Whereas our “adversary the devil,” the father of lies, seeks to keep humanity in a cloud of darkness and doubt,¹ our omnibenevolent “God is not the author of confusion but of peace,”² comfort,³ and illumination.⁴ “[T]he Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning…brought us forth by the word of truth” (James 1:17-18). God’s unchanging, rock-solid Truth, brings enlightenment and stability to a dark and chaotic world.

Even after seeing the light and obeying the Truth, we as Christians sometimes lose our spiritual bearings and find ourselves among the rocks and thorns (Luke 8:13-14). We can feel like we are drowning in a quagmire of doubt and despair, with blurred vision and hearts that are questioning all sorts of things which God settled long ago. Rather than living the Christian life to its fullest, we can get stuck in neutral (or reverse), “grasping for the wind” (Ecclesiastes 1:14).

Thankfully, frequent contemplation of the most fundamental spiritual truths of life can bring clarity amidst confusion, peace amongst apprehension, and courage in the face of fear. In a world full of sin, doubt, and chaos, walking daily with God’s answers to the four most important questions of life provides lucidity, focus, and a real, soul-anchoring hope.

These questions are so fundamental and so important that, if I had only one opportunity to speak to the world about anything, or if there was only one article that I could ever write, this is what I would say.

Question #1—Why Am I Here?

Do you know why you are here? This question is not about what you are doing at this very moment, or what you hope to do next month or next year. Rather, behind it all, underneath everything, at your very core, what is your “Why?” Why do you exist? What is your purpose in life?

Some contend that humanity has no real purpose. One of the world’s most celebrated atheistic, evolutionary writers of the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries, Richard Dawkins, has argued: “The Universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom…no purpose…nothing but pitiless indifference.”⁵ Graham Lawton, Executive Editor of New Scientist magazine, penned a one-page article in 2016 titled, “What is the Meaning of Life?” What answer did this leading atheistic evolutionist give? Here was his heavy-hitting first line: “The harsh answer is ‘it has none.’”⁶ “Your life may feel like a big deal to you,” he wrote, “but it’s actually a random blip of matter and energy in an uncaring and impersonal universe.”⁷ Since we supposedly “will never get objective data on the matter,” we are unable “to capture a ‘true’ or ‘higher’ meaning” to life.⁸

Logically speaking, if there is no God and this natural realm is all there is, then Lawton and Dawkins are exactly right: there is no true, higher, objective purpose in life. We might “feel like” there is, but if we are just “dust in the wind” (as the band Kansas sang in the 1970s), then our lives really are as meaningless as “a random blip of matter.”

Yet, despite the innate vacuousness of naturalism, most people still seek to find purpose and meaning on an experiential level (though still purely subjective). If our lives do not naturally have meaning, then we’ll just keep searching for it anyway, or we’ll make it up as we go along. And so, we tend to look for purpose in pleasures, in power, in education, in employment, in riches, in rest, in conservation, or in trying to escape death. Yet still, a real, life-anchoring meaning, which brings hope, joy, and endurance even in the darkest of times, escapes us—just as it did one of the wisest and wealthiest men ever to live.

In the book of Ecclesiastes (one of the more unusual books of the Bible), King Solomon⁹ exclaimed:

• “I have attained greatness, and have gained more wisdom than all who were before me in Jerusalem. My heart has understood great wisdom and knowledge” (1:16; cf. 1 Kings 3:9-13).
• “I made my works great…. [M]y heart rejoiced in all my labor” (2:4,10).
• “I also gathered for myself silver and gold and the special treasures of kings…. I had greater possessions of herds and flocks than all who were in Jerusalem before me” (2:8,7).
• “I became great and excelled more than all who were before me in Jerusalem” (2:9).
• “I said in my heart, ‘Come now, I will test you with mirth; therefore enjoy pleasure…. I searched in my heart how to gratify my flesh with wine…and how to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was good for the sons of men to do under heaven all the days of their lives…. Whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them, I did not withhold my heart from any pleasure” (2:1,3,10).

If anyone could say, “I’ve tried it all,” it was Solomon.

• Abundant knowledge and wisdom?
• Extensive labor?
• Great riches?
• Unparalleled power and prestige?
• Extravagant fleshly pleasures, including 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3)?
  

Yet, even though he “had everything” and “experienced it all,” Solomon repeatedly stressed the meaninglessness of life “under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). From a purely naturalistic, earthly perspective, “all is vanity and grasping for the wind” (1:14).

• “[I]n much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow” (1:18).
• “[T]here is no end to all his labors…. [H]is work [is] burdensome; even in the night his heart takes no rest” (4:8; 2:23). Solomon wrote: “I hated life because the work that was done under the sun was distressing to me, for all is vanity and grasping for the wind. Then I hated all my labor in which I had toiled under the sun, because I must leave it to the man who will come after me. And who knows whether he will be wise or a fool?” (2:17-19).
• “He who loves silver will not be satisfied with silver; nor he who loves abundance with increase. This also is vanity” (5:10).
• A man may be so powerful that it could be said, “there was no end of all the people over whom he was made king.” But even then, “those who come afterward will not rejoice in him. Surely this also is vanity and grasping for the wind” (4:16).

The cold, hard truth is: all naturalistic pursuits for ultimate meaning and satisfaction are futile. On both a logical and experiential level, the material realm is incapable of providing “objective data on the matter.”¹⁰ So, where do we find the answer to the meaning of life? Why am I here?

Question #2—Where Did I Come From?

The answer to the first question is imbedded firmly and deeply within the answers to the next three, beginning with coming to understand where we came from. The reason atheists incorrectly conclude that life has no meaning is that they think that we came from nothing, from nowhere. If, as popular American atheist Dan Barker admitted, “Something came from nothing,”¹¹ and, if, as the late, renowned cosmologist Stephen Hawking concluded, “Nothing caused the Big Bang,”¹² then we have no logical reason to be here. There would be no ultimate meaning to life. We simply would be the result of a mindless, cosmic accident, which is impotent to provide a real purpose for our existence.

However, atheism is fatally flawed because matter demands a Maker; life on Earth demands a life Giver; complex, functional design in the Universe demands a Designer; and the supernatural attributes of the Bible demand a Supernatural Author.¹³ Thus, the evidence indicates that God exists and the Bible is His Word.¹⁴ In Ecclesiastes 12:1, the wise man gave the perfect starting point to finding real meaning to our lives: “Remember now your Creator.” Truly we can only begin to learn of our real purpose in life by reflecting on exactly where we came from.

We are not the result of a cosmic accident, nor are we the descendants of bacteria or baboon-like creatures. On the contrary, as Solomon concluded: we were specially made by the Divine Creator. Similar to God Himself, Who “is Spirit” (John 4:23-24), He made us as spiritual beings, but ones that inhabit physical bodies (Ecclesiastes 12:7). He made one man and one woman on the sixth day of Creation, saying, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness…. So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:26-27).¹⁵ Not only did God specially make Adam and Eve, but He has uniquely made every spirit of every person since then. Thousands of years after Creation, Paul said to an audience of unbelievers in Athens, “We are the offspring of God” (Acts 17:28-29). He did not say that man had been a divine image-bearer in the past; he said, “we are (esmen)¹⁶ also his offspring” (17:28).¹⁷

James wrote: “But the tongue can no man tame; it is a restless evil, it is full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we the Lord and Father; and therewith curse we men, who are made after the likeness of God: out of the same mouth cometh forth blessing and cursing. My brethren these things ought not so to be” (3:8-9, ASV).¹⁸ The thrust of the expression, “who are made after the likeness of God,” is that humans in the past have been made according to the likeness of God, and they are still bearers of that likeness. All human beings are divine image-bearers. All of us are sons and daughters of God by Creation. In a sense, all of us have royalty in our blood. Contrary to what some leading atheists contend (and we say this confidently, yet humbly), “We are a big deal!” because we come from a Big God!

Whether or not we come to know and acknowledge that we ultimately originated from the hand of God makes all of the difference in the world. Apart from Him, we are nothing and have no real meaning to our lives. But, “in Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Only upon coming to this fact-based and fascinating conclusion can we successfully answer the most important questions of life, including our previous question, “Why am I here?” as well as our next question, “Where am I going?”

Question #3—Where Am I Going?

If there is no God and this supposed accidental, material realm is all there is, then we’re not going anywhere when our short lives are over. In a 1994 debate at Stanford University on Darwinism, atheistic professor William Provine summarized his views on modern evolutionary biology and its “loud and clear” implications. According to Dr. Provine, “There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is…no ultimate meaning in life.”¹⁹ But Dr. Provine is wrong: there is ultimate purpose, because the evidence indicates that an eternal, spiritual Creator exists, Who revealed to us why we are here and where we are going.

So where are we going? To be blunt, we are all on our way to the grave. A dash on a tombstone begins at birth and points to the day of death. “[T]he living know that they will die” (Ecclesiastes 9:5). “[I]t is appointed for men to die once” (Hebrews 9:27). Yet, the day of physical death is not the end.

After reminding man to reflect upon our origins at the hand of the Creator, Solomon revealed that man’s “spirit will return to God who gave it” (Ecclesiastes 12:7). Just as Rachel’s soul departed her body at death (Genesis 35:18), so does the spirit of every man (James 2:26)—not to go out of existence, but to enter the Creator’s eternal, spirit realm to await Judgment. Twice in the final 16 verses of Ecclesiastes we learn that “God will bring you into judgment” (11:9). In fact, “God will bring every work into judgement, including every secret thing, whether good or evil” (12:14). Indeed, “God will judge both the righteous and the wicked man, for a time for every matter and for every deed is there” (3:17, NASB)—at the judgment seat of God.

After instructing the Athenians about where they came from (“we are the offspring of God”—Acts 17:29), the apostle Paul logically directed their attention to where we are going: God has “appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man Whom He has ordained” (Acts 17:31), the Son of God, to Whom the Father “has committed all judgment” (John 5:22). The coming Judgment is a constant theme in the New Testament. In fact, when the Judge previously came to Earth as our Savior, He repeatedly warned mankind (especially in His parables) of His coming Judgment. From the wheat and tares to the dragnet (Matthew 13:24-30,36-43,47-50), from the rich fool to the wicked vinedressers (Luke 12:13-21; Matthew 21:33-40), and from the wise and foolish virgins to the sheep and goats (Matthew 25:1-46), Jesus continually reminded man where we are going.

Just prior to Judgment, “the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all the nations: and he shall separate them one from another” (Matthew 25:31-32, ASV). No one knows when this time will come (Matthew 24:36). In fact, “the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night” (2 Peter 3:10)—suddenly and unexpectedly.

The Bible speaks of “the time of your stay upon earth” (1 Peter 1:17, NASB). Like “a stay” at a hotel for a brief period of time, we are all just passing through this world. This planet is not our home, but only a temporary residence. If this physical realm lasts much longer, we are all going to die. But whether we die prior to Jesus’ return or whether He comes in our lifetime (and we avoid physical death), we are all going somewhere forever—we are returning to our Maker (Ecclesiastes 12:7); we are going to Judgment. And then, we are either going to receive eternal life or eternal punishment; we are going to heaven or hell (Matthew 25:46).

Question #4—How Do I Get There?

Realizing that every person will ultimately end up in either heaven or hell, the next logical, all-important question to ask is, “How?” How do we get from here to there?

Virtually no one professes that they actually want to go to hell, yet the path leading there is quite broad, and “many are those who enter” it in many different ways (Matthew 7:13). How exactly?

• By refusing to acknowledge where we came from.²⁰
• By doing little-to-nothing—like the lazy servant in the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30).
• By rejecting the spiritual (and practical) wisdom of God and going full-steam ahead with a materialistic lifestyle. As Ecclesiastes highlights, a focus on earthly wisdom, prosperity, and worldly pleasures is a recipe for spiritual disaster.
• By doing whatever “I think” is best. Rather than listen to God, man often does what is “right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). Yet, “the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jeremiah 10:23). Indeed, “[t]here is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Proverbs 14:12).
• In short, by sinning and not wholly trusting in the Lord—Who is the one and only answer to the sin (and punishment) problem.²¹

Similar to how God set “life and death, blessing and cursing” before the Israelites (prior to their entrance into the land of Canaan—Deuteronomy 30:19), God sets spiritual life and death before us all and pleads with us to “choose life.” God doesn’t want anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9). He “desires all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4). From the moment wretched sin entered the world, God began revealing His answer to the sin problem (Genesis 3:15; 12:1-3). Following thousands of years of Old Testament promises and prophecies pointing to the ultimate “Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), “God sent forth His Son” to redeem the slaves of sin and allow them to become His saved-from-sin children (Galatians 4:4-5). “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoeverbelieves in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved” (John 3:16-17). Indeed, God is so loving that He not only warned us of the eternal consequences of unforgiven sin, but even when we succumbed to sin, God took upon Himself the just punishment for our sins, that we might be saved! So why will many people still go to eternal hell? Because they choose to. Because they “trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was [they were] sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace” (Hebrews 10:29).

Our Overall Response to God In General Terms

The Bible is all about God, His plan to save man, and what He requires from us in response. In general terms, God calls us to do what Solomon concluded 3,000 years ago about the “whole matter”: “Fear God and keep His commandments” (Ecclesiastes 12:13). Another way of stating what our general response to God should be is found in Solomon’s words in Proverbs 3:5-7: “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths…. Fear the Lord and depart from evil.” Or, we could rightly summarize the essence of faithfulness (under Judaism and Christianity) with these challenging words from Jesus (Who was quoting the Old Testament²²): “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:37-40).

Our Initial Response to God In Specific Terms

How do I get there—to heaven, that is? How do I go from being lost in sin to being saved by the grace of God? In other words, “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30; 2:38; 22:10).

Specifically, God wants us to hear His saving Gospel message and believe it (Romans 10:14,17; John 8:24; Acts 15:7). He wants us to recognize our sinful ways and humbly repent of them (Acts 2:38; Acts 17:30). He wants us to confess a sincere belief in Christ on our way to becoming a child of God. (In the past 2,000 years, many people have been put to death for uttering the simple phrase, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” In the 21st century, it carries no less weight.) By confessing Jesus as the Son of God and as Lord and Savior, we are saying that we have stopped living for ourselves and started living for the King of kings, the Master of our souls.²³ The apostle Paul observed: “With the mouth confession is made to salvation” (Romans 10:10).

After confessing a sincere belief in Jesus, we have one simple yet profound step to take in order to become a child of God: be baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Just as Saul was commanded to be immersed in water in order to “wash away” his sins by the blood of Christ (Acts 22:16), so must we (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21). As Christ died, was buried, and rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:1-4), when we are baptized we “die” to sin, are buried in water, and rise to live a new life as a Christian (Romans 6:3-4).

Press On, Help Others, and Look Forward to Where We’re Going

The New Testament epistles of Romans through Revelation were written to a diverse group of individual Christians and churches. They may be generally summarized with these words: grow in your commitment to the Lord as you await His return, and help others become and remain faithful.

Although living a committed Christian life can be tough, we will be able to accomplish all things that He has called us to do through Christ Who gives us strength (Philippians 4:13). We can confidently “walk in the light as He is in the light,” and know that “the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin…. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:7,9). We can live forgiven and guilt-free, and know that we are saved (1 John 5:13). “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 15:58).²⁴

Faithful Christians can actually look forward (without any dread) to where we are going—to the end of time and the return of Jesus. “For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:20). “To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation” (Hebrews 9:28). Thus, “[w]e are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. Therefore we make it our aim, whether present or absent, to be well pleasing to Him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:8-10).

Along the way, we have the blessed privilege to help others in their journey to meet Jesus at Judgment. There is no better way to love our neighbors as ourselves than to help them get to heaven. Like Paul, let’s become “all things to all men,” that we might “by all means save some.” Let’s seek “the other’s well-being” that, in the end, “they may be saved” (1 Corinthians 9:22; 10:24,33).

Conclusion

We have now come full circle; we can end where we began. Since we can know where we came from, where we are going, and how to get there, we can absolutely know why we are here. Our lives are not meaningless. We are not mere molecules, DNA, or “dust in the wind.” The life of every individual human being is precious and important because of where we came from and where we are going. Our purpose is to prepare our souls for eternity and to help others do the same.

In a world of so much unbelief, doubt, despair, confusion, and insecurity, the God-revealed, crystal-clear, soul-stirring answers to the four most fundamental questions of life desperately need to be heard. Thoughtful meditation on these truths can clear away the fog of unbelief and refocus our lives around what really matters—the true meaning of life.

Endnotes

The post The Four Most Important Questions You Will Ever Ask appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Atheists, agnostics, and skeptics often ridicule Christians who believe in the various miracles recorded in the Bible. We are said to believe in superstition rather than science and in fairy tales rather than real facts. In reality, Christ was not crazy, and Christianity is not kooky. The Bible is absolutely believable. The whole matter of miracles is really quite simple, and yet profound.

Admittedly, if no supernatural God exists, then (1) the miracles of the Bible are make-believe, (2) the Bible itself is merely a work of fiction, and (3) Christians are very naïve. However, if an omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural Being does exist, then He could work any number of supernatural miracles (which are in harmony with His divine will). If there were no Universe, and He chose to create one, He could speak it into existence (Psalm 33:6-9). If He wanted to put on human flesh and dwell among mankind for a time, the all-powerful Creator could choose to interact with His creation “human”-to-human, face-to-face (John 1:1-3,14). If there were no written revelation from Him to mankind, He could certainly make that happen (2 Peter 1:20-21). He could ensure that writers of His choosing penned what He wanted mankind to know. If He wanted mankind to know that He created the world and everything in it, He could tell them through His divinely inspired writers. If He wanted His human creation to know about some of the miracles He worked through the millennia, again, He could communicate such information through His chosen writers.

In short, (1) if God exists, and (2) if the Bible is His Word, then genuine followers of Christ are not crazy at all. Since the evidence actually indicates that God does exist² and the Bible is His inspired Word,³ then those who have followed this evidence to its logical conclusion⁴ have reasonably concluded that the miracles of the Bible make perfect sense.⁵

In reality, the highly irrational position is atheism. Naturalistic atheism contends that matter came from nothing, yet no such thing has ever been observed to happen naturally. Atheism says that biological life came from non-life, yet science has known for many decades that, in nature, life only comes from pre-existing life. Think about it: Christians are supposedly crazy for believing that a supernatural God could supernaturally cause water to flow from a rock (Exodus 17:1-7), yet atheistic evolution contends that water evolved on Earth from dust and dirt over millions of years, and did so on its own. How is it, exactly, that Christians are the unreasonable ones for believing that the omnipotent God of the Universe once miraculously used a donkey to speak intelligible words to a man (Numbers 22:22-34), when atheistic evolution gets by with peddling the supposed fact that donkeys evolved from fish? If God (Who created Adam’s ear in the beginning) chose to reattach a severed ear of one of Adam’s descendants (Luke 22:50-51), that’s purportedly “preposterous,” but believing that ears just evolved naturally over millions of years (as atheists contend) is supposedly “reasonable.”

