Is the Apocrypha Scripture?

Roman Catholics and Protestants agree on many central doctrines of the Christian faith, including the Trinity, deity of Christ, and bodily resurrection of Jesus. But one important issue which separates Roman Catholics and Protestants is the extent of canonized Scripture. While both groups have the same 27 books in the New Testament, Roman Catholics have an additional seven books in their Old Testament (along with four additions to other OT books). These extra books and writings are referred to as the "Apocrypha" or "deuterocanonical" (second canon) books. They are as follows:

Is America a Christian Nation?

This question may be more complicated than it first appears, for the answer depends entirely on what one means by “a Christian nation.” Wayne Grudem does an excellent job of breaking this question down into nine possible interpretations, along with their respective answers, in his book Politics According to the Bible.[1]

As Grudem explains, this question cannot be answered with a simple “yes” or “no.” Unfortunately, heated debate and frustration have often surrounded this issue. But the matter can be largely resolved if we simply take the time to define what we mean. This helps avoid misunderstanding and prevents disagreeing parties from talking past one another.

So is America a Christian nation? Let’s look at nine possible meanings of that question along with their specific answers.

A Good Reason to Rally?

by Ronald Scott Smith. Posted with permission.

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

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

PleaseConvinceMe Blog

Dan and I (Aaron) are honored to have been invited to blog at PleaseConvinceMe.com. You can visit the About Us page to find out a little more about the PleaseConvinceMe team.

Be sure and check out the blog where you will find excellent posts on a variety of topics.

PleaseConvinceMe has some other very helpful resources, including a podcast, radio interviews, and a youtube television channel. Check out their facebook page or follow them on twitter.

Thanks to Jim Wallace for inviting us and the entire PleaseConvinceMe team for having us on board. We are excited to be part of the team and looking forward to blogging together.

Why the Problem of Evil is a Problem

The so-called problem of evil is one of the most common objections raised against the Christian faith. Perhaps no one has more succinctly stated the apparent contradiction between an all-loving, all-powerful God and the existence of evil as the eighteenth-century Scottish skeptic David Hume:

"Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"[1]

More modern skeptics have sometimes posed the logical problem this way:

1.      If God is all-good (omnibenevolent), He would prevent evil.

2.      If God is all-powerful (omnipotent), He could prevent evil.

3.      If God is all-knowing (omniscient), He knows how to prevent evil.

4.      But evil exists.

5.      Therefore, either God is not all-good, all-powerful, or all-knowing (or maybe He doesn’t exist!)

But why is the problem of evil a problem? In answering this question it is important to earnestly think through the following points, points which often are not reflected upon or not contemplated deeply enough. These considerations must be taken into account when addressing the problem of evil, especially from within the Christian worldview. When they are, I believe the problem of evil (POE) largely resolves itself.

Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Objections

What follows are some of the most common objections to the pro-life view one is likely to hear from defenders of abortion, both in the media and in everyday conversation. It is my hope the pro-life responses underneath will be beneficial to those who are defending the unborn, whether it be via e-mail, Facebook, or face to face. Rather than reinvent the wheel each new conversation, I have found the following points to be especially helpful in simplifying the debate and defending the right to life of unborn human persons, over and against the common objections of the pro-abortion choice position.

It should be noted that the following objections are not the more philosophically sophisticated defenses of abortion one is likely to encounter from those such as Judith Jarvis Thomson or David Boonin. Rather, these are common rhetorical talking points often made by those less informed on the topic but which nevertheless need to be addressed due to their prevalence and sometimes unfortunate effect of leaving pro-lifers speechless. 

Witnessing the Witnesses

In evangelism, the approach matters at least as much as the content. It's not just what we say but how we say it that determines our effectiveness. Many Christians shudder when called to defend the faith even when acting so boldly in our training or online debates. Like an "expert" shower-singer challenged to take the stage, we need to be ready to put our practice to the test. Fortunately, most people find it easier to obtain the right tactic than master enough knowledge for every situation. That's good news since a less educated winsome manner comes across better

Character Counts!

In an election season one issue comes to the front more than any other: character. Whether attacking another candidate's history or defending one's own consistency the underlying issue is almost always one of character. Attacking it, defending it, questioning it, and debating it. Character is ultimately what gives voter's confidence in what a candidate believed in the past and will do in the future. Not unlike politics, character of leaders of various religious movements counts as strong testimony to the legitimacy of their claims. It's one thing to say something, but it's a whole other thing to live consistently with what's said. If character counts for choosing political leaders, perhaps the credibility of religious leaders should be examined likewise.

