Category Archives: Apologetics

Evidence for the truth of Christianity

by

Making Your Point vs Making an Appeal

Talking to a skeptic about the Reality of Christ can be a real challenge.

In some cases, they’re genuinely curious. They recognize the elegance of the human experience and the complexity of the universe as something that has to have been designed for a purpose as opposed to it being nothing more than an infinite collection of lucky accidents.

In other instances, you’ve got a cynic that is resolved to maintain a desperate grasp on the idea that they are their own absolute and they’re not interested in listening as much as they’re interested in talking.

Regardless of what kind of a skeptic you’re talking to, you have to be strategic. Should you make the mistake of trying to build your case according to a sequence of truths, there’s a good chance you’ll be stopped in your tracks before you can even make your point.

It’s not because what you’re saying lacks validity as much as it’s an approach that can be easily compromised simply by disagreeing.

Should your argument be built according to a series of talking points that build on one another, all your critic has to do is question the substance of just one of your assertions and your whole platform has now been compromised because of the way you have to pause and “prove” a portion of your perspective that usually falls way short of what you’re actually trying to communicate.

Sometimes it’s a legitimate question, but a lot of times, especially when you’re contending with someone who doesn’t want to listen as much as they want to mock, villify and undermine what you would say about Jesus, it’s a tactic designed to shut you down while simultaneoulsy enhancing their mindset without them having to say a word.

You see this played out in a big way especially when it comes to historical references to Christ.

A Complete Fabrication

Anytime you suggest that there are secular references to Jesus Christ as Someone Who actually lived, you’ve got a real problem on your hands because the atheist needs Jesus to be a complete fabrication.

If Jesus was Someone you could actually speak with and listen to, then He becomes a far bigger problem in the mind of the skeptic who needs to convince both himself and everyone else that there is no absolute save the bottom line of the individual. It’s not just the Substance of the gospel and the question of sin that has to be discarded. The very “idea” of Christ has to be reduced to a ridiculous albeit popular non-entity that has no place in intelligent conversation.

And so they engage in a campaign where things like the portion of Josephus Antiquities that references Christ by name is dismissed as an unethical edit made by an enterprising scribe that was never written by the original author. The persecution of Christians spearheaded by Nero in 64 AD is a complete fabrication and John Tyndale was not burned at the stake for laboring to create an English version of the Bible.

Even the verbiage of the Declaration of Independence that references the “Creator” as the source of one’s rights is reduced to a token courtesy that has no real historical or spiritual substance given the way our Founders were supposedly Deists as opposed to orthodox Christians.

The thing that makes this so toxic and at the same time so exhausting is that, while the conversation has the look and feel of a reasonable evaluation with the goal being an equitable treatment of all faiths and an accommodation of those who may not subscribe to the gospel, the inevitable result is a distorted perception of our nation’s spiritual heritage which then segues gracefully into a godless culture and a humanistic marketplace.

It’s not a search for answers as much as it’s a resolve to silence the answers as they were articulated by our Founding Fathers who were looking to the Bible for both their Inspiration and their Resolve.

It’s not the “separation of church and state,” it’s the re-creation of the church and state as institutions that worship the individual and God is dismissed altogether.

But you can’t do that without inventing an entirely different past…

…nor can you question the historical Reality of Christ without assaulting the Christian doctrine as a whole.

You’re not just “disagreeing” with the gospel or “questioning” the integrity of the Scriptures.

You’re actually implying much, much more.

A Fool or a Fiend
Not Getting Rich Jesus doesn’t offer power or wealth in exchange for believing in His Identity as the Son of God. Rather, He invites you to “take up your cross and follow Him.” (Lk 9:23; [see also 1 Tim 6:10]) Not Making a Good Impression In the aftermath of Christ’s Resurrection, the disciples, who are now absolutely convinced the Jesus is the Christ, are now speaking out publicly and in so doing are infuriating the Saducees. In Acts 5 you can see how the disciples’ resolve was rewarded by threatening them with their lives and then having them flogged (Acts 5:17-41). No Room for Rivals In Acts 17:7 you see the lethal aspect of beliving in Christ from the standpoint of a Roman legislature in that you were proclaiming allegiance to a king other than Caesar.

The First Disciples Were Liars

In order for Christianity to be false, you have to include several default scenarios that must be in place if Jesus is a myth and the gospel is a scam.

First, the original apostles were liars. If the Resurrection was a hoax, then they were lying when they said that Christ has risen.

Yes, the Ten Commandments forbid lying (Ex 20:16) and Jesus was morally perfect (Heb 3:15). But somehow the disciples saw no conflict in lying about the fact the Jesus rose from the grave (Acts 4:10).

That makes no sense.

Every Christian That’s Ever Believed is Either a Fool or a Fiend

You’re Not Getting Rich, You’re Getting Killed

Early Jewish converts to Christianity were not getting rich nor were they getting applauded for subscribing to Christ as the Son of God. As a Hebrew, you were putting yourself at odds with the established religious hierarchy who saw your creed as heretical. From the perspective of Rome, any reference to a “king” other than Caesar was considered a capital offense (Acts 17:7).

Even prior to the persecution by Nero in 64, Christians were getting harrassed as seen in Acts 8:1. After the Edict of Milan, although Christians were no longer targeted the way they had been, believing in the gospel, a commitment to printing the Bible in English or a desire to communicate the Message of Christianity to foreign countries was often enough to warrant abuse, torture and oftentimes death.

