From Hooligan to Accountant

Richard Dortch (PTL) 's interview with Christianity Today

2012-02-01T14:56:00.001+08:00

At the height of the Jimmy and Tammy Bakker PTL (Praise the Lord) TV ministry scandal in the late 1980s, PTL senior vice president and second in command, Richard Dortch, acknowledged in an interview:

’We made many mistakes. Sometimes I think the church doesn’t know anything about true success. It’s all tied down to how many stations we have on our network or how big our building is. It is so easy to lose control, to compromise without recognising it. At PTL, there was not time taken for prayer or family because family the show had to go on. We were so caught up in God’s work that we forget about God. It took a tragedy, a kick in the teeth to bring us back to our senses. A television camera can change a preacher quicker than anything else. Those who sit on the sidelines can notice the changes in people once they get in front of a camera. It turns a good man into a potentate. It is so easy to get swept away by popularity: Everybody loves you, cars are waiting for you, and you go to the head of the line. That is the devastation of the camera. It has made us less than God has wanted us to become.’

(Christianity Today, 18 March 1988, pp.46-47)

Dialetic of Life

2012-02-01T14:54:00.001+08:00

When you are talking about the whole area of Being and Becoming, we are always involved in what I call the Dialetic of life. The Dialetic meaning the two modes; two poles of Being and doing. You are who you are not because of what you do. But the fact of the matter you do what you do because of who you are. Sometimes the Doing help you Becomes at the same time. Let me give you a simple example on that.

Very often , we say when it is hard to pray, that’s the time for you to pray the hardest. What do we mean by that? What we are really saying is, don’t wait for the feeling to come on before you pray but discipline your life and the more you disciplines, that feeling converges in your life.

You do the same thing in the romance and love with your partners, You don’t always have to feel like pulling the chair for them or opening the door for them but in the process of doing, you are also Becoming and it affects your Being. And I think Jesus does this very often, He tell us to use our will to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness; you will search for me and find me when you search for me with all your heart; if any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me; as a man thinketh in his heart so is He, out of the heart is the issues of life. So He bring in both these facets, by will you express your choices, but the heart is the seed and fountain of choices that we made.

Leadership Seminar 1 mp3 - Ravi Zacharias

"Bible" Joke

2012-01-30T23:56:00.001+08:00

A country preacher went looking for a job. The interviewing committee finally interviewed him. They asked him, “Do you know much about the Bible?”
The preacher said, “Oh, yeah. I know the Bible through and through.”
“What’s your favorite book?” they asked.
“My favorite book is Mark.”
“What’s your favorite part?”
“My favorite part is the parables.”
“Oh, yeah. What’s your favorite parable?”
“My favorite parable is the one about ‘The Good Samaritan.’”
“Can you tell it to the committee?”
The preacher replied, “Yep. It goes this way: “Once there was this man traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among the thorns; and the thorns sprung up and choked him. And as he went on, he didn’t have any money, and he met the Queen of Sheba. She gave him a thousand talents of gold and thousand changes of raiment, and he got into a chariot and drove furiously. “He was driving so furiously, he drove under a Juniper Tree, and his hair got caught on the limb of the tree. He hung there for many days, and the ravens brought him food to eat and water to drink. And he ate 5,000 loaves of bread and 2 fishes. “Then one night, while he was hanging there asleep, his wife Delilah came along and cut off his hair, and he dropped and fell on stony ground. But he got up and went on, as it began to rain. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights; so he hid himself in a cave, and he ate locusts and wild honey. “Then he went on until he met a servant who said, ‘Come; let’s have supper together.’ But he made an excuse and said, ‘No, I won’t. I married a wife and cannot go.’ So the servant went out to the highways and the hedges and compelled him to come in. “After supper, he went on and came down to Jericho. When he got there, he looked up and saw that old Queen Jezebel, sitting high up on the window; and she laughed at him. So he said, ‘Throw her down, out there!’ And they threw her down. Then he said, ‘Throw her down again!’ And they threw her down 70 times 7. And of the fragments that remained, they picked up 12 baskets full …, besides women and children. – They say, ‘Blessed are the PIECE-makers.’ “Now, whose wife do you think she will be on the Judgment Day?”

The Story of A Vase

2012-01-30T23:14:00.001+08:00

A grandfather and a grandmother were in a gift shop looking for something to give their granddaughter for her birthday. Suddenly the grandmother spots a beautiful vase, “Look at this lovely piece of work”, she says to her husband. He picks it up and says you’re right, this is one of the loveliest vases I have ever seen.

At that point something remarkable happened. Something that could only happen in a children’s book. The vase says to the grandparents. “Thank you for the compliment, but I wasn’t always beautiful.” Instead of being surprised that the vase can talk, the grandfather ask it, what do you mean when you say you weren’t always beautiful? Well, says the vase, “once I was just an ugly soggy lump of clay. But one day some man with dirty wet hands threw me on a wheel. Then he started turning me around and around until I got so dizzy I couldn’t see straight. Stop..Stop I cried. But the man with the wet hands said, Not Yet! Then he started to poke me and punch me until I hurt all over, Stop..Stop I cried, but the man said “Not Yet”. Each time I thought he was through, he would crumble and roll me up and began to poke and punch me again.

Finally he did stop. But then he did something much worse, he put me into a furnace. It got hotter and hotter until I couldn’t stand it. Stop..Stop.. I cried. But the man said, “Not Yet”. Finally when I thought I was going to burn up, the man took me out of the furnace. Then some short lady began to paint me, and the fumes got so bad that they made me feel sick. “Stop…Stop..” I cried. “Not Yet” said the lady. Finally she did stop, but then she gave me back to the man and he put me back into that awful furnace. This time it was hotter than before. “Stop…Stop” I cried, but the man said “Not Yet”.

Finally he took me out of the furnace and let me cool. When I was completely cool, a pretty lady put me on this shelf, next to this mirror. When I looked at myself in the mirror, I was amazed, I could not believe what I saw. I was no longer ugly, soggy and dirty; I was beautiful, firm and clean. I cried for joy. It was then I realized that all the pain was worthwhile. Without it I would still be an ugly, soggy lump of wet clay. It was then that all the pain took on new meaning for me. It had passed, but the beauty it brought has remained.

At The Cross

2012-01-30T14:30:00.000+08:00

Alas, And Did My Savior Bleed?
And Did My Sovreign Die?
Would He Devote That Sacred Head
For Such A Worm As I?

Was It For Crimes That I Have Done,
He Groaned Upon The Tree?
Amazing Pity! Grace Unknown!
And Love Beyond Degree!

But Drops Of Grief Can Ne'er Repay,
The Debt Of Love I Owe:
Here, Lord, I Give Myself Away,
'Tis All That I Can Do!

At The Cross, At The Cross, Where I First Saw The Light,
And The Burden Of My Heart Rolled Away, It Was There By Faith,
I Received My Sight, And Now I Am Happy All The Day!

How the Health and Wealth Gospel Twists Scripture

2012-01-28T00:19:00.001+08:00

Most Christians have heard some of the following: "You can have what you say," "The reason you haven't been healed is that you don't have enough faith," "We can write our own ticket with God if we decide what we want, believe that it's ours, and confess it," "He wants you rich and healthy," "What is the desire of your heart? Name it , claim it by faith, and it is yours! Your heavenly Father has promised it. It's right there in the Bible."

Such statements reflect the models which set forth a theology of the spoken word (rhematology) or of thought-actualization, commonly known as "positive confession", which stresses the inherent power of words and thoughts.

Some who teach this system argue that just as God, by His faith, spoke (or conceived of the creation in His mind) and matter came into existence (Genesis 1, Psalm 33:6, Hebrews 11:3, 2 Peter 3:5), so the Christian can speak (or conceive of things in his mind) and actually bring them into existence by faith.

Many of those in the Word-Faith movement, such as Charles Capps and Jerry Savelle, teach that God had faith in His faith. They use Scripture texts such as Mark 11:22 and Hebrews 11:3, translating them as "have the faith of God". However, renowned Greek scholar A.T. Robertson, in his books A Short Grammar of the Greek Testament (pp. 227-228) and A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (p. 500), very adequately shows that the phrase is not to be translated in the subjective genitive (meaning that the noun is the subject of the action - or that God is the subject of faith) such as "have the faith of God", but is to be translated in the objective genitive (meaning that the noun is the object of the action - that God is the object of faith). He goes on to insist that translating in the subjective genitive is preposterous. He says "it is not the faith that God has, but the faith of which God is the object".

The Gospel of Health
"I am fully convinced - I would die saying it is so - that it is the plan of Our Father God, in His great love and in His great mercy, that no believer should ever be sick; that every believer should live his full life span down here on this earth; and that every believer should finally just fall asleep in Jesus" (Kenneth E. Hagin, Seven Things You Should Know about Divine Healing, p. 21).

The above statement and others like it have caused much confusion in the body of Christ and led many to be presumptuous in the area of divine healing. There are some things that are true about healing to which most Christians would readily admit. First of all, people who are morally conscientious and who recognize that the physical body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16) may generally have better health because they take care of their bodies. Secondly, the healing of human life is part of the redemptive work of God. The Bible does teach healing. It was part of Jesus' and the apostles' ministries. There were gifts of healing in the church's charismata, and in James 5:14-15, Christians are specifically encouraged to pray for the sick with the promise of answered prayer.

Of course, one reason believers pray for the sick to be healed is their conviction that the body, though still subject to decay and death in the present age, is destined for resurrection (1 Corinthians 6:13-14), and when God does heal someone it is a sign of the future Age already at work in the present.

However, where most Christians depart from the "faith movement" on healing is their understanding of the most pivotal text of Isaiah 53, which those in the faith movement almost always twist to justify their view of "blanket" coverage for the physical healing of every Christian who has enough faith.

A clearer understanding of this important passage can be gleaned thorough a deeper evaluation of its underlying Hebrew text. What does the text Isaiah 53:5 mean when it says, "and by His stripes we are healed"? The Faith Movement interprets it to mean primarily the physical, while the majority of Christian scholarship has always interpreted it to mean primarily spiritual. For example, Gordon D. Fee, Professor of New Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary is quoted in the SCP Newsletter, Spring 1985, concerning this text, as saying, "It is also questionable whether the Bible teaches that healing is provided for in the atonement. Scores of texts explicitly tell us our sin has been overcome through Christ's death and resurrection, but no text explicitly says the same about healing, not even Isaiah and its New Testament citations.

"Matthew (8:17) clearly saw Isaiah as referring to physical healing, but as a part of the Messiah's ministry, not the atonement. Peter (2:24) saw the healing in Isaiah 53 as metaphysical, referring to our sin sickness, and this is the primary sense Isaiah himself gives the passage.

"Yet, since physical disease was clearly recognized to be a consequence of the Fall, one may argue that healing also finds its focal point in the atonement. But saying that does not imply all faithful Christians should experience perfect health. Even historic Pentecostalism, which believes healing was provided for in the atonement, does not hold that view. The position paper on divine healing adopted by the General Presbytery of the Assemblies of God (1974) makes it clear that healing is "provided for" because the "atonement brought release from the consequences of sin." Nonetheless, since we have not yet received the "redemption of our bodies", suffering and death are still our lot until the resurrection".

An incorrect Bible hermeneutic (rules for Bible interpretation) combined with a desire for complete perfection have led many in the faith camp to deny the reality of sickness and disease.

For example, Kenneth Hagin, in The Name of Jesus, says, "In teaching on divine healing and health, I have often said, `I haven't had a headache in so-many years.' (At this writing it has been 45 years.) I guess the devil got tired of hearing me say it. Just a few months ago, as I left the office building and started home, suddenly my head started hurting. Someone might say, `Well, you had a headache.' No, I didn't have one! I don't have headaches. I haven't had a headache since August 1934.

"Forty-five years have come and gone, and I haven't had a headache. Not one. The last headache I can actually remember having was in August 1933. I haven't had a headache, and I'm not expecting to have one. But if I had a headache, I wouldn't tell anybody. And if somebody asked me how I was feeling, I would say, "I'm fine, thank you." (p. 44, parenthesis in original).

It is obvious from the above statements that Hagin doesn't consider having a headache to be real. That's because to him and other Faith movement teachers, symptoms are not real indications of sickness or disease, but distractions by the devil tempting him or her into making a negative confession.

The Gospel of Wealth

"It's a matter of your faith. You got one-dollar faith, and you ask for a ten thousand-dollar item, it ain't gonna work. It won't work. Jesus said, "According to your faith", not "according to His will, if He can work it into His busy schedule." He said, "according to your faith be it unto you." Now I may want a Rolls Royce and don't have but bicycle faith. Guess what I'm gonna get? A bicycle" (Frederick K.C. Price, "Praise the Lord" broadcast on TBN, 21 September 1990, taken from Documentation for Christianity in Crisis by Hank Hanegraaff). The cardinal fault with the prosperity gospel is one central tenet: God wills the financial prosperity of every Christian, therefore, for a believer to live in poverty is living outside God's intended will. Normally tucked away somewhere is another affirmation: Since we are God's children, we should always go first class, we should have the biggest and the best. Only this brings glory to God!

No matter how much one tries to clothe the above affirmations in Biblical garb, it is simply not Biblical. Again, poor scripture interpretation is employed by the faith movement.

To substantiate their teachings, proponents of the prosperity gospel distort the meaning of certain Bible passages. One such passage, frequently quoted is 3 John 2. John began his letter with a friendly greeting, expressing his desire that Gaius "may prosper and be in good health, just as your soul prospers".

Kenneth Copeland explains this verse on page 51 of his book, The Laws of Prosperity, says, "You must realize that it is God's will for you to prosper. This is available to you, and frankly, it would be stupid of you not to partake of it".

This verse, however, according to James Bjornstad in his article, "What's Behind the Prosperity Gospel?", published by Moody Monthly in the 1986 issue, "is nothing more than John's personal wish for Gaius. We should not take it as an universal promise or guarantee of health and wealth".

The Greek word translated "prosper" in the KJV means "to go well with someone". This wish for "things to go well" and for "good health" was the standard form of greeting in personal letter of antiquity, just as a friend today might say, "I hope this letter finds you all well".

Another popular text for the word-faith teachers, with regard to prosperity, is John 10:10. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with material abundance. According to Gordon Fee in the same Moody Monthly issue, the "abundant life" Jesus talked about here is the same "life" or "eternal life" in John's gospel and is the equivalent of the "kingdom of God". Fee goes on to say, "It literally means the "life of the Age to come". It is the life that God has in and of Himself; and it is His gift to believers in the present age. The Greek word perrison, translated "more abundantly" in the KJV, means simply that believers are to enjoy this gift of life "to the full" (NIV).

Material abundance is not implied either in "life" or "to the full". Such an idea is totally foreign to the context of John 10 as well as to the whole teaching of Jesus" (Ibid.).

Many in the word-faith movement treat God as if He is a God simply there only to cater to our every wish as we ask it and that His entire purpose in heaven is simply to do our bidding. Kenneth Hagin has even written a little booklet entitled, "How to write your own ticket with God". This is the same presupposition that Charles Fillmore of Unity School of Christianity had with regard to prosperity. H. Terris Newman, writing in Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Vol. 12, No. 1, Spring 1990, p. 45, records Fillmore's rendition of Psalm 23: "The Lord is may banker; my credit is good. He maketh me to lie down in the consciousness of omnipresent abundance; He giveth me the key to His strong box; He restoreth my faith in His riches; He guideth me in the paths of prosperity for his name's sake. Yea, though I walk in the very shadow of debt, I shall fear no evil, for Thou art with me; Thou preparest a way for me in the presence of the collector; Thou fillest my wallet with plenty; my measure runneth over. Surely goodness and plenty will follow me all the days of my life, And I shall do business in the name of the Lord forever."
One can not help but see that attitudes like the above are discouraged in scripture when it says, "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. (1 Timothy 6:10).

In contrast to word-faith theology, sound biblical theology teaches that God does not have to do anything. God, the Creator of all things, is sovereign in all things, not the creature. God is not obligated to heal or prosper anyone, yet He graciously does, and neither is deserved. Someone has said: "healing is not a divine obligation, it is a divine gift". The receiver of the gift can make no demands. God can be trusted to do all things well.

Perhaps the root error of the gospel of health and wealth is that it seeks to apply a theology of future glory to the believer in the here and now. But the Lord Jesus taught a theology for here and now that both sustains believers in hard times and holds out hope for tomorrow.

Christians should not claim now what God in His grace has promised only for the future.

© Copyright 2000 Watchman Fellowship, Inc..

The Ten Qualities of Mountain-moving Prayer

2012-01-18T00:20:00.005+08:00

1. Rooted in Worship

Because this was discussed in Chapter 2 it will be explained here only briefly. We enter into God's presence with praise and thanksgiving. The psalmist wrote, "Come before His presence with singing ... Enter into His gates with thanksgiving, / And into His courts with praise" (Ps. 100:2b, 4a). Our arms are outstretched in adoration of Him rather than open hands in expectation of a request fulfilled. Prayer is more than running down a list of "I wants."

Beginning with worship enables us to align our perspectives with God's. When Jesus instructed his disciples how to pray, He told them to begin by saying, "Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name." Hallowed means simply, "holy, complete, and set apart." God doesn't need to be reminded He is holy. But we do.

Prayer that moves mountains is rooted in worship.

2. Unfettered Through Confession of Sin

Jesus died on the cross to cleanse us from every sin. However, unconfessed sin can stand between us and an unhindered relationship with God. James 5:16 reminds us, "Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed." James wasn't writing to the unsaved, he was writing to the saved.

Unconfessed sin in the life of the believer and to a much greater extent in the life of the unbeliever-places a wall of separation between God and us. But true confession of sin tears it down. The prayers listed in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 are designed to aid you in entering God's presence with a pure and clean heart.

Prayer that moves mountains is unfettered through confession of sin.

3. Expressed in Specifics

Did you ever stop to consider that every day God gives us new insights into His mercy? Lamentations 3:22-23 reminds us that God's mercies are new every morning. A beautiful sunset, a quick recovery from a head cold, or an unexpected compliment from your boss are just a few examples of God's mercies that are new every morning. In response we should return the favor to God by blessing Him in new ways. Every day, try to find some new means of expressing your love to Him. Just as He is specific in showing us His new mercies, so should we be specific in giving Him our praise. If you love Him, don't just tell Him you love Him, tell Him why you love Him.

The same principle is true when coming to Him with our requests One day as Jesus was departing Jericho, the cries of two blind men could be heard over the din of the accompanying crowd. Walking to their side of the road, Jesus asked them a very important question "What do you want Me to do for you?" (Matt. 20:32 NKJV). They didn't give some generic catchall answer like, "We want You to be with us.' No They replied, "We want our eyes to be opened."

Jesus asks us the same question in prayer: "What do you want Me to do for you?" Nothing is more uninspiring in prayer than something like, "God, I pray that you will be with Sally." In all reality, that prayer is answered because God already is with Sally. What Sally really needs is victory over depression. For this reason, Chapters 5 through 10 are designed to aid you in praying specifically for stressful feelings, marriages and families, children, relationships, jobs and career, and sickness and disease.

Prayer that moves mountains is expressed in specifics.

4. Focused on the Kingdom

Twice in the Lord's Prayer, the disciples were exhorted to "pray in" the coming kingdom: "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done" (Matt. 6:10 KJV) and "For Thine is the kingdom and the power, and the glory" (Matt. 6:13 KJV). The ultimate goal of prayer is to see the kingdom of this world transformed into the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ (Rev. 11:15).

Focusing first on the kingdom of God addresses the thoughts and intents of our innermost motives. Whose kingdom are we building anyway? God's or ours? James addressed the issue of motivation and unanswered prayer this way:

You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures. (James 4:3 NKJV)

God promises to supply all of our needs (Phil. 4:19), but meeting our desires and wants is secondary in importance.

Praying for the coming kingdom is our opportunity to pray for those items that are foremost on God's heart. Chapter 11 will aid you toward that end.

Prayer that moves mountains is ultimately focused on the kingdom.

5. Conveyed from the Heart

Effective prayer reflects who we really are inside. Merely reciting a prayer from a book without lending our true thoughts and feelings is akin to playing a tape of prerecorded prayers. For this reason Jesus urged His disciples against praying with vain repetition (Matt. 6:7).

The Bible was written in the common language of the people. Psalms, the original prayer book, reflects the most heartfelt and transparent emotions of its various writers. What makes the Psalms profound is not its sophisticated language, but the fact that it communicates what is common among every class of people

The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, the language of the common people, not classical Greek used by the aristocracy and writers of that time. So why do we hear so many prayers offered in church filled with language we hardly understand? True prayer isn't filled with flowery words, it is expressed from the heart. John Knox, the Scottish Reformer, got right to the point in his prayer: "Give me Scotland or I die."

Prayer that moves mountains is conveyed from the heart.

6. Empowered by the Word of God

Just as important as praying from the heart is praying the anointed, inspired, Word of God. The moment Jesus was tempted in the wilderness, He picked up His sword of the Spirit and fought Satan with the Word of God (Matt. 4; Luke 4).

If, according to Hebrews 4:12, the Word of God is "living and active," then when we pray using Scripture, the Word of God works on our behalf-even after we are finished praying! just like a nuclear reaction that keeps radiating into eternity.

Through Scripture we learn what God's will is. When our prayers come into line with His will, they are accomplished. If all God's promises-which we find in His Word-are "yes" and "amen" (2 Cor. 1:20), then we would be remiss by not beginning with them.

Prayer that moves mountains is empowered by The Word of God.

7. Asks in Jesus' Name

Prayer that moves mountains isn't hesitant to ask. The most commonly used Greek word for prayer in the Bible, proseuche, means literally "to wish" or "ask." However, it doesn't mean "to demand." Paul wrote in Philippians 4:6, "Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God" (NIV). Through prayer we are given opportunity to present our requests to God.

Notice in this same verse that we are encouraged to bring any¬thing and everything before the throne. There is no request too small or too great that God isn't willing to answer.

When we ask, we ask in Jesus' name. We don't have to implore the great saints of the past or even Mary, the mother of Jesus, to go before the Father on our behalf. Jesus is our advocate before the Father. Jesus said, "until now you have asked nothing in My name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full" (John 16:24 NKJV, italics added).

Prayer that moves mountains asks in Jesus' name.

8. Prays with Faith

Without faith, it is impossible for us to please God (Heb. 11:6). We must believe not only that God has the power to move our mountains through prayer, but we must also believe He has made His power available to us and that He desires to do it!

John Calvin once said, "The principal work of the Spirit is faith ... the principal exercise of faith is prayer." The main ingredient in mountain-moving prayer is faith. Let's look at what Jesus said about mountains in Mark 11:22-24:

Have faith in God. For assuredly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, "Be removed and be cast into the sea," and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that those things he says will come to pass, he will have whatever he says. Therefore I say to you, whatever things you ask when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you will have them. (NKJV, italics added)

Notice how often the words faith and believe are used. Faith isn't something we muster up on our own, it is nurtured through God's Word and in prayer. "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. 10:17 NKJV).

Here's how the cycle of prayer and faith works: We give ourselves to God in prayer; we grow deeper in our relationship with Him; we know better what are the issues on His heart; we see clearer what His desires are for us; we pray for them; our prayers are answered because they line up with His will; God builds more faith in our lives. And the more faith God builds in our lives, the more inclined we are to spend time with Him. As we spend more time with Him, the cycle repeats.

Prayer that moves mountains prays with faith.

9. Borne out of a Relationship

Jesus said in John 15:7, "If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you" (NIV). An important key to answered prayer lies in remaining in Christ-to seek Him, wait for Him, listen to Him, and allow Him to guide your prayers. Remaining in Christ implies a prior relationship.

Every salesperson worth his salt knows that the hardest sell is the cold call. But when the salesperson is able to establish a relationship with the client, the likelihood of a sale greatly increases¬partially because a relationship of trust is established, but also because the seller is able to sell according to the client's needs.

The same is true in our walk with God. Asking God to answer our prayer when we have had little or nothing to do with Him beforehand is like going on a cold call. A mutual relationship of trust hasn't been established, and we are completely unaware of what the issues on His heart are.

Every relationship is based on a mutual give and take. All too often we call out to God, "Oh God, please give me direction for the future," and yet we give Him no room to speak to us. Once we've had our say, we get up off our knees and go along our way. It's no wonder so many people find their prayers going unanswered and have no sense of God's direction!

Although there is some question concerning its meaning, many Bible scholars believe the word selah, frequently mentioned in the Psalms (Psalm 3, for example), refers to a pause for reflection and waiting upon God.

We should all expect somewhere along the way to receive divine direction. In Scripture, not hearing from God was a sign of the removal of God's blessing (2 Chron. 7:14). But somewhere in the midst of the dialogue between God and us, mountain¬moving prayer happens.

Prayer that moves mountains is borne out of a relationship.

10. Refuses to Give Up

Wedded to our faith we must add perseverance. Hebrews 11:6 says, "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."

Prayer is more a marathon than a sprint. All long-distance runners know that at some point in their run they will "hit the wall" when their will is tested. Everything within their mortal body screams to give up, but they know they must continue if they want to finish the race and win the prize.

Answers are rarely won in the first ten minutes of prayer. But as we cling to God's promises with a tenacious grip when we "hit the wall," He will either answer our prayer or change it to conform to His will. All too often, however, we give up right at the point we should really begin pressing in.

In an instant society that expects speedier computers, quicker meals, and fast-paced television programming, this essential requirement of prayer has been lost. If a prayer request isn't answered immediately, we lose interest and move on.

Jesus told the story of a widow who sought justice from an unrighteous judge. She pestered Him repeatedly until He finally gave in and answered her request. Jesus concluded the parable with these words:

And the Lord said, "Listen to what the unjust judge says. And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"(Luke 18:6-8 NIV)

The good news is, our God is not an unjust judge! He desires to bless His children with good things! If we serve a God who is good, how much more will He answer us when we pray relentlessly? Once again, we also see the relationship between faith and perseverance. Perseverance is faith in action.

Prayer that moves mountains refuses to give up.

Extracted from Prayer to Move Your Mountains by Michael Klassen & Thomas Freling

A Prayer by Michael Quoist

2012-01-17T21:57:00.001+08:00

I have fallen, Lord,
Once more.
I can’t go on, I’ll never succeed.
I am ashamed, I don’t dare look at you.
And yet I struggled, Lord, for I knew you were right near me, bending over me, watching.
But temptation blew like a hurricane,
And instead of looking at you I turned my head away,
I stepped aside
While you stood, silent and sorrowful,
Like the spurned fiancè who sees his loved one carried away bo the enemy.
When the wind died down as suddenly as it had arisen,
When the lightning ceased after proudly streaking the darkness,
All of a sudden I found myself alone, ashamed, disgusted, with my sin in my hands.
This sin that I selected the way a customer makes his purchase,
This sin that I have paid for and cannot return, for the shopkeeper is no longer there,
This tasteless sin,
This odorless sin,
This sin that sickens me,
That I have wanted but want no more,
That I have imagined, sought, played with, fondled, for a long time;
That I have finally embraced while turning coldly away from you,
My arms outstretched, my eyes and heart irresistibly drawn;
This sin that I have grasped and consumed with gluttony,
It’s mine now, but it possesses me as the spiderweb holds captive the gnat.
It is mine,
It sticks to me,
It flows in my veins,
It fills my heart.
It has slipped in everywhere, as darkness slips into the forest at dusk
And fills all the patches of light.
I can’t get rid of it.
I run from it the way one tries to lose a stray dog, but it catches up with me and bounds joyfully against my legs.
Everyone must notice it.
I’m so ashamed that I feel like crawling to avoid being seen,
I’m ashamed of being seen by my friends,
I’m ashamed of being seen by you, Lord,
For you loved me, and I forgot you.
I forgot you because I was thinking of myself
And one can’t think of several persons at once.
One must choose, and I chose.
And your voice,
And your look
And your love hurt me.
They weigh me down
They weigh me down more than my sin.
Lord, don’t look at me like that,
For I am naked,
I am dirty,
I am down,
Shattered,
With no strength left.
I dare make no more promises,
I can only lie bowed before you.
[The Father's Response]
Come, son, look up.
Isn’t it mainly your vanity that is wounded?
If you loved me, you would grieve, but you would trust.
Do you think that there’s a limit to God’s love?
Do you think that for a moment I stopped loving you?
But you still rely on yourself, son. You must rely only on me.
Ask my pardon
And get up quickly.
You see, it’s not falling that is the worst,
But staying on the ground.

-Michel Quoist

How Does the Bible Relate to Islam? By Barbara B. Pemberton

2012-01-17T21:41:00.001+08:00

Islam teaches that throughout history God has sent prophets, from Adam to Noah to Jesus and ultimately Muhammad, all with the same message: There is only one God, who desires people to pursue good and to prevent evil. Christians and Jews, "People of the Book," are believed to be the remaining followers of earlier divine, but corrupted, revelations. Islam's scripture, the Qur'an, is understood,by Muslims to have restored God's original guidance. The Qur'an includes numerous biblical personalities but recognizes as authentic only three sections of biblical literature: the Torah of Moses, the Evangel of Jesus, and the Psalms of David.

Muslims see many of their beliefs and practices as biblical: the existence of only one God, the prophets, heaven, hell, angels, and a day of judgment. They also see the importance of charity, prayer, and fasting in the Bible. Although Muslims believe that Jesus was only a prophet and not divine, they do believe the accounts of His virgin birth, sinless nature, miracles, and second coming.

The Qur'an accuses Jews and Christians of distorting their earlier revelation by deliberately suppressing the truth or by false interpretation. Muslims charge that the OT and NT contain logical inconsistencies, improbabilities, and factual errors. Charges against the OT include false reports of immorality (David and Bathsheba), missing doctrines (afterlife in the Torah), and incompatibility with science. The Evangel has been corrupted with inaccurate historical references, discrepancies in the Gospel accounts, and fabrications (such as the crucifixion). Christians and Jews allegedly suppressed or removed biblical predictions of Muhammad. For example, Psalm 84:4-6 is said to be about Muhammad, who overcame his childhood disadvantages by God's grace. Jesus supposedly predicted the coming Prophet Muhammad when He spoke of the "Counselor" in John 14.

Islam rejects the concept of human participation in the process of revelation that shows in the varieties of biblical books (Gospels, Letters, etc.). Jesus' original message is deemed lost. Muslims believe that Gospel authors, writing long after Jesus, altered the message to promote their own points of view. Paul's letters are supposed to promote a "mystical" Christ and "false" doctrines such as the resurrection. Another Muslim argument against biblical reliability is the lack of a record that the original texts passed from one generation to the next.

Muslims are, of course, correct that the Bible is older than the Qur'an. But there is not a shred of evidence the Bible has been corrupted. Indeed, the transmission of its text is by far the most accurate of any from the ancient world (see "Has the Bible Been Accurately Copied Down Through the Centuries?" By Norman L. Geisler). The Bible is not compromised by God using human personalities in its writing any more than when He uses human personality in the spoken word of prophets. Moreover, powerful evidence supports, among other things, the historicity of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection (see "Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?" By William Lane Craig). Prayerful Christians can help to correct Muslim misconceptions about the Bible (e.g., by showing that the Bible does not sanction the sinfulness of Western culture). Indeed, Christ's followers should befriend Muslims so the Holy Spirit can bring conviction to their hearts through the powerful Word of God (Heb 4:12).

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

How Does a Christian Converse with a Buddhist? By Ravi Zacharias

2012-01-17T21:34:00.000+08:00

Attraction to Eastern spirituality, and particularly Buddhism, is powerful because the human spirit craves spiritual answers. Thus, whenever a Christian converses with someone of another faith, including Buddhism, he must attempt to reveal the hungers of the human heart and how Christ alone addresses them.

Gautama Buddha taught that we should free ourselves from illusions of selfhood, God, forgiveness, and individual life hereafter. We should focus on a life wherein good deeds outweigh the bad. Buddha believed that all life is suffering and that to escape from rebirth we must understand our nature. If we extinguish hungers and detach ourselves from desires (namely, relationships), we will then offset all impure acts and thoughts. That is the Buddhist's hope. But Buddhism's attraction provides no real answers. The self-which is undeniable and inescapable-is lost in Buddhist philosophy, which brushes away the hungers of the soul. Everything is in our care. All losses are ours. There is no "other" to whom we can go, not even a self to whom we can speak. Yet Buddhism's denial of a personal God is unable to prevent its practitioners seeking to relate to and worship a personal being. There is a universal hunger that drives the self to a transcendent personal other of one's making.

Buddha considered one's present life to be payment for previous lives. Each rebirth is due to karmic indebtedness, but without the carryover of the person. In contrast, Christianity sees the individual self as distinctive and indivisible. God's love is personal. Jesus brought God's offer for true forgiveness and eternal life while affirming each individual as uniquely created in God's image. For Jesus, suffering is only symptomatic of the life unhinged from right relationship with God. We have broken away from God, from our fellow human beings, and even from ourselves.
In contrast to karma-where "sin" is nothing more than ignorance or illusion Christ's forgiveness can provide true appeal for the Buddhist. The gospel proclaims that we have come apart from within, and to this brokenness Jesus brings the real answer. In finding true relationship with God, all other relationships are given moral worth. God, who is distinct and distant, came close so that we who are sinful and weak may be forgiven and made strong in communion with God Himself without losing our identity. That simple act of communion encapsulates life's purpose. The individual retains his or her individuality while dwelling in community.

Moreover, Christ does not prescribe extinguishing one's self-which is not possible-but rather prescribes no longer living for oneself. Hungering after righteousness is good and brings God's fulfillment. Everyone who has surrendered all at the feet of Jesus can confess with the Apostle Paul, "I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to guard what has been entrusted to me until that day" (2 Tm 1:12). Jesus Christ guards all our purposes, loves, attachments, and affections when we entrust them to Him.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Notable Christian Apologist: Justin Martyr By Ted Cabal

2012-01-17T21:33:00.000+08:00

Born in Palestine, Justin (c. 100-167) spent his early years immersed in philosophy. Though a professional philosopher (Platonist), he was impressed with the courage of Christians facing death for their faith. He converted to Christ in A.D. 130 through the witness of an old Christian man who spoke to him of the true “philosophy”. This truth was revealed trough biblical prophets foretelling events to come and was confirmed by miracles. Justin's heart was stirred and thereafter he spent his days seeking to introduce others to Christ. Faithfulness to his confession of Christ ultimately led to his beheading at Rome-hence the name Justin Martyr.

