circumstance would Bill have, of his own free will, tipped the cow for less than $100. Could God make Bill tip the cow for less than $100? Certainly, but then God would have been determining Bill’s action, which is not a free act by definition. Bear in mind that in both cases (tipping for less than $100 and not tipping for less than $100) each and every aspect of history of the world is the same up until the monetary offer. That is to say God did not alter some aspect of history to make Bill more favorable to the idea of tipping the cow.
This silly story generalizes to all of humanity. It could be that God chose to actualize the world with the amount of harm it has because He values free will in His creatures. This ‘could be’ is all that we need to show that there is no logical contradiction with the existence of harm and the existence of God. Therefore the AFH fails.

God the Contradictory?

2005-06-03T13:28:00.000-07:00

There have been many ways in which atheists and skeptics have tried to disprove the existence of God. Some are more compelling than others, of course, but none that I have found ultimately succeed. Many don't even get off the ground for me, like the evidential argument from evil. Some who like this argument use specific incidences of evil and argue that the existence of such evils is strong evidence that a good God doesn't exist. I think there are good explanations for the evils they mention, but that is not the topic of today's entry. I wrote the above paragraph to ask this question:

If I don't believe that the argument from evil gets off the ground, what sort of argument could potentially convince me that God doesn't exist? I think that if it could be shown that the very concept of God was a self-contradiction then I would be forced to reject His existence.

First, I'll answer one question that some readers may be asking: What is a "self-contradiction?" A self-contradiction occurs when something is said to have two attributes or qualities that cannot coexist. For instance, if you went looking for a triangle with four angles you would be out of luck. By its definition a triangle has three angles. There cannot be a thing that has three angles and four angles at the same time. This is a self-contradiction.

I will now give you Dr. Corey Washington's attempt to show that the concept of God is self-contradictory. This was given in his debate with Dr. William Lane Craig. The argument goes like this: (warning, this gets a little philosophical!)

1. God is an abstract object.
2. God is causally efficacious.
3. Abstract objects have no causal properties.
4. Therefore, the definition of God is contradictory.
5. Contradictory objects don’t exist.
6. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

Now, my analysis. Premises 2 and 5 are non-controversial, in my opinion. Premise 4 follows if premises 1, 2, and 3 are true and premise 6 follows if 4 and 5 are true. However, this argument, with all due respect to Dr. Washington, fails. How so? The argument is certainly valid, so we cannot attack on that front. No, we must attack one or more of the premises. What premise(s) shall we choose? Let’s take a look at some of them.

Premise 1: “It’s common to think of God as an abstract object…”

This seems innocuous at first, but that depends on your definition of “abstract object”. In fact, it appears that this argument, specifically in a debate context, relies on an equivocation on this term. Dr. Washington begins by saying that it is common to think of God as an abstract object. Bear in mind that most people in a debate audience have their own definition of ‘abstract object’ and it is most likely not the philosophical one. He is probably right that most people think of God as abstract, but what do ‘common’ people think of as an ‘abstract object?’ If we took a poll of the people in the audience of the debate most would agree that God is not a material object. Why? Most likely because we can’t perceive Him with our five senses. Then Dr. Washington provides a definition of a “material object” from the Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy. The definition is as follows: “an object that casually interacts or inter-relates with other independently existing things.” He goes on to state that the same dictionary states that an abstract object is “and object that is not a material object.”

When most people think of abstract objects they think of it in terms of intangibility, not causal efficacy, and it is in the first sense that people think of God as abstract.

These considerations lead to this question: Why should we think of God as abstract in the philosophical sense at all? Dr. Washington suggests that “God is said to be timeless, and the only timeless things around are abstract objects.” Never mind that there is a strain of theology that asserts that God entered the time stream at the creation event. Let’s say that God is timeless. Why then must He be abstract? Because all other timeless objects are abstract? This doesn’t seem to follow logically does it? This is supposed to be a deductive argument isn’t it? What does this tell us about God? Not much.

If it is the case that it is not logically necessary for God to be abstract in Dr. Washington’s sense we can deny the first premise. The argument will fall apart from here.

Premise 2: “At the same time, it’s believed that God is causally efficacious, that is that God can affect material objects.”
There is certainly no problem with this from the Christian perspective.

Premise 3: “…abstract objects, as standardly understood, have no causal properties.”

Philosophically this is true, but as we saw above there is no reason to call God ‘abstract’ in this sense.

Premise 4: Therefore the definition of God is contradictory

This follows if premise 1 is true but we have seen that it need not be the case.

Premise 5: Contradictory objects do not exist

Agreed.

Premise 6: Therefore God does not exist.

Only if premise 4 is true, which it is not.

Conclusion

So much for the contradictory definition of God. There have been other attempts to show that the concept of God is contradictory, and perhaps better ones that I have not seen. None that I have seen come close to succeeding, but they must taken individually. It is my hope that showing a refutation of one such argument strengthens the faith of Christians out there. We can be confident that our God is real and that what the Bible says of Him is true. Worship Him confidently!

The Bible as a Jigsaw Puzzle

2005-05-17T08:00:00.000-07:00

I'm a huge fan of a minstry called IX Marks Ministries. The idea behind it is that there are at least nine things that characterize a healthy church. They have great articles, book reviews, and some absolutely fantastic interviews. But enough plugging.

The reason I am talking about IX Marks Ministries has to do with one of the aforementioned interviews. Dr. Peter Williams weighs in on Biblical authority and how the Bible is viewed by Pastors today, as well as addressing some "Bible difficulties."

In dealing with Bible difficulties he talked about viewing the Bible as a jigsaw puzzle. Taking this view can help alleviate some supposed difficulties. The example he gave was in the context of David's battle with Goliath. Saul had promised that the man who killed Goliath would be given one of his daughters in marriage and that his father's house would be made tax free. As we all know, David slew Goliath. When Saul sees what has happened he says in 1 Samuel 17:55-58:

55As soon as Saul saw David go out against the Philistine, he said to Abner, the commander of the army, "Abner, whose son is this youth?" And Abner said, "As your soul lives, O king, I do not know." 56And the king said, "Inquire whose son the boy is." 57And as soon as David returned from the striking down of the Philistine, Abner took him, and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand. 58And Saul said to him, "Whose son are you, young man?" And David answered, "I am the son of your servant Jesse the Bethlehemite."

So far so good. Saul needed to know who he was going to reward, right? The problem is, David had long stood before Saul and played music. There was no real way in which Saul could have not known who David was. Is this evidence that the Bible is in error? Enter the "jigsaw puzzle."