Given the lack of benefits and the sacrifices that were often made, you have to be either a fool or a fiend to believe in Christ if He was a myth.

What Are You Thinking?

In the immediate aftermath of the crucifixion, if there was, in fact, a body that could be recovered and you knew it, you were knowingly misleading people in a way that could cost them their lives.

‘That would qualify you as a detestable human being –  a genuine fiend.

Then again, if you could do some thinking for yourself and determine that the Resurrection was not real, yet you made a point of declaring yourself a believer, you’re a fool given the way in which you have now pitted yourself against the authorities that have the legal means to end your life.

And you’re not gaining anything by doing it!

That would make you a fool.

Consider Who You’re Talking To

In subsequent centuries, while distortions of the gospel could translate to wealth and power, neither legitimate Reformers nor authentic Missionaries were benefitting by championing the cause of Christ.

Again, if you’re aware of the fallacy that characterizes your faith, either your character or your intelligence can be rightfully regarded as flawed and you are either a fool or a fiend.

But when you consider the intellectual substance of men like Martin Luther, John Locke or Copernicus, these are not “fools,” rather these are academics that have contributed significantly to the way we see ourselves and the world around us.

And to accuse people like Mother Theresa or Albert Schweitzer as being sinister in any way shape or form is ludicrous.

And yet, should you insist that Christianity is for non-thinking people, you either hold these people in contempt or regard them as hopelessly gullible.

And that makes no sense.

The Writers of the Ancient World Were Frauds

He Can’t Be Real

As has been already stated, acknowledging Jesus as a historical figure – apart from any kind of religious context – represents a dangerous concession for the atheist.

If Christ can be validated as a legitimate person, then you have what amounts to a natural segue to an objective acknowledgement of His Words and His Actions; most of which resonate as incredibly noble.

An atheist’s contempt for religion is founded on an unwillingness to submit to any authority other than the one they’re comfortable with. Yet they can’t be heard as someone who is critical of charity or compassion so it becomes strategic to shut down any attempt to refer to Jesus as a verifiable reality by insisting that…

But in order for this to be true, then every falsification has to have had some kind of motive that would make it not only reasonable but genuinely beneficial to promote a lie.

Why Are You Doing This?

Bear in mind that the Resurrection is an absurd marketing campaign. Given the way many of the world’s religions are capable of winning converts simply by promising eternal rewards or temporary fulfillment, asserting the idea of a bodily Resurrection is a bizarre and unnecessary overreach if all you’re trying to do is win friends and influence people.

At least, that’s what a lot of religious mystics are able to accomplish simply by being charasmatic as opposed to positioning themselves as a resurrected corpse.

Everything we know about the disciples suggests they died as obscure martyrs and not as wealthy and powerful individuals.

To maintain that the gospels are nothing more than a collection of lies, you have to justify why these men would document these fabrications especially given the political and spiritual landscape they occupied at the time.

Not only are they championing a ridiculous claim, they have nothing to gain by promoting the idea that Christ had risen from the grave. Rather, they had literally everything to lose.

That makes no sense.

Josephus

Eusibius is a Fraud
Among the things we have confirmed now is that all surviving manuscripts of the Antiquities derive from the last manuscript of it produced at the Christian library of Caesarea between 220 and 320 A.D.
, the same manuscript used and quoted by Eusebius, the first Christian in history to notice either passage being in the Antiquities of Josephus. That means we have no access to any earlier version of the text (we do not know what the text looked like prior to 230 A.D.), and we have access to no version of the text untouched by Eusebius (no other manuscript in any other library ever on earth produced any copies that survive to today). That must be taken into account. (Richard Carrier)

In a similar vein, if you’re going to insist that every secular reference to Christ is an “interpolation,” then you have to do more than elaborate on “what” was changed, but you also have to provide a substantial reason as to “why” it was changed in the first place.

How does changing or adding some verbiage to Antiquities written by Josephus translate to a marketing strategy? What do you stand to gain by editing the words of Tacitus?

Critics want to insist that the references to Christ found in the writings of Josephus and Tacitus were lies introduced by Christians that took it upon themselves to transcribe a copy of the original and corrupt it by adding content that gave credibility to the historical reality of Christ and the substance of the Christian doctrine.

For example, in Book 18 of Antiquities written in 93 AD, it says this:

At this time appeared Jesus, a very gifted man—if indeed it is right to call him a man; for he was a worker of miracles, a teacher of such men as listened with pleasure to the truth, and he won over many of the Jews and many of Gentile origin as well. This was the Christ; and when at the instigation of our leading men he had been condemned to the cross by Pilate, those who had loved him at the first did not cease to do so; for on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the inspired prophets having foretold this and countless other wonderful things about him. Even now the group of people called Christians after him has not died out.1

This was quoted by a man named Eusibius who put together a history of the early church called “The Ecclesiastical History” in 313 AD. It was a massive undertaking and something that had never been done before. In subsequent centuries he would become known as the “Father of Church History.”

Eusibius was a student of Pamphilus who trained under Origen, one of the earliest and more important Christian scholars.  Under Origen, Pamphilus established a library containing over 30,000 volumes. Eusibius undoubtedly had access to this library and because he was so meticulous in his citations we can know for certain where he was getting his information from.

This is significant because some of what Eusibius references has since been lost so in his documentary we’re given access to resources that no longer exist.

He also had the ability to reference texts like Josephus’ Antiquities that, although it was obviously a copy of the original, it was a transcription written within 200 years of the original as opposed to now where the oldest manuscript we have today was written in the 12th century – over a thousand years removed from the original writing.

