"When superiority is based on ideas of a master race with long roots into the past, it is propagated as an ideology by the powerful, by propagandists, repeated many times to drown out doubt and hesitations, and to create a sense of belonging, purpose and uniqueness. In that ideological and cultural climate a suspicion of imperfection is squashed in the bud by a controlled press, ideological education and now, in the case of Chine, by an appeal to Confucian ethic and social submission. Other societies have done similar things. Hitler appealed to Germanic roots and Nordic myths. Islam appeals to the Qu’Ran. Russia appeals to nationalism, its bloody history, centuries of sufferings and claiming to be the third Jerusalem, the only true understanding of Christianity. In each case the appeal is made in order to drown out real displeasure, doubt and questions about reality." - Udo Middlemann, "The Bible is Revelation, not Quoteable quotes"Featured Posts
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Sunday Morning Quote ~ Udo Middlemann
"When superiority is based on ideas of a master race with long roots into the past, it is propagated as an ideology by the powerful, by propagandists, repeated many times to drown out doubt and hesitations, and to create a sense of belonging, purpose and uniqueness. In that ideological and cultural climate a suspicion of imperfection is squashed in the bud by a controlled press, ideological education and now, in the case of Chine, by an appeal to Confucian ethic and social submission. Other societies have done similar things. Hitler appealed to Germanic roots and Nordic myths. Islam appeals to the Qu’Ran. Russia appeals to nationalism, its bloody history, centuries of sufferings and claiming to be the third Jerusalem, the only true understanding of Christianity. In each case the appeal is made in order to drown out real displeasure, doubt and questions about reality." - Udo Middlemann, "The Bible is Revelation, not Quoteable quotes"
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
A Response to the Village Atheists’ Claim that Jesus Never Existed
Over the last few weeks I have been "back and forthing" with some of the "village atheists on FredTalk. One of the threads have been on the origin of morality and a moral law and some how a posting on a particular thread lead to a challenge to me about whether or not Jesus actually existed. I worked on this response today and this is the text. Before moving forward, I am grateful to some of the sources I had to read while undertaking the Certified Apologetics Instructor program with the North American Mission Board. One of those sources is Paul Maier's essay on "Did Jesus Really Exist?"* Much of this essay is from the content along with some of my own personal study on this very subject as well.
One of the more ludicrous claims made by those embracing the “new atheism” and militant atheism is that Jesus never existed in human history. Some are willing to claim that the man Jesus did exist, but He was not the unique Son of God that Christians claim.[1]
Those who vehemently say, “No, he didn’t exist!” think that this is a powerful level by which to pry people away from “the fable of Christianity.”[2] But this a weak lever at its very first usage. The reason it is weak is due to there being more historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth certainly lived than for most famous figures of the ancient past. The evidence that I will present here will be two kinds: (1) internal (sacred) and (2) external (secular). The external evidence will have three branches to it ranging from Christian Church Fathers, Jewish sources and lastly, external sources coming from the Roman historians. In both of these cases, the total evidence is overpowering, and so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus’ existence. And yet, this pathetic denial is still parroted by the “village atheist”, bloggers on the internet, or such organizations as the Freedom from Religion Foundation.
A Look at the Internal Evidence
Aside from the many Messianic predictions found in the Old Testament, not one of the four gospels or the 23 remaining documents in the New Testament would make an ounce of sense if Jesus had never lived. Did the whole cavalcade of well-known historical personalities in the first century AD, who interacted with Jesus deal with a vacuum? Did Herod the Great try to terminate a ghost or a phantom? Did the Jewish high priests Annas or Caiaphas interview a spook? What about Pointius Pilate? Did this Roman governor/procurator judge a ghost on the day he wrote the order to have Jesus crucified? What about the apostle Paul and so many of the early disciples who encountered Jesus after his resurrection as well as during his earthly ministry? Did they give their lives for a myth?
No one doubts that the above names are well known from both sacred and secular sources, as well as archaeological evidence, and are therefore historical. The same holds true of Jesus of Nazareth. So why then is Jesus not permitted the “luxury” of actually having lived as did the rest of these historical people? Why is there a hypocritical standard here?
From the internal, biblical evidence alone, therefore Jesus’ existence is simply categorical. There is also an abundance of additional extra-biblical (external/secular) information on this question. Let's move to the external evidences now.
The External Evidence: Christian
I could give additional attention to writings of the early Church Fathers, some of whom had close contact with New Testament personalities. One of Jesus’ disciples, John later became the bishop of the church at Ephesus. One of John's students was Polycarp, who was the bishop of Smyrna and student of his was Irenaeus of Lyon. The central focus of all their writings was Jesus the Christ (“Messiah”).
Apart from such living personal links to Jesus, both geographical and temporal tangencies appear in the writings of Justin Martyr. Justin was born of pagan parents around AD 100 in Nablus (between Judea and Galilee). Justin tried and abandoned various philosophical schools of thought until he found Christianity the one true teaching. As a native of the Holy Land, Martyr mentions sites that are associated with Jesus of Nazareth, such as the Bethlehem grotto in which he was born. He also mentions details such as Jesus working as an apprentice carpenter in the shop of his foster father Joseph, where they specialized in producing agricultural implements like yokes for oxen and plows.
External Evidence: Jewish
As far as any Jewish evidence for Jesus having historically existing, there is plenty coming from the rabbinical tradition. Within this tradition there is plenty of Jewish rabbinical writings that mention Jesus. There are sources that spell his name accurately in Aramaic, his native tongue: Yeshua Hannotzri -- Joshua (Jesus) of Nazareth. Some of the references to Jesus in the Talmud are garbled -- this is probably due to the vagaries of oral tradition -- but one is especially accurate, since it seems to be based upon written sources from the Mishna -- the earliest collection of writings in the Talmud. This is no less than the arrest notice for Jesus, which runs as follows:
"He shall be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and lured Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. Anyone who knows where he is, let him declare it to the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.
