Full-Proof Ministries

Archive for the ‘Apologetics’ Category

We need to be very careful in how we respond to things like this, particularly as Christians.  One thing we must not do is make personal attacks on Stephen Hawking.  To do so is not logical and I believe is a sinful response also.

What we must do is allow all ideas to be tested and follow what survives the tests.  If the claims of Christianity pass the tests, then we should be Christians.  If ideas exclusive to Christianity pass the tests, such as what Hawking is claiming, then we should follow those.  We should always follow the truth and not be afraid to allow our ideas to be tested.

I read the following at http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=11542128 . . .

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,” writes Hawking. “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists why we exist.”

Let’s critique Hawking’s statement rather than critique Hawking, the man.  Assuming the quote is taken in context, Hawking claims “the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”  In order for something to be created, it must not exist.  In order to create, something must exist to do the creating.  Therefore, for the universe to create itself, the universe must both exist and not exist at the same time.  This is a violation of the law of non-contradiction, a basic foundational concept.  So it is safe to dismiss the idea from Hawking.

Were the Books that we find in our Bibles today hand-picked to fit a certain mold or was the process more objective than that? This post is an attempt to answer a particular objection I was confronted with to the truth-claims of Christianity by a friend and has to deal with what is called the Canon of Scripture.  (Canon is just a fancy Greek word that meant “measuring rod” and by which we understand the canon to be that “rule of faith” that recognized – not selected – certain books as authoritative and inspired of God.) 

The early church was never popular.  Besides the fact that Jesus was doing miracles left and right (and then the Apostles followed suit with miracles), by and large the crowds were unimpressed spiritually.  They liked magic tricks, but that was about where it left off.  Being unpopular from the get-go was bad enough, but “The Way” or Christianity, was proving to be quite the competitor to the Judaism of the Jews or the pantheism of the Romans.  Before long, both camps were persecuting this up-start religion. 

After what is known as the Edict of Diocletian, wherein the sacred Scriptures were to be burned by law, the Christians were forced to determine not which books would make for the best story, but which books they were willing to die for….and die they did.  This edict, coupled with the fact that a heretic by the name of Marcion had developed his own canon of sorts (or list of books that he held to be the Bible), the church at large needed to respond with an authoritative list of books of their own.  The process was not at all hodge-podge, pick and choose as some have supposed, but they had several criteria they used to discover (not determine) which books belonged.  I’ll quickly define just a couple of the most important ones here:

1. Apostolicity – was the book either written by an apostle, an associate of an apostle, or was approved by an apostle (by quoting it, etc.)
2. Catholicity – not whether or not the book was Roman Catholic, but universal in its acceptance.  Catholic actually literally means universal.

There are certainly other criteria that were used (the list ranges in number of criteria listed, but not in substance). 

Here are some quick videos (just a couple minutes a piece that would be worth looking at:
Lee Strobel – Former atheist discusses the reliability of the Bible
Dr. Wallace answers your question more specifically
Dr. Bock speaks to those “gospels” that never made it into the Bible

This was not meant to be an exhaustive answer to your question regarding the compiling of the Sacred Scriptures, but it does present the other side of the story.  I hope you’ll read what I wrote and take a moment to watch the videos (they’re very short) before you make a final decision.  Truth, at the end of the day, is what matters. 

I hope this post finds you doing well and pursuing Truth.  After all, the truth is what sets you free. – John 8:32

I recently read already gone: Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it by Ken Ham & Britt Beemer.  One thing I think I need to do is either do these reviews right away (I read this the first week of April) or take more notes in order that I can go into more detail.

Let me point out at the beginning of this that I am not a fan of Ken Ham.  Being honest . . . he drives me nuts.  I just want you to know that upfront.

From the back of the book . . .

If you look around in your church today, two-thirds of the young people who are sitting among us have already left in their hearts; soon they will be gone for good.

The fact that the church is losing a ton of its youth is pretty well known.  Numbers vary from report to report, but they are high.  In this book Ken and Britt reveal (from the back again) . . .