In truth, when genuine, biblical Christianity and naturalistic atheism are compared and contrasted, only one proves to be perfectly rational. “Come now, and let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18). “Speak the words of truth and reason” (Acts 26:25). If God exists and the Bible is His Word, Christianity makes perfect sense. Whether you are an atheist, an agnostic, a skeptic, or even a Christian who is struggling with doubt, why not consider the many evidences which reveal that real Christianity is a reasonable religion? We hope and pray that Apologetics Press can help you in your pursuit of Truth.

The post “You People Are Crazy” appeared first on Apologetics Press.

As just one example, consider: if one is a naturalist, he must believe that at some point(s) in the past, life arose from non-living substances (that is, the spontaneous generation of life occurred). Many scientific experiments have been conducted over the centuries testing the hypothesis that spontaneous generation could occur, and every one of them has resulted in the same conclusion: in nature, life only comes from life. No matter what scientists have tried to do in a laboratory to make non-living material come to life, it still remains non-living.³ If one is rational and follows the evidence to its logical conclusion, he will conclude that in the Universe (in nature), life cannot come about from non-life. If, however, he cannot stomach the evidence, and chooses instead to irrationally believe that life can come from non-life in spite of the evidence, he is holding to a blind faith in so doing. There is not one example from nature in which life has been shown to come from non-life.

If life only comes from previously existing life in the Universe, then whence came the original life? It must have originated from a supernatural Source—Someone outside of the Universe. Indeed, it is God Who “gives to all life, breath, and all things” (Acts 17:25).⁴

Endnotes

¹ Lionel Ruby (1960), Logic: An Introduction (Chicago, IL: J.B. Lippincott), pp. 130-131.

² Cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1; Acts 17:11; John 8:32; John 10:37; Dave Miller (2003),  “Blind Faith,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=444.

³ Jeff Miller (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis [Part 1],” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-5,9-11.

⁴ For more information, see Jeff Miller (2013), “Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith,” Reason & Revelation, 33[7]:76-83.

Suggested Resources

The post Evolutionists Have a Blind Faith appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Abraham’s faith in God was so strong that he got up early the next morning, made the preparations for the offering, and headed out with his son Isaac and two others to go to the place that God would show him. On the third day of travel, Abraham arrived in the area and told the two young men to stay with the donkey while he and Isaac went further in order to worship God. Being an obedient son, Isaac went right along with his father, carrying the wood for the burnt offering. In fact, when they arrived at the sacrificial site, Abraham built an altar, arranged the wood on the altar, and bound Isaac and laid him on the altar—yet Isaac complied with his father’s actions. When Abraham raised his hand to kill his son, the angel of the Lord spoke from heaven and ordered him not to harm his son. The angel noted how Abraham’s willingness to offer his son was proof that he respected God and was willing to obey Him.

Think about how Abraham’s strong faith was seen in three ways: (1) he told the young men who traveled with them to remain with the donkey and he and Isaac would “come back,” showing that Abraham believed that Isaac would survive the sacrifice; (2) when Isaac asked where the lamb was that would serve as the sacrifice, Abraham answered, “God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering,” suggesting that Abraham did not believe God intended for Isaac to be killed, but would provide a lamb; and (3) we learn something about what Abraham was thinking—what was actually going on in his mind—when the Hebrews writer stated Abraham had concluded “that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead” (11:19). In other words, knowing that Isaac was the son that God promised through whom a great nation would arise, even if Abraham killed the boy, God would simply raise him from the dead! Wow! That’s incredible trust in God! Indeed, Paul explained that Abraham “did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith…and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform” (Romans 4:20-21).

Isn’t it amazing how God planned for historical events to foreshadow His incredible plan to bring Jesus into the world and offer Him as a substitute Lamb for our sins!? Think about these five: (1) Isaac carried the wood that was to be used for his death, even as Jesus carried His own cross; (2) Abraham saw a ram caught in a nearby thicket by its horns and used this sheep as a substitute sacrifice, even as God used Jesus as a substitute sheep for us—as John announced: “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29); (3) Some think that the Moriah where Abraham offered Isaac (Genesis 22:2) was the same Moriah where the Temple was built in Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 3:1), and where sacrifices under the Law of Moses were carried out. The same location is also linked to Jesus’ death when the Temple curtain was torn from top to bottom at the moment Jesus died (Matthew 27:51); (4) Isaac is said to be Abraham’s “only begotten” son (Hebrews 11:17)—the same word used to describe Jesus (John 3:16); (5) And did you notice that when the Hebrews writer tells us that Abraham believed God could raise Isaac from the dead, that is precisely what He did with the body of Jesus?!

Abraham had strong faith. Faith and trust in God can’t get much stronger than his faith. James also commented: “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?” (2:21-22). You and I can have that kind of faith, too—if we will study God’s Word and then take God at His Word (Romans 10:17).

The post Can't Get Much Stronger Than That! appeared first on Apologetics Press.

During the Q&A period, one of the atheists asked a question that I have often received when discussing science with naturalists: “How can faith (belief without evidence) be used to arrive at truth?” These atheists had been told by other theists that belief in God is not about evidence. It is a blind trust, regardless of the evidence—“fideism.” The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “fideism” as “reliance on faith rather than reason in pursuit of religious truth.”¹ By faith, they mean a “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.”² To many in Christendom, biblical faith is such an idea.

Imagine an empty container representing the truth on a subject. A person “pours” evidence into the container, trying to fill it to the brim and arrive at the complete truth on a matter. When it comes to religious faith, however, according to many in Christendom, the container cannot be completely filled. The space that is left at the top of the container, between the evidence and the brim, must be filled in with blind “faith.” So, according to them, belief in God, for instance, rests ultimately, not on the evidence, but irrational faith.

In truth, the Bible does not so define faith. The Greek word for faith used in the New Testament (pistis) is not a mystical word only applicable when discussing religious faith. It is the Grecian word equivalent to the English words “belief” or “trust.”³ When we “believe,” “trust,” or “have faith in” someone, that faith is based on evidence. If a parent, for example, has proven himself to be trustworthy, we believe him. If we do not know a person and have no evidence to substantiate his integrity, to believe in him would be a blind (evidence-less) faith, which would be irrational and unwise. Scripture incessantly makes the point that we should come to a knowledge of the truth based on the evidence that has been provided to us. According to Romans 1:20, so much evidence has been provided to come to the truth of God, that not to come to the right conclusion is “without excuse.” We can know the truth—not merely accept it “on faith”—and it will set us free (John 8:32). We should test or “prove all things” before believing them, only holding to that which is good or right (1 Thessalonians 5:21). As did the “fair-minded” Bereans of Acts 17, God wants us to search for evidence that substantiates a claim before blindly believing it (verse 11). Since many false teachers are in the world, He tells us to “not believe every spirit, but test the spirits” before believing them (1 John 4:1). Unlike blind faith (i.e., fideism)—which pits itself against reason⁴—Paul believed in establishing truth using reason (Acts 26:25). In fact, Jesus told His audience to not believe Him if He did not substantiate His claims with evidence (John 10:37).

The blind “faith” idea is unbiblical. The biblical portrait of faith would be more like evidence being “poured” into our truth container. The “evidence” rises to the top of the container and begins pouring over the top. Where “faith” comes in is when we look at the truth, verified by evidence, and choose whether or not to believe it. Most do not and will not (Matthew 7:13-14). It is their own choice, but it is not because God has not provided enough evidence to come to the truth. Rather, they have rejected the evidence which is readily available, due to their own personal motives.

As is always the case when I receive the question that the young men asked at the seminar, they are shocked when I respond that I do not agree that faith is “belief without evidence”—that our faith is in fact demanded by the evidence. On this occasion the atheists were shocked five times over, since all of the speakers on the panel nodded in agreement with those words.

Endnotes

¹ “Fideism” (2015), Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fideism, emp. added.

² “Faith” (2017), Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith.

³ William Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker (1979), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), second edition revised, pp. 662-664.

⁴ “Fideism.”

Suggested Resources

The post Faith: Believing the Truth Substantiated by Evidence appeared first on Apologetics Press.

To say that the first-century church was a growing church would be a major understatement. The early church did not merely grow; she exploded onto the scene and continued multiplying in number for many years. About 3,000 souls obeyed the Gospel the very day the church was born in Jerusalem almost 2,000 years ago (Acts 2:41). To that number, “the Lord added…daily those who were being saved” (2:47). Despite attempts to stifle the preaching of Jesus and the growth of His church, “many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men¹ came to be about five thousand” (Acts 4:4). “Believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women” (5:14). In Jerusalem, “the disciples multiplied greatly;” even “a great many” of the Jewish priests were “obedient to the faith” (6:7). In Samaria, “the multitudes with one accorded heeded the things spoken by Philip” (8:6); “both men and women were baptized” (8:12). Indeed, “the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria…continued to increase” (9:31, NASB).

After Paul’s conversion to Christ, He took the Gospel to Cilicia where the young “churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily” (16:5). Later, “all who dwelt in Asia [Minor] heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks” (19:10). Even Paul’s enemies testified to how “throughout almost all Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away many people” from idolatry (19:26). Paul and his companions also carried the Gospel to Europe, where “a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women” joined them (17:4). And what did Paul learn upon his return to Jerusalem following his third missionary journey? That “many myriads of Jews” had come to believe in Jesus (21:20). That is, within less than 30 years, the Lord’s church had increased to become many tens of thousands of Christians strong.²

Causes of Growth in the Early Church

The early church increased in number so dramatically in a relatively short period of time for a variety of reasons. First, the church of Christ was not established at “just anytime” in history. “Before time began” God purposed to offer salvation to the world through Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 1:9). God planned for Jesus to come to Earth and for His church to be established at a special and specific point in time in human history, which God chose and foretold. So, “when the fullness of time had come” (Galatians 4:4), that is, “the time which God in His infinite wisdom counted best,”³ Jesus came to Earth and subsequently established His promised, prophesied, and prepared-for church.⁴ Thus, a rapidly growing early church should come as no surprise.

Still, human beings have free will. Simply because God foreknew that the early Christians would multiply in number throughout the world does not mean He overrode their ability to reject the Gospel or to reach out to others with it (even if they did initially obey it). The early church grew so rapidly because the apostles, evangelists, and early Christians were courageous in their constant teaching and preaching of the Word of God. The Christians increased in number because they put a priority on souls and eternal salvation rather than upon materialism and temporary, earthly matters. Despite negative peer pressure, poverty, and persecution, the early church grew because so many disciples were committed (individually and collectively) to telling the world that the Savior, the promised Messiah, had died and risen from the dead, and “commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). They were a praying and preaching people who would not be stopped.⁵ In fact, for so many early Christians, death was the only thing that would keep them from spreading the Good News of Jesus.⁶ Ironically, it was the death of Stephen and the great persecution that arose against the church in Jerusalem which actually assisted in the spread of the Gospel in Judea, Samaria, Phoenicia, Cyprus, and many other places around the world (Acts 8:1-4; 11:19-20).

A Major (Yet Often-Overlooked) Contributing Factor to the Early Church’s Growth

Indeed, the kingdom of Christ grew so rapidly in the first century for a number of noteworthy reasons (which, incidentally, Christians in every generation desperately need to emulate in their work for the Lord). Yet, one reason for the rapidly expanding early church often gets ignored in today’s shallow, better-felt-than-told religious environment: the first-century Christians’ commitment to apologetics.

What Is Apologetics?

Sometime ago a Christian lady e-mailed our offices at Apologetics Press, saying, “I am leery of your name…apologetics…. I am a servant of the Living God and have no need to apologize for anything. But I am seeking an answer and saw your site. So please if you may, answer me this….” In truth, we were happy to respond to Jennifer and let her know that apologetics is, in fact, all about giving answers (and not “apologizing,” as so many think of it in 21^st-century America). The English word apologetics is derived from the Greek apologia, meaning, “defense.”⁷ God does not want Christians to “apologize” (be sorry for) their allegiance to the Lord. Rather, as Peter declared, “[S]anctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense (apologian) to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15). The word apologetics can apply to almost any subject matter, but most often it is discussed in the context of Christian apologetics. God expects Christians to give an outward defense of their inward hope. He wants His people, not to take up swords in an attempt to spread Christianity with carnal warfare, but to charge ahead with “knowledge” and “the word of truth” (2 Corinthians 6:6-7). Disciples of Christ look to “destroy arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5, RSV). God desires for Christians to base their actions upon Truth that is honestly and logically defended rather than false doctrine, which is dishonestly or naively accepted and emotionally driven.

Admittedly, the early Christians were full of emotions. They joyfully recognized that the long-awaited, much-anticipated Messiah had just recently come into the world and established His spiritual kingdom.⁸ They penitently acknowledged their sins (Acts 2:37; 8:24). They lovingly sacrificed their material possessions in order to help the poor among them (4:32-37). They were concerned for the safety of their brethren who preached openly in the face of their enemies (21:12). They rejoiced “that they were counted worthy to suffer shame” for the name of Jesus (4:41) and courageously continued “preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence” (28:31). But in the end, whatever feelings they had, whatever emotions they felt—these sensations were not the driving force behind their allegiance to Jesus Christ. The early church grew in faith and number, not because they had a better-felt-than-told kind of religion, but because they sincerely believed Truth (cf. John 8:21-36), which they were joyfully committed to spreading and defending.

Luke’s Opening of Acts

Luke, the physician and inspired writer of Acts, sets the “defense” tone from the very beginning of his brief history of the first 30 years of the Lord’s church. In the first sentence, He reminds his readers of his previous account (the Gospel of Luke), where he recorded those things that Jesus did and taught. In the very next sentence, he concisely, yet reasonably, addressed one critical piece of evidence that would be repeated throughout Acts⁹ and that lies at the heart of the Good News: Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. How did Luke briefly convey the resurrection of Christ? Was it merely an unverifiable “hope” that he communicated? Did he make an emotionally based appeal using flowery words? Not at all. From the very outset, Luke set an apologetic tone for the book of Acts.

Luke indicated that to the apostles Jesus “presented Himself alive after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God” (1:3, ESV). Notice that Luke affirms that Jesus “presented” (parestasen) Himself alive. Jesus’ dead body was not stolen and buried elsewhere. He did not just escape the tomb to leave everyone in doubt about a possible resurrection. He “presented” or “showed” (NIV) Himself. Luke used this term 13 times in Acts, including in Acts 9:41 where, after God raised Dorcas from the dead, Luke noted that Peter “called the saints and widows” and “presented her alive” to them. He proved to them that she was no longer dead. Likewise, the once-lifeless body of the Lord rose from the dead, and then, over the next 40 days, Jesus repeatedly presented Himself alive to the apostles—offering “many proofs.”

Jesus did not offer vague, subliminal messages to His apostles in order to convince them of His resurrection. He did not offer mere whispers in the wind. Luke reminds his readers that Jesus offered “many proofs” (pollois tekmanriois). According to Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich, tekmanriois is “that which causes something to be known in a convincing and decisive manner.”¹⁰ No wonder several reputable translations include the word “infallible” or “convincing” alongside “proofs” in Acts 1:3.¹¹ Jesus did not just offer a little support of His resurrection; He gave many “surely and plainly known,”¹² convincing proofs that He had risen from the dead.

So, to what exactly is Luke referring? No doubt to some of the very proofs that he discussed in his “former account” (and that the other gospel writers gave in their treatises). During the 40 days that Jesus was on Earth after His resurrection and prior to His ascension, He appeared to several individuals at different times, including on one occasion to more than 500 disciples (1 Corinthians 15:5-8). When He appeared to the apostles, He showed them His pierced hands and feet and challenged them to “handle” Him in order to “see” that He was not a mere spirit, “for a spirit does not have flesh and bones” as Jesus had (Luke 24:39). As further physical proof of His “flesh and bones” bodily resurrection, Jesus actually ate with the apostles (Luke 24:41-43). (If you want to prove to someone that you are a real, physical being, eating actual food in their presence would certainly be appropriate confirmation.) Lastly, the Master Teacher taught them the Scriptures (Luke 24:44-49). Indeed, as Luke testified, Jesus gave an apologia—He “presented Himself alive after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3, emp. added).

Peter’s Defense on Pentecost

On the first Pentecost after the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, Peter stood before thousands of Jews and reasoned with them about becoming followers of the recently crucified descendant of David. Consider that his sermon was not an emotionally based appeal for his hearers to “repent…and be baptized” (Acts 2:38). No, in contrast to incoherent, drunken babblers (2:15), Peter testified that what the assembly was hearing and witnessing—the apostles miraculously speaking in languages which they had never studied (2:6,8,11)—was a fulfillment of Joel’s 800-year-old prophecy. Furthermore, Peter reminded his hearers that God “attested” (apodedeigmenon) to the miracles that Jesus worked while He was alive and in their midst. That is, God “demonstrated”¹³ proof of the divine origin, message, and mission of Christ in such a way that people could actually see the evidence and make an informed, rational decision about Him.

The assembly on Pentecost knew that Jesus had been “put to death” only days earlier (2:23), but unlike the tomb of King David, Jesus’ tomb was empty only three days later. Unlike the body of David, which saw corruption, the dead body of Christ had been raised and would never see corruption. Notice that Peter directed the assembly to evaluate the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, including the implied empty tomb (2:24,29-32), the fulfillment of Psalm 16:8-11 (2:25-31), and the witnesses who stood before them testifying that they had actually seen the risen Savior (2:32).

The some 3,000 individuals who obeyed the Gospel on Pentecost were not swayed by flowery words, phony miracles, or mere emotional appeals. They were “cut to the heart” by reason-and-revelation-based preaching. They reacted to a sermon filled with sensible argumentation and properly applied Scriptures. They responded to the apologia of Christ—to Christian apologetics.

Apologetics and the Preaching of Paul

How did the second greatest missionary the world has ever known (the first being Jesus, of course; Luke 19:10) go about publicly and privately proclaiming the Word of God? What did he say to people? How did he lay out the Gospel before his hearers? Was he like so many modern-day preachers and televangelists who appear infatuated with entertaining audiences with emotionally based productions? Did he ramble on about needing a mere “self-help,” feel-good religion to get through the trials of life and onward to heaven? What did God do through Paul that resulted in so many people in the first century hearing the Gospel and becoming dedicated servants in the Kingdom of God?

