Three Points of Permission From God to Live an Abundant Life

February 6, 2020 John O'Malley

By Steve Schramm

At the time of this writing, I have been a Christian for around 24 years. Although I am “young,” I have seen and witnessed many trends in the church--some good, and some bad.

One unmistakable trend I’ve noticed is this notion of defeatism--which I’ve written about recently on my blog.

In the article I paint a portrait of the “Christian Defeatist”:

She is public about her Christianity, but has nothing but negative things to say. She envies the promiscuous lifestyle of those who live seemingly unbound from God’s eternal directives.

She plays the victim—always waiting for the next person to complain to or about. She tells her problems to anyone who will listen! She is a Christian defeatist. She is a person who believes there is a God, but believes that belief in God is a limitation—not a liberation.

It’s likely you know this person! You may even be this person. But the life Jesus offers is not the one described above. The Bible describes a life of freedom, purpose, and abundance. It’s not all about the “pie in the sky when you die”; you can have steak on the plate while you wait!

Here are just three “points of permission” where the Bible proclaims that we can have life, and “have it more abundantly” (John 10:10):
#1. In Our Identity

John 1:12 - But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name...

When you become a Christian, a transformation takes place. Much like the caterpillar emerges unrecognizable as a butterfly, so the unbeliever undergoes a kind of “metamorphosis.”

The Christian life is about becoming a son of God.

The Biblical scenario involves Christ uniting his life to ours, through the power of the Holy Spirit, thereby entering into an eternal relationship with our Creator. The Bible describes God using relevant metaphors and analogies, such as the “Alpha and Omega” (which means the first and the last).

The Psalmist wrote this under the inspiration of God:

For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof (50:10-12).

Each of us are a unique creation of the God who made the sun, the moon, and “the stars also” (Genesis 1:16); this same God makes us a “new creature” (2 Corinthians 5:17) when he unites his life to ours in salvation.

We have a new identity! “...old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”

#2. In Our Prosperity

Matthew 6:33 - But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

But not only is our identity made new and abundant, but also our prosperity.

Perhaps one of the saddest things missing in many churches today is a biblical theology of prosperity.

Of course, the reason for this is obvious: False “prosperity gospel” teaching has created the need for correction, and much of this correction has led to an equally unbiblical “poverty gospel.” The Bible does not teach us that we must be poor in order to remain humble and biblical, nor that abundance and prosperity are natural consequences of proper faith and “positive confession.”

Rather, as one preacher recently put it, “between prosperity theology and poverty theology lies a biblical theology of money that teaches work, reward, and societal advancement.”

But there’s a catch! And, it’s the key!

Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness.

You see, if we’re ever to understand real abundance and prosperity, “[we] must decrease and [God] must increase” (John 3:30). God can take care of our every need if we’ll only seek him and his will foremost in our lives.

#3. In Our Generosity

1 TImothy 6:17-18: “Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate...

Finally, we see confirmation of our last point here again in 1 Timothy: God gives us all things richly to enjoy; but we’re not to trust in riches (after all, they’re “uncertain”)! Instead, we trust “in the living God.”

But, what next?

Paul takes us to the logical conclusion of this scenario. We enjoy the riches, sure, but we don’t become highminded! Instead, we “do good...be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate…”

In other words, we put what we’ve been blessed with to good use! We use it to serve God and to serve others. And so it comes full circle, because we’ve realized that, to the best of our human ability, we are sacrificing in selflessness--exactly as Christ did which gave us our new identity in the first place.

Here we find an example of what the writer of Ecclesiastes called a “threefold cord [that] is not quickly broken” (4:12):

Our identity tells us who we are in Christ.
This informs our prosperity, because we learn to call on God for our supply.
These culminate in our generosity when we model Christ, in Whom we find our identity.

This is how we arrive at a proper theology: coherence and consistency. Of course, coherence like this is exactly what we’d expect from a Bible that is true, unbroken, inerrant, and infallible: a “more sure word” (2 Peter 1:19) that will “not pass away” (Matthew 23:45).

Thank God for our new identity in him, which affords us an abundant, prosperous, and generous life.

Did God Give Us Meaningless Genealogies in Genesis?

December 5, 2019 John O'Malley

by Steve Schramm

I have a confession to make: Genealogy, anthropology, etc., are not my favorite subjects of study.

Be honest–you’ve probably skipped the reading of those ancient genealogies more than once in your regular Bible study.

It’s unfortunate, but this apathy seems to have found its way into academic circles as well. We have a very interesting and detailed accounting of human history found in the Word of God, and yet, most seminaries and many churches today all but reject this history!

I suggest that everything given to us in the Word of God was given for our learning–including the genealogies.1

They were placed there for a reason. But what is that reason? Did God give us meaningless genealogies? Empty words just to fill up space?

Here are two characteristics of the Scriptural genealogies which suggest significant historical meaning, with special regard to the age of the Earth:

1. The Intention of the Genealogies

As alluded to above, I believe that Scripture teaches every word should be considered with care, precision, and the intent of finding meaning.

It seems wildly inconsistent with the character of God to assume each of our idle words will matter on judgment day, and yet, His can be taken with a grain of salt and all but obliterated by the fallacious context of ancient mythological traditions.

As we come across these tedious passages of Scripture, then, we must ask what they mean and why they were included. Some have argued that these genealogies are merely for theological purposes and are not meant to convey chronological details at all.

For example, noted Princeton scholar of days gone by, William Henry Green, suggested that “the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 were not intended to be used, and cannot properly be used, for the construction of a chronology.”

An article on the popular Reasons to Believe (RTB) website proposes, “The genealogies place a hard constraint that Adam and Eve appeared no more recently than 6,000 years ago. Since they contain gaps those genealogies cannot serve as timekeeping devices. However, it seems to stretch credulity to argue for anything much older than 100,000 years for Adam and Eve’s appearance on Earth.”

Is Green right when he speaks to the intent of these genealogies? Putting aside the obvious logical issues with the statement from RTB,2 do they have a point?

Many articles and even books have been written on this subject which detail the potential for gaps, etc., but I have a more pragmatic goal for this article.

My single aim is to show that the details of these genealogies lend credence to their purposefulness and usefulness in determining a chronology.

In his book Faith Form and Time, Kurt Wise makes a pretty compelling case for the usefulness of these genealogies.

First of all, he correctly points out that, “Genealogies are usually only marginally useful for chronology purposes. A list of names, even if it contains a complete list of fathers and sons in the proper sequence, provides only the number of generations.” (Wise, FFT, 48). It is well-evidenced that most ancient genealogies were not used for chronological purposes at all–merely to establish family relationship much like we would do today when investigating our own family tree.

It seems, however, fallacious to conflate the general use case for Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) genealogical data to mean that all genealogies are used this way. The most common argument furthered by this notion is that gaps must be allowed in the Genesis genealogies if one is to accommodate old-age geology with the Scriptures.

But as Lisle and Chaffey point out regarding this argument, “This is illogical. It commits a fallacy known as affirming the consequent. The argument goes like this: “If there are gaps in the Genesis genealogies, then we might find gaps in other genealogies. We find gaps in other genealogies; therefore, there must be gaps in the Genesis genealogies.” The consequent in this argument is “we might find gaps in other genealogies.” It does not follow that since this part of the argument is true, that the first statement (antecedent) is also true.”

Wise further contends, “The genealogy that is most useful for chronology is one that provides the age of the parents at the time of the birth of their children. But this is uncommon among genealogies, both ancient and modern. It is interesting, then, that the genealogies of both Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 do provide the age of fathers at the birth of their sons—exactly the kind of information we need in developing a chronology. Since the words of Scripture are both accurate and economical, the structure of these genealogies suggests a chronological purpose…Of all the steps in a biblical chronology from the creation to Christ, only two steps require a genealogy—the time between creation and the Flood and the time between the Flood and Abraham. And guess what? These happen to be the only genealogies that have chronological information!”

So it appears we cannot conclude a priori that these are useless genealogies, chronologically speaking, and it also appears that if we were meant to draw chronological information from them, we would need exactly the kind of data we have in exactly the place we have it.

This information is, I believe, evidence enough for intent. There seem to be too many “idle words” and too much useless data in these particular genealogies if we’re not meant to use them for dating purposes.

Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, could have established theological or symbolical meaning in the texts by simply treating them as the other genealogies in the Old Testament and leaving out these careful chronological details.

Of course, this argument could be undermined if there is significant evidence for gaps. Is there?

2. The Convention of the Genealogies

By convention, I mean to convey that the linguistic structure accompanied by the relational details seem to argue for gapless (closed) genealogies.

In keeping with Wise’s argument (which I use due to his clarity and because I find it most compelling), the following case can be made for gapless genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11:

First, the narrative makes it clear that Seth was the actual son of Adam and Eve (Gen. 4:25); Shem, Ham, and Japheth were the sons of Noah (Gen. 5:32; 6:10; 7:13; 9:18-27; 10:1); and Abram, Nahor, and Haran were the sons of Terah (Gen. 11:26-31).

Second, the Scripture indicates that the names of some patriarchs were almost certainly given to them by their actual fathers. This suggests that Seth was the actual son of Adam (Gen. 5:3); Enos was the son of Seth (Gen. 4:26), and Noah was the son of Lamech (Gen. 5:29).

Third, the distinct way in which the relationship between parent and child is related in Genesis 4:25-26 and 10:25 further suggests that Seth was the actual son of Adam and Eve, Enos was the son of Seth, and Peleg and Joktan were the sons of Eber.

Fourth, the facts that Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, and their wives were the only survivors of the Flood and that Arphaxad was born only two years after the Flood (Gen. 11:10) suggests that Arphaxad was actually the son of Shem.