Justin would go on to write several apologetic treatises, including two addressed to the Roman emperors Antoniinus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. In these works Justin, sought to prove the injustice of the persecution of Christians. He defended Christians from false charges such as atheism. Their refusal to bow before pagan idols and worship the emperor stemmed from their worship of the true God, who is invisible as Creator of all things. Demons are the true source of the hatred instigated toward Christians. Traces of truth that may be discovered in pagan philosophers writing before Christ were borrowed from the Hebrew Scriptures or else are due to the pre-incarnate Christ as Logos (the rational power guiding the universe) enlightening them. The biblical prophets accurately prophesied the coming of this Christ as the central figure of history.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Does the Bible Teach That Humans Are More Than Their Bodies? By J.P. Moreland

2012-01-17T21:15:00.001+08:00

Throughout history most Christians have believed in "the souls of men and beasts," to take an expression from Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Animals and humans are composed of an immaterial entity-a soul-and a body. The main biblical emphasis is on the functional, holistic unity of a human being. But this unity includes a dualist distinction of body and soul. The human soul, while not by nature immortal, is nevertheless capable of entering an intermediate disembodied state upon death and, eventually, being reunited with a resurrected body. By contrast, animal souls do not reflect the image of God and most likely do not survive death.

There are two main lines of argument for dualism: biblical anthropological terms and biblical teaching about life after death.

1. Old Testament anthropological terms. Biblical anthropological terms exhibit a wide field of meanings, and so we must take care to interpret each occurrence in its context. The two most important OT terms are nephesh (frequently translated "soul") and ruach (frequently translated "spirit").

Nephesh sometimes refers to.God as an immaterial, transcendent self, a seat of mind, will, emotion, etc. (see Jb 23:13; Am 6:8). It is similarly applied to humans (Dt 6:5; 21:14; Pr 21:10; Is 26:9; Mc 7:1). It also refers to a vital entity that makes something alive (Ps 30:3; 86:13; Pr 3:22.). Finally, nephesh refers to the continuing center of personal identity that departs to the afterlife as the last breath ceases (Gn 35:18; cp. 1 Kg 17:21-22; Ps 16:10; 30:3; 49:15; 86:13; 139:8; Lm 1:1). The Bible regularly speaks of death and resurrection in terms of the departure and return of the soul. Indeed, the problem of necromancy throughout Israel's history (the practice of trying to communicate with the dead in Sheol; see Dt 18:9-14; 1 Sm 28:7-25) seems to presuppose the view that people continue to live conscious lives after the death of their bodies.

Ruach, frequently translated "spirit," sometimes signifies a vital power that infuses something, animates it, and gives it life and consciousness. Thus the ruach in man is formed by Yahweh (Zch 12:1), proceeds from and returns to Him, and is that which gives man life (Jb 34:14). In Ezekiel 37, God takes dry bones, reconstitutes human bodies of flesh, and then adds a ruach to these bodies to make them living persons (see Gn 2:7.) There is no ruach in physical idols and thus they cannot arise and possess consciousness (Jr 10:14; Hab 2:19). Ruach also refers to an independent, invisible, conscious being as when God employs a spirit to accomplish some purpose (2 Kg 19:7; 22:21-23). In this sense Yahweh is called the God of the vital spirits of all flesh (Nm 27:16; cp. 16:22). Here "spirit" means an individual, conscious being distinct from the body. Moreover, ruach also refers to the seat of various states of consciousness, including will (Dt 2:30; Ps 51:10-12; Jr 51:11), thought (Is 29:24), emotion (Jdg 8:3; 1 Kg 21:4), and one's moral or spiritual condition (Pr 18:14; Ec 7:8).

2. The OT on life after death. The OT depicts individual survival after physical death in a disembodied form. The dead in Sheol are called rephaim. Old Testament teaching about life after death is best understood in terms of a diminished though conscious form of disembodied personal survival in an intermediate state. First, the OT often depicts life in Sheol as lethargic, inactive, and resembling an unconscious coma (Jb 3:13; Ps 88:10-12; 115:17-18; Ec 9:10; Is 38:18). However, it also describes the dead in Sheol as being with family, awake, and active on occasion (Is 14:9-10).

Second, the Hebrew Scriptures clearly teach the practice of necromancy (communicating with the dead) as a real possibility and, on some occasions, an actuality (see Lv 19:31; 20:6; Dt 18:11; 1 Sm 28; Is 8:19). Third, according to the OT, the nephesh-a conscious person without flesh and bone-departs to God upon death (see Ps 49:15).

3. New Testament anthropological terms. Several NT passages use pneuma (spirit) or psyche (soul) in a dualistic sense. Hebrews 12:23 refers to deceased but existing human beings in the heavenly Jerusalem as "the spirits of righteous people made perfect." Revelation 6:9-11 refers to dead saints as the "souls" of the martyrs who are in the intermediate state awaiting the final resurrection (20:5-6). Several texts refer to death as "giving up the spirit" (Mt 27:50; Lk 23:46; 24:37; Jn 19:30). Matthew 10:28 says, "Don't fear those who kill the body but are not able to kill the soul; rather, fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." In this text psyche seems clearly to refer to something that can exist without the body.

4. New Testament teaching on the intermediate state. Certain NT passages seem to affirm a disembodied intermediate state between death and final resurrection. For instance, there is the transfiguration passage (see Mt 17:1-13) in which Elijah (who never died) and Moses (who had died) appear with Jesus. The most natural way to interpret this text is to understand that Moses and Elijah have continued to exist (Moses was not re-created for this one event) and were made temporarily visible. Thus the transfiguration passage seems to imply a disembodied intermediate state.

In Luke 23:43, Jesus promised the thief on the cross, "Today you will be with Me in paradise." The term "today" should be taken in its natural sense, namely as meaning that the man would be with Jesus that very day in the intermediate state after their deaths.

In 2 Corinthians 5:1-10 and Philippians 1:21-24, Paul referred to a state after death and prior to the resurrection in which people experience a conscious disembodied "' ("naked," "unclothed") existence in God's presence.

In 2 Corinthians 12:1-4 Paul admitted that, during a visionary experience, he did not know whether he was in his body or temporarily disembodied. Because Paul understood himself as a soul/spirit united to a body, the latter state of being disembodied was a real possibility for him.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Isn't Christianity Intolerant? By Paul Copan

2012-01-17T21:14:00.000+08:00

Unless we're talking about language development, it's a good idea to understand words before we use them, especially when they may be emotionally charged. One commonly used-and abused-word describing Christians is intolerant. Of course, some prickly, pugnacious persons call themselves Christians but deny this claim by their lives. True Christianity shouldn't be equated with abuses committed in Christ's name. Think of Mother Teresa, not the Inquisition! Without compromising their convictions, all Christians should-as much as possible-live at peace with everyone (Rm 12:18).

Today people assume tolerance means "accepting all views as true." And because genuine Christians don't do this, they are charged with being intolerant. Whenever you hear Christians criticized as intolerant, ask, "What do you mean by `intolerance'?" True tolerance doesn't mean accepting all beliefs-the good and the goofy-as legitimate. After all, one who disagrees with Christians doesn't accept Christianity; he thinks Christians are wrong! Historically, tolerance has meant putting up with what you find disagreeable or false. You put up with strangers on a plane who snore or slurp their coffee. Similarly, you put up with another person's beliefs without criminalizing him.

Tolerance differentiates between beliefs and persons. While disagreeing with certain beliefs, we can show respect to persons holding those beliefs, since all humans are made in God's image and inherently deserve respect. Furthermore, Christianity's truth doesn't imply that non-Christians are 100 percent wrong. Christians can agree with non-Christians about, say, certain ethical truths and scientific findings. All truth is God's truth. Truth is more basic than tolerance since tolerance itself presupposes belief in truth.

Tolerance operates at different levels. What can be tolerated in one area may not be tolerated in another. I'll tolerate certain behaviors in other children that I won't tolerate in my own. Christians shouldn't tolerate adultery within the church (ecclesiastical intolerance), but this doesn't mean we seek to have the adulterer imprisoned (legal intolerance).

Condemning arrogance, Christianity emphasizes grace and humility. Some "Christians" think they're superior to non-Christians. But this violates the spirit of the gospel. We gratefully receive God's gift of salvation, being like beggars telling other beggars where to find bread. Unlike the manager of some exclusive country club, God lovingly invites everyone to participate in His family-and not at the expense of truth.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

What Are Common Characteristics of the New Religious Movements? By Leonard G. Goss

2012-01-17T21:09:00.001+08:00

“New religions" or "alternative religions" are breakaways from larger, more traditional religions. They break down into self-improvement groups, Eastern religions or thought systems, unification groups, and Christian deviation sects. Many of these new religions had Christian roots, but have departed from historic biblical Christianity and discarded one or more of Christianity's basic beliefs. What they have left behind is something that decidedly is not Christianity. Jesus said, "Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravaging wolves" (Mt 7:15).

Viewed through the lens of biblical teaching, each new religion abandons orthodox Christian tenants at one point or another (and usually at many different points). Latter-day Saints (Mormons), for example, have parted company with the Christian tradition in multiple ways, but perhaps the most dramatic is their teaching that the church founded by Jesus and the apostles was destroyed from human history by the time of Constantine. Hence, the LDS church was founded to once again represent the exclusive truth and to rescue the Christian religion from total apostasy. The Unification Church (Moonies) also departs from biblical teaching and undermines Christian thinking in dozens of different ways, most notably in claiming their founder is God's messiah and messenger who will fulfill the work of Jesus. This is a serious heresy found in many of the new religions, and the Apostle Paul warned about following after "another Jesus" who is not the same Jesus revealed in Scripture (2 Co 11:4). Other examples are The Way International, a group where the leader's interpretation of the Bible is considered the only valid interpretation and is in fact the Word. The Children of God, sometimes called the Family of Love, believes all mainline Christian churches are as anti-Christian as organizations that do not profess Christianity. The basic belief of this sect is that its members are the only true Christians and obedient servants left on earth. Many other new religious groups could be mentioned, but one last example would be Eckankar, one of the mystical new religions, which teaches out-of-the-body travels (bilocation) and replaces Jesus Christ with the group's founder as the incarnation of God on earth and teaches that only through their group can an individual find ultimate truth.

This small sampling of new religions shows how very different these movements can be, and therefore it is not easy to suggest that each new religion looks the same or possesses the same theological, sociological, psychological, and moral characteristics. Although each new religious belief system deviates drastically and in individual ways from conventional, historic Christianity, still there are some common characteristics to look for in the new movements. Here is a list of warning signs and danger zones, along with some representative groups displaying these characteristics noted in parentheses:

(1) The group is almost always outside the mainstream of dominant religious forms and culture and displays an oppositional style and substance, meaning it is elitist and exclusionist. (Church of Scientology, Global Family. Unification Church, The Walk/Church of the Living Word, The Way International)

(2) Often there is a "new authority" or new revelation besides the Bible from which adherents to the group must find ultimate truths. (Christian Science, International Community of Christ/the Jamilians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Unification Church)

(3) On the other hand, some groups do not claim to have a new, extra-biblical revelation; instead, a group may claim "all we use is the Bible." But the Bible is reinterpreted to justify and defend false teachings. (Alamo Christian Foundation, Children of God/Family of Love)

(4) The group is comprised of lay people; there are no paid clergy or professional religious functionaries. (Fundamentalist Army, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism)

(5) The group is focused around a central figure who is a prophet-founder "chosen" by God to deliver a special message to the modern world that is not found in the Bible, has not been known to genuine Christians throughout all church history, or to recover the teaching of the ancient church that has been lost through the centuries. (Christian Science, The Farm, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientology, Unification Church)

(6) This leader is usually a charismatic figure, and often the style of his or her leadership is authoritarian. (Children of God/Family of Love, Church of the Living Word, Yahwism)

(7) Often the group teaches that the Bible foretold the coming of its particular group or leader. (Branch Davidians, Children of God/Family of Love, The Farm, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Unification Church, The Walk/ Church of the Living Word)

(8) The group thinks of its belief system as the last bastion of God's work on earth. The adherents are God's "final and last group" and they play a central role in the last things. The truth of all things spiritual is exclusive with them and the world is doomed without them. (Jehovah's Witnesses, University Bible Fellowship)

(9) The group believes its adherents are being persecuted. (Alamo Christian Foundation, Healthy Happy Holy Organization, the Truth Station, Unification Church)

(10) The group might engage in some form of predatory and destructive recruitment of new members with vigor, zeal, and high pressure, often deceiving recruits or not revealing their whole theology. (Alamo Christian Foundation, Unification Church, the Way International)
(11) The group sanctions wayward and rebellious members. (Church of Armageddon, Divine Light Mission, Jehovah's Witnesses, People's Temple)

(12) The group believes that God is a force or power, not a person who relates to the creation. (Christian Science, Unity School of Christianity)

(13) The group is fixated on eschatology (end times) and is usually apocalyptic in its teaching. (Branch Davidians, Children of God/Family of Love, Jehovah's Witnesses, People's Temple)

(14) The lifestyle of the group's members is highly legalistic. (Alamo Christian Foundation, the Christ Family, Church of Armageddon, Maranatha Christian Church)

(15) Sometimes the group has a notion that a communal organization is necessary to fulfill the human calling. Therefore, there is usually a tightly maintained autocratic organization which governs both spiritual and everyday life. Some dictate modes of dress, length of hair, the type of personal adornment that is permitted, and sometimes even marriage partners. (Alamo Christian Foundation, Forever Family/Church of Bible Understanding, Church Universal and Triumphant, The Walk)

(16) The group engages in strange rituals and mindless chanting. (Church Universal and Triumphant, Penitentes/Brothers of Our Father Jesus)

(17) The group emphasizes secondary issues and minor points of theology. (Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses)

(18) The group members are very often taught that they can have direct revelations and visions from God. (Mormonism, Swedenborgianism, Unification Church)

(19) The group claims that it is compatible or in harmony with the Bible and traditional Christianity, but in fact it reduces and discounts the Bible or otherwise adds to the revelation of Scripture. (Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, People's Temple, Unification Church)

(20) The group has usurped traditional Christian vocabulary, but has redefined and reinterpreted terms and concepts from the Bible-making its words do "double-duty" in order to defend aberrant doctrines. Their language is pliable and has no fixed meaning. (Christian Science, Mormonism, Unity School of Christianity)

(21) The group denies at least one central truth of Christianity-such as the work of Christ on the cross, the authority of the Scriptures, salvation by grace through faith, the bodily resurrection, the doctrine of eternal punishment, etc. (Alamo Christian Foundation, Branch Davidians, International Community of Christ/the Jamilians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Swedenborgianism-the Church of the New Jerusalem, Unification Church, Unitarian Universalists)

(22) The group denies both the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation. (Anthroposophical Society, Children of God/Family of Love, Christian Science, Eckankar, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, United Pentecostal Church, The Way)

(23) The group recognizes Jesus as a great teacher and leader, an avatar, a wise man, even as the most important of God's created beings-but does not believe that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine. (Unification Church, The United Pentecostal Church, The Way International)

(24) The group teaches a "salvation through works" system whereby members must ultimately save themselves. (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism)

(25) The group emphasizes experience over basic Christian doctrine. (Alamo Christian Foundation, Children of God/Family of Love, Divine Light Mission, est, Lifespring, Mormonism, Urantia, The Walk/Church of the Living Word)

(26) The group is mystical and individualistically oriented. (Church Universal and Triumphant, Foundation of Human Understanding, New Testament Missionary Fellowship)

(27) The group dabbles in the occult and spiritism. (Anthroposophical Society, Children of God/Family of Love, Mormonism, Unification Church, The Walk)

Christians must recognize that our spiritual enemy is not the new religion but, rather, Satan (2 Co 11:12-15).

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Is Christian Science Compatible with the Bible? By Robert B. Stewart

2012-01-17T21:00:00.001+08:00

Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) is a religion based primarily upon the New Thought metaphysical theories of Christian Science founder Mary Baker Eddy (1821-1910). It is a rebirth of the ancient gnostic heresy that matter, including disease, is illusory. Still, to the casual observer, it often sounds biblical because of Christian Science's propensity to use (while redefining) Christian terms. For instance, Eddy says in Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures that "the Bible has been my only authority" (126:29-30), that "Divine Science derives its sanction from the Bible" (146:23), and also that the Bible is the "inspired Word" and "our sufficient guide to eternal Life" (497:3-4). Nevertheless, Christian Science ; rejects the Bible's plain sense in favor of the spiritual interpretations recorded in Mrs. Eddy's writings, Science and Health, Miscellaneous Writings, and Manual of the Mother Church. This becomes clear when she states, "The material record of the Bible ... is no more important to our well being than the history of Europe and America" (Miscellaneous Writings, 170).

A brief perusal of Science and Health reveals many contradictions between Christian Science and the Bible. Mrs. Eddy's religion not only reinterprets biblical names (Adam becomes "belief in original sin" [579:8-9], while Abraham refers to "faith in the divine Life and in the eternal Principle of being" [579:10-11]) but also denies key doctrines. It replaces the biblical concept of a triune personal God with a triple principle of "Life, Truth, and Love" (331:26-27). It denies sin: "Man is deathless, spiritual. He is above sin or frailty" (266:29-30). It rejects Christ's sufficient atonement: "The material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon 'the accursed tree,' than when it was flowing in his veins as he went ' daily about his Father's business" (25:6-9). It even denies Jesus' deity, as it distinguishes between the Christ, "the divine manifestation of God, which comes to the flesh to destroy incarnate error" (583:10-11), and the historical person of Jesus.

By redefining biblical terms, Christian Science denies virtually every cardinal doctrine of Christianity. In no meaningful way can Christian Science be considered compatible with the Bible.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Can a Christian Have Assurance of Salvation? By Chad Owen Brand

2012-01-17T20:55:00.001+08:00

Scripture teaches that Christians are saved by God's grace, which we access by placing our faith in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sins (Rm 3:21-26; Eph 2:8-9). It also teaches that we can persevere in that faith since we are "protected by God's power through faith for a salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Pt 1:5). But can we know with assurance that we truly do belong to the Lord and in the end will be resurrected to eternal life? The answer is yes.

The NT writers were convinced that assurance is available to believers. Paul wrote in Romans 8:1, "No condemnation now exists for those in Christ Jesus," and then concluded that chapter's remarkable discussion with this statement in verses 38-39: "I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing will have the power to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord!" John was also convinced that believers can have assurance. He wrote, "This is how we are sure that we have come to know Him: by keeping His commands" (1 Jn 2:3). And again: "We know that we have passed from death to life because we love our brothers. The one who does not love remains in death" (1 Jn 3:14).

How can we receive this assurance? Just as medical technicians test vital signs to look for indicators of health, so there are several "vital sign indicators" in Scripture for spiritual health.

1. The Bible says we are to examine ourselves to see whether we are in the faith (1 Co 9:24-27; 2 Co 13:5). There is nothing wrong, and everything right, with a Christian stopping from time to time and asking the question "Am I doing okay, spiritually?" We are not looking for perfection at such times, just signs that God is making a difference.

2. Are we walking in obedience to God? Those who love Him obey Him (1 Jn 2:3). This is an objective test. Again, we are not looking for perfection, since becoming like Christ is a process that lasts a lifetime (Rm 8:29-30; 1 Jn 3:2). The question is, is obedience to Him what I want more than anything else?

3. Do we have a sense that we truly belong to the Lord and He to us? Scripture teaches that if we are Christians, we have the indwelling Holy Spirit (Rm 8:9), a Spirit who "testifies together with our spirit that we are God's children" (Rm 8:16). It is this same Spirit who enables us to cry out, `Abba, Father," to our Father in heaven (Rm 8:15; G14:6).

Scripture gives both objective and subjective vital signs. When it comes down to it, as John Calvin once noted, assurance comes with faith. If we are trusting Jesus alone for salvation, that brings assurance with it.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Notable Christian Apologist: Irenaeus By Ted Cabal

2012-01-17T20:51:00.000+08:00

Irenaeus (c. n.D. 130-200) was born of Greek parents in Asia (modern-day Turkey). In his youth he learned under Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who had been a disciple of the Apostle John. As a teenager Irenaeus served as a missionary to Gaul (France), where he later filled the office of bishop. Some later Christian authorities indicate that he was martyred during the reign of Septimius Severus.

Irenaeus was the most important defender of essential Christian doctrine in the second century. He was especially effective in combating the heresy of Gnosticism. a cult that stressed secret knowledge (gnosis) as the way to salvation. Irenaeus contended with the gnostic leader Marcion, who taught that the OT and NT reveal two different gods. The god of the OT was the creator of matter, which, according to gnostic teaching, was evil. Thus, according to Marcion, the OT was useless. The NT God, as the God of law, unknown before the coming of Jesus Christ. Irenaeus powerfully refuted Marcion by demonstrating the interrelationship of the Testaments. He detailed how the OT accurately predicted the coming of Christ, Moreover, Irenaeus stressed the literal resurrection of Jesus. The Redeemer's physical body is not only not evil but in fact raised from the dead for our salvation – precisely as the OT prophets had predicted.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Isn't That just Your Interpretation? By Paul Copan

2012-01-17T20:44:00.001+08:00

Few things are more frustrating than carefully presenting reasons for the meaning of a text-biblical or otherwise-only to be casually dismissed with "That's just your interpretation!" Whether Scripture, history, literature, or politics is under scrutiny, we witness people reducing meaning to personal interpretation or perspective. Who hasn't heard the Friedrich Nietzche's line, "There are no facts-only interpretations"?

But isn't that statement presumed by the speaker to be a fact, not an interpretation? Many claim that conclusions about abortion are just matters of "interpretation" or "perspective," but they give the impression that if you disagree with them, you're wrong. To deny objectivity is to assume something is objectively true for all people: "Everything is a matter of interpretation, whether or not you agree with my statement." We have only two alternatives: triviality ("It's all perspective, including mine"-so why believe it?) or incoherence ("Everything's a matter of perspective, except mine"-making a person an exception to his own rule).

Most people appeal to "interpretation" because they don't like another alternative. "Interpretation" is often a smokescreen for pursuing one's own agenda or autonomy. To better discern whether this is so, we can ask, "Do you mean that you don't like my interpretation or that you have good reasons for disagreeing with it?" Other questions worth asking are these: "Can a perspective ever be correct?" "Are some things not a matter of perspective (such as a flat earth versus a round earth),"How can you know that your interpretation and my interpretation are actually different?"

Even if we don't always get things right, we can discern that some perspectives better approximate the truth than others. We generally trust the Wall Street Journal over tabloids, even though good newspapers may be wrong at points. The fact that we can recognize that some interpretations are more plausible than others (and thus are more likely true) indicates that not everything is matter of interpretation. Therefore, we must be willing reasons for the most plausible position. After, all, if everything is perspective, how can we distinguish between reasonable and wacky ideas?

Despite our limitations, we still cannot escape objectivity. To deny its possibility is to affirm its actuality. Even the "perspectivist" believes that those disagreeing with him are objectively wrong.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

What Are the Three Laws of Logic? By J.P. Moreland

2012-01-17T19:32:00.000+08:00

There are three fundamental laws of logic. Suppose P is any indicative sentence, say, "It is raining."

The law of identity: P is P.
The law of noncontradiction: P is not non-P.
The law of the excluded middle: Either P or non-P

The law of identity says that if a statement such as "It is raining" is true, then the statement is true. More generally, it says that the statement P is the same thing as itself and is different from everything else. Applied to all reality, the law of identity says that everything is itself and not something else.

The law of noncontradiction says that a statement such as "It is raining" cannot be both true and false in the same sense. Of course it could be raining in Missouri and not raining in Arizona, but the principle says that it cannot be raining and not raining at the same time in the, same place.

The law of the excluded middle says: that a statement such as "It is raining" is either true or false. There is no other alternative.

These fundamental laws are true principles governing reality and thought and are assumed by Scripture. Some claim they are arbitrary Western constructions, but this is false. The basic laws of logic govern all reality and thought and are known to be true for at least two reasons: (1) They are intuitively obvious and self-evident. Once one understands a basic law of logic (see below), one can see that it is true. (2) Those who deny them use these principles in their denial, demonstrating that those laws are unavoidable and that it is self-refuting to deny them.

The basic laws of logic are neither arbitrary inventions of God nor principles that exist completely outside God's being. Obviously, the laws of logic are not like the laws of nature. God may violate the latter (say, suspend gravity), but He cannot violate the former. Those laws are rooted in God's own nature. Indeed, some scholars think the passage "In the beginning was the Word [logos]" (Jn 1:1) is accurately translated, "In the beginning was Logic (a divine, rational mind)." For example, even God cannot exist and not exist at the same time, and even God cannot validly believe that red is a color and red is not a color. When people say that God need not behave "logically," they are using the term in a loose sense to mean "the sensible thing from my point of view." Often God does not act in ways that people understand or judge to be what they would do in the circumstances. But God never behaves illogically in the proper sense. He does not violate in His being or thought the fundamental laws of logic.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

How Can the Bible Affirm Both Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom? By William Lane Craig

2012-01-17T19:28:00.001+08:00

The biblical worldview involves a strong conception of divine sovereignty over the world and human affairs even as it presupposes human freedom and responsibility (cp. the accounts of Saul's death in 1 Sm 31:1-6 and 1 Ch 10:8-12). An adequate doctrine of divine providence requires reconciling these two streams of biblical teaching without compromising either. Yet this has proven extraordinarily difficult. On the one hand, the Augustinian-Calvinist perspective interprets divine providence in terms of predetermination, God choosing in advance what will happen. It is hard to see how this interpretation can preserve human freedom or avoid making God the author of sin, since (for example) it would then be He who moved Judas to betray Christ. On the other hand, advocates of revisionist views (e.g., open theism) freely admit that as a consequence of their denial of God's knowledge of future contingent events a strong doctrine of providence becomes impossible. Ironically, in order to account for biblical prophecies of future events, revisionists are often reduced to appealing to the same deterministic explanations that Augustinian-Calvinists offer.

Molinism offers an attractive solution. Luis Molina (1535-1600) defined providence as God's ordering of things to their ends either directly or indirectly through secondary causes. In explaining how God can order things through secondary causes that are themselves free agents, Molina appealed to his doctrine of divine middle knowledge.

Molina analyzed God's knowledge in terms of three logical stages. Although whatever God knows, He knows eternally, so that there is no temporal succession in God's knowledge, nonetheless there does exist a sort of logical order in God's knowledge in the sense that His knowledge of certain truths is conditionally or explanatorily prior to His knowledge of certain other truths.

In the first stage God knows all possibilities, not only all the creatures He could possibly create, but also all the orders of creatures that are possible. By means of this so-called natural knowledge, God has knowledge of every contingent state of affairs that could possibly be actual and of what any free creature could freely choose to do in any such state of affairs.

In the second stage, God possesses knowledge of all true counterfactual propositions (statements of the form "If x were the case, then y would be the case"), including counterfactuals about what creatures would freely do in various circumstances. Whereas by His natural knowledge God knew what any free creature could do in any set of circumstances, now in this second stage God knows what any free creature would freely do in any set of circumstances. This so-called middle knowledge is like natural knowledge in that such knowledge does not depend on any decision of the divine will; God does not determine which counterfactuals are true or false. By knowing how free creatures would freely act in any set of circumstances He might place them in, God thereby knows that if He were to actualize certain states of affairs, then certain other contingent states of affairs would be actual as a result. For example, He knew that if Pontius Pilate were the Roman procurator of Judea in A.D.30, he would freely condemn Jesus to the cross.

Intervening between the second and third stages of divine knowledge stands God's free decree to actualize a world known by Him to be realizable on the basis of His middle knowledge. By His natural knowledge, God knows the entire range of logically possible worlds; by His middle knowledge He knows, in effect, the proper subset of those worlds that it is feasible for Him to actualize. By a free decision, God decrees to actualize one of those worlds known to Him through His middle knowledge. In so doing He also decrees how He would freely act in any set of circumstances.

Given God's free decision to actualize a world, in the third and final stage God possesses so-called free knowledge of all remaining propositions that are in fact true in the actual world, including future-tense propositions about how creatures will freely behave.

Molina's scheme effects a dramatic reconciliation of divine sovereignty and human freedom. In Molina's view God directly causes certain circumstances to come into being and brings about others indirectly through either causally determined secondary causes or free secondary causes. He allows free creatures to act as He knew they freely would when placed in specific circumstances, and He concurs with their decisions in actualizing the effects they desire. Some of these effects God desired unconditionally and so wills positively that they occur. Others He does not unconditionally desire but He nevertheless permits due to His overriding desire to allow creaturely freedom, knowing that even these sinful acts will fit into the overall scheme of things, so that God's ultimate ends in human history will be accomplished. God thus providentially arranges for everything that happens by either willing or permitting it, and He causes everything that does happen, yet in such a way as to preserve freedom and contingency.

(For another perspective, see How Can the Bible Affirm Both Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom by Bruce A Ware)

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Does the Bible Teach Reincarnation? By Paul Copan

2012-01-17T19:19:00.000+08:00

The simple answer is no. When proponents of reincarnation allege that certain biblical texts teach the soul's preexistence or reincarnation, they are approaching those texts superficially and their interpretations dissolve under further scrutiny.
Reincarnation (Hinduism) or rebirth (Buddhism) is integral to Eastern philosophy. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna talks of having "passed through many births." And what we reap in this life (karma) comes from what we've sown in past lives. Biblical, theological, and philosophical reasons, however, undermine reincarnation.

If one acknowledges the Bible's authority and storyline, one will readily recognize the Eastern doctrine of reincarnation as unacceptable. Many claiming that reincarnation appears in the Bible would go on believing in reincarnation anyway, with or without biblical support. They read reincarnation into isolated verses (e.g., statements about being "born again" in Jn 3) without respecting the biblical context or the worldview of the author. In doing so, they do not respect the biblical text as they would want their own Eastern texts respected. (What if we read bodily resurrection into their texts?)

Each of us must die and then be judged by God (Heb 9:27). When God told Jeremiah He knew him before he was in his mother's womb (Jr 1:5), this doesn't demonstrate preexistence or reincarnation; it only indicates God's foreknowledge and sovereignty. Notice Jeremiah did not say, "Before I was in my mother's womb, I knew You, God." That would make a persuasive case for preexistence! Also, the disciples' questioning whether the man born blind sinned before birth (Jn 9:2) does not express reincarnation but rather reflects the rabbinic belief that a fetus could sin while in his mother's womb (cp. Genesis Rabbah 63.6).

Furthermore, the historically supportable event of Jesus' bodily resurrection undercuts reincarnation. The biblical view of the afterlife is radically different from that of Eastern philosophies. True immortality is not the eradication or "snuffing out" (moksha) of the self nor its absorption with the One, Brahman, like a drop in an ocean. To receive immortality is to receive an immortal, imperishable physical body (1 Co 15:53-34). It is a spiritual body (that is, one supernaturally animated by the Holy Spirit) rather than a natural body (animated by a human soul). Immortality means being forever in union with God and living in God's presence with this new body in the new heavens and new earth-without losing individual identity.
Theologically, God's grace and forgiveness undercut karma. We need not bear the heavy weight of guilt and shame because Jesus Christ has absorbed all that for us. And if reincarnation is true, why help the underprivileged? Aren't they getting what they deserve-their karma?

Despite "evidence" for reincarnation, arguments for a person having lived previous lives could be explained by demonic activity (see Ac 16:16-18). A person having access to information about another's previous life does not imply that this was his own life. A psychic may purport to have knowledge of a crime, but this doesn't mean he committed it!

Philosophical problems with reincarnation are many. (1) Those "remembering" past lives tend to be clustered in the East (where reincarnation is taught), not throughout the world (as we'd expect). (2) If we forget our past lives, what purpose does reincarnation serve for self-improvement? (3) Assuming reincarnation (with an infinite past series of rebirths), then we've all had plenty of time to reach perfection. Why haven't we? (4) Reincarnation doesn't solve the problem of evil, as some claim, but only infinitely postpones it (and in some Eastern schools, evil is just an illusion anyway). (5) Reincarnation makes incoherent the Eastern idea of monism, which says that everything is one without distinction, by presupposing distinctions between (a) individual souls, (b) the karmas of individual souls not having yet reached enlightenment, (c) the enlightened and unenlightened, and (d) individual souls and the One (ultimate reality).

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Notable Christian Apologist: C. S. Lewis By Ted Cabal

2012-01-17T18:56:00.000+08:00

Clive Staples Lewis (1898-1963) enjoyed a distinguished career at Oxford and Cambridge. He was also a notable literary critic and author of science fiction and children's literature (including the Chronicles of Narnia). In addition, Lewis was arguably the most influential Christian apologist of the twentieth century. Remarkably, he was a committed atheist before his conversion to Christ in 1929.
Lewis authored a number of important apologetic works, such as Miracles, The Problem of Pain, God in the Dock, and The Abolition of Man. In his most famous work, Mere Christianity, Lewis presented powerful arguments for the truth of the Christian faith. Originally broadcast as several BBC talks during World War II, Mere Christianity notes that even people who deny objective right and wrong cannot refrain from believing in them. Moreover, people are unable to live out the moral law they know they should. Lewis argued that this moral law, coupled with humanity's inability to fulfill it, allows Christianity to begin to "talk." The forgiveness God offers in Christ makes sense in the real world.

Lewis also maintained that Jesus Christ claimed to be God, undercutting popular notions that Jesus was something like a good teacher. Either He was who He claimed, or else He was a liar or lunatic. But the life of Jesus does not betray the character of a liar or the mentality of a lunatic. Lewis contended that the most reasonable understanding of Jesus is that He is the Lord.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

What Is Divine Revelation? By Gordon R. Lewis

2012-01-17T18:52:00.000+08:00

Revelation is an activity of the invisible, living God making known to finite and sinful people His creative power, moral standards, and gracious redemptive plan.
First, God discloses Himself and His power to everyone by the marvels of His creation-the amazing life support system of planet earth. We can discover some things about painters from their paintings. Similarly, in the magnificence of creation, with its microscopic complexities and cosmic expanse, we realize our dependence upon the Creator's powerful existence and intelligent design (Ps 19:1-6; Rm 1:19-20).

Second, God makes plain His moral nature and ethical principles for our well-being by implanting oughts and ought nots in every human spirit. Even people who do not have Moses' Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-20) feel an obligation to obey those universal principles of right and wrong and suffer guilt when they do not (Rm 2:14-15). God's moral principles restrain evil and prompt all to seek and find Him (Ac 17:27). However, everyone sins, worships, and serves the creation rather than its Creator (Rm 1:25; 3:10-23). Our habitual failure to live up to God's laws demonstrates our need for His mercy and redeeming grace.