Christians do not have to wonder or speculate what Paul did. The inspired book of Acts details more about Paul’s work and teachings than anyone else’s in the early church. Just read Acts and you will find that from the time Paul became a Christian until the close of the book (28:30-31), he preached rational, well-argued, truth-based, thought-provoking sermons, “proving (sumbibazon) that…Jesus is the Christ” (9:22). The Greek word sumbibazon means “to present a logical conclusion;” to “demonstrate.”¹⁴ Paul gave evidence that lead honest-hearted people to the logical conclusion that, indeed, Jesus is the promised, prophesied Messiah: the Savior of mankind.

Though space will not allow for an exhaustive review of all of Paul’s work as an evangelist, consider some of what Luke recorded about Paul’s preaching on just his second and third missionary journeys. Pay close attention to the words that Paul himself used in his preaching and that Luke, one of Paul’s traveling companions (16:10-16), recorded in describing Paul’s work.

Thessalonica

After planting the church in Philippi and being asked to depart the city by the unjust and cowardly magistrates (16:11-40), Paul travelled to Thessalonica and entered a Jewish synagogue (which was his custom—17:2).¹⁵ There he “reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, ‘This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ’” (17:3-4).

In contrast to his jealous, unbelieving enemies, who used intimidation tactics and mob-like violence to bring about a chaotic scene within the city (17:5-9), the life-changing Gospel of Christ that Paul preached was built upon facts that he explained and demonstrated using the Old Testament Scriptures and the historical life of Christ. To “explain” (dianoigo) is to “open” or to “interpret.”¹⁶ Just as Jesus “opened the Scriptures” to the uninformed disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:32), God used Paul “to open the sense of the Scriptures” to the Thessalonians.¹⁷ He demonstrated (paratithami) to them by “pointing out” what they were missing.¹⁸ Paul was pointing out or “bringing forward in proof passages of Scripture” and making “plain to the understanding the meaning.”¹⁹ As Wayne Jackson so capably observed:

The apostle’s method of argument, impeccably logical, was to: 1) Appeal to the authoritative Old Testament scriptures; 2) Direct attention to the prophecies concerning “the Christ;” 3) Introduce the fact of history relative to Jesus of Nazareth (e.g., His suffering, death, and resurrection); 4) Press the conclusion that Jesus fulfills the declarations regarding the promised Messiah.

This must be the foundation of all gospel preaching. Christianity is grounded in solid, provable history. There are facts to be believed or else man cannot be a Christian. No teacher who neglects this method of instruction can be effective in producing genuine converts.²⁰

Those who were persuaded to become followers of Christ 2,000 years ago in Thessalonica responded to Truth and to the fair and reasonable interpretation of it.

Berea

The Bereans were open-hearted, honest investigators. Rather than immediately shut their ears at the teaching of Paul because of some bias, or rather than naively believing everything they heard without serious investigation, the Bereans “were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (17:11). The Bereans had a more noble disposition than the many envious, strife-causing Thessalonian Jews. The Bereans listened enthusiastically (prothumias)²¹ to the teachings of Paul and Silas and searched or examined (anakrino) the Old Testament Scriptures daily. The Greek word anakrino means to “engage in careful study of a question;” to “question, examine.”²² It is to “sift up and down;” “to make careful and exact research as in a legal process.”²³ In fact, Luke used this word elsewhere in the context of “a judicial inquiry or investigation.”²⁴ Indeed, similar to how Pilate “examined” (anakrino) Jesus and found no fault with Him concerning the things of which He was being accused (Luke 23:14), the Bereans examined the Scriptures daily to see whether the things that Paul preached were true.

And how did the Bereans respond to the Word of God? “Many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men” (17:12). “Many” people who made a continual, careful examination of the Scriptures came to the conclusion that what Paul preached was true. Consider this important implication: if the Bereans were honest-hearted individuals who seriously investigated the teachings of Paul, and yet came to the reasoned conclusion that Paul’s word was factual, then Paul’s preaching was of such high caliber that it could withstand a daily, judicial-type inquiry. Yes, the early church grew out of the New Testament apostles’ and prophets’ commitment to “testable teaching” and “provable preaching.” Indeed, Christian apologetics played a critical role in the spiritual and numerical growth of the early church in Berea.

Athens

Paul journeyed from Berea down to Athens, where he found a city “full of idols” (17:16). Notice that he became emotionally agitated (“provoked;” paroxuneto) by the thoroughly idolatrous and spiritually ignorant city. “His spirit was aroused within him (by anger, grief, or a desire to convert them)”²⁵—or perhaps all three.  He was not provoked in a sinful manner (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:5), but with righteous exasperation he was moved to preach to a thoroughly pagan people. Interestingly, Paul’s emotional, inward stirring did not lead to an irrational, substanceless, emotional rant. On the contrary, upon given the opportunity to speak in the midst of the Council of the Areopogus,²⁶ Paul delivered a masterful apologia before those who questioned his beliefs and teachings.

Paul did not begin with the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah, which was his normal approach when reasoning with the Jews.²⁷ Paul never even directly quoted from the Scriptures. Why? Because Paul knew that his audience on this occasion consisted of pagan Gentile philosophers who knew little-to-nothing about the Old Testament and certainly did not view it as divinely inspired and authoritative. So, Paul began with something the Greeks recognized—an altar with the inscription “TO THE UNKNOWN GOD” (17:23).

Paul enlightened the Athenians about this Deity (the true God) Whom they publicly acknowledged not knowing (17:18,23). He spoke powerful truths about the foolishness of idolatry, but seemingly as inoffensively as possible. Rather than attack the Athenians as ignorant idolaters, He reasoned with them about the existence of “God, who made the world and everything in it,” Who is “Lord of heaven and earth,” and “does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things” (17:24-25). The God Paul served and preached is the omnipotent Creator of the Universe and, marvelously, all human beings are His offspring.²⁸ The clear conclusion that Paul wanted his hearers to understand is that the true Divine Nature could not possibly be represented by anything made of gold, silver, or stone. “God certainly must be conceived as being infinitely greater than man whom he has made; hence he cannot be like…anything that is far beneath man, namely metal and stone although it be worked up ever so artistically by man’s art and thought.”²⁹

Although some mocked Paul when he later testified to the resurrection of Jesus (17:32), others were convinced by his sound reasoning “and believed,” including Dionysius the Areopagite, “one of the twelve judges of the Athenian Court,”³⁰ the Council of the Areopagus (17:34). Indeed, Paul’s public apologia on the supremacy of the true God of the Universe (over manmade idols) had a positive impact on those who were sincerely interested in truth.

Ephesus

Whereas on Paul’s second missionary journey he only briefly visited the city of Ephesus (Acts 18:19-21), on his next mission trip he remained there for the next three years.³¹ He began his work by teaching a dozen disciples of John the Baptizer “the way of God more accurately” (cf. 18:26), which logically led to these honest-hearted souls being “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (19:1-7). Paul then spent the next three months in the synagogue “reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God” (19:8). To “reason” (dialegomai) like Paul frequently did is “to engage in speech interchange;” to “converse, discuss, argue;”³² “to say thoroughly;”³³ used especially “of instructional discourse.”³⁴ Paul was an instructor of Truth that he could (and did) defend. He rightly divided the Old Testament Scriptures and accurately applied the relevant prophecies to Jesus and His kingdom. However, eventually “some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude” (19:9). Thus, Paul chose to take the disciples with him to the school of Tyrannus,³⁵ where he spent the next two years “reasoning (dialegomai) daily” with them, “so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks” (19:9-10).

Although Paul decimated the illogicality of idolatry in Athens on his second missionary journey (Acts 17), perhaps nowhere in the book of Acts is the contrast between true, Christian apologetics and the irrationality of idolatry made clearer than in Ephesus (Acts 19). Paul had spent months in the local synagogue and years in the school of Tyrannus “reasoning” about Christianity. Furthermore, God worked amazing miracles through Paul as further proof that the apostle’s message was of divine origin and not merely a tall tale repeated in attempts to become rich and famous (19:11; cf. Hebrews 2:3-4). Paul “coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel” (20:33). His message was true; his defense was logical; and his intentions were honorable. The Ephesian idolaters, however, were the exact opposite. In fact, they did not even attempt to hide their religion-for-earthly-gain mindset. “Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Diana, brought no small profit to the craftsmen. He called them together with the workers of similar occupation, and said: ‘Men, you know that we have our prosperity by this trade,’” and, if Paul is not silenced, “this trade of ours” is “in danger of falling into disrepute” and “the temple of the great goddess Diana may be despised and her magnificence destroyed” (19:24-25,27). Whereas Paul reasoned that “they are not gods which are made with hands” (19:26), the pagan Ephesians were more concerned about money and tradition than truth and reason (19:25). They proceeded to be driven by angry emotions as “the whole city was filled with confusion, and rushed into the theater with one accord…. [M]ost of them did not even know why they had come together,” yet for two hours “all with one voice cried out…‘Great is Diana of the Ephesians!’” (19:29,32,34). Imagine that—repeatedly shouting the same exact expression (“Megala a Artemis Ephesion”) for 120 minutes. As Lenski noted, such is “typical mob psychology. There was no leader, no sense, no object and purpose, no consideration even of the foolishness of its own demonstration.”³⁶ Can you imagine repeating the same phrase hundreds of times for 120 minutes? Even the unbelieving city clerk of Ephesus could see that there was no legitimate “reason which we may give to account for this disorderly gathering” (19:40).

Again, do not miss the stark contrast between the true Gospel of Jesus Christ that Paul defended and the repetitive, emotionally charged nonsense that Demetrius and the pagan Gentiles preached. Paul “persuaded and turned away” (from idolatry to the true and living God) “many people” in Ephesus and “throughout almost all Asia” (19:26). He did it without force or the threat of force. He did it without reverting to dishonest, better-felt-than-told, foolish tactics (which were not only characteristic of the Ephesians, but also of many modern-day, phony faith-healers, covetous prosperity preachers, and the like). Paul sought to persuade open-minded, honest-hearted people to follow the Lord Jesus Christ with crystal-clear arguments that could withstand scrutiny, with Scripture that was rightly divided, and with genuine love for the Lord and lost souls.

Conclusion

The Acts of the Apostles could be titled Acts of the Apologists, for what the apostles and early disciples did throughout the book of Acts was repeatedly give rational defenses of the Christian faith. Though critics of Christianity often suggest that the Bible advocates a blind faith, the Bible writers themselves expressly noted that they “did not follow cunningly devised fables…but were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Peter 1:16). The apostles bore witness of things that they had actually “looked upon” and “handled” (1 John 1:1-2). They followed the example of the Lord, Who was (and is) the Master logician.³⁷ They continually offered evidence for the case of Christianity as they spoke “words of truth and reason” (Acts 26:25).

And what was the result? What effect did such unadulterated, courageous gospel teaching, preaching, and defending have on the world? Within 30 years of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ the Gospel had been “proclaimed in all creation under heaven” (Colossians 1:23) and many tens of thousands of souls turned to the Lord (Acts 21:20). May God help His church in the 21^st century to have the same passion for lost souls and commitment to rationally defending the Way of Jesus Christ that the early church admirably exemplified.

Endnotes

¹ Though the Greek aner may sometimes refer to both men and women (cf. Luke 11:31), “this word here appears to be used of men only” (R.J. Knowling [2002], The Expositor’s Greek New Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson], 2:123-124). Cf. Matthew 14:21; Mark 6:44. Thus, only a few weeks after the Lord’s church had been established, it seems that she consisted of 5,000 men, plus all of the female Christians.

² The word “myriad” is transliterated from the Greek muriades, which may mean strictly “ten thousand” or an indefinite “very large number” (Frederick Danker, et al. [2000], Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament [Chicago, IL: University of Chicago], p. 661). Considering that Luke had just used this word two chapters earlier to communicate “ten thousand” (19:19; where five muriadesis understood to mean 50,000), it seems appropriate to conclude that “many tens of thousands of Jews” had become Christians by the time Paul returned to Jerusalem.

³ Adam Clarke (1996), Adam Clarke’s Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

⁴ Genesis 12:1-4; Isaiah 2:2-3; Micah 4:1-2; Daniel 2:1-44; Matthew 3:1-3; Matthew 10:7; Mark 9:1; Matthew 16:18.

⁵ Acts 4:18-31; 5:25-32,40-42.

⁶ Consider the dedication of Peter and John (Acts 4-5), of Paul (14:19-22), and the many Christians who “went everywhere preaching the word,” even as their lives were in great danger (8:1-4).

⁷ Frederick Danker, et al. (2000), Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago), p. 117.

⁸ Cf. John 4:25-42; Acts 2:30-47; 8:12.

⁹ Acts 2:24-36; 3:15; 4:10,33; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30-37; 17:3,31.

¹⁰ Danker, et al., p. 994, emp. added.

¹¹ KJV; NKJV; NASB; etc.

¹² J.H. Thayer (1962), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), p. 617.

¹³ Knowling, 2:82.

¹⁴ Danker, et al., p. 957, emp. added.

¹⁵ Cf. Acts 9:20; 13:5,14; 17:10; 18:4; etc.

¹⁶ Danker, et al., p. 234.

¹⁷ “Dianoigoo” (2003), Thayer’s Abridged (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

¹⁸ Danker, et al., p. 772.

¹⁹ Knowling, 2:358.

²⁰ Wayne Jackson (2005), The Acts of the Apostles: From Jerusalem to Rome (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications), p. 202, emp. added.

²¹ With “eagerness, rushing forward.” In Berea, they “joyfully welcomed” Paul and Silas (A.T. Robertson [1997], Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament [Electronic Database: Biblesoft]). Christians today should have the same Berean-type eagerness to study and learn the foundational truths of Christianity. Until such serious individual investigation takes place, one’s faith will be weak, and his defense of Christianity even weaker.

²² Danker, et al., p. 66.

²³ Robertson.

²⁴ Knowling, 2:362.

²⁵ Danker, et al., p. 780.

²⁶ Areopagus means “the hill of Ares,” the Greek god of war (which corresponds to the Roman “Mars”). According to F.F. Bruce, “The Council of the Areopagus,” was “so called because the hill of Ares was its original meeting place. In NT times, except for investigating cases of homicide, it met in the ‘Royal Porch’ in the Athenian market-place (agora), and it was probably here that Paul was brought before the Areopagus (Acts 17:19) and not, as AV puts it, ‘in the midst of Mars’ hill’ (v. 22). It was the most venerable institution in Athens, going back to legendary times, and, in spite of the curtailment of much of its ancient powers, it retained great prestige, and had special jurisdiction in matters of morals and religion. It was therefore natural that ‘a preacher of foreign divinities’ (Acts 17:18) should be subjected to its adjudication” (“Areopagus” [1996], New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, third edition], p. 79).

²⁷ Acts 13:17-41; 17:2-4,11.

²⁸ Paul even quoted from the Athenians’ own poets to prove his point (Acts 17:28).

²⁹ R.C.H. Lenski (2001 reprint), The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), p. 734.

³⁰ Lenski, p. 740.

³¹ Acts 19:8,10; 20:31.

³² Danker, et al., p. 232.

³³ “Dialegomai: 1256” (1999), Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

³⁴ Danker, et al., p. 232.

³⁵ Tyrannus “is usually supposed to have been the lecturer who taught” in “the lecture hall of Tyrannus,” but it is possible that he was merely the owner of the building (F.F. Bruce [1988], The Book of the Acts [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans], p. 366).

³⁶ Lenski, p. 812.

³⁷ For more information on the logic and sound argumentation Jesus used throughout His ministry, see Dr. Dave Miller’s excellent two-part Reason & Revelation article titled “Is Christianity Logical?” (2011, 31[6-7]:50-52,56-59,62-64,68-71, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=3869&topic=92).

The post Apologetics and the Growth of the Early Church appeared first on Apologetics Press.

To “make a case” for something is to explain convincingly why it is true or to be believed. This may be done in any number of ways. It involves looking at the evidence in support of something, and considering its implications. This may also involve considering arguments opposed to it and analyzing what, if any, validity they may possess.

The case for Christianity is strong and convincing. Studying the arguments in favor of Christianity with an open mind can be a faith-building and truly life-changing experience. Such an analysis provides hope and encouragement not only as to this earthly life, but into eternity.

Christianity, as a system of belief, is far and away superior to the religions and inventions of man. It holds up extremely well by comparison. Consider a few of the major areas in which the case for Christianity is so clearly convincing.

First, Christianity makes sense. It makes good sense, not only from a theoretical and philosophical standpoint, but in a very tangible and practical way. Christianity, unlike manmade systems, is a religion of reason and common sense. It presents the honest student with a logical, reasonable way of life. Paul said, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service. And be not fashioned according to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, and ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God” (Romans 12:1-2). The word “spiritual” in verse 1 translates in the American Standard Version a word meaning “of or belonging to the reason.” That is, it pertains to our faculty of thinking, our reason. It is translated in the KJV and NKJV with the English word “reasonable.” The footnote in the NASB suggests the word “rational” and Young’s Literal Translation has “intelligent.”

The Gospel appeals to our understanding. It is a system of belief based, not solely upon emotions (although there is an emotional element), but upon careful thought and reasonable conclusions. “For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles—if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)” (Ephesians 3:1-4). By reading and considering what the inspired apostle wrote, one can discern or perceive that it makes sense—that it contributes to an understanding of the mystery of Christ.

Second, the God of the Bible is infinitely above all of the gods of human creation. One of the tell-tale characteristics of the various religions invented by men down through the years is how their gods tend to reflect and look like the people and cultures who created them. They are of human origin, and they look all too human. As Robert Milligan observed long ago, “Like people like gods is true to every earth-born system of theology.”^[1] Even the most enlightened cultures have created gods who pale by comparison to the God of the Bible. Quoting further from Milligan:

Take, for example, the theology of the ancient Greeks, the most enlightened, elevated, and refined heathen nation known in history. They excelled in all of the [civilized] arts…But, nevertheless, their theology was but a transcript of depraved and fallen humanity. In it is clearly seen every element of man’s [sinful nature].² Uranus, the most ancient of their gods, is said to have hated and imprisoned his own children. Saturn made war against his father Uranus, and also attempted to devour his own male children. But his son Jupiter drove him from Crete into Latium, where, for a long time, he remained concealed from his ambitious and revengeful offspring. In Greece was also worshiped Venus, the goddess of licentiousness; Bacchus, the god of drunkenness; and many other gods and goddesses of like character.³

Third, Christianity is beneficial to mankind. Wherever its influence goes, mankind benefits. Cultures touched by the influence of Christianity tend to fare much better than secular societies, so long as they persist in their adherence to Bible principles. A few examples will illustrate this point:

a) Women. Unlike the creeds of men, the Bible is filled with noble women. Eve, the mother of all living; Abigail, the beautiful, intelligent, and wise wife; Esther, the queen who saved her people; Ruth, the loyal friend; Lydia, an example of hospitality, and the first Christian of Europe; the widow, whose lowly mite was the greatest contribution of them all; and Mary Magdalene, loyal to the Savior to the end. These, and scores of others, illustrate how women are depicted on the pages of the Bible. Their character is described in admirable and lofty terms. Their conduct is presented in a manner consistent with their good character. Anyone (man or woman) can read their life stories and be inspired to imitate them.