Eusibius quoted the above text, not once, but three times. In addition to the above text, Eusibius quotes Josephus prolifically throughout his book.

Historian John Michael Wallace-Hadrill makes an astute observation by saying:

It is in any case exceedingly improbable that Eusebius himself is to be held responsible for the alteration of Josephus’ text, as some have held him to be. If he had perpetrated what would be one of the cleverest frauds of literary history, can we believe that he would have treated his own fraud in the almost casual manner of quoting the Testimonium differently on three occasions?2

The fact that both Josephus and Tacitus reference Christ is understandable given the impact Christ had regardless if you believed Him to be the Son of God or not. The fact that we’re still talking about Him today demonstrates that whatever happened in Jerusalem that first Easter morning resonated as more than just a Facebook post and would’ve been worthy of mentioning as part of a “Year in Review.”

No doubt, Eusibius recognized how the substance of his account would be enhanced by including the irrefutable dynamic of an impartial, secular reference to Christ. But would the temptation to quote a forgery be enough to offset the very real chance of him being revealed as a fraud?

He’s writing the history of the church and attempting to present Christ as the Son of God. How do you accomplish that by lying?

It’s one thing if you’re mistaken or perhaps some concessions can be allowed should you choose to overlook or minimize certain aspects of the past in order to preserve the dignity of specific individuals.

But here you’re talking about the very Identity of Jesus Christ. Being able to cite Josephus honestly would be advantageous but the Substance of the Christian doctrine does not depend on the observations of a historian. Therefore to risk the integrity of your work as a whole for no reason other than the chance to incorporate a secular Jewish perspective into your text…

…makes no sense.

Tacitus

Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman historian who lived approximately between AD 56 and 120. Robert Van Voorst says Tacitus “is generally considered the greatest Roman historian” and his Annals is his “finest work and generally acknowledged by modern historians as our best source of information about this period.”3

At one point, Tacitus says this:

Therefore, to squelch the rumor, Nero created scapegoats and subjected to the most refined tortures those whom the common people called ‘Christians,’ [a group] hated for their abominable crimes. Their name comes from Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for the moment, the deadly superstition broke out again, not only in Judea, the land which originated this evil, but also in the city of Rome, where all sorts of horrendous and shameful practices, from every part of the world converge and are fervently cultivated.4

The fact that you have a Roman historian who, by virtue of the way he describes Christians as a people group, “…hated for their abominable crimes” and proliferators of a “deadly superstion” is obviously not a believer – that fact the he references Christ as Somone who was executed by Pontius Pilate is a huge vote of credibility for the Christian doctrine in that it validates Jesus as a real person and that He was put to death by Pontius Pilate.

Critics swarm to this text like flies to sugar because of their need to undermine anything that could potentially qualify Christ as Someone that actually existed.

Their criticisms target the way in which Christ is spelled “Christus,” thus referring to someone else. They also attempt to assert that the Christians referenced by Tacitus is actually a different sect of people and not Christ-followers…

Here it’s a bit easier to recognize the improbability of what the atheist needs to be in place in order for their criticisms to carry any weight.

Apart from their critique resonating more as a desperate search for flaws than it does an honest evalutation, if it were something authored by a renegade Christian, the text would be far more complimentary of the Christian doctrine as opposed to it being addressed as an “evil” and a “horrendous and shameful practice.”

Again, to be critical to the extent where you feel justified in dismissing the text altogther…

…it just doesn’t make any sense.

So How Do You Do This?

When you look at the way Jesus engaged the Pharisees, you see a method being deployed from time to time that those who are familiar with the techniques used in a debate would recognize as the Socratic Method.

Basically, you’re posing a series of questions that compel your opponent to answer in a way that complels them to make your point for you.

You see Jesus using this method when He asks the Pharisees to tell Him whose image is on the Roman coinage (Matt 16:26). He made His point about working on the Sabbath when He asked the Pharisees what they would do if they saw one of their flock had fallen into a pit (Matt 12:11).

In the context of this conversation, what you want to do is ask your critic questions based on the three things that we covered here.

For example…

How could the first disciples feel comfortable about lying about Christ’s Resurrection if God commanded them not to lie?

Would you feel comfortable calling Copernicus or Mother Thersa an idiot?

Explain to me why a historian would risk being labeled a fraud for lying about something that could easily be verified?

The idea is to expand the scope of the conversation in a way that compels your opponent to acknowledge the way in which their cynicism and arrogance translates to a scenario where some of the most brilliant minds and compassionate human beings are held in contempt.

It’s then when the fragility of their platform is revealed as something that’s based more on pride than principle and you now have an opportunity to elaborate on the True Substance of the gospel and the practical impact it has on one’s life.

There’s a difference between making your point and making an appeal.

Use Christ’s example in the way you champion your convictions and you’ll be able to make your point. Otherwise, you come across as though you’re asking for concessions.

Your faith is stronger than that…

…and so is He.

by - 3 Comments

Driving on the Wrong Side of the Road

How Bizarre is That?

Imagine someone driving on the wrong side of the road and justifying it by saying they have the right to be happy.

How bizarre is that?

Now envision that same situation, only now that person is being pulled from the wreckage that was their automobile after colliding with another car because they were in the wrong lane. But instead of admitting that it was their fault, they insist that it’s all due to an oppressive system that obligates them to conform in ways that make them feel uncomfortable.