Third, God made His merciful redemptive purposes known centuries before Christ both through mighty acts such as delivering Israel from slavery in Egypt (Ex 12) and through the reliable messages of His prophetic spokesmen (Heb 1:1). Criteria by which to distinguish true from false prophets included the logical consistency of teaching with previous revelation (Dt 13:1-5) and the verification of visible signs (Dt 18:20-22). God promised to send His anointed One to defeat Satan's destructive purposes in many ways. The Messiah would be a son of Eve (Gn 3:15), a descendant of Abraham (Gn 22:18) and David (2 Sm 7:12-16), and would be born of a virgin (Is 7:14) in Bethlehem (Mc 5:2). Because those who chose the way of sin chose a way that ends in death, without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. So believing citizens of Israel pictured Christ's coming sacrificial atonement for sin by animal sacrifices and the Passover.

Fourth, God made His just and loving plan of redemption known supremely in Jesus, the long-awaited Messiah. "No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son-the One who is at the Father's side-He has revealed Him" (Jn 1:18). To appreciate more fully what God is like, study the life, words, works, and atoning death of Jesus. At Calvary, the guiltless Savior substituted Himself for the guilty. In doing so He defeated Satan and provided the just basis for His reconciling mercy and grace He sat down (Rm 3:25). Then the risen Christ demonstrated His saving power over sin, guilt, death, and Satan (Rm 1:2-4; 10:9-10)!

Fifth, after Jesus' ascension to heaven, God communicated His redemptive purposes neglects poses through spokesmen called apostles. Jesus taught and trained them for three years and they were eyewitnesses of His resurrection (Ac 1:21-22). Through Paul, an apostle who later saw the risen Christ, God revealed His plan to unite both Jewish and Gentile believers in one body, the church (Eph 2:11-22).

Sixth, the King of kings will be revealed in all His power and glory at His second coming.

Seventh, all the above sources of revealed truth have been preserved for us in Holy Scriptures.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

What Does It Mean That God Inspired the Bible? By Gordon R. Lewis

2012-01-17T18:45:00.000+08:00

To say that God inspired the Bible is to say that the Holy Spirit supernaturally motivated and superintended the prophetic and apostolic recipients of revelation in the entire process of writing their scriptural books.

Many other books have coauthors, so we need not imagine that Scripture has to be either a human or a divine production. The Holy Scriptures originated, not with the will of its human writers, but with the will of God the Holy Spirit (2 Pt 1:20-21). Over 3,000 times biblical writers claimed to have received their messages from God. God the Holy Spirit "inspired" (breathed out or originated) the Scriptures through the human writers (2 Tm 3:16).

God prepared these conscious, active prophetic and apostolic spokesmen (and their secretaries) providentially by their heredity, character, vocabularies, and writing styles. At the appropriate time, in all the processes of writing, they were "moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pt 1:21). This technical meaning of inspiration does not apply to any alleged revelations outside the Bible or to any literature that in a more general sense may be said to be inspiring.

God commissioned His true prophets to write, including Moses (Ex 17:14; 34:27), Joshua (Jos 24:15-26), Samuel (1 Sm 10:25), Isaiah (Is 30:8), Jeremiah' (Jr 30:2; 36:2,17,28-29), Ezekiel (Ezk 43:11), and Habakkuk (Hab 2:2). Hence the Bible was not a result of Israel's quest for God; it is God's witness against Israel (Dt 31:26). Zechariah laments the fact that Israel "made their hearts like a rock so as not to obey the law or the words that the LORD of Hosts had sent by His Spirit through the earlier prophets" (Zch 7:12).

The collection (or canon) of biblical books began to be formed as inspired writings were placed alongside the ark of the covenant in which were contained the Ten Commandments (Dt 31:24-26; Jos 24:25-26; 1 Sm 10:25; 1 Kg 8:9; Is 8:20; 29:18; 34:16).

The Lord Jesus Christ validated the OT's inspiration by quoting from all three sections: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (Lk 24:44). He endorsed the inspiration and authority of the OT in detail (Mt 5:17-18). The Lord also prepared His disciples for the coming of the NT (Jn 16:12) and so endorsed it in principle. Paul received revelation pertaining to redemption (GI 1:11-17) and expected his writings to be received as from God (2 Th 2:13,15). Peter classified Paul's writings with the inspired OT (2 Pt 3:16).

What the authors or their close associates originally wrote in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek was inspired. Although their original manuscripts have not been discovered. we know what they wrote. In numerous available copies, quotations, and translations, there is amazing agreement. Through some 20 centuries of laborious copying and printing, there have been no substantial variations of any important fact or doctrine.

So, in the twenty-first century, we can rely on serious translations to convey what believers need to be "equipped for every good work" (2 Tm 3:17). The Holy Spirit attests to the truth of this written revelation and uses it like a sword to convict of sin, draw sinners to Christ, build them up, and send them out to bless the world (Heb 4:12).

As a result of its inspiration, all that the Bible affirms is true.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

How Is Jihad Understood in Islam? By Ergun Mehmet Caner

2012-01-17T18:42:00.000+08:00

The Arabic, the term jihad means "to strive," and "to fight." In Islam, the verb carries two levels of meaning that affect the individual Muslim.

First, the individual Muslim must strive (jihad) against his flesh. Surah al Tawbah 9:20 says, "Those who believe and suffer exile and strive [jihad] with might and main in Allah's cause ... have the highest rank in the sight of Allah." In this dimension, the jihad is against oneself. The Muslim must learn to control his sinful impulses and desires. In this dimension, jihad is a means for the Muslim to earn salvation. The aforementioned verse ends with this promise, "they (who jihad with might) are the people who will achieve salvation."

Second, however, jihad has a corporate dimension. The Qur'an teaches that jihad is warfare in the cause of Allah. This fighting (also jihad in Arabic) is required for Muslims, even. if they do not want to do it (Surah 2:216). The nature of jihad is unambiguous in the Qur'an. Surah al Tawbah 9:29 says, "Fight [jihad] those who believe not in Allah nor in the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the people of the Book until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission."
In this corporate dimension, jihad is clearly seen as warfare. Specifically, Islam teaches that jihad is fought against those who do not recognize Islam as the only truth. In the context of Surah 9:29, jihad's purpose is for either the conversion of the infidel, or the control of the non-believer. If a non-believer will not believe, he must pay a tax, called jizyah, as a sign of his submission.

Jihad as warfare has parameters in Islam. Muslims who are blind, lame, or terminally ill are exempt from holy war (Surah 48:17). Muslims must give a warning of four months (fatwa), telling the infidel to convert or surrender. After these "forbidden months," the Muslim warriors must "seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them, in every stratagem of war" (Surah 9:1-5). Some Muslims cite Surah al Baqarah 2:256 ("there is no compulsion in religion") but earlier in that same ' chapter, Allah says, "and slay them whenever ye catch them and turn them out from where they have turned you out" (Surah al Baqarah 2:191). Once jihad begins, it must be fought until victory or the surrender of the unbelievers (Surah 47:4). The Muslim who dies in jihad is promised heaven (Surah 47:4-6).

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

How Should a Christian Understand the Role of Government? By Charles Colson

2012-01-17T18:35:00.001+08:00

Christianity is about much more than salvation; it speaks to all of life. "Jesus is Lord" was the earliest baptismal confession. Scripture mandates taking dominion and cultivating the soil (Gn 1) and being salt and light (Mt 5:13-16).Abraham Kuyper, former Dutch prime minister and theologian, famously said, "There is not a square inch in the whole domain of human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry out `Mine!"'

No area of cultural engagement is more important than government and politics: We are commanded to submit to governing authorities (Rm 13); Jesus Himself said, "Give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" (Mt 22:21). This means Christians must be good citizens, pay taxes, obey laws, and serve (as called) in government. Augustine argued that Christians are to be the best citizens: what others do only because the law demands, we do out of love for God.

Because government is ordained by God to preserve order and do justice, we're instructed to honor the king (1 Pt 2:13-17) and pray for those in authority that we might live peaceful lives (1 Tm 2:1-22). The only thing worse than bad government is anarchy.

The authorities are established by God, Paul said. Hence, John Calvin accorded the magistrate's office as having one of the most important roles in any society working as a servant for good (Rm 13:4). It's a noble calling for Christians to enter public service. Contrary to common caricatures of politicians, some of the finest public servants I've known are serious believers who live out their faith in office without compromising their convictions.

The cultural mandate means the church has an important role to play with respect to political structures-working for justice, speaking prophetically, and often being the conscience of society, even when this means persecution, prison, or death, as it did for many in the confessing church in Nazi Germany. Though there have been times when the church has failed in this responsibility, thankfully today it's at its post, the strongest voice in American society in defense of life and human rights. The church is also the agency that, in this age of terrorism, prophetically holds government to the moral boundaries of the just war tradition (see the article. "Does the Bible Support a Just War?" Norman L. Geisler). Though in America we observe a strict separation of church and state (the state shouldn't establish a state church or restrict the free exercise of religion), there should never be a separation of religion and public life. The public square needs religious influence; indeed, the Christian faith has played a critical role in shaping our institutions. Reformation doctrines such.as sphere sovereignty (government doesn't rule alone; all structures-the family, the church, private associations-have ordained responsibilities) and the rule of law made Western liberal democracy possible. Our Founding Fathers respected the "laws of nature and nature's God," recognizing that without a moral consensus resting upon Judeo-Christian tradition, virtue could not be maintained and self-government would fail. Noted historian Will Durant wrote that he could find no case in history where a nation survived without a moral code and no case where that moral code was not informed by religious truth.

But the church must approach its public role with caution and sensitivity. Pastors and other church leaders, for example, should never make partisan endorsements of candidates (which can divide our ranks and politicize the faith) or allow themselves to be in the hip pocket of any political party. That said, the pastor should never hesitate to speak boldly from the pulpit about pressing moral concerns.

There are clear dangers in dealing with politics. Among my duties as special counsel to President Nixon was winning the support of special interest groups. I found religious leaders easily impressed with the trappings of office. And later, watching from the outside, I saw Christian leaders succumb to these allures. There's a fine line here. It was wrong when, for most of the twentieth century, evangelicals stood apart from politics; so too it's wrong to allow ourselves to be married to a political party.

Christians individually and through organizations must engage in the political process, always preserving their independence and fulfilling the prophetic office (which may mean calling friends to account). Though Christians are to be the best of citizens, our first loyalty is not to the kingdom of man but to the kingdom of God.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Notable Christian Apologist: Augustine By Ted Cabal

2012-01-17T18:24:00.000+08:00

Augustine (A.D. 354-430) was born in northern Africa (roughly modern Algeria). Monica, his devout Christian mother, raised him in biblical truth, prayed for him faithfully throughout her life, and remained an important influence on Augustine until her death. His brilliant but restless mind, however, wandered away from his Christian roots. This journey away from God (detailed in his classic Confessions) included giving himself to sensual pleasures. Augustine, seeking intellectual and spiritual fulfillment, wandered in succession through pagan philosophies such as Manichaeanism and Neoplatonism. Manichaeanism combined elements from several religions, teaching that reality is ultimately grounded in two gods, one evil and one good. Neoplatonism, however, taught that all reality emanated from "the One" (an impersonal, unknowable god).

Augustine eventually realized the intellectual and spiritual failure of his search through paganism. After his soul came to rest through conversion to Christ, Augustine would become the greatest theologian and apologist of the first Christian millennium. He powerfully refuted prevailing pagan philosophies (including Manichaeanism) as well as heresies that threatened to divide and corrupt the church. In The City of God, Augustine brilliantly confronted the pagan charge that Christianity was responsible for the downfall of the Roman Empire. He focused the blame, where it belonged by exposing paganism's spiritual bankruptcy. Moreover, in so doing, Augustine constructed a grand philosophy of history in observing that the crisis of his day was only part of a larger whole. The "City of the World," comprised of those chief love is the self, stands in sharp contrast in every age to the “City of God,” of those who love God.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

How Should a Christian Relate to the New Age Movement? By Ted Cabal

2012-01-17T18:11:00.002+08:00

Though the vestiges of a biblical worldview are still in evidence, polls reveal that doctrinal beliefs of perhaps a third of Westerners can be characterized as New Age. The ideas of this New Age Movement (NAM) are widely, and often subconsciously, disseminated through television (e.g., Oprah Winfrey's show) and movies (e.g., Star Wars). The NAM also has become big business through its myriads of self-help seminars, journaling/prayer guides (often mimicking Christian tradition), and books.

Adherents of the movement often reject the term New Age due to its connotations. At any rate, it is perhaps better termed "postmodern religion" in view of the assumptions its shares with philosophical postmodernism (see the article, "How Should a Christian Understand Postmodernism?" by Douglas R.Groothius). Generally rejecting a scientific or analytic (modernist) approach to life, adherents believe that knowledge is subjectively constructed and socially determined. Truth is not universal to all humans but may vary according to what "works" for some and not others. Moral values are not universally objective but are only properties of communities choosing to adopt them. People in the NAM view reality as an evolving unified whole; indeed, they often consider God to be one name for this whole. They especially disdain biblical Christianity due to its universal truth claims.

Since the NAM is under the authority of no particular religious text, proponents are best identified by various "symptoms," such as the following. They prefer the practice of spirituality over organized, classical expressions of religion. They believe that no single religious teacher can claim the allegiance of all; claims by Jesus as being the Way must be reinterpreted or rejected altogether. According to them, rather than the grace of God revealed in the Jesus of the Bible, "angels," paranormal powers, or even raw human potential serve as "saviors" from the race's predicament. Mixing and matching the objects of worship, they often identify themselves simultaneously in terms such as Buddhist, Jewish, and Presbyterian. Ultimately the NAM represents a return to polytheism, or the belief in many gods.

How, then, should Christians begin sharing Christ with those in the NAM? Frequently a truth discussion must pave the way. If objective, universal truth does not exist, then the claims of the gospel are false. But all people live as if everyday beliefs must correspond to reality (e.g., no one can just choose to live on poison instead of water). So why should anyone hold that belief in God and the afterlife is somehow different? Incoherence in everyday affairs is viewed as dishonest or irrational ("Yes, Officer, that double-parked car is mine, but it's not mine"). Why, then, accept claims such as "Christ can be true for you but not for me"?

At first glance the shoddy handling of truth in the NAM makes it appear more tolerant than Christianity. But actually it condescendingly views the claims of all other religions as wrong, ignorant, and divisive believing that only those in the NAM see the complete picture; other religions, fixated on their traditional teachings, are unaware of the deep, hidden unity of all religions. But is there good reason to believe that many ways to heaven actually exist? How can anyone claim to know this universal truth (especially if there are no universal truths)? Earthly road maps do not assume that just any path can reach a destination. Routes may be chosen by their ease of travel or scenic views, but not all lead to the same place.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Notable Christian Apologist: Athanasius By Ted Cabal

2012-01-17T18:06:00.001+08:00

Athanasius (A.D. 298-373) was born in Alexandria, Egypt, and would eventually become bishop of that city. In 313, Christianity was declared fully legal by the emperor Constantine. Nevertheless, Athanasius still faced persecution for his defense of the full deity of Christ. At the Council of Nicaea (in modern-day Turkey) in 325, Athanasius was instrumental in bringing about condemnation of the heresy of Arianism. Anus taught that the Father created the Son, who thus was only of similar substance (homoiousios) with the Father. Athanasius led the way in rejecting this unbiblical notion by stressing the Son's being of the same essence (homoiousios) as the Father. Leaving out the i in this important word meant, all the difference, as Athanasius insisted that the Soft had no beginning but rather was fully divine. Even though he was exiled five times for his courageous stance, Athanasius faithfully defended the biblical teaching of Christ. Hence, at his death, friends provided this epitaph: “Athanasius against the World.”

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

The Incarnation: Could God Become Man Without Ceasing to Be God? By James A. Parker III

2012-01-17T17:57:00.000+08:00

The answer to this question is yes. Not only is it possible, but it happened in time and space. Neo-orthodox theologians (twentieth-century thinkers strongly influenced by Karl Barth) have said that the question is logically unanswerable, because faith is an illogical paradox and can be seen only through the eyes of faith. In recent years liberal theologians have denied the reality of the incarnation on the grounds that it is a myth and not true in any objective sense. In the nineteenth century advocates of kenotic Christology (emphasizing the "emptying" of Christ in keeping with Php 2:7) argued that in the incarnation the divine Logos (Word) suspended the characteristics of deity because they were in principle incompatible with human attributes, thus making nonsense of the claim that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man (as both the Bible and historic Christian confessions have claimed).

Historical, Bible-based theology has argued that God is omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), sinless, and incorporeal (without a body) and that these attributes are essential and necessary to deity. Characteristically, human beings do not exhibit these attributes. So how can Jesus simultaneously be fully divine and fully human? Along these lines, people have attacked the doctrine of the incarnation, claiming that it is illogical and contradictory.

This alleged logical contradiction is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how human nature is defined, according to Thomas V. Morris in his book The Logic of God Incarnate. Morris has argued that the way out of this apparent impasse is to have a clearer understanding of three important concepts: (1) essential versus nonessential properties, (2) essential versus common properties, and (3) the difference between being fully and being merely human.

On the first issue Morris argues that an essential property is a property that, if removed, fundamentally changes the thing in question. So, if God's attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, etc., were removed, then he would no longer be deity. These are essential attributes. While it is a common attribute for a human being to have two hands, this is not an essential property to humanness. The heart of the attack on the incarnation comes from critics on the basis that lack of omniscience, omnipotence, etc., is essential to humanness, since human beings do not have these qualities.

This brings us to Morris's second distinction: essential versus common properties. It is a common property that everyone living on planet earth was born on planet earth, but this is simply a common property; it is not essential to their humanness. Morris then asks the question, on what basis does one know that the absence of the attributes of omniscience and so forth are essential human properties and not just common properties?

Last, Morris argues, "an individual is fully human [in any case where] that individual has all essential human properties, all the properties composing basic human nature. An individual is merely human if he or she has all those properties plus some additional limiting properties as well, properties such as that of lacking omnipotence, that of lacking omniscience, and so on." So orthodox Christians, in affirming the incarnation, are claiming that Jesus was fully human without being merely human.

Ronald Nash summarizes the implications of the argument as follows:

This means two things: Jesus possesses all the properties that are essential to being a human being, and Jesus possesses all the properties that are essential to deity. The historic understanding of the Incarnation expresses the beliefs that Jesus Christ is fully God-that is, He possesses all the essential properties of God: Jesus Christ is also fully human-that is, He possesses all the essential properties of a human being, none of which turn out to be limiting properties: and Jesus Christ was not merely human-that is, he did not possess any of the limiting properties that are complements of the divine attributes. In the face of these distinctions, the alleged contradiction in the Incarnation disappears.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

How Can We Know Anything at All? By Garreff Debeese

2012-01-17T17:48:00.002+08:00

Surely knowledge is crucial in our day-to-day lives. We don't trust a dentist who believes he can perform a needed tooth extraction, no matter how sincere his belief; we go to a dentist who knows he can. We don't rely on a friend's hunch when wondering whether to take an umbrella; we listen to a meteorologist who has good reasons for his prediction. The prosecuting attorney (ideally) doesn't try to get the jury to feel angry with the defendant; she wants to establish the truth of his guilt.

Similarly, in matters of religion, what should matter is knowledge, not merely sincere belief; good reasons for faith, not hunches; truth, not feelings. Christianity is more than ritual or mythology or emotions; it is a knowledge tradition. Christianity claims certain things can be known.

Kinds of knowledge. We use knowledge (and the verb to know) in at least three different senses. It refers to (1) propositional knowledge-knowing facts; (2) knowledge by acquaintance-knowing something or someone directly; and (3) skill knowledge-know-how.

Here are some examples. A sports fan' may know many facts about last year's MVP, or a historian may know all about ancient Rome, and yet neither' person's propositional knowledge constitutes the direct knowledge by acquaintance that the player's teammates or Julius Caesar possessed. Someone may have the know-how to ride a bike or play pool without having any propositional knowledge about force, inertia, or angular momentum.

Christianity involves all three types of knowledge. Eternal life, Jesus said, is knowing God (Jn 17:3). This is knowledge by acquaintance and is more than knowledge of Bible facts or systematic theology. (Sadly, it is possible for someone to know a lot about the Bible, or a lot about theology, and yet not know God.) Jesus went on to say that eternal life is knowing "the One You have sent-Jesus' Christ." This involves knowing certain facts about Jesus of Nazareth and about His mission as Savior. So both knowledge by acquaintance and propositional knowledge are involved.
What about skill knowledge? Since salvation is not by works, no skill is involved in becoming a Christian. But growing in our faith involves learning certain skills: how to study the Bible, how to think as Christians about decision making, how to pray, how to share our faith, and so on.

Propositional knowledge. All three senses of knowledge are important, but propositional knowledge demands careful consideration. For the vast bulk of what we know is propositional and does not come by direct acquaintance or know-how.
Propositional knowledge may be defined roughly as justified true belief. First, obviously, you can't know something if you don't believe it. Second, the proposition you believe must be true if it is to count as knowledge. Sincere (but false) beliefs, even useful (but false) beliefs, are not knowledge. Third, a true belief must be justified; that is to say that you must have the right kinds of reasons for the belief. Even true beliefs do not count as knowledge if they are the result of a lucky guess, a hunch, or a passionate wish that things be so. The right kinds of reasons are those making it probable that the proposition you believe is true. They are truth indicators.

What counts as the right kinds of reasons depends on the nature of the proposition. I believe the sun is shining because I can see it and feel its warmth. I believe I had cereal for breakfast because I clearly remember it. I believe my wife loves me because she tells me so, she shows me in many ways, and she has stuck with me for a number of years. And I believe Tiglath-pileser was a mighty king of Assyria who invaded Israel in 743 B.C. because I read about him in the Bible (2 Kg 15-16) and in reliable histories of Assyria. In all these cases the reasons why I believe what I do are truth indicators. They are the right kinds of reasons to justify those beliefs.

Can we know anything without using our senses? In the examples above, the justifying reasons involved the senses-even beliefs based on memory, for the memories were formed through sensory experiences. It is clear that beliefs based on our senses can be justified (provided, of course, that we are not too tired, the lighting is adequate, our sense organs are functioning properly, and so on). Knowledge based on the senses is called empirical knowledge.

The Enlightenment doctrine of empiricism holds that all knowledge of the world is empirical. Today, the spectacular successes of the natural sciences have enshrined empirical investigation as by far the best-and for most people, the only-way to now. But what about things we can't sense? Is nonempirical knowledge possible? The question is crucial, for a great many important things can't be known through our senses-things such as whether we have a soul and whether God exists.

Is empiricism true? No. Notice first that the claim "All knowledge of the world is empirical" is itself not an empirical statement. How could we know that through our senses? The claim is self-refuting. But beyond that, there are good reasons to think that at least some knowledge of the world is nonempirical (a doctrine called moderate rationalism). Beliefs that certain things exist that cannot be directly observed may be inferred from empirical observations. This is how we justify belief in such things as electrons, gravitational fields, beauty, or love. And similarly for belief in God. Further, the analogy between sensory experience and religious experience provides good reasons for the justification of religious beliefs based on religious experience.

Finally, we can know some things without using our senses at all. For example, we can know much about ourselves through introspection (a nonempirical process). We can know that we have minds that think, believe, hope, fear, and so on, and that we are not identical to our bodies. Many ethicists claim that moral knowledge is accessible through intuition or conscience or pure reason. Following St. Anselm, many scholars have thought that the ontological proof-a nonempirical argument-establishes God's necessary existence. Moreover, we have nonempirical as well as empirical evidence of God's existence (Rm 1:19-20), what has been called the sensus divinitatis. And since our belief in God's existence is justified, we also are justified in believing what He has revealed to us. For all these examples, we can point to the right kinds of reasons that justify nonempirical beliefs.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

How Can Jesus' Death Bring Forgiveness? By Chad Owen Brand

2012-01-17T17:19:00.000+08:00

Occasionally stories are told about someone being sentenced for a crime when suddenly another person steps up and says, "I will take the punishment for him." Most such stories are not based in fact. But the NT teaches that Jesus, in His ;, death, has taken the penalty for our sin upon Himself.

Scripture teaches that all humanity is tainted and corrupted by sin, both because of the sin of our forefather Adam (Rm 5:12-21) and because we ourselves are all sinners (Eph 2:1-3). God, as the righteous Judge, cannot and will not simply overlook sin, since sin violates His nature and brings destruction to the perfect world He created. God would be unjust simply to say, "Oh well, boys will be boys." Instead, sin must be punished, and since all of us have broken God's law, we rightly deserve full punishment. Yet, amazingly, Jesus came to take our punishment upon Himself.

The NT speaks of Jesus' death providing forgiveness in at least three ways. First, Jesus' death was a sacrifice for our sins. Christ fulfills the OT sacrificial system in being both high priest and sacrifice (Heb 5-10). On the Day of Atonement, animals were killed before the altar and the blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat in the most holy place. Under that seat were tablets of stone upon which had been written the Ten Commandments. Looking down from heaven God could see the law, but when the sacrificial blood was sprinkled, the law-as reminder of the people's sin-was covered. Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin (Heb 9:22).

Second, the NT speaks of Christ's death as a "propitiation" for our sin (Rm 3:2126). This word, hilasmos, carries the meaning of "an offering satisfying God's wrath toward sin," yet remarkably God Himself provides this offering. When Jesus died on the cross, He cried out, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Mt 27:46). The Father was pouring out His wrath because "He made the One who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Co 5:21).

Third, and related to both points already made, the Bible speaks of Christ's death as a substitution. Jesus did not come to be served but to serve and "to give His life-a ransom for many" (Mk 10:45). Jesus "gave Himself for our sins to rescue us from this present evil age" (Gl 1:4). Isaiah's predictions of a coming Suffering Servant are fulfilled in the death of Jesus, who "was pierced because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities ... and the Lord has punished Him for the iniquity of us all" (Is 53:5-6). He died in our place.

By faith, and faith alone, we receive the forgiveness Christ provides through His humiliating and painful death. The result? Eternal life (Eph 2:3-10).

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

How Does the Bible Relate to Judaism? By Larry R. Helyer

2012-01-17T17:16:00.001+08:00

Judaism should not be confused with the biblical religion of ancient Israel. Early 61 Judaism arose in the aftermath of the destruction of the first temple (586 B.C.).The term Judaism originally appeared in the first century B.C. (2 Macc 2:21; 8:1; 14:38) to describe the beliefs, customs, and rituals of Jews during the Hellenistic (Greek-influenced) era.

Judaism has developed considerably over the intervening centuries. For example, official Judaism has been a nonsacrificial religion since the destruction of the second temple (A.D. 70). Observance of the mitzvoth (the commandments) replaces sacrifice, atoning for sin (Tob 4:6-7,9-11; 12:9-10). Judaism's roots, however, are deep in the OT. The fundamental ideas of modern Judaism, in all its diversity, maintain continuity with the biblical revelation at Mount Sinai. These ideas include ethical monotheism (belief in one God), God's gift of Torah ("instruction") to Israel, and the choice of Israel as a light to the nations. A striving for peace, justice, and righteousness for all peoples derives from the Prophets, and a spirituality grounded in everyday life stems from the wisdom and hymnic literature of the OT.

The Torah outlines a way of life for the people of Israel and is nearly synonymous with Judaism. Embedded in the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) are 613 commandments. After the exile in the sixth century B.C., these 613 commandments were adapted, augmented, and hedged by other laws that became part of an ever-growing oral law (cp. Mk 7:5; GI 1:14). In time the oral law was also attributed to Moses. Eventually (c. A.D. 500), the oral law was codified in the Mishnah ("repetition"). This in turn was commented on and augmented in the Gemara ("completion"). Finally, the Mishnah and Gemara were published in two massive works, the Palestinian Talmud (c. A.D. 400) and the Babylonian Talmud (c. A.D. 500). (Talmud means "learning" or "instruction.") For Orthodox Jews, the Babylonian Talmud, at some 2.5 million words, remains the authoritative guide for Judaism. The foundation of Talmud, however, remains the Torah of "Moses our Rabbi."

Modern liberal Jews reject the belief that the Pentateuch was divinely inspired and written by Moses. While not treating it as an infallible guide for faith and practice, they nonetheless acknowledge its historical and symbolic role in providing Jewish self-identity.

Modern Judaism maintains continuity with the OT in a number of significant ways. The annual festivals are primarily those prescribed in the Pentateuch. The essential ethical teachings of Judaism derive from the Mosaic Law, especially the Ten Commandments. Circumcision, dietary laws, and ritual immersion have their roots in the Pentateuch. The Prophets are appealed to for their emphasis upon social justice and mercy. Throughout the year, in synagogues, the Torah (Pentateuch » and. haphtarah (selections from the Prophets) are read in a lectionary cycle. Orthodox Jews still anticipate a personal Messiah and a messianic age based upon the Prophets.
For Israeli Jews, the Hebrew Bible (OT) is a national treasure avidly studied in both religious and secular schools. The modern Zionist movement appeals to the Bible as part of its cultural heritage. Archaeology and historical geography of the Bible are national pastimes in Israel. Increasingly, Jewish scholars are also studying the NT as a valuable source for understanding the development of early Judaism.

A key issue distinguishing Christianity from Judaism (though both have the OT in common) has to do with fulfillment. Jesus taught His disciples to read the Scriptures christologically, or in terms of how they relate to Him, since the Scriptures speak of Him and His work (Mt 5:17-18; Lk 24:25-27,44-49; Jn 5:39). Judaism denies that Jesus fulfills the messianic prophecies of the OT. For example, Jewish scholars interpret the so-called Servant Songs of Isaiah (42:1-4; 49.f1-6; 50:4-11; 52:13-53:12) as referring to the prophet himself, to an unknown prophet, or (most likely) to the people of Israel viewed collectively as the Servant of the Lord. Traditional Christianity, of course, sees these passages as prophecies of Jesus and His ministry (Ac 8:26-35). Orthodox Jews, who still harbor hopes of a personal Messiah, await a Davidic descendant who will rule as king at the end times. Liberal Jews prefer to interpret these passages metaphorically as referring to an ideal age.

Thus a major factor in the parting of ways between Judaism and Christianity centers on the meaning and mission of Jesus. For Judaism, there is no human failing, whether collective or individual, that requires special divine intervention and that cannot be remedied with the guidance of Torah. Salvation consists of faithful, though not perfect, adherence to the mitzvoth. God in His mercy forgives those hose intentions are upright. The NT, however, unambiguously proclaims the finality of Jesus Christ. He is God's last word to sinners (Heb 1:1-3), the Word who became flesh, dwelt among us, and reveals the Father to sinners (Jn 1:1-18). By His atoning death on the cross, He draws all people unto Himself (Jn 3:16; 6:35-40;12:32).

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Is Allah Identical to the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ? By Ergun Mehmet Caner

2012-01-17T16:53:00.001+08:00

This is a difficult question, especially in the English language. Linguistically anyone who uses the term "God" is basically saying the same thing: They are referring to the uncreated Creator of the universe. In this fashion, Muslims, Jews. Christians, Hindus, and all others are referring to the Lord of the universe when they use the term "God."

With regard to Islam, the similarities of Allah and Jehovah are greater for two reasons: (1) Islam embraces monotheism, which means "one God," just like Christianity and Judaism, and (2) Muhammad used many of the people cited in the Bible when he created the Qur'an, such as Noah (Surah 6:84), Jacob (Surah 2:132), and Jesus (Surah 3:45-47).

The similarities end there however. Think of Islam' as a form of "medieval Mormonism." Like Mormonism, Islam is based on the faulty premise that the Bible's description of God and Jesus Christ is incorrect. Like Mormonism, Islam teaches that both Christianity and Judaism are false religions, and that Islam through the Qur'an is the only true faith.

Ultimately, this is not an issue of vocabulary; it is an issue of definition. The Allah of the Qur'an is described and defined in a way that clearly shows Muhammad was not presenting the same God. The God of Islam is remote, and not intimate (Surah 112). Allah does not have a son (Surah 2:116), is not a Trinity (Surah 5:72), and does not love unconditionally (Surah 8:53). In Islam, Jesus is simply a prophet, and emphatically is not the Son of God (Surah 5:72), and the angel Gabriel is the Holy Spirit (Surah 2:193).

Remember, when Muhammad was alive (A.D. 570-632), the Bible was already in its complete canonical form. This is not an issue of ignorance. Muhammad, living just over 700 miles south of Jerusalem, knew the Bible and rejected it. Instead, he created a system that changed the nature and attributes of God, but still used the name.

Indeed, these differences cover the entire theology of Christianity. In Islam, there are "angels" that are created from fire (called jinn, Surah 72), a Tree of Zaqqum in hell (Surah 3:62-67), and virgin servants in heaven (Surah 4:57). In fact, even the creation in Islam is corrupted. In Islam, Satan's fall was due to his unwillingness to bow to Adam (Surah 2:34).

In summation, one can state it thus: Islam rejects the fatherheart of God, the divinity of the Son, and the person of the Holy Spirit. You cannot change the nature of the God of the Bible without changing the "god" you are presenting. It is not the same God.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Are Scientology and the Bible Compatible? By Philip R. Roberts

2012-01-17T16:44:00.000+08:00

Scientology is a cryptic new American religious movement begun in the 1950s. Ron L. Hubbard (1911-1986), a science fiction writer, founded it. Although his parents were largely nonreligious, Hubbard was exposed to Eastern religions, New Age thought, and various spiritistic groups, such as Meister Crowley and the Process.

Scientology makes occasional reference to Jesus Christ in its writings and uses as its symbol a cross with starbursts at each end. But even though it refers to itself as a church and may at times use Christian terminology and symbolism, it is clearly nonbiblical in its view of God, Jesus, Scripture, salvation, and other important doctrines. In fact, it may be challenged whether Scientology is a religion at all. It is largely a pseudo-psychological therapy movement. Ron Hubbard originally sought admission for the movement in the American Psychological Association. After being rejected for membership by the APA, Hubbard framed Scientology as a religion.

Scripture

The Church of Scientology does not subscribe to the view that God inspired a holy book, such as the Bible, that serves as divine revelation. Instead it lists as revelation Dianetics (1950), authored by Hubbard, as well as The Factors and The Axioms and Logics. The former book attempts to instruct adherents in the practice of Scientology, while the latter works are simply statements of the principles and beliefs of the movement.

No elements of Scientology's texts bear the mark of divine inspiration. There are no fulfilled prophecies in them and neither are they a narrative of God's love and redemption as is the Bible.