In this statement there are four items which support its authenticity as a notice that was composed specifically before Jesus’ arrest:
These facts, as remarkable as they are, not only invoke what historians call the “criterion of embarrassment”, which proves what is conceded, but accords perfectly with how Jesus’ opponents explained away his miraculous healings: "performing them with the help of Beelzebub" (Luke 11:18).
Whether or not, the first century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus mentions “Jesus who is called the Christ” in his Jewish Antiquities is really not as important to this presentation here as another quote where he mentions the death of Jesus’ half-brother James the Just of Jerusalem (20:200). And in two books earlier, the longest and most discussed non-biblical reference to Christ, he tells of Jesus midway through his discussion of the events in Pontius Pilate’s administration:
"At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day." (Jewish Antiquities, 18:63: Arabic Version)[3]
This is the recent, uninterpolated text that replaces the traditional version taken from a Greek version, which, unfortunately, has suffered early interpolation.
External Evidence: Secular
Some of the most reliable pieces of evidence come from the side of what is called “enemy attestation.” These attestations come from the pens of the Roman historians: Cornelius Tacitus (a.k.a. “Tacitus”), Gaius Seutonius (a.k.a. “Seutonius”) and Pliny the Younger. Of these three sources Tacitus is one of the most reliable source historians of first century Rome.
In his Annals he wrote a year by year account of the events in the Roman Empire under the early reigns of the Caesars. Among the highlights that he reported in AD 64 was the great fire of Rome. The people blamed the emperor Nero for this inferno, since it happened under his watch, but in order to save himself, Nero passed the blame to “the Christians,” which is the first time they appear in secular history. Tacitus, being the careful historian that was, he explains who “the Christians” were:
“Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. (Annals, 15:44).
Notice Tacitus’ words, reporting the hatred toward Christians and the horrors that were inflicted on the them in what became the first Roman persecution. With his words in his Annals, let it be noted that Tacitus was not some Christian historian who was trying to prove that Jesus Christ really lived. He was a pagan who despised Christians describing them as a "disease," a term he uses later in the passage. If Jesus had never existed, Tacitus would have been the first to expose that pathetic phantom on whom such cultists placed their trust. And even if no other references to Jesus available, this passage alone would have been sufficient to establish his historicity.
Educated skeptics realize this, and so have tried every imaginable means to discredit this passage—but to no avail. Those who are participating in more in depth manuscript analysis and computer studies, from both sides of the debate, have never found any reason to call this sentence into question, nor its context.
A second source of enemy attestation is from Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (Seutonius), who recorded events of the first century in his famous Lives of the Twelve Caesars. Seutonius also regarded Christians as a sect “professing a new and mischievous religious belief” (Nero, 16) and cited “Christus” as well, as spelling his name “Chrestus” (Claudius, 25). Some might think that this is an inconsistency in the spelling “Christ” for ancient times, despite the fact the vowels “e” and “i” were often interchangeable is demonstrated by the French term for “Christian” to this day: “chretien.”[4]
Finally, there is Pliny the Younger (Pliny). Pliney was the Roman governor of Bithynia—today, located in what is known as the northwestern corner of Turkey—and about the year AD 110 he wrote the Emperor Trajan (98-117 A.D.), asking what to do about the Christians, a "wretched cult" whom he mentions eight times in his letter. In this letter, Christ himself is cited three times, the most famous instance referring to Christians ". . . who met on a fixed day to chant verses alternately among themselves in honor of Christ, as if to a god..." (Letter No. 96). Trajan's response, interestingly enough, suggests that Christians not be hunted out. (Ibid., No. 97). But again, if Christ were only a mythical character, these hostile sources would have been the first to emblazon that fact in derision.
There are other sources that can be mentioned to settle this matter of whether or not Jesus Christ actually existed in time space history. Some of the other ancient secular sources like Theudas and Mara bar Serapion also bear witness to the historicity of Jesus. But any further evidence clearly comes under the category of "beating a dead horse" as far as this response is concerned. Nothing more is necessary in view of the overpowering evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was certainly no myth, but a totally historical figure who truly lived.
My thoughts about skeptics wanting to challenge Jesus’ existence should not be toward whether or not he actually existed. The problem that skeptics should focus on instead is whether or not Jesus was more than a man. That, at least, could invite a reasonable debate among reasonable inquirers, rather than a pointless discussion with sensationalists who struggle to reject the obvious.
Source: *Paul L. Maier, Did Jesus Really Exist?
Notes:
[1] I spoke with one of my neighbors, a teen ager and asked him if he thought Jesus existed. He said he believed that there is all kinds of evidence. Then I shared with him this essay.
[2] I find it fascinating that many Christians who have not considered this question hearing this charge coming from the new atheism are so susceptible to believing it. Why is this?
[3] The most popular quote comes out of a Greek translation and is quoted in William Whiston's (1667-1752) compilation of the Works of Josephus, containing the "Testimonium Flavianum" which states the following: "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Whiston, 379)
[4] Je parle français un petit peu. (I speak French a little bit) having forgotten a lot of my vocabulary and grammar. However I did give my testimony in French at Oklahoma Baptist University and the word "chretien" is the the word "Christian" en français.
One of the more ludicrous claims made by those embracing the “new atheism” and militant atheism is that Jesus never existed in human history. Some are willing to claim that the man Jesus did exist, but He was not the unique Son of God that Christians claim.[1]
Those who vehemently say, “No, he didn’t exist!” think that this is a powerful level by which to pry people away from “the fable of Christianity.”[2] But this a weak lever at its very first usage. The reason it is weak is due to there being more historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth certainly lived than for most famous figures of the ancient past. The evidence that I will present here will be two kinds: (1) internal (sacred) and (2) external (secular). The external evidence will have three branches to it ranging from Christian Church Fathers, Jewish sources and lastly, external sources coming from the Roman historians. In both of these cases, the total evidence is overpowering, and so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus’ existence. And yet, this pathetic denial is still parroted by the “village atheist”, bloggers on the internet, or such organizations as the Freedom from Religion Foundation.