In his brief theological treatise Basic Christianity, theologian John Stott provides Jesus' character as evidence for Christ's claims. The claims of Christ include those he made implicitly and explicitly during his time on earth documented in our extant New Testament writings. The greatest of these include his unique relationship with God, his own divine authority, and his miraculous acts. Since the claims of Christ are mulitply attested in early independent sources and consistently represented through 27 books of the New Testament, Stott concludes we're justified in calling them reliable. But even if we are to grant him that much, we must still ask ourselves - are they true?

Attempting to show reliability by merely stating that a claim is historical is misleading at worst and inadequate at best. Whether the claims were made in history is a different question than whether the content of those claims is true. After all, people can claim anything they want. There were so-called messiahs throughout and since second temple Judaism. As C.S. Lewis famously proposed, there are three options regarding our decision with the claims of Christ. If he wasn't Lord, the only remaining options are liar or lunatic (Lewis, C.S., Mere Christianity, London: Collins, 1952, p54-56). So to find out which claims are more likely true, it's important to examine life demonstrated by the one making the claims.

If the sort of things Jesus said are true, the evidence should be seen in how he lived his life. Whatever we may believe about him, it's clear what we know of Jesus is different from any other religious founder. Most notably, his character shows no flaws where we would expect to see them. For someone well acquainted with the doctrine of sinful man, we see in Jesus one who had no sin in him. He was tempted like we are, but never ever made the wrong moral choice.

When the rich man addressed him as "Good teacher" asking how he could inherit eternal life, Jesus replied, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone" (Mark 10:17-18). What follows is one of two possible conclusions. Either Jesus is not good or he isn't God. The New Testament is consistent in it's message that Jesus lived without sin. Therefore, since moral perfection is "good," and only God is good, then Jesus is God. What we get with this verse is both the divinity of Christ and his own self-claimed moral perfection. Jesus also pointed to himself as the means of redemption for sinful man. Many more verses can be cited (see Greg Koukl's Jesus the Only Way: 100 Verses), but there's more than merely what Jesus said about himself.

Those closest to Christ agreed with him on this point. They lived with him, studied under him, and suffered for his sake. As devoted Jews they too understood the depravity of man, yet they upheld the testimony of Christ's sinlessness despite having every reason not to. While some witnesses explicitly state Christ's spotless nature (1 Pet 2:22, Heb 9:14, 1 John 3:5), the gospel writers seem only to mention it as an incidental aside from their primary message. While the sinful nature of all other central figures is exposed, Jesus, about whom much more is said, rests immune. While friendly witnesses would be expected to portray Jesus well, let's see what his enemies say of him.

As we might expect, Jesus' critics were unkind. They called him a blasphemer, friend of sinners, and sabbath breaker. In the proper context, these accusations were serious enough to portray him as a social outcast, rejected by God, and worthy of capital punishment. Ironically, it also speaks well of his character. The charge brought against him by the Jews was for insurrection which was a political crime rather than a moral one. Moreover, he was brought before King Herod and the Roman Procurator Pontius Pilate only to be found guiltless by both. His accusers depended on false witnesses, rejected his messianic identity, and misrepresented his claim to be king. Often overlooked, the silence of any accusations from earlier in his life should be noted. With the zeal of his enemies, it must have frustrated them greatly to have nothing but lies to use against him.

From how he's depicted by friends and foes alike we've seen Christ wasn't just sinless but the only one who ever was in a culture where universal human depravity was presumed. For most of us who grow closer in our relationship with God, our human sinfulness brightly contrasts from God's almighty perfection. However, as his followers learned more of Jesus' closeness with the Father, his utter absence of sin became even more apparent to all.

Unless his claims were true, the types of things he said would be that of a megalomaniac. Christ's claims centered around himself and that the destiny of mankind depend on how people respond to him. This truth comes as an unexpected paradox. Jesus taught that he "came not to be served but to serve and be a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45, Matt 20:28). He spoke of himself first in his words but put himself last by his deeds. He was misunderstood and rejected by his foes and even abandoned and betrayed by friends. Ultimately he was shamed, tortured, and killed for living consistently with his true message and identity. Amidst the scorn, he prayed for those who hated him. His teaching was unique and unpopular, yet he wasn't a fanatic. He simply spoke the truth and lived it consistently.