Fifth, Jude 14 states that Enoch was the seventh generation from Adam. This suggests that no gaps exist in the Genesis 5 list between Adam and Enoch.

Finally, the Hebrew name Methuselah is thought by some to mean “when he dies it will come” or “when he dies, judgment.” If one assumes that no gaps exist and that the numbers of Genesis 5 are correct, Methuselah’s death is found to occur in the same year the Flood began. This suggests that God may have waited for the death of Methuselah (“when he dies”) to bring judgment upon the Earth (“it shall come”). This also suggests that the ages and years of at least the second half of Genesis 5 are complete and accurate.

One who has studied this issue at length may remain unconvinced; after all, doesn’t the Hebrew word for “begat” used in the Old Testament allow for wider relational context?

Lilse and Chaffey comment, “The Hebrew word translated as “beget” in the King James Version of the Bible is yalad (ילד). Although it could (in principle) indicate something more distant than a direct parent-child relationship, it is apparently never used that way in the Old Testament. That is, whenever the form “X begat Y” occurs in the Old Testament, it always indicates a direct parent-child relationship. We are aware of no exceptions. The New Testament does sometimes skip generations when using “X begat Y”…But the New Testament is written in Greek, and is using a different word for “begat” (γενναω). The Old Testament “begats” (which are the ones involved in age-of-the-earth estimations) appear to be airtight—and in many cases, the surrounding passages confirm a direct parent-child relationship.”

Final Thoughts

It’s worth mentioning that even if we were to place gaps in these historical accounts, the time required by old-age chronology for the appearance of modern humans is, at minimum, an order of magnitude longer than could be allowed for.

It’s been argued by some that inserting reasonable gaps in the few places where they could exist would raise the age of the Earth to around 10,000 years; but again, this is a far cry from the time required by old-age chronology.

This article has not attempted to refute the minute details of arguments offered by either open or closed view proponents, however, the concise cumulative case I’ve presented here seems to suggest that:

God has not placed any “idle words” in Scripture;
We cannot dismiss the intent of these genealogies just because others from the ANE don’t convey chronological content;
In regards to chronological intent, the Genesis 5 and 11 accounts give us unique information at exactly the necessary times;
The argument in favor of a gapless (closed) understanding is quite thorough and compelling;
The OT provides no evidence that distant relationships are implied by the word “begat”;
Any reasonable insertion of gaps could raise the Earth’s age to around 10,000 years, but not the ~100,000 proposed by Hugh Ross and RTB.

In light of the above observations, I therefore conclude that not only are we permitted by the immediate and wider context of Scripture to draw chronological information from the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies, but it appears they were intentionally inspired and written in such a way that we do so.

(This article first appeared on www.steveschramm.com)

3 Strategies for Navigating Spiritual Conversations

October 23, 2018 John O'Malley

By Steve Schramm

If you’ve read my work before, you are likely aware that I’m convinced the Bible teaches us to use presuppositional apologetics.

That is, to give a defense of the faith while admitting our bias, standing on God’s revealed truth, and demonstrating that Christianity is the only rational worldview that can make sense of our reality.1

The practical outworking of this methodology can manifest itself in a variety of different ways.

For example, some may feel more comfortable arguing from a historical perspective. Some, from a scientific or philosophical perspective.

Others still may be better listeners than “proclaimers,” so to speak, and may get further along in conversation by asking questions and responding along the way.

I believe one can faithfully use apologetics in a variety of practical conversational scenarios, contrary to popular belief.

Here are just three of the useful strategies I have used with some success in the past to help you navigate these spiritual conversations:

#1. The Expository Approach

Perhaps this is approach is best captured by Dr. Voddie Baucham, author of Expository Apologetics: Answering Objections with the Power of the Word.

Baucham essentially argues that, rather than turning to philosophy, science, etc., to defend Christian belief, one needs to look no further than the text of the Bible itself.

After all, it was Spurgeon who quipped, “Defend the Bible? I’d sooner defend a lion! Turn it loose, and it will defend itself.”

In my experience, I have found this to be true. The nature of most objections to the Christian faith are usually based on misunderstandings about the nature of God, alleged Bible contradictions, or the insistence that Biblical faith is irrational by definition.

Interestingly enough, the best place to find an answer to such objections is the Bible itself!

And while it largely depends on the conversation I am having and who I am having it with, I have found this approach to be useful. Baucham packages this up in a neat and tidy way for us–at least to help us get the conversation rolling.

When asked why he believes the Bible is true, this is his default response: “I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report [of] supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claimed that their writings are divine rather than human in origin.”

(This is an argument based on the text of 2 Peter 1:16-21.)

Of course, there will be objections to this response. But this is where the apologetic endeavor excels! For example, if one contests by claiming that the Bible is not a collection of reliable historical documents, one will then to provide proof of such a phenomenon.

As apologists, we know this proof would be quite difficult or even impossible to produce since it would necessitate the changing of 5,000+ manuscripts in nearly full agreement,2 found on multiple continents across the East.

Not having read his entire book, I’m unable to comment much further on this approach. I can say, however, that he often cites the work of both Jesus Himself and Paul as they leaned on the authority of the Scriptures, and used them often to build their defense.

2. The Preconditional Approach

This is the approach I use most often in evangelistic encounters, simply because I believe it is the most powerful evidence for the God of the Bible.

Perhaps no book makes this approach more accessible than Lisle’s The Ultimate Proof of Creation.

If we were to package it up in a sentence, it would echo the famous words of Dr. Greg Bahnsen: “The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything.”

I have commented extensively on this approach here, here, and here, but I will attempt to further deal with it and characterize it the context of a conversation.

I don’t think it is lost anyone that we should have good reasons for the things we do. It’s also reasonable to suggest that there should be good reasons for the way things are.

As such, there are some things about the world that are difficult–even impossible–to explain given naturalism. Our ability to be logical, to do science, and to make moral decisions, for example.

These (amongst others) are called the preconditions of intelligibility–things that must be in place in order for our world to operate the way that it does.

The preconditional approach would maintain that God–specifically, the Christian God–is the only reasonable explanation for such things.

I like to work from this premise because there are really only two main objections I encounter–and they are quite easily answered.

Surprisingly often, one rejects this by claiming that they are logical, able to do science, and make moral decisions even though they don’t believe in God, which must mean the argument is false. But this isn’t the argument at all!

In fact, the very point of the argument is that they can do these things! The argument is that there is no reason the world is this way apart from an intelligent Creator–specifically the one revealed in Scripture.3 There is nothing inherently moral about matter, orderly about nature, or rational about protons and neutrons.

The inherent properties of matter simply do not include such phenomena as rationality, order, or morality.

This is actually the answer to the second objection as well, namely that the world just is this way. But, the argument then assumes what it is trying to prove, which is the logical fallacy of begging the question. We all agree that the world is like this–the question is why.

As it turns out, the three objections to Christianity I see the most–rationality, science, and morality–are the very three things that could not possibly be true unless God existed.

#3. The Tactical Approach

Apologist Greg Koukl, in his book Tactics, gives “a game plan for discussing your Christian convictions.”

This is probably the single most useful volume I’ve read when it comes to giving a defense of the Christian faith.

The irony is that the core idea of this approach is one of listening–in other words, you let “the other guy” do all the talking!

If we were to summarize the reason for this approach, we might say that folks often (1) don’t know what they believe, (2) don’t know why they believe it, and (3) have never thoughtfully considered other options.

Greg teases out this notion by offering three helpful Columbo questions–yes, as in the famed TV detective played by none other than Peter Falk:

Question #1. “What do you mean by that?” In his book, Greg gives the example of a waitress he found himself in conversation with. She claimed to believe that moral truth was relative. When Greg asked the question (i.e., “What do you mean by relative“), he found that she didn’t even know what relativism was!

She simply parroted an answer she’d heard time and again. This is often the case in these kinds of discussions. By getting to the bottom of what one believes, we are better equipped to respond to their challenges.

Question #2: “How did you come to that conclusion?” Even if a person knows what they believe, the chances of them actually knowing why they believe it are usually quite slim.

This is a good question to ask someone who claims Jesus didn’t exist. It’s likely that, again, they are just repeating something they’ve heard. This is a perfect example because even the most atheist of scholars agree that Jesus was a real person!

This means the person has (1) not researched this in the slightest or (2) has gotten some very, very bad information from somewhere.

Question #3: “Have you ever considered…?” While the other questions assume a more defensive posture, this one moves you to the offense.

For example, “Have you ever considered that gospel writers were eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus Christ, and weren’t just making up stories?” This opens up a line of communication with your challenger.

While you may not end up at the gospel in your conversation (though this is never a bad thing), the very least you could do is make every effort to point this person one step closer to Jesus.

The Bible says that there are both seed planters and harvesters. Greg is a self-proclaimed planter, and I tend to claim that distinction myself. I’ve used these “tactics” in many, many conversations and have found them to work just as described, so to speak.

If you want to have more productive conversations, consider adopting one or all of these conversation strategies.

You may find one approach fits you best, or you may find (as I have) that they are each well suited to different kinds of conversations and are beneficial in their own way.

But more importantly than anything, just get in the game! There is nothing more exciting than telling the greatest Story of all time to those who will listen.

The best thing about these strategies (and particularly the tactical approach) is how well they work for an introvert like me! I find one-on-one discussions hard, but they are ten times harder with no game plan.

So get in the game for the glory of God, and He will use you mightily to accomplish His purposes.

(This article first appeared on www.steveschramm.com)

Three Points of Permission From God to Live an Abundant Life

September 25, 2018 John O'Malley

By Steve Schramm

At the time of this writing, I have been a Christian for around 24 years. Although I am “young” (28), I have seen and witnessed many trends in the church--some good, and some bad.

