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? 

Common Sense Truth

"What is truth?" Pontius Pilate wasn't the first to ask this.

The question, at first blush, sounds profound. In reality, I think we all know the answer to this age-old inquiry. I say that because we presuppose a certain definition of truth in our speech and actions every day of our lives. Perhaps the problem is not that we do not know what truth is but rather that we do not know that we know. And the reason we do not know that we know is simply because we haven't taken the few moments necessary to reflect on the nature of truth.

Three Views on Truth

Historically, there have been three dominant theories of truth put forth by philosophers:1

Question: Who Created the Creator?

The kalam cosmological argument is a simple yet effective argument for the existence of God. It goes as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

After establishing that the universe has a cause, Christian theists would go on to argue that God is the cause of the universe coming into being. But some skeptics are unsatisfied with this answer, claiming that if the universe itself was caused by God then one is justified in raising the question "What caused God?" or "Who created the Creator?" This is similar to Richard Dawkins question "Who designed the designer?"1

There are several problems with this line of inquiry:

First, who exactly is asking the question “Who created the Creator?”2 Not atheists like Richard Dawkins. Dickie Dawkins does not believe in God, let alone a created god. However, Christians are not asking this question either, for Christians hold that God is an eternal, self-existent Being, i.e., the uncaused first cause. To whose belief does this question apply then? Neither. This leads us to the second problem.

Folly of the Cross

Waiting in the Las Vegas airport for my delayed flight home last night, I finished a short book on the ancient execution method of crucifixion. I read the book after hearing it referenced by a number of top NT scholars, and pulled it out of my library recently in the spirit of the upcoming passion week. I learned many things from Martin Hengel's 90-page book aptly named "Crucifixion" (1977 Fortress Press). The book can be broken down into two primary areas of focus: 1) the history of the cross and 2) how people of the time perceived it.

"Crucifixion" is a well-researched book chock full of examples from ancient literature (despite Hengel's own claim that many writers dared not mention the term because of it's unsavory reputation). But the book's biggest contribution is how it helps the modern reader appreciate Paul's reference to "the folly of the cross."
  

Rob Bell Agrees with Atheists on Hell

If you think Jesus threatens you with eternal torment unless you believe in him, you’re out of step with traditional Christianity. For those of you critical of this faulty concept, you're in the company of Rob Bell and numerous atheists he seems to agree with on this point. In the promo for his new book, Bell implies that if God is loving, he wouldn’t send people to hell (click here for his two-minute video speech).

As it turns out, this is an objection we usually get from atheists. In December 2009 I was in a panel debate on the topic, “Does the God of the Bible Exist?” where the atheists brought up this very objection. (click here for a five-minute video clip from the debate) For their objection to work, it must be based on: 1) an accurate representation of classical Christianity’s teachings on hell, and 2) a logical flow of thought. I will show it meets neither.

Gospel Tip Line: Reliability of Anonymous Reports

Connecticut residents can breathe a bit easier now that the “East Coast Rapist” was caught after an anonymous citizen called police leading to an arrest. Anonymous tips are nothing new. I get them in my narcotic investigations where they solve crimes and uncover new ones. Drug cases are commonplace for anonymous tips because the retaliation can be swift and violent when the reported party’s identity is disclosed. 

But it’s not just drug investigations where anonymous tips are used. Police departments often have anonymous caller programs with dedicated “tip lines” to encourage citizens to do what the Connecticut caller did. Beyond crime reporting, tip lines are employed to expose corporate abuse, dirty restaurants, bad customer service, breaking news, and unsafe driving. They obviously are a valuable source of information and embraced by our culture, so why are people so skeptical about anonymous reports when it comes to the Bible?

Authorship of many books in the Bible, including all four gospels, are commonly disputed. Some early gospel manuscripts don’t explicitly attribute them to the traditional authors Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So, if we can’t know who wrote these books, skeptics allege, how can they be trusted? After all, if we don’t know the writers, how do we know what position they were in to report an accurate description of events? Or worse, maybe the writers deceptively made it appear as the authoritative works of early church figures.