Also, the doctrine of the Bible with regard to women elevates them to a high, imitable standard. Consider the “worthy woman” as described in Proverbs 31:10-31. In summary, she is rare, valuable, trustworthy, profitable, beneficial, vigilant, efficient, hard-working, well-organized, supervisory, wise, strong, perceptive, capable, compassionate, brave, well-endowed, supportive, optimistic, kind, hard-working, revered, and praiseworthy. That is a far cry from the way women are depicted in the creeds and doctrinal statements of manmade religions. Such depictions would have been revolutionary in manmade works only a few generations ago.

This lofty ideal is often overlooked or misunderstood in the culture. I remember the first time I heard a college professor refer to the apostle Paul as a “misogynist.” At the time, I did not even know what the word meant. When she said it a second time, I made a note of it, and later looked up the word. It means a hater of women. When the instructor repeated her statement a third time, I questioned her openly in class. I asked her what proof or evidence from Paul’s writings she had for such a statement. Of course, she was unable to produce any, and simply talked around the question. I met with her in her office after class, and pointed out what her word actually meant. I then quoted for her an actual statement of Paul, very much on point: “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it” (Ephesians 5:25). She conceded that perhaps her statement was a bit extreme. I agreed. The inspired writings of the apostle Paul, together with the totality of the Scriptures, have done more to elevate and exalt women over the history of mankind than all feminist and other writings combined. If you are a woman, the Gospel calls you to a life of dignity, value and appreciation!

b) Men: When you stop and think about it, Christianity is the one thing which can give meaning and purpose to the life of a man (Ecclesiastes 12:13; Job 28:28). It confronts him with the lifetime challenge he needs in order to find ultimate fulfillment and happiness.

The Bible presents man made in the very image of God himself (Genesis 1:26-27). Many religions hold their gods at arm’s length, something to be feared, even disdained. Yet the Bible describes the creation of man in the “likeness” of God, in his “image.” In many ways, man is comparable to God. He is capable of great accomplishments, wonderful love and mercy, inventive prowess, and great progress. Christianity calls man to actually be more like the God who wants man to imitate him. It is one of the rare systems of belief which encourages men to assume a higher standard of living. If you are a man, the Gospel calls you to a higher plane of love, leadership, and respect for others.

c) Children: Jesus said, “Suffer the little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven (Luke 18:16). Has it occurred to you that being childlike in heart is requiredto be a Christian? Amazingly, God not only cares about and protects children, but requires his followers to imitate them.

This is one of the reasons why Christian people have such great natural abhorrence toward the common practice of abortion. They have seen in the Word of God a glimpse of the precious value of a child. They see the child’s personhood, moral value, personal worth, and, most of all, purity. The child, yet unborn, is the ultimate image of hope, promise, and prospect for the human family. Christianity does not underestimate children. It embraces and looks to them with admiration. If you are a child at heart, the Gospel calls you to a life of purity, innocence and happiness.

d) The poor, the oppressed, and the down-trodden: The Bible shows us God’s concern for the needy (Leviticus 23:22; James 1:27). This concern, reflected in the ancient harvesting laws for ancient Israel, is alive and well in the Christian dispensation. All around the globe, churches of Christ are actively sheltering and protecting the needy, as envisioned and planned by God. “The poor you have with you always,” but only in Christianity do we find a completely workable plan for caring for them. Take away the compassionate principles of Christianity, and the poor become hordes to be manipulated, abused, and ultimately destroyed. If you are a widow, an orphan, poor, weak, oppressed, neglected, prejudiced, or under-privileged, the Gospel calls you to a life of honor and respect.

e) The imperfect, the mistaken, the lost: The church is not a haven or country club for the perfect, but a hospital for the forgiven. “For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him” (Romans 5:6-9).

When Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, he knew they were ridden with problems. Yet, because of the influence of the Gospel in their lives, there was great hope. “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God(1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

Christianity is the one system of belief which can make you a better person! It appeals to your higher nature. It calls you from a life of sin and slavery to a life of forgiveness, justification, and hope. It bespeaks a way of life far above anything you have imagined before.

Conclusion

The case for Christianity is strong and convincing. This cannot be truly said of the dreamy confusions of Mysticism, the vacuum of Buddhism, the rituals of Hinduism, or the ravages of Islam. Christianity appeals to one’s heart and soul, one’s higher being; it appeals to the truth.

The next time you or someone you know begins to doubt the value of Christianity, or is tempted to feel like one religion is as good as another, remember what Christianity is. Remember that it makes sense, and that it makes people better, more like the amazing God who created them.

The post The Case for Christianity appeared first on Apologetics Press.

During His earthly ministry, He repeatedly gave ample proof of His deity. He noted how John the Baptizer bore witness on His behalf (John 5:33). He said, “[T]he Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me” (John 5:36). He spoke of how “the Scriptures…testify of Me” (John 5:39). He also noted how His miraculous works bore witness to His Godhood (John 5:36). Jesus performed many miracles that showed His power over nature, disease, demons, and death. He understood that His own verbal testimony alone would not convince anyone in a court of law (John 5:31). So, at the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem He told the unbelieving Jews, “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him” (John 10:37-38). Sadly, His foolish, stubborn enemies repeatedly rejected the irrefutable evidence that Jesus presented on His own behalf.

Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus presented for His Godhood was His miraculous resurrection. He could have risen from the dead and never appeared to anyone on Earth. Christianity could have begun on the back of uncertainty. Instead, Jesus was “declared to be the Son of God…by the resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4). Jesus “presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3), because He is the Head of a reasonable religion. The excitement and courage that early disciples showed were grounded in the rock-solid proofs of Jesus’ resurrection (among other things). The emotional, energetic, evangelistic faith of 21^st-century Christians must likewise be rooted firmly and deeply in solid evidence.

The post Jesus…and the Evidence He Offered appeared first on Apologetics Press.

How can I have faith in something I haven’t seen—like God?

Dear reader,

That is a very good question! But let me ask one very similar—have you ever seen your lungs? If you have never seen them, and most likely you never have, how do you know you really have lungs? You know that you have lungs because you see the effects of them working. You could not live long enough to read this issue of Discovery if you did not have lungs! And what about the air you breathe? You cannot see it, but you know that it exists.

God is the same way. While we cannot see Him, we know that He exists from the world around us. The Universe is so perfectly made that it had to have a Designer. For example, did you know that the Earth is the exact distance from the Sun for life to be possible? If it were even just 10% closer, it would be too hot to live on Earth. And if it were just 10% farther away from the Sun, the Earth would be nothing but a ball of ice. So we can know that God exists, even though we cannot see Him, because of the amazing design of the world around us. Like Paul said in Romans 1:20, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made….” We have faith that God exists because He has revealed Himself through nature since the beginning of the world. There are other ways to know that God exists, but seeing the design He placed in the Universe is one good way.

The post Faith in Things I Cant See? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The fact is, neither Thomas nor any apostle was rebuked for wanting evidence of Jesus’ resurrection. They were rightly rebuked, however, for doubting the credible evidence they had already received and for demanding more evidence than was necessary for them to have solid faith in the risen Savior.

Jesus’ Prophecies

During His ministry, Jesus repeatedly prophesied of His resurrection, even foretelling the very day on which it would occur. So well known were Jesus’ prophecies of His resurrection from the dead on the third day that even His enemies 

were aware of them. In fact, the “chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate, saying, ‘Sir, we remember, that while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, “After three days I will rise.” Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day’” (Matthew 27:62-64).

So why did Jesus rebuke His apostles for their unbelief following His resurrection? Was He implying that they should have believed everything they ever heard from anyone? Not at all. Jesus had every right to rebuke His apostles’ unbelief, first and foremost, because they refused to believe His word. They had every logical reason to believe what Jesus had prophesied about His resurrection. Everything they had ever seen and heard from Jesus was pure, right, and true. However, rather than expect the miracle-working Redeemer to be alive on Sunday morning, such an idea “appeared to them as nonsense” (Luke 24:11).

Credible Testimony

The apostles of Christ also should have believed in the resurrected Lord because Mary Magdalene was a credible witness, who said nothing more than what the Son of God had previously said many times would happen: He would arise on the third day following His death.

The same God Who rightly expects His human creation to examine the evidence and come to a knowledge of Him without ever literally seeing Him, is the same God Who expects man to follow the facts that lead to a resurrected Redeemer without ever personally witnessing His resurrection. No one believes in God because they can put Him under a microscope and see Him. No one can prove He exists by touching Him. We cannot use the five senses to see and prove the actual essence of God. What we have at our fingertips, however, is a mountain of credible evidence that testifies on God’s behalf. The very existence of finite matter testifies to a supernatural, infinite, eternal Creator. The endless examples of design in the Universe bear witness to a grand Designer. Even the laws of science testify to God’s existence.

Likewise, a reasonable faith in Jesus’ resurrection is based upon a mountain of credible testimony. Just as credible testimony (and not first-hand knowledge) has lead billions of people to believe, justifiably so, that Alexander the Great, Napoleon, and George Washington were real people, millions of Christians have come to the logical conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead. Why? Among other things,

• Though very serious preventative steps were taken to keep the lifeless body of Jesus buried (Matthew 27:62-66), the tomb was found empty on the exact day He promised to arise.
• The body of Christ was never found (and, no doubt, the unbelieving Jews who put Him to death, would have loved nothing more than to present Jesus’ dead body to early Christians).
• Hundreds of early Christians were able to testify to having seen Jesus firsthand after His resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:5-8).
• Nineteen-hundred-year-old eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ resurrection exist in the most historically documented and accurate ancient book in the world—the New Testament.

The fact is, the blessing that Jesus mentioned to the apostle Thomas (“Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”—John 20:29) was not an endorsement of a blind, emotionally based faith. Rather, Jesus was showing His delight in the person who comes to confess Him as “Lord and God”—a confession based upon truthful, credible evidence.

The post Faith, Prophecies, and Credible Testimony appeared first on Apologetics Press.

How does one gain biblical faith? In Luke 8:4-8, Jesus told the parable of the sower. In that parable, the seed was planted and grew only in the proper soil. The seed, according to Jesus, is the Word of God (Luke 8:11). Without the seed, there is nothing to sow in the soil, since Romans 10:17 says, “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.” If we do not hear God’s Word, we can’t build a biblical faith.  

But is biblical faith based on sincerity? In other words, if a person is sincere in whatever he or she believes, does that make it true? No, sincerity alone does not produce biblical faith. Paul is a prime example of this. Paul admitted that he was a devout Jew and a persecutor of Christians (Philippians 3:5-6). He believed in his Jewish heritage so sincerely that he aided in the murder of Christians (Acts 8:1-3) without feeling guilty about it (Acts 23:1), but that did not make what he believed right. Despite the fact that Paul was a “Hebrew of Hebrews,” he was still wrong in persecuting the Church!

Does that mean sincerity is not important? No, sincerity is a trait that everyone should have. Paul told Timothy in 1 Timothy 1:5 that we should have a sincere faith. Sincerity should be a characteristic of our faith, but not the guide of our faith. We should base our faith on the facts of the Gospel (strong belief), not on our feelings or sincerity (weak belief).

The post Biblical Faith Is Not Based on Feelings appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Can we really know the truth? Yes, we can. Jesus said: “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). When the apostle John wrote to the first-century Christians, he said: “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life” (1 John 5:13). According to both Jesus and John, a person not only can know something, but he can know that he knows it.

Think about this. If a person cannot know that God exists, then he cannot know that the Bible is His in-spired Word. If a person cannot know that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then he cannot know that Jesus is God’s Son. If a person cannot know that Christ is God’s Son, then he cannot know that he is saved. But John stated: “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.” Can you see how important it is to understand the concepts of knowledge and truth?

Peter said his desire was that Christians “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18). Paul expressed his desire “that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding” (Colossians 1:9). God’s desire is for “all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4). Paul’s statement, “I know whom I have believed” (2 Timothy 1:12), doesn’t make any sense unless a person can understand the correct relationship between knowledge and truth. John said that we can “know that we know” Jesus and “know that we are in him” as we keep His commandments or His Word (1 John 2:3,5). Thus, John summed up this sentiment by saying simply, “We know that we are of God” (1 John 5:19).

Christianity isn’t some kind of religion based upon a fairy-tale-like idea that may or may not be true. Rather, it is rooted and grounded in the knowledge that God exists, and in the truth that Jesus Christ is His Son and that the Bible is His Word. These are things we can know. And this is the truth that will make us “free.”

The post Can We Really Know the Truth? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

What was the primary factor that forced Libresco to this theistic conclusion? She explained that morality was the key. Throughout her time as an atheist, she struggled to come to grips with how humans can adhere to a morality that seems objective if there is no God. As she searched for answers among atheistic thinkers and writers, she admitted that their answers were inadequate.

In an interview with a CNN news reporter, Libresco noted that her conversion from atheism to theism was “kinda the same thing with any scientific theory, almost, that it had more explanatory power to explain something I was really sure of. I’m really sure that morality is objective, human independent; something we uncover like archaeologists not something we build like architects” (Merica, 2012, emp. added).

Libresco’s intellectual honesty regarding morality is refreshing to see. [NOTE: A.P. does not endorse Libresco’s affiliation with Catholicism. See Pinedo, 2008.] Her conversion highlights an important aspect of the process of searching for truth: explanatory value. With an ever-increasing number of skeptics, unbelievers, atheists, and agnostics in the United States and around the globe, it is important for Christians to look for ways to teach them about God, and then Jesus Christ. One effective way to do that is to show that the concept of God maintains much more powerful explanatory value than atheism for the realities that we see around us. Thus, when approaching a reality upon which both theists and atheists agree, the question would be: “Which idea, theism or atheism, explains this particular phenomenon the best?” To frame it in a more positive way, “If there really is a God, what would we expect the world to look like?” Leah Libresco recognized the reality of objective morality and concluded that if atheism were true, there would be no objective morality; but if there is a God, then objective morality is exactly what we would expect to find.

That principle can be extended to a host of realities that are present in our world. The one that this article addresses is the fact that mankind has an inherent predisposition to recognize a supernatural, intelligent Creator. This article establishes the fact that this reality is generally recognized by both atheists and theists. It will then address which of these two ideas, atheism or theism, most adequately accounts for this fact. The purpose of such an endeavor is to reach the unbelieving community with powerful evidence that has the ability to bring them to a belief in God, and one step closer to a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

Humanity’s “Intuitive Theism”

It might surprise the reader that both atheists and theists overwhelmingly admit that humans are predisposed to believe in an intelligent creator of some sort. Richard Dawkins, arguably the world’s leading atheistic thinker, lecturer, and writer, asked the question: “Why, if it is false, does every culture in the world have religion? True or false, religion is ubiquitous, so where does it come from?” (2006, p. 159). His assertion that religion is false is inaccurate, but his statement highlights the fact—the reality—that religion is universal to mankind, and has been in every human culture ever studied.  He went on to say, a few pages later: “Though the details differ across the world, no known culture lacks some version of the time-consuming, wealth-consuming, hostility-provoking rituals, the anti-factual, counter-productive fantasies of religion” (p. 166). So deeply religious are humans, Dawkins refers to their desire to recognize some type of creator as a “lust for gods” (p. 169). The late atheistic writer Christopher Hitchens wrote: “Sigmund Freud was quite correct to describe the religious impulse, in The Future of an Illusion, as essentially ineradicable until or unless the human species can conquer its fear of death and its tendency to wish-thinking. Neither contingency seems very probable” (2007, p. 247).

Renowned atheist Sam Harris was forced to admit the truth that the concept of God is an inherent human predisposition. He wrote: “Similarly, several experiments suggest that children are predisposed to assume design and intention behind natural events—leaving many psychologists and anthropologists to believe that children, left entirely to their own devices, would invent some conception of God” (2010, p. 151).

The research to which Sam Harris refers is extensive. Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg have written an article, titled “Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science,” which was published in Science magazine in May of 2007. They suggest that children tend to attribute purpose and design to virtually everything, a tendency the authors call “promiscuous teleology” ([316]:996). Bloom and Weisberg noted: “[W]hen asked about the origin of animals and people, children spontaneously tend to provide and prefer creationist explanations” (p. 996).

In an article titled “Are Children ‘Intuitive Theists’?” Deborah Keleman documented research which led her to conclude that “the proposal that children might be intuitive theists becomes increasingly viable,” and “together, these research findings tentatively suggest that children’s explanatory approach may be accurately characterized as intuitive theism” (2004, 15:299). In an extensive 49-page article in Cognitive Psychology, Margaret Evans wondered aloud: “Why is the human mind (at least the Western protestant mind) so susceptible to creationism and so comparatively resistant to naturalistic explanations for the origins of species?” (2001, 42:252).

In light of the current research, Bloom admitted: “There is by now a large body of research suggesting that humans are natural-born creationists. When we see nonrandom structure and design, we assume that it was created by an intelligent being” (Bloom, 2009, pp. 16-19). He opined: “Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins was right to complain, then, that it seems ‘as if the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism’” (pp. 16-19). Some atheists, like David Mills, writing for a more popular audience, assert that we “should recognize that all children are born atheists. There is no child born with a religious belief” (2006, p. 29). But that assertion misses the point that humans are born with the predisposition to theistic conclusions. Overwhelmingly, the atheistic community recognizes the reality that humans are born with a “lust for gods,” a “promiscuous teleology,” and a penchant toward “intuitive theism.”

Theists likewise concur that humans have an inherent predisposition to conclude an intelligent Creator exists. Theistic apologist Paul Copan describes mankind’s tendency toward creation as a “religious impulse” that is “deeply imbedded” in the universal human thought process (2011, p. 30). We could supply scores of similar statements from creationists that would underscore the obvious conclusion that, by and large, the creationist community agrees with the atheistic community that there is a universal, built-in, in-born, intuitive human tendency to believe in an intelligent Creator. The question then arises, which understanding of origins, atheism or theism, best explains why humanity exhibits “intuitive theism”? One key to arriving at the answer to this question is to understand the problems this reality poses for atheistic, naturalistic explanations of the Universe.