God

Scientology's earlier writings mention God, but they place their stress mainly on an individual's abilities to gain godlike qualities and become "full cause" over the universe. Hubbard obviously rejected the Christian understanding of God, particularly the concept of the Trinity.

Scientology adheres to a view of deities similar to that of Buddhism, using "allness of all" terminology. Its founder therefore could comment that man is part god and can attain a godlike nature.

Jesus Christ

Scientology does not accept the biblical concepts of Jesus as God the Word incarnate. It also places no emphasis on the substitutionary death and resurrection of Jesus. Rather, it views Jesus as a proponent of reincarnation and other Eastern mystical concepts. Hubbard taught that Jesus was "a shade above clear," or that Jesus met the standards (slightly at best) of living above the negative influences of His previous lives. Scientology's upper-level materials tout the concept of Jesus as God as being a fiction that ought to be removed by "auditing."

Man

Scientology views man's spirit as being the product of evolutionary processes. It rejects biblical concepts of man as being the creation of God and being fallen due to sin, with the need for repentance, faith, and salvation. Instead, Scientology maintains that we are primarily spiritual beings, that is, "thetans," and creators of the universe. The goal of life is to "clear" oneself of one's reactive mind and become "total cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space and time."

Salvation

The goal of Scientology is to press for the evolutionary improvement of oneself as a spiritual being. The removal of engrams (negative previous life experience stored in the mind) through "auditing" by a Scientology auditor using an electronic meter makes life improvement possible. The movement rejects all concepts of a biblical understanding of salvation.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

What Are Self-defeating Statements? By J.P. Moreland

2012-01-17T16:33:00.002+08:00

There are no moral absolutes, so you ought to stop judging the moral beliefs and behaviors of others!" A crucial flaw in one's views is when one makes a self-defeating (also called "self-refuting" or "self-referentially incoherent") statement.

What exactly is a self-defeating statement? It is a statement with three characteristics. (1) It establishes some requirement of acceptability for an assertion (or sentence, proposition, or theory). (2) It places itself in subjection to this requirement. (3) It fails to satisfy the requirement of acceptability that the assertion itself way, stipulates.

A statement is about a subject matter. The subject matter for "All dogs are mammals” is dogs. When a statement is included in its own subject matter and fails to satisfy its own standards of acceptability, it is self-defeating.

Some examples of self-defeating statements are these: "No sentence is longer than three words." "I cannot utter a word of English" (spoken in English). "I do not exist." "There is no truth." "There are no truths that cannot be verified by the five senses or by science.”

In identifying a self-defeating statement, we must exercise great care in making sure that the statement actually refers to itself, that it is a part of its own subject matter. For example, the claim that one cannot utter a word of English is not self-defeating if asserted in French. More importantly, the statement "There are no moral absolutes," though false, is not self-defeating. Why? The statement is a philosophical assertion about morality and not a claim of morality.

To be a claim of morality, an assertion must be a moral rule such as "Do not kill," "Abortion is wrong," or "One ought to be tolerant of others." "There are no moral absolutes" is not itself a moral rule. Like a statement made in English about all French statements (for example, "No French statement is longer than three words"), "There are no moral absolutes" is false. But since it is not included in its own subject matter, it does not refer to itself and therefore is not self-refuting.

Another important example is "There are no moral rules, so one ought to refrain from passing judgment on others." Is this self-defeating? It's hard to tell because the word ought is ambiguous and comes with different meanings: A rational ought occurs in "Given the evidence, one ought to conclude that the defendant is guilty." A rational ought places an intellectual duty on someone, and a violator is irrational, not immoral. An aesthetic ought occurs in "One ought to play this piece with great emotion." This places an aesthetic duty on someone, and a violator is guilty of failing to produce beauty. A moral ought occurs in "One ought to keep one's promises." This places a moral duty on someone, and a violator is immoral.

The ought in "There are no moral rules, so one ought to refrain from passing judgment on others" is either a rational or a moral ought. If the former, the assertion means "Given all the evidence, there just are no moral rules, so one has an intellectual duty to stop judging that others have violated absolute moral rules when there are none." Though false, this statement is not self-defeating because it is not itself an example of asserting a moral obligation. Rather, it asserts an intellectual duty, and a violator would be irrational, not immoral. But if the ought is a moral one, then the sentence is self-refuting: "There are no moral rules, so one has a moral duty to follow this moral rule-do not judge others."

Some statements, such as "2 + 2 = 7," could not possibly be true. Others, such as "There are no dogs," happen to be false but could have been true. Self-defeating statements do not just happen to be false; rather, they are necessarily false. For example, it is impossible for these statements to be true: "There are no truths" and "Only what is testable by science can be true." Among other things, this means that no amount of future research will show that a self-refuting statement was true after all. This is important, because a statement like "Only what is testable by science''can be true" is not itself testable by science, so a skeptic cannot say that, while there may be no current evidence for its truth, someday science will advance to the point of proving that it is true after all

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead? By William Lane Craig

2012-01-17T16:28:00.000+08:00

To answer our question from a historical standpoint, we must first determine what facts concerning the fate of Jesus of Nazareth can be credibly established on the basis of the evidence and second consider what the best explanation of those facts is. At least four facts about the fate of the historical Jesus are widely accepted by NT historians today.

Fact 1: After His crucifixion, Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb.

This fact is highly significant because it means that the location of Jesus' tomb was known in Jerusalem to Jews and Christians alike. New Testament scholars have established the fact of Jesus' entombment on the basis of evidence such as the following:
1. Jesus' burial is attested in the information (from before A.D. 36) that was handed on by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5.
2. The burial story is independently attested in the source material that was used by Mark in writing his Gospel.
3. Given the understandable hostility in the early Christian movement toward the Jewish national leaders, Joseph of Arimathea, as a member of the Jewish high court that condemned Jesus, is unlikely to have been a Christian invention.
4. The burial story is simple and lacks any signs of being developed into a legend.
5. No other competing burial story exists.

For these and other reasons, the majority of NT critics concur that Jesus was in fact buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb.

Fact 2: On the Sunday after the crucifixion, Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of His women followers. Among the reasons that have led most scholars to this conclusion are the following:
1. In stating that Jesus "was buried, that He was raised on the third day," the old information transmitted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 implies the empty tomb.
2. The empty tomb story also has multiple and independent attestation in Mark, Matthew, and John's source material, some of which is very early.
3. The empty tomb story as related in Mark, our earliest account, is simple and lacks signs of having been embellished as a legend.
4. Given that in Jewish patriarchal culture the testimony of women was regarded as unreliable, the fact that women, rather than men, were the chief witnesses to the empty tomb is best explained by the narrative's being true.
5. The earliest known Jewish response to the proclamation of Jesus' resurrection, namely, the "disciples came during the night and stole Him while we were sleeping" (Mt 28:12-15), was itself an attempt to explain why the body was missing and thus presupposes the empty tomb.

For these and other reasons, a majority of scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical testimony to Jesus' empty tomb.

Fact 3: On multiple occasions, and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups saw Jesus alive after His death. This fact is almost universally acknowledged among NT scholars for the following reasons:
1. Given its early date as well as Paul's personal acquaintance with the people involved, the list of eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection appearances that is quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8 guarantees that such appearances occurred.
2. The appearance narratives in the Gospels provide multiple, independent attestations of the appearances.

Even the most skeptical critics acknowledge that the disciples had seen Jesus alive after His death.

Finally, fact 4: The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe Jesus was risen from the dead, despite having every predisposition to the contrary.

Consider the situation the disciples faced following Jesus' crucifixion:
1. Their leader was dead and Jewish messianic expectations did not expect a Messiah who, instead of triumphing over Israel's enemies, would be shamefully executed by them as a criminal.
2. According to OT law, Jesus' execution exposed Him as a heretic, a man accursed by God.
3. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone's rising from the dead to glory and immortality before the general resurrection of the dead at the end of the world.

Nevertheless, the original disciples suddenly came to believe so strongly that God had raised Jesus from the dead that they were willing to die for that belief.
We come now to our second concern: What is the best explanation of these four facts?

In his book Justifying Historical Descriptions, historian C. B. McCullagh lists six tests historians use to determine the best explanation for a given body of historical facts. The hypothesis given by the eyewitnesses-"God raised Jesus from the dead"-passes all these tests:
1. It has great explanatory scope. It explains why the tomb was found empty, why the disciples saw postmortem appearances of Jesus, and why the Christian faith came into being.
2. It has great explanatory power. It explains why the body of Jesus was gone, why people repeatedly saw Jesus alive despite His earlier public execution, and so forth.
3. It is plausible. Given the historical context of Jesus' unparalleled life and claims, the resurrection makes sense as the divine confirmation of those radical claims.
4. It is not ad hoc or contrived. It requires only one additional hypothesis: that God exists.
5. It is in accord with accepted beliefs. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" does not in any way conflict with the accepted belief that people do not rise naturally from the dead. The Christian accepts that belief as wholeheartedly as he accepts the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead.
6. It far outstrips any of its rival theories in meeting conditions 1 through 5. Down through history, various alternative explanations of the facts have been offered-the conspiracy theory, the apparent death theory, the hallucination theory, and so forth. Such hypotheses have been almost universally rejected by contemporary scholarship. No naturalistic hypothesis has, in fact, attracted a great number of scholars.

Therefore, the best explanation of the established facts seems to be that God raised Jesus from the dead.

We have firm historical grounds for answering our question in the affirmative. The historical route is not, however, the only avenue to a knowledge of Jesus' resurrection. The majority of Christians, who have had neither the resources, training, nor leisure to conduct a historical inquiry into this event, have come to a knowledge of Jesus' resurrection through a personal encounter with the living Lord (Rm 8:9-17).

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

How Should a Christian Relate to Culture? By Charles Colson

2012-01-17T16:22:00.001+08:00

One writer in a psychological journal pondered what makes humans distinct from beasts. After discarding several possibilities-tool usage, language, ability to think-the author concluded that humans seem to be the only creatures who care about what makes them distinct.

On the surface, the outstanding trait of humanity is culture. Not everyone agrees. Some claim beasts have cultures: chimpanzees "harvest" termites with a "tool"-a stripped tree branch wrought by their own hands; termites cultivate mushrooms for consumption; birds create species-specific nests; whales sing. But such simple, largely instinctive practices (which neither change nor improve over time) hardly compare with humankind's achievements. Beasts haven't any arts or technologies, scientific institutes or historical archives, philosophers or physicians. Apparently culture is a distinguishing mark of humankind.

But what makes humans creatures of culture? Why has every recorded human society-however primitive-indulged a level of culture beyond anything beasts might produce? Whence this penchant for culture?

Scripture teaches that humanity's attachment to culture derives from two sources. First is the image of God. Humans aren't like beasts; we've been created in the image and likeness of God (Gn 1:26-28). We have a spiritual essence, being made for conscious communion with our Creator. God Himself is a being of culture. He communes within Himself in His triune being (Gn 1:26; Jn 17:5); He fashioned a universe of great wonder and diversity (Gn 1:1; Jn 1:1-3); and He continues to sustain that universe in exhaustive detail (Col 1:17; Heb 1:3). It shouldn't surprise us that a creature made in the likeness of such a God would be drawn toward cultural activities as well.

Second, humans have a mandate for culture, which, along with other works of God's law, is written on every human heart (Rm 2:14-15). God has created people to exercise dominion over other creatures (Gn 1:26-30)-the "cultural mandate." Rather than giving a license to tyranny and plunder, God intends that humans exercise the kind of responsible stewardship that allows for creatures to realize full potential and for God's goodness, beauty, and truth to flourish. In the process of carrying out this mandate, people create culture-language for communication; families for love and nurture; agriculture for sustenance; resource development for tools and pleasures; governments for social order; procedures, protocols, and practices; things useful and things beautiful-all part of our in-built, God-given drive to order our world and develop the beauty and potential of our environment.

Humans are made to employ hearts, minds, and hands in the creation, maintenance, and propagation of those artifacts, institutions, and conventions by which we define, sustain, and enrich our lives. Culture can be a rich means of bringing honor and glory to God, as God Himself knew in providing a specific and glorious design for His tabernacle and temple; as the psalmists showed in their skillful use of poetry and song; as Solomon demonstrated in government and public works to the astonishment of the world; and as Jesus showed through His powerful use of storytelling.

No human can be indifferent to culture. The key question for the disciple isn't whether to be involved in culture but how. Since Christ has been exalted as Lord, all culture must be put to use in a way that serves His interests and promotes His glory. Even down to the mundane details of table manners-"eating and drinking," we might say (1 Co 10:31)-all of culture is to be engaged and used for God's glory. The Christian church's heritage includes a vast repository of cultural firsts
(hospitals, universities, musical notation); signal achievements (the music of Bach, the paintings of Rembrandt, the poetry of Hopkins); and everyday delights (hymns, books, inspiring stories). Such artifacts, institutions, and conventions-the stuff of culture-are the fruit of patient, deliberate labors of faithful believers who, understanding their duty as image bearers of God, and submitting to their Lord's cultural mandate, point the way for the rest of us to follow obediently in the path of culture to God's glory.

Does Scripture call us to engage culture? It certainly does. How can we ignore Scripture-the most significant cultural artifact in all of human history? And as God's image bearers, how can we ignore the calling to take every thought captive and offer all that we are and have to God's service and glory (2 Co 10:3-5; Rm 12:1-2)?

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

What Does the Bible Teach About Homosexuality? By Scott B. Rae

2012-01-17T16:17:00.000+08:00

In the OT, homosexuality is unequivocally condemned. Homosexual sex is prohibited in the law (Lv 18:22; 20:13) and called an abomination. However, of all the illicit sexual relations listed in Leviticus 18, homosexuality is not singled out as being any different or any more worthy of condemnation than any other sexual: sin. God's attitude toward homosexuality is portrayed in the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah (Gn 19). Ezekiel includes among the sins of Sodom "immoral acts," using the same term as in Leviticus 18 to describe homosexual acts (Ezk 16:43; cp. Jd 7). The law condemns all homosexual sex and does not distinguish between perverted and wholesome homosexual relationships.

The central NT passage that addresses homosexuality is Romans 1:24-27 (cp. 1 Co 6:9; 1 Tm 6:10). It is set in the context of the condemnation of those who reject God as revealed in creation, or through natural law. It is part of Paul's broader argument for the universality of sin and judgment, setting the need for the believer to be justified by faith in Christ's atoning death on the cross, outlined in Romans 4-5. Those who rejected the available knowledge of God and chose instead to worship the Greek and Roman idols faced lifestyle consequences. One of these consequences was homosexual behavior. Paul appealed to the natural order of creation to condemn homosexual behavior (Rm 1:27).

What's natural is objective and based on creation, not dependent upon an individual's sexual orientation. Male and female were created with an innate tendency toward opposite-sex attraction, but because of sin the human race developed the potential for homosexuality. This potential is often realized when certain developmental factors are present. Because of the reality of sin, every person has the potential for homosexuality, in the same way that we have the potential for any other kind of sin Scripture describes.

Some have suggested that Paul intended to condemn only certain types of homosexuality. For example, given the context of idolatry, some have argued that Paul was only condemning homosexuality in the context of idolatrous worship. Others have suggested that Paul intended to condemn perverse homosexuality, such as having multiple partners and engaging in nonconsensual homosexual sex. Still others argue that Paul was objecting to persons' reversing their natural sexual orientation and acting sexually in ways that violate a person's orientation.

There is little evidence in the text that Paul intended to limit his teaching to certain kinds of homosexual activity. Rather, Paul's appeal to a universal truth about sexual relations linked to the order of creation (cp. Jesus' teaching in Mt 19:4-6) should prevent us from seeing this passage as limited to certain kinds of homosexual behavior and from seeing Paul as culturally outdated in his teaching. His teaching provides an appropriate context for a judgment on all same-gender sexual relationships.

In applying these passages that forbid homosexuality, some suggest that it is important to make a distinction between homosexual attraction and homosexual sexual relations. And indeed there is a difference between being attracted to a person of the same sex and acting sexually on that attraction. For a straight, married person to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex other than his or her spouse is not sin per se. It becomes sin when that attraction is acted upon, either in lust (the process of mentally having sex with a person) or in sexual overtures. Likewise, it may be that the homosexual attraction is not sin per se, though at variance with the order of creation. But when that attraction gives way to lust and ultimately to sexual activity, it is sin.

Some argue that what the Bible condemns in homosexual relationships is what it also condemns in heterosexual relationships-that is, lust and sexual involvement outside marriage. Thus the options for the Christian homosexual would be the same as for the Christian' single person: either abstinence or heterosexual sex in marriage. Some Christians who struggle with their sexual identity have grasped this distinction and have rejected the gay lifestyle while attempting to work out issues related to their sexual identity.

It may be that failure to recognize a distinction between feeling a homosexual attraction and acting homosexually has kept the church from being a more accepting place for those struggling with their sexual orientation.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

How Does the Holy Spirit Relate to Evidence for Christianity? By Gary R. Habermas

2012-01-17T16:15:00.001+08:00

It is often assumed that the Holy Spirit's witness to a believer is not very helpful in a study of apologetics. After all, this testimony is given only to Christians and it is not verified or falsified by evidences. So does it follow that this witness is no more than a subjective conviction?

In the few NT passages that address this subject, we are told that, at a minimum, the witness of the Holy Spirit is a personal word to believers that they are children of God (Rm 8:15-17). The Holy Spirit testifies to believers as family members (GI 4:6-7). So the believer will experience the presence of the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:16-17). This is one way to know that we are truly believers (1 Jn 3:24; 4:13).

Since the unbeliever cannot understand things pertaining to salvation (Jn 14:17; 1 Co 2:14), one might question the value of the Holy Spirit's witness in an apologetic context. But this seems to assume that dealing with unbelievers is the only purpose for defending the faith. Apologetics may have even more value in strengthening the faith of believers through a variety of avenues.

Since the chief purpose of the Holy Spirit's witness is to provide personal assurance of the believer's salvation, the resulting confidence can play a valuable role in convincing believers of their own relationship with the Lord. This might provide assistance, for example, in dealing with religious doubt.

Moreover, the witness of the Holy Spirit provides indirect confirmation of the truth of the Christian gospel. After all, if we are the children of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ as we suffer and are glorified with Him (Rm 8:17), then it would follow that God's gospel path-the basis of this assurance-is likewise true.

So when people become Christians and experience the Holy Spirit's presence, it ought not surprise them, since this is precisely what Scripture teaches! It should be normal fare for the believer. Briefly stated, the study of apologetics indicates that Christianity is true; the witness of the Holy Spirit performs the related function of identifying those who are members of the faith.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Why So Many Denominations? By Charles Draper

2012-01-17T16:13:00.001+08:00

If you look in the telephone directory, you will find a huge diversity of churches. Even within individual denominations there often exists great variation. Jesus once prayed that His followers would be one (Jn 17). But what we see today is anything but unity. What are we to make of this disunity? Does this not demonstrate that Christianity is hopelessly divided? Perhaps. Then again, there may be another way of looking at it.

It is important to ask whether denominations are a good thing. Denominations generally developed out of churches seeking fellowship with one another and joint `ministry. That is certainly a biblical idea (Ac 11:27-30).

Often denominations began as renewal movements. So the Reformed movements of the sixteenth century arose to restore teachings about justification by faith and God's sovereignty in salvation-teachings that had been eclipsed in the church for a long time. Later, some Presbyterians caved in to the pressures of liberalism and newer conservative Presbyterian groups emerged to preserve the traditions. Other denominations had similar experiences. Baptists came along within the Reformed tradition, contending that the Reformation principles of justification by faith ought to be applied to the church. In the twentieth century Pentecostals and charismatics formed new unions based on their view of the Spirit and spiritual gifts.

So is this diversity among the churches a good thing or a bad thing? It is always vital to avoid false teaching in the church. Often in the NT false teachers were either disciplined or left churches of their own accord (1 Tm 1:19-20; 1 Jn 2:19). In other cases the early church leaders predicted a future time of apostasy when false teachers would gain great influence (2 Tm 3:1-9). In such cases, it might be necessary for genuine Christians to separate themselves from the false church.

That is not to say that all denominational separations have been for the right reasons. The most important thing to do is to examine a church's teaching and practice consistent with Scripture. And finally we have to realize that in this life Christians will not agree on everything.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

How Does One Develop a Christian Mind? By J.P. Moreland

2012-01-17T16:11:00.000+08:00

“I want to develop a Christian mind, but I don't know how." This attitude is both common and understandable That we are to develop our minds as Christians is not in doubt. We are admonished to love God with our mind (Mt 22:37),be transformed by its renewal {Rm 12:2) and be prepared to give thoughtful answers to questions about the faith (1 Pt 3:15).

A mature Christian mind has two aspects to it. First, it is a mind that the habit of being focused on God constantly throughout the day. It is a occupied with God and directed regularly toward Him in prayer and rn (Ps 16:8; Is 26:3; Lk 18:1; Rm 12:12; 1 Th 5:16-18). But how can one do still perform one's daily tasks? Fortunately, people can do more than one thing at the same time. While driving or centering one's attention on a task, on ti be aware of God in the boundaries of one's attention. And one can bring center of prayerful focus at various times throughout the day.

Two habits can make it easier for you to focus on God constantly. First, four or five Bible passages that really speak to you. Each passage can be from one to several verses in length. Now, make it a practice to pray these passages to the Lord throughout the day. As you pray through a passage phrase by phrase, use it to pray about things of concern to you. Second, regularly ponder these passages or other scriptural readings, thinking of what they mean, of how you can internalize them and of how you can promote them to others.

The second aspect of a mature Christian mind is one that sees all of life in light of a Christian worldview and is growing in intellectual excellence. A worldview is the sum total of all the things one believes, especially in regard to reality, truth, knowledge, and value. A Christian worldview is a biblically grounded set of beliefs about all of life, from work, recreation, and finances to God, life after death, and morality. One tries to think of all of life in light of the teachings of holy Scripture, and, more specifically, of the Lord Jesus. There is no secular/sacred separation in such a mind.

All of life is an occasion for discipleship and worship for a mature Christian mind. Further, an intellectually excellent mind is one that is informed, that makes important distinctions when a less mature mind fails to do so, and that has deeper and deeper insights into issues of importance. To develop such excellence, one must regularly read, listen to tapes, and expose oneself to excellent teaching, must also be willing to engage others-believers and unbelievers-in, conversations about important worldview issues. Such regular practice, if combined with a growing ability to listen nondefensively, will bring motivation and opportunity for regular growth in intellectual excellence.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

What About Those Who Have Never Heard About Christ? By William Lane Craig

2012-01-17T16:00:00.001+08:00

The conviction that salvation is available through Christ alone permeates the NT (see, e.g., Ac 4:12; Eph 2:12). This raises the troubling question of the fate of those who never hear the gospel.

What, exactly, is the problem here supposed to be? The universalist alleges that the following statements are logically inconsistent:
1. God is all powerful and all loving.
2. Some people never hear the gospel and are lost.

But why think that 1 and 2 are logically incompatible? There is no explicit contradiction between them. If the universalist is claiming that they are implicitly contradictory, he must be assuming some hidden premises that would bring out this contradiction.

Although universalists have not been forthcoming about their hidden assumptions, the logic of the problem would suggest something akin to these points:
3. If God is all powerful, He can create a world in which everybody hears the gospel and is freely saved.
4. If God is all loving, He prefers a world in which everybody hears the gospel and is freely saved.
But are these premises necessarily true?

Consider 3. It seems incontrovertible that God could create a world in which everybody hears the gospel. But so long as people are free, there is no guarantee that everybody in such a world would be freely saved. In fact, there is no reason to think the balance between saved and lost in such a world would be any better than is that balance in the actual world. Hence 3 is not necessarily true; and the universalist’s argument is false.

But what about 4? Is it necessarily true? Let us suppose for the sake of argument that there are possible worlds that are feasible for God in which everyone hears the gospel and freely accepts it. Does God's being all loving compel Him to prefer one of these worlds over a world in which some persons are lost? Not necessarily, for these worlds might have other, overriding deficiencies that make them less preferable. For example, suppose that the only worlds in which everybody freely believes the gospel and is saved are worlds with only a handful of people in them. Must God prefer one of these sparsely populated worlds over a world in which multitudes believe in the gospel and are saved, even though other persons freely reject His grace and are lost? No. Thus the universalist's second assumption is not necessarily true, so that his argument is doubly invalid.

As a loving God, God wants as many people as possible to be freely saved and as few as possible to be lost. His goal, then, is to achieve an optimal balance between these, to create no more of the lost than are necessary to attain a certain number of the saved. It is possible that in order to create this many people who will be freely saved, God also had to create this many people who will be freely lost.

It might be objected that an all-loving God would not create people whom He knew will be lost but who would have been saved if only they had heard the gospel. But how do we know there are any such persons? It is reasonable to assume many people who never hear the gospel would not have believed the gospel if they had heard it. Suppose, then, that God has so ordered the world that all persons who never hear the gospel are precisely such people. In that case, anybody who never hears the gospel and is lost would have rejected the gospel and been lost even if he had heard it. Thus, it is possible that:
5. God has created a world that has an optimal balance between saved and lost, and those who never hear the gospel and are lost would not have believed in it even if they had heard it.

So long as 5 is even possibly true, it shows that there is no incompatibility between an all-powerful, all-loving God and some people's never hearing the gospel and being lost.

(For another perspective, see “What About Those Who Have Never Heard About Christ ? by Chad Owen Brand)

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Notable Christian Apologist: Cornelius Van Til By John M. Frame

2012-01-17T15:58:00.000+08:00

Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987), Reformed theologian and apologist, was born in the Netherlands and completed his Ph.D. at Princeton University in 1927. He taught apologetics for one year at Princeton Theological Seminary but left when the board voted for a reorganization to allow for liberal viewpoints. Van Til and other conservative professors who left Princeton founded Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. Van Til taught at Westminster from its beginning in 1929 for roughly a half century.

Van Tit's studies of philosophical idealism convinced him that all human thought is governed by presuppositions. (Hence Van Til is sometimes called a "presuppositionalist," though he was not enthusiastic about that label.) Ultimate presuppositions, he believed, cannot be proved by usual methods, since they serve as the basis of all proof. But they can be proved "transcendentally," by showing that they are necessary for all rational thought and must be true if there is to be any meaning or order in the world. Van Tit sought to reconstruct Christian apologetics so that it would establish the Christian God as the presupposition of human thought, rather than as one rational conclusion among many.

He disparaged the "traditional method" of defending Christianity by theistic proofs and historical evidences, because he believed that tradition began with data considered intelligible apart from God and thereby tried to prove God's existence. On the contrary, Van Til argued, if we concede that anything is intelligible apart from the God of Scripture, we have lost the battle at the outset. So we should, rather, use a transcendental method, showing that the various forms of non-Christian thought ("would-be autonomous reasoning," as he put it) reduce to meaninglessness and that only the Christian worldview can make sense of anything.

Some critics said that Van Til left no room for the use of evidence in apologetics. He replied that evidence is useful when employed within a transcendental argument based on biblical presuppositions.

But is this not circular, to prove Christianity on the basis of Christian presuppositions?

Yes, said Van Til, in a sense. But he offered two arguments in defense of his view. First, every system of thought is circular when arguing its most fundamental presuppositions (e.g., a rationalist can defend the authority of reason only by using reason). Second, the Christian circle is the only one that renders reality intelligible on its own terms.

Non-Christian thought, he argues, collapses into meaninglessness because of the effects of sin on human mental powers. The unbeliever knows God but suppresses the truth (Rm L18-32). There is therefore an antithesis between Christian thought and unbelieving thought, between the wisdom of God and the wisdom of the world. Although the unbeliever knows and states truth occasionally, he does that only by inconsistency with his presuppositions and by relying inconsistently on the Christian worldview.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Does the Moral Argument Show There Is a God? By Paul Copan

2012-01-17T15:54:00.000+08:00

Here's a good rule of thumb about morality: Never believe those who say murder or rape may not really be wrong. Such people haven't looked deeply enough into the basis for moral belief-and just aren't functioning properly. (Usually, when personally threatened with murder or rape, they change their tune!) Color-blind persons need help distinguishing red from green. Similarly, morally malfunctioning persons (those denying basic moral truths) don't need arguments; they need psychological and spiritual help. Like logical laws, moral laws and instincts are basic to well-functioning humans.

As part of God's general self-revelation, all people-unless they ignore or suppress their conscience-can and should have basic moral insight, knowing truths, generally available to any morally sensitive person (Rm 2:14-15). We instinctively recognize the wrongness of torturing or murdering the innocent or committing rape. We just know the rightness of virtues (kindness, trustworthiness, unselfishness). A person's failure to recognize these insights reveals something defective; he hasn't looked deeply enough into the grounds of his moral beliefs.

Philosophers and theologians past and present have noted the connection between-God's existence and objective moral values. A moral argument for God's existence goes like this: (a) If objective moral values exist, then God exists. (b) Objective moral values do exist. (c) Therefore, God exists. If objective moral values exist, where do they come from? The most plausible answer is God's nature or character. Even many atheists have admitted that objective moral values (which they deny) don't fit an atheistic world but would serve as evidence for God's existence.

We live in a time when many claim everything is relative, yet ironically they believe they have "rights." But if morality is just the product of evolution, culture, or personal choice, then rights-and moral responsibility-do not truly exist. But if they do, this assumes humans have value in and of themselves as persons, no matter what their culture or science textbooks say. But what, then, is the basis for this value? Could this intrinsic value just emerge from impersonal, mindless, valueless processes over time (naturalism)?

An Eastern philosophical approach to ethics is monism (sometimes called "pantheism"): because everything is one, no ultimate distinction between good and evil exists. This serves to support relativism. A more natural context for ethics is the theistic one, in which we've been made by a good God to resemble Him in certain important (though limited) ways. The Declaration of Independence correctly notes that we've been endowed by our Creator with "certain inalienable rights." Human dignity isn't just "there." Dignity and rights come from a good God (despite human sinfulness).

Can't atheists be moral? Yes! Like believers, they've been made in the image of God and thus have the ability to recognize right and wrong.

Doesn't God Himself conform to certain moral standards outside Himself? No, God's good character is the very standard; God simply acts and naturally does what is good. Universal moral standards have no basis if God doesn't exist.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

What Is Natural Law? By Paul Copan

2012-01-17T15:53:00.001+08:00

From a jail in Birmingham, Alabama, Martin Luther King Jr. discussed civil disobedience, noting that "there are two kinds of laws: just and unjust" and that there is a "natural law" to which we are subject. He was right: We shouldn't say we know right and wrong only because "the Bible says so." Romans 2:15 states that God's moral law has been written on the hearts of all human beings. This innate or intuitive awareness is beautifully illustrated in C. S. Lewis's Abolition of Man. There he lists various universally recognized moral laws and virtues-impartial justice, truthfulness, kindness, mercy, marital fidelity, respect for human life. They have been regarded as true for all from ancient Babylon and Greece to Native America, from Jews and Christians to Hindus and Confucians. Yet while humans are capable of recognizing basic moral principles, they may suppress their conscience, harden their hearts, and become morally dull.

Medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas spoke of certain "laws." He said there is an eternal law, which God alone knows and by which God created and governs the universe. Because God created us in His image (as moral, reasoning beings), we are capable of recognizing a self-evident natural law, the reflection of God's eternal law in the created order. This law is known by all human beings whether or not they are aware of God's special revelation through Israel and Jesus Christ, as inscripted in the Bible. God has placed within us a disposition to have moral knowledge. Unless we suppress our conscience, we naturally know basic moral truths. General virtues and vices, Thomas Reid wrote, "must appear self-evident to every man who has a conscience, and has taken the pains to exercise this natural power of his mind" ("Of Morals").

Some will respond, "There can be moral atheists. We don't need God for morality." However, atheists have been made in the image of God. Though they deny God's existence, they have still been designed by God to function properly and even to create human law for the good of society-the law that, to varying degrees, applies the natural law placed within us. Atheists ignore the very basis of goodness-God, who created them and who is the highest Good. (See J. Budziszewski, The Revenge of Conscience and Written on the Heart)

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

What Should a Christian Think About Near-death Experiences? By Gary R. Habermas

2012-01-17T15:46:00.000+08:00

Reports of near-death experiences have occasioned much interest. These reports abound from those who claim to have hovered above their nearly dead bodies and journeyed down dark tunnels toward a beautiful light, often in the presence of deceased loved ones.

The most interesting near-death accounts are the dozens claiming that the dying person, during his turmoil, actually observed events that were later reported and verified. These events may have taken place some distance away and could not have been observed from the individual's location even if he had been completely well. Sometimes the near-death individual had extended periods without a heartbeat during these observations. On a few occasions, no brain activity was reported. A number of blind persons have also produced accurate descriptions of their surroundings.
Attempts have been made to explain these experiences naturally, especially by medical or psychological factors, such as hallucinations. However, none of these subjective approaches can account for the evidential cases just mentioned. For example, internal brain phenomena cannot explain accurate descriptions of events, particularly when they happened a distance away or when the person's heart or brain had failed.

How should Christians think about such accounts? To be sure, some tough questions surround this topic. For example, some non-Christians have declared that they had wonderful experiences during a near-death state. But negative experiences, including graphic visions of hell, have also been reported. Further, these persons were not biologically (irreversibly) dead but only near death. So, how can we be sure of their final state? Last, we are dealing here not with the experiences themselves but with personal interpretations of the experiences, which are notoriously inaccurate during highly emotional times. In these cases, serious evidence is lacking.
What about reports of experiences that have satanic or occultic aspects? Undeniably, such do exist and caution is definitely necessary. But it appears that there is nothing inherently occultic about near-death experiences. People are simply reporting their perceptions.

The carefully observed and documented cases provide some evidence for at least the initial moments of afterlife. This is contrary to the dictates of naturalism, which claims that the material world is all there is to reality. So near-death experiences can be both well evidenced and valuable. At the same time, Christians must be careful not to endorse non-biblical interpretations of these experiences or accept them as revealing truth on a par with the Bible.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

How Should a Christian Relate to Those in Non-Christian Movements and Religions? By Alan W.Gomes

2012-01-17T15:35:00.001+08:00

As we witness to those in non-Christian religions, we must guard against a formulaic approach that would treat them all as if cut from the same cloth. At the same time, we must not ignore the commonalities underlying religious allegiance, whether Christian or not. So long as we are appropriately sensitive to individual differences, we can identify some helpful strategies for winning adherents of nonChristian religious movements.