One unmistakable trend I’ve noticed is this notion of defeatism--which I’ve written about recently on my blog.

In the article I paint a portrait of the “Christian Defeatist”:

She is public about her Christianity, but has nothing but negative things to say. She envies the promiscuous lifestyle of those who live seemingly unbound from God’s eternal directives.

Here are just three “points of permission” where the Bible proclaims that we can have life, and “have it more abundantly” (John 10:10):

#1. In Our Identity

John 1:12 - But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name...

When you become a Christian, a transformation takes place. Much like the caterpillar emerges unrecognizable as a butterfly, so the unbeliever undergoes a kind of “metamorphosis.”

The Christian life is about becoming a son of God.

The Psalmist wrote this under the inspiration of God:

We have a new identity! “...old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”

#2. In Our Prosperity

Matthew 6:33 - But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

But not only is our identity made new and abundant, but also our prosperity.

Perhaps one of the saddest things missing in many churches today is a biblical theology of prosperity.

Rather, as one preacher recently put it, “between prosperity theology and poverty theology lies a biblical theology of money that teaches work, reward, and societal advancement.”

But there’s a catch! And, it’s the key!

Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness.

#3. In Our Generosity

But, what next?

Here we find an example of what the writer of Ecclesiastes called a “threefold cord [that] is not quickly broken” (4:12):

Our identity tells us who we are in Christ.
This informs our prosperity, because we learn to call on God for our supply.
These culminate in our generosity when we model Christ, in Whom we find our identity.

Thank God for our new identity in him, which affords us an abundant, prosperous, and generous life.

Did God Give Us Meaningless Genealogies in Genesis?

August 11, 2018 John O'Malley

by Steve Schramm

I have a confession to make: Genealogy, anthropology, etc., are not my favorite subjects of study.

Be honest–you’ve probably skipped the reading of those ancient genealogies more than once in your regular Bible study.

It’s unfortunate, but this apathy seems to have found its way into academic circles as well. We have a very interesting and detailed accounting of human history found in the Word of God, and yet, most seminaries and many churches today all but reject this history!

I suggest that everything given to us in the Word of God was given for our learning–including the genealogies.1

They were placed there for a reason. But what is that reason? Did God give us meaningless genealogies? Empty words just to fill up space?

Here are two characteristics of the Scriptural genealogies which suggest significant historical meaning, with special regard to the age of the Earth:

1. The Intention of the Genealogies

As alluded to above, I believe that Scripture teaches every word should be considered with care, precision, and the intent of finding meaning.

It seems wildly inconsistent with the character of God to assume each of our idle words will matter on judgment day, and yet, His can be taken with a grain of salt and all but obliterated by the fallacious context of ancient mythological traditions.

As we come across these tedious passages of Scripture, then, we must ask what they mean and why they were included. Some have argued that these genealogies are merely for theological purposes and are not meant to convey chronological details at all.

An article on the popular Reasons to Believe (RTB) website proposes, “The genealogies place a hard constraint that Adam and Eve appeared no more recently than 6,000 years ago. Since they contain gaps those genealogies cannot serve as timekeeping devices. However, it seems to stretch credulity to argue for anything much older than 100,000 years for Adam and Eve’s appearance on Earth.”

Is Green right when he speaks to the intent of these genealogies? Putting aside the obvious logical issues with the statement from RTB,2 do they have a point?

Many articles and even books have been written on this subject which detail the potential for gaps, etc., but I have a more pragmatic goal for this article.

My single aim is to show that the details of these genealogies lend credence to their purposefulness and usefulness in determining a chronology.

In his book Faith Form and Time, Kurt Wise makes a pretty compelling case for the usefulness of these genealogies.

It seems, however, fallacious to conflate the general use case for Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) genealogical data to mean that all genealogies are used this way. The most common argument furthered by this notion is that gaps must be allowed in the Genesis genealogies if one is to accommodate old-age geology with the Scriptures.

But as Lisle and Chaffey point out regarding this argument, “This is illogical. It commits a fallacy known as affirming the consequent. The argument goes like this: “If there are gaps in the Genesis genealogies, then we might find gaps in other genealogies. We find gaps in other genealogies; therefore, there must be gaps in the Genesis genealogies.” The consequent in this argument is “we might find gaps in other genealogies.” It does not follow that since this part of the argument is true, that the first statement (antecedent) is also true.”

So it appears we cannot conclude a priori that these are useless genealogies, chronologically speaking, and it also appears that if we were meant to draw chronological information from them, we would need exactly the kind of data we have in exactly the place we have it.

Of course, this argument could be undermined if there is significant evidence for gaps. Is there?

2. The Convention of the Genealogies

By convention, I mean to convey that the linguistic structure accompanied by the relational details seem to argue for gapless (closed) genealogies.

In keeping with Wise’s argument (which I use due to his clarity and because I find it most compelling), the following case can be made for gapless genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11:

Fifth, Jude 14 states that Enoch was the seventh generation from Adam. This suggests that no gaps exist in the Genesis 5 list between Adam and Enoch.

One who has studied this issue at length may remain unconvinced; after all, doesn’t the Hebrew word for “begat” used in the Old Testament allow for wider relational context?

Lilse and Chaffey comment, “The Hebrew word translated as “beget” in the King James Version of the Bible is yalad (ילד). Although it could (in principle) indicate something more distant than a direct parent-child relationship, it is apparently never used that way in the Old Testament. That is, whenever the form “X begat Y” occurs in the Old Testament, it always indicates a direct parent-child relationship. We are aware of no exceptions. The New Testament does sometimes skip generations when using “X begat Y”…But the New Testament is written in Greek, and is using a different word for “begat” (γενναω). The Old Testament “begats” (which are the ones involved in age-of-the-earth estimations) appear to be airtight—and in many cases, the surrounding passages confirm a direct parent-child relationship.”

Final Thoughts

It’s worth mentioning that even if we were to place gaps in these historical accounts, the time required by old-age chronology for the appearance of modern humans is, at minimum, an order of magnitude longer than could be allowed for.

It’s been argued by some that inserting reasonable gaps in the few places where they could exist would raise the age of the Earth to around 10,000 years; but again, this is a far cry from the time required by old-age chronology.

God has not placed any “idle words” in Scripture;
We cannot dismiss the intent of these genealogies just because others from the ANE don’t convey chronological content;
In regards to chronological intent, the Genesis 5 and 11 accounts give us unique information at exactly the necessary times;
The argument in favor of a gapless (closed) understanding is quite thorough and compelling;
The OT provides no evidence that distant relationships are implied by the word “begat”;
Any reasonable insertion of gaps could raise the Earth’s age to around 10,000 years, but not the ~100,000 proposed by Hugh Ross and RTB.

In light of the above observations, I therefore conclude that not only are we permitted by the immediate and wider context of Scripture to draw chronological information from the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies, but it appears they were intentionally inspired and written in such a way that we do so.

(This article first appeared on www.steveschramm.com)

How Can a Christian Make Sense of Personal Tragedy?

July 9, 2018 John O'Malley

By Steve Schramm

It was September 11, 2001.

This was a day filled with tragedy. For many, this was a day filled with very personal tragedy. In fact, as I was looking through the bookstore the other day, I came across a book called Let’s Roll, which many know is the story of Todd Beamer.

Todd was a heroic passenger on United Airlines Flight 93 which was hijacked on that fateful day. He led the charge against the hijackers on his flight, leading the plane to crash into a small field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania instead of its intended target–thought to be eithher the White House or the U.S. Capitol Buiding.

For a long time, it was hard to pass a car that did not boast a sticker saying, “9/11 We will never forget.”

At only 12 years old, this was an event full of tragedy for me as well–but if I’m being honest, my age hindered me from feeling the full weight of it.

September 11, 2001, however, was a day of personal tragedy for me, but for a different reason.

It was the day we buried my father after a struggle with Leukemia and eventually, due to his weakened immune system, Pneumonia, which took his life.

As we rode to the graveside burial, listening to the news reports of the ensuing events, my mind and heart were racing. It was hard to know what to make of it.

As I look back on that day now, I can so clearly remember all of the events. I cannot remember a THING about the day before or the day after. But I could walk you through the events of that day as if it had happened only hours ago.

Personal tragedies are hard to forget. They strike us at the very core of our being. They cause us to pause and ask deep questions about ourselves. They cause us to re-evaluate life. They cause us to question our fundamental beliefs.

Personal tragedy, in the Christian life, is no real mystery. The Apostle Peter wrote, “Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you.”

You see, he knew how easy it was for a person to question God in their trials. If we’re honest, many of us DO think it’s strange when something bad happens!

We’re Christians, right? Doesn’t that mean we get to take the easy route? Doesn’t that mean “all things work together for good to them that love God?” Doesn’t that mean God “knows the plans He has for us?…thoughts of peace, and not of evil?”

When people use these verses, they terribly misuse the context–usually, they just remove it all together and take the verse to mean what best suits their situation.

Paul wrote to Timothy, “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” All means ALL. There is a cost associated with living godly.

But, let’s finish the Apostle Peter’s thought from above: “But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.”

Rejoice?! In suffering?! That’s what it means to be a Christian.

Story after story can be read about Christians enduring suffering and persecution. Not only for their beliefs, but in the usual aspects of life and family which affect everyone.

The difference is that we have “not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”

Jesus Christ knows what it means to endure hardship and persecution. God is not removed from our trials. Rather, He has already been there and endured them! Jesus bore our burden of sin.

There is no trial weightier than that.

Practically speaking, how do we make sense of personal tragedy? How do we learn to rejoice as partakers of Christ’s suffering? How can we give answers to others when they ask how a loving God could be “okay” with such an evil world?