The views of 1,000 twenty-somethings, solidly raised in the church but no longer attending – and their reasons why.

One interesting thing is the thousand aren’t random across a spectrum of twenty-somethings including atheists and/or agnostics and/or people raised in liberal churches.  These thousand came from conservative churches.

I appreciate Ken Ham’s concern for the youth.  Youth are who I have a burden for myself so I appreciate that focus of this book.  Another good point that Ken stresses is the need for apologetics.  On page 93, Ken quotes two passages that I think are the solution to the problem.  He quotes 1 Peter 3:15 as he stresses the need for apologetics and he also quotes 2 Timothy 4:2-4.  Paul tells Timothy in that passage to preach the word.  Ken stresses hard that there is a lack of teaching the Bible.  Ken writes on page 123, “. . . I firmly believe that one of the reasons people aren’t living by the word is that they aren’t being taught the word.”  I agree with him about this problem.  Many churches teach from the Bible, but they don’t teach the Bible.  What do I mean?  They preach topical series and use individual verses as launching pads instead of teaching through the text verse-by-verse in context, teaching through entire books so that Christians understand what a book teaches and how that book applies to their lives.  I risk really sidetracking on a soapbox of mine, so let’s stop there.

So Ken has some great emphases in this book.  He points out a serious problem.  He points out good solutions.  He makes one serious flaw in my viewpoint.  He absolutely mistakes the cause of so many youth departing.  Ken blames it on the church teaching “millions of years.”  This is Ken’s soapbox.  It’s a terrible one.  Why?  Because it’s not one of the B.A.S.I.C.S. (see my post on B.A.S.I.C.S.).

Ken writes on pp 73-74 . . .

The problem we are studying, of course, is that 60 percent of the students who grow up in the Church have lost that connection . . . What happened? How did we get here? I believe it all started when the Church gave us “millions of reasons” to doubt the Bible.  The book of Genesis gives us a clear account of the creation of the universe, of the world, and of everything that lives, including humanity.  A simple literal interpretation of these passages makes it clear that this creation took place in six days, with God resting on the seventh, just a few thousand years ago.

I listen to all of Ken’s podcasts.  He blames nearly everything that’s wrong in this world on this very point.

Ken hired Britt Beemer and his company to do a statistical study to get the information for this book.  Unfortunately, it appears Ken didn’t pay attention to the information.  We’re these kids taught “millions of years” in their youth at church?  Largely not.

Ken tells us about these 1,000 people on page 45 . . .

Of those  who attended Sunday school, over 9 in 10 said that their Sunday school classes taught them that the Bible was true and accurate.

Only 1 in 10 said their pastor/Sunday school teacher taught that Christians could believe in Darwinian evolution.

One in 4 said their pastors and Sunday school teachers taught that Christians could believe in an earth that is millions or billions of years old.

Over 4 in 5 said their pastor or Sunday school teacher taught that God created the earth in six 24-hour days.

Only 1 in 16 said their pastors or Sunday school teachers taught that the Book of Genesis was a myth or legend and not real history.

All 1,000 of these people are not “attending church” today.  But when you look at those stats, it appears most of them were not taught “millions of years.”  So how can the church teaching millions of years be the cause of their departure?  It can’t because most of them weren’t taught it in church!

You may not like what I say next, and I am not claiming to speak for Jeff and all of Full-proof when I say this.  This is just Joe Myzia talking.  I think the cause of their departure may not be “millions of years” but “thousands of years.”  Now that doesn’t speak for everyone because the stats do show some were taught an old earth/universe view.  However, it does speak for most of them as we look at those stats.  More than 4 of 5 were taught literal six 24-hour days.  The heaviest stat in Ken’s favor is that 1 of 4 pastors taught Christians could believe in millions/billions of years.  But even that only has 250 of 1,000 being taught old earth/universe.