Sometimes as we read the Bible we approach it with presuppositions that prevent us form seeing the solution to a supposed difficulty. In other words, we have a piece of the puzzle in the wrong place. So, in this passage in 1 Samuel do we have a wrong piece in place? Yes. Dr. Williams pointed out that David Gooding has developed a good solution to this problem. If we look back at the passage we see that our assumption that Saul was asking about David's identity was wrong. Instead, he was asking whose son David was. Though Saul was told David was the son of Jesse of Bethlehem when first introduced, it is much more reasonable to think that Saul had forgotten who Jesse was rather than David, who played his harp before Saul on many occasions.

Though this is just one small example, Christians should be assured that nearly all Bible difficulties can be resolved just as this one. We should approach God's word with confidence that what we are reading is the truth, and worthy of being a guide to living our Christian lives.

A note on the apologist's profile

2005-04-27T19:15:00.000-07:00

Josh's post which defines an apologist is very concise and easy to conceive... and begs the question: Do I want to be an apologist? The description presented can be used to define in which areas we, as "wannabes," are weaker so that we can improve.

I was recently speaking with a friend to whom I outlined life in this way: Before you die, there is X amount of time allotted, a quantity(A) of work to be done by day Y, and Z resources to accomplish the goal. It's a simple equation, right? Is life really that simple?

Where does apologetics fall into that equation? Where on your list does God fall? Pointedly, one of my pastor/elders recently preached a message about the most valuable thing we have to offer God... our time, of course. What an indictment. To be a Christian is to be a servant. That is a joy! We have too little time for joy in our lives.

As for myself, I recognize my limited abilities as a true apologist and the constraints I face in making time to invest in that pursuit. But if it is truly important to us, we will make the time. One of the most difficult things in desiring an "apologetic mind" is pursuing it in the face of those who don't understand why we care. I often feel overwhelming guilt from both sides! I am aware of how lacking I am in preparedness and feel guilt for not devoting myself to study more. Conversely I feel guilty when I am studying and someone in my family has a need I have not met, and does not understand what is taking up my time. What are we to do? I am grateful for those who post on the blog and take the time to support me by studying, so I guess this post is a thank you and an Apology! (no pun intended... well, I suppose it was intended, but forgive me for that as well!)

The Apologetic Attitude

2005-04-22T05:33:00.000-07:00

Apologetics, or the art of defending the faith, has enjoyed a resurgence in popularity in recent years. Those who are familiar with the topic are probably also familiar with the debate over apologetic technique. Should we follow Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen and others by simply challenging the presuppositions from which the non-Christian looks at the world? Perhaps we should just focus on presenting evidences in favor of God generally or Christianity specifically, as William Lane Craig would? Or does the classical apologetic of R.C. Sproul and John Gerstner capture the true essence of defending the faith? Then there’s a fourth option: should we try to somehow blend all of the techniques into one? There are books that deal with the issue of technique in detail, but very often these volumes miss something vital. This “vital something” makes the difference between being a mere dispenser of arguments and a presenter of what I call “the complete apologetic.”

The Complete Apologist
To answer the question “what is the complete apologetic?” I must first describe what “the complete apologist” looks like. It is often thought that apologetics is a purely intellectual enterprise. Many Christians see it as the province of the most educated and intellectually sophisticated in the church. Others may see it as frivolous speculation which will have little impact on every day life, and sometimes this is the case. It is quite easy to get lost in the ivory tower if that is your proclivity. On the other hand, the Christian who has no contact with the ivory tower whatsoever, in the sense of understanding what ideas shape our culture today and what will shape it tomorrow, is also making a mistake. Neither can truly say they have fulfilled the complete apologetic task.
There are actually three aspects to the complete apologist, two of which are closely related. First, the complete apologist must have a tender heart. The calluses that so easily form around our hearts must be peeled away, allowing us to love as Christ loved. We must run the risk of having our hearts broken. Second, we must have a helpful hand. It is easy to see how these two go together. A helpful hand is a natural extension of a tender heart. These two go together to balance the third aspect of the complete apologist, the agile mind. It is this aspect that comes to mind when most people think about apologetics, but it is not the only aspect.

The Tender Heart
1 Peter 3:15 is often taken as a theme verse by apologetics ministries, and with good reason. The Greek word apologia, from which the term “apologetics” derives its name, appears in that verse. What is sometimes glossed over is the clause at the end of the verse: “…yet with gentleness and reverence” (NASB). I have encountered many apologists and apologetics ministries that ignore this clause and allow their human desire to win arguments at all costs take over.
What does this biting tone communicate to the non-Christian? People are now hypersensitive to religious zealots “telling them what to believe.” When we berate and belittle those with whom we disagree we add fuel to that fire. Ours is not to excoriate our opponents. In fact, calling someone an “opponent” is probably wrong-headed as well. Satan is our adversary, but those whom he uses are his hapless puppets. They are puppets with souls, and God desires to see them come into His kingdom. We must never forget this fact. Talking at, as opposed to talking to, someone is generally counterproductive.
Christ approached people with a gentle demeanor (except for in special circumstances). In a day of bitterness and division, if we come gently speaking the truth we will gain an audience. The truth must not be sacrificed for gentleness, but neither should gentleness be sacrificed in our communication of the truth. And when someone comes to see that what we say is true, we must be ready to weep with them as they are confronted with their own worldview and its meaninglessness. Then, as tender hearted apologists, we show them the beauty and meaning that a life in Christ can be.

The Helpful Hand
The early Church was known for the love that flowed from brother to brother and then out into the world. Pagan opponents of Christianity sometimes noted how the Christians took care of not only other Christians, but of pagans as well. Christians would have no part, for instance, of the pagan practice of exposing unwanted infants to die in the wilderness.
When a group of people are so willing to give of themselves they rise above petty criticisms that can be raised against their belief. This is largely missing in the American church today. We have absorbed the individualism and materialism (in both senses of the term) of the culture that surrounds us. We are unwilling to stretch out our hand to help or to give sacrificially. Many American Christians are only vaguely humanitarian. We send a few cents to World Vision or Samaritan’s Purse, but nothing beyond that. We’re too busy and our resources are already committed.
The complete apologist will take the necessary steps to “de-commit” his resources. We need to be free to give sacrificially not just to God directly, but to help those in our world who are hurting. We were far too eager to allow the government to take over the task of charity from us.
How does this affect apologetics? The helpful hand opens ears. Is your neighbor shoveling snow? Go out and help him. Does your neighbor need help paying bills? Forgo a little luxury and assist her. When you do you will find that those with whom you labor will respect and listen to what you have to say. This leads nicely into the final mark of the complete apologist.

