So Gay Marriage Biblically Offends You? A Response to Whitney Kay Bacon, Part 1

In the weeks following the SCOTUS decision to legalize same-sex “marriage” across all 50 states of the U.S., a host of articles, blogs, and other media have been circulating the internet both defending and critiquing the judicial fiat which redefined marriage. Within the Christian community, the issue of whether or not homosexual behavior is consistent with biblical teaching has once again become a hot topic of conversation, though in recent years it has never been too far from the forefront. Indeed, American churches have been split over this issue and the Supreme Court decision promises to ensure this matter is not going to go away any time soon.

Amongst the flurry of articles and blogs addressing this topic, of most interest to me have been those which attempt to defend the compatibility of homosexual behavior with Biblical teaching. This should be of interest to all Christians considering that for nearly 2,000 years the historical and consistent position of the Church has been that homosexual behavior is sinful and prohibited by Scripture. And prior to Christianity, this was also the historical position of the Jewish people which they based on the teachings of the Old Testament.

There is a reason of course that both Jews and Christians have been in agreement on this point, and it is not because of bigotry, intolerance, or hatred. It is because the univocal teaching of Scripture on homosexuality leads to this conclusion, and one must try very hard to deny or twist numerous verses addressing this topic in order to avoid their force. Unfortunately this is exactly what you see within the “gay Christian” movement. Given the clear teaching of Scripture and the historic position of the Church, I was shocked and dismayed to see the number of self-professing Christians who supported and celebrated this landmark decision of the Court.

Book Review: Cold-Case Christianity

Quick Facts:

Title: Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels

Author: J. Warner Wallace

Publisher/Year: David C Cook, 2013

Pages: 288

Review:

In Cold-Case Christianity, J. Warner Wallace, a former atheist and seasoned cold-case homicide detective, takes his knowledge and expertise gleaned from years of law enforcement experience and applies important investigative principles in examining the historical reliability of the gospels. Wallace has been sharing his insights and wisdom for years through blogging, articles, and podcasts as creator of the PleaseConvinceMe.com website, and recently has joined with Stand to Reason as a speaker and contributor.

This book is not just another typical apologetic arguing for the trustworthiness of the New Testament. It is unique among its peers, tackling the subject from a perspective only a homicide cop could provide. Cold-case homicides are historical investigations, and it is his skill and perspective as an investigator that gives Wallace the essential talents and qualifications to examine the historical accuracy of the gospels:

Is Biblical Inerrancy Irrelevant?

Biblical inerrancy may be defined as follows: “when all the facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences.”[1]

One important element of this definition is that inerrancy only applies to the original autographs. But since we no longer have the original autographs in our possession, the question that begs to be asked is, “Of what use or importance is biblical inerrancy then? Is biblical inerrancy even relevant?” Some liberal theologians conclude that inerrancy is altogether irrelevant. This, in turn, has negatively affected how many Christians view Scripture and the confidence they place in it.

"The Bible Was Only Written by Men...and Men Make Mistakes."

(Stand to Reason) by Greg Koukl

Greg Koukl offers a very helpful response to this common objection to biblical accuracy, authority and authenticity:

First, it doesn’t follow that because the Bible’s written by men, that it therefore must be in error. Human error is possible, not necessary. If human error were always necessary in anything man said, this challenge would be self-refuting (“suicide tactic”). If all human claims were necessarily in error, then the claim that the Bible was written by men and men make mistakes would also be in error because it’s a claim made by men who err, defeating itself. It is possible for human beings to produce something without errors. It’s done all the time. What is 2+2? What is the formula for nuclear fission?

Second, this is circular reasoning. If there’s good evidence the Bible can be trusted, then the issue of man’s involvement is moot. A simple question illustrates this: “Are you suggesting with this objection that if God does exist, He’s not capable of writing what He wants through imperfect men?” This is hard to affirm. If the answer is “No,” then the objection vanishes. If the answer is yes, then ask, “Did you ever own a dog? Could you get your dog to sit? If you can get a dumb dog to sit, what makes you think an all-powerful God can’t get a man to write just what He wants him to?” If you first establish that the Biblical record can be trusted, then the second problem—human involvement is irrelevant. If God inspires it then it doesn’t matter if men or monkeys did the writing; they’ll still write exactly what God intends.

Another way of stating it: God can’t err; the Bible is God’s Word; therefore, the Bible can’t err, even if men are involved.

Check out Greg's book Tactics for more great apologetic material.

The Debate Audio is Finally Here!

On December 9, 2009, Freethought Alliance hosted a debate at the Costa Mesa Civic Center titled "Does the God of the Bible Exist?" It was a 3-on-3 panel discussion between Christians and atheists.