A Look at the Internal Evidence
Aside from the many Messianic predictions found in the Old Testament, not one of the four gospels or the 23 remaining documents in the New Testament would make an ounce of sense if Jesus had never lived. Did the whole cavalcade of well-known historical personalities in the first century AD, who interacted with Jesus deal with a vacuum? Did Herod the Great try to terminate a ghost or a phantom? Did the Jewish high priests Annas or Caiaphas interview a spook? What about Pointius Pilate? Did this Roman governor/procurator judge a ghost on the day he wrote the order to have Jesus crucified? What about the apostle Paul and so many of the early disciples who encountered Jesus after his resurrection as well as during his earthly ministry? Did they give their lives for a myth?
No one doubts that the above names are well known from both sacred and secular sources, as well as archaeological evidence, and are therefore historical. The same holds true of Jesus of Nazareth. So why then is Jesus not permitted the “luxury” of actually having lived as did the rest of these historical people? Why is there a hypocritical standard here?
From the internal, biblical evidence alone, therefore Jesus’ existence is simply categorical. There is also an abundance of additional extra-biblical (external/secular) information on this question. Let's move to the external evidences now.
The External Evidence: Christian
I could give additional attention to writings of the early Church Fathers, some of whom had close contact with New Testament personalities. One of Jesus’ disciples, John later became the bishop of the church at Ephesus. One of John's students was Polycarp, who was the bishop of Smyrna and student of his was Irenaeus of Lyon. The central focus of all their writings was Jesus the Christ (“Messiah”).
Apart from such living personal links to Jesus, both geographical and temporal tangencies appear in the writings of Justin Martyr. Justin was born of pagan parents around AD 100 in Nablus (between Judea and Galilee). Justin tried and abandoned various philosophical schools of thought until he found Christianity the one true teaching. As a native of the Holy Land, Martyr mentions sites that are associated with Jesus of Nazareth, such as the Bethlehem grotto in which he was born. He also mentions details such as Jesus working as an apprentice carpenter in the shop of his foster father Joseph, where they specialized in producing agricultural implements like yokes for oxen and plows.
External Evidence: Jewish
As far as any Jewish evidence for Jesus having historically existing, there is plenty coming from the rabbinical tradition. Within this tradition there is plenty of Jewish rabbinical writings that mention Jesus. There are sources that spell his name accurately in Aramaic, his native tongue: Yeshua Hannotzri -- Joshua (Jesus) of Nazareth. Some of the references to Jesus in the Talmud are garbled -- this is probably due to the vagaries of oral tradition -- but one is especially accurate, since it seems to be based upon written sources from the Mishna -- the earliest collection of writings in the Talmud. This is no less than the arrest notice for Jesus, which runs as follows:
"He shall be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and lured Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. Anyone who knows where he is, let him declare it to the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.
In this statement there are four items which support its authenticity as a notice that was composed specifically before Jesus’ arrest:
- The future tense is used;
- Stoning was the regular punishment for blasphemy among the Jews whenever the Roman government was not involved.
- There is no reference whatsoever to crucifixion, and
- That Jesus was performing “sorcery” -- the extraordinary or miraculous with a negative spin.
These facts, as remarkable as they are, not only invoke what historians call the “criterion of embarrassment”, which proves what is conceded, but accords perfectly with how Jesus’ opponents explained away his miraculous healings: "performing them with the help of Beelzebub" (Luke 11:18).
Whether or not, the first century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus mentions “Jesus who is called the Christ” in his Jewish Antiquities is really not as important to this presentation here as another quote where he mentions the death of Jesus’ half-brother James the Just of Jerusalem (20:200). And in two books earlier, the longest and most discussed non-biblical reference to Christ, he tells of Jesus midway through his discussion of the events in Pontius Pilate’s administration:
"At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day." (Jewish Antiquities, 18:63: Arabic Version)[3]
This is the recent, uninterpolated text that replaces the traditional version taken from a Greek version, which, unfortunately, has suffered early interpolation.
External Evidence: Secular
Some of the most reliable pieces of evidence come from the side of what is called “enemy attestation.” These attestations come from the pens of the Roman historians: Cornelius Tacitus (a.k.a. “Tacitus”), Gaius Seutonius (a.k.a. “Seutonius”) and Pliny the Younger. Of these three sources Tacitus is one of the most reliable source historians of first century Rome.
In his Annals he wrote a year by year account of the events in the Roman Empire under the early reigns of the Caesars. Among the highlights that he reported in AD 64 was the great fire of Rome. The people blamed the emperor Nero for this inferno, since it happened under his watch, but in order to save himself, Nero passed the blame to “the Christians,” which is the first time they appear in secular history. Tacitus, being the careful historian that was, he explains who “the Christians” were:
“Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. (Annals, 15:44).
Notice Tacitus’ words, reporting the hatred toward Christians and the horrors that were inflicted on the them in what became the first Roman persecution. With his words in his Annals, let it be noted that Tacitus was not some Christian historian who was trying to prove that Jesus Christ really lived. He was a pagan who despised Christians describing them as a "disease," a term he uses later in the passage. If Jesus had never existed, Tacitus would have been the first to expose that pathetic phantom on whom such cultists placed their trust. And even if no other references to Jesus available, this passage alone would have been sufficient to establish his historicity.
Educated skeptics realize this, and so have tried every imaginable means to discredit this passage—but to no avail. Those who are participating in more in depth manuscript analysis and computer studies, from both sides of the debate, have never found any reason to call this sentence into question, nor its context.
A second source of enemy attestation is from Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (Seutonius), who recorded events of the first century in his famous Lives of the Twelve Caesars. Seutonius also regarded Christians as a sect “professing a new and mischievous religious belief” (Nero, 16) and cited “Christus” as well, as spelling his name “Chrestus” (Claudius, 25). Some might think that this is an inconsistency in the spelling “Christ” for ancient times, despite the fact the vowels “e” and “i” were often interchangeable is demonstrated by the French term for “Christian” to this day: “chretien.”[4]
Finally, there is Pliny the Younger (Pliny). Pliney was the Roman governor of Bithynia—today, located in what is known as the northwestern corner of Turkey—and about the year AD 110 he wrote the Emperor Trajan (98-117 A.D.), asking what to do about the Christians, a "wretched cult" whom he mentions eight times in his letter. In this letter, Christ himself is cited three times, the most famous instance referring to Christians ". . . who met on a fixed day to chant verses alternately among themselves in honor of Christ, as if to a god..." (Letter No. 96). Trajan's response, interestingly enough, suggests that Christians not be hunted out. (Ibid., No. 97). But again, if Christ were only a mythical character, these hostile sources would have been the first to emblazon that fact in derision.