Here are four, Biblically-motivated thoughts:

1. A Fair Discussion

James 1:2-4–“My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing [this], that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have [her] perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.”

Importantly, we must approach a subject such as this with the utmost humility.

It’s easy to look at someone going through a trial and respond in a pompous manner. I’ve been guilty of this. The Bible teaches pretty clearly about suffering, but we must remember that everyone is unique, and it’s not so easy to identify with others experiencing personal tragedy.

The point I want to make is that it is fair to ask God “why” when you don’t understand.

Those who say it is unethical and sinful to question God have not taken away anything meaningful from studying the Book of Job or the writings of Paul.

In his darkest hours, Job asked in pain and agony, “Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?” Job asks a fair question. If we remove the obvious emotional nature of these questions and ask them from a purely logical perspective, are they not warranted?

Job, unable to see God’s purpose in allowing such pain, is simply asking why God didn’t just allow him to die when he was born. It’s fair. If life is going to full of pain and agony, why not just die? Job later observed, “Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble.”

Paul reports to us that he pleaded with God three times for the removal of his “thorn.” Continually, God simply said no.

If we take nothing else from these stories, let us agree and conclude that this is certainly a fair discussion to have. It’s okay for people to wonder why God could allow personal tragedy. What a disservice we do to those who ask when we reply with unthoughtful rhetoric.

“God has a plan.” Certainly so. However, and especially in the life of a new Christian, this plan is not so easy to recognize. We must encourage those experiencing personal tragedy to have faith and to trust in God, but it must also be done within its Scriptural context.

Even taking a few moments to go through the actual Bible with someone and recount the experiences of those before us may be enough. The Holy Spirit can do His comforting work unhindered, but He always works within the context of the revealed Word of God.

It’s important to remember that “all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come” (1 Corinthians 10:11).

2. Biblically Speaking

Hebrews 4:15–“For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”

Pain and suffering are not abstract concepts in God’s Word. They are very real.

The Bible is, of course, an accurate picture of the way the world actually is. As we’ve written before, a fundamental requirement for a coherent worldview (especially concerning any religious motivation) is that it must match the reality of our daily experience.

The Bible is an incredible book. It meets us where we are. Hebrews 4:12 reminds us, “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”

The Bible exists to teach us about God. But it also exists to teach us about ourselves. See, the Bible is able to reveal things about ourselves that we could not know otherwise.

For example, even if the first time you realized you were a sinner was because you heard a preacher preach, he was preaching the Word of God! And that’s how he found out that he was a sinner!

Therefore, suffering in the life of a Christian MUST be examined in the context of God’s Word.

It’s not just that God has a purpose and a plan for your life. It’s that He has ordered the entire world to operate in such a way, and is able to use things that are not His will to accomplish His will (more on that in a moment).

But there is another step.

Just as suffering and personal tragedy must be examined in the context of the Bible, it must also be examined in the context of eternity. Here is what the Apostle Paul said, “For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us” (Romans 8:18).

Paul is making a remarkable statement. Because we are children of God, Paul reckons (i.e., concludes) that our suffering has so little worth in light of eternity that not even a comparison should be drawn between it and the glory that will, one day, be revealed in us.

In short, Biblically speaking, we can make sense of personal tragedy because it does not define us. Our lives are not the sum of our multiplied tragedies. Our lives today ought not to be compared with what they one day will be.

In John 16:33, Jesus said, “These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.”

We can expect personal tragedy. But in and through Christ, we can also expect to overcome it.

3. A Purpose in the Pain

Proverbs 16:9—”A man’s heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.”

Thus far we have briefly mentioned abstract concepts such as “God’s purpose” and “God’s plan” all while making the case that pain and suffering is not an abstract concept, Biblically speaking.

The thing we must come to terms with is that, if Christianity is indeed a picture of reality, then we have some major emotional difficulties to work through.

Not the least of these is the sin of humanity.

When we (human-kind) wonder what is wrong and broken in the world, our minds often drift to various places. Atheists blame religion (many blame Christianity in particular). Religionists blame atheists and other religionists.

Many would like to be able to blame other humans, but cannot because it would mean conceding that there are objective moral obligations and duties. Everyone is surrounded by utter absurdity trying to make sense of the pain and suffering in the world.

But not the Christian. The Christian worldview alone provides a basis for these propensities and thoroughly explains why we have them and what can be done about them.

What we’re left with is a world that is broken because of the very thing that allows us freedom and life: choice.

God gave us (humanity as a whole) a choice in the garden of Eden. We told God that there was something more important to us than Him–ourselves. Proverbs 16:18 says, “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.”

This is fundamentally true and can be seen in the first chapters of the Bible. Pride and a haughty spirit came before the destruction and fall of man.

But, according to our Bible, God is a good and loving God–despite the fact that we often experience personal tragedy. He doesn’t desire that any go to Hell (2 Peter 3:9), and yet, gives us the right to choose Him out of love. It is because of that choice that we must deal with pain and suffering. Can God work out this paradox in our lives?

He can–something we see clearly in the story of Joseph.

It’s a familiar story—Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery. Joseph spends some time prison and has a few mishaps, but ends up becoming “Vice-Pharaoh” if you will—the second in command of Egypt. When his brothers come to Egypt seeking for food during the famine, Joseph messes with them a bit before revealing his identity.

He then says these words, “But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive” (Genesis 50:20).

These are, in my estimation, some of the most comforting words in the Bible. Knowing that God can use ANY circumstance in my life is an incredible thought. And, looking back on my life, I have seen it to be true! I’ve seen God use tragedy in my life to do great things. I’ve seen God restore broken relationships. I’ve seen His will revealed in my life through what otherwise would have been meaningless sorrow.

While I do not believe it is a thoughtful enough to respond to a hurting person by simply saying “God has a plan,” we can certainly comfort in the fact that we know it’s true. Over and over again we’ve seen God do the impossible—both in our lives and in His revealed Word. He can do it again! All He requires on our part is faithfulness to Him and trust in Him.

He can and will do amazing things in your life—through any circumstance. In return, He asks for your full heart and a consecrated life. He gave His for us—how much more willing should we be to do the same for Him?

4. Expressing Thanks

Ephesians 5:20—”Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

On a recent Sunday School trip to Northern Kentucky, one of the young preachers from our church gave a succinct—and very powerful—devotion.

To paraphrase, he said, “We must not only thank God in all things, and with all that we have, but also we must thank him for all things—this is the hardest to do.”

And He’s right!

The above verse is true of any circumstance. Somehow, we ought to find it within ourselves to be thankful to God for everything that has happened in our lives. Somehow, I am to be thankful that my father died when I was only 12 years old.

Somehow, those families with children that have cancer are to be thankful to God for it. Somehow, the Pastor of the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas is to be thankful that a man tore into his church building with a gun and murdered 27 faithful church members—including his own 14-year-old daughter.

My heart—and probably yours too, if you’re honest—rebels vehemently against this admonition. This is probably why Jeremiah describes our heart as being “desperately wicked”—because it refuses, in and of itself, to be thankful to God when it feels violated.

But Colossians 3:15 may give us a clue as to how we can come to terms with this in our own lives—”And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.”

The verse ends by telling us to be thankful. But, it lays out a prerequisite—“let the peace of God rule in your hearts.” Are we doing that today? Consider that a question for personal reflection. Does the peace of God really rule in our hearts? Do we rest and take confidence in God in our daily walk with Him, or do we constantly try to solve our own problems?

How we answer that question may give us a clue as to how we’ll react in a time of tragedy. If we’re used to taking our own problems to task, we will probably just turn to our old ways during tragic times and try to figure it all out on our own. But if the peace of God rules in our hearts, that undoubtedly (and quite literally) means that there is no higher feeling in our hearts than God’s peace. And—what can possibly trump that?

Remember—God gives us peace that “passeth all understanding.” And that peace “shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.” What a promise! The Scriptures, then, seem to be saying that in order to be thankful for all things, God’s peace—which passes all of our human understanding—must rule in our hearts. Only then can we express the level of thankfulness God requires in our lives.

But the verse in Colossians places a very important condition on this—“to which also ye are called in one body.” That means a true Christian is the only one will have his part in this experience. While my intent is not to make you doubt, perhaps, if you have no peace in your heart, it is because you do not have Him in your heart?

It is good to take account of ourselves—“examine ourselves”—to use the Apostle Paul’s phraseology. Peace is also one of the fruits of the Spirit. A life without God’s peace simply cannot be thankful to God for all things. This is a true test of faith in God. While there is no expectation of you to do this with ease, it is something a child of God will naturally do.

True Christians run to God in the midst of trouble. False professors run away.

To finish out that thought, notice Galatians 4:6—”And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” “Abba” literally means “papa.” It speaks to a deep relationship—not the “Lord to servant” relationship but the “Father to son” relationship. If, in our sorrows, we turn to the One whom we know to be faithful and true instead of running from Him, then indeed, we know we are sons.

What peace could be greater than knowing you are a son of God?

It’s amazing, really, what God has done for us. He has given us everything. As the song says, “How deep the Father’s love for us…that He would give His only Son to make a wretch His treasure!”

How can we not be thankful for giving us the ultimate peace in spite of our pain—freedom from the greatest tragedy—a life in the bondage of sin and an eternity spent in hell?

For those of who have been born again, we have already been rescued from it. And though that in itself may be hard to make sense of, I’m glad we have a “more sure Word of Prophecy”—God’s Word—that has stood the test of time and eternity.

How do we make sense, ultimately, of personal tragedy? By letting the peace of God rule in our hearts, as His children, and by giving thanks for all things unto Him.