The Christian side included Dr. Clay Jones from Biola University, Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, and our own Dan Grossenbach from Apologetic Junkie. The atheist panel included Dr. Bruce Flamm from the Inland Empire Atheists and Agnostics group, Mark Smith, and Alex Uzdavines.

Let me warn you in advance about this debate. The debate was quite lively and unconventional, which is why some would prefer to label it a panel discussion (or even a street fight!). The structure of this "debate" made a real debate nearly impossible. Unfortunately rhetoric often prevailed over reason and prevented genuine dialogue from taking place.

Full MP3 Debate Audio here.

In addition, due to the nature of the debate we thought it would be helpful to sit down with Dr. Clay Jones and Dan Grossenbach for a post-debate interview. Be sure to listen to their thoughts and reflections regarding the debate. It takes a lot more time to answer the difficult questions than it does to ask them. Hopefully this interview will answer the questions that time, format, and interruptions did not allow.

Full MP3 Post-Debate Audio Interview here.

We appreciate comments and feedback. Enjoy!

Apologetics: Why Your Church Needs It

(Rzim.org) by J.M. Njoroge

The ambiguity of the word apologetics provides the apologist with a natural icebreaker in public or private conversations on the topic: the apologist does not exist to “apologize” for being a Christian, or indeed for anything else. The assumption behind the pun is that the listeners would have a fair understanding of what apologetics is even if they cannot attach a formal definition to the concept. Unfortunately, this assumption is not always accurate.

During a conversation at a major apologetics event recently held in a large church, an attendee asked me what “apologetics” meant. I explained to her that apologetics is the branch of Christian theology that seeks to address the intellectual obstacles that keep people from taking the Gospel of Jesus Christ seriously. I gave her some examples of questions that are important in the context of apologetics. For example, why does evil exist if the world was created by an all-good, all-powerful God? How do we know Christianity is true in light of the numerous religions that exist in the world? 

I finished my answer to her by quoting 1 Peter 3:15, which instructs us to be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks for the reason for the hope that is within us. Her reaction was surprising. 

READ MORE...

How Can Yahweh Be Perfectly Good and Just and Yet Command Extermination?

(Reasons.org) by Kenneth Samples

Richard Dawkins, the world’s most famous atheist, asserts that the God of the Old Testament is “a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser.”¹

Yahweh, the Hebrew name of the personal God of Israel in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, reveals himself to be the Creator of heaven and earth. As the one true Lord, he is an infinite, eternal, and morally perfect personal deity. Historic Christianity identifies Yahweh as none other than the Triune God who is more specifically unveiled in the New Testament as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Tension arises when examining the Scriptures. The Bible reveals God to be perfectly good (Psalm 145:8-9) and perfectly just (Deuteronomy 32:4) in the very nature of his being. However, the Old Testament states that God personally commanded the army of the Hebrews to destroy the Canaanite nations.

During the conquest of Canaan, God commanded the following to the Hebrews:

“When the LORD [Yahweh] your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy” (Deuteronomy 7:2).

“However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes” (Deuteronomy 20:16).

In response to this frightening divine command, the Hebrew army carried out the following:

“They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys” (Joshua 6:21).

How can this seemingly brutal genocidal command be reconciled with God’s perfect goodness and justice?


Moral Justification for God’s Command

The following seven points help provide the moral context and justification for Yahweh’s command to destroy the Canaanites:

1. While God doesn’t always reveal all the details concerning his sovereign decisions, Scripture indicates that God’s moral will flows from his perfectly good and just nature. Therefore God has morally sufficient grounds for his commands even if those reasons are not fully revealed to humankind. However, in this specific case some of those reasons are evident.

2. God’s command to destroy the Canaanites was motivated by his intention to preserve Israel from the deep moral corruption that would have inevitably resulted through cultural assimilation with the pagan nations. God’s wrathful justice upon the Canaanites resulted in an act of mercy (protection) upon the Israelites. Therefore God’s command to destroy an entire people group nevertheless constituted a moral good.

3. The Canaanites were a morally decadent and reprobate people. Archaeological discoveries have revealed that they practiced such moral abominations as temple prostitution, child sacrifice, and bestiality.² And for hundreds of years they consistently ignored God’s call to repent of their wicked ways (Genesis 15:16). In God’s eyes they were beyond moral rehabilitation.

4. Life in the ancient Near-Eastern world was extremely brutal. And the Canaanite nations viewed the Israelites as their enemies. In this context of warfare among nations God’s command to destroy the pagan peoples was a necessary act of war.

