Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 124
August 27, 2013
Links Mentioned on the 8/27/13 Show
The following are links that were either mentioned on this week's show or inspired by it, as posted live on the @STRtweets Twitter feed:
If God Is Good: Faith in the Midst of Suffering and Evil by Randy Alcorn
A Stone in His Shoe by Greg Koukl
reThink Apologetics Conferences for students in October (California and Alabama)
How Christians Can Deal with Tragedy by Greg Koukl
Upcoming events – Our speakers may be coming to a city near you
Same-Sex Marriage & Interracial Marriage Parallel? by Melinda Penner
Review of The Harbinger by Tim Challies
Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)
To follow the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00–7:00 p.m. PT), use the hashtag #STRtalk.
How Will Same-Sex Marriage Hurt You?
For those who ask, "How will same-sex marriage hurt me?," for starters note New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Bossin's sobering admission of the sacrifice of religious freedom and personal liberties, two of the three casualties of this experiment of social engineering by the Left (the other being parental rights).
Religious liberty:
Bossin's redefinition of the 1st Amendment as something that happens in our "personal lives" vs. our public conduct
The court's ruling that citizens' religious liberty amounts to expression and telling and thinking, not living: People "are free to express their religious beliefs and tell Willock or anyone else what they think about same-sex relationships and same-sex ceremonies."
Personal liberty
The redefinition of "respect" and "tolerance" as participation in that which one objects to
The idea that if we don't participate in things that violate our conscience, then we do not "leave space for other Americans who believe something different"
The Challenges Facing Young Christians
Last week I had the opportunity to speak with students between sessions at Summit Worldview Academy.
I taught on the nature of truth, the reliability of the gospels, and
the evidence for God’s existence from cosmology. The students were eager
to learn and had many good questions during the breaks, during our
lunch and dinner time together, and at an evening session specifically
set aside for questions. The students shared a number of stories
related to the ways they were already being challenged as young
Christians. Many had experienced a season of doubt and were grateful for
the training they were receiving at Summit. Dr. Jeff Myers, the
president of Summit Ministries, has assembled an incredible collection
of thinkers, teachers and trainers
to help prepare students to face challenges and “analyze the various
ideas that are currently competing for their hearts and minds.” These
young people were eager to prepare themselves for these encounters.
Christian students are surrounded by competing worldviews from a very
young age. As I spoke with the young men and women at Summit, I thought
about the many ways our kids are challenged from childhood through their
college years:
They Are Challenged by the Media
Young
Christians are challenged very early, beginning with their first
exposure to television, movies and the internet. Much of the media is
aligned against Christian values, and Americans spend about one-third of
their free time, (more than the next 10 most popular leisure activities
combined) watching some form of television. The messages communicated
by television programming are often in direct opposition to the teaching
of Christianity, and students are deeply impacted by what they absorb
from the media. Two out of every three shows on television, for example,
include sexual content (a dramatic increase over the past 15 years).
50% of the couples involved in sexual behavior in television programming
are depicted in casual relationships (10% of these couples had just
met, and 9% of television programs depict sexual behavior between
teens). In a set of Kaiser Family Foundation studies, 76% of teens said
that one reason young people have sex is because TV shows and movies
“make it seem normal”. College students who were exposed to the many
examples of sexual behavior on television were more likely to believe
their peers engaged in those same activities.
They Are Challenged by Elementary and High School Programming
Make no mistake about it, when Christian values are attacked in the
public education system, the basis for those beliefs (Christianity) is
also attacked. Here in California, for example, comprehensive sexual
health and HIV / AIDS instruction requires schools to teach students how
to have “safe sex”. “Abstinence only” education is not permitted in
California public schools. In addition, California schools cannot inform
parents if their children leave campus to receive certain confidential
medical services, including abortions. Classic Christian values related
to sexuality (and marriage) are under attack in the public school
system.
They Are Challenged by University Professors
Once students get to college, they are likely to encounter professors
who are even more aggressive in their opposition to Christianity and
Christian values. According to the Institute for Jewish and Community
research, a survey of 1,200 college faculty members revealed 1 in 4
professors (25%) is an atheist or agnostic (compared with 4-5% in the
general population). In addition, only 6% of university professors say
the Bible is “the actual word of God”. Instead, 51% say the Bible is “an
ancient book of fables, legends, history & moral precepts”. More
than half of professors have “unfavorable” feelings toward Evangelical
Christians. Charles Francis Potter (author of Humanism: A New Religion)
said it best when he proclaimed, “Education is thus a most powerful ally
of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism.