As Christians, we should be well-informed in as many ways as possible.  My personal opinion is that the view of a young-earth/universe has been brutally assaulted by a gang of facts.  However, while that has happened, the evidence for Darwinian and/or neo-Darwinian evolution has been also brutally assaulted.  Old-earth/universe does not automatically make macro-evolution true (macro-evolution is the idea that one species becomes another).  I think this is where Ken makes mistakes.  Ken regular makes category mistakes by automatically throwing macro-evolution in with an old earth/universe.  This can, and often does, result in “straw man” representations of old-earth Christians.

So how do I propose that kids taught young-earth creationism are in danger of falling away?  First of all, if students aren’t taught firmly that this is an area of debate in Christianity, but rather are taught with hardcore dogmatism that the earth is young, and if the scientific evidence becomes too convincing for them against the young-earth view, then they may have the misunderstanding that they have no other Christian camp to go to.  Thus, they may jettison the whole Christian worldview.  Secondly, teach a proper understanding that the Bible is sixty-six books, not one book. If a young adult sees the Bible as one book and struggles for a period in understanding one book, they can’t throw out the other sixty-five automatically.  Remember, we couldn’t always purchase a leather-bound codex with all sixty-six books in it.  They were all individual documents created at individual times. Thirdly, teach proper apologetics and good linear thinking in how we come to conclusions.  I can’t find the page, but Ken states somewhere in the book (and often in podcasts and public speaking events) that we believe in the resurrection because the Bible is the word of God and the Bible claims Jesus was resurrected.  He’ll do it in a question and answer type format.  He’ll ask, “Why do we believe in the resurrection?  Because the Bible says so.”  I do not think that is the proper way to teach resurrection and creation apologetics.  Oh, I absolutely believe the Bible is the word of God, but we don’t have to posit that to prove the resurrection.  The only place we must get to is proving that the gospel accounts and/or Paul’s epistles are historically reliable.  If Matthew states that Jesus said X, then Jesus said X.  If Mark says Jesus did Y, the Jesus did Y.  Proving the divine authorship and inerrancy of these books is further down the line in our argumentation in good apologetics.

By teaching teens in a way that they take the whole Bible as one book and getting them into a mindset that we believe X because the Bible says X, once they begin to have a doubt about one point they begin to doubt the entire Bible.  Once they don’t believe one doctrine, they toss the whole worldview.

By teaching teens:

• the difference between essential Christianity and non-essential Christianity (and we can’t give this lip service . . . we can’t say something is not an essential and treat it as essential after that, and this is what Ken does)
• about ways in which Christians disagree and why different Christians hold those views and respecting Christians who hold a differing viewpoint than we do
• how the Bible came to be book-by-book, how it was inspired and written down and then how it was transmitted through the centuries to today

we can equip them so that they don’t fall away from the faith if a non-B.A.S.I.C.S. point is challenged.  The age of the earth/universe is a debatable point inside the pale of orthodox Christianity.  Let’s not confuse this issue with an issue such as who God is or how one is saved or any other B.A.S.I.C.S. doctrine.

What place should opinion hold in the search for truth?

I just finished listening to a debate (or rather a discussion following a formal debate) between Messianic Jew Dr. Michael Brown and Jewish Rabbi Shmuley Boteach on the British radio station Unbelivable, which can be found either by clicking the website link provided here or visiting the iTunes Podcast of the show.  While listening, I was impressed (or perhaps at times unimpressed) by the method of engagement by the American Rabbi Boteach.

While this may seem simply a matter of bias, allow me to explain.  As I would naturally tend to side with the conclusions of Dr. Brown, it is not then always true that I would conclude with Dr. Brown’s methodology. To put it another way, I may agree with the ends, but not the means.  That being said, had Dr. Brown made the same mistake in his approach, I would have no problem contending with him on the same grounds – regardless of whether or not I agreed with his conclusion.  Two individuals may drive separate cars and take separate routes to the same destination, but that does not mean that while they arrived at the same place, the routes were of equal merit.