The person who wants to see themselves as their own absolute is having to constantly reconfigure the human experience in order to validate their mindset as being beyond reproach. They’re like the middle schooler who turns in their multiple choice exam believing that because they had the freedom to choose how they wanted to answer each question, they’re automatically deserving of a perfect score.

This is the world of the individual who has declared himself as his own bottom line. There are no failing test scores, there are no standards, and anything that could be accurately processed as a consequence of their actions is dismissed by labeling it as a hateful convention coming from either a corrupt institution that needs to be destroyed or an ignorant individual that needs to be silenced.

They shoot themselves in the foot and then blame all the pain they’re in on the one who told them not to pull the trigger to begin with.

When you attempt to reason with this kind of person, you are not being heard as someone who’s questioning their logic as much as you are challenging their authority. It’s not about what’s true, it’s about what works as far as those statistics and testimonies that can be used to make a self serving agenda appear compassionate and preferrable while simultaneously validating themselves as the only one that they’re accountable to.

And yet…

Practical Gravity and Simple Math

The validity of one’s perspective is ultimately proven by what happens when that perspective is put into practice. However convoluted and volatile the debate may be, feelings and beliefs can be readily identified as being either clarifying or distracting simply by observing those things that result from the application of any one methodology.

Should one approach translate to a world of pain and problems, that perspective can then be logically subordinated to a viewpoint that yields better results. At that point, you’re not looking at anything other than pure utility and however passionate you may be about your particular brand of morality, you are no longer able to assert your preferences as principles when all that exists in the aftermath is a mess you expect someone else to clean up.

There has always been an element that wants to push back against those things that remind them that there is such a thing as “practical gravity.” You cannot hope to do certain things and not have to contend with the natural consequences of your actions. If you decide to jump out of an airplane as it’s flying through the sky, you can’t deny the effects of gravity simply because you want to believe that you have the right to be happy or because you believe that gravity is a byproduct of an oppressive hierarchy.

In a similar way, you can’t drive on the wrong side of the road and not risk a head on collision, nor can you embrace what amounts to a perverse or irresponsible lifestyle and not be confronted with the medical and practical realities that characterize the choice that you have made.

There is a natural order in place that transcends whatever it is that drives your resolve and you can’t circumvent that infrastructure simply because it doesn’t coincide with your opinion on the matter.

It’s math, really.

The way you think + the way you act = the price you pay

Wise decisions tend to be very beneficial and cost very little.

On the other hand, foolish choices can be lethal and in that way are very expensive.

And here’s the thing: When that bill arrives, it’s your responsibility. However you want to insist that it’s someone else’s fault or another person’s obligation, you’re the one that has to come up with the functional finances necessary to pay the amount owed which will inevitably include a lack of fulfillment, a substantial amount of wasted time and a collection of physical and emotional scars.

Antiquated Traditions

Some want to try and avoid the “practical gravity” of their situation by insisting that the angst they experience as a result of the way they choose to process themselves and the world around them is due to the unjust and antiquated traditions of the society they live in.

Perhaps.

But then again, if your perspective is revealed as being problematic in terms of what happens when your perspective is put into practice, it’s not the society you live in that’s causing the tension, it’s the organic outcome of your flawed approach.

It’s not the Supreme Court, it’s not a political party, it’s not a cultural trend or a societal norm.

You’re driving on the wrong side of the road and there are consequences to not staying in your lane that are based more so on the laws of Physics and Chemistry then they are the Department of Motor Vehicles.

This is the problem you inevitably encounter when you establish any kind of human agency as your philosophical foundation.

Die, Quit or Change

You have chosen to build your existence on a platform that is destined to either die, quit or change. It is as fluid as it is inconsistent and whatever rights or truisms you want to maintain as givens will resonate as such only when you’ve surrounded yourself with like-minded individuals. Reason being is that you can’t logically condemn another person’s viewpoint if everyone is entitled to their opinion and the universe is nothing more than a lucky mistake.

This is what happens when you remove God from the equation. Bear in mind that there are only two religions in the world: Either God is God or you are. Every religion on the planet empowers the individual with the ability to facilitate their own salvation. Only Christianity maintains that you are not your own deity and the only thing that you contribute to your salvation is the sin that makes it necessary.

When you embrace God as your philosophical starting point and the Substance of the empty tomb as what defines your identity, you’re no longer tasked with having to manufacture a reason for your existence or an enduring Source of fulfillment.

Bear in mind we’re talking about the Person of Jesus Christ – the Son of God and not a corrupted clergyman or a hypocritical layperson. Neither one of those two individuals died for your sins or put the planets in their place.

The Image of God, the Son of God and the Spirit of God

You are made in the Image of God, you have been redeemed by the Son of God and you have access to a Perfect Source of Purpose, Peace and Power because of the Spirit of God who lives in and through you.

Like our Founding Fathers, you can effectively dispute injustice because you’re not limited to a human premise, and unlike those who borrow from God without believing in Him, you can accurately claim an entitlement as a legitimate right because you know that they’re gifts from God He gives to guard your way and not weapons you use in an attempt to get your way.

Moreover, you don’t see His Instructions as “rules” as much as you see them as “tools” that you use to realize a life where you are making a difference and not just an appearance.

Scale that Wall and Dismantle that Strategy

There will always be people who drive on the wrong side of the road. They will justify themselves with compelling sounding arguments framed by a strategy designed to avoid that direct line of questioning that has the capacity to reveal their platform as toxic and self-serving.