There are other sources that can be mentioned to settle this matter of whether or not Jesus Christ actually existed in time space history. Some of the other ancient secular sources like Theudas and Mara bar Serapion also bear witness to the historicity of Jesus. But any further evidence clearly comes under the category of "beating a dead horse" as far as this response is concerned. Nothing more is necessary in view of the overpowering evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was certainly no myth, but a totally historical figure who truly lived.
My thoughts about skeptics wanting to challenge Jesus’ existence should not be toward whether or not he actually existed. The problem that skeptics should focus on instead is whether or not Jesus was more than a man. That, at least, could invite a reasonable debate among reasonable inquirers, rather than a pointless discussion with sensationalists who struggle to reject the obvious.
Source: *Paul L. Maier, Did Jesus Really Exist?
Notes:
[1] I spoke with one of my neighbors, a teen ager and asked him if he thought Jesus existed. He said he believed that there is all kinds of evidence. Then I shared with him this essay.
[2] I find it fascinating that many Christians who have not considered this question hearing this charge coming from the new atheism are so susceptible to believing it. Why is this?
[3] The most popular quote comes out of a Greek translation and is quoted in William Whiston's (1667-1752) compilation of the Works of Josephus, containing the "Testimonium Flavianum" which states the following: "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Whiston, 379)
[4] Je parle français un petit peu. (I speak French a little bit) having forgotten a lot of my vocabulary and grammar. However I did give my testimony in French at Oklahoma Baptist University and the word "chretien" is the the word "Christian" en français.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Sunday Morning Quote ~ Michael Ramsden, Conversational Apologetics
"There has been a very big divergence between the historical development and definition of apologetics and its biblical definition. I have no trouble admitting that at all, but that is a disastrous development – absolutely disastrous. Now there are going to be people out there with incredible philosophical minds who will take this to a very deep level. That’s fine. But Peter can’t be addressing himself at that level, can he? Because unless you are a master of philosophy, how will you ever be in a position to give that kind of apologetic? In other words, this idea of conversational apologetics – engaging with hairdressers, taxi drivers, your next-door neighbors, your friends, your family, meaningfully, with the gospel, I suggest to you from Scripture, is meant to be something which every member of the body of Christ should be able to do. It is not an optional extra. Two commands are given back to back: "In your hearts set apart Christ as Lord," and "always be prepared to give an answer, an apologetic, to everyone who asks you for the reason for the hope that you have." We don’t have 1) Basic Christianity that’s got like, the lordship issue settled out, and then 2) Christianity Deluxe, with advanced theology, apologetics and a couple of extra software modules plugged in. Apologetics is part of the basic package. Apologetics therefore must live or die within the life of the church. It died in Western Europe when it became an abstract intellectual discipline as opposed to a spiritual dynamic exercise that was right at the heart of the church. Yes, there will be specialists, there will be people who have incredible ability, but that’s not all there is to it. It’s just as dangerous for apologetics to end up in a small group of specialists as it would be for theology to only exist amongst academic theologians. I know it sometimes feels like when we’re in the church, that’s what's happened, but we don’t feel that’s healthy. Part of the problem is that we’ve often made it so complicated, which is why someone complained, 'The trouble with theologians is they go down deeper, stay down longer, and come up murkier than anybody else.' Now that’s not always true, and so we thank God for people like Don Carson who come and take theology and make it accessible. Similarly, to me, this is what is happening here, so part of the vision I want to share is: What would it look like if we were sharing this in the church, if we are a church where this is happening, where the members of the congregation can answer the ‘why’ to people who ask them?" ~ Michael Ramsden, Conversational Apologetics. (To listen to Michael's talk on this subject you can listen to it at http://ww.bethinking.org or by clicking here)Monday, January 23, 2012
Lee Strobel: We're on Cusp of Golden Era of Apologetics
By Alex Murashko | Christian Post ReporterChristians should understand that being able to give reasons for their faith is not merely an option – it's biblically mandated, says apologetics author and speaker Lee Strobel.
To help Christians better explain and defend their faith, Strobel and ministry associate Mark Mittelberg have launched The Institute at Cherry Hills, an apologetics and evangelism ministry at Cherry Hills Community Church in Highlands Ranch, Colo. The institute is aimed at innovating new approaches to defending and sharing the faith.
Strobel and Mittelberg will kick off a series of national simulcasts to be hosted at churches starting in March with the event "The Questions Christians Hope No One Will Ask," based on Mittelberg's book by the same title. Click here to continue reading. . .
The Third Column, No This is Not "V"[1]
Not too long ago I was conversing with a fellow believer about the role of apologetics in the church. During that conversation, I shared a burden that has been with me since I was gloriously converted from skepticism some 31 years ago. It is how God has wired me. In fact right after my salvation experience, I wanted to KNOW why the Christian is true, because I found as a skeptic then, that the problem still remains. That problem is that we do not know why we believe what we believe is really true.
That being said, I subscribe to some of the apologetics ministries that I support monetarily and use to equip folks in the defense of the faith. One of the many ministries is Stand to Reason, from whom I receive their newsletter Solid Ground.
In the January edition of Solid Ground, Greg Koukl explains the years following the 1925 Scopes trial “Christianity lost its claim as a player in the marketplace of ideas.” When this occurred, and began to warp the culture into a Neo-Darwinian/agnostic/atheistic worldview, a wave of apologists emerged on the front that Greg considers "the first column". This first column emerged to lead in the fight to defend the Gospel. In its formation, those who were and still are leading the charge are men like Norm Geisler, John Warwick Montgomery, Francis Schaeffer, Josh McDowell, and Walter Martin. These men have paved the way in bringing Christianity back into the forefront of the “marketplace of ideas.”