Theism and Religion are “Costly” Concepts

According to naturalistic, atheistic assumptions for the origin of the Universe and the evolutionary assumption for the origin of mankind, everything that exists must have a naturalistic cause. By that, it is understood that atheistic evolutionists must present a reason to explain why humans are “intuitive theists” that corresponds with their atheistic beliefs that the material Universe is all there is. The problem that the atheistic community runs into in this regard is that the ideas of religion and theism run counter to what one would expect to find if atheism and naturalistic evolution were true. According to evolution [by this we mean atheistic, naturalistic evolution in which no intelligent designer played any part], natural selection eliminates physical structures and mental states that are costly in terms of their survival value. For instance, if there developed in a certain sub-group of humans the intuitive idea that rabid Kodiak bears made good pets, that group would soon be killed by such bears, and whatever aspect of the brain that housed the belief would be eliminated from the human population as a whole.

To illustrate further, if a certain group of humans tended to spend lots of effort on religious ceremonies that had nothing to do with their physical survival, and another group did not “waste” their resources on anything but their physical survival, natural selection would suggest that those “religious” people who “wasted” their resources would eventually lose out in the race for physical survival. And the “non-religious” group would be selected by nature to become more prevalent and replace the “wasteful” religious group. Yet, we see just the opposite.

Richard Dawkins acknowledged this problem facing atheistic ideas. He stated: “Religion is so wasteful, so extravagant; and Darwinian selection habitually targets and eliminates waste” (2006, p. 163). Atheistic philosopher Daniel Dennett stated: “Whatever else religion is as a human phenomenon, it is a hugely costly endeavor, and evolutionary biology shows that nothing so costly just happens” (2006, p. 69). What do these atheistic writers mean when they say that religion is “wasteful” and “so costly”? Dennett expounded on the idea when he said that when people look at humanity all over the world

what they see today is a population of over six billion people, almost all of whom devote a significant fraction of their time and energy to some sort of religious activity: rituals such as daily prayer (both public and private) or frequent attendance at ceremonies, but also costly sacrifices—not working on certain days no matter what looming crisis needs prompt attention…and abiding by a host of strenuously observed prohibitions and requirements (p. 75).

Dawkins expanded his ideas of “wasteful” as well, when he said:

Religion can endanger the life of the pious individual, as well as the lives of others. Thousands of people have been tortured for their loyalty to a religion, persecuted by zealots for what is in many cases a scarcely distinguishable alternative faith…. Devout people have died for their gods and killed for them; whipped blood from their backs, sworn themselves to a lifetime of celibacy or to lonely silence, all in the service of religion. What is it all for? What is the benefit? (pp. 164-165).

In their discussions and writings, atheists have sometimes suggested that religion possibly has such overwhelming health benefits that it is “worth” the expense. They note such things as the results of some research to suggest that prayer can lower stress levels or blood pressure. Or they comment on the emotional benefits of fitting into a community, which religious rituals would foster and encourage. Virtually across the board, however, they have rejected the idea that religion is actually beneficial for the physical survival of mankind. They contend that such minor advantages as lower stress levels or lower blood pressure certainly cannot justify the massive expenditure of resources on religion. [NOTE: It is easy to see why they have rejected those explanations. If religion actually provides benefits that would be greater than any negative consequences, then it would be better for humanity to hang on to religious ideas regardless of their factuality or validity. Since most modern atheists are calling for the eradication of religion, they are forced to downplay its benefits and look for another answer that could compel people to want to eliminate religion. While we certainly are not suggesting the idea that religion is beneficial and that is why it “evolved,” it is plain to see why the current atheistic community has forsaken it.]

Sam Harris contended, “And even if tribes have occasionally been the vehicles of natural selection, and religion proved adaptive, it would remain an open question whether religion increases human fitness today” (p. 151). The current atheistic consensus is that religion does not bestow upon humanity enough physical benefit to “increase human fitness.” How, then, do atheists respond to the two facts that (1) humans are intuitively theistic and (2) such religious theism is extremely costly and does not bestow physical survival fitness on our species?

The Current Atheistic Answer: Religion is a Virus or By-Product

What naturalistic explanation can be given to account for the ubiquitous and extremely costly nature of religion? In their attempt to show that theism is unnecessary and ultimately harmful, the atheistic community has concocted the idea that theistic ideas are analogous to mind-viruses that infect a person, not for the benefit of the person, but for the benefit of the mind-virus. In other words, theism is a mind-virus that has been passed from host human to host human for its own survival, and not for the benefit of the human organisms it inhabits. Dawkins explained: “The fact that religion is ubiquitous probably means that it has worked to the benefit of something, but it may not be us or our genes. It may be to the benefit of only the religious ideas themselves, to the extent that they behave in a some-what gene-like way, as replicators” (p. 165).

Dawkins has expounded upon this idea and used the term “memes” to describe ideas that he asserts behave in ways similar to genes. He contends that theism is a “meme” that acts as a mental virus, infecting people and forcing them to replicate the meme by teaching others about it and expending vast resources on it. Along these lines, Dan Dennett has suggested that “the common cold is universal to all human peoples in much the same way as religion is, yet we would not want to suggest that colds benefit us” (p. 165). Dennett, using the meme idea, asserted: “The meme theory accounts for this. According to this theory, the ultimate beneficiaries of religious adaptations are the memes themselves…” (p. 186).

Atheist Darrell Ray wrote an entire book, The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture, based on this idea. He opened by saying:

It was not until Richard Dawkins’ idea of  “viruses of the mind” that we gained a ready-made way to examine religion as closely as we look at the epidemiology of the flu virus. This book will show how religions of all kinds fit in the natural world, how they function in our minds and culture and how similar they are to the germs, parasites and viruses that inhabit our bodies (2009, p. 13).

To build his case for the “religion-as-a-virus” idea, he mentioned numerous things that he perceives as validating evidence of his assertion. He wrote: “Once a person has converted to a religion, it is difficult to have a rational conversation about the irrational aspects of his religion. It is as though something invaded the person and took over a part of his personality” (p. 20). He went on to discuss the situation in which a friend lost his father to cancer. Before the loss, the friend was “non-religious.” But after the father’s death, the friend “got a severe case of religion that changed his personality dramatically.” Ray says “there was no way to have a conversation with him on any subject without religion creeping in” (p. 19). He further asserted that “stress can activate the chicken pox virus in adults, leading to the condition known as shingles. Similarly, stress tends to reactivate the god virus in many people” (p. 25).

Other alleged symptoms of the “god virus” include the idea that “religion always functions to ensure its own survival,” just as a virus does (Ray, p. 36). To undergird this assertion, Ray said: “Go into any Christian bookstore, and you will find books about living in a secular world, living with a spouse who is not saved or how to convert friends and relatives. The god virus is always concerned with protecting and expanding its territory—that is what these books are all about” (p. 176). Ray has taken Dawkins’ meme/mental virus idea to its logical conclusion.

The Simplest Response to the God Virus Idea

One very simple idea clearly manifests the flaws in the God virus concept. If thoughts or ideas were self-sustaining, self-replicating “memes” that were simply out for their own survival, that would mean that the idea of atheism would fall under the same condemnation as a “selfish meme” ensuring its own survival to the potential detriment of its host. By what criteria could anyone discern between “real” ideas and those dastardly memes infecting the brain. If someone did propose a set of criteria, who is to say that such criteria are not, themselves, a menacing meme that is infecting the mind of the person trying to weed out memes? And how would we know that the concept of a meme is not merely a meme in and of itself infecting the minds of atheists who present the idea? The reader can see how quickly such a discussion would digress into intellectual chaos. Furthermore, how could people be held responsible for anything they think or do? “My memes made me do it!” would become the mantra for all kinds of malicious crimes. And while atheists have attempted to provide answers to such problems, if memes really do exist as individual entities, who is to say that such “answers” are more than memes?

In fact, when analyzing the writings of those who present the “meme/virus” idea, the reader can quickly ascertain the flaw in their reasoning. For instance, Ray said that when the religious virus took over his friend after his father’s death, the friend mentioned religion in virtually every conversation. But the same could be said for any number of individuals who have become outspoken atheists, who insist on inserting their unbelief in virtually every conversation they have.

Ray stated: “In viral terms, it means that people are so deeply infected that they are immune to influence and generally ignore any evidence that contradicts their beliefs” (p. 39). Yet it can be shown that the available scientific evidence contradicts major tenets of atheistic evolution, a fact that is generally ignored by the atheistic community (see Miller, 2012; Miller, 2013). In addition, we mentioned that Ray said: “Go into any Christian bookstore, and you will find books about living in a secular world, living with a spouse who is not saved or how to convert friends and relatives. The god virus is always concerned with protecting and expanding its territory—that is what these books are all about.” What, pray tell, are the books, tracts, DVDs, and pamphlets about atheism designed to do? Are they not written for the very purpose of protecting and expanding the “territory” of atheism?

Listen to the atheists themselves as they describe their “religious” efforts. Prolific atheistic writer and debater, Dan Barker, likened his teaching about atheism to “evangelism” and he stated: “Representing the Freedom From Religion Foundation, I get to engage in similar atheist ‘missionizing’ all across the American continent….” At one point he said, “Atheist ‘evangelism’ doesn’t just happen in front of an audience” (2008, p. 325).

Notice the irony of the fact that the first chapter of Dawkins’ book The God Delusion is titled “A Deeply Religious Non-Believer.” In that chapter, he quotes Carl Sagan’s writings from a book titled A Pale Blue Dot. Sagan wrote: “A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.” Dawkins then stated: “All Sagan’s books touch the nerve-endings of transcendent wonder that religion has monopolized in past centuries. My own books have the same aspiration. Consequently I hear myself often described as a deeply religious man” (p. 12). Additionally, Ray rails on “religion” as a destructive meme/virus, and yet throughout his book, he capitalizes the terms atheist and atheism consistently. One example is when he states: “In fact, the only thing you can get some Atheists to agree upon is that there is no god” (pp. 51-52). Is it not the “religious” concept “that there is no god” that could easily be put forth as the meme that has infected so many minds to the detriment of the host human and in spite of a vast amount of evidence to the contrary? Such is the double-edged sword of the meme/virus concept. If it cuts at all (which it does not), then it cuts both ways.

The Existence of God Provides the Logical Answer

Up to this point we have established that both atheists and theists admit that humans are “intuitive theists.” That is, the belief in an intelligent Creator comes naturally to humans. This idea poses a serious problem for the atheist because the concepts of God and/or religion are extremely costly to the human species. Thus, in an attempt to explain why theism is so prevalent, they liken it to a mental virus that is out for its own survival and not for the benefit of the “host organism.” This explanation, and others like it, fail since arguments used to dismiss the validity of theism and religion would be equally effective to demote all concepts—including atheism—to “by-products” and “memes.” Thus, we are forced to conclude, as Paul Copan did: “Attempts by these New Atheists to explain away theology as a useful fiction, or worse, a harmful delusion, fall short of telling us why the religious impulse is so deeply imbedded. If God exists, however, we have an excellent reason as to why religious fervor should exist” (p. 30).

In other words, if there really is a God, Who is an intelligent, supernatural Creator Who loves mankind and desires that mankind should know the truth, what would we expect to see? We would expect to find humans “pre-programmed” for a belief in God. Of course, we would not expect all humans to come to the proper conclusion that God exists, since a loving God would equip humans with the capacity to choose what to believe and how they choose to behave. We would, however, expect God to have so designed humans that to dismiss the concepts of creation or theism would be unnatural and would require some type of reverse programming. That an intelligent Designer exists is the answer which maintains the most powerful explanatory value.

In fact, further reading into the atheistic literature makes known the fact that atheism is “unnatural” in the sense that it is not how the human mind is designed to perceive the world. Let us refer back to the Bloom and Weisberg article titled “Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science.” It is important to understand their definition of the term “science.” Their research was done in order to show why many Americans reject atheistic evolution. Thus, the term “science” is equated with “atheistic evolution” in their writing. Understanding this to be the case, notice that they said: “The main reason why people resist certain scientific [read that atheistic evolutionary—KB] findings, then, is that many of these findings are unnatural and unintuitive” (2007, 316:996). Keleman concurred when she wrote: “The implication is that children’s science failures may, in part, result from inherent conflicts between intuitive ideas and the basic tenets of contemporary scientific [atheistic evolutionary—KB] thought” (2004, 15:299). In Dawkins’ discussion of the situation, he includes the fact that Bloom says that humans are “innately predisposed to be creationists.” Dawkins then comments that “natural selection ‘makes no intuitive sense.’” Thus, he concludes that children are “native teleologists, and many never grow out of it” (pp. 180-181).

Notice the admission by these atheistic writers. They are forced by the evidence to admit that humans are naturally inclined to believe in an intelligent Designer. They are further forced by the evidence to conclude that the various tenets of atheistic evolution are counterintuitive and unnatural. Yet, in spite of the evidence, they cling to the idea that somehow this situation can be reconciled with the belief that God does not exist. Notice that a presumption of atheism could never have predicted the situation that humans would be “intuitive theists.” Nor do the purported atheistic answers to the problem provide adequate explanatory value. The simple and most powerfully supported conclusion is that God exists, and that is why humans are “innately predisposed to be creationists.”

The Next Step

Once God’s existence is established using humanity’s “intuitive theism,” the next step would be to see how God expects His creatures to use this preprogrammed disposition. If we can establish that the Bible is God’s Word (and we can, see Butt, 2007), then we can go to it to determine the proper human response. First, we can see that God expects everyone to use this predisposition to accurately assess the evidence He has provided to come to the conclusion that He exists. Romans 1:19-21 bears this out:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened (emp. added).

Notice that the biblical text makes it clear that these men “suppress the truth” even though “what may be known of God is manifest in them.” Furthermore, unbelievers will be “without excuse” because they are equipped with the evidence, and the inherent predisposition and ability to arrive at the proper conclusion.

In his sermon on Mars Hill to the Athenians, the apostle Paul explained that the Creator “has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the Earth…so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:26-27). Paul’s statement corresponds perfectly with the idea that God has so designed humans that they naturally “grope” for Him. This would also fit perfectly with the fact that “many psychologists and anthropologists [are led] to believe that children, left entirely to their own devices, would invent some conception of God” (Harris, p. 151). Humans are “groping” for God.

Notice, then, the divine program for salvation. First, a person gropes for a Creator. That person is able to find the Creator Who designed humans and instilled within them the ability to know Him. Their knowledge of this Creator should lead them to the conclusion that humans are His offspring and not the product of a naturalistic, chance process (Acts 17:29). This truth was sufficiently verified by the life and death of Jesus Christ, Who will ultimately judge all mankind based on the plenteous evidence God has supplied and their inherent ability to assess that evidence correctly (Acts 17:31).

References

Barker, Dan (2008), Godless (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).

Bloom, Paul (2009), “In Science We Trust: Beliefs About the Natural World that are Present in Infancy Influence People’s Response to Evolutionary Theory,” Natural History Magazine, 118[4]:16-19.

Bloom, Paul and Deena Skoinick Weisberg (2007), “Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science,” Science, 316 [5827]: 996-997.

Butt, Kyle (2007), Behold the Word of God: Exploring the Evidence of the Inspiration of the Bible (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Copan, Paul (2011), Is God a Moral Monster? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Dawkins, Richard (2006), The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin).

Dennet, Daniel (2006), Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (New York: Viking).

Evans, Margaret (2001), “Cognitive and Contextual Factors in the Emergence of Diverse Belief Systems: Creation versus Evolution,” Cognitive Psychology, 42:252.

Harris, Sam (2010), The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (New York: Free Press).

Hitchens, Christopher (2007), God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: Twelve).

Kelemen, Deborah (2004), “Are Children ‘Intuitive Theists’? Reasoning About Purpose and Design in Nature,” Psychological Science, 15[5]:295-301.

Libresco, Leah (2012), “This is My Last Post for the Patheos Atheist Portal,” http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unequallyyoked/2012/06/this-is-my-last-post-for-the-patheos-atheist-portal.html.

Merica, Dan (2012), “Atheist Becomes Catholic,” http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/22/prominent-atheist-blogger-converts-to-catholicism/.

Miller, Jeff (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis [Part I],” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-5,9-11, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018.

Miller, Jeff (2013), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/2786.

Mills, David (2006), Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).

Pinedo, Moises (2008), What the Bible Says About the Catholic Church (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Ray, Darrel (2009), The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture (Bonner Springs, KS: IPC Press).

The post Why is Belief in God Natural to Mankind? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

As enjoyable as it is to joke around and have fun, and as appropriate as it may be to break the ice with an amusing story, Christians must be careful that we don’t make light and joke around about serious, spiritual, eternally important things, especially when such remarks are unnecessarily offensive. Such inappropriate words at inappropriate times can have very unfortunate consequences.

I was 17 years old, playing summer-league baseball in Oklahoma, when I had the opportunity to visit and worship with a church one Sunday morning a few hours from home. I had the privilege that day to be accompanied by two friends who were not members of the Lord’s church. They had graciously come with me because I needed a ride to worship, and they volunteered to drive me and stay with me until the close of the worship service. Only a few minutes after walking into the building, however, the mood was severely darkened when a member of that church greeted us with a joke about some individuals he knew from our hometown who were of a different religion—with the emphasis being on their religion. It just so happened, the two individuals with me that morning were of that same religious persuasion.

Needless to say, my friends were highly offended by such a greeting from someone who called himself a Christian. And, sadly, they did not get over the insensitive “welcome” very quickly. In fact, it seems they have never gotten over it. Nearly 20 years later I ran into one of these men while visiting family back in Oklahoma. One of the first things he said to me was: “So-and-so was just talking the other day about that time you invited us to come to church with you and that guy greeted us by jokingly condemning our religion.”

By no means am I suggesting that Christians should not unashamedly teach the truth, or that we should not defend the faith whenever given the opportunity. Nor am I suggesting that I have always said things the right ways at the right times. (I’ve certainly failed miserably on this account more times than I like to remember.) What I do know is that God has instructed us to teach “the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). He has commanded us to defend the faith “with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15). Paul taught the saints in Colosse: “Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one” (4:6). Similarly, the wise man taught: “The words of a wise man’s mouth are gracious, but the lips of a fool shall swallow him up” (Ecclesiastes 10:12).

We should never be ashamed of the Gospel of Christ (Romans 1:16); we should never pass up an opportunity to teach the Word of God—but may God help us to do so with “all longsuffering” (2 Timothy 4:2, NKJV), and “with great patience” (NASB). Remember, “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” (Proverbs 15:1).

The post No Joking Matter appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Tragically, this widespread malady has fomented unbelief, skepticism, and atheism. After all, God created the human mind “in His image” (Genesis 1:26). Hence, the human mind was designed to function rationally. When humans conduct themselves illogically, they are going against their natural inclination. In the face of such irrationality, the atheist rightly dismisses “Christianity” as a false system of thinking. Ironically, the atheist is equally irrational in his blind commitment to atheism and evolution—both of which contradict the evidence. [see www.apologeticspress.org]

True, undenominational, New Testament Christianity, on the other hand, is the one and only consistent, rational perspective. According to the New Testament, God never expects nor requires anyone to accept His Word without adequate proof. God empowered His spokesmen on Earth to verify their verbal pronouncements by performing accompanying supernatural acts (Mark 16:20; Hebrews 2:3-4). The book of John spotlights this feature repeatedly. When Nicodemus, a Pharisee and ruler of the Jews, approached Jesus one night, he stated: “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him” (John 3:2, emp. added). Nicodemus was a rational man! He saw evidence that pointed to the obvious conclusion that Jesus was of divine origin, and was honest enough to admit it.