But you can scale that wall and dismantle that strategy by focusing on the empirical results of their perspective and allow the logic of how a flawed methodology needs to be subordinated to an approach that yields a better outcome.

When you hear someone say, “That’s your opinion!” or “You can’t force your beliefs on me!” they’re neither proving their point nor are they proving you to be wrong. Rather, they’re attempting to secure the kind of pity that’s awarded to the person who’s been hurt in order to distract from the wreckage caused by their own decision making.

You can’t always change a person’s mind without changing their heart and only God can do that.

But God can use you to make an impact and you want to be ready to do more than argue…

You want to champion the Truth by asking the right questions and letting their responses not only make your point, but more importantly make Him known.

by

When Politicians Become Theologians

When politicians begin to position themselves as society’s theologians, at that point politics is no longer a spiritually neutral arena and the question isn’t whether or not the church is becoming too political. Rather, it’s to what extent is the government attempting to replace the Bible. 

That’s why it’s not only appropriate, but it’s absolute necessary for believers to step up and voice their support for those candidates that champion a platform that’s in line with Scripture. Otherwise, you’re leaving the door of the fence open and all kinds of pain, hurt and corruption make their way on to the property and the only ones that are happy about it are those that walk up to God every morning as He’s sitting on His Throne and tell Him to get out of their chair. 

Regulating the outward expression of one’s faith to taking care of widows and orphans is to qualify God’s command to influence our world according to singular gestures as opposed to a comprehensive ministry. The fact is, we’re supposed to help all those who are in need. But you fail those same people by obligating them to contend with a sinister society as opposed to a godly one by remaining silent when it comes to the way they’re governed (1 Chron 12:32; 1 Tim 2:2), educated (Dt 6:5-9; 2 Tim 2:15) and informed (1 Thess 5:21). In short, looking after the downtrodden includes the improvement of the world they’re living in and not just the house they’re sleeping in. 

The ideal that is America is worth protecting and promoting. It’s unique among all other nations in that our approach to government is based on Divine Absolutes. It’s that premise that attracts people from all over the globe to our shores whether they’re able to articulate that reality or not. Dismissing any kind of passion or resolve when it comes to the maintenance of who and what we are as far as the motto on our coinage as “white nationalism” is irresponsible, ignorant and downright wicked. 

When you place the Liberty Bell alongside the Iwo Jima Memorial, the graves at Gettysburg, and the Vietnam Wall, you’re not looking at a paradigm that was created to promote a specific race. You’re looking at a biblically based ideal that was designed to promote all races because of the way all races are created equal under God. The personalities that have used an American flag to facilitate an evil agenda are not representative of what we are as a country. The baggage and sin they bring to the table is theirs alone and not a systemic anomaly let alone a national transgression. To believe otherwise is to embrace a campaign that seeks to portray America according to the faults of some of the fools we have within our ranks in order to usher in a godless philosophy that is as toxic as it is treacherous. 

Moreover, the term “white nationalism” reduces the substance of what generations of statesmen and soldiers have sacrificed their lives for to something self serving and vulgar. Not only is it outrageously disrespectful, it ignores the obvious manner in which our Constitution facilitates the rights that are ours according to Scripture. Where there is room for improvement, that space is built into its design. You don’t evaluate it according to the character flaws of those that wrote it as much as you evaluate it according to its substance and those who are critical of if forget that their criticism is allowed because of the rights guaranteed by the very document they supposedly despise. 

Bottom line: Believers are the keepers of the philosophical and spiritual foundation upon which our nation is built. To say that God doesn’t particularly care about politics or that Christ followers are allowing themselves to be distracted when investing any time and energy into governmental affairs forget the way in which God works through rulers and elected officials to either prosper a nation or run it into the ground. Our obedience makes a difference. To withdraw from the conversation – to be ignorant or apathetic – is to be disobedient and it’s not enough to merely informed, you have to be wise.

by - 2 Comments

There is no Referee

download

The Liberal disposition towards God is similar to a football player who’s on the field, playing the game, but doesn’t believe in a Referee.

There are no penalties, only plays. The idea is to move the ball down the field and enjoy the fulfillment that comes from putting points on the board. That is not only his goal, it is his right and with that sense of entitlement comes the authority to define the standard by which his conduct on the field is measured.

Should someone challenge his approach, because he’s unwilling to acknowledge the Reality of a “higher authority,” he sees it as a situation where he’s being compelled to adjust his perspective according to only the traditions and preferences of those on the other team and he will look at them and demand to know why he has to play by their rules and refer to them as judgmental and fascists.

There is no Referee.

The answer to those four questions define one’s spiritual creed. Whether you answer those questions according to the Christian faith or a humanistic worldview, both are “religious” viewpoints.

This is why any conversation pertaining to morality or politics or the cultural in general is destined to fall short of anything influential because until he’s willing to acknowledge the Reality of God, he is his own bottom line. And his philosophical apparatus will interpret anything that comes across as critical of his behavior as not only a negative appraisal of his performance, but an attack on his dominion over all that constitutes the difference between right and wrong.

There is no Referee.

Oftentimes the debate that happens between Democrats and Republicans ceases to be about policy as much as it becomes an argument about morality. The moment it becomes a moral issue, it is therefore a spiritual topic in light of what God specifies in Scripture. But if there is no Referee, than the only Standard by which moral conduct is defined and measured is whatever best promotes the humanistic agenda lurking behind the behavior being discussed. And what applies to one team may or may not apply to the other and what may be an infraction today may not even resonate as a headline tomorrow.