The Agile Mind
There are two subcategories that characterize the apologist with the agile mind. The first is knowledge. For a Christian to have an agile mind he or she must seek knowledge and come to understand that knowledge. Learn what Mormons truly believe and confront them with that instead of the caricatures that have been circulated amongst orthodox Christians. They will be surprised. Stun your friends by pointing out that the universe could not have eternally existed. If you want to know about any topic and how to build a case for or against it you must gain knowledge. There is no benefit in running off half-cocked and embarrassing yourself and others. Don’t go into an apologetic situation unarmed.
The second aspect of the agile mind is the skilled use of tactics. In some circles “tactics” have a negative connotation because they are associated with subterfuge and dishonesty. Some tactics are dishonest, but no one with a tender heart and helpful hand would ever use them. Rather, the complete apologist should know ways to take apart arguments in skilled and useful ways. By “skill” I mean that the apologist should have already learned how to think logically and to analyze arguments, and by “usefulness” I mean the apologist should know the appropriate approach to take in refuting an argument against the faith.

Conclusion
The complete apologist is the truly Biblical apologist. Only if we imitate Christ in our demeanor will our answers to skeptical arguments have their full effect. We must not let our zeal for defending Christ lead us to unduly offend others in His name.

Apologetics Apologies!

2005-04-15T12:23:00.000-07:00

Sorry it has been so long since our last post! The end of the school semester has been hectic. I hope to post again soon!

Lousy Moral Reasoning

2005-03-28T07:15:00.000-08:00

As we all know the internet is full of forums for discussion, debate and downright mean-spirited argument. Moral arguments can be particularly contentious because the topics get so close to the every day lives of the parties involved. I have participated in my fair share of moral debates and I can't tell you how painful it is to see some of the arguments that are employed.

Of course we're all familiar with "gems" like, "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!" but I have a different one I've come across that drives me CRAZY. I have argued about the morality of homosexuality a few times, and since I'm a conservative Christian you can probably guess what stance I take.

Now, I'm perfectly willing to admit there are some fairly respectable arguments out there in favor of homosexuality. Some claims are serious and take serious responses. There is one claim however that makes me want to scream. It goes like this:

"I'm a Christian, and I used to think like you [i.e. that homosexuality is immoral]. However, that was before I met my friend Rob. He's the nicest guy you'd ever want to meet and my wife and I would trust him to watch our kids anytime. He'd give you the shirt off his back if you needed it. After meeting Rob I reconsidered and realized it's alright to be homosexual."

I hope at least most of you can see the error that leaps off the screen at me. What does the fact that "Rob" is a nice, giving guy have to do with homosexuality? How does his "niceness" relate to the morality of one area of his behavior? I don't see how it does. Just because someone is nice it doesn't mean that what they do is morally correct. Let's look at another example to demonstrate this.

"I'm a Christian, and I used to think like you [i.e. that cheating on my taxes is immoral]. However, that was before I met my friend Rob. He's the nicest guy you'd ever want to meet and my wife and I would trust him to watch our kids anytime. He'd give you the shirt off his back if you needed it. After meeting Rob I reconsidered and realized it's alright to cheat on your taxes."

Or substitute any thing you consider to be morally questionable in the paragraph. I hope that at least one person who thinks this way will read this post and purge this stinker of an argument from their arsenal.

Terri Schiavo and the Appeal to Emotion

2005-03-22T06:51:00.000-08:00

This post is going to be less about apologetics per se and more about thinking clearly. Like many of you I have been following the story of Terri Schiavo fairly closely. In fact, I watched C-SPAN for an extended period of time for the first time in my life (well...other than watching Prime Minister's Questions once or twice) to listen to people debate whether Congress should mandate that her case be reviewed.

I was struck by the poor quality of the arguments a number of the Representatives displayed, and thought that Christians who want to think clearly should take care not to fall into this trap. The most common poor argument by far was the appeal to emotion. People on both sides of the issue said things like, "I am against killing Terri Schiavo because I am a mother/father and I can't imagine having to do this to my daughter." This is all well and good, but our love for someone is not a logical reason for performing a certain act. Let's look at another example that will clear up the confusion about appeals to emotion.

I have a two sons, one two years old and the other four months. Say my two year old has taken to smacking his little brother. I think we would all agree that I should reprimand my two year old. But what if I say to you, "I just love my son so much, I can't imagine reprimanding him." Does that sound like a good reason to let his behavior continue? Of course not! By the same token, it will not do for us to advocate Terri Schiavo's survival by talking about how much we love our children. We must come up with logical reasons for these sorts of things because emotions are notoriously untrustworthy. They can be used to "justify" all sorts of things.

Looking for love

2005-03-14T18:44:00.000-08:00

You are cordially invited to participate in a very simple exercise, or is it? This exercise is the search for something that some take for granted, others search for diligently over a number of years ,maybe a lifetime, but cannot find. An elusive prey, treasure beyond price or something bought on a street corner. "LOVE', amour, liebe, it seems that everyone uses the "word" expressing something for father, mother, their child, brother, sister, husband, wife, mistress, boyfriend, girlfriend, pizza or french fries (the list seems endless). So, the challenge:

Help me to gain insight by proving that "TRUE LOVE" truly exists.

The rules:
#1 Homo sapien to homo sapien
For this exercise (for the sake of argument) God truly represents "true love" and on that basis there are countless examples of this love.. So let us confine our dialog on the human level.
#2 "true love"
Any remarks on this topic cannot involve self gratification, (they make me feel...) endorsement (I am better off...) abasement I don't know what I would do without.....) that kind of thing.
#3 What you know not what you feel
Love and hate (it is said) are not that different because they are both emotions.
Let's keep this grounded in fact.

Thank your for your cooperation.

With Love
Aaron

It's All in Your Brain

2005-03-04T12:56:00.000-08:00

It has become commonplace in the scientific world to think of our minds only as a function of our brains. What this means is that there is nothing non-physical about our mental processes. The reason that many scientists are motivated to think of our minds in this way is that they are materialists who believe that the only things that exist are physical. This also allows them to reject the concept of a soul or spirit.

There is an interesting way of arguing against that idea that I picked of from Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason (see ministry links). Most everyone will agree that if two things are actually the same thing they will be exactly alike. That sentence may not be entirely clear. What it means is that if "Joshua Duncan" and "the writer of this article" (two things) are the same person (one thing) they will have all of their properties in common (being 5'9", having blue eyes, etc.). So, if the mind and the brain (along with its processes) are the same thing, they should have all of their properties in common.

Now, think of an image of your mother (this illustration was also suggested by Greg Koukl). What is she doing? What color is her hair? Her clothing? If we split your head open and looked at your brain or hooked you up to a machine watch the processes would we see that image of your mother? Obviously not. But the image exists nonetheless. So we see that the mind and the brain do not share everything in common. Therefore, the mind and the brain cannot be the same thing. This leaves the door wide open for the existence of the mind and the soul.