As to how it related to this debate, throughout the entire discussion, Rabbi Boteach made appeals to an emotional distaste for the claims Dr. Brown was making.  Understanding fully why the Rabbi found such things distasteful, nevertheless it bothered me that he was using his subjective analysis as an argument against what was being said.  I was surprised to see such an accomplished Jewish scholar resorting to such weak argumentation.  It occurred to me that a quick post might be in order to address in a general sense, this faulty method of arguing – especially since we laymen are even more prone to guilt in this area.

Essentially, Rabbi Boteach was allowing his opinion (driven by emotion) to become the foundation for his argumentation.  Which leads us to the question: Does opinion have a place in matters of right and wrong? Obviously, as I have already laid out much of my thesis against this method, my answer would be a resounding “NO!”  My reason for that is quite simple: there is no limit to the breadth of opinion on any given subject.  In point of fact, there may very well be as many opinions as there are those given opinions.  No one in their right mind would argue that each person’s opinion is as close to the truth as any other.  Truth, to the contrary, by its very nature is narrow, and gives no consideration to matters of sincerity or desire of those opining.

Consider a classroom of students all asked to give the sum of 2 and 3.  The number of answers could likely match the number of students.  The teacher, however, has only one answer in mind – the correct answer.  While each of the students may be equally convinced in their minds and equally sincere in their hearts, truth excludes those factors as adequate criteria for determining truth.  (You may recall a previous post in which we gave consideration to a section of Dr. Norman Geisler’s Systematic Theology where he deals with Truth and Relativism.)  Hence, we cannot allow our emotional appeals to drive our argumentation when seeking to determine truth.

I urge the reader to listen to the dialogue yourself and consider the contention I’ve made in this article.  Sometimes seeing is believing – or in this case hearing is believing.  Give it a listen and let me know what you think about both the debate and our analysis of it.

Jeff wrote a commentary on 1 Peter 3:15 in which he pointed out (somewhat amusingly) that he had highlighted the part about always being ready to give an answer, but did not highlight the part about doing so with gentleness and respect.  Readers may not always pay attention to comments on posts Jeff or I do, but one reader brought up something that others may think about from time to time that I think is worth addressing.

What about when Paul apparently wasn’t gentle or respectful?  What about how Jesus sometimes dealt with people such as the Pharisees and other religious leaders?  Is there a time for us to use “stronger” words?

My approach is that Paul is an apostle.  I am not an apostle.  Jesus is the Christ.  I am not the Christ.  Since I am neither the Christ, nor an apostle of the Christ, I simple obey the apostle of Christ in 1 Peter 3:15.  That’s my approach.  I’m not saying that someone may not have a better thought than I.  However, whenever I use “stronger” words, it seems to close more doors than open them.  Rather than using stronger words, I study to find better, more effective words.  I ponder what may be a better question I could ask someone to get them to think outside their box a little more than they have thought before.

I recently finished reading a wonderful book entitled Thinking About God: First Steps in Philosophy by Greg Ganssle.  If one wants to be good at theology and apologetics, it really is helpful to equip oneself in philosophy.  I once heard Hank Hanegraaff, the host of the Bible Answer Man radio program, state that his most effective employees at the Christian Research Institute were those who were trained in philosophy.  Jeff Whittum and I are both currently reading Dr. Norman Geisler‘s Systematic Theology Volume 1.  I have no doubt that one of the things that makes Dr. Geisler’s theology book so much better than so many others I’ve read is not only his theological training, but his extensive philosophical training and study.

For those with no background in philosophy, there may be no better place to start than Dr. Ganssle’s book.  First of all, it’s short.  The last page of the index is page 187.  It’s not tiny print either.  It isn’t large print, but it isn’t tiny.