Responding to critical Jews, Jesus defended His divine identity by directing their attention to the works (i.e., “supernatural actions”) He performed: “[T]he very works that I do bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me” (John 5:36). He made the same point to His apostles on another occasion:

Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves (John 14:10-11, emp. added).

Later, Jesus noted that when people refused to believe in Him as the Son of God, they were without excuse, since the evidence of His divine identity had been amply demonstrated: “If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father” (John 15:24, emp. added). So their lack of faith could not be attributed to their inability to know the truth regarding the person of Jesus (cf. John 8:32).

If it is the case that God does not expect a person to believe in Him unless adequate evidence has been made available to warrant that conclusion, then we ought to expect to see Jesus urging people not to believe Him unless He provided proof for His claims. Do we find Jesus doing so while He was on Earth? Absolutely! This fact is particularly evident in Jesus’ response to the tirade launched against Him by hard-hearted Jews who refused to face the reality of His divinity. He reiterated: “The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me” (John 10:25). His subsequent explicit declaration of His deity incited angry preparations to stone Him. He boldly challenged them: “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him” (John 10:37-38, emp. added).

Since Jesus came to the planet to urge people to render obedient submission to Him (John 3:16; 8:24), it is difficult to envision Him telling people not to believe Him. But that is precisely what He did! He has provided the world with adequate evidence for people to distinguish truth from falsehood. We can know that God exists, that Jesus is His Son, and that the Bible is the Word of God. If the evidence did not exist to prove these matters, God would not expect anyone to believe; nor would He condemn anyone for failing to believe—since He is fair and just (Acts 10:34-35; Romans 2:11; Peter 3:9). But the evidence does exist! We can know! All accountable human beings are under obligation to investigate and find the truth (John 8:32; 6:45; 7:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:21). All who desire to know the truth can find it (Matthew 5:6; 7:7-8). All who fail to do so are “without excuse” (Romans 1:20)!

The post Jesus Said: “Do Not Believe Me” appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[Author’s Note: The latter half of this question, which concerns hell, is a sentiment that is often used by skeptics to cast doubt on the veracity of the Bible and the God depicted in its pages. We will deal with this question in two distinct sections. First, we will see what the Bible has to say about why God created humans in general. Then we will proceed to show that the concept of hell, and God’s foreknowledge about who will choose to go there, does not rationally or morally militate against the God of the Bible.]

If there is an all-knowing, all-powerful God (and there is, see Existence of God), then we would expect His motivations for action to be, in many cases, unknown to us. Since there would be so many things that He would know and we would not, it would be virtually impossible for us to understand His reasons for certain actions unless He condescended to explain them. As Isaiah the prophet wrote: “‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,’ says the Lord. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts’” (Isaiah 55:8-9). In one sense we could liken God’s relationship to humans to the knowledge that a five-year-old child would have of some of the actions of her parents. Suppose a child sees a parent pull out a small, rectangular checkbook, write something on a check, pull the check out and put it in an envelope, place a stamp on it, and put it in the mail. The child might ask, “Mommy, why did you do that?” The mother might respond, “So that we can keep driving our car without the bank taking it from us.” How could the child possibly connect a piece of paper to driving a car? Without knowing the details of how a check represents money, how the car was purchased from a dealership, how the bank loaned the parents money, etc., then the child could not grasp the significance of the check.

In a similar way, there are things that God has done that we humans can never fully understand for the simple reason that God has not told us why He has done them. Or, perhaps He has told us, but His answer does not give all the details that our human curiosity might wish. Moses well understood this idea when he wrote: “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which have been revealed belong to us and our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 29:29). Some things God tells us; some things He does not.

When we approach the question of why God created humans, we find ourselves dealing with a question for which God has not provided an extensive answer. The simple answer given in the Bible is that God created humans, as well as the rest of creation, by His will and for His glory.

BY HIS WILL

Revelation 4:11 declares: “You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for you created all things, and by Your will they exist and were created” (emp. added). The “take home” message from this verse is that God freely chose to create and was not constrained by any outside force or by a need to fill any type of deficiency. Psalm 115:3 says: “But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases.” The simple, but none too informative, answer to our question is that God wanted to create humans, so He did.

We must stress, at this point, that His desire to create humans was not because He needed them for some reason. There have been those, especially in ancient religions, who have suggested that God was lonely or in some way deficient and needed humans as companions or helpers. This suggestion has no merit. In Acts 17:24-25, the apostle Paul plainly declared: “God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though he needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things” (emp. added).

The fact that God does not need humans to “help” Him is also reflected in Psalm 50:10-12, a statement that quotes God’s own words: “For every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the birds of the mountains, and the wild beasts of the field are Mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell you; for the world is Mine and all its fullness.” This passage is certainly not suggesting that God would actually get hungry. On the contrary, it is implying that God would never need anything from His Creation.

Neither was God “forced” to create humans because He was lonely. Being the all-sufficient Being, there is nothing in God that needs more of anything. God’s eternal communion with Himself (in the persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) has always provided all the fellowship God needs to be complete. We can clearly see this communion of the three persons of the Godhead in Genesis 1:26, “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.’” Jesus echoed this sentiment of God’s eternal communion when He prayed to the Father: “And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (John 17:5, emp. added). God’s free will act of creating humans had nothing to do with a need to assuage any loneliness. As Stanley Grenz correctly concluded: “Thus, God’s creation of the universe is a free act, a non-necessary act. God is not driven to create, not forced by some sense of compulsion to bring the universe into existence” (1994, p. 99).

Just because God did not (and does not) need humanity for anything, does not imply that humans are unimportant to God. Once He freely chose to create humans, He endowed them with importance by forming them in His own image (Genesis 1:26-27). As theologian Wayne Grudem rightly commented:

Someone might wonder, if God does not need us for anything, then are we important at all? Is there any significance to our existence or to the existence of the rest of creation? In response it must be said that we are in fact very meaningful because God has created us and determined that we would be meaningful to him. That is the final definition of genuine significance (Grudem, 1994, p. 162, italics in original).

God chose to create us by His free will. When He did, He endowed us with meaning and importance by creating us in His image.

FOR HIS GLORY

The Bible also says that God created humans “for His glory.” The God of the Bible declared: “Everyone who is called by My name, Whom I have created for My glory, I have formed him, yes, I have made him” (Isaiah 43:7, emp. added). It is at this point that we must confess that the phrase “for His glory” opens the door to a great deal of speculation. What does the Bible mean when it says that humans (and all creation) were brought into existence for God’s glory? Does it mean that His creation will praise Him and give Him glory? Does it mean the mere fact that human existence brings glory to God as a manifestation of His power and ingenuity? Does it mean that our continued worship of God, in spite of the existence of suffering and hardship in this world, vindicates God and glorifies Him in contradiction to Satan’s expectations, as illustrated in the book of Job? Everything that is involved in this idea will never be truly understood by humans. We can only say that humans are here “for His glory.”

Some have suggested that if the God of the Bible made humans simply “for His glory,” then this would imply that God is an egotistical dictator Who simply wanted more “subjects” to grovel at His feet and tell Him how great He is. This suggestion fails to comprehend important aspects of the phrase “for His glory.” Not only are humans designed to bring glory to God, but they are also designed to enjoy God’s glory and find their own completeness in it. As Jack Cottrell stated: “Herein lies the purpose of human existence, i.e., to receive God’s goodness and to give him glory” (2002, p. 109). God created humans to live a blissfully happy life receiving His glory and responding in turn to the gift of His glory. It is a perfect feedback loop of humans receiving God’s glory, responding with obedience and praise, and being complete and fulfilled by their reception of God’s glory as well as by their proper response to it. We can say, then, that God created humans to live blissfully perfect lives receiving and reciprocating His glory. Understanding the situation in this light brings to the surface the folly of accusing God of selfish egotism.

KNOWING MOST PEOPLE WILL GO TO HELL

Once we establish the fact that God created humans by His will, to live completely happy lives as they receive and respond to His glory, the skeptic is quick to seize upon the fact that many people are not blissfully happy. In fact, a large number of people are unhappy. Not only that, demands the skeptic, but most people, according to the Bible, are destined to be punished eternally in hell. How is it, the skeptic queries, that a loving God could create humans, knowing that most of them would go to hell? Atheist author David Mills demanded:

If we conclude, then, that God would create Hell to deter human behavior which He disliked—knowing beforehand that the majority of humanity would, as a result, suffer eternal torture—then we would be forced to label this god as evil and sadistic also, because He likewise would have inhumanely tortured individuals in order to accomplish His goals (Mills, 2006, p. 180).

Skeptic Vistonas Wu posted similar thoughts on the Web in an article titled “Debunking the Arguments of Christian Fundamentalists and Evangelists”: “If you were God, and you were omnipotent and could see throughout all time, would you create a world where you knew beforehand that the majority of people would end up in an eternal hell?” (2009). The answer implied by the skeptic is, “No.” But the problem with his reasoning is that humans are not all-knowing and that is why humans are not in such a position. In fact, in light of humanity’s limited knowledge, it easily could be the case that the information we do not have at the present is the very information that would lead an all-knowing Being to create the world as it is. The simple sounding question, “If you were God…,” can never be asked in any legitimate sense, and certainly cannot be used as “evidence” to impugn the character of God. If a person really could be God, then his thought process would be so different from what it is now, there is no way he could say what he would or would not do. It needs to be noted in this context that God has created humans in His image, endowing them with the ability to distinguish truth from error, and those ideas that are rational from those that are not. We are not contending that God’s choice to create people is irrational to humans, but rational to God. We are simply saying that God’s omniscience puts Him in a position to know all the details that would be needed to make a perfectly rational decision.

DISSECTING THE SKEPTIC’S ACCUSATION

The skeptic’s accusation that God is evil because He created humans, even though He knew that most would go to hell, crumbles under closer scrutiny. First, the skeptic is quick to include the idea that “most” people are going to hell. This word “most” must be included in the accusation, because if more people go to heaven than go to hell, one could easily argue (using the skeptics’ own humanistic morality) that the present world is arranged for the benefit of the majority. Since humanistic morality claims an action is moral as long as it brings about the most good for the majority of people (Butt, 2010, pp. 33-36), then skeptics cannot, according to their own standard, criticize a God that saves “most” people in heaven and allows a minority of them to choose hell.

So, can we be sure that “most” people are going to hell? No, and here is why. Numerous verses can be cited that seem to indicate that a majority of people choose hell. The most common passage is Matthew 7:13-14, which states: “Enter by the narrow gate for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” According to this passage, many choose the path to destruction, and only few choose the path to life. What is implied in these verses, however, is the idea that those under discussion have the ability and capacity to choose. Those who are not in view in this or other such passages are those who have not yet reached an age or mental capacity to choose—unborn babies, infants, and children. If we can show that children go to heaven (and we can, see Butt, 2003), and we can show that there is at least a possibility that more children have died in a saved condition than adults who have died lost, then we can do away with the idea that “most” people are going to hell. When we consider that worldwide, there are an estimated 42 million abortions each year (Johnston, 2010), and when we understand that children often are the first to die in periods of famine and disease, we are forced to conclude that it is at least possible, and most likely probable, that more humans have died in a saved state than those who will be eternally lost. [NOTE: At this point in the discussion, the skeptic will often change the subject and demand that God cannot be loving and allow all those children to die. This accusation is false and has been definitively refuted, see Butt, 2009]. The skeptic, then, cannot know if “most” people are going to hell, and thus, according to humanistic morality based on the majority, cannot accuse God of evil. In truth, however, the concept of “most” people has very little to do with justifying God’s actions. God’s morality can still be justified even if most people are lost and only a few saved.

GOD WANTS ALL PEOPLE TO CHOOSE TO BE SAVED

The Bible is clear that God allows all accountable  humans to choose their own final destination. Throughout the Scriptures, we see God placing before humans the ability to determine their own destiny. Moses wrote: “I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life” (Deuteronomy 30:19). Jesus’ statement in Matthew 7:13-14 about the narrow and wide paths included the idea that His listeners had the ability “to enter” whichever path they chose. Joshua underscored this idea of choice when he declared to the Israelites, “And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve” (Joshua 24:15). The skeptical community likes to parade before the masses a picture of a tyrant God Who arbitrarily casts people to eternal destruction based on nothing more than whim and caprice. That is not true. Any person who goes to hell will have consciously made the decision to be there. As atheist Dan Barker so clearly stated: “Speaking for myself, if the biblical heaven and hell exist, I would choose hell” (2008, p. 170). C.S. Lewis insightfully noted: “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it” (1946, p. 72, ital. in orig.). Timothy Keller added: “All God does in the end with people is give them what they most want, including freedom from himself. What could be more fair than that?” (2008, p. 79).

God allows people to choose their final destiny, and He wants all men to choose to be saved. First Timothy 2:4 says that God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Second Peter 3:9 says that the Lord is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” Not only does He not want people to choose hell, He sent His Son as a sacrifice for sin to dissuade people from choosing hell and to persuade them to choose heaven. In fact, the book of Hebrews explains that those who choose the path to destruction will trample the Son of God under their feet on their way (Hebrews 10:29). The concept of hell does not militate against God’s love or justice (Butt, 2010, pp. 17-24). [NOTE: I understand that the skeptic does not accept these verses as inspired and does not accept the story of Jesus’ sacrificial atonement. If the skeptic accuses the Bible of portraying God as immoral, however, he must allow the Bible to answer for itself. I am simply saying the Bible presents a cogent, logical argument that shows the skeptics’ accusation of God as being immoral to be wrong. If God really allows people to choose, and if He sent His Son to demonstrate His love and persuade people to choose right, then He cannot be accused of immorality.]

GOD SHOWS NO PARTIALITY

Another key concept to understandingGod’s dealings with humanity is His lack of partiality. The apostle Peter correctly stated: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him” (Acts 10:34-35). This verse testifies to the fact that the Bible presents God as a perfectly impartial, fair Being Who gives every person an equal opportunity to respond to the truth. We must understand, however, that we are not saying that all people have the exact same number of opportunities to hear the Gospel, or are born into identical socio-economic situations, etc. What we are saying is that God fairly judges each person based on the opportunities he or she has been given. As Jesus said: “For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more” (Luke 12:48).  In all the examples in the Bible in which people responded properly to the truth, God provided those people with enough information to be saved (cf. Acts 8:26-38; Acts 10). God, therefore, takes into account every aspect of a person’s inherent make-up and external environment and impartially judges that person’s behavior based on what he or she should do given all the circumstances.

YES, BUT GOD KNEW SOME WOULD CHOOSE HELL…

Once the skeptic realizes that he cannot rationally conclude that God is unfair for allowing all people to choose their own destiny, he must insist that the mere fact God knew some people would choose hell should have kept God from creating those people. An adequate response to such a statement is simply, “Who says?” Is there anything about the skeptic’s charge that shows some type of inherent moral rightness? There is nothing. And while, “Who says?” is an adequate response, it is not the only one at the disposal of the biblical theist. While it is true that God could have only created those humans that He knew would choose heaven, would the skeptic call that “fair”? Would it be fair for God not to create a person, and thereby deprive that person of the same opportunities and chances as other people, simply because God knew that person would choose hell? Such a course of action would actually be truly “unfair” and would land God in the real moral dilemma of showing partiality. On the contrary, the only way for God to be truly fair to all His human creatures would be to allow each of them the same opportunity to choose their own final destination.

The skeptic might then contend that it would have been better for God not to have created humans at all. But the answer to such a statement once again is, “Who says?” Who is the skeptic to say that a world with no humans is one that is better than a world in which humans are all given an equal chance to respond to God’s love, with many millions actually responding obediently and receiving eternal life? On what grounds does the skeptic demand that his perceived world is better than the one that we have? He can appeal to no greater authority than his own personal opinion. In essence, the skeptic is saying nothing more than, “I think it would have been better if humans were not created if some would choose hell.” The response to such an opinion is simply that God, Who knows everything and is completely impartial and perfectly moral and loving, understands at least one thing about the Universe that the skeptic does not know (or refuses to acknowledge) that calls for the situation to be as it is.

CONCLUSION

There is no possible way for our finite human minds to understand all the reasons behind why God created humans. There is enough information about God and humans for us to reason properly that God is not immoral for having created humans. We can know that humans were created by an act of God’s free will to receive and respond to His glory. The skeptic’s vacuous charge that God is immoral for creating humans, knowing that many would choose hell, cannot be sustained. God has given every responsible person an equal opportunity to choose heaven. There is no ground upon which the skeptic can maintain that a world without humans would be a better world than one in which some humans choose eternal life and others choose eternal destruction. In fact, God’s attributes of omniscience, impartiality, and love provide the basis to conclude that only He would be in a position to determine which world would be the very best. When understood properly, the Bible presents a completely consistent picture of God’s moral perfection in regard to His choice to create humans.

REFERENCES

Barker, Dan (2008), godless (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).

Butt, Kyle (2003), “Do Babies Go to Hell When They Die?” http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1201.

Butt, Kyle (2009), “Is God Immoral for Killing Babies?” http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=260.

Butt, Kyle (2010), A Christian’s Guide to Refuting Modern Atheism (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Cottrell, Jack (2002), The Faith Once for All (Joplin, MO: College Press).

Grenz, Stanley (1994), Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Grudem, Wayne (1994), Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Johnston, W. Robert (2010), “Summary of Registered Abortions Worldwide, Through April 10, 2010,” http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp3310.html.

Keller, Timothy (2008), The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Dutton).

Lewis, C.S. (1946), The Great Divorce (New York: Touchstone).

Mills, David (2006), Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).

Wu, Vistonas (2009), “Debunking the Arguments of Christian Fundamentalists and Evangelists,” http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_Christians/Contents.htm.

The post Why Did God Create People—Knowing That Many Would Go to Hell? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Yet atheism says that everything came from nothing. Atheism says that an explosion caused exquisite order. It says that random chances produced precision and that life popped into existence in nature from non-life. Atheism says that the design of the human eye is a delusion, while the design of a camera is apparent. Atheism says that fish and frogs are man’s distant forefathers and that intelligence is the result of non-intelligence. Atheism alleges that either man is on the same moral plane as a moose, or he actually evolved a sense of morality from amoral monkeys. Atheism spends multiplied millions of dollars and countless thousands of hours in search of extra-terrestrial life, which has never been found.