On the surface, the argument that defends the idea that there is no Referee can sound compelling in the way it suggests that to assert a Biblical position is to violate the separation of church and state and force a person to adopt a particular religious disposition that may or may not coincide with their personal convictions. But the idea that there is no Referee is a religious disposition in that it establishes man as his own deity. It’s not just a question of what the Liberal doesn’t believe about God as much as it’s what they assert as an acceptable replacement for the Role that God plays in, not only determining the difference between right and wrong, but the origin of the universe, the question of life after death as well as the purpose for one’s existence.

The answer to those four questions define one’s spiritual creed. Whether you answer those questions according to the Christian faith or a humanistic worldview, both are “religious” viewpoints. And to strip our nation of it’s Christian foundation by insisting that any reference to a religious framework is to violate the separation of church and state is revealed as a sinister absurdity once it becomes apparent that the atheist’s perspective on the human experience is just as much of a “religion” as much as Christianity and in that regard they are the very thing they claim to despise.

Yet, hypocrisy is only recognized as such when there’s a concrete Truth in place to flag when a person is being hypocritical.

But that’s not something that concerns a Liberal because…

…there is no Referee.

by

Three Questions (Part III)

Your neighbor’s house is on fire. You’re working alongside several people put out the blaze when all of a sudden you realize that among those you’re working with, there are several whose lifestyles you seriously disagree with. Do you keep working to put out the fire or do you walk away believing that it’s wrong to be a part of any effort involving people who don’t believe as you do?

At one point, the disciples were agitated by the fact that some people were casting out demons in the Name of Christ, yet they weren’t a part of Christ’s inner circle of disciples…

38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward. (Mk 9:38-40)

However petty the disciples may have appeared to be –  as far as feeling like they were only ones capable of doing any good, being that they were a part of Christ’s inner circle – it’s not an uncommon complaint.

Appearances can be distracting. A person’s manner, their background – if it doesn’t line up with tradition or convention – it can be mistaken for something sinister.

Fact is, the earth is the Lord’s and everything in it (Ps 24:1). Everything that was created was made by Christ and for Christ (Col :16;Rev 4:11), so however dirty or different the glove may be, it’s the Hand inside the glove that’s doing the work and you don’t want to be so preoccupied with appearances or qualifications that you fail to appreciate how God uses different people to do His bidding.

That doesn’t mean you throw caution to the wind and assume everyone is reading from the same page of music. 1 John 1:4 says to test the spirits, but that’s not always accomplished by focusing exclusively on a person’s checkered past or a vulgar outburst.

King Cyrus is a great example of how God can use someone that doesn’t have a relationship with Christ and may even be a little offensive in their manner to do God’s bidding.

The Jews were in exile and their city was a mess. The Temple was a heap of rubble and the walls were completely torn down (see 2 Chron 36:15-19). God had said that the Jews would be allowed to return, but if you were to look at an aerial photo of Jerusalem, you’d be pretty skeptical – especially given the very unlikely scenario of your enemy permitting the reconstruction of your city let alone financing it.

King Cyrus of Persia would put things in motion by paying for the rebuilding of the Temple and issuing a decree that would allow any willing Hebrew to return to Jerusalem to get it done.

Here’s the thing:

Cyrus is addressed by name in Isaiah 45. God refers to him as someone He has anointed for the sake of his people. He also says of Cyrus:

For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor,  though you do not acknowledge me . I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you,  though you have not acknowledged me  so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting men may know there is note beside me. I am the Lord, and there is not other. (Is 45:4-5)

Cyrus didn’t believe in God, but that didn’t change the fact that God used him to accomplish the reconstruction of Jerusalem.

The same thing applies to us be it a politician, a doctor, a contractor or any kind of service provider. No, you don’t applaud their sin but you do support them in whatever role they’re playing in accomplishing God’s Purposes. In other words, you vote for King Cyrus, you make the appointment, you go with the best option and you don’t sneer at the cedar that’s being delivered to your doorstep for the construction of whatever God is building because its being delivered by a bunch of idolaters (see sidebar).

Conclusion

There’s a difference between compromise and wisdom. Basing your convictions on personal preferences seasoned with some carefully selected Scriptures that can be taken out of context and made to sound like a solid biblical reinforcement of your prejudices is not the same thing as basing your outlook on Scripture as a whole and refusing to allow your life’s experiences to replace the Word of God simply because you’re more comfortable with your opinion than you are with the Truth.

Discipleship is not being accurately presented if it’s taught as something that only applies in the context of a crisis. Standing up for what is right is not always accomplished by a mere rebuke. David defeated Goliath with a sanctified response that included both a weapon and a word (1 Sam 17:45-47). And however rough around the edges God’s human instrument may be, Scripture proves over and over again that your focus needs to be on the Plot and not the players in order to determine who you should support and who should resist.

There is, and always has been, an aggressive campaign in place to exchange the Truth for a lie (Jn 8:44; Rom 1:25; 1 Peter 5:8). If the author of that campaign is to be defeated, not only can we not afford to be petty, we don’t have the time to watch our countermeasures fail because they were based more on tradition than they were on the Substance of God’s Word.

And even when your convictions are on point, your delivery has to be just as Inspired if the end result is going to be a legitimate win (Prov 15:23; 25:11; Mk 13:11; Titus 2:7-8).

The bottom line is this: You’re here to make a difference and not just an appearance. Christ is the Filing Cabinet and not just a file folder and to restrict His Instruction and all the advantages that accompany obedience to those times that line up with your traditions is to gut His Word, kill your witness and give the enemy all the more opportunity to do some damage.