Address the personal motivations underlying religious commitment. Often people commit to a religion in order to meet personal needs. In new religious manifestations, in particular, there is a focus on the transformation of the self. Adherents of false religions often join to address intellectual, emotional, social, and spiritual needs. People are looking for loving relationships and a sense of connectedness; a family atmosphere (particularly attractive for those who are without family or whose family is dysfunctional); a sense of acceptance and self-worth (sometimes by being part of "God's great work" through the religious movement or false religion); an opportunity to achieve idealistic goals (e.g., doing works of philanthropy and charity); a way to meet deep spiritual longings (e.g., to experience a sense of the "divine" or the "transcendent"); and a belief system that will provide answers to life's deepest questions ("Why am I here?" "What is the purpose of life?").

These aspirations hardly are unique to members in false religious movements. Nor is there anything necessarily sinister in the fact that people have and seek to meet these needs. Indeed many people become involved in biblically based Christian churches for the same reasons-joining our churches, e.g., because of the caring and committed relationships they experience as part of God's family. The problem with false religions, is that they cannot ultimately satisfy the deepest longings of the human spirit; only the true gospel can do that.

One of the most important things we can do in reaching out to those ensnared in false religion is to provide an environment where these spiritual, social, emotional, and intellectual needs can be met. The church should and generally does provide such an environment anyway, but for those emerging from false religions, the need is especially acute. Some new religious movements can be harsh on those who leave, shunning or "disfellowshiping" them. The person who leaves such a group may experience in one fell swoop the loss of his entire support system of family and friends. The church needs to be sensitive to this and be prepared to go the extra mile in embracing such individuals, enfolding them into the body of Christ with loving arms.

Properly classify, understand, and refute the false belief system. As important as the interpersonal factors mentioned above are, it is also necessary to understand correctly and then refute biblically the false belief system.

The first step is to classify accurately the type of belief system in question. A basic distinction should be made between new religious movements dependent upon Christianity and religious groups that make no claim of Christian allegiance. The former claim to be Christian but deny one or more central doctrines of the Christian faith. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christian Science are such examples. World religions, such as Islam, also deny core Christian beliefs, including the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Christ. But unlike new religious movements of Christianity, world religions do not claim to be Christian and in fact would explicitly repudiate such a label.

The distinction between new religious movements dependent upon Christianity and world religions is not merely academic. One would approach a Mormon differently from a Muslim. For example, one does not have to convince a Mormon that Jesus Christ is the Savior and that Christianity is true. Indeed, the Mormon already thinks that Jesus is his Savior and that his church is the true restoration of Christianity under Joseph Smith. The task is to show that Mormonism is a counterfeit form of Christianity, with a false Jesus who cannot save. A Muslim, on the other hand, not only will have faulty views of what true Christianity teaches but also will need to be convinced that Christianity is the true religion.

We must also understand the non-Christian belief system we are confronting as accurately and in as much detail as is practicable. Failure to do so can quickly short circuit a witnessing opportunity, for the followers of false religion will soon tune out a Christian who imputes beliefs to them that they do not hold. It is important, as Robert and Gretchen'Passantino point out, to observe a kind of golden rule when discussing non-Christian belief systems: represent their belief system as accurately as you would have them represent yours. Only then can we hope to be taken seriously as we confront the errors of the false religions with the claims of Jesus Christ.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

What is the Christian Identity Movement? By R. Alan Streett

2012-01-17T15:33:00.000+08:00

The Christian Identity movement (CI), formerly called British or Anglo Israelism, teaches that God indeed respects persons based on their bloodline or nationality. Many of these groups are anti-Semitic, claiming that white Anglo-Saxons constitute the Israel of God and that ethnic Jews are the children of the devil. Also, all CI sects make a distinction between Israel and the Jews. They base their beliefs on one of two theories: (1) the ten lost tribes theory, or (2) the serpent seed theory.
According to the former theory, after the fall of Israel (the northern kingdom, consisting of 10 tribes) in 722 B.C., the tribes migrated westward into Europe and eventually to America. None returned to their homeland. They assimilated into the culture and hence lost their identity. They now constitute the Anglo-Saxon peoples of the world. The southern kingdom, consisting of two tribes (Judah and Benjamin), fell to Babylon in 586 B.C. After captivity, many returned to their homeland. According to the CI theory, they became known as Jews. They were responsible for the death of Christ and therefore are the targets of God's wrath.

The lost tribes theory may sound plausible to a biblical novice, but Scripture proves the theory to be bankrupt (see Ezr 3:1; 6:16-17; Lk 1:54,67-68,80; 2:36; Jn 3:1,10; Ac 2:14,22,36; 5:21; 13:24, which indicates that Israel returned to its homeland). Peter said Israel crucified Jesus (Ac 48-10). There are no lost tribes. James addressed all 12 of them (Jms 1:1). After the Babylonian captivity, the terms Israel and Jews are used interchangeably. No longer is the nation considered to be divided. In the NT Jew is used 174 times and Israel is used 75 times to designate the same people. The Apostle Paul used both Jew (Ac 21:39; 22:3) and Israelite (Rm 11:1; 2 Co 11:22) to identify himself.

Other CI groups look to the serpent seed theory to validate their anti-Semitic beliefs. According to this scenario, the sexual union between Adam and Eve produced Abel, the father of the Israelite or Aryan people. Those in this godly line are God's children by birth; hence there is no need for a new birth. A second union, this time between Eve and the serpent produced Cain, who became the father of the Jews. After the great flood, his descendants cohabited with beasts, producing a mongrelized race of people, now consisting of Semites, Asians, and Africans. They are the enemies of God.

The problems with this theory are obvious. First, Israel traces its origin to Jacob, not Abel, when the former's name was changed to Israel. Second, Abraham, not Cain, is called the father of the Jews. Third, all must be born again. Fourth, Jesus reminded the woman of Samaria that "salvation is from the Jews" (Jn 4:22). Fifth. and most important, Jesus was a Jew from the tribe of Judah; thus, according to this theory, He would be the enemy, not the Son of God.

Both the ten lost tribes and serpent seed theories are attempts to provide theological and scriptural support for anti-Semitism.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Does the Disciples' Conviction That They Saw the Risen Jesus Establish the Truth of the Resurrection? By Gary R.Habermas

2012-01-17T15:31:00.001+08:00

Virtually all scholars studying Jesus' resurrection, whether conservative, moderate, or liberal, acknowledge that Jesus' earliest followers were convinced not only that Jesus was raised from the dead but also that He had appeared alive to many of them on several occasions. Further, scholars also almost unanimously recognize that two former skeptics, James the brother of Jesus and Saul of Tarsus (Paul), became believers after they, too, were convinced that they had seen the risen Jesus.

Multiple grounds support this early Christian conviction. Even today's most critical scholars agree that Paul, the author of undisputed NT letters, provided eyewitness testimony to Jesus' resurrection appearance. Further, Paul included a crucial report concerning other appearances of Jesus in the exceptionally early creed in 1 Co 15, which is usually dated to the A.D. 30s. Paul carefully checked out this material with other key apostles in Jerusalem on at least two occasions (Gal 1:18-2:10). Paul also knew that the other apostles were preaching the same message regarding the risen Jesus (1-Co 15:10-15). Paul's eyewitnesss testimony at each of these points is crucial.

Moreover, the conversion of James from skepticism, the willingness of the earliest disciples to suffer persecution and even martyrdom, the empty tomb, and the presence of other early reports of Jesus' resurrection especially in Acts are further indications of the apostolic conviction that Jesus had been raised. In brief, the earliest Christian message was that Jesus had appeared to His followers after His death.

Of the many evidences for the resurrection, the most significant is that the earliest disciples were utterly convinced they had seen the risen Jesus. The reason is straightforward. Virtually every contemporary scholar recognizes the strong data showing that Jesus died by crucifixion. So if a number of persons (both individuals and groups) actually saw Him afterward, this would constitute the clearest indication that He had been raised. No other evidence provides such a direct indication of this event. This is clearly what the witnesses proclaimed.

Some critics may counter that, while the early disciples truly thought Jesus had been raised, a natural hypothesis explains their beliefs.

However, now the questioner has a major dilemma. Natural theories have been proposed for centuries and each fails by a large margin to explain the recognized historical data. Incredibly, most contemporary scholars even recognize this failure, Few critics even propose alternative hypotheses!

The earliest disciples clearly taught that they saw the risen Jesus, for which then are plenty of supporting details. What happens when these facts are not naturally explained, as even the majority of contemporary critical scholars admit? The resurrection of Jesus becomes the best explanation of the known data.

All the evidence favors the view that the disciples actually saw the risen Jesus There is no viable evidence to the contrary. So we are left with a succinct conclusion When the many reasons supporting the conviction that Jesus actually appeared to the early Christians are combined with the failure of naturalistic alternative theses, we are justified in concluding that Jesus was actually raised from the dead.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Can Naturalistic Theories Account for the Resurrection? By Gary R. Habermas

2012-01-17T00:19:00.002+08:00

One of our first thoughts when we hear someone claim to have witnessed a miracle is that there must be some sort of natural explanation. After all, even if they do occur, miracles are not the norm in nature.

In the Gospels we are told there was a similar response relating to Christ's resurrection. When the Jewish priests were told the report of the empty tomb, they spread the tale that Jesus' disciples had stolen His body (Mt 28:12-15).
Even believers reacted this way. When Mary Magdalene initially saw Jesus, she made a natural assumption, supposing He was the gardener (Jn 20:10-15). When the disciples heard the report of the women who had gone to Jesus' tomb, they thought the women were spreading rumors or false tales (Lk 24:11). Later, when they saw the risen Jesus, these same followers thought they were seeing a ghost or hallucination (Lk 24:36-43).

Throughout history many have had similar responses regarding Jesus' resurrection, attempting to come up with naturalistic theories to explain away the resurrection. These attempts were far more common in the nineteenth century than they are today. Even if we were to ignore the majority of the information in the Gospels, appealing only to those historical facts that are acknowledged by virtually every scholar who studies this subject, both conservative and liberal, we still have many major responses to each of the naturalistic theories. Not surprisingly, comparatively few scholars today think any of these alternative hypotheses really works.

For example, few critics have proposed that Jesus never died on the cross but instead "swooned"-fainted and only appeared dead. Dozens of medical studies have shown how death by crucifixion really kills and how this would be recognized by those present. Most of these reports argue that the chief cause of death in crucifixion was asphyxiation (death from being unable to breathe). It is even easy to ascertain when the victim was dead-he remained hanging in the down position without pushing up to breathe. Additionally, a death blow frequently ensured the victim's demise. The prevailing medical explanation of Jesus' chest wound is that the presence of blood and water indicated He was stabbed through the heart, thereby ensuring His death.

But many scholars think another serious problem dooms the swoon theory. If Jesus had not died on the cross, He would have been in exceptionally bad shape when His followers saw Him. Limping profusely, bleeding from His many wounds and probably even leaving a bloody trail, stoop-shouldered and pale, He hardly would have been able to convince His disciples that He was their risen Lord-and in a transformed body at that! Many historical reasons and the near unanimity of scholarly opinion indicate that Jesus' disciples at least truly believed they had seen Him resurrected. On such grounds the swoon thesis is actually self-refuting. It presents a Jesus who would have contradicted the disciples' belief in His resurrection simply by appearing in the horrible physical shape that is demanded by this view!

But could the disciples have stolen His dead body? This approach has been almost ignored for more than 200 years because it would not explain the disciples' sincere belief that they had seen the risen Jesus-a belief for which they were clearly willing to die. Their transformations need an adequate explanation. Neither would the theft hypothesis explain the conversions from skepticism by James, the brother of Jesus. or Paul, occasioned by their own beliefs that they had also seen the risen Jesus. These facts are noted even by critical scholars.

Might someone else have stolen Jesus' body? This approach addresses nothing but the empty tomb. It provides no explanation for Jesus' appearances, which are the best evidence for the resurrection. Further, it fails to account for the conversions of James and Paul. Besides, many candidates for the body stealers would have had no motivation for taking the body. This alternative accounts for far too little of the known data. It is no wonder that critics virtually never opt for it.

There are myriads of problems with hallucination theories, too. We will mention just a few. Hallucinations are private experiences, whereas our earliest accounts report that Jesus appeared to groups as well as to individuals. Further, the dissimilar personalities witnessing the appearances clearly militate against everyone's inventing a mental image, often at the same time. So do the reactions of those disciples who responded to reports of the resurrection by doubting. The conversions of James and Paul are extremely problematic for this view, since unbelieving skeptics would hardly desire to hallucinate about the risen Jesus. And if hallucinations are the best explanation, then the tomb should not have been empty!

Could the resurrection accounts have developed later as mere stories that grew over time? A few of the potential responses should be adequate. Here again, the fact that the disciples truly believed they had seen the risen Jesus is highly problematic for this view, since it indicates the original accounts were derived from the eyewitnesses themselves, not from some later stories. Further, the fact that these appearances were reported extremely early, within just a few years of the crucifixion, attests that at least the core message was intact from the outset.

Moreover. the empty tomb would be a constant physical reminder that this was not just some ungrounded tale. Both James and Paul again provide even more insurmountable problems for this view, for these skeptics were convinced that they had also seen the risen Jesus; tales developing years later fail to account for their conversions.

For reasons such as these, most critical scholars today reject the naturalistic theories as adequate accounts of Jesus' resurrection. They simply do not explain the known historical data. In fact, many liberal scholars even critique the alternatives that are periodically suggested!

Here we have a strong witness to the historical nature of Jesus' resurrection. Naturalistic theories have failed. Further, many historical evidences favor the resurrection. Taking all this together, we have strong reasons to believe that this event actually occurred in history. After all, the more thoroughly the alternative theories fail, the more we are left with the evidences themselves, and they are powerful indicators that Jesus rose from the dead.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

How Should a Christian Deal with Doubt? By Gary R.Habermas

2012-01-17T00:12:00.001+08:00

Doubt might be defined as uncertainty regarding God or our relation to Him. Questions arise in many forms, including factual or philosophical issues, assurance, suffering, or unanswered prayer.

Doubt may be divided into three general areas. Factual doubt usually raises issues regarding the truth of Christianity. Emotional doubt chiefly concerns our moods and feelings, often posing questions pertaining to assurance of salvation. Volitional doubt is a category that ranges from weak faith to a lack of motivation to follow the Lord.

Few subjects are characterized by more misunderstandings than this one. Contrary to popular opinion, doubt is not always sin. Neither is it necessarily the opposite of faith nor the product of weak faith. It is experienced by many believers in Scripture, such as Abraham, Job, David, Jeremiah, and John the Baptist. And almost all believers, as well as unbelievers, experience doubt at times. As strange as it seems, doubt can produce positive results, and many doubters are very much in love with the Lord.

The answer to factual doubt is the facts. In other words, questions concerning God, Jesus, the Bible, or the resurrection are answered by the data. No other religion can claim the kind of foundation upon which Christianity is based. A frequent mistake made by factual doubters is to confuse disputed areas among Christians (e.g., sovereignty versus free will, the age of the earth, the sign gifts, or eternal security) with the core truths: the deity of Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection. A remedy for this kind of doubt is to start with these basics: "If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead. you will be saved" (Rm 10:9). When we believe these basics, our understanding and appropriation of other doctrines will follow.

Emotional doubt is the most common as well as the most painful variety. Frequently, these doubters repeatedly wonder whether they are saved, while exhibiting signs of their obvious love for the Lord. They often tell themselves that what they most desire is just beyond their grasp-hence their pain. Here the chief issue is not what is being said but the distraught moods in the background. The remedy is to treat the latter.

Many passages in Scripture command us to address our unruly emotions (see Ps 37:7-8; 39:2; 42:5-6,11; 55:4-8,16-17,22; 56:3-4; 94:19). Often we must move from our perspective to God's and replace our uncertain feelings with trust in Him.
For instance, in Philippians 4:6-9, Paul tells us to replace our anxieties with prayer and thanksgiving. The apostle promises peace for those who do so (vv. 6-7). Then he commands us to explicitly change our worrisome thoughts to God's truth (v. 8) and to model ourselves after his pattern, again promising the result of peace (v. 9).

The key is to change how we think and behave. Simply diverting attention from our worries can provide temporary relief. The best response, every single time doubt arises, is to weed out and correct the improper thought by concentrating or God's truth rather than on our shaky beliefs.

Volitional doubt covers a wide range of uncertainty. The more extreme versions are often characterized by formerly committed believers who now seem not to care - anymore. Perhaps they even appear to live no differently from unbelievers. This is probably the most dangerous species of doubt, since the individual may be in danger of turning from the Lord. But how do we motivate someone who does not wish to be energized? Friends and loved ones must get involved.

Any biblical means of stirring the dying embers may be helpful here. In Scripture, probably the most frequently prescribed methods are being convicted of sin (Heb 3:12-13) or being challenged by the truth of heaven. Everyone experiences the lure of living forever (Ec 3:11). Believers more specifically seek heaven (Heb 11:16,35; 13:14). Dozens of times we are challenged to pursue our eternal home, applying its truth deeply to our lives (Mt 6:33). After all, what we do for the Lord after salvation helps determine and shape our capacity for enjoying eternity (Mt 6:19-21; Mk 9:41).

Perhaps the key is to assist the volitional doubter in charging his spiritual batteries. What could be worse than failing the God of the universe and falling short of His kingdom? Conversely, what could be better than living with Him and our believing friends and loved ones for a truly blessed eternity? We need to drive these truths home to those who waver, by the power of the Holy Spirit (Jms 5:19-20; Jd 20-23).

Doubt can sometimes be a positive incentive to change and grow. But other times, intervention is necessary. Members of the body of Christ need to be alert and sensitive, helping each other focus on the Lord and His kingdom.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Can Something Be True for You and Not for Me? By Paul Copan

2012-01-17T00:06:00.001+08:00

“It's all relative." "That's true for you but not for me." "That's just your reality.” "Who are you to impose your values on others?" The relativist believes truth functions more like opinion or perspective and that truth depends upon your culture, context, or even personal choices. Thus evil actions by Nazis or terrorists are explained away ("We don't like it, but they have their reasons"). Relativism, however. is seriously flawed.

Relativism cannot escape proclaiming a truth that corresponds to reality. "The moon is made of cheese" is false because it does not match up with the way things are, with what is the case. As Christians, we claim the biblical story is true because it conforms to the actualities of God's existence and His dealings with human beings. Truth is a relationship-a match-up with what is real or actual. An idea is false when it does not. But what of those making such claims as "Reality is like a wet lump of clay-we can shape it any way we want" (a relativistic idea known as anti-realism)? We can rightly call such statements into question. After all, these persons believe that their view corresponds to the way things are. If you disagree with them, they believe you are wrong. Notice, too, that they believe there is at least one thing that is not subject to human manipulation-namely, the unshakable reality that reality is like a wet lump of clay that we can shape any way we want to! So we can ask: "Is that lump-of-clay idea something you made up?" If it applies to everyone. then the statement is incoherent. If it doesn't, then it's nothing more than one's perspective. Why take it seriously? And if there's no objective truth or reality, how do we know that our beliefs are not delusional?

Relativism is self-contradictory. If someone claims to be a relativist, don't believe it. A relativist will say that your belief is true for you but his is true for him; there is no objective truth that applies to all people. The only problem is that this statement itself is an objective truth that applies to all people! (Even when he says, "That's true for you but not for me," he believes his view applies to more than just one person. To show the self-contradictory nature of relativism, we can simply preface relativistic assertions this way: "It's objectively true that `That's true for you but not for me’” or "It's true that `There is no truth."' The bold contradiction becomes apparent. Or what of the line that sincere belief makes something (Buddhism, Marxism, Christianity) true? We must ask, is this principle universal and absolute? Is it true even if I don't sincerely believe it? That is, what if I sincerely believe that sincere belief does not make something real? Both views obviously cannot be true.

The basis and conclusion of relativism are objectively true. Ask the relativist why she takes this view. She'll probably say, "So many people believe so many different things." The problem here is that she believes this to be universally true and beyond dispute. Furthermore, she believes that the logical conclusion to draw from the vast array of beliefs is that relativism must be the case. The relativist doesn't believe that all these different beliefs are a matter of personal preference. The basis for relativism (the variety of beliefs), and the conclusion that relativism obviously follows from it, turn out to be logical and objectively true-for all people, not just the relativist!

Relativism will always be selective. People usually aren't relativists about the law of gravity, drug prescription labels, or the stock index. They're usually relativists when it comes to God's existence, sexual morality, or cheating on exams. But try cutting in line in front of a relativist, helping yourself to his property, or taking a sledgehammer to his car-and you will find out that he believes his rights have been violated! Rights and relativism don't mix. But if "it's all relative," why get mad at anyone?

Relativism is usually motivated by a personal agenda-the drive for self-control. Atheist philosopher John Searle uncovers what's behind relativism: "It satisfies a basic urge to power. It just seems too disgusting, somehow, that we should have to be at the mercy of the `real world."' We want to be in charge. Now, pointing out one's motivation is not an argument against relativism; still, it's a noteworthy consideration. Truth often takes a backseat to freedom. But clearly, when a person shrugs off arguments for the inescapability of objective truth with "Whatever," he has another agenda in mind. Relativism makes no personal demands upon us-to love God, to be people of integrity, to help improve society. Even if relativism is false, it is convenient.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

More Evidence for Life After Death By J.P. Moreland

2012-01-16T23:59:00.001+08:00

The case for life after death consists in empirical (observable) and nonempirical (theoretical) arguments. The empirical arguments are two: near-death experiences (NDEs) and the resurrection of Jesus. A sufficient body of evidence exists for the view that people have died, left their bodies, had various experiences, and returned to their bodies. Attempts to explain NDEs as natural phenomena fail in those cases where the disembodied person gained knowledge about things miles away (e.g., conversations of family members). One must be cautious about theological interpretations of NDEs, but their reality is well established. Some argue that, even if true, NDEs provide evidence only for temporary existence beyond death. Strictly speaking, this is correct. However, if biological death does not bring the cessation of consciousness, it is hard to see what could do so after death.

Jesus' resurrection is defended in other articles in this Bible. Suffice it to say here that if Jesus rose from the dead, this qualifies Him to speak about life after death because His resurrection provides evidence that He was the Son of God and means that He returned from the afterlife and told us about it.

The nonempirical arguments divide into theistic-dependent and theistic-independent ones. The former assume the existence of God and from that fact argue for immortality. If God is who He says He is, the case is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Three such theistic-dependent arguments are especially important.

The first is two-pronged and argues from the image and love of God. Given that humans have tremendous value as image bearers and God is a preserver of tremendously high value, then God is a preserver of persons. Moreover, given that God loves His image bearers and has a project of bringing them to full maturity and fellowship with Him, God will sustain humans to continue this love affair and His important project on their behalf.

The second argument, based on divine justice, asserts that in this life goods and evils are not evenly distributed. A just God must balance the scales in another life, and an afterlife is thus required.

Finally, there is the argument from biblical revelation. It can be established that the Bible is the truthful Word of God, and it affirms life after death. For this to be an argument, rational considerations must be marshaled on behalf of the Bible's divine status.

Two nontheistic dependent arguments exist for immortality. The first is a three part argument from desire: (1) The desire for life after death is a natural desire. (2) Every natural desire corresponds to some real state of affairs that can fulfill it. (3) Therefore, the desire for life after death corresponds to some real state of affairs-namely life after death-that fulfills it.

Critics claim that the desire for immortality is nothing but an expression of ethical egoism. People do not universally desire it, and even when they do, it is a learned, not a natural, desire. Further, even if it is a natural desire, sometimes such desires are frustrated. Thus the desire argument is not necessarily a strong argument, but nonetheless it does have some merit.

The second argument claims that consciousness and the self are immaterial, not physical, and this supports belief in life after death in two ways: (1) It makes disembodied existence and personal identity in the afterlife intelligible. (2) It provides evidence for the existence of God. This, in turn, provides grounds for reintroducing the theistic-dependent arguments for life after death.

The argument for consciousness being nonphysical involves the claim that once one gets an accurate description of consciousness-sensations, emotions, thoughts, beliefs - it becomes clear that it is not physical. Conscious states are characterized by their inner, private, qualitative feel made known by introspection. Since physical states lack these features, consciousness is not physical.

The case for an immaterial self is rooted in the claim that in first-person introspection we are aware of our own egos as immaterial centers of consciousness. This awareness grounds intuitions that when one has an arm cut off, has a portion of one's brain removed, or gains or loses memories and personality traits, one does not become a partial person or a different person altogether.

While these two arguments provide some grounds for belief in an afterlife, they are far from conclusive. At the end of the day, the justification of belief in life after death is largely theistic dependent.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Is There Evidence for Life After Death? By Hank Hanegraaff

2012-01-16T23:54:00.000+08:00

Philosophical naturalists (including most evolutionists) believe that death is the cessation of being. In their view, humans are merely bodies and brains. Though they reject metaphysical realities such as the soul, there are convincing reasons to believe that humans have an immaterial aspect to their being that transcends the material and thus can continue to exist after death.

From a legal perspective, if human beings were merely material, they could not be held accountable this year for a crime committed last year, because physical identity changes over time. We are not the same people today that we were yesterday. Every day we lose millions of microscopic particles. In fact, every seven years or so, virtually every part of our material anatomy changes, apart from aspects of our neurological system. Therefore, from a purely material perspective, the person who previously committed a crime is presently not the same person. Yet a criminal who attempts to use this line of reasoning as a defense would not get very far. Such legal maneuvering simply does not fly even in an age of scientific enlightenment. Legally and intuitively, we recognize a sameness of soul that establishes personal identity over time.

Finally, freedom of the will presupposes that we are more than material robots. If I am merely material, my choices are a function of such factors as genetic makeup and brain chemistry. Therefore, my decisions are not free; they are fatalistically determined. The implications of such a notion are profound. In a worldview that embraces fatalistic determinism, I cannot be held morally accountable for my actions, since reward and punishment make sense only if we have freedom of the will. In a solely material world, reason itself is reduced to the status of a conditioned reflex. Moreover, the very concept of love is rendered meaningless. Rather than being an act of the will, love is relegated to a robotic procedure that is fatalistically determined by physical processes.

While the legal and freedom arguments are convincing in and of themselves, there is an even more powerful and persuasive argument demonstrating the reality of life beyond the grave. That argument flows from the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The best minds of ancient and modern times have demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that Christ's physical trauma was fatal; that the empty tomb is one of the best-attested facts of ancient history; that Christ's followers experienced on several occasions tangible post-resurrection appearances of Christ; and that within weeks of the resurrection, not just one, but an entire community of at least 3,000 Jews experienced such an incredible transformation that they willingly gave up sociological and theological traditions that had given them their national identity.
Through the resurrection, Christ not only demonstrated that He does not stand in a line of peers with Abraham, Buddha, or Confucius but also provided compelling evidence for life after death.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Are Jesus' Claims Unique Among the Religions of the World? By Gary R. Habermas

2012-01-16T23:39:00.001+08:00

Have all major religious teachers proclaimed approximately the same message? For example, have many of the religious teachers taught that they were God, as Jesus did?

It may surprise many to learn that we have no reliable historical data that any of the founders of the world's major religions-apart from Jesus-ever claimed to be God. No early writings attest such a claim on behalf of these persons. For example, Chinese teachers Confucius and Lao-tzu exerted moral, social, and cultural influences on their students but were not theologians. Many of their wise sayings are reminiscent of the Hebrew book of Proverbs. Strangely, Buddha may have been an atheist who did not believe in any kind of divinity!

The Muslim holy book, the Qur'an, definitely does not elevate Muhammad to the place of Allah (God). While we are told that Muhammad is Allah's chief prophet, there is no attempt to make Muhammad deity. To the contrary, Allah has no partners (Surahs 4:171; 5:72, 116).

The OT places no leader or prophet on God's level. Rather, we are told that God will not share His glory with anyone else (Is 48:11). So Abraham, David, and Isaiah are not candidates for godhood.

Perhaps the Hindu figure Krishna comes closest to being understood as God. While he is referred to in the lofty terms of deity in the Hindu sacred writings, the Bhagavad-Gita (e.g., 4.13; 9:18-20,23), scholars are not sure whether Krishna ever really lived or, if he did, what century he lived in. Moreover, these writings do not claim to be historical treatises of any actual teachings and are thought to have been written hundreds of years after Krishna may have lived. Thus tracking any possibility of original claims is fruitless.

Further, being God in the usual Hindu sense would be quite distinct from the Judeo-Christian tradition. In the latter, God is by nature totally apart from His creation; humans do not reach godhood. In the Bhagavad-Gita, however, the process of enlightenment can be attained by those who return to the Godhead and achieve their own divinity (see 18:46-68). In a certain sense, all persons have divine natures.
On the contrary, Jesus claimed dual titles of divinity. Particularly, He said He was both the Son of God (Mt 11:27) and the Son of Man (Mk 2:10-11). He spoke of His Father in familiar ways (Mk 13:36) and even claimed to forgive sins, for which He was charged with blasphemy (Mk 2:5-7).

In perhaps the clearest indication of His claims about Himself, when the high priest asked Jesus if He was the Christ, the Son of God, Jesus plainly declared that He was. Then He further asserted that He was also the Son of Man who would co-reign on God's throne and come on the clouds in judgment. The high priest pronounced these claims blasphemy (Mk 14:61-64).

These sayings of Jesus were recorded in documents that were written just decades after the events, and there are strong reasons to hold that all were composed by authors who were close to the occurrences. Moreover, many of the individual passages exhibit earmarks of historicity. Last, very early creedal texts (e.g., Ac 2:36; Rm 1:3-4; 10:9) also apply titles of deity to Jesus Christ.

Many religious teachers have claimed to present God's way. But Jesus declared not only that He was initiating God's path of salvation (Mk 1:15-20) but also that what His hearers did specifically with Him determined their eternal destiny (Mt 10:37-40; 19:23-30). Further, of these religious founders, only Jesus taught that His death would serve as a payment for human sin, achieving what we could not (Mk 10:45; 14:22-25).

Additionally, only Jesus has miracles reported of Him by early sources. Most importantly, according to the Gospels, Jesus taught that His resurrection from the dead would be the sign that evidenced the truth of His message (Mt 12:38-42; 16:14; Mk 14:28). For NT writers, Jesus' resurrection proved His claims were true (Rm 1:3-4; 1 Pt 1:3-6). After all, dead men do not do much! So if Jesus was raised, God must have performed the event in order to approve Jesus' message (Ac 2:22-24; 17:30-31).

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Can the Gospel Be Presented Across Cultures? By John Mark Terry

2012-01-16T23:32:00.000+08:00

Evangelical Christians respond to this question with a resounding yes. The Bible includes many passages about cross-cultural evangelism. In the Great Commission (Mt 28:18-20), Jesus commanded His disciples to evangelize all the nations of the world. The word translated "nations" is the Greek word ethne, which is the root word for the English word ethnic. Thus Jesus instructed the apostles to make disciples of all the ethnic groups of the world. At His ascension (Ac 1), Jesus reiterated the command, instructing the apostles to witness even to the "ends of the earth" (Ac 1:8). Clearly the Bible reveals God's concern for all the cultures of the world.

Jesus Himself is the supreme example of cross-cultural ministry. Jesus left heaven to minister on earth. He was the first incarnational missionary as God in the flesh. In a similar way, Christians today should live the gospel among the cultures of the world. Jesus also demonstrated His concern for reaching other cultures by witnessing to the Samaritans, an ethnic group despised by the Jews of His day (Jn 4).

Peter, the leader of the early church, offers another example of cross-cultural ministry. Like most Jews of his day, he avoided contact with Gentiles. But through a vision God showed Peter the error of his prejudice, and Peter traveled to Caesarea to witness and stay in the home of Cornelius, a Roman army officer (Ac 10).

Paul provides a third example of cross-cultural witness. Though he had been raised to segregate himself from Gentiles, Paul met the Lord Jesus on the road to Damascus, and Christ called him to be a missionary to the Gentiles (Ac 9:15). Paul devoted the rest of his life to planting churches among Gentiles

So the Bible clearly says that, yes, the gospel can be presented across cultural boundaries. Any doubt to the contrary is based upon the false contemporary assumption that at least some vital worldview beliefs (such as the gospel) are incommunicable to other cultures. This philosophical assumption has been shown to be false historically. In A History of Christian Missions, Bishop Stephen Neill wrote:” 'Christianity long has succeeded in itself a universal religion." Bishop Neil said this doesn’t mean that everyone has to become a Christian, but Christians can be found in almost every country of the world – among “the most sophisticated of westerners to the aborigines of the inhospitable deserts of Australia.”

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Aren't the Gospels the Product of Greek Thinking? By Ronald H. Nash

2012-01-16T23:23:00.000+08:00

For more than a century, liberal critics of the Christian faith have been claiming that early Christianity was heavily influenced by Platonism, Stoicism, pagan mystery religions, or other movements in the world at that time. A series of scholarly books and articles had refuted most of these claims by the 1940s. But new generations of liberal scholars have revived many of these older discredited positions.

The favorite target among the four Gospels has been the Gospel of John. John 1:1-18 was supposedly influenced by a Jewish philosopher named Philo who lived in Alexandria, Egypt. Rudolf Bultmann made a career of claiming that parts of John's Gospel were influenced by Gnosticism and/or various mystery religions. Such influences allegedly extended to the Apostle Paul as well.

All Christians should ask the following questions of all claims about any alleged dependence of early Christianity upon pagan sources:

(1) What is the evidence for such claims?

(2) What are the dates for the evidence? An embarrassingly high percentage of the alleged evidence turns out to be dated long after the writing of the NT.

(3) Are the alleged parallels really similar, or are the likenesses a result of exaggeration, oversimplification, inattention to detail, or the use of Christian language in the description?

(4) Is the alleged parallel between the NT and a supposed pagan source the sort of thing that could have arisen independently in several different movements?

(5) the claim of influence or dependence consistent with the historical information we have about the first-century church?

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

How Is the Transformation of Jesus' Disciples Different from Other Religious Transformations? By Gary R.Habermas

2012-01-16T23:19:00.000+08:00

When people discuss the beliefs of Jesus' disciples and their willingness to suffer martyrdom for their convictions, they often make comparisons to other religious persons whose lives were also changed due to their own religious beliefs. Like Jesus' disciples, many have willingly given their lives for their beliefs. Examples include modern Muslims, the followers of various religious teachers, and certain UFO groups. Even political ideas, such as communism, have inspired life changes and martyrdoms.

Under these circumstances, can Christians continue to make evidential use of the disciples' transformations?

Initially, we need to make a crucial distinction. Transformed lives, whether the disciples' or others', do not prove that someone's teachings are true. However, they do constitute evidence that those who are willing to suffer and die for their religious commitments truly believe them to be true.