(This article originally appeared on www.steveschramm.com)

The Case for Biblical Apologetics

April 4, 2018 John O'Malley

By: Steve Schramm

Biblical Apologetics is a branch of Christian theology which deals with giving a defense of the Christian faith. The term “apologetics” is taken from a Greek word, apologia, which means simply means “a speaking in defense.” It involves the use of rational, biblical arguments which point to the truth of God’s Word.

But apologetics has not been widely accepted yet in our Independent Baptist churches, though we’ve seen inklings of it throughout the years in the form of creation ministries, King James Bible conferences, etc. I think the main reason for the scarcity of this teaching lies in a complete misunderstanding about the nature of apologetics. Folks often believe two very common misconceptions:

That apologetics is apologizing for what we believe in.
That apologists simply argue senselessly about whether or not there is a God.

There are certainly those who misuse apologetics and do both of those things. However, that is not what Biblical apologists do. An apologetic encounter without the Gospel in mind will be fruitless. It’s very important to remember that success in any apologetic encounter—like any evangelistic encounter—means pointing a lost soul towards Jesus Christ.

We’re All Apologists

The classic Bible verse which supports the practice of apologetics is 1 Peter 3:15 – “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:”

This verse is not aimed at a select few with the calling to be an apologist in the professional sense. We’re all called to be able to give reasons for the hope that is within us. Sure, there are some who devote their lives to disciplines such as Science or Philosophy which can certainly be used in the defense of the faith, but God does not expect each of us to become the next Newton or Aristotle. Nevertheless, the Bible clearly mandates that we, at some level, be able to defend our faith in Christ.

It is important to understand at what level we should all have a part in this, and in order to do that, we must take a look at the Biblical evidence for apologetics. I’ve identified four areas in which the Bible addresses this subject–the purpose, posture, proof, and power of Biblical apologetics.

The Purpose of Biblical Apologetics

Before we can learn how to use apologetics, we must know when to use it. In professional music circles it is often said that the best musician is not the one who knows when to play—rather, when not to play.

Let’s look at the Biblical story of the woman at the well in Samaria, found in John chapter four. Jesus was sitting at the well, waiting for this particular woman to come by. Jesus enters into a conversation with her, and He reveals that He is aware of her sin and her need for a Savior. Notice—she does not put up her fists, but rather, she recognizes her brokenness! Jesus says, in effect, “if you take a drink of my water, the living water, you’ll never thirst again!” There was an amazing transformation in this woman’s life. She receives Christ that day and goes away telling everyone she knows about this man, Jesus of Nazareth, and what He could do for them.

This woman was broken—living in obvious sin (she has had 5 husbands, and was currently sleeping with a man who was not her husband!), and yet Christ showed compassion towards her—not condemnation. To be facetious, but to my point, she also did not present an argument for Darwinian Evolution before she would repent! She was simply a broken sinner who had nothing left and needed a Savior. That’s all. Friend, we were all there once. And there are many still there today.

Let’s contrast this with another story in the Bible (which we will reference later as well), found in Acts chapter 17.

In this portion of scripture, we find the Apostle Paul in a heated discussion on Mars Hill with the Greek Philosophers. (You know, those guys with the long, funny-sounding names?) It has been rightly said that all philosophers do is take what we already know and explain it in a way that no one but themselves can understand! I have certainly seen that to be the case, but most philosophers are just like us–broken sinners just trying to make sense of the world.

Remember, Paul told us that he became all things to all people in order to be a more effective witness (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). He was a master evangelist–he knew just how to speak the language of the different people groups he ministered to. In Acts 17, when talking to the philosophers, Paul recognized they needed to hear more about why they should place their trust in Christ. Even if they understood that they were broken people, their logic and knowledge of the sciences was an insurmountable obstacle. Many of them were atheists (believing there is no God), and many others were pantheists (believing everything is God).

The Bible says that “no man seeks God” (Romans 3:11). This means those philosophers were seeking any other explanation for the way the world is other than one involving a personal God who would dictate their morality. Of course, we find the same thing in our world today. In this standoff, Paul used apologetics to reason with them about how God was the Creator of the universe, and how this historical man named Jesus died on a cross and rose again on the third day.

Notice the reaction of the people found in verse 32:

“And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. So Paul departed from among them. Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.”

Certain men clave! I say, amen! We cannot win them all. But, we can win some. And, we can certainly help others to start thinking more critically about matters of faith. There are many other examples of apologetics in the Bible.

God made thinkers. And wherever thinkers are presented in the Bible, apologetics or a form thereof is used to defend the faith. Therefore, the Biblical purpose for apologetics is to provide convincing and reasonable evidence for why we should take God at His Word. (See this article for what I mean by “evidence.”)

We all carry devices in our pockets with way more computing power than what it took to go to the moon. That is a sobering thought–and one that should scare us a little bit. Our universities and even public schools are teaching kids to reject the Bible and to embrace naturalism and humanism. And let me say–they provide very compelling evidence if you have not been educated otherwise.

We must not—nor should we allow our children to—live with a superficial faith. The need for apologetics is greater than ever today because the attacks on the Truth of the Bible are greater than ever today.

The Posture of Biblical Apologetics

In order to determine the posture of Biblical apologetics, we need to, once more, look at our supporting verse. First Peter 3:15 says, “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:”

It has been said that an apologist must be very careful not to answer the question, rather than the questioner. People in the world today have real problems, and when a person begins asking the tough questions of us, we must be very careful not to give our studied answers in a rigid, robotic manner. The person asking about the reality of hell may be doing so because of loved ones who have already passed on. The person asking if euthanasia is supported by the Bible may have a friend who is terribly ill and is struggling with the decision. The man who asks why Christians “hate gays” may very well have an inner struggle with homosexuality.

Truth is truth; I’m all for it. And I’m for boldly proclaiming it too. But no one ever said we had to sacrifice compassion on the altar of Truth. Jesus did not do it, and therefore neither should we. The good news is that, as usual, if we’ll just take the Bible’s word on the matter, we’ll have no problems with our apologetic posture.

Let’s look at the two words in view: Meekness and Fear.

Meekness

Wiersbe said, “Meekness is not weakness. It is power under control.”

I like that definition. Other translations of the Bible use the word “gentleness” here, but I think meekness according to the KJV makes more sense, especially considering Wiersbe’s definition. I like to think about it as a filter. You are trying to communicate, through the holy power of Almighty God, with a person who is spiritually dead. A meek individual is a perfect filter. You possess a human nature, but have the power of God in you to lead people to Christ.

We find that it is one of the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:23), and it should manifest itself in the life of any true Believer. Sheer power without meekness is futile. It’s the quickest way to get labeled a “Bible-thumping bigot” and have nothing but fruitless, mindless discussion. Weakness, however, is the absence of power. Without power, the “power of God unto salvation” is not present. We must have power, but we must not be offensive (concerning our attitude–the Bible teaches that the gospel itself will be offensive to unbelievers, which cannot be helped).

We find that Jesus displayed a meek attitude. He always spoke truth, but it was always spoken out of love and a genuine care for the individual or group he was dealing with. This is precisely why we must not view apologetics as engaging in fruitless arguments. If the argumentative nature of apologetics is what interests you, you had better forget it! You’ll do nothing but make others mad and turn them away from the gospel. We should approach each and every engagement as if it will end with an opportunity to lead the questioner to Christ.

Fear

The word “fear” found here is used in the same context as the “fear of God.” This speaks of reverence or respect. In Genesis, the Bible teaches that we are all made in the image of God. Theologians call this the “Imago Dei”. As Christians, we have a high calling to treat all of God’s creation with respect. This is why we must answer the questioner rather than the question.

There are some folks who will approach you for no other reason than to be “bullish.” In other words, they are not honestly seeking the Truth–they are merely looking for an opportunity to shame you or prove you wrong. My friend, treat that person with respect. Do not be steamrolled–you are deserving of respect as well–but the way you handle the conversation may have a profound effect on someone else who is looking on.

The great philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig has often stated that he usually does not enter into debates with any sort of expectation of winning his opponent to Christ. After all, his opponents are usually well-learned individuals who have already spent a lifetime of study and are emphatically opposed to his views. But there are many fragile minds on the college campuses and public forums where many of these debates are held, and no doubt, thousands have come to Christ as a result of the many debates Craig and other apologists have held in these venues over the years.

Respect matters. If we are to be salt and light, we must not only present sound reasoning, but we must do so with a compassionate heart and an attitude of respect.

One more word about fear:

Concerning the traditional understanding of the word, i.e., “to be afraid”, we shouldn’t be! Second Timothy 1:7 says, “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” Fellow defenders of the Faith—we have Truth on our side. Despite popular belief, the evidence for our Creator God is truly overwhelming. Stay in your Bible, contend boldly for the Faith, and let wisdom and Truth be your guide.

The Proof of Biblical Apologetics

In the beginning of April 2017, a profound movie was released called “The Case for Christ”. This is a movie based on the book written by well-known pastor and apologist, Lee Strobel. Lee was working as a legal journalist for the Chicago Tribune, and by virtue of his training, was a natural skeptic. His life changed one day when he arrived home from work and found out that his wife had accepted Christ as her Savior.

As she grew more and more in the Lord, Lee began to draw further away. Desperate to put a stop to the madness, Lee set out on a journey of discovery. Lee had set his sights on accomplishing the task once and for all that none other before him had been able to do–silence Christianity. He was very good at his job, and if anyone could prove that this “Jesus” character was no more than a myth or a mere man, it was him.

Lee spent the next two years interviewing faith leaders and trying desperately to poke holes in their arguments. At the end of his journey, he came to the realization that it would actually take more faith to maintain his atheism than to accept Christ as his Savior. And he did just that.

