A really important question theologically for the Christian is to know whether we are still under the law. When I talk about “the law”, I am referring to the old Jewish law that God commanded the Israelites to follow. This law would include such things like the Ten Commandments. The typical Christian would most likely tell you that we are no under the law, but under grace. This is true, but it is a little more complicated than that.

 

This week, I read the article, “Are Christians Under the Ten Commandments” by John Piper. He answers the question with Bible verses, “Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead…”(Romans 7:4). The Bible makes the analogy of a married couple to answer the question if we are still under the law. Before the analogy is made, it is really important to understand that in the Jewish law, you could only marry another if your spouse has died. So, we were married to the law, but since the old us has died and we have been born again in Christ, we are no longer married to the law, but can be married to Christ.

 

So what does it mean to be married to Christ, and does not being married to the law mean we don’t have to obey the law? First, to be married to Christ is to have the law written on our hearts. We no longer are obeying what is written, but our obeying what the Holy Spirit convicts us to do. We no longer follow the law because it is just the law, but we follow it because we recognize it as just and want to follow it. Wait a minute, I thought you said we weren’t under the law? As Christians we strive to follow the ways of Christ, and in so doing that, we should automatically obey the commandments. 2 John 1:16 says, “And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments”. Now I’m not saying a Christian isn’t going to sin after he has been born again, but a Christian strives to walk in the ways of Christ and in so doing he gets better and better. So we shouldn’t sin, but should use the Ten commandments as a test of our walk with Christ. In the end, you must be born again by repenting of your sin and putting your faith in Jesus Christ to save you.

Source:

Piper, John. “Are Christians Under the Ten Commandments?” Desiring God, 7 Aug. 2010, http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/are-christians-under-the-ten-commandments.

Last week I covered historical evidence for the resurrection, but one might ask if there is a non-supernatural explanation for all the facts. Well to find the answer to that, I read the article, “False Theories Against Resurrection of Christ”, by J. Hampton Keathly, III, in which the author gives historical and logical arguments that refute other explanations.

Keathly provides different explanations, but pulls from different historical testimonies and sources to argue against those explanations. The explanations he refutes include the swoon theory, the hallucination theory, the impersonation(twin) theory, the spiritual resurrection theory, and the theft theory. While I won’t go in too much depth on each of these, I will briefly explain them. The swoon theory basically says that Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross, but just swooned; this idea is refuted by how terrible crucifixion is and the fact that the guards checked to make sure He was dead with a piercing in His side. Just as preposterous is the hallucination theory which claims that the Christ’s disciples just thought they saw Him after the resurrection; this idea is not reasonable, as people don’t just hallucinate together as if they all experienced the same dream. The impersonation theory puts forth the idea that the appearances to the disciples weren’t actually Jesus but someone impersonating Him; this falls flat when it would be near impossible for the disciples to be convinced by an impostor, as they traveled and lived with Jesus for a long time. One of the last theories the author puts forth is the spiritual resurrection(non-bodily resurrection); this is refuted by the point that Jesus was touched, handled, and He even ate with His disciples. The final theory is the theft theory in which the disciples are claimed to have stolen the body; the author refutes this with the idea that it would be near impossible to get the body, as there would be a heavy stone and Roman guards in the way. So the author concludes after tearing down these unstable theories that the best explanation and only left explanation is that Christ rose from the dead.

The author suggest that the resurrection is the only logical explanation stating,”None of these natural theories adequately deals with the evidence of the known facts that surrounded the resurrection of our Lord”(Keathly). In other words, Keathly makes an argument of the established facts of the case and comes to the best interpretation. But what if the facts themeselves are not supported as many skeptics might argue? In this case, Keathly would’ve made a great argument, but his foundation for those arguments would come crumbling down. But the truth is that the facts are true. As I covered in my last blog, the empty tomb, the appearances to the disciples and the establishment of  the Christian church are all agreed by a historical consensus. Denying the historicity of this events would be like denying the Holocaust happened, so you must take them as fact and put them together to see what you get.

So why does debunking alternative theories matter in the grand scheme of things? It matters because the alternative theories could lead people astray from the truth. Some people don’t accept Christ not because historical basis, but because of a spiritual basis. If they accept that Jesus rose, that means they got to repent and turn to Jesus. A lot of people don’t want to do that, so they accept these false theories to act as a buffer to the truth. They deny the facts just as the apostle Paul said in his letter to the Romans,”Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools”(Rom 1:22). So in the end it is important to tear down these false truths, so that no one may cling to them in denial of the truth in the hope that they may be saved.