On the other hand…

Be the kind of workman referenced in 2 Timothy 2:15 and you’ve got a winning strategy in place that will benefit you and everyone He puts in your path because instead of you working apart from Him, He’s now the One working through you.

Solomon followed the example of his father in that he contracted King Hiram of the Phoenicians for laborers and building materials. David used the cedar logs, stonemasons and carpenters provided by King Hiram to build his palace (2 Sam 5:11). Solomon used the same resource for the cedar needed to build the Temple (2 Chron 2:3).

King Hiram resided in Tyre and ruled over a people who were descendants of Canaan. Canaan’s father was Ham who was the son of Noah that had demonstrated an outrageous disregard for God in the aftermath of the flood. Noah saw the same belligerence in Canaan and rightfully prophesied that his descendants would go on to become perverse idolaters and wind up being the object of God’s Wrath in the context of the Israelites conquest of the Promised Land.

Tyre, however, was a boundary and not a target (Josh 19:29). It’s not that the Phoenicians were a God fearing people (Ezekiel 26:2; Lk 10:13). They were descendants of Canaan, but those that resided in Tyre were able to somehow distinguish themselves in the sight of God as being undeserving of the punishment that was doled out to Sidon and other neighboring Canaanite cities. Perhaps that was one of the contributing factors that allowed for a friendly relationship between Hiram and David and then, later, Solomon.

Their true, spiritual colors would be revealed later when they cheered as Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Israel and for that they themselves would be destroyed, as Ezekiel prophesied in chapter 26.

The point being, however, that God can, and often does, use unconventional means and a variety of spiritual dispositions to do His work. In those moments, you want to support His efforts and not question them any more than you would refuse the cedar coming from Hiram simply because he was a Canaanite. Yes, he was an idolater, but he was used by God to do good nevertheless.


by

The resurrection happened

Coming off of Easter Sunday—or Resurrection Sunday, as some call it—I thought it might be of interest to post some of the hard evidence for the resurrection being an historical (albeit miraculous) event.

There are at least five possible theories about the resurrection that are covered in the post, Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ, by Peter Kreeft (which is from the Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli, SJ (Intervarsity Press, 1994): ” Christianity, hallucination, myth, conspiracy and swoon.”

The excerpt below is specifically about whether the resurrection is myth, the most popular accusation about the truth claims of the Gospels. Kreeft makes six arguments refuting the claim, which I’ve condensed further.

(1) The style of the Gospels is radically and clearly different from the style of all the myths. Any literary scholar who knows and appreciates myths can verify this. There are no overblown, spectacular, childishly exaggerated events. Nothing is arbitrary. Everything fits in. Everything is meaningful. The hand of a master is at work here.

Psychological depth is at a maximum. In myth it is at a minimum. In myth, such spectacular external events happen that it would be distracting to add much internal depth of character. That is why it is ordinary people like Alice who are the protagonists of extra-ordinary adventures like Wonderland. That character depth and development of everyone in the Gospels—especially, of course, Jesus himself—is remarkable. It is also done with an incredible economy of words. Myths are verbose; the Gospels are laconic (concise).

There are also telltale marks of eyewitness description, like the little detail of Jesus writing in the sand when asked whether to stone the adulteress or not (Jn 8:6). No one knows why this is put in; nothing comes of it. The only explanation is that the writer saw it.

[…]

The stylistic point is argued so well by C.S. Lewis in “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism” (in Christian Reflections and also in Fern-Seed and Elephants) that we strongly refer the reader to it as the best comprehensive anti-demythologizing essay we have seen.

[…]

(2) A second problem is that there was not enough time for myth to develop. The original demythologizers pinned their case onto a late second-century date for the writing of the Gospels; several generations have to pass before the added mythological elements can be mistakenly believed to be facts. Eyewitnesses would be around before that to discredit the new, mythic versions. We know of other cases where myths and legends of miracles developed around a religious founder—for example, Buddha, Lao-tzu and Muhammad. In each case, many generations passed before the myth surfaced.

The dates for the writing of the Gospels have been pushed back by every empirical manuscript discovery; only abstract hypothesizing pushes the date forward. Almost no knowledgeable scholar today holds what Bultmann said it was necessary to hold in order to believe the myth theory, namely, that there is no first-century textual evidence that Christianity began with a divine and resurrected Christ, not a human and dead one.

[…]

(3) The myth theory has two layers. The first layer is the historical Jesus, who was not divine, did not claim divinity, performed no miracles, and did not rise from the dead. The second, later, mythologized layer is the Gospels as we have them, with a Jesus who claimed to be divine, performed miracles and rose from the dead. The problem with this theory is simply that there is not the slightest bit of any real evidence whatever for the existence of any such first layer. The two-layer cake theory has the first layer made entirely of air—and hot air at that.

[…]

(4) A little detail, seldom noticed, is significant in distinguishing the Gospels from myth: the first witnesses of the resurrection were women. In first-century Judaism, women had low social status and no legal right to serve as witnesses. If the empty tomb were an invented legend, its inventors surely would not have had it discovered by women, whose testimony was considered worthless. If, on the other hand, the writers were simply reporting what they saw, they would have to tell the truth, however socially and legally inconvenient.