So, can we distinguish between the disciples' transformations and the experiences of others? In general, people committed to a religious or political message really believe it to be true. Of course, beliefs can be false. But in the case of Jesus' disciples, one grand distinction makes all the difference in the world.
Like other examples of religious or political faith, the disciples believed and followed their leader's teachings. But unlike all others, the disciples had more than just their beliefs-they had seen the resurrected Jesus. This is a crucial distinction; their faith was true precisely because of the resurrection.

Let's view this another way. Which is more likely-that an ideology we believe in is true or that we and a number of others saw a friend several times during the last month? If eternity rested on the consequences, would we rather base our assurance on the truth of a particular religious or political view, or would we rather that the consequences followed from repeated cases of seeing someone?

But unlike the world's faiths, which rest on certain beliefs being true, the disciples both heard unique teachings and saw the resurrected Jesus. Jesus was the only founder of a major world religion who had miracles reported of Him in reliable sources within a few decades. But most of all, He confirmed His message by rising from the dead. The disciples, both individuals and groups, saw Him repeatedly. Even two skeptics-James the brother of Jesus and Saul of Tarsus (Paul)-witnessed the resurrected Jesus.

No wonder the disciples were so sure of their faith! Not only had they been promised heaven, but then they had actually been shown a glimpse of it!

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Are the Teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses Compatible with the Bible? By Robert M. Bowman Jr.

2012-01-16T23:11:00.000+08:00

Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) claim to regard the Bible as the absolute Word of God and to base all their beliefs on it. In fact, the teachings of JWs are contrary to the Bible.

The Bible. JWs use a doctored version of the Bible called the New World Translation (NWT). The JW leaders who produced the NWT were not biblical scholars, and it shows. The most obvious difference between the NWT and other Bibles is its use of "Jehovah" in the NT. JWs claim that the NT originally used the Hebrew name YHWH (translated "Jehovah" or "Yahweh") and that apostate scribes put "Lord" (Gk kurios) in its place. There is no historical or manuscript evidence for this claim.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. JWs teach that the Father alone is Jehovah, the almighty God; that the Son, Jesus Christ, is "a god" (their translation of Jn 1:1) inferior to the Father; and that the "holy spirit" is an impersonal force emanating from God. The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each God (Jn 1:1; 17:3; 20:28; Ac 5:3-4; 2 Co 3:17-18; Ti 2:13). The Son made every thing (Heb 1:10-12) and is to be honored as God (Jn 5:23; Heb 1:6; Rv 5:13). The Holy Spirit is a person, called the "Comforter" or "Helper" (Gk parakletos); He teaches, speaks, and bears witness to Jesus (Jn 14:16,26; 15:26-27; 1G:33-14).

Death, the soul, and eternal punishment. According to JWs, when unsaved human beings die, they cease to exist. There is no intermediate state of the dead and no eternal punishment for the wicked (who are annihilated instead). The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that human beings exist after their deaths as spirits awaiting the resurrection and final judgment (Lk 16:19-31; 23:43; Heb 12:9,23; Rv 6:9-11). (The NWT mistranslates Lk 23:43 and the Hebrew texts to avoid this implication.) The wicked will suffer eternal punishment (Mt 25:46; Rv 14:9-11; 20:10).

Jesus' resurrection and return. JWs believe that God "raised" Jesus from the dead as an angelic spirit, with a so-called spirit body. They deny that He will return visibly and personally to earth. Scripture, however, teaches that Jesus rose with the same physical body with which He died, though glorified and immortal, and that His body possessed flesh and bones, hands and feet, and even marks of His crucifixion (Lk 23:49; Jn 2:19-22; 10:17-18; 20:20,25; Ac 2:24-32). Though He is the second person of the Godhead, Jesus is also a glorified man (Ac 17:31; 1 Co 15:47; 1 Tm 2:5) and He will return personally and bodily to the earth (Ac 1:9-11; 3:19-21; 1 Th 4:16: Heb 9:26-28).

Salvation. JWs view Jesus' death as providing a "corresponding ransom," releasing all people in principle from the condemnation due to Adam's sin. However, to enjoy everlasting life, JWs believe they must not only accept Christ's ransom but also prove themselves worthy by their works. The Bible's teaching is quite different. Christians are saved by God's grace alone, through faith in Christ, and our good works are the fruit of salvation, not the prerequisite for it (Rm 3:21-28; 5:1-11; Eph 2:8-10; Ti 3:4-8).

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Does the Bible Teach That There Is a Purgatory? By Chad Owen Brand

2012-01-16T22:58:00.001+08:00

Some Christian traditions teach that Christians who die in good fellowship with the church but still not in a state of perfection will go to an intermediate place after death that is neither heaven nor hell. This intermediate place is known as purgatory. Unbaptized adults and those who have committed mortal sins, according to this tradition, go to Hades or hell. A few perfected persons (saints) go directly to heaven.

Defenders of purgatory teach that it will be a time and place of suffering, something akin to the lake of fire, but not as severe and only temporary. The amount of time one spends there depends on the degree of purging needed, based on one's sins. Pope Gregory I taught that baptism absolves us of original sin but that we have to remit payment for our actual sins. This purging is a preparation of the soul for heaven.

Is there any biblical justification for the doctrine of purgatory? Supporters of the doctrine generally defend their position by citing 2 Maccabbees 12:39-45 (a passage in the Apocrypha, or collection of writings that Protestants do not accept as a part of the Bible). But this text says nothing about purgatory, and those who do not accept the authority of the Apocryphal writings would not find it compelling even if it did. The other text that is sometimes cited is 1 Co 3:10-15, where the concluding phrase is "yet it will be like an escape through fire." But again there is nothing in the text that indicates that there will be a time and place after death in which individuals will be purged of the sins committed in this life.

The doctrine of purgatory fails the biblical test both in terms of direct interpretation of the specifically cited text and in terms of the overall teaching of Scripture. Neither of the classically cited passages mentions purgatory by name or by concept.

Even more, this doctrine denies one of the fundamental teachings of the NT-that Jesus' death on the cross atoned for all our sin, not simply original sin (Rm 3:21-26; 5:21). Because of that atonement, though we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, those who have placed faith in Christ will never face condemnation (Rm 5:1;8:1; 2Co 5:10).

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

What About Those Who Never Heard About Christ? By Chad Owen Brand

2012-01-16T22:52:00.001+08:00

Human beings as a lot are incurably religious. The problem is that since these 1 same human beings are also infected by sin, they tend not to desire to honor and glorify the true God, who is righteous and holy. Rather, they tend to make gods for themselves that are pleasing to them or that satisfy some sense of what they think a god ought to be. As John Calvin said, the human mind is a factory for idols. Such gods, concocted by the rationale of humans apart from special revelation, are invariably out of touch with the truth (Rm 1:18-32).

What hope is there for those who do not live in predominantly Christian parts of the world? Historically, Christians have argued that their hope lies in the mission impulse of the Christian church. From the earliest days of Christianity, Jewish believers began to spread the message to the Gentile world (Ac 10-11). Christians such as the Apostle Paul made it clear that it was not good enough even to be a Jew, since the hope for salvation rests in affirming Jesus as Messiah (Php 3:7-11). In the early centuries of the faith, Christians spread the message to Africa, northern Europe, the British Isles, and the Asian subcontinent, all because they believed this message was the hope of salvation for the world.

It is obvious to anyone that vast numbers of people in the world today either have never heard the gospel or have heard it in only a cursory manner. What hope do such people have? The Bible makes it clear that there is no salvation in any name other than that of Christ (Jn 14:6; Ac 4:12). That means that one must believe specifically in Jesus in order to be saved (Rm 10:9-14). Does this mean that most people ever born will spend eternity in hell? If so, is that a problem for the Christian faith?

A couple of proposals have been offered to respond to this difficulty. Some have suggested that God will evaluate all people according to the "light they have." That is, if someone is a Hindu or a Muslim or an ancient Aztec, God will judge that person only according to his response to the religious information he has at hand. The problem is that the Bible regularly condemns idolatry. Scripture even indicates that idolaters know intuitively that there is something wrong with their idolatry (Rm 1:19-20). The other problem is that many actions of religious people are terrible. Hindu Kali worshipers murdered travelers, and Aztecs sacrificed young women to their god. Another proposal is that God will simply save all persons by His power. The difficulty here is that it ignores human free will as well as the fact that the Bible indicates that some will eventually go to everlasting punishment (Mt 25:46).

Christians must hold that faith in Christ, and only faith in Christ, is the avenue to salvation. But having said that, God will judge those who have heard the truth and yet have rejected it more severely that those who have never heard (Lk 10:14). There is also the hope that in the future the church's message of salvation will cover the entire earth.

(For another perspective, see “What About Those Who Have Never Heard About Christ? by William Lane Craig”)

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Could the Gospel Writers Withstand the Scrutiny of a Lawyer? By John Warwick Montgomery

2012-01-16T22:45:00.000+08:00

Lawyers distinguish between making claims (almost anyone can file a lawsuit) and proving the case (which is possible only on the basis of good evidence). Lawyers, therefore, are in the evidence business and will not accept any claims (including religious claims) without good reason to do so. It is highly significant, then, that throughout history so many great lawyers, judges, and legal scholars have come to Christian belief.

This is due in large part to the solidity of the Gospel testimony to Jesus Christ. The Gospel records qualify under the "ancient documents rule" and would be admitted as evidence in any common law court. They assert that they are firsthand, nonhearsay testimony to Jesus Christ (1 Jn 1:1, etc.) or are the product of careful research concerning Him (Lk.1:1-4). Documents, like defendants, are innocent until proven guilty, and the critics have not been able to impugn the credibility of the Gospels.

The soundness of the four Gospels depends upon their early dating and their authorship by those who knew Jesus personally. Corroboration from outside the Gospels comes by way of such early writers as Papias, who was a student of the Apostle John. Papias tells us that the four Gospels were written either by an apostle (Matthew and John) or by an apostle's associate (Mark with Peter, Luke with Paul). The Gospels were in circulation, then, while hostile witnesses of Jesus' ministry were still alive. As F. F. Bruce has argued, these opponents were the functional equivalent of modern cross-examiners: They had the means, the motive, and the opportunity to refute the Gospel accounts of Jesus' miraculous ministry if it had not happened just as the Gospel writers said it did. Since the opposition could not do that, the Gospel narratives stand as powerful evidence that the miraculous picture of Jesus they convey is accurate.

The fact that the first three Gospels were written prior to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and the Gospel of John not long thereafter, makes impossible the attempt of liberal Bible critics and secularists to argue that they are really the product of a developing oral tradition in which the early church modified Jesus' life and teachings. There was insufficient time for doing this. A. N. Sherwin-White has pointed out that the case for accurate reporting is far better in the case of the Jesus of the Gospels than for the best-known contemporary of Christ, Tiberius Caesar, whose career is also known from just four sources.

Harvard professor Simon Greenleaf, the greatest authority on the law of evidence in the nineteenth century, wrote, "All that Christianity asks of men on this subject is [that the testimony of the Gospels] be sifted as if it were given in a court of justice.... The probability of the veracity of the witnesses and of the reality of the occurrences which they relate will increase, until it acquires, for all practical purposes, the value and force of demonstration.”

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

What About "Gospels" Not in Our New Testament? By Graham H. Twelftree

2012-01-16T18:49:00.001+08:00

The four Gospels in our Bible had all been written by the end of the first century. Apparently no other gospels were written by this time. By the last 20 years of the second century, when Irenaeus the bishop of Lyon was writing, the four Gospels had been widely and firmly established for some time as the only ones accepted by mainstream Christianity. However, many sections of the church did not use all of them.

Irenaeus argued against accepting other gospels, such as the Gospel of Truth, alleged to have been written by the Gnostic teacher Valentinus. He said it had only recently been written and "did not agree in any respect with the Gospels of the apostles." This gospel is a homily or meditation and does not resemble our biblical Gospels in telling of the activities and teaching of Jesus, including His appearances after Easter. The same is true of the Gospel of Philip, an anthology of sayings from the mid-fourth century, as well as the second-century Greek Gospel of the Egyptians, about which we know little except that it was apparently a collection of sayings. The Gospel of Thomas, which also contains a collection of sayings of Jesus (some of which may be historically authentic) along with minimal narrative material, has been argued to be early. However, because of parallels with literature of this period, many date it late in the second century. More fanciful gospels include the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, with its miracles conducted by the child Jesus, ending with the story from Luke of the 12-year-old Jesus in the temple.

Other gospels approximate those in the NT. For example, the now largely missing Gospel of Peter came from the middle of the second century. From the fragmentary evidence we have, it told of the trial of Jesus, His crucifixion, and His appearing to a group of His followers. Also, the Gospel of the Ebionites, from Syria in the same period, is a harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Later in the century Tatian produced a widely used harmony of all four Gospels, the Diatessaron, which was highly valued particularly in Syria. From papyrus fragments we also have evidence of a handful of other gospels from as early as the second century. A letter of Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) discovered in 1958, which tells of a "secret gospel" of Mark, may be a modern forgery.

The Gospel of Hebrews, written before the mid-second century, perhaps in Egypt for Greek-speaking Jewish Christians, was the only gospel apart from the four in our Bible that was ever considered part of the legitimate Scriptures by sections of orthodox Christianity. The few remaining quotations of it show that it probably began with Jesus' preexistence and included His descent from heaven and subsequent birth. Jesus describes Himself as the son of the Holy Spirit and reports His temptation. There are also examples of His teaching. During the Last Supper, James the brother of Jesus says he will not eat again until he has seen the risen Jesus. There was probably a story of the burial of Jesus, and those who guarded the tomb may have witnessed the resurrection. As anticipated, there is a story of Jesus appearing to James, reinforcing his importance to this gospel. Gnostic characteristics, divergence from the biblical Gospels, and lack of any connection with an apostle may account for its eventually being excluded from the NT by mainstream Christianity.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Can God Create a Stone Too Heavy for Him to Lift? By Charles Taliaferro

2012-01-16T18:43:00.001+08:00

This question should immediately strike one as a word game. Many puzzles exist in the same category, such as, "Can God eat oatmeal that no one can eat?" Such puzzles are intended to reveal a logical problem with the divine attribute of omnipotence. If God can create a stone too heavy for anyone to lift, then there is one task God cannot do, namely lift any conceivable stone. But if God can lift any stone, then again there appears to be one task God cannot do, namely create a stone too heavy for God to lift. The argument concludes there cannot be an omnipotent God.

The most plausible and common philosophical response to this puzzle is to challenge the coherence of the task demanded. In order for someone to conclude that there is some state of affairs God cannot bring about, the objector must establish that the state of affairs is a genuine, bona fide possibility. It is no imperfection of anyone to be unable to make the concept of justice dance with the number two. The concepts of justice and the number two are not the sorts of things that can dance.

Does the above reply make "logic" something greater than God? No, "logic" is not the name of some concrete or abstract thing that can carry out tasks. When you cannot do something contradictory (such as make a square circle), it is not as though there is a force called logic restraining you. "Logic," in this context, may be . formulated in terms of two laws: the law of identity (A is A) and noncontradiction (A is not not A). These are not "laws," however, like the laws of nature (e.g., the laws of motion). They are, rather, necessary conditions of there being anything at all and for there being thought or language about anything at all. God the Son is identified in the NT as the Logos. Some philosophers and theologians have understood this to imply that logic and reason are attributes of God's excellent nature.

The stone paradox may be resolved in terms of strict logic, but does it not generate a more general problem? Can the God of Christian theism commit suicide? Tell lies? Do evil for its own sake?

Two replies should be considered. One is to claim God can bring about any of these states of affairs, but because of God's essential goodness, God does not do so. On this view, God is still omnipotent in the sense of being able to bring about any state of affairs. A second reply is to question an assumption behind the objection. Why think of divine omnipotence exclusively in terms of the bare scope of power? An important classical Christian tradition (Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas) holds that God's power is also supremely good. Is the "power" to do evil for its own sake a worthy, good power? Arguably, God's excellent power is the power to do good, not evil. A further exploration of this concept of divine power leads us away from the apparent word game of the stone paradox and focuses the mind on the nature of God's excellence, the object worthy of worship.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Why Would a Good God Send People to an Everlasting Hell? By Paul Copan

2012-01-16T18:39:00.000+08:00

What is hell? Not a place of high thermal output (though some conservative scholars disagree) but being "away from the Lord's presence" (2 Th 1:9)-cut off from intimate union with God (Rv 21•3• 22•4) Hell's darkness and flames (which if literal, would cancel each other out) are figurative, portraying anguish and hopelessness without God. Hell was prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt 25:41)spirit beings, which are unaffected by physical fire.

Let's address some hell-related questions that unbelievers and believers find troubling.

"Isn't God unjust to punish persons forever for sins committed during a limited earthly existence?" Those in hell have committed the ultimate, infinite sin-not simply a string of finite sins-in rejecting a relationship with the-self-giving God. Also, hell is the logical outcome of a mindset to live life apart from God-not simply committing individual sins. The punishment fits the crime. You want no God, you get no God. There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "Thy will be done" (C. S. Lewis).

"But wouldn't persons in hell really want to be with God if they knew what hell is like?" No. Those who have resisted God on earth continue in their hard-heartedness thereafter (just as those living for God on earth continue to enjoy Him). God's holy presence would truly be "hell" for those wanting their own way. We have no hint from Scripture of repentance in hell. Rebellion, hate, and selfishness continue. The rich man in hell (Lk 16:19-26) is remorseful, not repentant-not wanting to change but to find relief!

"But how can people be sent to hell without knowing its full implications?" Even if one isn't fully aware of hell's anguish, this doesn't mean our choice is too much to bear. God is ready to equip anyone for salvation (Jn 16:8). Though the full consequences of our embracing or rejecting God aren't fully apparent to us now, grace to choose responsibly is available to all. What prevents the salvation of everyone? Individuals choosing freely to reject God's grace. We can always resist the Holy Spirit (Ac 7:51). God doesn't send people to hell; they freely reject Him, condemning themselves by not acknowledging their guilt.

"Why didn't God make the world in such a way that all people would love Him?" While a world in which everyone loves God is theoretically possible, it is not feasible. Whatever possible world with free creatures God could create, it may be that none is sin-free, and God's loge isn't forced. Hell-the absence of God's presence-exists because, like Milton's Satan, people would rather "reign in hell than serve in heaven." God isn't unloving but rather has gone to great lengths to show grace to everyone. Should God not create at all because many freely resist Him in the world God created and thus deprive many others of the greatest good possible?

"Why did God create people He knew would reject and be separated from Him forever?" Despite God's desire that all be saved (1 Tm 2:4; 2 Pt 3:9), many still resist. What if some become more resistant no matter how loving God is (Is 5:4; Mt 23:37)? Should God not create those who would respond to His love simply because others would refuse it? What if God created a world in which a maximal balance of least - condemned and most redeemed was realized? This is not unloving.

"Why couldn't God, from the start, make us like heaven's saints-loving God while unable to sin?" Robust freedom on earth-to embrace freely God's grace or - resist it-is a requirement for arriving at one's final destiny. Our earthly direction is "sealed" in the afterlife; our heart's desire is finally granted-God or no God. So God couldn't have created a heavenlike state in which the redeemed no longer sin without damaging this vitally important freedom. (Or perhaps, rather than "sealing" us from sin in the afterlife, God simply foreknows that no saint will actually freely sin, guaranteeing a sin-free condition in the final state.)

Finally, because God has so fully given of Himself to make salvation freely available through His Son, we can confidently entrust any lingering questions about hell to His excellent character.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Can We Still Believe in Demons Today? By Clinton E. Arnold

2012-01-16T18:19:00.000+08:00

Many modern scholars regard belief in demons as a primitive worldview that includes elves, dragons, and a flat world. They contend that the advent of modern science, especially advances in understanding body chemistry, psychology, and neurology, enables better understanding of the phenomena the ancients attributed to the work of demons.

Skepticism about the existence of angels and demons is at odds with the direct and explicit testimony of Scripture. From the Garden of Eden in Genesis to Satan's doom in Revelation, the pages of Scripture are filled with references to evil supernatural beings who oppose God and His purposes. Their frequency of appearance actually heightens during the ministry of Jesus and the apostles. In fact, we learn most about their nature, character, and activities from Jesus and Paul.

Beside the biblical assumption of demonic reality, other matters must be considered:

Science is inherently incapable of answering this question. Some critics grant science authority to make judgments on issues it is incapable of judging. Just as science is incompetent to adjudicate on morality, so it is also beyond its jurisdiction in trying to decide the question of demonic existence. Science seeks to describe and explain natural phenomena. There is no reason to assume it has power to answer questions regarding the supernatural, such as whether these beings exist.

Purely naturalistic explanations are not adequate for describing many forms of evil in the world. Although the impact of sin on the human soul explains much of the proliferation of evil, some situations are still so abhorrent or inexplicable that they suggest a demonic origin. The horrors of an Auschwitz or of a mother roasting her own child to death imply a powerful force leading humanity to destruction.

Some therapeutic situations are best explained by the work of a spirit being. While it is true that symptoms produced by schizophrenia, dissociation, and other psychological and chemical disorders have often been wrongly attributed to demons, some conditions are best explained by the direct influence of a spirit entity. The international community of mental health professionals recognizes this and labels it "Trance and Possession Disorder," an especially common diagnosis in non-Western cultures.

We need to learn from the broader sweep of human history and cultures. The last 300 years in Western history represent the only time when the existence of evil spirits has been viewed with widespread skepticism. Furthermore, an exploration of other cultures throughout Asia, Africa, the Pacific Islands, and elsewhere reveals that belief in evil spirits continues to be integral to the worldview of many people groups.

Belief in the reality of evil spirits need not lead to uncritical or unwarranted beliefs about demons nor the bizarre and dangerous practices of extremist individuals and groups. Our task should be to integrate this more complete view of reality into our functional worldview with constant sensitivity to biblical teaching on this topic. At the beginning of the Screwtape Letters, C. S. Lewis warned that we can err in two ways as regards the devil. We can fail to take account of him or we can give him too much attention.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Has Historical Criticism Proved the Bible False? By Thomas R. Schreiner

2012-01-16T18:01:00.001+08:00

Historical criticism of the Bible began in earnest in the eighteenth century, flowered in the nineteenth century, and became the dominant approach to the Scriptures in the twentieth century. Historical criticism has at times been rejected by conservatives because it has called into question the accuracy of the Bible. For example, in the nineteenth century, most scholars delving into the life of Jesus provided rationalistic, not supernatural, explanations of Jesus' miracles. New Testament scholar F. C. Baur argued that the theologies of Peter and Paul contradict one another if one reads the NT historically. Old Testament scholars, such as Julius Wellhausen maintained that the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible) was not actually written by Moses. Careful literary and historical study, it was claimed, indicated that the Pentateuch had various sources that were written over a period of hundreds of years and that the final document was put together by an unknown editor.

Still, it is important to recognize that the rise of historical criticism has also benefited the church. The Christian faith is rooted in history. God has manifested Himself supremely in the person of Jesus Christ. He lived and ministered in a particular time and place-in Palestine in the third decade of the first century. As Christians, then, we believe that our faith is historically rooted. Paul insisted that Christians were foolish to believe in the Christian faith if the resurrection of Jesus did not actually occur (1 Co 15:12-19). Hence, we have no fear of historical study of God but welcome it, for we believe historical research can assist us in understanding the message of the Scriptures.

The benefits of historical study are numerous. It has cleared up the meaning of obscure terms. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has cast light on the environment within which the NT was birthed. Study of the ancient Near East and the Greco-Roman world has clarified the extent to which the Scriptures are similar to Mark and dissimilar from documents that came out of surrounding cultures. Historical criticism has also demonstrated that some traditional views were not credible. It was once thought that the NT was written in a special "Holy Ghost" language, but study of sources from the era of the NT has demonstrated that the NT was written in the common Greek of the day. The King James Version of the Bible was an outstanding product of the scholarship in its day, but we now have many more manuscripts for both the NT and the OT, and hence our English Bibles are even closer to the original today because of recent manuscript discoveries and the careful work of scholars in text criticism.

While historical criticism has benefited the church, it also carries with it liabilities. Many scholars who practiced historical criticism imbibed the Enlightenment philosophy sweeping Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Their philosophical worldview masqueraded as historical criticism. As described above, they rejected the miracles of Jesus and provided rationalistic explanations. But scholars do not reject miracles on historical grounds. They have accepted a naturalistic philosophical standpoint that presupposed that miracles don't happen. On this view, even impressive evidence to the contrary is beside the point. Rudolf Bultmann is an example of this view. Bultmann defined historical work in such a way that the acceptance of any miracles was excluded. When we read the NT, we see that credible historical reasons exist to support the resurrection of Christ, but many scholars refuse even to consider the evidence, for they are convinced from the start that resurrections cannot happen. This fundamental bias, i.e., naturalistic philosophy, is all too often cloaked as "objective history."

Historical criticism hoped that it would succeed where orthodoxy failed. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, orthodox Christians debated the interpretation of the Bible, leading to several different theological systems (Lutheranism, Calvinism, Arminianism). Historical critics believed that they were more objective that by means of a "neutral" scientific approach they could discover what Bible really taught. But with the arrival of postmodernism this view seems naive to almost all scholars today. And the record of historical criticism reveals that it did not succeed in agreeing upon "the assured results of scholarship." Indeed, a dizzying array of viewpoints and perspectives are present in historical criticism today, and many of them are mutually contradictory.

The work of F. C. Baur and Julius Wellhausen threatened the faith of evangelical believers in the nineteenth century. Yet few scholars today embrace the conclusions of R C. Baur, and the documentary hypothesis of Wellhausen is severely questioned. The "assured results" of scholarship in one generation are often vigorously challenged by the next. Evangelicals, of course, should be open to correction. Perhaps we have misread some parts of the Bible because of our tradition. On the other hand, we need to be critical and savvy and to reject the temptation of embracing the latest fad in scholarship just because it is current.

Though evangelical scholars have often solved problems raised by historical critics, conservatives have not solved them all. This does not mean that the Scriptures are inaccurate in such instances but instead that we could resolve such problems if we had enough information. To make such a claim is not a sacrifice of one's intellect. Comprehensive answers are lacking in every historical discipline since the evidence is fragmentary. We can be grateful to historical criticism since it has helped us understand the Scriptures better. But we must also be on our guard. Often historical criticism has veered off into unsubstantiated allegations about the accuracy of the Scriptures, and it has routinely approached the Scriptures with an antisupernatural worldview. Historical criticism has not demonstrated the Bible to be false. The Bible, rightly interpreted, has stood the test of time.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

The Trinity: Is it Possible That God Be Both One and Three? By Douglas K. Blount

2012-01-16T15:43:00.001+08:00

Like Jews and Muslims, Christians are monotheists. In other words, they believe in the existence of precisely one God. Unlike other monotheists, however, Christians also believe that, while there exists just one God, He is three persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The belief that the one arid only God exists eternally as three persons is known as the doctrine of the Trinity. And this doctrine plays an important role in Christian faith. In fact, the doctrine of the incarnation-which says that Jesus as God became a man and that He is thus both fully divine and fully human-assumes it. This latter doctrine lies at the heart of Christian faith.

On its face, however, the doctrine of the Trinity might look like a contradiction. It might seem impossible that God be both one and three. Indeed, the apparent absurdity of this doctrine has led to at least two major errors, each of which elevates one of the doctrine's claims at the other's expense. On one hand, some stress the oneness of God at the expense of His threeness, claiming there is only one divine person. Those who describe God in this way usually say that the one divine person appears in different guises or masks, sometimes as Father, other times as Son, and still other times as Spirit. Since this view says the one divine person changes His mode of appearance, it is called modalism. On the other hand, some stress God's threeness at the expense of His oneness, claiming each of the three divine persons is a distinct god. This view, which says that there are three gods, is called tritheism.

But modalism and tritheism are at odds with the Bible, which presents God as both one and three. There is just one God (Dt 6:4), yet this God is three persons Father, Son, and Spirit (Mt 3:16-17; Mk 1:9-11; Lk 3:21-22). No doubt it is difficult (or perhaps even impossible) for us to understand how God is both one and three. But something's being difficult (or even impossible) for humans to understand doesn't make it a contradiction.

A contradiction involves saying that something is both true and false at the same time and in the same way. So, for instance, one who says both that Napoleon lost the Battle of Waterloo and that Napoleon did not lose the Battle of Waterloo contradicts himself. It is logically impossible for Napoleon to have both lost that battle and not to have lost it. His claim is contradictory.

Now if Christians said both that (1a) there exists precisely one God, and that (1b) it is not the case that there exists precisely one God, they would contradict themselves. So also if they said both that (2a) there are three divine persons, and that (2b) it is not the case that there are three divine persons, they also would contradict themselves. But Christians do not affirm both 1a and 1b. Neither do they affirm both 2a and 2b. Rather, they affirm 1a and 2a. And this would be contradictory only if either la entails 2b or 2a entails 1b.

To put the point differently, when Christians say that God is both one and three, they do not say that He is one in the same way in which He is three. So, for instance, they do not say both that (1a) there exists precisely one God, and that (1c) there exist three gods. Nor do they say both that (2a) there exist three divine persons, and that (2c) there exists only one divine person.

Since 1c entails 1b, affirming both it and la would be contradictory. And since 2c entails 2b, affirming both it and 2a also would be contradictory. But, as a matter of fact, Christians deny both 1c and 2c. In affirming 1a and 2a, then, Christians affirm that in one way God is one and in another way He is three. And in so doing they do not contradict themselves.

So, then, those who think the doctrine of the Trinity is contradictory misunderstand either the nature of a contradiction or the doctrine itself. Perhaps they confuse contradiction with mere paradox, taking our inability to understand how the doctrine is true to entail that it is false. But our inability to understand how God is both one and three tells us far more about ourselves than it does about God. Bible presents God as both one and three; that suffices for us to know that regardless of whether we understand the how of it.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Is the New Testament Trustworthy? By Darrell L. Bock

2012-01-16T15:26:00.001+08:00

Like any ancient book, the NT has a strange feel about it. It reports unusual events as well as strange customs. This naturally raises the question of whether we can trust what it tells us. These six statements of fact affirm that the NT can be trusted.

1. The books of the NT were recognized through a careful sifting process. The process stretched from the first to the fourth century. The catalysts for the formation of the NT were the use of Scripture in worship, the rise of false teaching (which necessitated identifying the authentic works), and persecution (which called for the burning of holy books-so one needed to know which those were!). The books included in the NT were those regarded as giving evidence of divine authority. Was it associated with an apostle? Was it in line with other authentic biblical books? Was it widely used and received? These were the questions used to identify the trustworthy and authoritative books of the NT.

2. The NT is based on reliable sources carefully used and faithfully transmitted. The Bible is both like other books and unlike them. Luke explained that he used sources (Lk 1:1-4). Jesus taught that the Spirit would help these apostles recall what Jesus taught them (Jn 14:25-26). To argue that the Bible is inspired by God does not dismiss the human elements that make up the book. What are the sources and how were they handled? The texts surrounding Jesus stress the role of eyewitnesses as the root of the tradition (see Lk 1:2). An apostolic association ensured the account's credibility.

The distance between event and recording is not great-less than a lifetime, a small distance of time by ancient standards. For example, the first-century Roman historians Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus were centuries removed from many of the events they chronicled. Judaism depended on the ability to pass things on with care from one generation to the next, recounting events with care. This does not exclude some variation, as is obvious by comparing the Gospel accounts or parallel accounts in 1 and 2 Samuel, l and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles. Judaism, and the Christianity that grew out of it, was a culture of memory. People memorized long liturgical prayers and more often than not worked from memory rather than from a written page. Anyone who has read a children's book again and again to his child knows that the mind is capable of absorbing vast amounts of wording and retaining it.
Finally the biblical text we have today basically reflects the text as it was originally produced. The NT has far better manuscript evidence than any other ancient document. Where most classical works, such as those of Plato, Herodotus, and Aristophanes, have from one to 20 manuscripts, the NT has about 5,400 Greek manuscripts that we can compare to determine the original wording, not to mention more than 8,000 ancient Latin manuscripts.

3. Assessing trustworthiness means understanding history's complexity. Differences in accounts do not necessarily equal contradiction, nor does subsequent reflection mean a denial of history. Events can be viewed from different angles or perspectives without forfeiting historicity. Thus the differences in the four Gospels enrich our appreciation of Jesus by giving us four perspectives on Him-Jesus in four dimensions, so to speak. Neither is reflection a denial of history. Sometimes the significance of a historical event, such as a football play, becomes clear only when we see successive events. History involves both what happened and its results. Trustworthiness simply affirms that the assessed account is an accurate portrayal of what took place and a credible explanation of what emerged, not that it is the only way the events in question were seen.

4. Trustworthiness demands not exhaustive but adequate knowledge of the topic. Sources are selective even when they are accurate. The Bible makes this point in John 21:25: "There are also many other things that Jesus did, which, if they were written one by one, I suppose not even the world itself could contain the books that would be written." When people call Scripture trustworthy, they are arguing that its testimony is not contrary to what happened and is sufficient to give us a meaningful understanding of God and His work for us (2 Tm 3:16-17). Speaking accurately is not the same as speaking exhaustively.

5. Archaeology teaches us to respect the content of Scripture. Archaeology seldom can prove that events took place. What it can show is that the details of an account, some of them incidental, fit the time and culture of the text. Archaeology also shows that we should be cautious in pointing out errors in the Bible merely because only the Bible attests to something.

For example, there was once debate about the description in John 5:2 of a pool with five porticoes in Jerusalem, called Bethesda or Bethsaida. Many questioned its existence despite its wide attestation in ancient tradition. Different spellings of the locale in the NT manuscript tradition added to the tendency by many to reject the claim. In 1871 a French architect, C. Mauss, was restoring an old church and found a cistern 30 meters away. Later excavations in 1957-1962 clarified that it consisted of two pools large enough to hold a sizable amount of water and people. Today virtually no one doubts the existence of John's pool.