The "Whatever" Objection and the Passivity Problem

Armed with a master’s degree in apologetics I felt like I could conquer the world. Bring on the most ardent atheist and I'd be ready. My training prepared me to launch informed arguments and counter the toughest objections. To my surprise, the biggest challenger however wasn't the outspoken critic but the one who spoke the least - the passive skeptic who just didn't care. I quickly learned that the word no passionate apologist wants to hear is "Whatever."

Hearing my friend utter that word, I thought, "How could you not care?!" Salvation from sin, eternal life, reunited with saints, and reigning with God as kings is too good to pass up. I kept noticing other friends and colleagues voicing much of the same though not always using the "W" word verbatim. I realized my God-given fascination for apologetics and passion to share what I've learned wasn't something I had in common with people around me. I've come to see that listening to a debate on my iPod while running the Manhattan Beach 10-K wasn't normal.

The Facts of the Resurrection in 1,000 Words

This essay originally appeared in a series entitled "Is Christianity True?" Visit Apologetics 315 to read all the contributions and download the audio versions.

“The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.” 
— Antony Flew

The truth of Christianity stands or falls on the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. As Paul himself said, “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.”1 Here the Apostle provides an objective criterion by which to judge the legitimacy of the Christian worldview. Show that Christ has not been raised from the dead and you will have successfully proven Christianity false. Consequently, it is entirely appropriate that a positive case for “Why Christianity is true” focus on the most central truth claim of the Christian faith: the Resurrection.
(MP3 Audio | RSS | iTunes)

Do All Religions Lead to God?

Maybe you've heard the parable of the six blind men and the elephant. In this parable, six blind men feel a different part of an elephant and come to different conclusions regarding what the elephant is actually like.

One blind man grabs the tusk and says, "An elephant is like a spear!" Another feels the trunk and concludes, "An elephant is like a snake!" The blind man hugging the leg thinks, "An elephant is like a tree!" The one holding the tail claims, "An elephant is like a rope!" Another feeling the ear believes, "An elephant is like a fan!" The last blind man leaning on the elephant's side exclaims, "An elephant is like a wall!"

This parable is often used to illustrate a view known as religious pluralism. Like the blind men, no religion has the truth. Rather, all religions are true in that they accurately describe their personal experience and the spiritual reality they encounter, given various historical and cultural backgrounds.

There are various types of religious pluralism, but one way to define it is as follows: "the view that all religious roads - certainly all major or ethical ones - lead to God or to ultimate reality and salvation."1 This idea is commonly reflected in such statements as "All religions basically teach the same thing" or "All roads lead to the top of the mountain."

The elephant parable, while attractive to many, suffers from a number of problems:

Question: Is All Sin the Same?

Is telling a lie just as bad as murder? Or are some sins worse than others? In other words, is all sin the same? Or are there degrees of sin?

Wayne Grudem does an excellent job of tackling this question in his book Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine.

As Grudem notes, the answer to the question "Are there degrees of sin?" may be "yes" or "no" depending on what one is referring to. In order to answer this question properly we must differentiate between two different consequences of sin: (1) legal guilt and (2) the results in life and in relationship with God.

Legal Guilt

In terms of legal guilt, or our legal standing before God, all sin is the same.  Wayne Grudem explains:

In terms of our legal standing before God, any one sin, even what may seem to be a very small one, makes us guilty before God and therefore worthy of eternal punishment...Therefore, in terms of legal guilt, all sins are equally bad because they make us legally guilty before God and constitute us as sinners. (See Rom. 5:16, Gal. 3:10)1

Book Review: Choosing Your Faith

Quick Facts:

Title: Choosing Your Faith…In a World of Spiritual Options

Author: Mark Mittelberg

Publisher/Year: Tyndale, 2008

Pages: 269

Review:

With so many religious beliefs and ideologies in the world, how does one go about choosing a faith? Why should we even choose a faith? And if we decide to choose a faith, are some ways of choosing better than others? To put it another way, everyone believes something. Moreover, we all believe we are right (that’s why we believe the things we do)! But since people believe contradictory things, not everyone can be right. So how should we decide what to believe?

Mark Mittelberg addresses these questions and more in his book Choosing Your Faith…In a World of Spiritual Options. 

The Book of Mormon - Another Testament of Jesus Christ?

This talk entitled "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ?" was given at a local Calvary Chapel a couple of years ago. The audio link was previously down but should not be in good working order so I am re-posting this blog.

I previously posted the audio to this talk but now also have available a short paper which this talk is based on. I hope these resources will aid you in your witnessing opportunities with your Mormon friends and family members.