Lee’s story has received much publicity because of his book series, and now the feature film. But his story is far from unique. Thousands share a similar testimony. Apologetics, indeed, is important. Of course, no one becomes a Christian unless they can move from the belief that Jesus was who He said He was to belief in Jesus as Savior, but some people are just hung up on on the “that”!

Apologetics is simply a form of Biblical evangelism. Many evangelists today travel around proclaiming a specific aspect of the same Message (Jesus Christ and Him crucified!). For instance, there are evangelists who specialize in:

Creation
Prophecy
Eschatology
The King James Bible
Marriage
The Tabernacle
Apologetics

And others!

No matter what the angle, the Biblical evangelist must preach Christ. Paul said, “God forbid that I should glory except in the Cross (paraphrased)!” All teaching must point to the cross, as it is the central fact that the whole of our faith rests in.

Certain Believed

Allow me to point you back to a phrase in Scripture we looked at earlier in Acts 17:32—“…Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed…” I have heard this statement criticized by church leaders before because Paul was not able to start a church in Greece—only certain believed and clave. But, must we always seek “Day of Pentecost” experiences when we are looking to see people saved by God’s grace? In our church, we may go weeks at a time before another soul is added to the Kingdom. Does that make us a dead church? I had rather see one genuine conversion than 1,000 fake professions any day.

For some reason, Christians have been sold the lie today that we must leave matters of the mind to the foolish knowledge of this world. Friends, that is anti-biblical heresy straight from the pit of hell. There are two kinds of knowledge and wisdom: the knowledge and wisdom of the world (which is foolish), and the knowledge and wisdom of the Lord.

We find in the New Testament that wisdom and knowledge from the Lord are actually spiritual gifts (see 1 Corinthians 12:8). We also find in Romans 1 that there are those who profess themselves to be wise, and in doing so they have become fools (Romans 1:28). The mind is just another part of our being that must be sanctified unto God. Following Christ does not mean we have to lay down our minds; quite the contrary! It means we can now see the world with a fresh view through the “mind’s eye” in the way GOD intended for us too!

It means we can now explore the natural creation God has so graciously given us in the context of His Word. It means we can learn how to uncover and expose the quite irrational teachings of the world, and begin to see true knowledge–the way God intended for it to be seen. Christian friend–don’t put down your mind and follow Christ on “blind faith.” “Faith” in the Bible would be best understood as the word “trust.” We can trust in the Word God has given us.

The Power of Biblical Apologetics

The last and final point I want to make in the case for Biblical apologetics is its power. I have tried to make the case that apologetics is merely a small outcropping of what the Bible would call “evangelism”–in other words, it is a method of response that need be used only when evangelizing certain types of individuals. That said, I believe I have the liberty here to superimpose the power that comes along with preaching and evangelism onto apologetics.

God says in his Word that it is the “foolishness of preaching” which has the power to save them that believe. Notice 1 Corinthians 1:21–“For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” I encourage you to read the whole chapter in order to gain context, but what God is saying here is that God’s wisdom (and even God’s “foolishness” according to verse 25) is wiser than the wisdom of men!

In other words, there is a fringe benefit that comes along with invoking the knowledge of God when you preach the cross—power, power, wonder-working power! Chapter 1 and verse 18 says, “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” We bring a message of power–power to save and heal, power to transform lives, and power to bring lowly sinners into the throne room of a holy, righteous God. Friends, I like knowledge–but despite what you learned in elementary school–it is not power. It’s foolishness. However, if you couple knowledge with the preaching of the cross, it is the power of God!

This is why when you take your message to the college campuses, you have nothing to fear. This is why when trying to engage with your family member who holds multiple Ph.D.’s, you have no need to fear. There’s zero knowledge to be gleaned in a university that trumps the knowledge of God! Sure, there is plenty you can learn to supplement that knowledge. But the knowledge gained post-(true)conversion will only strengthen your faith—not weaken it.

Sometimes, God just uses the evidence already found by some of the world’s greatest minds to point seekers back to Him–that’s what happened in Lee Strobel’s case (mentioned earlier). Remember, next time you are engaging an atheist, agnostic, or someone asking spiritual questions, that you have a message not only filled with knowledge, reason, and intellect, but it’s a message filled with power! You’re packing a knowledge bomb filled with Truth and the “power to save them that believe.” Preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified with confidence, boldly contend for the faith, and be prepared to give an answer to any man that asketh a reason of the hope within you.

Conclusion

Based on my arguments above, I believe there is good Biblical evidence to suggest and affirm that we should confidently use apologetics in our preaching and in our evangelism. The case made here has been very basic, and as you study the Bible, you will discover how apologetics has been used throughout the centuries. You will likely see things in Scripture that you’ve never noticed before.

Finally, I love my Bible. It has been tested, and it can be trusted! It will never fail, it will never fade away, and it is always true. As the popularity of apologetics as a method of evangelism grows, we must never forget what we are defending—the Holy Word of the Living God. Get to know the Bible more intimately than any other work, and God will always give you the answers to the tough questions asked of you in this culture so hostile towards Him and His Word.

Stewarding Knowledge: Three Biblical Habits for the New Year

March 28, 2018 John O'Malley

By: Steve Schramm

It’s been said that Christianity is a “bookish” religion.

While this has a negative connotation in some respects, I find it to be extremely interesting in its contrariety to the common notion that Christianity is only for cavemen, the misinformed, and those who just don’t know any better.

The truth is that Christianity is not a blind faith. It is based on the knowledge of and trust in a Person who lived and acted in real history, claimed to be God, and validated His claim by bodily rising from the dead in fulfillment of prophecy.

In fact, Colossians 2:3 says, “In whom [Christ] are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” The Bible seems to be saying here that all knowledge is found in the person of Christ!

We should be careful as Christians to understand our role as stewards, or managers, of God’s gifts and blessings. Certainly, one area we often fail to consider regarding stewardship is knowledge.

In this new year, I want to bring this top of mind both in my own life and ministry. The concept of stewardship is based on the fact that one who is faithful in managing little will be given more to manage (Luke 16:10).

This should cause us to pause!

Could it be that if we are faithful to God in stewarding the knowledge He has given us, He will allow us to learn and retain even more? That is an exciting thought.

Scripture seems to bear this out in the story of Solomon. King Solomon could have asked God for anything, but chose to ask for wisdom. God not only gave him the wisdom he so desired, but lots–and lots–and lots–of other things too! King Solomon, in fact, was one of the richest persons (in context) to ever live.

Could it be that building habits of stewarding knowledge will yield similar results? Your reward may not be physical in the same sense that Solomon’s was, but nevertheless, “He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6).

Habits vs. Resolutions

I very intentionally used the word habits in the title of this blog post.

The fact is, we just don’t keep New Years’ resolutions.

I mentioned this briefly a few weeks ago, and this is a fact backed by good scientific research.

The article I just linked to takes care to mention how to build lasting habits, but I’d like to provide an idea of my own: build habits based on biblical truth and practice.

Daniel 6:10 gives us a window into the prayer life of Daniel the prophet:

“Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.”

Notice the phrase, “as he did aforetime.” It’s not likely that Daniel’s habit was a result of any special instruction from the Lord; and we know for certain that there is no biblical commandment regarding the frequency of prayer.

It seems that this was simply a practical point of Daniel’s faith-life.

There are numerous other biblical examples. Pastor Brandon Hilgemann (ProPreacher) has built his entire morning routine based on the apparent morning rituals of Jesus, namely:

1 Jesus got up early, before the sun.

2 Jesus left the house and walked somewhere.

3 Jesus spent time with God alone.

It’s all about your “why.” I’ve found that my inner motivations are not strong enough to inspire me to action, unfortunately. Biblical principles, however, tend to help me to push past reservations and do what needs to be done.

In that spirit, consider adopting these three biblical habits that will help you to become an even better steward of the knowledge God has so graciously given you:

1. Cling to the Scriptures

You might be tempted to glaze over such an obvious habit (cue Captain Obvious commercial).

But I didn’t use the word “cling” solely for the sake of alliteration.

It’s a good thing for you to read your Bible, but I am advocating for something that goes much deeper.

In this new year, and in the midst of a disintegrating culture, we need now more than ever to have faithful defenders of our worldview proclaiming Christ!

But we must be careful not to sacrifice truth on the altar of evangelism. What I mean by that is, for the same reason you would not regularly attend a strip club to win the patrons to Christ, so should you not espouse the vain and empty philosophies of the world to do so.

2 Corinthians 6:16-17 says, “And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”

The Bible teaches separation from. However–and this is often missed–the Bible also teaches separation to. Ephesians 2:10 teaches, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

Therefore, we should allow biblical truth to infiltrate, permeate, and even dictate every area of our lives–not only those we find most convenient.

We ought to habitually cling to the Scriptures, and draw from them the precious pearls of knowledge found within.

2. Carefully Organize Your Thoughts

Paul Chappell argues in his book Stewarding Life, “When you consider that we have the opportunity to successfully live with a divine mission and invest our lives in eternal purposes, anything less is a tragic waste.”

The written context is “time;” however, I believe we can draw a meaningful application for our purposes.

Would it not be tragically wasteful to coast through life without careful, critical thinking? Many are headed for hell as I write this because they have not taken the time to carefully consider the logical problems with their worldview.

How much more should we, as Christians, desire to please the Lord by stewarding our thoughts?

The Apostle Paul argues that we should bring every thought into captivity (2 Corinthians 10:5).

Here are a few practical steps you can use to carefully organize your thoughts:

First, decide on an outcome. Henry Ford famously said, “Whether you think you can or whether you think you can’t, you’re right.” What are you working towards? What does “success” look like? It could be that you want to memorize a book of the Bible. Perhaps you want to defend your faith better against cultic versions of Christianity? Decide to what end you should organize your thoughts this year.