William Lane Craig vs. Richard Dawkins

Craig and Dawkins square off on stage later today! Yesterday I received this Facebook note from William Lane Craig. Since he sent this to all his "friends," I'm assuming it's public information. In case you're unaware, a debate between Dawkins and Craig would match up the world's most well known apologists for their respective worldviews: Dawkins for Atheism and Craig for Christianity. It's also worth noting that Dawkins has colorfully dismissed any future debate potential with WLC, which makes this so surprising.

Dr. Craig describes their first meeting...

I am currently in Mexico to participate in a conference called Ciudad de
las Ideas, which is a conference modeled on the TED conference in the US.
It features lots of high tech people, sociologists, psychologists, economists,
scientists, etc.

As part of the conference they´re having a panel of six of us debate on the
question ¨Does the Universe Have a Purpose?¨ Well. to my surprise, I just
found out that one of the three persons on the other side is Richard Dawkins!
It´s true! I met him the other night. When he came my way, I stuck out my
hand and introduced myself and said, Ï´m surspised to see that you´re on the
panel.

He replied, "And why not?"

I said, ¨Well, you´ve always refused to debate me."

His tone suddenly became icy cold. "I don´t consider this to be a debate with
you. The Mexicans invited me to participate, and I accepted.¨ At that, he
turned away.

¨Well, I hope we have a good discussion,¨ I said.

"I very much doubt it,¨ he said and walked off.

So it was a pretty chilly reception! The debate is Saturday morning,
should you think of us. I´ll give an update after I get
back.

The six-man debate panel is set to discuss the question, "Does the Universe have a Purpose?"



Affirmative Position: Rabbi David Wolpe, William Lane Craig, Douglas Geivett
Negative Position: Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins



The organization's website has lots of videos posted so I'm hoping they will have this one up soon. I'll post it as soon as it becomes available.

UPDATE 11/14/2010: The video has been uploaded here on YouTube.

Great New Resurrection Book!

Today, Mike Licona released his long-awaited historiographical treatment on the historicity of the resurrection. While great apologists have undertaken countless shots at defending the resurrection, few have done so guided by formal training in the field of history. This is something I found myself when researching historians specializing in the resurrection. There aren’t any! While Licona’s doctorate is technically under the banner of New Testament studies, his dissertation – the genesis behind the present work – was approved under watchful eyes of critical scholars at a secular institution (Univ. of Pretoria). Moreover, his concentration was specifically in first century historiography, so his study hits at the heart of the historical Jesus question.

Because of this widespread lack of methodological expertise on the issue, Licona asks a simple question which the rest of the book sets out to answer: “If professional historians who work outside of the community of biblical scholars were to embark on an investigation of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, what would such an investigation look like?” (p19). In case you think he leaves it there, he launches a well-reasoned and heavily footnoted attack in the following 699 pages.

For anyone familiar with resurrection debates, it’s a fun topic. Of course, for Christians, it’s much more than that. In sharing the gospel with unbelievers, objections to the resurrection pose a stumbling block to the core of our message. When we hear the common criticism “there’s not enough evidence,” Licona’s readers can now reply that modern rules of evidence are not how scholars justify events of ancient history. Otherwise, such skepticism would force us to dismiss much of Western Civilization, and even our present knowledge built upon historical experiences in the fields of science, politics, and technology. History must be studied in its context.

This book is a refreshing read. It is comprehensive yet accessible to anyone who takes the resurrection seriously. But reader beware that this book may humble believer and skeptic alike. The believer will learn how difficult absolute certainty of historical events can be and skeptics may be surprised how the evidence for the resurrection compares to unquestioned historical events. I truly hope this is the beginning of a new angle on the historical Jesus through the glasses of a historical scholar, at least as much as it has traditionally been done by biblical and theological ones. So go and order this on Amazon (a steal at $26 bucks!) and leave a comment with what you think. The world will be better off with more stuff like this.

A Former Homosexual Testifies to God's Transforming Power

"No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it." - 1 Corinthians 10:13

"Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." - 2 Corinthians 5:17