Koukl then presents what he calls "the second column". This column is much bigger than the first and consists of men and women like Ravi Zacharias, Craig Hazen, Chuck Colson, Nancy Pearcy, Os Guinness, David Noebel, Gary Habermas, Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, and Stephen Meyer. This column was influenced either directly or indirectly by the first and is still on the front lines equipping Christians to defend historical Christianity and its need for conversation in the "marketplace of ideas. This column IS STILL SHOWING that Christianity is still worth thinking about.
The third and final column has started to form, and it is massive. It is made up of “sharp, committed ambassadors for Christ who are students of those in the first two columns and are grouping up with others of kindred spirit in their local communities. Their names will probably never grace the cover of a book or be in lights on an apologetics conference marquee. Instead, they are foot soldiers with boots on the ground, individually being faithful to defend the Gospel in smaller arenas their Commander in Chief has entrusted to them.”
Greg likens them to "small bands -- little platoons" that "Edmund Burke called them -- of ordinary people making a difference right where they live. Those of us in the third column are not large organizations[2] or huge institutions. We are collective whole scattered all over the country and worldwide, seeking to show that clear thinking Christianity is worth thinking about for both the believer and the seeker of truth.
So, for those of you serving in this third column, continue to "drive on" and press forward. If you would like to read the latest edition of Solid Ground, why not check it out here at the latest edition of Solid Ground.
Notes
[1] Those of you who remember the short lived major network series "V" and the Fifth Column, might appreciate my tongue in cheek title. This article is strictly about the church using apologetics engage the culture and not some sci-fi propaganda story of aliens from another galaxy trying to infiltrate the earth.
[2] This ministry is not a large organization, but has been poking along, searching for ways to get off the ground with speaking engagements and product to equip you in defending your faith. This year I am hoping for some great progress.
That being said, I subscribe to some of the apologetics ministries that I support monetarily and use to equip folks in the defense of the faith. One of the many ministries is Stand to Reason, from whom I receive their newsletter Solid Ground.
In the January edition of Solid Ground, Greg Koukl explains the years following the 1925 Scopes trial “Christianity lost its claim as a player in the marketplace of ideas.” When this occurred, and began to warp the culture into a Neo-Darwinian/agnostic/atheistic worldview, a wave of apologists emerged on the front that Greg considers "the first column". This first column emerged to lead in the fight to defend the Gospel. In its formation, those who were and still are leading the charge are men like Norm Geisler, John Warwick Montgomery, Francis Schaeffer, Josh McDowell, and Walter Martin. These men have paved the way in bringing Christianity back into the forefront of the “marketplace of ideas.”
Koukl then presents what he calls "the second column". This column is much bigger than the first and consists of men and women like Ravi Zacharias, Craig Hazen, Chuck Colson, Nancy Pearcy, Os Guinness, David Noebel, Gary Habermas, Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, and Stephen Meyer. This column was influenced either directly or indirectly by the first and is still on the front lines equipping Christians to defend historical Christianity and its need for conversation in the "marketplace of ideas. This column IS STILL SHOWING that Christianity is still worth thinking about.
The third and final column has started to form, and it is massive. It is made up of “sharp, committed ambassadors for Christ who are students of those in the first two columns and are grouping up with others of kindred spirit in their local communities. Their names will probably never grace the cover of a book or be in lights on an apologetics conference marquee. Instead, they are foot soldiers with boots on the ground, individually being faithful to defend the Gospel in smaller arenas their Commander in Chief has entrusted to them.”
Greg likens them to "small bands -- little platoons" that "Edmund Burke called them -- of ordinary people making a difference right where they live. Those of us in the third column are not large organizations[2] or huge institutions. We are collective whole scattered all over the country and worldwide, seeking to show that clear thinking Christianity is worth thinking about for both the believer and the seeker of truth.
So, for those of you serving in this third column, continue to "drive on" and press forward. If you would like to read the latest edition of Solid Ground, why not check it out here at the latest edition of Solid Ground.
Notes
[1] Those of you who remember the short lived major network series "V" and the Fifth Column, might appreciate my tongue in cheek title. This article is strictly about the church using apologetics engage the culture and not some sci-fi propaganda story of aliens from another galaxy trying to infiltrate the earth.
[2] This ministry is not a large organization, but has been poking along, searching for ways to get off the ground with speaking engagements and product to equip you in defending your faith. This year I am hoping for some great progress.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Sunday Morning Quote ~ Francis Schaeffer
"State officials must know that we are serious about stopping abortion,...First, we must make definite that we are in no way talking about any kind of theocracy. Let me say that with great emphasis. Witherspoon, Jefferson, the American Founders had no idea of a theocracy. That is made plain by the First Amendment, and we must continually emphasize the fact that we are not talking about some kind, or any kind, of a theocracy." -- Schaeffer, Francis, A Christian Manifesto, in The Collected Works... Volume 5, pp. 485–86.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Did the Gospel Writers Make Up the Gospel Records?
Over the last few years people and even academic (secular) scholars have tried to show that the early church had corrupted the early Christian texts in order to portray Jesus as one of another kind of "messiah" or a phony Messiah at worst. If we think of this for just a little bit, there are a few problems with this objection attempting to make the gospels a fable.
Problem #1: Why didn't the early church make the people and adherents more heroic in their writings? What we see instead is the followers of Jesus misunderstanding Him, doubting what He is saying. We find them questioning Him on His teaching in parables, falling asleep while He was praying at Gethsemane, and finally fleeing from Him when He is arrested and taken to trial before His crucifixion.
Problem #2: To open this problem let me ask a question. Who wrote the gospels? Jewish men in a male dominated culture wrote the gospels. You see, one of the easiest things to overlook is that the culture was a male dominated culture, and these Jewish men are actually made into a laughing stock as Jesus appears first to women after His resurrection before He appears to the disciples. That's right, the women were the first eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection. Also if you look at the gospels, the women in the gospels believed more readily than men and in particular the apostles. If you look around the world today, in many cultures, women are believing more readily than men (i.e., India).