[…]

(5) The New Testament could not be myth misinterpreted and confused with fact because it specifically distinguishes the two and repudiates the mythic interpretation (2 Peter 1:16). Since it explicitly says it is not myth, if it is myth it is a deliberate lie rather than myth. The dilemma still stands. It is either truth or lie, whether deliberate (conspiracy) or non-deliberate (hallucination). There is no escape from the horns of this dilemma. Once a child asks whether Santa Claus is real, your yes becomes a lie, not myth, if he is not literally real. Once the New Testament distinguishes myth from fact, it becomes a lie if the resurrection is not fact.

[…]

(6) William Lane Craig has summarized the traditional textual arguments with such clarity, condensation and power that we quote him here at length. The following arguments (rearranged and outlined from Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection) prove two things: first, that the Gospels were written by the disciples, not later myth-makers, and second, that the Gospels we have today are essentially the same as the originals.

[…]

If you are interested in biblical apologetics, you really must read the whole thing.

by

GOOD FRIDAY

Today on Good Friday, Christians soberly remember the execution of Jesus Christ on the cross. We remember that his death was the result of our sin and mourn the part we played in his crucifixion. We also breathe a prayer of genuine relief and thanksgiving that it was he, and not we, who experienced the cross and all that it encompassed.

Unfortunately, his atoning death on the cross proves to be a hurdle for some unbelievers and a trip hazard for some of the faithful.

In my discussions with atheists, one of the objections sometimes raised is that it is unfair for someone to punished for someone else’s crimes. Not only is it unfair, but it violates true justice because the criminal himself doesn’t actually suffer any consequences for what he did wrong. Therefore, the idea that Jesus died for everyone’s sins is irrational and not truly just.

Usually their objection boils down to a question similar to this one: How is it possible for someone to be punished for someone else’s crimes, for which that person, and that person alone, is responsible?

To make it even more concise the question is, Why should I have to pay for what Adam did and why should Jesus have to pay for what I did?

To understand how this is possible, we need to first separate our local standard of justice from the biblical standard of justice. Trying to understand God’s justice through the world’s system of justice is exactly the wrong way to do it. We need to flip our approach 180 degrees and start with what the Bible says about sin, its consequences, and how Jesus assumes the consequences on our behalf.

THE ORIGIN OF SIN AND DEATH
Most atheists are familiar with the account of Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis, even if they dismiss it as myth. But it is here that we start because we’re looking at what the Bible says about justice, not what we say about it.

After creating the world and stocking it with flora and fauna, God created Adam and placed him in the Garden of Eden, “to work it and take care of it.” But he also warned him, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die” (see Gen. 2:15-17).

Here we see a command to follow—don’t eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil—and the consequence of disobedience: if you do, you will die. What this meant was that, in addition to physically wearing out, Adam would be spiritually separated from God.

Adam, as we all know, takes that consequential bite of the forbidden fruit and “sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12).

There are several options for interpreting this Pauline passage with various levels of support, but the one shared most widely by biblical scholars is that we were all “in” Adam when he sinned. The term “world” is a reference to humanity, the whole of which existed in Adam (whose name, after all, means “man” or “mankind”) at the fall. As the British theologian John Stott put it in his commentary on this passage, “All died because all sinned in and through Adam, the representative or federal head of the human race.”

Interestingly, this does not absolve us of individual acts of disobedience, “because all sinned.” While we cascaded from Adam under judgment spiritually and biologically, we are each responsible for the choices we make to sin. Writes Grant Osborne,

All people have inherited corruption from Adam and then have participated in that sin. Therefore, they are guilty from two directions—the sinful nature inherited from Adam (passive sin) and their personal participation in that via their own sins (active sin). In fact, this is the basic difference of Christianity from all other religions, the nature of total depravity and the universal guilt of all people under sin. It is this that necessitated the cross, for this guilt is so severe that no human effort could ever assuage it” (The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: Romans, 2004; emphasis added).

THE NECESSITY OF THE CROSS
Here’s the dilemma, then: mankind has sinned in Adam and is, therefore, subject to death, the penalty for that sin. What to do? How does one pay for sin without suffering death? “The wages of sin,” writes Paul, “is death” (Rom. 6:23). It’s what we earn for being sinners. We are utterly incapable of freeing ourselves from the consequences because the penalty must (literally) be paid.

Originally God instituted the sacrificial system found in the Old Testament as a temporary means of atonement, a substitutionary act which covers or satisfies payment for an offense. These sacrifices often required the death of an animal—a blood sacrifice—because “the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life” (Leviticus 17:11).

As long as the Israelite community made regular sacrifices, they held God’s wrath at bay. But we’re told in Hebrews that such sacrifices were inadequate. “Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins” (Hebrews 10:11). In other words, it was not a permanent remedy for sin.

And that brings us back to what Paul wrote in Romans 5. “Just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all men, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous” (vv. 18-19).

In other words, just as Adam’s one act of disobedience was enough to condemn every one of his human descendants, so Jesus Christ’s one act of obedience—his death on a cross—was enough to absolve all of those who are “in Christ” of Adam’s sin.

And that is what the next verses in Hebrews 10 affirm: “But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy” (12-14).

This is perhaps the greatest misunderstanding of all: Jesus didn’t come to condemn the world. That boat has sailed. Condemnation is where we start because being under condemnation is the world in its natural state.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (John 3:16-18).

We are, all of us, blithely drifting on a tide that terminates in permanent separation from God. Jesus’ death on the cross, which we remember today, is the only permanent solution to avoid that fate. By his substitutionary atonement, Jesus frees us from the penalty of universal and personal sin and graciously welcomes us back to where we belong—in relationship with God.

May we see it and rejoice.