Second, develop a system. Develop a systematized process for organizing and parsing through your thoughts. This is one major reason I blog. Someone once said, “Thoughts disentangle themselves passing over the lips and through pencil tips.” I have also developed a template for quick recollection of certain arguments. I will be sharing this on my blog soon.

Finally, devote your time. What gets scheduled gets done. I preach a message titled “C.L.A.I.M. Christ first.” The “C” stands for calendar! Time is a precious commodity, but it’s also a gift from God. Steward it wisely and devote much time to your learning and thought-organization.

3. Contend for the Faith Regularly

I’ve never really been a car guy.

Something that has always puzzled me is someone spending thousands of dollars on a car only to let it sit in a garage for 50 years and hardly even drive it.

I suppose you could make the case that by keeping the car pent up and taking care of it he is practicing good stewardship, but we cannot make such a case for the Christian who accumulates knowledge and stores it in the “garage” of his mind.

Knowledge of Christ should be shared!

Luke 11:33 explains this using a logical illustration: “No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light.”

Jesus said in Matthew 5:14, “Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.”

We could further argue using Jesus’ so-called “Parable of the Talents.” Point being, don’t just sit on the knowledge God has given you–share it with somebody!

Not only is it a Scriptural command to be a witness (Mark 16:15), and not only is this to be considered wise stewardship (1 Thessalonians 2:4), but this is also a great way to organize your thoughts.

Some of the best advice I’ve received is to “be caught off guard only once.” In other words, the first time you are challenged with a new question should be the last time you are unable to answer it.

Remember though–this goes deeper than just making a resolution. The goal is to form a habit of doing this.

By habitually sharing our faith with others (be it in person, through social media, etc.), we’re not only mindful of what Christ has done for us but also the power with which He transforms lives.

One cannot hear the gospel and remain unaffected. He will make a choice–for the good, or for the bad. While it is not our job to persuade that choice (because we are unable to–this is the work of the Spirit), we are still called to share, contend for, and defend the gospel.

By practicing these three biblical habits this year–clinging to God’s Word, organizing your thoughts, and defending the faith–you will begin to see a more fruitful life and ministry.

Grasping God's World: The Age of the Earth and Why it Matters

March 21, 2018 John O'Malley

By: Steve Schramm

Growing up in Independent Baptist Churches, I have always taken the Genesis creation account very seriously. I’ve never really perceived this to be a point of contention at all. Despite the reigning naturalistic dogma of evolutionism, I had no trouble taking God at His Word and believing that the world was made around 6,000 years ago over the course of six ordinary days. The problem is that I made the mistake of thinking every Christian believed this.

As you grow in your Christian walk and begin to read and study the work of others, you will no doubt be introduced to a variety of new and differing viewpoints. Considering my upbringing, you can only imagine my surprise when I found out there were Christians who actually believe in the “Big Bang” and some who even believe that God used molecules-to-man evolution to create the bio-diversity we find in our world.

Your view of Biblical origins will drastically affect your apologetic. Many “evidential” apologists believe in deep time (millions of years), and have no trouble arguing for the Biblical God by appealing to the Big Bang. The fact of the matter is that if the Big Bang were true, it certainly would point to a Creator.

Big Bang or no Big Bang—something still cannot come from nothing. Actually, it is a fact of history that mainstream scientists were initially resistant to the Big Bang precisely for this reason. To this day, “what exploded in the big bang?” is a question mainstream scientists cannot answer because they are committed to naturalism.

However, not only is there good scientific evidence against the Big Bang, but the biblical data—the Genesis 1 narrative, the genealogies, other biblical references to the creation account, the treatment of Genesis 1 as factual, recent history by the biblical writers and extra-biblical sources, etc.—all support a recent creation. This presents a real problem for those with alternative views of creation.

I do not have the space within this post to give a complete defense of creationism, nor is it the purpose. However, we will examine two reasons why the origins debate matters and why we must think correctly about the age of the earth if we’re going to be consistent apologists.

Remember—presuppositional apologists hold Scripture as the highest authority. Therefore, it is paramount that we first allow Scripture to inform our view of origins before we even talk about science, philosophy, etc. As Christians we must learn to accept a “God said it; that settles it” mentality and explore the world from that basic premise. Of course—we rightly expect the world to then reflect the Christian Story.

If the world we live in does not reflect the story we believe, then our story is false. But in order to find out if that’s the case, we must work from the assumption that our story—the Christian Story—is true, and expose the faulty presuppositions that others espouse, unfortunately leading them to accept an inaccurate view of the world.

Here are two key reasons why we must work from a proper understanding of creation in order to get the origins debate right:

1. Science Agrees with the Bible

It causes me to pause when Christians place what they have heard about origins from other fallible human beings above what can be plainly read in the Scriptures. This is not usually done nefariously. Rather, it is done with a regard for intellectual honesty in most cases. Those with an alternative view of Scripture tend to trust the scientific consensus in nearly every discipline—including their conclusions about the age of the earth—usually with the exception of Darwinian Evolutionism.

The problem is this trust in the scientific consensus causes them to violate the core principle of biblical hermeneutics—namely, “If the plain sense makes good sense, seek no other sense at all.” The plain sense of Scripture indicates a recent creation—a fact even many old earth creationists have personally admitted to me in the past.

We must remember that “science” does not speak for itself; rather, scientists look at the data that has been discovered and interpret their findings according to the scientific method and in accordance with their worldview. For example, when biologist Mary Higby Schweitzer discovered soft tissue proteins in an alleged 68-million-year-old dinosaur fossil in 2007, she was keenly aware that those proteins and collagens should not be there—they simply don’t last that long. If the world was created just 6,000 years ago this is exactly what we would expect. But did Mary become a creationist because of her findings? Has any scientist become a creationist because of them? Not to my knowledge. In fact, this had led researchers on a wild goose chase to find a mechanism which would preserve soft tissue for millions of years, rather than to question the dates. So far no such mechanism has been found.

Another helpful example can be found in the radiometric dating process itself. Radiometric dating methods such as the Potassium-Argon, Rubidium-Strontium, and Uranium-Lead methods are used by mainstream scientists in determining what is called the “absolute age” of rocks. The results given by these methods vary greatly, but are always hundreds of thousands to millions of years old. The problem, ironically, is that these methods always—without fail!—generate these long ages—even when the rocks are young!

The Institute for Creation research carried out an eight-year-long project (the RATE project) during which they collected myriad samples of rocks known to be young by direct observation, such as those collected from the Mt. Saint Helens eruption in 1980. These were laboratory tested by mainstream scientists with no prior knowledge of the age or source of the rocks, and always dated over 200,000 years old with dates ranging upwards of 3.5 million years.

There is a natural explanation for this—in these rocks, there was found to be an excess amount of Argon which skewed the results. See, amongst other things, scientists have to make unprovable assumptions about the rocks (because they weren’t around to see the rocks form). It is these assumptions which cause scientists to inaccurately date them. I don’t have space here to explain radioactive decay, but one of the critical assumptions made in, say, Potassium-Argon dating is that at the time of the rock’s formation, there was only Potassium—no Argon. The time it would take for all of the Potassium to decay into Argon (based on the half-life of the element) is how one arrives at the “absolute” date. But if the assumption is false as it was in the Mt. Saint Helens incident (i.e., there was “excess Argon” at the time of formation) then the date will be wrong.

Of course—this is true about all rocks—not just the ones used in the RATE project. By starting with incorrect assumptions about the expected “age” results, one will arrive at an incorrect date. Similarly, by starting with the assumption that dinosaur fossils are millions of years old, one will have to invent ideas about how soft tissue can suddenly be preserved for millions of years instead of considering that dinosaurs simply aren’t millions of years old, but rather, were created with the rest of the land animals on day six of creation week.

Scripture says the earth is “young”, and good science supports it! To accept any other position would be erroneous both from a biblical and scientific standpoint. I submit to you that many of the Christians who accept deep time do so because of (1) academic peer pressure and/or (2) a sheer refusal to investigate science from a recent creationist perspective. In either case, the obvious implication is that the age of the earth matters to Scriptural authority. If the Bible got it right as plainly stated in Genesis, we can trust that the Bible got it right in all other areas as well—namely in our understanding of sin and why we need a Savior.

This is another reason why the only biblically correct way to practice apologetics is the presuppositional method. In presupposing the authority of Scripture, we are able to accurately understand the world and make sense of actual scientific discoveries without having to create “just-so” stories in order to justify our position.

Each of these discoveries is an embarrassment for the Christian who accepts deep time because he must also attempt to explain them away, as well as the theological issues such as reconciling animal death before sin with the fact that all animals were once vegetarian (Genesis 1:29). But the Christian who has allowed Scripture alone to inform his view of origins will hold the correct view and never have to change! Just like the Father “changes not” (Malachi 3:6), neither does His Word change (Isaiah 40:8).

2. Jesus was a Recent Creationist

As briefly mentioned above, accepting a view of the age of the earth/universe that begins with man’s interpretation of science also has incredible theological implications—even concerning Christ Himself. Jesus made statements that carry quite a bit of historical and evidential weight concerning the events as recorded “in the beginning.” If we discount these statements or take them to mean anything other than what a plain reading of Scripture dictates, what basis do we have for trusting anything that Jesus said about the world?

Of course, I am concerned about unbelievers misinterpreting science because of faulty assumptions about the world, but I’m much more concerned with the inherent implication that Scripture (and even Jesus Himself) cannot be trusted. If the Bible is wrong about origins, perhaps it is wrong about a lot of other things too.