God and The Bootstrap Society

2005-02-24T09:54:00.000-08:00

There are many comparables amongst the world's religions, beyond even the obvious ones like the idea that killing and stealing are wrong. Are these the ties that bind? Some may feel discomfort at the thought that they share an ideal with someone of another faith, as if they are somehow "cheating" on God. For me it is a validation of religion when I find these consistencies in other faiths. Finding similarities in varying religions' ideals is resonant because some things are universal. The question is, I suppose, what makes them universal? I believe that God is the common thread, and man's search for God has brought about many ideas that developed into religions.

There are a number of faiths that support modesty, or at least humility as a virtue, and I think most people believe this is true. I would like to address humanism, if that is a religion, which is as pure a form of narcissim I can think of. Essentially, the concept is man worshiping himself. In our society, man has become the be-all and end-all of importance. As a former humanist, I used to believe that mankind was, for good or ill, on the same wavelength by nature. Man needed something to believe in, therefore he created God. How's that for some hubris? We love the stories of the underdog who is victorious against all odds because we love the strength of the human spirit. By sheer force of his own power, man overcomes. But suppose for a moment that the human spirit fails and the underdog just goes under? It's great to celebrate the human spirit, but it is interesting logic that human beings love a scapegoat as well. When these things occur in our lives, our tendency is to look around for someone to blame. After all, if we don't manage to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps it is because something was unfair, right?

The Bootstrap philosophy has its positives and negatives. We should always try, work hard, do our best, but if we fail, we must evaluate why we were doing it in the first place using biblical standards. When suffering occurs, we must approach it philosophically. It is one of the aspects of eastern philosophies that I can appreciate when my bootstraps snap. We can indeed learn from suffering, and we can view any suffering as learning. One explanation is to say "God doesn't exist because a good God wouldn't allow suffering,." We must discern the truth or falsity of that statement and not fall into the trap of blaming God for suffering. I had a close friend who was a self-avowed athiest, but whenever we discussed suffering in the world she would rant against a God in whom she did not believe. You can't have it both ways. It can't be His fault if he isn't there. Then whose fault is it? It has to be someone's, right?

How to Love Pain

2005-02-24T08:50:00.000-08:00

Many atheists tout the problem of evil as a powerful argument against the existence of God (or at least against the Christian God). There are a few ways in which this argument can be developed. Some, wishing to avoid making judgments on good and evil, choose instead to talk about the problem of suffering, or as we'll call it, the problem of pain.

Why is it, an atheist may ask, that God allows people to suffer such horrible pain when they have done little or nothing wrong? Little children die agonizing deaths for reasons they can't understand. Why does God allow this?

I think one way to respond to this attack is to reflect on the nature of pain. Is pain in itself evil? On the face of it this question might elicit an emphatic "yes." In fact, many would be surprised that I would ask the question because it seems so obvious. But let's look at the nature of pain, shall we? What sort of purpose does it serve, especially in the context of its role in God's design for our bodies.

We can disarm the problem of pain to some degree by pointing out that pain serves as a mechanism for informing us when our bodies are malfunctioning. I recall learning in elementary school how important pain receptors were, because if we didn't have them we might not know when we are being injured. In fact, this is exactly what happens with Hansen's Disease, aka leprosy. A person suffering from leprosy doesn't rot away, as had been thought in the past. Rather, due to the loss of sensation they injure their bodies to the point where they begin to lose parts (fingers, toes, etc.). I'd imagine the Hansen's Disease patient would gladly trade his or her condition with someone who can still experience pain. This example shows that pain is valuable to us as human beings.

But why should God have made pain to be the indicator? Why not something different, or even something pleasurable that is somehow associated with bodily harm? This response strikes me as rather silly. God made pain to be a negative sensation because there are harmful things going on. If the sensation were pleasurable then we would seek to harm ourselves. Then we would have a case for a deceptive, sadistic God.

"This is all well and good," another objector might say, "but why does God have to make the pain as intense as it sometimes is?" The obvious answer here is that the amount of pain often corresponds with the damage being done to the body. Not always, of course, but it often does. The more intense the pain, the more likely the victim is to seek medical assistance in a timely fashion. This can make all the difference in the effectiveness of treatment.

Another route an objector might take is to point out that sometimes babies experience intense pain in their short lives, then they die. Why wouldn't God just not let these babies experience the pain? One reason is that the baby's pain would be an indicator to the parents to seek treatment for their child. But then why not just let the baby show the signs of pain and not experience it? Doing this would make God a deceiver, and this is unacceptable. God is not in the business of lying to us just so we won't experience what I've already shown is a good thing in the first place.

When all these things are taken into consideration, the problem of pain doesn't seem to be that much of a problem after all. There are other ways to respond that further alleviate the supposed difficulties of the problem of pain. However, I think remembering what pain is and what it is for goes a long way in disarming it. Pain is not pleasurable, but it can be considered good.

God is Not Absent

2005-02-15T12:19:00.000-08:00

My older son is the most wonderful two year old boy in the world (it's a fact! You could look it up!). He is sweet, funny, and loving and I would do just about anything for him. Last night, however, my little boy wasn't so sweet. You see, we've been trying to break him of either a) sleeping in mommy and daddy's bed, and/or b) having mommy or daddy sleep in his bed with him. For over an hour I had to sit and listen to him cry. He wasn't afraid, mind you, he just wanted me in there with him, as had been our custom. Instead, I sat in a chair in the doorway to his room with my head in my hands. It wasn't easy, but in the end he fell asleep on his own and woke up in good spirits.

Why did my son cry so much? He had a perception of what I was supposed to do at night and I wasn't fulfilling that expectation. The question is, should that have been his expectation? Is it really best for him that I sleep in his bed night after night? No, I don't think it is. Part of the process of growing up is learning to do things on your own and this is one of those things he needs to do. At this stage, however, that is difficult for him to understand, no matter how much I try to tell him.

That got me thinking. How many people get angry with God mainly due to His supposed absence during their time of suffering, much like my son's experience last night? I would wager that the number is large. Many non-Christians cite this as a reason for rejecting God altogether, and Christians are not immune either. Most of us have probably wondered why God let us experience certain things, or at least we know another Christian who has.

Now, I don't want to belittle the suffering people have experienced, but we as Christians need to step back and take stock. When we cry out in the midst of our sufferings we are just like my son. We are immature and lack understanding. This is somewhat acceptable for a young Christian but those of us who have been living in the faith for any length of time should know better (in fact we do often know better, we just choose not to act accordingly). So we as Christians should take comfort in the fact that God is still with us when we hurt. We are just choosing to doubt the goodness that He already proved when He gave His Son on the cross.

Does TV guide? If so, where?