What can the theistic Sunday-schools, meeting for an hour once a week,
and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a
five day program of humanistic teaching?”
They Are Challenged by University Students
The attitude and influence of hostile professors is often accepted by
University students happy to reject the moral precepts of the Christian
worldview. Atheist student groups are multiplying dramatically in
universities across America. The Secular Student Alliance, for example,
grew from 80 student clubs in 2007 to over 250 clubs in 2011. These
students groups are eager to identify themselves with names that
challenge the intellectual capacity of Christian students. Atheist
groups often seek titles such as “Free Thinker Society,” the “Coalition
of Reason,” or the “Center for Inquiry”. The implication, of course, is
that Christians are ignorant and constrained by their antiquated
worldview.
The Church will never begin to address the growing problem of young people leaving the faith
if it doesn’t first recognize the challenges facing Christian students.
The young Christians at Summit have already begun to feel the impact of
the cultural forces aligning against the Christian worldview. That’s
why they are so encouraged to discover and experience the robust
intellectual tradition of Christian thought as represented by the
professors, speakers and trainers over two intensive weeks of worldview
training. These young people are forever changed by their experience at
Summit. They are equipped to meet the challenges they already face, even
as they prepare for an even greater challenge in the university
setting. All of us, as youth pastors and ministers, can learn something
from programs like Summit. It’s time to address the challenges facing
students before they find themselves struggling to resist the cultural
tide on their own.
Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email
August 26, 2013
Is the God of the Old Testament the Same God in the New Testament? (Video)
August 23, 2013
Unbelievable? Two Reasons Why Some People Reject the Reliability of the Gospels
During my recent interview on Unbelievable? with Justin Brierley (airing tomorrow, Saturday, August 24th2013), I responded to the objections of two atheists who rejected the reliability of the Gospel accounts on the basis of apparent contradictions with Josephus’ record and a concern about-corroborative evidence. I’ve learned to employ a four-pronged template when assessing the reliability of a witness, and I took this approach when I first examined the Gospels as a skeptic (I was 35 years old before I became interested in the Gospel accounts). As I evaluated the Biblical text with these principles in mind, I became convinced they were a reliable record of the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. I understand, however, when others come to a different conclusion, and I think there are two reasons why someone might disagree about the most reasonable inference from the evidence. Before I address these two reasons, however, I want to ask you to imagine the existence of a historical account related to an ancient teacher. Imagine investigating this ancient record and discovering the following:
There are multiple accounts related to the life of this teacher. Several of these accounts date back to within the lifetimes of those who knew the teacher personally. These early records were accepted immediately as the true account of the life and teaching of this ancient “master”. Even those who are skeptical of the contents of these texts admit they are the earliest written record related to the ancient sage.
There are many internal and external pieces of evidence that corroborate the claims of these early records. They contain accurate “unintentional eyewitness support” between authors, accurate descriptions of ancient regional proper names, governmental functions, and little-known geographic locations, and they use the forms of ancient language we would expect. In addition to this, external evidential support for the claims of these texts is available in the archaeological record and in the testimony of ancient hostile writers. These early critics confirm the description of the teacher, even though they opposed his students and teaching.
The transmission record of the early accounts is robust and thorough. They were handled like few other ancient documents; they were copied, preserved and cherished by generations of disciples, resulting in over 24,000 fragments and complete manuscripts from antiquity. There are also ample ancient descriptions of these early accounts from disciples who were students of the first eyewitnesses. The writings of these students confirm the narrative described in the original texts. As a result, we can have certainty about the original content of the documents.
The original accounts were attested by people who cherished their testimony and were willing to die for the veracity of their claims. None of these eyewitnesses gained anything financially, relationally or sexually. None of them became powerful as a result of their claims. Instead, they often had to “scratch and claw” for respect, even within the context of their own communities. They were sometimes rejected by the people within this community, even as they were vigorously persecuted by those outside the group. They were beaten, starved and eventually killed for their testimony, yet none of them ever recanted.