Secondly, those pages are divided into 27 chapters.  This means that if we divide 187 pages by 27 chapters, we end up with really short chapters.  The longest chapter is 11 pages.  Many are only 3 or 4 pages long.  This is nice for the fact that many people are intimidated by philosophy.  I don’t think people need to be intimidated by it and Ganssle’s book is the place for any and all who are (and even those who aren’t).  The chapters are bite sized and if you knock out one a day, then in a month you’ll have finished this small, but effective intro to philosophy.

Thirdly, Ganssle is very conversational in his style.  He writes as if he’s sitting in your living room having a conversation with a friend.  In all three of these ways, his intro to philosophy is easier than any other I own.

You won’t learn too many of the $50 big words of philosophy in this book.  You won’t learn a history of philosophy.  You won’t learn many of the names and dates of people or the fancy names assigned to their concepts.  What do you expect in 187 pages?  But Greg teaches you and me how to think.

His book divides into four parts:

1. Introduction
2. Reasons to believe in God
3. God and evil
4. What is God like?

In the introduction he spends 6 chapters on things like what philosophy is, what faith is and deals with the issue of whether or not we can be neutral in dealing with topics like God.

In the section of Reasons to believe in God he spends 10 chapters going over three of the most commonly used and accepted arguments for God:

1. cosmological argument
2. teleological argument
3. moral argument

Though again, he doesn’t use the big words I just used.

He spends six chapters in part three (God and evil) going over . . . well, God and evil.  Here he explores issues such as freedom and determinism.

In part four (What is God like?) He goes over some basic theology of a theistic god such as omnipotence and omniscience.

There’s no glossary.  There really doesn’t need to be.

Great read.  I recommend it highly.  I might read it again soon just to see if I can pick up another nugget or two or just to let his style permeate mine a little more.

The oldest alleged naturalistic explanation for why the tomb was empty was that Jesus’ disciples had stolen the body.  This story was first propagated by the Jewish leaders who wanted to stifle the inevitable explosion of growth that would be realized when word got out that this tomb was in fact empty.  So, does the stolen body theory work?  Read the words of Scottish Theologian Principal Hill and decide for yourself:

“But if not withstanding every appearance of truth, you suppose their testimony to be false, then inexplicable circumstances of glaring absurdity crowd upon you. You must suppose that twelve men of mean birth, of no education, living in that humble station which placed ambitious views out of their reach and far from their thoughts, without any aid from the state, formed the noblest scheme which ever entered into the mind of man, adopted the most daring means of executing that scheme, and conducted it with such address as to conceal the imposture under the semblance of simplicity and virtue. You must suppose that men guilty of blasphemy and falsehood, united in an attempt the best contrived, and which has in fact proved the most successful, for making the world virtuous; that they formed this singular enterprise without seeking any advantage to themselves, with an avowed contempt of loss and profit, and with the certain expectation of scorn and persecution; that although conscious of one another’s villainy, none of them ever thought of providing for his own security by disclosing the fraud, but that amidst sufferings the most grievous to flesh and blood they persevered in their conspiracy to cheat the world into piety, honesty and benevolence. Truly, they who can swallow such suppositions have no title to object to miracles.”

You see, the stolen body theory was simply the best thing they could come up with on such short notice and because of one HUGE problem – the tomb WAS empty!  As demonstrated, however, this theory falls short on several fronts.

We serve a risen Savior.  Happy Easter!

2,000 years ago, an obscure man from an obscure family, living in an obscure town made the claim that He was the Son of God – indeed God Himself. While that claim seems outrageous enough to us, it was infinitely more outrageous to the Jewish culture of the 1st century, which counted it blasphemy for any human being to claim divinity and were appalled by the very idea. Despite their best efforts to refute this alleged God-man, Jesus Christ not only claimed to be the Son of God, but backed it up with some 30 (recorded) miracles – not the least of which was rising from the dead. The funny thing is, those most opposed to the teachings of Jesus never claimed that He didn’t do the things that He said He did – they simply attempted to make the miracles out to be demonic in nature, rather than divine. The problem, though, was that the very nature of the miracles that were performed refuted the idea of having been born of malevolence – you’re probably familiar with Jesus’ response: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” What’s more, none of Jesus’ enemies ever refuted the idea that the tomb was in fact empty on the third day, just as He had predicted. They simply attempted to find an alternative explanation, which paled in comparison to the truth: Jesus Christ had predicted and accomplished His own resurrection from the dead, just as promised.