Topic: The Book of Mormon - Another Testament of Jesus Christ?

Overview:
Background of Mormonism
Background of the Book of Mormon
Praying about the Book of Mormon
Problems with the Book of Mormon
Witnessing Tips

Full MP3 audio here.

PDF file Mormon Epistemology 101 here.

Enjoy!

Tread Lightly Young-Earthers

Is the universe billions of years old or thousands? Are the creation days of Genesis to be interpreted as 24-hour periods? How should science inform our interpretation of Scripture, and how should Scripture inform our interpretation of science?

Christians disagree on how to answer these questions and they have been cause of no small debate within the believing community. The two opposing sides are sometimes labeled “young-earth” and “old-earth” or “young-age” and “old-age.” One of the most central and disputed points is whether the creation days in Genesis are literal 24-hour periods.

Recently I read an article published in a young-earth creationist newsletter entitled “It's an Attack on the Son.”[1] The title is quite provocative, though this isn't the first writing of this kind I have come across. As you may have guessed from reading the title, a summary of the article could be as follows: 

Refuting Moral Relativism

This talk entitled "Refuting Moral Relativism" was given at a local Calvary Chapel a couple of years ago. The audio link was previously down but should now be in good working order so I am re-posting this blog.

We had some technical difficulties with both the projector and computer throughout the presentation so there may be slight gaps in the audio. Unfortunately for me, my notes were on the computer. Other than that I think it went alright!

As always, I am deeply indebted to clear thinkers such as Greg Koukl, J.P. Moreland, Francis Beckwith, and Paul Copan (all of whom I steal my material from) regarding their extensive work and interaction with the issue of moral relativism.

Full MP3 audio here.

Enjoy!

A Text Out of Context: 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22

1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 seems to be a passage of Scripture which is prone to all sorts of abuse. The reason I think this is the case is because this passage includes a group of short, pithy statements made by the apostle Paul which can easily be repeated and turned into "stand alone" verses apart from their context. The text reads as follows:

Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil. (NASB)

Probably the two most common phrases I have heard repeated from this passage are the following:

"Don't quench the Spirit!" (v. 19)

"Abstain from all appearances of evil!" (v. 22 KJV)

The Triunity of God

The outline below was made for a small group discussion at church. The college group was tackling the topic of the Trinity. I spent some time putting the outline together but thought it was a shame to put it aside after only an hour of discussion. I thought I would post it here in hopes that others would benefit from it as well. 

The outline is by no means exhaustive but rather was meant to serve as a guide on several issues we thought were important to discuss. I appreciate any comments or feedback on the content.

I.                   Quick Facts

a.       The word “Trinity” refers to “Tri-unity” (three in one).

b.      The term comes from the Latin trinitas.

c.       The doctrine of the Trinity is a central doctrine of the Christian faith.

                                                              i.      “‘Central doctrines’ of the Christian faith are those doctrines that make the Christian faith Christian and not something else.”[1]

                                                            ii.      No other religion holds to this teaching.

d.      The first recorded use of the term “Trinity” is by Theophilus of Antioch (116-181) in the second century.[2]

(non-) BOOK REVIEW for "Divinity of Doubt: The God Question"

Former LA prosecutor and best-selling author Vincent Bugliosi released his latest book "Divinity of Doubt: The God Question" recently and I decided to buy it. I like to use the investigative method when approaching truth claims and it sounded like Bugliosi was doing the same thing despite reaching a different conclusion. So I had to try it. Bulgliosi describes this work as the culmination of a two-year research project. He's written on the OJ case, JFK assassination, and George W. Bush but now steps out of his field to give his best case for agnosticism in this latest work. Bugliosi says he employs his prosecutorial skills to sift through the evidence for a rational conclusion. In that, I applaud him but the praise stops there.

Guilty but "Not Guilty"

Many were outraged this week when an Orlando jury found Casey Anthony not guilty of her young daughter’s murder. But why? Twelve people just like you and me prescreened by both the prosecution and defense were there for every minute of the trial. They were the only audience the lawyers cared about. Everything was thrown at them; every piece of evidence and every defense. Regardless of what we all saw in the media, they saw more and analyzed it more. At least one juror has spoken out implying that the cause of death was indeterminate so blaming someone for an unknown action leading to the death leaves a logical gap. In other words, it’s certain Caylee died, but not that she was murdered. If “murder” itself is uncertain, assigning blame to it would have been as well. Certainty is what was missing. Was certainty neccessary?