Problem #3: The disciples of Jesus were not too smart. You say what? They were really smart! Oh really. We have the words of the disciples showing their foolishness in tact. Take for example Peter's denial. Why would the early church, which Peter was a part of, preserve this story? Take another example of Peter's "foot in mouth" participation.
You have Peter in the gospels making a great confession of who Jesus by stating to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!" Jesus commends him for his profession of faith. Shortly after this great confession, Jesus tells of his future arrest, being handed over to sinful men and being beaten and crucified, but also three days later rising from the dead. Right after these words by Jesus, Peter blurts out "God forbid it Lord!" Jesus responds to this with "Get behind Me Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests but man's!" Jesus calls Peter Satan and a stumbling block. If the early church were making things up, why is this in there? Unless. . . it is an actual historical account.
Problem #4: Probably the biggest problem for accusers saying that the disciples (gospels writers) made up the gospel accounts is the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus. You see, if Jesus did not die on the cross and if He did not rise from the dead, why did the disciples not escape the death of a martyr? Why did the disciples produce the body of Jesus so as to escape their own deaths?
You see, Jesus could have made an irrefutable claim. He could have said, "You kill Me, and will raise spiritually from the dead." You and I cannot refute that! But He didn't say that and the disciples did die brutal deaths (crucifixion, even crucified upside down, drawn and quartered, beheaded, dragged behind horses in the streets, skin removal, speared, thrown off of a building, stoned, et al). All of this could have been avoided if they only recanted, called Caesar "Lord", and told their torturers where they hid the body of Jesus.
Not even the enemies of Jesus could produce the body. The body is nowhere to be found because the grave is empty, and Jesus is risen. And He will give eternal life to those who will call upon His name and believe in Him as their only means for redemption, repenting of their sins and following Him in faith, until the end.
These four problems make it unavoidable to say that the gospels are authentic, and they are not made up. What do you say?
Problem #1: Why didn't the early church make the people and adherents more heroic in their writings? What we see instead is the followers of Jesus misunderstanding Him, doubting what He is saying. We find them questioning Him on His teaching in parables, falling asleep while He was praying at Gethsemane, and finally fleeing from Him when He is arrested and taken to trial before His crucifixion.
Problem #2: To open this problem let me ask a question. Who wrote the gospels? Jewish men in a male dominated culture wrote the gospels. You see, one of the easiest things to overlook is that the culture was a male dominated culture, and these Jewish men are actually made into a laughing stock as Jesus appears first to women after His resurrection before He appears to the disciples. That's right, the women were the first eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection. Also if you look at the gospels, the women in the gospels believed more readily than men and in particular the apostles. If you look around the world today, in many cultures, women are believing more readily than men (i.e., India).
Problem #3: The disciples of Jesus were not too smart. You say what? They were really smart! Oh really. We have the words of the disciples showing their foolishness in tact. Take for example Peter's denial. Why would the early church, which Peter was a part of, preserve this story? Take another example of Peter's "foot in mouth" participation.
You have Peter in the gospels making a great confession of who Jesus by stating to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!" Jesus commends him for his profession of faith. Shortly after this great confession, Jesus tells of his future arrest, being handed over to sinful men and being beaten and crucified, but also three days later rising from the dead. Right after these words by Jesus, Peter blurts out "God forbid it Lord!" Jesus responds to this with "Get behind Me Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests but man's!" Jesus calls Peter Satan and a stumbling block. If the early church were making things up, why is this in there? Unless. . . it is an actual historical account.
Problem #4: Probably the biggest problem for accusers saying that the disciples (gospels writers) made up the gospel accounts is the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus. You see, if Jesus did not die on the cross and if He did not rise from the dead, why did the disciples not escape the death of a martyr? Why did the disciples produce the body of Jesus so as to escape their own deaths?
You see, Jesus could have made an irrefutable claim. He could have said, "You kill Me, and will raise spiritually from the dead." You and I cannot refute that! But He didn't say that and the disciples did die brutal deaths (crucifixion, even crucified upside down, drawn and quartered, beheaded, dragged behind horses in the streets, skin removal, speared, thrown off of a building, stoned, et al). All of this could have been avoided if they only recanted, called Caesar "Lord", and told their torturers where they hid the body of Jesus.
Not even the enemies of Jesus could produce the body. The body is nowhere to be found because the grave is empty, and Jesus is risen. And He will give eternal life to those who will call upon His name and believe in Him as their only means for redemption, repenting of their sins and following Him in faith, until the end.
These four problems make it unavoidable to say that the gospels are authentic, and they are not made up. What do you say?
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Sunday Morning Quote ~ Albert Mohler
~ R. Albert Mohler, October 14, 1999 in a message at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Seeing the Need: Is there one or isn't there?
by Rob Lundberg
One of the things that I like to do in conversations with fellow believers is to encourage them and see how much they know about why they believe what they do? You might be thinking, what in the world are you doing that for? My response is quite simple. What is wrong with discussing the key facets about one’s faith. Things like why one is a believer in Jesus Christ, why one believes the Bible and other pertinent issues should be at the forefront of our conversation with fellow believers to encourage and build up one another’s faith.
Over the last few conversations with fellow believers, I have had the opportunity to speak with their older teenage/young college age kids. When the introductions are through and we get through the “where do you fellowship or go to church?” the other questions come in. The following is a sample of some of the dialogs that I have had with young people.
Before getting to the conversation, please know first and foremost that I rejoice with the young people that they are willing to profess their faith in Christ and that they are “excited” about their faith. My goal in these conversations is to get them more excited on the truthfulness of that faith that they possess. Now to the conversation(s).
Before getting to the conversation, please know first and foremost that I rejoice with the young people that they are willing to profess their faith in Christ and that they are “excited” about their faith. My goal in these conversations is to get them more excited on the truthfulness of that faith that they possess. Now to the conversation(s).