2005-02-11T04:08:00.000-08:00

Watching nighttime television is a real experience nowadays. About two hours of tv a week is average in my home, excluding news shows, so when I watched some prime time tv, I was in for an education. Viewing outside my regular fare, I was really surprised by the number of shows dealing with issues of homosexuality that were aired on one channel in one night. In fact, every show I watched touched on the subject in one way or another. There was, of course, Will and Grace, which used profanity and abusive name-calling (aimed at their friends, men calling one another b****, mind you)like no other show I have watched on tv, ever. Then The Apprentice, in which the contestants had to create a tv commercial, one of which used pornographic and homosexual innuendo that was NOT well received by the executives, who had planned on selling soap.

Last was ER, which used drama to address this serious and painful issue, and dealt intelligently with the effects of intolerance and/or acceptance by people of faith, both gay and straight. A lesbian daughter finally meets her birth mother after a long search and discovers her mother is a down-home Christian, singing with her church choir in the area. The issue is whether or not to tell her mother about her lifestyle. She does and it is just as she fears. Her mother tells her that homosexuality is wrong.

She tells her mother "Why do you people hate us? When there are really bad things in the world, like drugs and abuse, why do you say "better watch out for those lesbians, they're going to upset our ideal lifestyle...?" or words to that effect.

Her mother assures her that God loves her, argues against homosexuality, and then they part ways.

If the issue is intolerance, then at least both characters were intolerant. The daughter comes back to her mother's hotel later and says "Can you accept me just as I am?" The mother says "I can love you, no matter who you are." The daughter says "I don't want love without acceptance," hugs her and leaves to the choral music "Just as I am." Interesting choice of hymns. What does that mean, exactly?

This issue is a hot button for our culture, and I almost did not write about it. I seek to hurt or offend no one, but I felt compelled to point out how I feel as a Christian I am to address homosexuality.

Biblically, homosexuality is a sin. There are lots and lots of sins. We are born with a nature to sin, and so are condemned already in the sight of God. Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." It is our sin nature that separates us from God, it is not God that separates Himself from us. But God does not tell us to persecute others for their sin. Leviticus 19:17'You (A)shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart; you may surely reprove your neighbor, but shall not incur sin because of him."

What the mother did in this case was absolutely biblical. God makes his stance on homosexuality very clear. 13'(L)If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act." We are not haters of sinners, being sinners ourselves, but we are not supposed to "incur sin because" of another. To accept another person's choice to sin is to sin ourselves. It doesn't mean hate them, but it does mean not to accept sin.

Judging: Relativism vs. just being chicken

2005-02-01T15:03:00.000-08:00

Is there a difference between judging and using judgement? I recently posted about the cultural tendency towards putting children first, which, of course, most parents would deem a worthy goal, but in my post I used the word "judge" with regard to the parents in two scenarios. My point was that when parents do this, they commit idolatry when they fail to effectively parent their children. I wasn't very worried about offending them, since they don't exist. Though the events were hypothetical, I suppose being judgemental isn't appropriate, even hypothetically. Another blogger pointed this out to me, to my chagrin. I had to consider if I was guilty of being judgemental, even if I only viewed it as an exercise.

I would like to make a distinction between making a judgement and using judgement. God gave us tools with which we discern right from wrong, namely, our senses and our intelligence. My point is that there is a fear of making any sort of statement that would tend to point out wrongness in any situation. It is politically incorrect to call a sin a sin.

In my hypotheticals, I do not tell you to judge other parents so that you may tell them they are sinning and say, like the Pharisee "Oh, thank God I'm not as bad as you!" I do suggest using your ability to discern when you see sin in others, but to what end? ALWAYS, without fail, my motives for this should be for self application. Not to do so is, in fact, judgemental. When I observe a circumstance and discern something that I believe is wrong, my first objective is to self-evaluate and compare my own behavior in comparison with what is scriptural. The next step is to make corrections in myself if I am remiss. As I said "All scripture is .. profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and instruction in righteousness..." (KJV because that's the one I know, sort of...)

But above all, we as Christians must not be afraid to say that something is scripturally unsound and to make a statement based upon that. I do, however, caution myself because if you make a statement of belief, you must act upon it, and that is more difficult than I would like to admit. In doing so, I am pinning myself down. This is why I believe our culture tends not to make firm statements about anything. This is the curse of relativism.

Go See Vox Apologia III

2005-01-31T13:10:00.000-08:00

The preceding post on euthanasia was written for Vox Apologia III. For those who don't know, Vox Apologia is a weekly symposium on different issues in apologetics. Obviously this week's topic was euthanasia. It will be hosted at different sites every week, so check out razorskiss.net to find out more. Check out Revenge of Mr. Dumpling for the rest of this week's installment. Enjoy!

Does "Quality of Life" Make a Difference?

2005-01-28T20:42:00.000-08:00

Last year President Ronald Reagan died after a long battle with Alzheimer’s Disease. For weeks afterward we heard tales of his slow descent from a sharp, out-going man to the mentally and physically frail kind of person that Alzheimer’s always leaves in its wake. It was a sad time for Americans and the world, and it reminded many of us how much we want to avoid that sort of fate. It is not unusual for people to want to take matters into their own hands, or at least ask family members to do so. In other words, many would rather be euthanized than let nature take its course. But is euthanasia a morally viable option? Should it be legal?

The key question is this: can we rightly call euthanasia murder? Murder, as we all know, is the unjustified taking of a human life, but proponents of euthanasia often appeal to a person’s quality of life as a justification for the practice. So is euthanasia a justified killing or not? We must acknowledge that the concept of “quality of life” has a certain gut-level appeal in our culture. Even Christian people will nod in agreement when it is mentioned. If your quality of life is low, then you should be allowed to exit gracefully, or so the reasoning goes (notice how terms like “exit gracefully” can be used to deflect the arguments that euthanasia is murder).

It seems to me, however, that “quality of life” is a bit of a slippery concept. It has an inherent appeal to enjoyment or pleasure that seems to be problematic. According to some, if a person, say an Alzheimer’s patient, is not able to enjoy her life, then she should be euthanized, or at least have the option of euthanizing herself. This gives rise to a question: If quality of life the deciding factor, why should we not allow suicide for those with severe depression? Especially for those for whom therapy and/or medicine has had negligible effect? They are not enjoying life. Surely their quality of life is as low as the Alzheimer’s patient. Most people, however, will reject this idea. Why? It is because they think the life of the depressed individual still holds more promise than the life of the Alzheimer’s patient, and they may be right about that last point. However, I reject this as a reason for differentiating between the Alzheimer’s patient and the severely depressed. If we make life and death decisions based on potential for future actions we run into yet another problem. Once again, where is the line to be drawn? There are degrees of potential, are there not? Where should we draw the line as to who lives and who dies? Are people with higher potential, like a young Albert Einstein, more valuable than a more average person like myself? And if so, why stop with the terminally ill? Why not move forward to the mentally disabled?