C.S. Lewis pointed out that we are granted three options when it comes to the person of Jesus Christ:
1. We can choose to pity Him as a mad-man or fool…for who else would claim to be God if He wasn’t?
2. We can spit on Him as a very demon of hell, for who else would convince his friends to die for a lie?
3. OR – We can fall on our faces and worship Him as the very Son of God He proved Himself to be.

You see, we don’t have the option of just respecting Him as a good teacher or prophet – I can think of a lot of words to call someone who calls themselves God and convinces their friends to die for that claim when in fact they are not, but GOOD is not one of them. We frankly weren’t given that verdict as an option. God Almighty never intended for it to be an option.

So what is Christ to YOU, this Easter – your Lunatic? your Liar? or your Lord and Savior?

Choose as if your life depends on it…IT DOES.

1 Peter 3:15

Often apologists for the Christian faith wave the banner of 1 Peter 3:15 in justification of their “no holds barred” defense of it.  As an amateur apologist myself, I stand as guilty as those I charge with that statement.  You see, we have a tendency to clamor to the “Be ready always to give an answer (defense)…” portion, but to the compromise of the very method by which that defense is to be given-”…with gentleness and respect.” [emphases mine]  To further emphasize this point, as I consulted my NIV study Bible for its rendering, I noticed that I only had part of the verse underlined.  As you may have guessed, it was the portion of the verse dealing with the defense of the faith, neglecting the latter half that gives instruction on the intended methodology.

I believe that simple (I dare not call it “innocent”) overlooking speaks volumes of human nature in general, and mine in particular.  When I was serving in the armed forces, I remember it dawning on me that I was always focused on molding those under me to be good at the things that I was good at.  I remember even justifying my lack in one area with my strength in another, instead of dealing with the weakness to get rid of it.  It is a natural human tendency to focus on what we are good at or what appeals to us and disregard areas that don’t come as easy.  Likewise in the Christian faith, it is easy to become inspired about rushing to the defense of the One, True God (as if He somehow needs our help), but to completely neglect the greater principles laid out for us so clearly in Matthew 22:34-40. In this passage, Jesus is asked by a Jewish lawyer what the greatest commandments were.  He told them to hang all of the law and the prophets on these two things: that we are to first love the Lord with all of our heart, soul and mind and, second only to this, we are to love our neighbors as ourselves.  That includes, much to our fleshly chagrin, those neighbors with whom we disagree the most and are often called to refute.

You see, all Scriptural mandates then are to flow from a heart of first, love for God and second, a love for our neighbors at least commensurate with the love we have for ourselves.  Think about these principles the next time you have an opportunity to “give a defense.”  Will you obey the entire verse or just the part that comes easy?

So, attractive as relative theories for truth may appear, they actually fail before they’ve even gotten off the ground.  Truth is objective, truth is real, truth is absolute.

The Bible tells us that God’s Word is truth.  In fact, Psalm 119:160 tells us that the grand total (sum) of His Word is truth.  Jesus said in John 14:6 that He is the Way, the TRUTH, and the life – that no man can come to the Father, but by Him.  If that statement is true, and truth is absolute, then this is a very exclusive and sobering verse.  No man can come to the Father (enter heaven) but by Him.  Thankfully, Jesus didn’t just leave claims in His Word that what He said was true, He left an empty tomb behind to prove His Word(s) were true.  John 8:31-32 tells us that if we abide in His word, we will know the truth, and the truth will set us free.

We need not fear the pursuit of truth, nor be embarrassed to embrace that truth once it’s been found.  If we stand for nothing, we’re liable to fall for anything.  Test what you’re standing on, but when you find firm ground, there’s nothing wrong with staying there.