After establishing if they are high school or college, will determine how I approach the young person with the questions that are in the form of a personal survey.
Me: “Do you find if I ask you a few questions, I am kind of taking a survey on where young people like yourself are in their walk with the Lord.”
Young Person (YP hereafter): Sure I don’t mind. [If they don’t want to discuss it, I don’t pursue it]
Young Person (YP hereafter): Sure I don’t mind. [If they don’t want to discuss it, I don’t pursue it]
Me: “So (person’s first name) where to you fellowship at?”
YP: “I go to (church body name) Fellowship/Baptist Church et al.”
YP: “I go to (church body name) Fellowship/Baptist Church et al.”
Me: “So you would consider yourself a Christian having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, right?”
YP: [Some of those answers sound like, “Sure”, “Yes”, “I do, I received Jesus as my Savior at X years of age”]
Me: This might sound like a weird question but can I ask you why you are a Christian?
YP: After getting over the surprised look on the person’s face I help them through the shock of the question and hear things like,
“No one has ever asked me that question before.”
“Wow, I never really thought of that question!”
“Because I have Jesus in my heart.” (or the person starts giving me their personal testimony)
“No one has ever asked me that question before.”
“Wow, I never really thought of that question!”
“Because I have Jesus in my heart.” (or the person starts giving me their personal testimony)
[A side note here: If the person starts giving me their personal testimony, that does not answer the question ‘Why”, it answers the question “How?’ and what I try to do is steer the person back to answering “why’]
Me: If the person still struggles with the question after not being allowed to give their testimony in answering the question, I give them a hint. “The answer to that question begins with a “J”. . ., died for your sins . . ., rose from the dead. . .”
This usually gets the conversation rolling. But depending on whether the young person is in college or in high school, my next question will vary. For example, if the Young Person (YP) tells me that “I have had a personal experience or encounter with Jesus” I will ask, Me: “What makes your experience different from a Mormon’s experience having a ‘burning in their bosom’? The sad response is in many instances, an “I don’t know”.
On occasions where I have asked a young person about why they believe the Bible, the common answer is “because it is God’s Word” or “because it says it is God’s Word.” When I ask the Young Person “What makes it different from the Qur’an or the Vedas of Hinduism?”, I get the same answer, “I don’t know.”
Is there a problem?
Please understand, my desire is neither to intimidate, nor discourage the person; or even dishearten the person for following Christ. After we see the need for giving the Young Person some encouragement I move quickly to share with them that the person they are speaking to is a former skeptic who loves them for the sake of the gospel. I also give them a summary of reasons for the resurrection and why the Bible is true. On top of that I point them to some resources that they can get their hands on to begin studying. My prayer is that they will pursue looking further for reinforcement of the encouragement that I have given them.
But there is a problem. There is a need. The problem is that many of our kids are becoming casualties within their first three years of university, and perhaps while they are in their high school years. Why? it is because they are not getting the necessary equipping needed to reinforce their Christian faith. They are not getting at home, because of the various dynamics of those homes. If they are a fully professing Christian home, it is not happening there; and if it is, it is in the very minimum amount of homes. It does not matter whether those homes have public school kids, parochial or private Christian school students, or homeschool kids. If there is no training in the home, what are the odds of them getting it in churches that are more interested in bringing people into the churches, in order to stack their church growth statistics? What are the odds one is going to learn from one Sunday night per week, watching a DVD and filling out a worksheet or workbook? I am not saying these things are bad, but what I am saying is that due to the pulse of the culture, we need to step up our equipping in the defense of our faith. Why? We are seeing the answer to this question coming at us from four fronts.
First off the culture has become more and more hostile to Bible believing Christians. We are seeing an increase of liberal ideologies from the media and the government, with some pushing the myth of “separation of church and state” in workplace environments; pushing religious relativism, cultural relativism. It is not so much Barry Lynn’s People for Separation of Church and State. Christians who are published, conducting seminars for a company, minding their own business are being researched by skeptical employees or employees who are members of Islam and making false accusations of prejudice and bigotry. I cannot tell you how many conversations I get into about the fact that “separation of church in state” is not in our Constitution but it is in three constitutions from three communist countries.
But there is a problem. There is a need. The problem is that many of our kids are becoming casualties within their first three years of university, and perhaps while they are in their high school years. Why? it is because they are not getting the necessary equipping needed to reinforce their Christian faith. They are not getting at home, because of the various dynamics of those homes. If they are a fully professing Christian home, it is not happening there; and if it is, it is in the very minimum amount of homes. It does not matter whether those homes have public school kids, parochial or private Christian school students, or homeschool kids. If there is no training in the home, what are the odds of them getting it in churches that are more interested in bringing people into the churches, in order to stack their church growth statistics? What are the odds one is going to learn from one Sunday night per week, watching a DVD and filling out a worksheet or workbook? I am not saying these things are bad, but what I am saying is that due to the pulse of the culture, we need to step up our equipping in the defense of our faith. Why? We are seeing the answer to this question coming at us from four fronts.
First off the culture has become more and more hostile to Bible believing Christians. We are seeing an increase of liberal ideologies from the media and the government, with some pushing the myth of “separation of church and state” in workplace environments; pushing religious relativism, cultural relativism. It is not so much Barry Lynn’s People for Separation of Church and State. Christians who are published, conducting seminars for a company, minding their own business are being researched by skeptical employees or employees who are members of Islam and making false accusations of prejudice and bigotry. I cannot tell you how many conversations I get into about the fact that “separation of church in state” is not in our Constitution but it is in three constitutions from three communist countries.
Secondly, we are seeing the rise of militant Islam pushing its agenda of cultural domination in many pockets of this country. In Dearborn Michigan and along with other places are giving rights to Muslims seeking to implement Islamic law (shariah) into the culture and government rulings of law.
Thirdly, we are also seeing more and more from the media “gurus” like Oprah and others saying that the new spirituality is replacing the old religion of Jesus being the only way.