Right about now I expect some are crying “slippery slope argument!” Though there may be a “slope” there is no fallacy here. I am not claiming that the execution of the mentally disabled will occur. Instead, I am saying that the same logic can be used to justify the euthanasia of the terminally ill and the mentally disabled. This indicates the flawed nature of this argument in favor of euthanasia. It leads to undesirable consequences.

Another argument for euthanasia relies on a system of morality that allows for the killing of those who are no longer useful for themselves or society. This kind of argument certainly does not follow the moral intuitions of most people, though that in itself does not mean the idea is false. It does, however, mean that we can feel free to treat it with skepticism. If the person who holds to this morality cannot give us a strong reason to abandon what we intuitively believe, it can be rejected. I must point out, however, that even if we do allow for this form of morality the person to be euthanized can still serve a useful purpose for society, if not for themselves.
For instance, caring for such individuals can positively shape the character of those who perform the care. When we care for those who cannot care for themselves we may develop empathy for those who are less fortunate in society. The benefits are obvious. Increased personal generosity could alleviate problems with poverty. We might also develop an appreciation for our own lives through the care for those in such need. Don’t misunderstand; I am not saying these things absolutely would happen. I am not that naïve. I am saying that with proper direction those involved in care for invalids can develop these positive character traits.

Noticeably absent from this essay so far has been any reference to physical suffering. We’ve covered issues stemming from psychological suffering, but we haven’t mentioned anything about pain. For instance, cancer can be an agonizing way to die. Why not let someone die to avoid the pain? I must point out that with modern medicine the pain is avoidable. “But,” someone may object, “often pain medicine leaves you in a stupor. You are not yourself for the rest of your life!” My response is to say that the section above applies to this sort of psychological suffering. Besides, it is clear that the person in the stupor is not suffering because they are not aware enough to suffer.

A better objection is this: “We certainly have this pain medication now, but what about in the past or somewhere where no anesthesia is available? Was allowing someone to suffer wrong then?” As a preliminary response I would say that people didn’t live as long with their illnesses in the past either, so suffering often wasn’t prolonged as it can be today.
Ultimately it comes down to your view of what it means to be human. Are we valuable in ourselves, or are we only valuable as long as we are useful? If we are valuable in ourselves no amount of pain can justify one of us taking another’s life (what can justify taking a life is another question entirely). If we are valuable as long as we are useful, then by all means eliminate the “useless.” Beware, however, because this logic will justify a long and gruesome future.

Carl Sagan and the Lithic Principle

2005-01-27T13:39:00.000-08:00

One of my favorite topics to think about with regard to Christianity and science is what is known as the anthropic principle. Many of you may already know what the anthropic principle is, but for those who do not I will provide a short definition. The anthropic principle is the idea that science reveals the universe has been fine-tuned to be a hospitable place for intelligent beings like you and me. Further, this fine-tuning indicates the presence of a 'tuner,' namely God.

A while back I came across an interesting quote by the late Carl Sagan taken from his book Pale Blue Dot. In order to disparage the anthropic principle Sagan says this:

There is something stunningly narrow about how the Anthropic Principle is phrased. Yes, only certain laws and constants of nature are consistent with our kind of life. But essentially the same laws and constants are required to make a rock. So why not talk about a Universe designed so rocks could one day come to be, and strong and weak Lithic Principals? If stones could philosophize, I imagine Lithic Principals would be at the intellectual frontiers.

I thought on it for a while and I came up with what I might say in response. I'd like to start with the last sentence of his statement. "If stones could philosophize, I imagine Lithic Principals would be at the intellectual frontiers." I've never been one to be critical of intelligent people, but this statement makes me wonder if Sagan fully understood what the Anthropic Principle was really about. If rocks could indeed philosophize it would make perfect sense for them to come up with the Lithic Principle because the Anthropic Principle states that the universe was created in order to allow for intelligent life. If rocks were intelligent, then a Lithic Principle makes sense. The fact remains, however, that they are not and we humans are. Hence the Anthropic Principle.

Something else that supports the Anthropic Principle against Sagan's objection is the idea of Galactic Habitable Zones (GHZs). I'm taking this from Jay Wesley Richards, who works with the Discovery Institute. He has written a book with astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez called The Privileged Planet on the topic of GHZs.

In short, the book shows that our place in the galaxy is the best possible place from which the universe could be observed. So not only are the laws of nature such that we were able to come into existence, but these laws also show that the best place for us to come into existence will also be the best place in the galaxy from which to observe the rest of the galaxy! This demonstrates that the universe is not only structured so that things like rocks can exist, but it is also structured so that intelligent beings can exist and discover the nature of the universe itself. God has placed beautiful things throughout the universe, and He wants us to find them. This is in perfect harmony with passages like Romans 1:18-20.

Not only that, but this fact also tells us that God is intelligent and indicates that He loves His creation. Why else would He go to such a great extent to show His existence through His creation? I know what you may be thinking. "If God is omnipotent, how can we say that He went to a "great extent" to do anything? If God has all power isn't it just as easy for Him to do one thing as another?" In a word, yes, but then we must examine why God chose the option He did. Why didn't He just stick us somewhere where nearby stars would outshine the rest of the universe? God wanted us to see His works and conclude, "Wow, this must have come from somewhere!"

Parents indicted: story at eleven

2005-01-26T19:56:00.000-08:00

An indictment of American parents: our children are being raised by idolators.

For the purposes of this post, let's say idolatry is defined as "anything we love more than we love God." This is going to be a tough one. I know because I am a parent and I see this trend becoming pervasive in our culture. Sadly, even as adults we are not immune to peer pressure. Even more sadly, peer pressure in America is no longer supportive of the Christian life. In fact, the opposite appears to be true.

Now let me present a couple of scenarios and when I am finished, use your first gut reaction to judge.

Scenario 1: A man is offered a sizable promotion by his company. With this promotion comes a lot of responsibility, but the income will be much greater. This man is a Christian and prides himself on his integrity. Before making the decision whether to take the job, he calls a family meeting and asks his wife and children how they feel about the situation. His wife is pleased and proud of her husband, but the children are distraught at the idea that the promotion will mean they have to change schools and leave their friends, their way of life, everything that is familiar to them. They would have to start all over in a new place and feel upset about the move in spite of the financial gain. The mother sees the distress in her children's eyes and tells her husband she is against the move. Money isn't everything, after all. He tells his employer the next day that he is not interested in the promotion if it means moving. He goes home that day at peace with his choice. He feels that he has made a selfless and nonmaterialstic choice.

Now judge the man.