Let’s look at a few scenarios where Jesus made historical, evidential comments about the creation:

In Luke 13, Jesus references a passage in Exodus 20 that explains our dictum to work six days and rest on the seventh. This is a framework that was established at the beginning. It corresponds perfectly to the 6-day creation account recorded in Genesis 1.
Jesus had no problem with a literal Adam and Eve. Many theistic evolutionists (also known as evolutionary creationists) believe that essentially all of Genesis 1-11 is allegorical in nature. Jesus did not believe that (Matt. 19:4). Since Jesus treated these events as true history, why should we take issue with this view?
Since Christ is the second person of the Trinity, and was there at the beginning of the creation (see John 1), every word stated in the entire Bible can be attributed to Him. This means that any time a claim in the Bible indicates a young creation, it is not merely the writer’s assertion, it is The Writer’s assertion!
It is also worth noting that when Jesus performed a miracle in the New Testament, there was no length of time required–it was instantaneous. The creation account is the greatest miracle of all. Why should we assume it took 13.8 billion years when every other miracle was instantaneous? The only reason it took six days was to establish a pattern for our week (see Exodus 20:11).

To my last point–what would be the purpose of God creating time, space, and matter and then waiting for billions of years? We were created to give glory to God (Isaiah 43:7). The Genesis 1 account is laid out in such a way that humans—made in the Image of God—are obviously the apex of the creation. We were told to have dominion over the earth and the animals (Genesis 1:28). Are we to believe that God created animals billions of years ago and brought us on the scene to subdue creation only recently? Proponents of the old earth view such as Dr. Hugh Ross argue that humankind is around 100,000 years old, but this does not have any warrant in the text of Scripture.

Furthermore, our understanding of the doctrine of creation has gigantic theological implications on the doctrine of original sin. The Bible says, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12). If God created the Earth billions of years ago, then the fossil record shows evidence of disease, struggle, suffering, bloodshed, etc. before Adam, and therefore, before sin. This also leads to rejection of a worldwide flood as taught in Genesis, because the fossil record cannot be evidence for both millions of years and a worldwide deluge—it’s one or the other. However, science has demonstrated that rapid water burial is responsible for fossilization—not slow, natural processes. The world’s geologic record is not really evidence for deep time and evolution, but for the historicity of Genesis 1-11 and a recent creation.

Conclusion

Though we have barely scratched the surface of the available knowledge about our origins and why they matter, I think it would be safe to conclude, at this point, that our views in this area are important to our understanding of God’s world. To be sure, I am persuaded that one can believe in an old earth and still be a born-again Christian. It is a tragedy, however, that more Christians will not simply accept God’s Word at face value and resolve to begin scientific and philosophical research from that starting point.

It’s time we get back to the Bible as our source for information. The Bible is historically true and scientifically accurate. One legitimate argument I hear often is that the old earth view allows us more flexibility in the college and university setting. This is certainly true—people rightly associate the 6-day view of creation only with Christian bias. But is that a good enough reason to justify believing and teaching in error? If we can prove that we have real science to put forward, I believe we can begin to make those inroads without compromising our belief in an accurate Bible and a recent, historical Genesis.

Don’t give in because the upper scientific echelon has something to say that contradicts what you know to be true. Remember–we do not believe blindly! As the great philosopher of science and mathematician (and ironically, old earth creationist) John Lennox once said, “Nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists.”

3 Reasons to Ask Powerful, Pointed Questions

March 14, 2018 John O'Malley

By: Steve Schramm

Biblical Apologetics is wholly grounded in presuppositional methodology—the position which places the Scriptures in context as the highest authority. But practically speaking, there is another element to apologetics that is extremely important. So important, in fact, that we see Jesus Himself using it constantly throughout the New Testament: Asking powerful, pointed questions.

Most of your time doing apologetics should actually be spent listening!

This may sound counterintuitive, but I think it will make sense as we explore this further.

In this great age of ideas we are living in, it can be hard to know what anyone really believes about the world. In an extremely eye-opening study, the Barna Research Group made some staggering discoveries about what practicing Christians believe.

Here are just a few of the highlights they point out:

61% agree with ideas rooted in New Spirituality.
54% resonate with postmodernist views.
36% accept ideas associated with Marxism.
29% believe ideas based on secularism.

That fact is that just because you go to church with somebody or because they claim to be a follower of Christ, does not mean you know everything—or anything—about their spiritual life. The person sitting next to you at church may not really be who you think they are.

They may hold some interesting views about the world that you would not agree with–even views that could be detrimental to their faith. Now, I am not asking you to become the judge over their salvation. There is one Judge–God the Father. But something we can and should start doing is to foster a culture of critical thinking.

Don’t misunderstand me here: I am not advocating that we start doubting and questioning our faith. Rather, we need to embrace the fact that Christianity is reasonable and learn to ask questions when navigating around competing worldviews.

Whether we are in conversations with outright atheists, someone who is open to belief but just not there yet, or even a fellow brother or sister in Christ, I believe we can make more headway by simply asking questions and listening to what others have to say.

Christians do not always bear the burden of proof. Rather, we share the burden of proof. Some may try to claim otherwise, but don’t let them! The position that “God exists” is, of course, an affirmative claim. But unless your challenger has infinite knowledge, something I highly doubt, the position that “God doesn’t exist” is an affirmative claim as well. And, we have every right to ask these challengers questions of our own to get down to the bottom of what they believe so that we can give the best and most reasoned answers possible.

Here are three reasons why I believe questions are helpful and can lead to more productive, fruitful conversations with unbelievers:

Reason #1: Questions Reveal

Have you ever been talking with someone, and after about 10 minutes or so you realized that you have no earthly idea what they are talking about? Engagements of a religious and spiritual nature usually begin this way. Claims are put in play about what each side believes to be true, and it seems like everyone might as well be talking to a brick wall. The problem here is that the basis for the conversation has not truly been established.

If you are going to get involved in a “back and forth” online about homosexuality, for instance, that is a terrible starting place to make any headway. In fact, that conversation is likely to go absolutely nowhere. Why? There are many things that individuals from either side of that argument see differently about the world, and neither side will come to a consensus about homosexuality before getting past those other obstacles.

So, here is where a question would be helpful. Maybe something like, “How did you come to the conclusion that homosexuality makes sense?”

Something very interesting is happening here. For one thing, you do not even need the Bible to know that homosexuality is against nature. So this is an opportunity to help a person see that any argument for homosexuality is fundamentally flawed. In turn, this makes it less surprising to find out that the Bible is not in alignment with it either. Remember—the Bible gives an accurate picture of the way the world actually is.

I’m not saying don’t use the Bible—but what I am saying is that the person is likely to crumble their own defense right here (more on that in a bit) because there is no benefit at all to society for homosexuality to be celebrated as the law of the land.

Also, you are about to find out what other things about the world this person believes that would cause them to see homosexuality the way that they do. This will help you to correct basic misunderstandings about their worldview that could possibly change their perspective on a variety of issues—not just homosexuality.

Reason #2: Questions Reduce

Remember—everybody has a worldview. A person’s worldview will affect everything they know about the world. Imagine an image filter. When you take a picture and then run it through one of those fancy filters before posting on social media, you are fundamentally changing something about that image. Behind the scenes, the software is adjusting many values (tint, contrast, etc.) to change everything about the way your image displays.

A worldview does the same thing. It is the filter through which you see the world, and ideas that come in are the values that are changed and adjusted. The only difference is that externally, this process is seen in reverse. Someone can look at you and tell what values have been individually adjusted by your worldview, but often times it is hard to see your worldview at its core. This is a great reason to start asking questions.

Even general and obvious questions such as, “What is your worldview?” will help. This, in my opinion, is more helpful than a question such as “What is your religious affiliation?” because many people do not believe their worldview is a religion (although it likely is). For instance, a secular humanist and a materialistic naturalist are going to share some very common values and ideas, but there are a few things they see fundamentally different from one another. If you engage one as if they are the other you will get nowhere in the conversation.

If they are not open to answering such a general question, you have an opportunity. It is probably because (1) they don’t know yet what their worldview is or (2) they do know, they just don’t know the name for it. In either case, asking a few smaller questions—perhaps about their beliefs on origins, the afterlife, moral values, etc.—will help you to understand what their worldview is. From there, you will be able to address what they believe and answer their questions in the context of the Christian worldview.

Reason #3: Questions Refute

Satan has so drastically blinded the minds of men that most common belief systems will not even hold up to their own standard. Consider the extremely common belief that there is no truth. This is easily refutable by pointing out to the claimant that the phrase “there is no truth” is a truth claim! If it’s true that there is no truth, then there is truth. The claim falls down flat. Most worldviews easily fall to much the same level of absurdity.

When you start really asking questions and mining to the bottom of what people believe, you will find that our country has literally educated us into stupidity and philosophical bankruptcy. For instance, many will tell you that all they can trust is their personal experience. But we all know that you cannot believe in or trust something without an external force against which to validate it.

A simple illustration might help: I work in Information Technology (IT). When we sign in to our computers in the morning, our login credentials are validated against something called a Domain Controller. If the username and/or password is typed in wrong, making it invalid, access is denied! Because of the external source of “ultimate truth” (there is no higher authority on a network than a Domain Controller) each individual workstation is able to validate its experience. Otherwise, anyone could log in with any username and password they wanted to, exposing the system to malware and viruses.

That means this person only believes in what he has experienced, and to validate that all truth comes from his experience, all he can rely on is his experience! Do you see the problem? He has no external source of Truth to form a basis for what he should believe or how he should act.

The point here is that when you get to the bottom of someone’s argument, you may find that they have self-refuted, and your work is done! Of course, this would be a great time to share the gospel and introduce them to the only truly coherent worldview—Christianity. Next time you find yourself in an engagement with someone, try to steer the conversation by asking questions. You may be surprised at how different it turns out.