If you were examining this ancient record fairly, I think you would find it to be reliable given the evidence related to early dating, evidential corroboration, accurate transmission and the lack of bias. There are very few ancient accounts that pass a test this rigorous, but the New Testament Gospels do. In fact, the second section of Cold Case Christianity provides a glimpse of how the evidence confirms the reliability of the gospel narratives. They pass the test, yet many still doubt their reliability. Why? I think there are two reasons:
Miraculous Details
First, the accounts include supernatural events. The ancient teacher, Jesus, performed miracles and was resurrected after his crucifixion and death. For many in the post-enlightenment era, the presence of miracles automatically disqualifies any ancient record as history and relegates it to the ranks of mythology. But stop and think about this for a minute. The writers of the Gospels were testifying about something they knew to be unusual: They were testifying about a man who was more than a teacher, He was a miracle worker who claimed to be God and rose from the dead to prove His claim. The witnesses knew their claims would be controversial and resisted. As we examine their testimony to determine whether or not we can trust them, we cannot begin by rejecting the very nature of their claim. Yes, we can be skeptical, but we cannot begin by rejecting supernaturalism before the witnesses even make a case for the supernatural. We cannot start our investigation with our conclusions predetermined. We would never want to do that in a criminal investigation, and we should be similarly hesitant to begin with our conclusions when examining the gospels. Instead, let’s evaluate them for reliability and suspend our presuppositions until we hear what the witnesses have to say.
Moral Directives
The gospel accounts, for better or worse, are not merely descriptive, they are prescriptive as well. Jesus didn’t come to teach algebra or grammar; He came to teach us about our true condition as humans, our need for a Savior and the way back Home. He illuminated the dark nature of our souls and the truth about God and Himself. He called it like it was (and still is), and He didn’t pull many punches. He offended many who listened to his teaching in the 1st Century and He continues to offend listeners today. Sometimes the ugly truth is… ugly. The right way is seldom the easy way, and truth, by its very nature, is exclusive. The message of Jesus has been difficult to hear (and accept) for over two thousand years. Many who hear it today quickly equate the claims of Christianity with moral directives they seek to reject at any cost. Don’t be surprised, then, when people reject the prescriptive Gospels as unreliable, even though they accept other ancient descriptive accounts far less attested or corroborated.
Not every claim is gets rejected solely on the basis of a rational, evidential examination. There are times when our presuppositions and desires have a greater impact on our decision making than we might care to admit. If the Gospels did not include supernatural elements and a moral prescription, I doubt anyone would find them historically unreliable.
Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email
August 21, 2013
A Simple Explanation of the Cosmological Argument
William Lane Craig's organization, Reasonable Faith, created a simple, visually interesting, brief video explaining the basics of the kalam cosmological argument. This is a great discussion starter for you to pass on to your friends.
August 20, 2013
Links Mentioned on the Show
The following are links that were either mentioned on this week's show or inspired by it, as posted live on the @STRtweets Twitter feed:
God, Time, & Eternity – lectures by William Lane Craig
Rethink Apologetics Conferences for students (California and Alabama)
Upcoming events – see if one of our speakers will be at a location near you
Losing Your Salvation in Ephesians 1:14-3 by Amy Hall (with a quote from Fred Sanders)
Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)
To follow the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00–7:00 p.m. PT), use the hashtag #STRtalk.
Webcast Tuesday
Greg is live online today 4-7 p.m. PT. Open lines all three hours so give him a call with your question or comment at (855) 243-9975, outside the U.S. (562) 424-8229.
Listen live online. Join us on Twitter during the program @STRtweets #STRtalk.
Unbelievable? Does Josephus’ Account of John the Baptist Invalidate the Gospels?
I recently had the opportunity to record an episode of Unbelievable? with Justin Brierley (it’s airing this Saturday, August 24th2013).
He invited two skeptics to join us and discuss apparent contradictions
in the history offered by the Gospel authors when compared to
non-Christian historians. One skeptic, with a heavy accent from the
Netherlands, offered an objection related to the account of the
beheading of John the Baptist. Although I had difficulty hearing and
understanding his words through the telephone connection and his accent,
his argument can be summed up succinctly: Josephus records the death of
John the Baptist at a time in history that appears to be around 36AD,
six years after the date commonly accepted for the crucifixion of Jesus.
If Josephus’ record is accurate, John was executed after the
Resurrection of Jesus, and the gospel accounts are wrong. This
objection, along with an objection about the role and dating of
Quirinius in the Gospel of Luke, formed the basis for his skepticism
toward the Gospel accounts.