Scenario 2: A mother is in a store with her two children, both toddlers. She clearly has her hands full. Another woman watches as she struggles to keep the children occupied while she shops. At last she has had enough. She raises her voice and says "You are being very bad! Now sit down or I will have to punish you!" The woman is appalled. She approaches the mother and says "I'm sure you don't mean that your children are bad. Using negative language like that just brings out more negativity." The woman comforts the children, saying "Now you will be good for your mommy, won't you?" The children nod and smile, and the mother, abashed, leaves the store.

Now judge the woman.

In both of these scenarios, the adults are idolators. What are they idolizing? The children.

Am I suggesting the father should take the money and run? Of course not, but before he asked his children, should he not have consulted God, and used his time in prayer and meditation to discern what the most prudent choice would be? Suppose after turning down this promotion his boss now feels he is not a team player, and he is passed over again and finally let go entirely? Now he cannot serve God nor his children. (See Lot's decision to move to Sodom as an example of acting without consulting God.)

Am I suggesting the mother should have yanked her children out of the buggy and spanked them into submission? Of course not. But the Woman in this scenario is the idolator. Children must be made to behave. Scripture tells us how to do so, though in my opinion discipline can be handed out without a "rod." Time out and restriction are perfectly adequate modes of discipline and are probably more effective, but parents have a RIGHT and a DUTY to discipline their children.

Proverbs 22:6 "Train [ Or Start ] a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it" II Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is Godbreathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

p.s. I have spanked my children. My considered feeling now is that I wish I never had. Once a child is spanked, you can never unspank them, so if you have not, my suggestion is that you investigate other methods of discipline. Before you spank, think (not to be trite, but...) "what would Jesus do?" It'll at least give you time to cool down before punishing.

People, Maggots and Poor Judgement

2005-01-22T11:49:00.000-08:00

Can one human rightly and correctly judge another human? Before you answer, let us consider just what it means to be human. I believe that God has created humans with many wonderful attributes that go beyond the engineering of our bodies, which in itself quite remarkable. All humans have been given brains that scientist have just begun to fathom and even the most simple of folk can put robotics to shame (at least so far) when it comes to sensory perceptions, processing raw information or observing a scenario and designing a course of action, problem solving and arriving at rational conclusions is really an impressive gift. Before we stare into the collective mirror and begin to pick one another apart using the equipment that has been endowed to us, let us consider that to a certain point IQ can be measured, "beauty contest" can be won or lost and that humans can exhibit skills in varying degrees, to as many disciplines as humans may apply themselves.

So to begin, let us narrow our criteria, first eliminate conditions for which a human has no control, genetics, DNA, our forebears etc. For the purpose of this discussion we will not concern ourselves specifically with government (law making) enforcement (policing) and the judicial (court system). These systems are in place (a God given mandate, according to scripture) and are not perfect, ironically because humans are performing these actions.

We shall focus our attention to another set of "Laws", given by God to Moses and thus to humankind. God has set down these commandments so humans can have a set of values beyond their own making, and thereby beyond their ability to perform them. The Old Testament is a source of many illustrations of humankinds inability to perform the standards of God and quite a few examples of those who deluded themselves into believing they were faithful to the task. If a man did not murder his neighbor but only hated him he could say " I keep the Law". What seems apparent to only a few in Biblical account is, GOD WANTS PEOPLES HEARTS AND MINDS. This point seems lost on the majority of people in both the Old and New Testaments and the Law was given to illustrate man's inability to meet God's standard.

Good new! Jesus came to fulfill the law, Jesus did not want to do away with the law, He knows it is still the "standard". Through Jesus Christ, through Jesus fulfilling the "Law" people everywhere can once again have fellowship with God, which I believe was the point anyway.

That being said we're back to our question. Do we as humans have the means to correctly and rightly judge one another? Given the fact that we cannot divine the thoughts of others or really know the motivation behind the actions of others, how is it possible to carry out the assignment not given by God, but by ourselves to judge fellow human beings? Given the "Ten Commandments" humans took it to the next level and produced a few hundred regulations. People seem to like list, even when they are not in written form "do this" or "don't do that". It seems to be in 0ur nature, but then so is "sin". Jesus said " Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." Matthew 7:1,2. It seems to me that to bolster our own egos we observe our fellows and seem to think that his grass is a little greener so we look until we find a chink in his armor (or Crabgrass) and point it out. If he should violate our list of reguations we will with indignation desire to point a finger of accusation! Jesus in Matthew 7:3-5 points out our human inability to judge well with the story of the twig in our brother's eye, when we ourselves have a tree in ours.

The answer for me to the question, Can one human rightly and correctly judge another human? Is no, NO. We really are not endowed with that super human power, more to the point God has not given us the right. It's very much like one maggot complaining about the hygiene of another maggot.

If you were to ask me, if on more than one occasion I presumed to judge others, no contest would be my answer, for I too am guilty, shame on me. Let's at least try to do better.

Making Sense of Slavery

2005-01-18T10:24:00.000-08:00

An objection often raised by your garden variety skeptic has to do with slavery. "Why," they ask, "would God allow slavery? Isn't slavery an evil institution?" When it gets right down to it, this objection isn't that difficult to overcome. In fact, the skeptic often doesn't care if you answer his objection effectively; He simply moves on to the next one. That being the case, you can consider this post something for your own edification or for the rare person who is asking honest questions. We will look briefly at slavery in the Old Testament first, then we will move on to the New Testament.

The first thing we should do in addressing slavery in the Old Testament is to point out that slavery in Biblical times was not quite the same thing as the experience we had here in America. People often sold themselves into slavery in order to pay debts, and even then many had a degree of freedom. For instance, some of them could own property. Also, in the Ancient Near East (when and where the OT was written) the rights a master could exercise over his slave were regulated by concerns for human rights and social justice.

In another striking difference from Western slavery, the slavery of the Old Testament was installed to help the poor rather than the slave owner (see Lev. 25.35-43). Hebrew slaves were to be freed every six years, and when they were released their masters were to send them out with gifts to get them started on their way. Female slaves enjoyed even greater privileges than male slaves, as they were granted freedom in situations men were not (Ex. 21:10-11). Great care was taken in the Mosaic law to make certain that people were not being mistreated. Punishments for killing a slave were the same as the punishments for killing anyone else, which shows that slaves were given basic human rights.

In the New Testament the situation is different. The Roman institution of slavery was not as humanitarian as that of the Hebrews, but it is interesting to learn that some men, like Pallas, actually sold themselves into slavery in hopes of advancement in society. Apparently if you were purchased by a high ranking individual your chances for upward advancement increased. This obviously was not the case in America.