6. The Bible's claim for miracles are plausible when one considers the response to resurrection claims. The events of the Gospels were recorded within the lifetime of several of those who claimed to have observed them. Perhaps the greatest evidence for the resurrection is the change and reaction of those who testified to it. They disciples openly admitted that they had no formal training and for a long period were shockingly inept at responding to Jesus. Yet they become courageous leaders. They stood firm in the face of the threat of death and rejection by the Jewish leaders who resisted them. This did not involve one or two people but a whole host of leaders who left their mark on history, notably the former chief persecutor of the church, Paul. Both Peter and he, along with others such as the Lord's brother James, died for their belief in Jesus' resurrection.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

How Should We Treat New Challenges to the Christian Faith? By Gary R. Habermas

2012-01-16T15:19:00.001+08:00

It seems every year during the Easter season the popular press boldly an new claims troubling to Christians. Stories emerge, often as if breaking promising exciting new evidence contrary to the Bible in the form of scholarly research, archaeological discovery, or scientific breakthrough.

In recent years believers have been challenged with questions such as: Was married to Mary Magdalene? Did Jesus father one or more children? Was Mary supposed to be the appointed leader of the church but was denied that right by the male leaders? Was Judas Iscariot not really the betrayer of Jesus, but Jesus' key and hero? Were Jesus' bones really discovered in His family's burial tomb?

These tests to Christian faith arise in other formats, too. Novels, movies, chain e-mails, or casual talks with friends often present alleged reasons for believing the Bible wrong.

Perhaps the majority of Christians are not troubled, simply assuming that biblical bias explains all such allegations. Others may react fearfully as if their faith were in danger of crumbling at any moment. But this reaction is almost never on any thorough study of the claims themselves.

So how should Christians respond to ideas which, if they were true, might undermine our faith? Following are general suggestions we can utilize when evaluating disturbing challenges.

(1) Divorce our emotions from the challenge. We should immediately remind ourselves that the Bible has successfully withstood innumerable attacks over the centuries. Though many sensationalistic claims have been made against it, how many of them have ultimately proven the Bible wrong? That's right, none! So why spend painful emotional energy before the conflicting claims are sorted out? Typically these controversies are forgotten precisely because they are unable to withstand the scrutiny of scholarly examination.

Even if the claim initially appears substantial, there is still no reason to worry. Researchers have noted that this type of emotional response is linked not to the challenges but to the questions we ask ourselves at such moments: "Oh no, what if my faith is misplaced?" or "What if the Bible is wrong?" But though we rightly are passionate about God's Word, we should not succumb to troubling thoughts others question its truth. Yes, a challenge has been proposed, so now we will study the specific claims being made.

(2) Assume the Bible is true. We should not adopt the critic's view that the Bible is guilty until proven innocent. Remembering how Scripture has withstood the test of time inspires us to develop our response with confidence and patience.Neither uncritical acceptance nor superficial rejection of an anti-biblical claim is worthy of those who know God does not lie. Presupposing the Bible's truthfulness enables the Christian to work toward an answer with persistence and the clarity of mind that stems from assurance.

(3) Carefully analyze each critical allegation against the Bible. Too many Christians attempt to counter critical views without having done their homework. Before we begin jousting with specific challenges, we need to understand the fundamental assumptions of the critic's worldview. Often just knowing the opponent's presuppositions helps us spot potential biases masquerading as scholarly research. Though we must still analyze the evidence, we need not accept pronouncements just because they are issued by an authority. If we know that Professor X discounts even the possibility of miracles, we may rightly assume that any relevant evidence for the miraculous did not factor into his reasoning.

A Christian respondent wisely focuses on those challenges which are stronger and more important. Questions on the periphery of the faith need not be treated with the same diligence as attacks on indispensable doctrines. Happily, our cardinal doctrines are also the best grounded, often established by multi-faceted evidence.
We should also understand and employ basic critical thinking skills. Some scholars exhibit an almost uncanny knack for dissecting opposing arguments and exposing their crucial weaknesses. This proficiency can be cultivated by asking certain essential questions. Is there an argument here based on evidence, or is someone simply making an assertion? If evidence is presented, how strongly does it actually support the critical claim? Are words being used for the purpose of explanation (cognitive meaning) or for persuasion (emotive meaning)? Are fallacies of reasoning employed (e.g., straw man: attacking something the Bible doesn't even say)?

(4) Get help from Christian scholars. The Lord has blessed the church with scholars devoted to working in the very disciplines so often employed to attack biblical Christianity. The works of outstanding evangelical biblical scholars, theologians, philosophers, scientists, and historians should be consulted. Often what the media presents as a daring new challenge to the Christian faith, we will find that experts have already thoroughly discredited.

(5) Be patient! Though we would like to have instant answers, they do not always come on our timetable. The wise Christian continues to assume the truthfulness of Scripture while awaiting solutions to problems. We happily confess we don't have all the answers (only God does!), even while we confidently await further substantiation of biblical veracity.

To sum up, controlling our emotions is a prerequisite for responding adequately to critical challenges. We also reject the notion that Christianity is guilty until proven innocent. Then, there are no substitutes for knowing not only our position but also the assumptions that may color the critic's allegations. We employ the basic tools involved in digesting and dissecting an argument. This provides the basis upon which we build our counter-challenge, aiming for the most crucial and vulnerable premises of our opponent's position. We thoughtfully utilize the labors of faithful Christian scholars. And we are patient when answers don't come quickly - because we know there are good answers.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Are Biblical Miracles Imitations of Pagan Myths? By Gary R. Habermas

2012-01-16T14:51:00.000+08:00

Frequently the complaint is made that biblical miracles, especially those of Jesus, were motivated or even inspired by pagan accounts from the ancient world. We are told that healings, demon possession, virgin births, and resurrections were all common fare in ancient times. So the implication is that the Bible is no different from other religious documents. Perhaps Christians even plagiarized other accounts.
While it is true that a myriad of miracle stories adorned the ancient world, it does not follow that Scripture duplicated them. Although promoted in some popular circles, this assumption is mistaken on several levels.

It is true that some scholars emphasize the similarities between pagan and biblical miracle accounts. But we must also accent the more common (and profound) differences. For example, there is usually an immense philosophical gulf between the pagan and biblical backgrounds for their respective miracle accounts. The pagan mindset most commonly incorporated cyclical, repetitive patterns in nature, marked by the seasonal cycles. In contrast, the Jewish philosophy of history moved in linear patterns, from one event to the next, culminating in God's grand climax.
Further, these pagan stories often concern persons who never even lived in history, such as Hercules of ancient Greek mythology, while Jesus and other biblical miracle workers undoubtedly did. Moreover, scholars note that these pagan stories were never influential in Palestine, where a far different outlook prevailed.

Surprisingly, virtually no miracle stories in the ancient world are even candidates for inspiring Jesus' miracles. Few of these tales both predate the NT and closely approximate Jesus' miracles. So it is difficult to prove a parallel.

Regarding Jesus' resurrection, the inadequacy of this proposed solution growl even more apparent. Writings clearly claiming that prominent pagan heroes were resurrected postdate the NT accounts. Scholars know that some ancient religious teachings copied from Christianity, and Jesus' resurrection may be an example of what was copied!

So there are many reasons why the NT accounts were not derived from pagan texts. The most crucial response, stated simply, is that we have many reasons for believing that Jesus actually performed miracles during His ministry. Indeed, virtually all contemporary critical scholars agree that Jesus performed many acts that might be termed "miracles" or "exorcisms."

Most of all, there is an incredible amount of evidence arguing that Jesus was really raised from the dead. For instance, we have reliable reports from various authors regarding many who thought that they had actually seen the risen Jesus. The most crucial witness is Paul, an eyewitness who provided very early testimony. So we must not miss the clear point that a number of early, credible witnesses (including previous skeptics Paul and James) were proclaiming their conviction that they had seen the risen Jesus, for which they were willing to die. Far from being inspired by faraway tales, many died for their honest belief that they had really seen the risen Jesus. Pagan stories do not explain this conviction.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Who Are You to Judge Others? By Paul Copan

2012-01-16T14:46:00.000+08:00

Hands down, Matthew 7:1 is the most frequently quoted Bible verse today: "Do not judge, so that you won't be judged." It's been twisted to mean we can't say someone's action or lifestyle is wrong. However, when someone says, "Don't judge," he's judging you for judging someone else. You've done wrong by saying someone else has done wrong! Clearly, we can't escape making moral judgments. Furthermore, in the same context of the oft-quoted verse, Jesus made a moral judgment about certain persons, using metaphors about "dogs" and "pigs" (Mt 7:6), stressing that we shouldn't continue to present God's grace to those who persistently scoff and ridicule. At some point we must shake the dust off our feet and move on to the more receptive (Mt 10:14; Ac 13:51). On the other hand, Jesus commanded, "Stop judging according to outward appearances; rather judge according to righteous judgment" (Jn 7:24, emphasis added).

How do we resolve the apparent tension? By taking note of the spirit in which we make judgments. Do we think we're superior (the attitude Jesus condemned), or are we assessing actions or attitudes with a spirit of humility and concern, recognizing our own weaknesses (1 Co 10:13; GI 6:1)? In Matthew 7:5, Jesus told us first to examine ourselves (removing the log from our own eye), then we can help our brother or sister (taking the speck out of his or her eye). So there is a problem to be dealt with-but only after self-examination. The wrong kind of judging is condemning. The right kind of judging is properly evaluating moral (or doctrinal) matters with a humble, helpful attitude. (In 1 Co 5:5, "judging"-even excommunicating-is required in light of a church member's shameless sexual misconduct.) We should treat others the way we would want to be treated {cp. Mt 7:12), thinking, There-but for the grace of God-go I.

So when discussing judging with others, first clarify what you mean by the word "judge." This can serve as the context for clarifying right and wrong kinds of judgment. Further, we must take care to avoid-the "Who am I to say So-and-So is wrong?” mentality. We can't shrink from making moral judgments, nor can we escape them – lest we declare it wrong to say another is wrong.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Does the Bible Contain Errors? By Paul D. Feinberg

2012-01-16T14:37:00.001+08:00

Why do you believe the Bible? It is an ancient book full of errors and contradictions." We have all heard this many times. However, most conservative evangelical Christians disagree with this claim. They hold to a doctrine called the inerrancy of Scripture.

The place to start our discussion is with a definition of inerrancy and error. By inerrancy, we mean that when all the facts are known, the Bible-in its original manuscripts and properly interpreted-will be shown to be true and never false in all that it affirms, whether related to doctrine, ethics, or the social, physical, or life sciences. Three matters in this definition are noteworthy. First, there is the recognition that we do not possess all the information to demonstrate the truth of the Bible. Much data has been lost due to the passing of time. It simply no longer exists. Other data await archaeological excavation. Second, inerrancy is defined in terms of truth that most philosophers today take to be a property of sentences, not words. This means that all the indicative sentences, or statements, of the Bible are true. Therefore, on this definition, an error in the Bible would require that it made a false statement. Finally, all information in the Bible, whatever the subject, is true. That is, it accurately records events and conversations, including the lies of men and Satan. It teaches truly about God, the human condition, and heaven and hell.

The belief in inerrancy rests on at least four lines of argument: the biblical, the historical, the epistemological, and the slippery slope arguments.

The biblical argument is drawn from what the Bible has to say about itself and is the most important. This argument may be formulated in a circular and a noncircular way. It is circular when one claims that the Bible says it is inspired and inerrant and that this is true because it is found in an inspired and inerrant Scripture. It is not circular when claims are made that are verifiable outside the document. This is possible because the Bible makes historical and geographical statements that are verifiable independently. Inerrancy follows from what the Bible has to say about its inspiration. It is the exhaled breath of God (2 Tm 3:16) and is the result of the Holy Spirit's guidance of human authors (2 Pt 1:21). It is a divine-human book. Moreover, the accreditation of a prophet in the OT requires nothing less than complete truthfulness (Dt 13:1-5; 18:20-22). Can God's written communication meet any less a standard? It should be noted that both these oral and written forms of communication involve the human element. This shows that human agency does not necessarily imply the presence of error. The Bible teaches its own authority as well. Matthew 5:17-20 teaches that heaven and earth will pass away before the smallest detail of the law fails to be fulfilled. John 10:34-35 teaches that Scripture cannot be broken. Furthermore, the way Scripture uses Scripture supports its inerrancy. At times arguments in Scripture rest on a single word (Ps 82:6; Jn 10:34-35), the tense of a verb (Mt 22:32), or the number of a noun (G13:16). Finally, the character of God stands behind His word, and He cannot lie (Nm 23:19; 1 Sm 15:29; Ti 1:2; Heb 6:18).

A second argument is historical. While there have been those who disagree, inerrancy has been the normative Christian view throughout history. Augustine writes, "I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error." Luther says, "Everyone, indeed, knows that at times they [the fathers] - have erred as men will; therefore I am ready to trust them only when they prove their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred." John Wesley gave a similar opinion: "Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth."

A third argument is epistemological (based on what and how we know something). A helpful way to formulate this argument is to recognize that if the Bible is not entirely true, then any of it may be false. This is particularly problematic when some of the most important information communicated is not verifiable through independent facts. It teaches about an invisible God, angels, and heaven. Inerrancy requires that those claims of the Bible that are testable will be shown to be true once all relevant information is available. Critics of the Bible's full truthfulness point out numerous alleged errors. But in these cases, the passage in question may have been misinterpreted by the critic or not all relevant facts are brought to light. During the twentieth century, numerous claims of the Bible, thought to be in error, were shown to be true in the light of more information. If that is so, why should anyone believe what is unverifiable? Only an inerrant Bible assures us that what we read is true.

The fourth argument is the slippery slope (not a fallacy in this case). The argument states that inerrancy is so fundamental that those admitting errors into the Bible will soon surrender other central doctrines like the deity of Christ and/or the substitutionary atonement. The denial of inerrancy leads to greater doctrinal error. This does not happen in every case, but it is demonstrable as a trend.

Each of these arguments has been criticized. However, a common and fundamental objection to them contends this doctrine is meaningless since it is true only of nonexistent autographs (the original manuscripts). But is it meaningless? Not if two conditions are met: (1) we possess a sufficient number of high-quality copies of the autographs, and (2) there is a sophisticated discipline of textual criticism to use these copies in determining what the original must have said. Both of these conditions are met in the case of the Bible.

The fundamental issue is the Bible's teaching of its own inerrancy. And for those who are skeptical, evidence from science, archaeology, and history has supported this claim over and over again.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Does the New Testament Misquote the Old Testament? By Paul Copan

2012-01-16T01:44:00.001+08:00

Perhaps you've wondered why New Testament (NT) writers appear to take Old Testament (OT) verses out of context to make them fit their theology about Jesus' teaching or ministry. Critics cry foul and charge that such "fabricated predictions" referred to something other than a coming Messiah. For example, the context of Hosea 1L1 ("Out of Egypt I called My son") referred to Israel's exodus fronl Egypt, but Matthew 2:15 says that the "Son" was Jesus coming from Egypt. Isaiah 7:14 ("the virgin will conceive, have a son") directly concerned King Ahaz's time. when a "sign child" would be born within Isaiah's lifetime (7:15-16; 8:4), but Matthew 1:22-23 says Mary was the virgin fulfilling the Isaiah passage. Rachel's weeping in Jeremiah 31:15 probably referred to mourning over Judah being taken into exile (Babylon) in 586 B.C., but Matthew 2:18 speaks of weeping mothers after Herod's capricious decree to kill all boys under two in Bethlehem (where Rachel was buried).

Frequently critics-and Christians too- think prophecy means "prediction" and fulfillment means "realization of a prediction" from this, critics conclude "fabricated predictions." However, this charge rests on a great mistake, and sometimes Christians become confused by it.

First, if the NT writers "plundered" the OT for proof texts, why, for instance, didn't Luke-who mentioned the virgin birth-quote Isaiah 7:14 (as Matthew did)? The same could be asked about other such passages.

Second, Jewish interpretation of the OT during Jesus' day viewed "fulfillment" more broadly, as more varied and nuanced. The literal approach was only one method.

Third-and most importantly-the word "fulfill" (pleroo) in the NT is used to portray Jesus as bringing to full fruition OT events or experiences (the exodus, covenant), personages (Jonah, Solomon, David), and institutions (temple, priesthood, sacrifices, holy days). "Fulfill" doesn't necessarily (or even primarily) refer to the mere fulfillment of a prediction. Rather, a theological point is being made: many OT events and institutions-usually related to Israel-foreshadow something greater in Christ and the new community He called together (e.g., Christ's calling 12 disciples, reminiscent of Israel's 12 tribes). Jesus is the true, beloved Son that Israel failed to be (Hs 11:1; cp. Mt 2:15; Lk. 3:22), the shepherd Israel's leaders weren't (Ezk. 34; cp. Jn 10:1-18), and the genuine ("true") fruit-bearing vine Israel wasn't (Ps 80:8,14; Is 5:1-7; cp. Jn 15:1-11). In His ministry, Jesus reenacted the history and experiences of Israel-but on a higher plane (e.g., 40 days of testing in the wilderness, giving a new "law" from a mountain in Matthew 5-7, being in the "belly" of the earth for "three days and three nights"). He took over Israel's destiny and role, bringing it to fulfillment. The Law of Moses has a handful of messianic predictions, but Jesus' fulfilling the Law (Mt 5:17; Lk 24:44) refers to His bringing it to completion.

Of course, there are predictions regarding the Messiah's birthplace (Mc 5; cp. Mt 2:5), the Messiah's death and atonement (Is 53), and a coming prophet and messenger (Dt 18; Mal 3). But fulfillment of the OT generally refers to the broader idea of perfectly embodying, typifying, epitomizing, or reaching a climax. For example, Jesus (citing Is 29:13) said to unbelieving Jews of His day, "Hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied correctly about you when he said: `These people honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me"' (Mt 15:7-8, emphasis added). Of course, Isaiah didn't literally predict that Jesus would deal with hostile religious leaders; rather, Jesus was using the situation from Isaiah's time to epitomize, embody, and typify the same situation in His own day. This was typical of how Jews spoke of "fulfilIment"-a this-is-that method called pesher: "This situation is a fulfillment or embodiment of that Scripture."

The NT writers weren't immoral or ignorant. They didn't illegitimately rip passages out of their context and deviously reduce them to messianic predictions. And they were well aware that OT writers (such as Hosea) were often commenting on events in Israel's past (such as the exodus in 11:1, "Out of Egypt I called My son") or events in their own day. But NT writers (and Jesus) interpreted the OT in a Christocentric manner: Jesus is the embodiment or completer of foreshadowed OT historical events, images, and personages. While fulfillment includes literal predictions of Christ and the new covenant, it goes far beyond to a richer theological embodiment of what the OT foreshadowed.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Does the Bible Teach That Everyone Will Be Saved? By Gregory Alan Thornbury

2012-01-16T01:37:00.000+08:00

The Bible plainly teaches that only those who personally, consciously, and explicitly confess Jesus Christ as Lord possess eternal life. All others will face the holy and just wrath of God in hell throughout eternity.

Throughout the NT, the biblical writers uniformly describe a coming fixed and final divine judgment. Revelation 20:11-15 describes this scene in which all persons, both living and dead, will stand before God to be "judged according to their works." John wrote, "Anyone not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire." The "book of life" lists all those who have believed and obeyed Jesus Christ.
Jesus Himself said, "I will give to the thirsty from the spring of living water as a gift ... But the ... unbelievers ... their share will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death" (Rv 21:6-8). This passage reveals central truths concerning who will be saved. Redemption comes by grace through faith in Christ, apart from individual merit. Those who have not believed are deemed "unbelievers" and will receive a just and endless punishment in hell.

During His earthly ministry, Jesus talked more often about final judgment than He did about heaven (see, for example, Mt 25:41; Lk 16:23-31). He also warned anyone who rejected Him, "Just as the weeds are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age" (Mt 13:40). Throughout the NT, the apostles consistently echoed their Lord's theme (see 2 Th 1:5-9; Heb 9:27; 2 Pt 3:7).

Despite repeated scriptural emphasis to the contrary, universalists commonly raise three objections to the exclusivity of the gospel.

All religions are equally true; therefore everyone will be saved. This claim is easily disproved. For example, a Hindu might say all religions lead to God, while a Christian asserts that Jesus is the only way to the Father. In order to stay true to his conviction, the Hindu must say that the Christian's exclusive claim is wrong. But once he has said this, he has violated his dictum that all religions are equally valid. The two beliefs cannot both be right. Therefore it cannot be concluded on this basis that all persons will be saved.

God will give all human beings an opportunity to accept the gospel after death. Despite a lack of biblical evidence in its favor, this view teaches that God will offer a final chance for people to repent after death and before the judgment. On the contrary, the Scriptures clearly indicate that once a man dies, it is too late for him to repent and turn to God (see Mt 25:35-46; Lk 16:19-31). "It is appointed for people to die once-and after this, judgment" (Heb 9:27

What about the "man on the island" who has never heard the gospel? It would not be fair for God to send such a person to hell for not believing in Jesus. This argument from emotion is often heard and particularly dangerous. If it is true that God is obligated to save everyone who has not heard the gospel, then we might be better advised to recall all missionaries and stop proclaiming the gospel. Of course, the Bible does not countenance such a God-dishonoring approach. The "man on the island," like all people, is in desperate need of the good news about the forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Notable Christian Apologist: Origen By Ted Cabal

2012-01-16T01:33:00.000+08:00

Origen (A.D. 185-254) was born in Alexandria, Egypt, to Christian parents. Devout in the extreme, Origen devoted his life to Christian scholarship. Seeking to be totally faithful to the Bible and arguing for its complete inspiration, he worked diligently as a biblical scholar. As a philosophical theologian, however, he sometimes was led astray by his speculations (e.g., believing that God's conquering love will lead to universal salvation). Late in life Origen suffered torture during the reign of the emperor Decius and died a few years later.

Origen produced perhaps the greatest Christian apologetic work of the first few centuries, Against Celsus. Celsus, a pagan philosopher, argued that the OT did not predict events in the life of Jesus. The alleged fulfillments should be understood as nothing more than fabrications. Jesus' miracles also could be accounted for either as being legends or, worse, as being due to sorcery. The supposed resurrection was a fiction dependent on pagan mythology. And hints of truth or wisdom found in the Bible were borrowed from Greek philosophy.

This influential work of Celsus demanded a response, and Origen brilliantly refuted it point by point. He carefully demonstrated that OT prophecies concerning Christ were not manufactured, and he noted that miracles, in some measure, were still seen in the lives of those following Christ. Origen carefully displayed the evidence for the literal resurrection of Jesus through the confirmations of skeptics such as Thomas and Paul. And Origen, through a comparison of pagan mythology with the Bible demonstrated not only the independence of the scriptural narratives of miracles and resurrection but also their superiority as truth.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

How Should a Christian Understand Postmodernism? By Douglas R. Groothuis

2012-01-13T22:10:00.001+08:00

The term postmodernism means many different things. However, postmodernist philosophy, generally understood, claims to leave behind modernist (or Enlightenment) commitments to the objectivity of truth, the universality of reason, and the inevitability of progress. Instead of attempting to fashion a rational worldview, postmodernism opts for lesser goals by cobbling together various ideas, practices, and goals for pragmatic purposes. As postmodernist Walter Truett Anderson puts it, "Truth isn't what it used to be." Postmodernism embraces a cluster of ideas, most of which contradict the Christian understanding of truth, authority, and rationality. (One positive note is that postmodernism tends to deflate overly optimistic accounts of human reason and progress based solely on human ability.)

Postmodernists claim that any comprehensive and authoritative worldview is forever out of reach and that to claim otherwise is an arrogant pretext for dominating , those with whom one disagrees. For example, claims for the objective truth of the Christian worldview are unwarranted and lead to the oppression of non-Christians: Such "metanarratives" (Jean-Francois Lyotard), or stories used to describe reality as a whole, must be abandoned. No worldview holds any objective or rational authority over any other.

Thinkers such as Jacques Derrida "deconstruct" texts in order to abolish their authority. Texts do not possess any knowable or rational meaning established by the author and discernible by the informed reader. Their meaning is variable and open ended. The text has no authority. The reader contributes decisively to the meanings (plural) of texts. Thus deconstruction undermines the truthfulness of any text (including the Bible) since no text contains a single meaning that may correspond with objective facts. (Ironically, deconstructionists decry "misinterpretations" of their own writings.)

For postmodernists, "truth" is fundamentally a social, linguistic construction devised for a certain purpose. Various cultures have their own "maps," which describe reality differently. However, we cannot determine which "map" connects more closely with reality, since we cannot press beyond our own cultural conditioning. . There is no objective reality apart from our languages and concepts. Various communities determine their own truths. There is no God's-eye view of anything and thus no objective truth. As Friedrich Nietzsche declared, "There is no truth, only interpretation."

Against these claims, Scripture claims to be an objectively true revelation from God, authoritative on whatever it speaks (Rm 3:4; 2 Tm 3:15-17). Only God knows reality comprehensively, but humans may attain to partial knowledge by attending to God's revelation and by using their minds in wise ways. The Bible-and most philosophers-claim that a true statement is one that corresponds with reality. Social customs or personal opinions do not create truth; hence the Bible's condemnation of idols as false gods. The statement "Jesus is Lord" does not merely express the cultural language and tradition of Christians. It is a truth claim about objective realities. Moreover, good apologetic arguments may rationally verify the objective truth of this statement.

Postmodernist claims are logically flawed. First, their pronouncements on truth contradict themselves. Their statements claim to be applicable to reality itself, not merely to one's culture. Yet this is just what postmodernists claim cannot be done. In rejecting all objective authority, they end up asserting their own authority and their own metanarrative. This is contradictory and false. Second, sane people judge certain acts-such as the terrorist attacks on America on September 11, 2001-as objectively evil and not as merely relative social constructions. If this is so, the post-modern view of constructed morality cannot be defended. Postmodernism emphasizes the diversity of truth claims, particularly in pluralistic settings, but it provides - no method to test these claims against reality. Instead, it succumbs to a kind of intellectual indifference-the enemy of moral progress and spiritual virtue.

Although no major religion adheres to the postmodern view of truth, this mind¬set has affected how many people view spirituality, particularly in nations with significant religious freedom. Many think that religion is a matter of choice, taste, and preference. One seeks a designer religion that suits one's taste, or one is born into a religion that defines who one is. One may even mix and match elements from several religions. Debating whether a religion is true or false is pointless. All are "true' in the postmodern sense because they give meaning to people's lives. This perspective contradicts the Christian's apologetic duty to address the falsity and rational inadequacy of alternative religions in order to present Christianity as true, rational, and pertinent (2 Co 10:3-5).

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

What Does the Hebrew Bible Say About The Coming Messiah? By Michael Rydelnik

2012-01-13T22:02:00.002+08:00

How can someone be convinced that Jesus truly is who He claimed to be-the Messiah of Israel and the world? One of the ways-Jesus Himself proved this was by citing the Hebrew Bible's prophecies of the Messiah and how He fulfilled them. For example, Jesus said, "These are My words that I spoke to you while I was still with you-that everything written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled" (Lk 24:44).

So, to what prophecies was He referring? Probably not merely to individual messianic texts but to the whole Hebrew Bible. Even so, Jesus fulfilled numerous specific predictions about the coming of the Messiah. In fact, the entire life of the Messiah can be found in the Hebrew Scriptures, demonstrating that Jesus is actually the Promised One.

Messiah's Birth

The Hebrew Bible contains several predictions of the Messiah's birth. Micah foretold that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem when he wrote, "Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are small among the clans of Judah; One will come from you to be ruler over Israel for Me" (Mc 5:2).

Also, Genesis 49:10 predicted that the Messiah would come by the first century A.D. It says, "The scepter will not depart from Judah, or the staff from between his feet, until He whose right it is comes and the obedience of the peoples belongs to Him." Besides plainly stating that the messianic King would come from the line of Judah, additionally it says that He would come before the "scepter" and "staff" depart from Judah. The word "scepter" in Hebrew, as used here, refers to tribal identity. The word "staff" means a judge's staff and refers to judicial authority. The prediction is that the Messiah would come before Judah would lose its tribal identity (lost in A.D. 70 with the destruction of the temple) and judicial authority (lost in A.D. 6 or 7 when the Romans replaced Herod Archelaus with a Roman governor). Based on these two elements, the Messiah needed to come by the first century.

Additionally, Isaiah predicted that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. King Ahaz and Judah were under a threat from two northern kingdoms that wanted to remove the Davidic king and thereby jeopardize the messianic promise. Isaiah gave two predictions, one of which was a long-term prophecy assuring the people of the enduring nature of the Davidic house until the coming of the Messiah (Is 7:13-15). Isaiah wrote, "The Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel." The sign of hope would be the Messiah's supernatural birth by a virgin in the distant future.

Taking this all together, the Hebrew Bible predicted that the Messiah would be born of a virgin in Bethlehem by the first century.

Messiah's Nature

Although some have thought that Messiah would just be a glorious king, the Scriptures foretold that He would have a unique nature. For example, the same prophecy that predicted that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem (Mc 5:2) also said that His origin would be "from antiquity, from eternity," indicating His eternal nature.

Isaiah also foresaw that the Messiah would have a divine nature. In a birth announcement, Isaiah gave the royal names of the future messianic king: "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace" (Is 9:6). These glorious titles of deity indicate that the Messiah would be God Himself.

Messiah's Life

Isaiah foretold the characteristics of the Messiah's life. In the messianic age,,"the eyes of the blind will be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then the lame will leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute will sing for joy" (Is 35:5-6). So when the Messiah would make His appearance, He was to be a miracle worker. Isaiah also predicted that the Messiah's teaching would "bring good news to the poor ... [and] heal the brokenhearted" (Is 61:1). Despite these many signs, Isaiah foretold that the Messiah would also be "despised and rejected by men" and that His own people would confess that "we didn't value Him" (Is 53:3).

Messiah's Death

Daniel 9:26-27 predicted the time of the Messiah's death. He would be "cut off - before A.D. 70, when the Romans would "destroy the city [Jerusalem] and the sanctuary [the temple]."

King David foretold that the Messiah would die by crucifixion, saying, "They pierced my hands and my feet" (Ps 22:16). So David predicted the Messiah's crucifixion ion more than 300 years before that manner of execution was known.

More significant than the time or manner of His death, Isaiah predicted that the Messiah's death would be as a substitution for humanity's sin. The Servant of the Lord would be "pierced because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities" (Is 53:5). The Lord would punish Him "for the iniquity of us all" (Is 53:61. The Servant would have "submitted Himself to death," and as a result, "He bore the sin of many" (Is 53:12).

Messiah's Resurrection

The prophets not only foretold the Messiah's death, they anticipated His resurrection as well. In Isaiah 52:13-53:12, after describing the Messiah's substitutionary death, Isaiah promised that the Lord would "prolong His days" (Is 53:10). David also expressed his own confidence that God would "not abandon [him) to Sheol" because the Messiah, God's "Faithful One," would not "see the Pit" (Ps 16:10).

Messiah's Return

The Hebrew Scriptures present the Messiah in two ways: as a Suffering Servant and as a victorious and righteous King. Although this has confused many, the difficult, is resolved by recognizing that the prophets anticipated two appearances of the Messiah. First, He would come as an atoning sacrifice for sin. Second, He would come to establish His righteous kingdom.

One of the passages that links the two comings is Zechariah 12:10. It speaks at the Messiah coming to deliver Israel at the last battle and then "they will look at Me whom they pierced." These verses depict the Messiah's second coming as the victorious king but also recognize His first appearance as the Pierced One.

Mathematician Peter W. Stoner calculated the probability of one person fulfilling not all the messianic predictions of the Bible, or even the ones mentioned in the article, but just eight messianic predictions. He found that the probability would be 1 in 1017 or 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. The likelihood of this occurring is comparable to covering Texas with 10" silver dollars, marking only one of them, stirring the mass of dollars, and then having a blindfolded man randomly pick up the marked silver dollar. This is the likelihood of Jesus of Nazareth randomly fulfilling only eight of the Messianic predictions of the Hebrew Bible.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Does the Design Argument Show There Is a God? By William A. Dembski

2012-01-13T21:54:00.001+08:00

Suppose you take a tour of the Louvre, that great museum in Paris housing one of the finest art collections in the world. As you walk through the museum, you come across a painting by someone named Leonardo da Vinci-the Mona Lisa. Suppose this is your first exposure to da Vinci; you hadn't heard of him or seen the Mona Lisa before. What could you conclude? Certainly you could conclude that da Vinci was a consummate painter. Nevertheless, just from the Mona Lisa you couldn't conclude that da Vinci was also a consummate engineer, musician, scientist, and inventor, whose ideas were centuries ahead of their time.

The design argument is like this. It looks at certain features of the natural world and concludes that they exhibit evidence of a designing intelligence. But just as the Mona Lisa can tell us only so much about its creator (da Vinci), so the natural world can tell us only so much about its Creator (God). The design argument allows us reliably to conclude that a designing intelligence is behind the order and complexity of the natural world. But it cannot speak to the underlying nature of this designing intelligence (for instance, whether this intelligence is the transcendent, interpersonal, triune God of Christianity). Nor can it speak to the actions of that designing intelligence in human history. In particular, the design argument is silent about the revelation of Christ in Scripture. It follows that the design argument cannot "prove the Gospel" or "compel someone into the kingdom."

Christian theologians have long recognized that the design argument is a modest argument. Even so, it is a powerful argument. Perhaps the best-known design argument is William Paley's. According to Paley, if we find a watch in a field (and thus lack all knowledge of how it arose), the adaptation of the watch's parts to telling time ensures that it is the product of an intelligence. So too, according to Paley, the marvelous adaptations of means to ends in organisms (such as the human eye with its ability to confer sight) ensure that organisms are the product of an intelligence. The theory of intelligent design-or ID as it is commonly abbreviated-updates Paley's argument in light of contemporary information theory and molecular biology, bringing the design argument squarely within science.

The implications of ID for the Christian faith are profound and revolutionary. The rise of modern science led to a vigorous attack on orthodox Christian theology. The high point of this attack came with Darwin's theory of evolution. Orthodox Christian theology has always been committed to the proposition that God by wisdom created the world. A clear implication of this proposition is that the design of the world is real. The central claim of Darwin's theory is that an unguided material process (random variation and natural selection) could account for the emergence of all biological complexity and order. In other words, Darwin appeared to show that the design of the world was unreal-that science had dispensed with any need for design. By showing that design is indispensable to our scientific understanding of the natural world, ID is breathing new life into the design argument and at the same time overturning the widespread misconception that science has disproved the Christian faith.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

What Is the Relationship Between Science and the Bible? By J.P. Moreland

2012-01-13T21:50:00.001+08:00

Christians are committed to the reality of knowable truths from the Bible science. Further, Christians seek to integrate claims from both sources their worldview. How is this done? What is the relationship between the Bible and science?