5. God, as the sovereign creator and sustainer of life, has the prerogative to take life at his just discretion (Deuteronomy 32:39; Job 1:21). Because the cosmos belongs to the Lord, he has the ontological right to do as he wishes with his creatures. His only constraint is his moral nature. God is therefore in a different moral category of being than his creatures. He is the ultimate judge of all things. As Christian philosopher Paul Copan notes: “Like Narnia’s Aslan, Yahweh, though gracious and compassionate … is not to be trifled with.”³

6. God’s order to exterminate the Canaanites was not a command to murder (to take human life without just cause). Rather, it constituted a command of capital punishment on a grand scale and therefore reflected a retributive form of justice (the punishment matched the crime).

7. The divine command for the Hebrew army to destroy the Canaanites took place in a unique historical and biblical context. This was not a common or normative event in the life of God’s people. Yahweh is compassionate and patient and remains, in spite of this act, a God of mercy (Exodus 34:6).

Why Such Utter Devastation?

Yet while God had just cause to destroy the Canaanites for their wicked ways, was it necessary to kill all life? Couldn’t the innocent children have been preserved?

Unfortunately, the abominable evil of the Canaanite society had polluted the children as well.⁴

God, who knows the thoughts and intentions of people (Hebrews 4:12), knew that if these children had been allowed to live they would have inevitably infected God’s people with terrible iniquity. The Hebrews had to be “preserved” because they were the very people from which the Messiah would emerge. Additionally, it may be that God took mercy upon these children and granted them divine acceptance in the next life. God’s compassion is deep and wide even in the midst of temporal judgment.

An important lesson to be learned from this great and terrible event is that God loves his people and he will take extreme measures to protect them from moral and spiritual ruin (Romans 8:28).
___________________________________________________

References:

1. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 31.

2. Gleason L. Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1964), 261.

3. Paul Copan, “Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?” Philosophia Christi 10, no. 1 (Summer 2008), 31.

4. Ronald A. Iwasko, “God of War,” in Christianity for the Tough-Minded, ed. John Warwick Montgomery (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1973), 99-107.
______________________________________________

Please Note: If you have the chance, I highly recommend reading Clay Jones' article, also on this topic, entitled "We Don't Hate Sin So We Don't Understand What Happened To The Canaanites" (Philosophia Christi 11, no. 1).

Got Questions?

Got a question for us here at Apologetic Junkie? Something have you confused? Need help?

We've got answers! ..... Or we can point you to them!

Don't know what that Bible verse means? Postmodernism got you down? Worried about that apparent Bible contradiction?

We would love to hear from you!

Submit your questions to questions@apologeticjunkie.com

Check out the shortcut on the left-hand sidebar as well!

Baby Got Book!

My friend Chris led me to this one...Enjoy!

Newsweek's Religious Case for Gay-Marriage

Newsweek magazine's cover story on December 15, 2008, read "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage." It featured an article by religion editor Lisa Miller entitled, "Our Mutual Joy," in which she attempted to argue a biblical case for gay marriage.

There have been several prominent scholars and theologians who have responded to this piece in length. Kevin Lewis, Christian apologetics professor at Biola University, has written an article which you can read here. Dr. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has responded here. The Family Research Council has also posted a point-by-point rebuttal on their blog which you can read here.

As these articles show, liberals must constantly take passages out of context, undercut Scripture, and resort to fallacious reasoning in endeavoring to make their point. If proponents of same-sex marriage want to defend their case, fine. Muster your best arguments and present them in public debate. But let us not resort to intellectual dishonesty, bad logic, and poor hermeneutics in an effort to distort the clear teaching of Scripture.

Are Evangelicals Over-Committed to the Bible?

J.P. Moreland, distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Biola University, has been a mentor of mine for quite some time. Though I have not yet had the privilege of taking his metaphysics class, I think I probably own just about every lecture of his that has ever been recorded, along with all his books! Moreland recently delivered a paper at the Evangelical Theological Society entitled "How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What can be Done about It." Needless to say, the title alone has stirred up controversy among Evangelical Christians and has resulted in several heated debates.

Now before you jump to conclusions, I encourage you to read the paper here in context. Most of the controversy surrounding the paper seems to be Moreland's use of the word "over-committed," though he clearly defines what he means by this in the paper itself. What is discouraging to see is the number of Christians who have attacked Moreland in an uncharitable manner. Unfortunately, rather than addressing Moreland's arguments, many have engaged in a number of philosophical fallacies and double-talk. Brett Kunkle, part of the Stand to Reason organization, gives an articulate and well-reasoned response which I highly encourage you to read here. You can also read what Dr. Moreland himself has said in response to his critics here.

I heartily agree with Brett Kunkle in that we should continue to "pray for Biola and godly professors like J.P. Moreland who have the courage to call out Evangelical abuses, yet with the gentleness and reverence others in our community so sorely lack."