Fourth and finally, September 11, 2001 sparked a revolution of skepticism with atheists like Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion), Sam Harris (The Moral Landscape; and Letter to a Christian Nation), Daniel Dennett, and the late Christopher Hitchens. Professor Bart Erhman from UNC Chapel Hill, NC, and others like him (and those of his ilk) preys upon Christian students professing the Bible to be the authentic Word of God, by proclaiming that there have been changes, that the New Testament is a forgery and that the “original” documents were lost.
What have been the results? The church continues to march forward in the shadows of the skeptical culture thinking how to get more people into church, all the while parents around the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays; around the Spring Break holidays or during the summer find out their kids are being swayed into atheism, agnosticism, or some other “ism” because being impressed that their professor is right and their parents have been “living under a rock.” Some of our kids are reading Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchens and being duped by their horrible arguments that atheism is the way.
What have been the results? The church continues to march forward in the shadows of the skeptical culture thinking how to get more people into church, all the while parents around the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays; around the Spring Break holidays or during the summer find out their kids are being swayed into atheism, agnosticism, or some other “ism” because being impressed that their professor is right and their parents have been “living under a rock.” Some of our kids are reading Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchens and being duped by their horrible arguments that atheism is the way.
Is there a solution?
The other day, I had a conversation with a local pastor about this problem. We talked about the cultural shifts from the days of the first settlers to America to the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, two World Wars, Woodstock, the Korean and Vietnam era, to the present. We discussed how in the sixties, God got kicked out of school. We recalled what it was like when we were in public school and where it is now. Many things have changed. I remarked that those who are mid late career professors and in senior positions of government were essentially older teens or early twenties in the Woodstock generation. One can trace the generations and see the ideological shifts in this nation as part of the reason why we are where we are today.
However, we can do all the tracing and rewinding of the past, and still not deal with the issues. When this pastor asked me what can be done, I told him that there needs to be a renewal of serious apologetic study in the local churches, starting with the young people and in the pulpit. That’s right pastor. Instead of teaching your people how to be good parents, you need to change your approach a bit and give them the “so what” of the text you are preaching. In many senses you need to be preaching apologetically, giving the background, a little bit of history and show the people that not much has changed between the cultures and our interaction with the culture as Christians.
Churches need to step out and have local apologists and ministries come in and do workshops and seminars to equip their people on how to answer the challenges of the culture. We need a renewed sense of apologetics and equipping of our young people, because it is this generation that is the target of much of the skepticism in the universities and the public milieu.
The apologists are allies of the churches and their pastors. We are not looking to undo or cripple what the pastors are trying to accomplish, or should be trying to accomplish, “the equipping of the saints for the work of service and THE BUILDING UP OF THE BODY OF CHRIST” (Ephesians 4:12). If that is not happening, then one needs to find a church where that is happening.
The Christian faith was under assault back in its beginnings in the First Century, and nothing has changed in the Third Millennium of the Christian church. Peter tells us, “but sanctify (set apart and make holy) Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense (apologia - απολογια - an answer back) to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.” (3:15). When we do this we are obeying what Christ has called us to do, “love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your mind. . .and love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:36,37). It is about living a transformed life that God could use to transform the culture, starting with the home and in the churches.
Conclusion.
However, we can do all the tracing and rewinding of the past, and still not deal with the issues. When this pastor asked me what can be done, I told him that there needs to be a renewal of serious apologetic study in the local churches, starting with the young people and in the pulpit. That’s right pastor. Instead of teaching your people how to be good parents, you need to change your approach a bit and give them the “so what” of the text you are preaching. In many senses you need to be preaching apologetically, giving the background, a little bit of history and show the people that not much has changed between the cultures and our interaction with the culture as Christians.
Churches need to step out and have local apologists and ministries come in and do workshops and seminars to equip their people on how to answer the challenges of the culture. We need a renewed sense of apologetics and equipping of our young people, because it is this generation that is the target of much of the skepticism in the universities and the public milieu.
The apologists are allies of the churches and their pastors. We are not looking to undo or cripple what the pastors are trying to accomplish, or should be trying to accomplish, “the equipping of the saints for the work of service and THE BUILDING UP OF THE BODY OF CHRIST” (Ephesians 4:12). If that is not happening, then one needs to find a church where that is happening.
The Christian faith was under assault back in its beginnings in the First Century, and nothing has changed in the Third Millennium of the Christian church. Peter tells us, “but sanctify (set apart and make holy) Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense (apologia - απολογια - an answer back) to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.” (3:15). When we do this we are obeying what Christ has called us to do, “love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your mind. . .and love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:36,37). It is about living a transformed life that God could use to transform the culture, starting with the home and in the churches.
Conclusion.
I started off this essay, trying to keep it focussed, with a conversation about a need. That need is apologetics in the church in order to engage the culture. Now that need has hit home in that we need it more than ever to solidify our families. Anyone has the right to believe what they want, but that does not mean that what they believe is right.
The other night I asked my daughter these same questions. Thankfully, her answers reflected the desires of my heart for young people who belong to Christ. Her answers were on target, but we are needing to hone those answers and sharpen them. For this I am thankful, but there is a lot of work to do, in both the home and the churches.
As the director of an evangelism and equipping ministry undergird by the task of apologetics, Stand4Truth.Net is dedicated to strengthening the belief of Christians and interacting with non-Christians who are interested in matters of faith and understanding. Please feel free to call upon us to assist you in the matters that I have discussed in this essay.
The other night I asked my daughter these same questions. Thankfully, her answers reflected the desires of my heart for young people who belong to Christ. Her answers were on target, but we are needing to hone those answers and sharpen them. For this I am thankful, but there is a lot of work to do, in both the home and the churches.
As the director of an evangelism and equipping ministry undergird by the task of apologetics, Stand4Truth.Net is dedicated to strengthening the belief of Christians and interacting with non-Christians who are interested in matters of faith and understanding. Please feel free to call upon us to assist you in the matters that I have discussed in this essay.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Christmas Morning Quote - Athanasius on the Incarnation
Merry Christmas to you and yours from Stand4Truth.Net Apologetics Ministries!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