While I had difficulty hearing and
understanding the precise dating elements the caller referenced in his
objection, I was certainly familiar enough with the nature of the
complaint and the overarching principles I would use to test the
testimony of Josephus against the testimony of Matthew (14:1-12) and
Mark (6:14-29). I’ve written about these concepts related to eyewitness
reliability in my book, Cold-Case Christianity, and it’s important to employ these principles to avoid stumbling over apparently contradictory minutia:
Principle One: Make Sure the Witnesses Were Present in the First Place
While
Mark and Matthew (or at least the authors of their Gospels if you’re
inclined to deny the traditional attributions) lived during the time of
John’s execution, Josephus did not. Most scholars place Josephus’ birth
at 37AD and date his testimony related to John the Baptist (as it is
recorded in Antiquities of the Jews)
at 93-94AD. There is good reason to believe Mark’s Gospel is the
earliest narrative of these events and was written within 20 years of
John’s execution; the case for the early dating of Mark’s text
is cumulative and compelling. Mark’s account was, therefore, available
to the early Christian and non-Christian observers of the life of Jesus.
The first consideration for eyewitness reliability is simply proximity
to the event. Were the witnesses truly present to see what they
said they saw? Just as importantly, was the account available early
enough in history to be fact checked by other contemporaries? In this
case, we are comparing two accounts from the time of the event to one
account written one generation after the event.
Principle Two: Try to Find Some Corroboration for the Claims of the Witnesses
Historical accounts (like accounts from cold-case homicide witnesses) can be verified in a variety of ways. Sometimes we use physical evidence external to the account (like archaeological discoveries)
and sometimes we use the testimony of other witnesses. In this case, we
have only three accounts from antiquity confirming the events
surrounding John’s execution: the account from Mark, the account from
Matthew and the account from Josephus. A careful reading of Matthew and
Mark’s gospel reveals distinct idiosyncrasies in each account. Both
authors reference the same set of facts (and are obviously familiar with
each other’s claims), but express variations well within the range we
would expect from two eyewitnesses. When skeptics favor Josephus’ lone
account against the two accounts in the Biblical text, they simply
expose their bias against the Christian narratives.
Principle Three: Examine the Consistency and Accuracy of the Witnesses
Accuracy
and consistency are another important aspect of eyewitness reliability.
If we’re going to use Josephus’ lone record to discredit the gospel
accounts, we need to at least be fair about assessing Josephus’
precision and uniformity. Josephus’ historical record is, unfortunately,
uneven and sometimes self-contradictory. Josephus often cites the Old
Testament Biblical record as part of historical account, but he
frequently cites this Biblical history inaccurately. In addition, while
Josephus is detailed in his chronological information in some places, he
is inconsistent or silent in providing information from the reign of
Archelaus through the time of Pilate (4BC-26AD). More importantly,
Josephus contradicts himself repeatedly
related to the dating of Herod’s reign, setting the beginning of
Herod’s rule in 36, 37, 38 or 41BC, depending on which of Josephus’
volumes or passages one examines. Part of the problem (especially when
compared with the Gospel accounts) is the utter absence of any ancient
copy of Josephus’ original work. There are no surviving extant
manuscripts of Josephus’ histories prior to the 11th century. In fact, there are only approximately 120 ancient manuscripts of Josephus’ work and only 33 predate the 14th
century. Compared to the rich abundance of ancient copies of the
gospels, the work of Josephus is not well attested and difficult to
cross-check for consistency and transmissional accuracy.
Principle Four: Examine the Presence of Bias on the Part of the Witnesses
Skeptics often claim we can’t trust the gospel authors because they
were Christians and were biased in favor of presenting Jesus in a
certain way. I’ve written about this in Cold Case Christianity and demonstrated the difference between a presuppositional bias and a conviction based on observation,
but even if the Gospel authors were biased in some way, what advantage
does their version of John’s execution give them? As I often say, there
are only three motives behind any lie
(financial greed, or sexual lust/relational desire). Which of these
motives would cause the gospel authors to lie about their version of the
events, particularly when these accounts would be circulating within
the first generation of citizens who knew how and when John was
executed?
In trying to evaluate which ancient historical account
(Matthew, Mark or Josephus) is accurate, I simply apply the four
dimensional template I’ve just described. This is the same template we
use in criminal trials, and it clearly favors the Gospel accounts over
the account from Josephus. But let’s assume the very worst here as a
skeptical precaution. What if Mark and Matthew are both wrong about the
facts related to the execution of John the Baptist? Would this
necessarily disqualify their account entirely? No. I’ve never had a
witness in a case who was entirely inerrant, and judges, in fact,
admonish jurors to be careful not to disqualify a witness simply because he or she might be wrong about a particular detail. While I believe the Gospel autographs to be inerrant, the bar for witness reliability
is actually much lower. We don’t discredit the entire record of
Josephus simply because he was wrong about Old Testament Biblical
history, the dating of Herod’s reign or the execution of John. We ought
to afford the Biblical gospel authors the same benefit of the doubt.
Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email