Some claim that the history of Bible-science interaction is largely a war, theology constantly losing. But for two reasons, this claim is false. First, the relationship between the Bible and science is much richer than what can be - by a warfare metaphor (see below). Second, many times the teachings of the Bible and science confirm each other, and when there have been differences, it is always the Bible that has been reexamined. Sometimes scientific claims have been reinterpreted. For example, shortly after Darwinism arose, creationists predicted that there would be gaps in the fossil record, with no clear transition forms, evolutionists predicted that thousands of transitional forms would be discovered, Evolutionists were wrong.
In general, the warfare metaphor is not adequate. At least five different models been offered to capture the integration of science and the Bible. None of these positions is exhaustive, and one can subscribe to any of the five on a case-by-case basis.

1. Distinct realms. Claims from the Bible and science may involve two distinct, nonoverlapping areas of investigation. For example, debates about angels or extent of the atonement have little to do with organic chemistry. Similarly, it is of little interest to theology whether a methane molecule has three or four hydrogen atoms in it.

2. Complementary descriptions of the same realm. Claims from the Bible science may involve two different, complementary, noninteracting approaches to the same reality. Sociological aspects of church growth and some psychological aspects of conversion may involve scientific descriptions of certain phenomena that are complementary to a theological description of church growth or conversion. Claims in chemistry that water comes from combining hydrogen and oxygen are complementary to theological claims that God providentially creates water.

In general, we may describe God's activity in terms of primary causes (when God acts in an unusual way and directly, miraculously produces an effect) or secondary causes (when God acts in ordinary ways by sustaining and using natural processes to accomplish a result). The complementarity approach is most effective when God acts by way of secondary causes.

3. Direct interaction. Claims from the Bible and science may directly interact such that either one area of study offers rational support for the other or one area of study raises rational difficulties for the other. For example, certain theological teaching about the existence of the soul raise rational problems for scientific claims that deny the existence of the soul. The general theory of evolution raises various difficulties for certain ways of understanding the book of Genesis. Some have argued that the second law of thermodynamics supports the theological proposition that the universe had a beginning. Special creationism-for example, young-earth and progressive creationism-are applications of this approach to the question of the origin and development of life.

4. Presuppositional interaction. Biblical teaching can be used to support the presuppositions of science. Some have argued that many of the presuppositions of science (e.g., the existence of truth; the rational, orderly nature of reality; the adequacy of our sensory and cognitive faculties as tools suited for knowing the external world) make sense and are easy to justify through Christian theism but are without justification in a worldview that does not include God.

5. Practical application. Biblical teaching can help one practically apply principles discovered in science and vice versa. For example, the theology teaches that fathers should not provoke their children to anger; psychology can add important details about what this means by offering information about family systems, the nature and causes of anger, etc. Psychology can devise various tests for assessing whether one is or is not a mature person, given a normative definition (a definition of what ought to be the case and not just a description of what actually is the case) from the Bible as to what a mature person ought to be like.
It is the direct interaction approach that opens up the possibility that scientific and biblical claims may provide mutual intellectual support or be in conflict with one another.

Three things should be kept in mind in approaching areas of apparent conflict.
First, the vast majority of biblical teachings and scientific claims have little to do with each other directly, and it is wrong to give the impression that most of the issues from these two sources support or conflict with each other. Areas of potential conflict are quite small compared to the vastness of ideas from the Bible and science.

Second, there are several areas where scientific discoveries have lent support to biblical assertions:
• evidence that the universe had a beginning
• evidence that the universe is fine-tuned and delicately designed so that life could appear
• evidence strongly suggesting that there is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of life and moreover that life is characterized by information that always comes from a mind evidence that living things are irreducibly complex such that all their parts
• need each other to function and thus could not have evolved gradually numerous archaeological confirmations of biblical claims
• psychological discoveries of the importance of a unified spiritual, moral free agent to explain human functioning and maturity

Third, we should face areas of conflict honestly but confidently in light of points one and two. Christians ought to make sure we have understood scriptural and scientific data correctly, and we should seek solutions that are both biblically and scientifically adequate. Given that Christianity provides a reasonable worldview for justifying science, that most areas of science and the Bible do not directly interact, and that many scientific discoveries have added confirmation to biblical teaching, there is no reason why Christians cannot be rational in admitting that there are currently areas of apparent conflict for which we do not have adequate solutions. No worldview is without some problems and unresolved questions. Still, contrary to popular opinion, the difficulties that scientific claims raise for biblical teaching are far from overwhelming, and they are fewer in number than one would expect by listening to propagandists from secular culture.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Does the "New Physics" Conflict with Christianity? By Jeremy Royal Howard

2012-01-13T21:34:00.001+08:00

The Bible portrays God as a rational Being who created the world from nothing and rules over it as Sovereign. Logic, order, purpose, natural law-these qualities are etched into the universe as reflections of the will and mind of God. Moreover, God made humans in His own image, which means our minds are equipped to operate according to God's rationality. Finally, since God is the author of the world and humanity, we are intellectually ready-made to understand truth about God and the world He made.

Some people say quantum mechanics (QM) refutes these beliefs. QM studies the bits of matter that are the size of atoms and smaller. It was long assumed that these micro-objects would follow the physical laws Newton described, but modern research shows that quantum entities behave far differently than the objects of our everyday experience. For example, photons (light) can take the form of particles or waves. However, the problem is that waves and particles are contrary things. Waves cover a wide zone, but particles can only be at one tiny place at a time. Physicists are baffled that photons can do both. Next, tests reveal that in laboratory settings, quantum particles separated by a vast expanse can still affect one another as if they are in direct contact. This is like scratching someone's back from two thousand miles away. Finally, experiments suggest that quantum entities behave lawlessly, meaning there are no "rules" for their actions.

These oddities prompt some observers to conclude that QM overturns natural law and rationality, leaving us with an incomprehensible, uncreated universe. Standard physics says matter can be neither created nor destroyed by natural means, but some scientists (falsely) claim that quantum particles naturally pop in and out of existence. From this, leading atheists claim the whole universe "sprang" into existence naturally. No Creator necessary. Furthermore, they say that even if God exists and created the universe, QM shows He made a world He cannot control. Once He uncorked this world, not even God knows what will come of it. Theologians who favor science fads over Scripture conclude the same thing: QM implies God cannot govern creation or know the future.

Scientists have historically taken the appearance of mystery or irrationality in nature as a sign that they do not yet know enough about the object under study. However, following the lead of Niels Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) of QM, many physicists refuse to count their inability to understand or predict quantum action as a sign of ignorance. Rather, they claim QM is basically a finished science that reveals a genuinely lawless and irrational world-a brooding cauldron of chance actions and purposeless conclusions. This fits well with non-Christian concepts of the universe. In fact, Bohr and his colleagues enthusiastically asserted that QM endorses Eastern worldview images. Today, popular science opinion is captive to Bohr's CI, and thus holds that QM supports New Age or atheistic worldviews.

I suggest the following starting points for the Christian response: First, for all the wild attributes that may hold true in QM, we note that macroscopic reality behaves in a predictable, law-like fashion and everywhere presents us with evidence of its fundamentally rational construction and operation. So even if quantum particles could do lawless things like pop in and out of existence naturally, no such thing happens in the realm of everyday objects. Quantum oddities, whatever you make of them, are detained at the door to the larger realities we experience.

Second, many of the astounding behaviors attributed to QM occur only in highly artificial laboratory settings. There is no certainty that these things can actually happen in real-world settings. Thus, we are justified in casting an indifferent eye on many of the zany headlines coming from physics laboratories.

Third, science's ability to penetrate the microphysical world is still very rudimentary. This leaves room for exceptionally high degrees of speculation and error. In this light, Christians should join the chorus of noteworthy scientists (like Einstein) who have insisted that QM should not be the basis for worldview assertions. This problem will apparently not be fully alleviated in the future, for scientists acknowledge that the mega-scale facilities and energies required to verify the most important claims of QM will forever lie outside our reach.

Fourth, science would be impossible if this world were not created by a personal, rational Being who designed both physical reality and human beings to reflect His rationality. Any scientific theory that supports non-rational worldviews is self-defeating. After all, the deliberations involved in reaching the conclusion that "this world is fundamentally irrational" have relied on the very rationality whose legitimacy is denied in the conclusion.

Finally, a growing body of experts believes the CI will someday fall out of scientific favor, thus shifting the dominant paradigm of QM to models supporting rationality ity and natural law. Whether or not this happens, Christians can rest assured that this world is the creation of a rational God who rules as Sovereign over all things, including the wily objects of the quantum realm.

Besides QM, some suggest Chaos Theory and Special Relativity impinge on the Christian worldview. Special Relativity shows there are no fixed reference points in the universe. All motion or apparent non-motion is relative to a specific frame of reference. Some have imagined that this undermines our ability to form fixed judgments that apply universally, but of course our inability to do this in physics is irrelevant to our assurance about unalterable, universal truths revealed by God. As for Chaos Theory, the name itself is deceptive. Properly understood, it only says that many deterministic physical systems are so sensitive to initial conditions that we cannot fully predict their future behaviors unless we perfectly comprehend all of those conditions. Hence it is our ignorance, not creation itself, which sets up the appearance of chaos in physics.

In summary, the new physics highlights human finitude but does nothing to overturn God as Author and Ruler of creation.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Does the Bible Teach Annihilationism? By J.P. Moreland

2012-01-13T21:29:00.000+08:00

Does the Bible teach that the unsaved will suffer in hell for only a time and then be annihilated? Some argue from Scripture that the flames in hell are literal and point out that flames destroy whatever they burn. Further, they claim that infinitely long punishment is disproportionate to a finite life of sin. Thus extinction is morally preferable to everlasting punishment.

The scriptural argument is weak. Clear texts whose explicit intent is to teach the extent of the afterlife overtly compare the everlasting conscious life of the saved and the unsaved (Dn 12:2; Mt 25:41,46). Moreover, the flames in hell are most likely figures of speech for judgment (cp. Heb 12:29; 2 Th 1:8). Otherwise, contradictions about hell are apparent (for example, it is dark despite being filled with flames).
The moral argument fails as well. For one thing, the severity of a crime is not a function of the time it takes to commit it. Thus rejection of the mercy of an infinite God could appropriately warrant an unending, conscious separation from God. Further, everlasting hell is morally superior to annihilation. That becomes evident from the following consideration.

Regarding the end of life, sanctity-of-life advocates reject active euthanasia (the intentional killing of a patient), while quality-of-life advocates embrace it. In the sanctity-of-life view, one gets one's value, not from the quality of one's life, but from the sheer fact that one exists in God's image. The quality-of-life advocates see the value of human life in its quality; life is not inherently valuable. Thus the sanctity-of life position has a higher, not a lower, moral regard for the dignity of human life.

The traditional and annihilationist views about hell are expressions, respectively, of sanctity-of-life and quality-of-life ethical standpoints. After all, the grounds that God would have for annihilating someone would be the low quality of life in hell. If a person will not receive salvation, and if God will not extinguish one made in His image because He values life, then God's alternative is quarantine, and hell is

Thus the traditional view, being a sanctity-of-life and not a quality-of-life superior to annihilationism.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

What Does It Mean to Say, "Jesus Is Messiah"? By Walter Russell

2012-01-13T20:48:00.000+08:00

The Bible is more focused upon proving that Jesus is the Messiah than on proving that Jesus is God. While some NT passages clearly declare that Jesus preexisted as deity, dozens demonstrate that Jesus of Nazareth is the long-awaited Davidic Messiah-King of Israel. In other words, Jesus is the only one anointed with the Holy Spirit by God the Father and thereby uniquely authorized and empowered to bring about God's kingdom on earth. He is the Anointed One (Hebrew = Messiah; Greek = Christ). While His messianic identity includes His divine preexistence, this isn't the primary emphasis of the NT. That's why all four Gospels speak of Jesus' anointing (baptism) with the Holy Spirit as the beginning of His ministry as the Christ (.NR 3:13-17; Mk 1:9-11; Lk 3:21-22; Jn 1:32-34). For this reason, Christ is a title or office.. not a part of Jesus' name. Whenever "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus" or "Lord Jesus Christ" is used, the NT is saying, "Jesus the Messiah" or "Messiah Jesus" or "Lord Jesus the Messiah."

To understand the full significance of saying, "Jesus is Messiah," we must think primarily historically and secondarily theologically. For example, when it comes to Luke 4:16-30-Jesus' inaugural address in the Nazareth synagogue-we must think historically to understand what Jesus was claiming about Himself. He quoted from Isaiah 61:1-2, a favorite messianic passage of the Jews in Jesus' day and one d a cluster of OT passages speaking of the Spirit of the Lord anointing the Servant at the Lord to preach good news to needy people. In Luke 4:21, Jesus claimed that the Spirit anointing that Isaiah prophesied had been fulfilled in His anointing (baptism in John the Baptist's presence a short time before (Lk 3:21-22). In other words, Jesus claimed to be the Anointed One-the Messiah of Israel. Moreover, Jesus made the unpopular point that His present messianic ministry would be gracious to Gentiles, not wreaking vengeance upon them or overthrowing Rome (Lk 4:23-30). Jesus" claims can be understood only when we see them primarily as claims to be the Messiah who is the unique representative of the Father.

Even in passages clearly emphasizing Jesus' deity (e.g., Jn 1:1-18), such a theological emphasis is secondary to the historical emphasis that the Word who preexisted as God has become flesh and dwelt among us as Messiah. The double mention of John the Baptist, Messiah's forerunner, reveals that the messianic framework is primary (Jn 1:6-8,15).

Even Jesus' miracles weren't primarily to prove His deity but to prove His Spirit-anointed identity (e.g., Jn 6:1-15). However, they prove He is the Messiah as well as God. Also, the confession Jesus spent three years soliciting from His disciples was not "You are God" (which He is) but "You are the Christ" (Mt 16:16; Mk 8:29: Lk 9:20). Moreover, rejection of Jesus' works is not a rejection of His deity per se but rather is a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit who has empowered these works by the Anointed One (Mt 12:22-32; Mk 3:20-30). Last, Jesus' resurrection is the occasion of His coronation or official installation as the messianic ruler (Ps 2, esp. vv.7-12; Mt 28:16-20; Rm 1:1-5; Ac 13:30-33; Heb 1:1-14).

In defending Jesus' identity, we should confidently set forth, as the NT does, that "Jesus is Messiah!"

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

How Does Christianity Relate to Other Eastern Religions? By Winfried Corduan

2012-01-13T16:53:00.000+08:00

One of the distinctives of biblical religion is that it does not readily accommodate elements from other religions. Eastern religions, on the other hand have more flexible boundaries. For the five religions below, we will give a brief summary and a response from a biblical perspective.

1. Jainism is a popular Indian religion, similar to Hinduism and Buddhism. It was founded by a man named Mahavira in the sixth century B.C. (roughly a contemporary of Jeremiah and Daniel in the Bible). Mahavira taught that human beings need to escape from reincarnation and that they can do so by living a rigorous life of self-deprivation. The highest obligation is never to harm any living being, whether it be animal, insect, or plant. Someone who observes this duty faithfully will attain a higher state of life and, ultimately, release from reincarnation. Jains venerate Mahavira and his mythological predecessors, the Tirthankaras.

Response: The Bible teaches that humanity's main problem is not reincarnation but separation from God due to sin. Salvation cannot be earned by an ascetic life: it can only be received by faith through God's work of redemption in Christ. Christians agree with Jains that all life deserves respect, but they do so because life was created by God, not because it is inherently divine.

2. Sikhism was founded by Guru Nanak in India around A.D. 1500, contemporary with the Protestant Reformation in Europe. Nanak sought to establish harmony between Hindus and Muslims by teaching that God is beyond any human name or attribute and that true devotion to God will bring about union with Him. There were nine successive gurus after Nanak, but the last of the line declared that the Sikh holy book, the Adi Granth, would henceforth be the true guru. It has been the focus of veneration among Sikhs ever since.

Response: Christians who believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God can appreciate the Sikhs' devotion to the Adi Granth. But whereas for Sikhism their holy book itself is a sacred object, for Christians the Bible is the revelation of God's message. The Bible offers to Sikhs (and anyone else) a hope for the future and an assurance of salvation that is absent from Nanak's message.

3. Daoism (formerly spelled Taoism) is part of popular Chinese religion, originally based on some fairly esoteric philosophical writings. Its founder, the legendary Laozi (roughly sixth century B.C. again), taught that the true "Way" (the Dao) of life could be found by allowing the opposing forces of the universe-yin and yang-to find their balance. This philosophy eventually metamorphosed into a religion deity devoted to the service of many gods and spirits, presided over by the Jade Emperor in heaven. Religious Daoism emphasizes devotion to one's ancestors.

Response: In contrast to philosophical Daoism, the Bible asserts that good and evil are genuine realities, not just matters of cosmic imbalance. The Bible condemns all worship of creatures, including nature spirits, ancestors, or images of deities. The Christian gospel offers release from the bondage to the spirit world which religious Daoists usually live.

4. Confucianism is the philosophy of life taught by Confucius, another sixth century B.C. figure in China. It is primarily a code of conduct for individuals and the society they comprise rather than a set of doctrines about gods or worship practices. 1rhe fundamental premise of Confucianism is that there is a proper way in which all persons should act, depending on their station in life and the specific relationship of the moment. Thus a prince lives under a different set of expectations than a common worker. The obligation of setting the right example lies with the prince; if he will set the proper example, his subject will follow him in proper behavior, and a perfect society will result. The highest Confucian virtue is filial piety, the unconditional obedience of children to their parents. Even though many Confucian ideals are outdated, the attitude of filial piety persists prominently among traditional Chinese, Japanese, and Korean people today.

Response: Christians can resonate with the Confucian commitment to a life of virtue, though they will take exception to the way it puts forms ahead of sacrificial love. Even more importantly, the Bible teaches that perfection is unattainable for human beings, who need inward reconciliation with God before outward changes in actions are possible.

5. Shinto is the national religion of Japan, worshiping spirits and deities. The Kojiki, the Shinto sacred writing, claims the emperor of Japan is a direct descendant of the sun goddess and therefore divine-a claim now officially renounced. Shinto shrines, marked by the traditional torii gate, are colorful ceremonial centers.

Response: Shinto illustrates two problems commonly addressed by the Bible: ritualism and escape into myth. By contrast, the Bible offers salvation grounded in the historical Christ, whom we can receive by faith.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Notable Christian Apologist: Blaise Pascal By Ted Cabal

2012-01-13T16:44:00.000+08:00

The mathematician, scientist, and philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) was born in Clermont-Ferrand, France. Though battling poor health his entire life, Pascal labored in intellectual pursuits from the precocious mathematical ability of his youth, to the scientific genius of his early adulthood, and on to the brilliant religious and philosophical twilight of his cancer-shortened life. As a young man he sought satisfaction in the things of the world, but he found himself unable to fill the "God-sized vacuum" in his heart. The awesome presence of God that he experienced in conversion to Christ profoundly impacted him. He wrote of the experience and sewed the note into the lining of his favorite coat, where it was discovered after his death.

Pascal's comprehensive Christian apologetic is outlined in the notes he was working on at his death. These "thoughts" (French title, Pensees), though fragmentary, reveal his strategy to counter the rationalism and skepticism of his age. Pascal championed the deep satisfaction obtained when the Christian heart and mind are at peace. Waging war between faith and reason, as did the secularists, can never gratify human longing: "The heart has its reasons which reason does not know." Harmony between Christian head and heart, however, did not mean that Pascal thought Christianity rationally indefensible. His notes revealed preparations to present the miracles and fulfilled prophecies of the Bible as a positive apologetic.

He also planned his now-famous wager argument. A person reaps infinite gain - in wagering life on God should He exist but experiences no loss if He doesn't. On the other hand, a person suffers infinite loss in not wagering on God should He exist, yet reaps no real gain if He doesn't. Therefore, Pascal urged, wager on God. Only this wager obtains the heart fulfillment-even in this life-of knowing God personally.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Is God a Male? By Chad Owen Brand

2012-01-13T16:39:00.001+08:00

When Scripture speaks about God, it invariably uses masculine imagery. God is King, not Queen. God is Father, not Mother. When Scripture uses pronouns in reference to God, it always uses male pronouns-He, Him, His. God is never "she" or "it." Even though the NT term for the Spirit, pneuma, is a neuter noun, the writers of the NT always used masculine pronouns to refer to the Spirit. It is "the Spirit, He," not "it" (e.g., Jn 15:26). In addition, the church is represented as the wife or bride of Christ, who is Husband (Eph 5:22-33). This is similar to OT imagery in which Israel was the wife of God (Hs 1-3; Ezk 16).

It is also important to recognize that this is not merely functional terminology. That is, it is not just language that is designed for us to use in our relationship to God, without reference to real conditions. God the Father actually is the Father of God the Son (Jn 17:1-5). Even in the internal relationships within God's being, the relationship between these two persons is that of a father to a son.

Furthermore, we are not intended to use the human standard of a father or husband to interpret God's fatherliness or Christ's husband character, but rather we are to see God as the epitome of what those ought to be and then to measure our experience by the standard of the Father and Christ.

Is this patriarchal? Yes, it is. But as Christians, we are bound to take our theology - from Scripture, not from the cultural standards around us. Most of the cultures surrounding ancient Israel had goddess figures, as did the Roman culture of NT times. But the writers of Scripture always treated this as among the most heinous kinds of idolatry. If we are to be faithful to our Christian heritage, we must stick to Scripture.

Does this patriarchalism mean that the Bible holds women to be inferior? Not at all. Scripture often depicts God as treating His people in the way a caregiver would treat a child. Jesus said, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem ... How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings" (Lk 13:34-35). Further, the Bible elevates women in ways contrary to the pagan cultures of the day. They are equal partners of the grace of God given in Christ (GI 3:28).

But Scripture still speaks of God in a masculine manner. God is Father, and we ought to be eternally grateful for the fact that He is the ultimate model of what a father ought to be. Christ is Husband, and as such He reveals what a husband ought to do for his wife. Both women and men in our time ought to be grateful for the fact that God is the perfect example of what these roles entail. This enables both men and women know the Father and Christ in ways that are life transforming.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

Don't Religious Beliefs just Reflect Where One Was Raised? By Paul Copan

2012-01-13T16:26:00.000+08:00

B. F. Skinner declared, "My behavior at any given moment has been nothing more than the product of my genetic endowment, my personal history, and the current setting." If correct, then Skinner's philosophy, too, was the product of his genes and background-a purely accidental (rather than reasoned-out) conclusion.

Many apply this viewpoint to religion. "If you grew up in Saudi Arabia, you'd probably be a Muslim," claims the religious pluralist (who believes all religions are capable of saving or liberating). "Therefore, particular religious beliefs are just the arbitrary product of one's environment."

But the pluralist is in the same fix. One growing up in a pluralistic culture will likely believe in pluralism. Presumably, the religious pluralist's belief is just the product of his upbringing and is just as arbitrary as another's. What's more, if he'd grown up in medieval Italy, he likely wouldn't have been a pluralist. But the pluralist would have us believe his views are rationally concluded, not the accidents of history or geography!

If you'd grown up in the Soviet Union, chances are that you'd have been part of the Communist Youth. But should we therefore conclude that all political systems are morally equivalent (Communism vs. democracy, for instance)? Certainly not! Similarly, the diversity of religious systems doesn't mean that (1) all belief systems are equally plausible or (2) one religion can't be true vis-a-vis the others. Our ability to step back and reflect upon cultural influences, and even resist them, indicates that we are thinking, choosing beings made to seek truth, whatever our limitations. In both creation and conscience, God has not left human beings without a witness of Himself '(Ps 19:1-6; Ac 14:17; Rm 1:20; 2:14-15). And if anyone is separated from God, it's because he freely resists God's grace, not because of his location.

If a good God exists, it's likely He would cut through the mire of sin and the haze of religious ambiguity by revealing Himself in human history. Jesus of Nazareth made radical claims of divinity that other world religious leaders never made. And He rose from the dead, confirming those claims. These are further reasons to reject pluralism.

Appealing to geographical statistics doesn’t settle anything. History, philosophy and experience are some important reasons for considering a relation to be true.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

How Has Archaeology Corroborated the Bible? By Walter C. Kaiser Jr.

2012-01-13T16:16:00.002+08:00

The past century or so has witnessed some of the most remarkable archaeological discoveries of the Christian era. No single discipline has contributed as much as archaeology to the interpretation and delight of reading the Bible.

However, the discipline has had its embarrassing moments as well. For example. in 1929 Sir Leonard Wooley declared while excavating in Mesopotamia, "I have found the flood!" Unfortunately for him and for the discipline of archaeology, there were embarrassed faces when other layers of flood sediment turned up at various strata throughout the area. Others have claimed to have found the location of the garden of Eden, the ark of the covenant and the like, but such claims must not be confused with real and legitimate discoveries throughout the ancient Near East.

The real role of archaeology is not to "prove" the Bible, for that kind of "proof' is available only in certain deductive sciences such as mathematics and logic. On the contrary, the role of archaeology is: (1) to supply cultural, epigraphic, and artifactual materials that provide the background for accurately interpreting the Bible, (2) to anchor the events of the biblical text in the history and geography of the times, and (3) to build confidence in the revelation of God where the truths of Scripture impinge on historical events.

Over the last century or so, archaeology has strengthened the case for biblical reliability. Missing individuals, peoples, places, and obscure customs, historical, and political settings have been helpfully identified.

Missing Individuals

It had been fashionable in some circles for many years to ridicule Isaiah 20:1 for its allusion to "Sargon king of Assyria." Excavations of Nineveh had seemingly revealed all the kings of Assyria, but there was no Sargon. The Bible must have gotten it wrong. However, in 1843, Paul Emile Botta found a virgin site northeast of Nineveh, later excavated by the University of Chicago with details published in the 1930s. Sargon had built his own capital there in 717 B.C. His son, however, moved the capital back to Nineveh, so the site was lost as was Sargon's name. Now Sargon is one of the best known Assyrian monarchs.

Likewise, the Bible contended that King Belshazzar was the final ruler of Babylon (Dn 5:1,30), but until a.D. 1929 the extra-biblical evidence pointed to Nabonidus as king at the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C. This apparent conflict was solved when documents were discovered revealing that Nabonidus spent his time in Arabia, leaving the affairs of the kingdom to his eldest son Belshazzar, who reigned as co-regent for a decade or so.

Discoveries of other biblical names have confirmed biblical reliability, including King Jehoiachin's presence in Babylon, Sanballat as governor of Samaria along with some of Nehemiah's adversaries such as Tobiah the Ammonite, and Geshem the Arab (Neh 2:19). Other discoveries confirm well-known biblical individuals such as Balaam, David, Ahab, Jehu, Hezekiah, Menahem and others.

Missing Peoples

Until Hugo Winckler discovered the Hittite Empire in 1906, many unbelievers doubted the Bible's insistence that the Hittites were part of the land of Canaan (Gn 10:15; Jos 1:4). Now they are so well documented that a score of volumes has been necessary to build a Hittite dictionary based on the tablets left in their civilization.

Another mystery group were the Horites, descendants of Esau from Edom (Gn 36:20; Dt 2:12,22). But in 1995 Giorgio Buccellati discovered the Horite capital city beneath the modern Syrian city of Tell Mozan.

Missing Places

First Kings 9:28 claimed King Solomon brought back 16 tons of gold from Ophir. But where was Ophir and did it really exist? In 1956 at Tell Qasile in Israel, broken pottery was found with an inscription referring to a shipment of "gold of Ophir for Beth-Horon, thirty shekels." Thus, Ophir was confirmed as known in the world of commerce with its trade in gold. Ophir is identified today as a port some 60 miles north of Bombay.

Another example is the disputed list of sites along the route of the exodus in Numbers 33. But Charles Krahmalkov noted three ancient Egyptian maps of the road from Arabah to the Plains of Moab, with the earliest of the three maps inscribed on the walls of Karnak in the reign of Thutmosis III (c. 1504-1450 B.C.). According to this list, the route from south to north follows precisely the way the Israelites listed in Numbers 33 with four stations especially noted: Iyyim, Dibon, Abel, and Jordan.

Other Sensational Finds

Discovered by Grenfeld in Egypt in 1920, the "John Rylands Papyrus" yielded the oldest known fragment of a NT manuscript. This small scrap from John's Gospel On 18:31-33,37-38) was dated by papyrologists to 125 A.D., but since it was so far south into Egypt, it successfully put an end to the then-popular attempt to late-date John's Gospel to the second century rather than to the traditional first century date of A.D. 85-90.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, found in 1948 in caves at Qumran, near the northwest end of the Dead Sea, gave us some 800 manuscripts of every book (in part or the whole) of the OT except for Esther. Prior to that, the earliest Hebrew texts dated to around A.D. 1000, but the scrolls at Qumran are generally more than one thousand years older! These Hebrew texts illustrate that a thousand years of copying had provided us with an amazingly pure text, with one of the best examples being the book of Isaiah where only three words had slight modifications.

In 1990, a bone chest was discovered accidentally during work in Jerusalem's Peace Forest. This "Caiaphas Ossuary" belonged to the high priest from A.D. 18-36 (see his cynical words in Jn 11:49-53). The inscription, found in two places, read: "Caiaphas" and "Joseph, son of Caiaphas." First-century Jewish historian Josephus provided the full name, "Joseph, who is called Caiaphas of the high priesthood."
Space precludes discussion of the many more archaeological corroborations, such as the Pontius Pilate Inscription, the Pool of Siloam excavated in 2004, and the amazing Ketef Hinnom Amulets discovered in 1979 (with inscriptions of Nm 0:24-26 and Dt 7:9 perfectly matching the biblical Hebrew text-amazing since these seventh to sixth century B.C. amulets contain OT texts skeptics argued could not have been written until the 400s B.C.).

Archaeology, then, has illuminated and corroborated the Bible in numerous ways. The interpreter finds in archaeology a good friend for understanding and substantiating Scripture.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

How Does Christianity Relate to the Baha'i Faith? By Douglas R. Groothius

2012-01-13T15:57:00.000+08:00

The Baha'i religion began when a Persian man calling himself Baha''lah (Arabic for "the glory of God") declared in 1863 that he was the latest revelation of God. Indeed, today several million Baha'is worldwide believe that Baha'u'lah (1817-1892) was the latest in a long line of "manifestations" of God and that he fulfilled prophecies from the world's religions, including the biblical prophecies concerning the second coming of Christ.

Baha'is assert the unknowability and oneness of God, the unity of all religions, the unity of humanity, and the unity of science and religion. They believe that Baha'is will eventually lead the world into a state of global harmony. Baha'is claim that all major religions were inspired by God and that they develop in a progressive manner. Baha'u'lah, they say, will not be succeeded by another manifestation until a thousand years after his death.

The Baha'i religion, despite its lofty goals, is incompatible with biblical Christianity and lacks evidence to support its claims. All religions cannot be from God, since they contradict each other on essential truth claims. The teachings of Buddha, for example, exclude a personal God. But Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all believe in a personal deity. Baha'is attempt to account for these discrepancies in two ways.

First, they claim that religious truth is relative to historical periods. This argument fails because it makes God unable to reveal even the most basic divine truths consistently. Moreover, if God is unknowable, as Baha'is claim, then there is no basis for any divine revelation (knowledge), Baha'i or otherwise.

Second, they argue that the original teachings of the world religions (except the Baha'i religion) have been corrupted. For example, Christianity never taught that Jesus was uniquely divine and that He physically rose from the dead. These were later distortions. Baha'is deny these well-attested facts because the facts would '' place Jesus in a position far beyond what Baha'is allows for a manifestation of God (Rm 1:4; 1 Tim 2:5). But neither history nor logic supports these revisionist claims.
Christians should challenge Baha'is to read the New Testament for themselves an to investigate the many reasons for its reliability. They should also challenge Baha'is to consider that their doctrine of the progressive unity of all religions has no logical or factual basis and can be held only on the purported authority of Baha’u’lah, who, unlike the resurrected Jesus, died and remains dead.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.

How Does Christianity Relate to Hinduism? By Ravi Zacharias

2012-01-13T15:53:00.001+08:00

I often think back with nostalgia to growing up in India and the late-night conversations we would have about a Hindu play or some event that featured Hindu thought. Now, through the lens of Jesus Christ, I have learned to see how deep seated culture and religion can be and how only the power of the Holy Spirit can reveal the error of an ingrained way of thinking. Consequently, whenever we speak with someone from another faith, it is essential to remember that we must not attempt to tear down another's belief system but rather to reveal the hungers of the human heart and the unique way in which Christ addresses them.

For the Hindu, karma-the moral law of cause-and-effect-is a life-defining concept. Life carries its moral bills, and they are paid in the cyclical pattern of rebirth until all dues are paid in full. Hinduism here conveys an inherited sense of wrong, which is lived out in the next life, in vegetable, animal, or human form. This doctrine is nonnegotiable in Hindu philosophy. Repercussions of fatalism (that is, whatever happens will happen) and the indifference to the plight of others are inescapable but are dismissed by philosophical platitudes that do not weigh out the consequences of such reasoning. Thus it is key to bear in mind that although karma is seen as a way of paying back, this payback is never complete; hence life is lived out paying back a debt that one cannot know in total but that must be paid in total. That is why the cross of Christ is so definitive and so complete. It offers forgiveness without minimizing the debt. When we truly understand that forgiveness, we develop a loving heart of gratitude. There is a full restoration-in this life and for eternity.

The Christian should also understand the attraction of pantheism, the Hindu view of seeing the divine in everything. It superficially appears more compatible with scientific theorizing because it presents no definitive theory of origins. Life is cyclical, without a first cause. Pantheism also gives one a moral reasoning, through karmic fatalism, that one is trapped in the cycle until one escapes, without the need to invoke God. But in the final analysis, it is without answers when one needs to talk about the deepest struggles of the soul. Hindu scholars even admit this in their creation of a path of bhakti (love, devotion) to satisfy the inescapable human hunger for worship.

It is here that a keen understanding is needed. Krishna's coming to earth as an avatar-that is, one of the incarnations of the Hindu god Vishnu-in a way brings "God to man:' But a huge chasm still remains. How does one bring man to God? For this, there is only one way-the way of the cross. A profound and studied presentation of the cross, and what it means, is still the most distinctive aspect of the Christian faith. Even Gandhi said it was the most unexplainable thing to him and was unparalleled. For the Christian, the cross of Jesus Christ is the message "first to the Jew, and also to the Greek" (Rm 2:9)-to the moralist and the pantheist, to the religious and the irreligious. We can communicate this message with a Hindu acquaintance or friend only through a loving relationship. The love of Christ, a patient listening and friendship, and the message of forgiveness provide the path to evangelism.

Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.