When atheism is stripped of pompous proclamations and arrogant allegations, its naked soul is seen for what it really is: weak, illogical, unscientific, and worthless. Atheists blindly believe that, for example, life came from non-life. Rather than accept what scientific experimentation has repeatedly concluded over the past 200 years (that in nature life comes only from life and that of its own kind), atheists remain committed to a disproven theory. Man has never witnessed mindlessness bring forth intelligence. He’s never seen something come from nothing.

While trying to convince others he is galloping confidently atop a stallion called Common Sense, in truth, atheism stumbles on the back of a donkey called Foolishness. Is there any wonder why David said, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1)?

For since the creation of the world His [God’s] invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:20-22).

The post The Foolishness of Atheism appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Now let us take a critical look at what is really going on with this most recent Harvard “study.” First, why do you think LiveScience is reporting on a study about belief in God? Do you think it is because the scientific community has had a sudden change of heart and now believes the concept of God to be one that can be verified scientifically? Of course not. On the contrary, this “study” is in LiveScience in an attempt to reduce belief in God to a function of a certain type of brain chemistry or thought process—and an inferior one at that. Notice that David Rand concludes that “where you are on the spectrum affects how you come out in terms of belief in God.” If it so happens that you are an intuitive thinker, then you do not really control whether you believe in God or not, it is just that your thinking is more open to the possibility. If you are a more “reflective” thinker, then there is a good chance you cannot help your lack of a belief in God; it is just the way you think. In other words, belief in God is a function of your physical chemistry (an ultimately evolution) rather than your God-given ability to rationally make a choice.

Furthermore, notice that while the researchers were quick to say that one way of thinking is not superior to the other, it was the “intuitive” thinkers who got the very simple math problems wrong, and those are the people who tend to believe in God more. Observe the implied deficiency associated with a belief in God. Those who are more likely to believe in God cannot even answer simple math problems. It should be noted that this “study” was of an extremely small group of people and had no substantial “scientific” information to add to the question about belief in God.

Unfortunately, it is true that many in the religious world erroneously believe in God due to emotions and feelings rather than reason and evidence. True biblical faith is not founded on personal feelings and emotions, instead it is based on reflection (i.e., reason and evidence, 1 Thessalonians 5:21). While the Harvard study may hint at how some people in the religious world come to belief in God, the study fails to account for those whose faith is legitimate—being based on reflection of the evidence. Further, in the same way that many believe in God based on “intuition” rather than “reflection,” a fair assessment would be to note that there are just as many people who fail to believe in God because they are unwilling to draw the conclusions that come from proper reflection of the evidence (e.g., design in the Universe, causality, etc.). An appropriate counter study to this Harvard research, which would provide a more complete picture of the truth, would be to determine how many do not believe in God because of an inherent bias against Him (due, for instance, to some event in their past or a desire to live without moral restraint) and/or because those individuals have a tendency in their lives to not draw appropriate conclusions that are warranted by the evidence (in contradiction to the Law of Rationality; Ruby, 1960, pp. 126-127).

Attempts by the atheistic scientific community to reduce belief in God to genetics, brain cells, digestion, or the color of a person’s eyes are legion—and all equally unsuccessful. The bottom line is that belief in God will never be successfully linked to any physical trait, pattern of brain cells, genetic variation, and certainly not to a method of reasoning that causes a person to miss simple math problems. On the contrary, all those who sincerely desire to use proper reasoning (Acts 26:24) to follow the truth where it leads (John 18:37), will arrive at the correct conclusion that God exists (Miller, 2011). If people do not believe in God, it is not because of their genes or their “reflective” capacities; it is because they have refused to properly assess the evidence that God has provided. Sadly, those people will be “without excuse” on the Day of Judgment (Romans 1:20).

REFERENCES

Miller, Dave (2011), “Is Christianity Rational?” http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=977.

Pappas, Stephani (2011), “Belief in God Boils Down to a Gut Feeling,” LiveScience, http://news.yahoo.com/belief-god-boils-down-gut-feeling-104403461.html.

Ruby, Lionel (1960), Logic: An Introduction (Chicago, IL: J.B. Lippincott).

The post Belief in God and “Gut Feelings” appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[Editor’s Note: This article is the second installment in a two-part series exploring the allegation of atheism that the Christian Faith cannot be reconciled with science and reason, and that it constitutes a belief system in which “rational discourse proves impossible.” Part I appeared in the June issue and focused on Jesus’ own use of logic. Part II follows below, and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

The Argument Over the Identity of the Messiah (Matthew 22:41-46)

Still another magnificent manifestation of Jesus’ logical competence is seen in the argument He posed to the Pharisees over the identity of the Messiah:

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?” They said to Him, “The Son of David.” He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying: ‘The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool”’? If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?”

In this interchange, Jesus directed the Pharisees’ attention to the Old Testament personage, the “Messiah” (mah-SHEE-ach), a term occurring 39 times, always translated in the Septuagint as christos. Both terms mean “anointed one.” Jesus was, in fact, the long-awaited Messiah/Christ. His question was intended to spotlight this fact. The answer to His question given by the Pharisees, i.e., “the Son of David,” was correct, but incomplete. The Messiah was, indeed, expected to descend through the bloodline of King David (2 Samuel 7:12-13; see Luke’s genealogical verification of this point in Luke 3:23-38), and also inherit the throne of David based on His legal lineage (see Matthew’s genealogical verification in 1:1-17 of his gospel account; cf. Miller, 2003b). What the Pharisees were having trouble accepting was the deity of the Christ.

Hence, Jesus followed their answer with two additional questions that lead the honest listener to that realization. First, how is it that David, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, penned the words of Psalm 110:1 in which he stated: “The LORD said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.’” Observe carefully the precise wording Jesus employed. His first allusion to “lord” in the Hebrew text is the divine name, variously transliterated “Jehovah” (ASV), Yahweh, etc. English translations alert the reader to this fact by placing the term in all capitals—LORD. The second occurrence of the term “lord” in Jesus’ statement is the usual Hebrew word for a lord (adonai), whether human or divine. Notice the logic: According to King David in the inspired Psalm 110 which he penned, God the Father spoke to his (David’s) Lord, i.e., the Christ/Messiah. David referred to the Messiah as his Lord.

So Jesus asked His final question to bring His logical presentation to a climax: “If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?” How can the Messiah/Christ be the son, (i.e., descendant) of David, and yet already be in existence as David’s Lord? The only way such could be the case is if the Messiah’s physical body came genetically from David (cf. Hebrews 10:5; Psalm 40:6), but the Messiah Himself, that is, His person, His spirit, pre-existed David by inhabiting eternity alongside God the Father. Jesus was pressing His enemies to face the fact that He was, in fact, the Messiah—God in the flesh, on Earth, in their very presence. They were so dumbfounded by this revelation, that “no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore” (vs. 46).

The Legal Treatment of the Adulterous Woman (John 8:1-11)

Jesus’ logical acumen is again self-evident in the narrative of the woman caught in adultery. [NOTE: For a discussion of the technical aspects of this passage as a textual variant, see Metzger, 1968, pp. 223-224; 1971, pp. 219-222; McGarvey, 1974, p. 16; Woods, 1989, p. 162.] This passage has been used by situation ethicists (e.g., Fletcher, 1967, pp. 83,133), libertines, and liberals to insist that God is not “technical” or concerned with being logically consistent when it comes to requiring close adherence to His laws. The bulk of Christendom has abetted this notion by decontextualizing and applying indiscriminately the remark of Jesus: “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first” (vs. 7). The average individual, therefore, has come to think that Jesus was tolerant and forgiving to the extent that He released the woman from the strictures of God’s Law that called for her execution. They believe that Jesus simply “waved aside” her sin, and thereby granted her unconditional freedom and forgiveness—though the Law called for her death (Leviticus 20:10). The untenable result is to pit the Law of God against the grace of God, placing people in the  so-called “grip of grace” (Lucado, 1996).

Did Jesus act inconsistent with a rational and logical approach to the woman’s predicament? No, He did not. A careful study of the passage yields three insights that clarify the confusion and misconception inherent in the popular imagination, while demonstrating Jesus’ logical skill. First, Mosaic regulations stated that a person could be executed only if there were two or more witnesses to the crime (Deuteronomy 19:15). One witness was insufficient to invoke the death penalty (Deuteronomy 17:6). The woman in question was reportedly caught in the “very act” (vs. 4), but nothing is mentioned about the identity of the witness or witnesses. There may have been only one, thereby making execution illegal.

Second, even if there were two or more witnesses present to verify the woman’s sin, the Old Testament was equally explicit concerning the fact that both the womanand the man were to be executed (Deuteronomy 22:22). Where was the man? The accusing mob completely sidestepped this critical feature of God’s Law, demonstrating that this trumped-up situation obviously did not fit the Mosaic preconditions for invoking capital punishment. Obedience to the Law of Moses in this instance actually meant letting the woman go.

A third consideration that often is overlooked concerning this passage is the precise meaning of the phrase “He who is without sin among you…” (vs. 7). If this statement were to be taken as a blanket prohibition against accusing, disciplining, or punishing the erring, impenitent Christian, then this passage flatly contradicts a host of other passages (e.g., Romans 16:17; 1 Corinthians 5; Galatians 6:1; 2 Thessalonians 3:6,14; Titus 3:10; 2 John 9-11). But the Bible never contradicts itself. Jesus not only frequently passed judgment on a variety of individuals during His tenure on Earth (e.g., Matthew 15:14; 23; John 8:44,55; 9:41; et al.), but also enjoined upon His followers the necessity of doing the same thing (e.g., John 7:24). Peter could be very direct in assessing people’s spiritual status (e.g., Acts 8:23). Paul rebuked the Corinthians’ inaction concerning their fornicating brother: “Do you not judge those who are inside? …Therefore put away from yourselves that wicked person” (1 Corinthians 5:12-13, emp. added). Obviously, Paul demanded that Christians must judge (i.e., make an accurate evaluation of) a fellow Christian’s moral condition. Even the familiar proof text so often marshaled to promote laxity (i.e., “Judge not, that you be not judged”—Matthew 7:1) records Jesus admonishing disciples: “then you will see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye” (vs. 5). The current culture-wide celebration of being nonjudgmental (cf. I’m OK— You’re OK) is clearly out of harmony with Bible teaching, and the Bible must not be charged with the inconsistency.

So Jesus could not have been offering a blanket prohibition against taking appropriate action with regard to the sins of our fellows. Then what did His words mean? What else could possibly be going on in this setting so as to completely deflate, undermine, and terminate the boisterous determination of the woman’s accusers to attack Him, by using the woman as a pretext? What was it in Christ’s words that had such logical force to stop them in their tracks—so much so that their clamor faded to silence and they departed “one by one, beginning with the oldest” (vs. 9)?

Most commentators suggest that He shamed them by forcing them to realize that “nobody is perfect and we all sin.” But this motley crew—with their notorious and repeatedly documented hard-heartedness—would not have been deterred if Jesus simply had conveyed the idea that, “Hey, give the poor woman a break, none of us is perfect,” or “We’ve all done things were not proud of.” These heartless scribes and Pharisees were brazen enough to divert her case from the proper judicial proceedings and to humiliate her by forcibly hauling her into the presence of Jesus, thereby making a public spectacle of her. Apparently accompanied by a group of complicit supporters, they cruelly subjected her to the wider audience of “all the people” (vs. 2) who had come to hear Jesus’ teaching. They hardly would have been discouraged from their objective by such a simple utterance from Jesus that “nobody’s perfect.”

So what is the answer to this puzzling circumstance? Consider the possible explanation that Jesus was striking at precisely the same point for which Paul rebuked hard-hearted, hypocritical Jews in Rome: “Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things” (Romans 2:1, emp. added). Paul was especially specific on the very point with which Jesus dealt: “You who say, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ do you commit adultery?” (vs. 22, emp. added). In other words, no person is qualified to call attention to another’s sin when that individual is in the ongoing practice of the same sin. Again, as Jesus previously declared, “Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:5, emp. added). After all, it is the “spiritual” brother or sister who is in the proper position to restore the wayward (Galatians 6:1).

Consequently, in the context under consideration, being omniscient, Jesus knew that the woman’s accusers were guilty of the very thing for which they were willing to condemn her. (It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the fellow with whom the woman had committed adultery was in league with the accusers and present in the crowd). Jesus was able to prick them with their guilt by causing them to realize that He knew that they, too, were guilty. The Law of Moses made clear that the witnesses to the crime were to cast the first stones (Deuteronomy 17:7). The death penalty could not be invoked legally if the eyewitnesses were unavailable—or unqualified.   Jesus was striking directly at the fact that these witnesses were legally disqualified from fulfilling this role since they were guilty of the same sin, and thus deserved to be brought up on similar charges. As McGarvey notes: “The one who executed the law must be free from the same crime” (n.d., p. 452). They were intimidated into silence and retreat by their realization that Jesus was privy to their own sexual indiscretions—and possibly on the verge of divulging them publicly.

Observe carefully that at the withdrawal of the accusers, Jesus put forth a technical legal question when he asked: “Woman, where are they? Did no man condemn thee?” (vs. 10, ASV), or “Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?” (KJV). The reason for Jesus to verify the absence of the accusers who had brought the charges against the woman was that the Law of Moses mandated the presence of eyewitnesses to the crime before guilt could be established and sentence passed. The woman confirmed, “No man, Lord” (vs. 11). Jesus then affirmed: “Neither do I condemn you….” The meaning of this pronouncement was that if two or more witnesses to her sin were not able or willing to document the crime, then she could not be held legally liable. Even Jesus, Himself, could not serve as an eyewitness to her action. The usual interpretation of “neither do I condemn you” is that Jesus was flexible, tolerant, and unwilling to be judgmental toward others or to condemn their sinful actions. This view is illogical, irrational, and beneath the Bible. The Bible repudiates such thinking on nearly every page. Jesus was declaring the fact that the woman managed to slip out from under judicial condemnation on the basis of one or more legal technicalities. But, He said (to use modern-day vernacular), “You had better stop it! You were fortunate this time, but you must cease your sinful behavior!”

These scribes and Pharisees were trying to catch Jesus in a trap. Yet Jesus, using logic in conjunction with evidence, “turned the tables” on His accusers and caught them in a trap instead. At the same time, He demonstrated a deep and abiding respect for the governing beauty and power of law—the law that He and His Father had authored. Jesus was the only person Who ever complied with Mosaic legislation perfectly (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15). He never sought to excuse human violation of law, nor to minimize the binding and authoritative application of law to people. Any interpretation of any passage that depicts Jesus as violating God’s Law in order to forgive or accommodate man is a false interpretation, as is any interpretation that relegates law to a status of secondary importance (cf. Deuteronomy 6:24; 10:13; Psalms 19:7-11; Romans 7:12). Clearly, Jesus’ facility with sound reasoning, argumentation, and logical proficiency are abundantly evident. His application of legal principles in this circumstance further underscores His consistent commitment to the Law of Rationality.

Many additional instances of Jesus’ logical genius are provided in the gospel accounts of His life on Earth, including

• His interaction with the Pharisees over taxes (Matthew 22:15-22)
• His logical justification for healing on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:10-13; Mark 3:1-6; Luke 13:10-17; 14:1-6; John 7:22-24)
• His response to the lawyers concerning the source of His miraculous power (Luke 11:14-26)
• His reading and application of the Law in His home town synagogue (Luke 4:16-30)
• His answer concerning fasting (Luke 5:33-39)
• His handling of Simon’s disgruntled view of the sinful woman (Luke 7:36-50)
• His exchange with the Pharisees concerning His triumphal entry (Luke 19:39-40)
• His comments upon the occasion of His arrest (Luke 22:47-53)

The reader would do well to study these and other accounts carefully to become more acquainted with the Savior of the world, Who was the only fully consistent, rational Being to walk the Earth. Jesus was so sensible and rational in His discourse that when hard-hearted Jews irrationally declared Him to be mad or demon-possessed, clearer thinking individuals rightly countered: “These are not the words of one who has a demon” (John 10:21). Indeed, Jesus consistently provided evidence, even empirical evidence, to substantiate His claims (John 10:24-26,36-38). But when men do not want to accept the truth, when they wish to believe and practice things that they desire to pursue, they will reject and castigate the use of logic. They turn against logic when logic turns against them.

Jesus’ emphasis on logic and evidence stands in stark contrast to the false religious view that prevails within Christendom. Most people who claim to be Christian think that God expects people to “just believe,” i.e., accept Christ without any proof, evidence, or rational justification, without questioning or being convinced of His validity. Most, in fact, see faith and proof as opposites. They think one must have faith in those areas where proof is unavailable. To them, faith is accepting what you cannot prove, and deciding to believe what you cannot know. When confronted by a skeptic who demands proof and evidence to verify the Christian religion, it is not uncommon to hear a person who professes to be a Christian respond: “I can’t prove it to you; I just accept it by faith.” Or, “I do not know that God exists, but I have decided to believe that He does.” This notion of “blind faith” (cf. Miller, 2003a), i.e., believing without evidence, or in spite of the evidence, is more properly identified as fideism—a system of thinking that is contrary to the faith enjoined by Deity in the Bible (see Edwards, 1972, 1:201).

Jesus in the New Testament presents a completely different picture. God never expects nor requires anyone to accept His Word without adequate proof. God empowered His spokesmen on Earth to verify and authenticate their verbal pronouncements by performing accompanying supernatural acts (Mark 16:20; Hebrews 2:3-4). The book of John spotlights this feature repeatedly. When Nicodemus, a Pharisee and ruler of the Jews, approached Jesus one night, he stated: “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him” (John 3:2, emp. added). Nicodemus was a rational man. He saw evidence that pointed to the obvious conclusion that Jesus was of divine origin, and was honest enough to admit it. Observe that he made a knowledge claim, i.e., he claimed to possess such certainty of Jesus’ identity, based on the evidence, that he could not possibly be wrong.

If it is the case that God does not expect a person to believe in Him unless adequate evidence has been made available to warrant that conclusion, then we might reasonably expect to see Jesus urging people not to believe Him unless He provided proof for His claims. Do we find Jesus doing so while He was on Earth? Unquestionably. This fact is particularly poignant in Jesus’ response to the tirade launched against Him by those who refused to accept the proof of His divinity. He reiterated: “The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me” (John 10:25). In other words, evidence (“works”) point to ascertainable truth. When His subsequent explicit declaration of His deity incited angry preparations to stone Him, He boldly challenged them: “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him” (John 10:37-38, emp. added).

This passage conveys three key considerations. First, Jesus did not expect anyone to believe or accept Him unless He provided proof. Second, one must not allow personal prejudice and personalities to prevent acceptance of the conclusion to which the evidence points. Third, once the proof was made available, one could know the truth and thereby believe, i.e., knowledge precedes faith. One cannot biblically believe what one does not first know. That is why Paul declared: “I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day” (2 Timothy 1:12).