Another thing that is vital to understand regarding the New Testament and slavery is that the number one concern for a Christian is not his or her personal freedom, it is the declaration of the Gospel of Christ. If I am a slave and a Christian my first concern is to have a good testimony before my master so I can represent Christ to him. My own personal 'rights' are secondary. American Christians (and non-Christians) often have this idea turned on its head. We seem to think that becoming a Christian should leave us free to pursue our own ends, but our ends need to conform to God's. Sometimes this could mean remaining in a state that is unpleasant to our earthly sensibilities. That being said, Paul does encourage slaves to gain their freedom if they can. They can be of more use for the Kingdom of Christ that way. Keep in mind as well that many slaves during that time had two options: slavery and death. In similar situations most of us would choose survival.

It is evident, then, that the slavery objection does not carry the weight a skeptic might suspect. A little historical and biblical study will show that once again God's goodness and justice are vindicated.

There are two essays upon which I heavily relied for this post:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslavent.html

"Christians Are Hypocrites!" And Other Such Challenges

2005-01-11T07:21:00.000-08:00

How many times have you heard this phrase: "I would become a Christian or go to church, but all those Christians are such hypocrites!" Perhaps you've used the phrase yourself on a well-meaning Christian. One of the main problems Christians have today is that such complaints are justified over and over again. It's true, there are many hypocrites who do great harm to the faith. On the other hand, this complaint is just a shield some non-christians use to avoid dealing with the truth claims of the Bible. Let me explain.

When someone wants to argue against someone else's claim they have to deal with the facts. Take the judicial system as an example. Ideally, one lawyer lays out the case for one side, another lays out the opposite side, and a judge or jury decides which lawyer has the support of the facts.

What if a judge said, "Well, Lawyer Smith may or may not have the facts on his side in this case, but I know that he is a hypocrite in his every day life. Therefore, I will side with his opponent."

We would all recognize that the judge's decision is flawed. Just because someone has a problem in their personal life doesn't mean that the things they tell you are false. If the teachings of Christianity are true, whether or not some Christians live up to those teachings should have no effect on whether you believe them or not.

Look to the facts! When you realize that the claims of Christianity are in fact true, nothing should then stop you from accepting them. Anything less would be irrational.

How Could You, God?!?!

2005-01-04T13:02:00.000-08:00

A number of people have been using the recent tsunami to re-ask the question, "how could a loving God allow people to suffer?" This is known as "the problem of evil" or the "problem of suffering." The conclusion they want us to reach is that because such suffering exists it is at least improbable that a loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God exists. We at the HAT think this is the wrong conclusion to reach and I would like to point you toward a short blog entry by Christian philosopher John Depoe that gives some good reasons why:

Why did God allow the tsunami to occur?

DaVinci's legacy

2004-12-28T17:51:00.000-08:00

How would Leonardo have felt about being the center of all this hype? He'd have loved it, I'm sure, but the subject matter of the DaVinci Code brings to the fore some tough questions that Christians need to be able to address. I have read Breaking the DaVinci Code which was an immense help in clearing up a lot of the half-truths, misconceptions, and out-and-out lies put forth as having been researched and found to be reliable in the DaVinci Code (which is, after all, fiction). Breaking the Code was easy to read and follow for someone unschooled in the history of the compilation of the bible, and best of all, if you have doubts, there are other sources to check out. I hate having to take anyone's word for it, even if I agree! It's only fair.

My strongest feeling about the Da Vinci Code relates directly to whether or not Jesus married Mary Magdelene and what effect that might have on my faith or my belief in Christ as the Messiah. After careful thought I really wonder and welcome comment on this topic, because frankly, there is nothing to say Christ couldn't have been married and still been THE Christ and fulfilled His mission anyway. I don't believe He was married, and I cite Breaking the Code as the most plausible evidence to that effect, but even if He were, there would be no need for a whole secret society to cover up the fact, since it doesn't negate Jesus' Godhood anyway. The best reason for Christ to not marry would be so that His attention would not be split between His wife and His mission. As for the marital relationship, well, that was God's idea in the first place. What's wrong with it?

At any rate, opinions are welcome on this most interesting topic.

The Da Vinci Code Movie: What's a Christian to Do?

2004-12-20T07:46:00.000-08:00

In a recent column in the Chicago Sun-Times film critic Richard Roeper chides concerned Christians over their response to the upcoming movie based on Dan Brown's best seller The Da Vinci Code. "An e-mail making the rounds is urging recipients to contact actor Tom Hanks, who has agreed to play the lead in Ron Howard's adaptation of Dan Brown's wildly popular novel," states Roeper. I have not personally received this e-mail, and if I did I would do with it what I do with most e-mails of this variety: Delete it. I understand the desire to keep the bunk festering between the covers of The Da Vinci Code out of the public eye, but I think this is the wrong approach in attacking it. More on that later.

According to Roeper Chuck Colson wrote, "For non-believers, [the book] confirms their unbelief. It turns off honest seekers, and it has confused and disillusioned even many Christians," to which Roeper responds, "I doubt it." Unfortunately, he is wrong. The fact of the matter is that many Christians have been shaken by the book and I have personally talked with at least one "non-believer" who bolstered his opinions with erroneous information gleaned from The Da Vinci Code.

It is a sad situation when Christians are so uneducated about their own faith and its history that they will swallow obvious lies, no matter how cleverly packaged. There is only one way to counter this sort of thing, and it doesn't involve e-mail petitions to Tom Hanks. The only way to stop The Da Vinci Code from having a negative impact is to know the truth and to spread that knowledge to everyone who will listen. Be ready to gently correct your friends when they tell you how Constantine compiled the Bible. Let them know that Pierre Plantard, one of the men who began the Priory of Sion in the 1950s, has admitted the documents claiming Da Vinci and other historical luminaries were members are phony. It would also be useful for you to acquaint yourself with the Jewish culture of Jesus' day in order to refute claims that Jesus would have had to be married.

I know, I know, it seems like a tall order. Who has the time to do all that research? Well, the good news is that a number of strong Christian men have done the hard stuff for us. Let me end this entry with a few book recommendations. I have read a couple of these books (the ones marked with a '*'), but others I have not. Of the books I have not read I will only list those books by authors I know I can trust.

*The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction by Hank Hanegraaff and Paul Maier

*Breaking the Da Vinci Code: Answers to the Questions Everybody's Asking by Darrell Bock

The Da Vinci Deception by Erwin Lutzer

All of these books are small and could be read in a weekend (if not less). They provide an excellent critique of the claims of The Da Vinci Code in an easy to read fashion. Pick up one or all of them today.

the HAT from Living Hope

2004-12-13T07:48:00.000-08:00

Hello! You are reading the first official post from the Huntington Apologetics Team. The HAT is an arm of Living Hope Bible Church in Huntington, WV that is dedicated to answering the tough questions people pose about Christianity. We don't have all the answers, but we will do our best to find them. Hopefully in the next few days we will have some introductory posts from our members.

PS: Protect Your Head!