Since Jesus came to the planet to urge people to render obedient submission to Him (John 3:16; 8:24), it is difficult to envision Him telling people not to believe Him. But that is precisely what He did (cf. Miller, 2003c). He has provided the world with adequate evidence so that people may distinguish truth from error. How could anyone possibly question the fact of Jesus’ consistent use of logic and correct reasoning? He was, and is, the quintessential Logician Who created the human mind to function rationally. As we shall now see, His divinely guided disciples followed His example.

The Apostle Paul: First Rate Polemicist

Like his Lord, the apostle Paul was a master of logical argumentation in both oral and written proclamation. Shortly after his conversion, he entered upon a life-long career of debate and rational discourse. Examine carefully the terms that the Holy Spirit selected in the book of Acts to describe Saul’s inspired verbal activities:

• “But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded [sugcheo—bewildered, confounded in dispute] the Jews who dwelt in Damascus, proving [sumbibadzon—to prove, demonstrate] that this Jesus is the Christ” (9:22, emp. added).
• “Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned [dielexato—discoursed, argued] with them from the Scriptures, explaining [dianoigon—to open the sense of a thing, expound] anddemonstrating [paratithemenos—propound, inculcate] that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, ‘This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.’ And some of them were persuaded [epeithen—convinced]…. Therefore he reasoned [dielegeto—argued] in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there” (17:2-4,17, emp. added; cf. 24:14).
• “And he reasoned [dielegeto—argued] in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded [epeisthaisan—convinced] both Jews and Greeks…. And he came to Ephesus and…he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned [dielexato—argued] with the Jews” (18:4,19, emp. added).
• “And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning [dialegomenos—arguing] and persuading [peithon—convincing] concerning the things of the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus” (19:8-9, emp. added).
• “So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained [exetitheto—set forth, expounded, exposed] and solemnly testified [diamarturomenos—earnestly affirm, bear witness, declare] of the kingdom of God, persuading [epeisthaisan—convincing] them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening. And some were persuaded by the things which were spoken, and some disbelieved” (28:23-24, emp. added).

The bolded terms in these verses connote rational, logical activity. They imply tacit endorsement of the Law of Rationality: “We ought to justify our conclusions by adequate evidence”(Ruby, 1960, p. 131). No wonder, in writing to the Thessalonians, Paul admonished them by paraphrasing the Law of Rationality: “Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). The NASB renders the first phrase: “But examine everything carefully.” In other words, God expects all people to engage in a rational, logical pursuit of truth, with proper analysis of every viewpoint before accepting it as true. Neither Christianity nor atheism should be embraced until and unless the evidence warrants it.

Defending the Resurrection

Paul’s magnificent defense of the resurrection was couched, by divine inspiration, in logical thought forms (1 Corinthians 15:12-20). Identified in formal logic as a series of hypothetical syllogisms (“If…then….”), Paul employed the inference rule identified by logicians as Modus Tollens: if P, then Q; not Q; therefore, not P (see Baum, 1975, p. 216; cf. Warren, p. 57):

I. If no general resurrection, then Jesus not raised.
II. If Jesus not raised, then—
     A. Our preaching is vain
     B. Your faith is vain
     C. We are false witnesses
     D. You are still in your sins
     E. Those who have died have perished
     F. We are of all men most pitiable
III. But you know and agree that our preaching is not vain, your faith is not vain, we are not false witnesses, etc.
IV. Therefore, Jesus was raised.
V. Therefore, there will be a general resurrection.

Observe how Paul carefully brought the Corinthian Christians to the irresistible conclusion that “Christ is risen from the dead” (vs. 20). After examining such sophisticated logic, it is easy to see why Paul claimed concerning his divinely appointed role: “I am put here for the defense (apologian) of the gospel” (Philippians 1:16, RSV).

This logically exact methodology is typical of Paul and the other Spirit-inspired writers. When Paul charged Titus with orchestrating the appointment of qualified bishops on the island of Crete, he noted that elders must “be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and to convict those who contradict” (Titus 1:9, emp. added). In other words, as shepherds of the flock, elders must be debaters who can refute false teachers, enabling people to distinguish between truth and error. No wonder that, when Festus accused Paul of being crazy, Paul coolly countered: “I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak the words of truth and reason” (Acts 26:25, emp. added). Paul answered the charge of insanity by arguing that his words were not only true, they were sensible, logical, and reasonable. The word translated “reason” is the same word in its verb form (sophroneo) used to refer to the demoniac after the expulsion of the demons, rendered “in his right mind” (Mark 5:15). Paul instructed young Timothy: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth” and “with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition” (2 Timothy 2:15,25, NASU, emp. added). Truth must be handled properly, and those who misapprehend the truth must be logically and rationally corrected, i.e., brought to an accurate understanding of truth.

Additional instances of Paul’s use of logic in defending truth are seen in his evangelistic travels in the book of Acts. For example, in the city of Lystra he offered a brief but pungent defense of the existence of the one true Creator God (versus the many pagan Greek and Roman gods). As proof of his assertion, he appealed to the evidence of natural revelation in the created order (i.e., “rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness” [Acts 14:17]). Another example was his address to the court of the Areopagus in Athens (Acts 17:22ff.). Incorporating supporting evidence from two Greek poets, Epimenides of Crete and Aratus of Cilicia, Paul again asserted the self-evident nature of God based on His Creation of the Universe, His immateriality, His creation of humanity, His eventual judgment of the world via Christ Who was raised from the dead. Paul’s oral defenses before the Jerusalem mob (Acts 22) and Sanhedrin (Acts 23), before the Roman procurator Felix in Caesarea (Acts 24), and before Felix’s successor, Porcius Festus and King Herod Agrippa II (Acts 25) provide additional instances of Paul’s logical skill. Truly, Paul, like Jesus, was a skillful logician who presented evidence that verified his verbal assertions. He admonished all others to so conduct themselves (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 5:21).

The Apostle Peter: Another Skilled Logician

Peter followed the same logical approach to his religious work. On the momentous occasion of the establishment of the church of Christ in Acts 2, Peter employed a Modus Ponens argument form with a compound antecedent (see Warren, p. 83). After refuting the false charge of intoxication, using proof from Joel 2 (vss. 15-21), Peter advanced four lines of argumentation, meticulously supported by evidence:

I. Jesus was:
    A. Approved/validated by God (vs. 22)—Supporting evidence:
        1. Jesus performed miracles
        2. The audience knew it
    B. Crucified by men (vs. 23)—the very ones present were responsible
    C. Resurrected by God (vs. 24)—Supporting evidence:
        1. Psalm 16 (vss. 25-28)
            (1) Not referring to David, since David’s tomb still in existence (vs. 29)
            (2) David was a prophet to whom God revealed the coming Christ (vss. 30-31)
        2. The apostles (and others) witnessed the resurrection (vs. 32)—which was checkable
    D. Ascended to heaven (vss. 33-34)—Supporting evidence:
        1. The undeniable tongue speaking manifested by the apostles came from Christ (vs. 33)
        2. Psalm 110—The ascension described did not refer to David (cf. vs. 29), but to Christ
II. Therefore: Jesus (of Nazareth—vs. 22) is the Lord and Christ (vs. 36)

Having pressed four arguments, carefully supported by scriptural and verifiable evidence, like any good logician, Peter proceeded to deduce the only reasonable conclusion that could be drawn from the evidence: “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36).

In harmony with his logical defense of the Faith on the day of Pentecost, Peter enjoined the same behavior on all Christians when he told them to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15, emp. added). The phrase translated “give a defense” (NKJV; “give an answer,” KJV/NIV) is from the very Greek word from which the transliterated term “apologetics” is derived. A technical, legal term that was used in the Greek law courts (Wuest, 1942, 2:89), it connotes rational activity—mustering arguments that prove the case. Wuest explains that the term entails “presenting a verbal defense for it, refuting the statements of the destructive critic” (2:89). By inspiration, Peter insisted that every Christian is to develop skill in apologetics—the ability to defend the Christian Faith. As Greek scholar A.T. Robertson explained: “Ready with a spoken defence [sic] of the inward hope. This attitude calls for an intelligent grasp of the hope and skill in presenting it” (1933, 6:114). Notice in the same verse Peter’s use of the word “reason” (logon—answer, explanation, accounting [Thayer, 1901, p. 381; Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 479]). The term indicates that Christians have a reasonable faith, one that can be defended and established as true. Peter, too, was a divinely guided, first-rate logician.

Others Also Committed to Being Rational

Luke engaged in the same sort of rational enterprise in the writing of his inspired contributions to the Christian Scriptures. He wrote his gospel account so that Theophilus and subsequent readers might “know the certainty” (Luke 1:4) of the Christian message. In writing Acts, he noted how Jesus’ resurrection was verified by “many convincing proofs” (Acts 1:3, NASB). These declarations connote rational activity. Apollos, likewise, employed logic and reasonable discourse. Observe the terms that are used to describe his verbal proclivities: “for he vigorously [eutonos—powerfully, strenuously, intensely] refuted [diakatelegcheto—argue down to a finish, confute with rivalry, refute completely] the Jews publicly, showing [epideiknus—proving, demonstrating, setting forth so that all see] from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ” (Acts 18:28, emp. added).

Stephen was hauled into court before the Sanhedrin to give account of his alleged criticism of Judaism (Acts 6:11-15). He was literally on trial for his life. Yet his “defense” was hardly calculated to achieve his release. As F.F. Bruce noted: “Anything less likely to win a verdict of ‘not guilty’ from the judges can scarcely be imagined. It is rather an apology in the sense that it is a reasoned defence [sic] of the position which he had maintained” (1959, p. 24, emp. added). Indeed, Stephen used skillful reasoning and logic to place his accusers on trial before the judgment bar of God. His conclusion consisted of an indictment of the Jews for their murderous resistance of the Holy Spirit, evidenced by their history (Acts 7:2-50), culminating in their execution of the Christ (vss. 51-53). His logic was so powerfully penetrating that his enraged hearers stoned him to death.

The apostle John demonstrated the same attribute. With so many false representations of religion then (and now), he warned his readers: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1, emp. added). Observe carefully that the “spirits” to which John referred were “false prophets,” i.e., mere human beings who went about attempting to deceive other people with their false religious ideas. Times have not changed one iota. The 21^st century world of humanity—just like the 1^st century—is literally inundated with false religion. Billions of people are deceived thereby. Yet, such is no proof that atheism is true. Nor is this state of affairs justification for failure to so consider the available evidence that one comes to the warranted conclusion that the God of the Bible exists. John insisted that every individual is under obligation to “test” (dokimadzete—put to the test, prove, scrutinize) by examining any doctrine, belief, or practice with which he or she is confronted in order to ascertain whether it is the truth. That means that every accountable person on Earth is under divine obligation to recognize that the extant evidence clearly demonstrates that the God of the Bible exists, the Bible is His inspired instructions to mankind, Christianity is the one true religion, and to be saved a person must love and obey the teachings of Jesus Christ as found in the New Testament.

Jude, the fleshly brother of Jesus, wrote a very short treatise for the New Testament canon. It, too, follows the same protocol regarding the need for rationality. In warning Christians about those who would subvert the Christian message, Jude declared: “Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (vs. 3, emp. added). The two words “contend earnestly” are a translation of the single Greek word epagonidzomai which means “to fight, contend” (Arndt and Gingrich, p. 281), referring to the strenuous, even agonizing, verbal defense in behalf of the truth of the Christian Faith. Greek scholar Kenneth Wuest notes that inherent in the term is the “vigorous, intense, determined struggle to defeat the opposition…presenting evidences of the divine source of Christianity and the falsity of the modernistic position” (2:235).

Even the angels—those celestial, spiritual beings who submit their wills to their Creator—naturally manifest the same propensity for rational analysis and promotion of Bible religion. The only angel in the Bible designated an “archangel” (archanggelos—“chief angel”; see Blass, et al., 1961, p. 64; Thayer, p. 76; Wuest, 2:246; cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:16), Michael, likewise projected logical propensities: “Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’” (Jude 9, emp. added). Like Jesus, Michael engaged in a verbal disputation with Satan. The word translated “contending” (diakrinomonos) means to dispute. Michael engaged in an intellectual attempt to convict Satan with the correct view on the matter. The word translated “disputed” (dielegeto), already discussed with regard to Paul’s activity, means to argue and reason with a person. Michael obviously gave the devil specific reasons, propositions, and arguments that were designed to refute Satan’s erroneous viewpoint, while affirming the correct one.

THE BIBLE CONSISTENTLY CALLS FOR RATIONALITY

All of these individuals were simply emulating the nature of God—who is spirit (John 4:24). Since one of His eminent attributes is correct thinking, He created humans to function the same way (though they can refuse to do so because of impure, ulterior motives). Passage after passage in the Bible demonstrates this premiere, conscientious concern for rational thinking. Solomon warned: “The naive believes everything, but the sensible man considers his steps” (Proverbs 14:15, NASU, emp. added). Quoting God, the magnanimous prophet Isaiah pleaded with his contemporaries: “Come now, and let us reason together” (1:18, emp. added). Luke commended the Bereans, labeling them “more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica” because “they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11, NASB). The Bereans listened to the oral claims, and then compared that information with scriptural evidence, before drawing any conclusions.

CONCLUSION

Jesus, the apostles, the prophets, and all the inspired writers of the Bible were meticulous in their observance of the Law of Rationality. In their religious pronouncements, they methodically set forth evidence, explained that evidence, and then proved the conclusion of their arguments. Jesus unquestionably taught that all human beings should recognize and honor the Law of Rationality. No one is exempt from this premiere necessity. Only by knowing truth, loving truth, handling truth correctly, and obeying the truth can a person be acceptable to God (John 8:32; 2 Thessalonians 2:10; 2 Timothy 2:15; 1 Peter 1:22).

Those who wish to be pleasing to God and live eternally with Him in heaven must not succumb to the humanistic hurricane that is assaulting society. With the decline of American civilization, and its concomitant deterioration and dissolution of the Christian values on which it was constructed (see Miller, 2008; Miller, 2009), fewer citizens see the need for a rational approach to life and religion. With this destructive storm have come the hurricane force winds and waves of existentialism and Pentecostalism. These violent and damaging forces have seeped into the church of our Lord. Meanwhile, the atheist, skeptic, and agnostic ridicule the corruptions of Christianity that dominate the spiritual landscape, all the while making the false and unwarranted assumption that true, New Testament Christianity is to be judged based on these corruptions. They, too, are conducting themselves as irrationally as those they demean. We must awaken out of our slumber and do all we can to salvage and save all who will manifest receptivity to the reasonable truths of our God. Now, more than ever before in recent history, we must remain unwavering in our proclamation of “words of truth and reason” (Acts 26:25). We must understand that living the Christian life means living a rational life.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1977 reprint).

Baum, Robert (1975), Logic (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston).

Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and Robert Funk (1961), A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

Bruce, F.F. (1959), The Defense of the Gospel in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition.

Edwards, Paul, ed. (1972 reprint), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: Macmillan).

Fletcher, Joseph (1967), Moral Responsibility (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).

Lucado, Max (1996), In the Grip of Grace (Dallas, TX: Word).

McGarvey, J.W. (no date), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).

McGarvey, J.W. (1974 reprint), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Metzger, Bruce M. (1968),The Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press), second edition.

Metzger, Bruce (1971), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Society).

Miller, Dave (2003a), “Blind Faith,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category =11&article=444.

Miller, Dave (2003b), “The Genealogies of Matthew and Luke,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=932.

Miller, Dave (2003c), “Jesus Said ‘Do Not Believe Me,’” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=917&topic=92.

Miller, Dave (2008), The Silencing of God: The Dismantling of America’s Christian Heritage (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Miller, Dave (2009), Christ and the Continental Congress (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Robertson, A.T. (1933), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman).

Ruby, Lionel (1960), Logic: An Introduction (Chicago, IL: J.B. Lippincott).

Thayer, J.H. (1901), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1977 reprint), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Warren, Thomas B. (1982), Logic and the Bible (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).

Woods, Guy N. (1989), A Commentary on the Gospel According to John (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Wuest, Kenneth (1942), Word Studies in the Greek New Testament: First Peter (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002 reprint).

The post Is Christianity Logical? [Part II] appeared first on Apologetics Press.

When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven you.” And some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, “Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” But immediately, when Jesus perceived in His spirit that they reasoned thus within themselves, He said to them, “Why do you reason about these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise, take up your bed and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”—He said to the paralytic, “I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go your way to your house.” Immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went out in the presence of them all, so that all were amazed and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!” (Mark 2:5-12).

Observe that in their private thoughts the scribes accused Jesus of blasphemy, since He claimed to forgive the man of his sins on the spot—an act that only Deity could rightly perform. By asking the question, “Which is easier…?,” Jesus was urging them to reason correctly and think through what was taking place. If Jesus had the power to cause a bedfast paralytic to stand up and walk, instantaneously healing him of his affliction, then He either had divine backing or He, Himself, was God. Anyone can verbally say, “Your sins are forgiven” (cf. Catholic priests). That is what Jesus meant when he used the word “easier.” For a mere human to pronounce forgiveness upon a fellow human does not make it so. How, then, can one determine whether sin is actually forgiven, i.e., that God forgave the individual? Answer: The one making the claim would either have to be God in the flesh, or he would have to have divine authority for his action, and that divine authority would have to be verified, i.e., proven and shown to be authentic.

The purpose of miracles throughout the Bible was to authenticate God’s spokesmen. To verify that his words and claims were authored by God, the speaker would perform a miracle (see Miller, 2003; cf. Hebrews 2:3-4). When an observer saw a bona fide miracle performed before his very eyes, he could know, i.e., have complete certainty, that the speaker was a genuine representative of God. Jesus, therefore, prodded the scribes to face up to the fact that if Jesus could merely speak to the paralytic and cause him to be healed, then Jesus possessed divine credentials and had every right to also forgive the man of his sins. Follow the logic:

1. If Jesus can perform miraculous feats, then His claim to be the Son of God Who can forgive sin is true.
2. Jesus can perform miraculous feats (He healed the paralytic on this occasion).
3. Therefore, Jesus is the Son of God Who can forgive sin.

Having pressed this remarkably logical handling of the situation, all that remained was for Jesus to perform a miraculous feat, thereby validating His power to forgive the paralytic man of sin. So Jesus healed the man, prefaced with this logical conclusion: “But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins” (vs. 10). Jesus’ logic was impeccable, powerful, and perfectly consistent with Deity.

REFERENCES

Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation—EXTENDED VERSION,” http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1399.

The post Jesus Used Logic appeared first on Apologetics Press.