Source:

There are many objections to Christianity as a whole. Critics often attack Noah’s flood, challenge the account in Exodus, and point to supposed contradictions in the Bible. But all of these are nearly not as foundational as the resurrection of Christ. If the resurrection of Christ didn’t happen, then the whole thing comes tumbling down. So this week, I looked at the online article,” Historical Evidence for the Resurrection”, by Matt Perman to find out the truth, and I can say Christianity has a strong base to stand on.

The article makes its case for the resurrection by offering three strong historical facts and offering the best and, so far, the only logical explanation to these facts. It puts forth the fact that women discovered the tomb of Jesus empty, the fact that multiple disciples of Jesus claimed they saw the risen Christ, and the fact that the Christian church was able to grow because of the preaching of the resurrection.

Matt gives several reasons for why historians think the tomb was empty, but I’m only going to list a few. One of the strongest reasons for coming to the hypothesis of the empty tomb is the fact that the resurrection was preached in Jerusalem where Christ was buried. If the tomb was in fact not empty, than people would dispel the “myth” that Christ rose, because of the dead body. Another reason for the empty tomb would be the fact that it was discovered by women. The author clears this up by saying that in 1st century Jewish culture, the testimony of women was deemed worthless, so he wonders why the Bible would make up the testimonies unless they really occurred. A final point that the tomb was empty was that even a hostile Jewish source, Toledoth Jesu, acknowledged that the tomb was empty, so it is reasonably clear to see that the tomb was empty.

The second evidence that the author uses to build his case is that there were multiple appearances of Jesus to the disciples after his death and crucifixion. He brings up the possibility that maybe these disciples could’ve lied about their experiences about seeing the risen Christ. But he refutes that argument with the fact that the majority of these disciples were martyred for their belief in Christ, so why would they die for a lie that they knew was a lie. So they didn’t intentionally lie about it. Is it possible that they all hallucinated though? No. The fact that they record physical occurrences such as Jesus eating and drinking with them, and the fact that hallucinations occur on an individual basis puts the nail in the coffin on this theory. So the only logical explanation left is that Jesus appeared to His disciples after He rose from the dead.

The final evidence Matt uses for the resurrection is the fact of the origin of the Christian faith. He claims that the faith didn’t have any other influence of belief of the resurrection, but by the resurrection of Christ itself.  No Christian influences were present to put forth the idea of resurrection, because Christianity was a result of the resurrection. There probably weren’t pagan influences in the idea of the resurrection as pagan religions had little influence in 1st century Palestine. And also, pagan stories that have parallels with the resurrection of Christ came after the 1st century, so it is reasonable to assume Christianity had no pagan influence. So did the resurrection have any Jewish influence? No. The Jews of the time didn’t think that one person, in the middle of history, would get resurrected. On the contrary, they believed that at the end of time everyone would be raised. Because of this, one of the best explanations for the belief in the resurrection is the occurrence of the resurrection itself.

After reading this article, I can say that these evidences are true and that they lead to an unparalleled explanation that is the resurrection. Stepping out of the article for a bit, the majority of historians do agree that these events are historical: the empty tomb, the appearances of Jesus to His disciples, the origin of the Christian faith. Where there is a slight skirmish is what all these evidences mean. I don’t deny that there are other explanations for these evidences that don’t include the resurrection, but what I would say is that they all fall short of all the provided evidences and at times lack logical sense. These explanations include the swoon theory, the twin theory, the mass hallucination theory and a few others. I won’t go into these now( perhaps I will save these for another blog), but I will say the resurrection is in fact the only logical explanation. So what does this mean?

Jesus is who He says He is. It isn’t normal for a man to be resurrected from the dead. Even more is the fact that Jesus said He would rise on the 3rd day, showing He knew what was going to happen. This type of foreknowledge is not common to man, but to God. These powers that Jesus held show that because He said He was God, means He was God. Being God, He has all power and authority. He created the world, He created humans, and He is going to judge the world in righteousness. The Bible says that we all have sinned and broken God’s law. This fact means that all of us at one point were hellbound sinners. The only way to not be a hellbound sinner is to repent of your sins and turn to Jesus Christ. When Jesus died on the cross, He took the punishment for us and for our sin, so that whoever believes in Him shall be saved. But this belief isn’t just intellectual belief, but a type of trust that you would put your life on the line for. Because of His crucifixion and because of His resurrection, there is hope. The resurrection is more than a historical event; it gives us hope that, one day, we too might be resurrected into life after death.

Source:

Perman, Matt. “Historical Evidence for the Resurrection.” Desiring God, 12 Sept. 2007, http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection.

 

 

One of the most important questions that one could possibly fathom is whether or not there is a God. Most people would say they believe in some sort of god or deity, but there are at least a growing few who claim that there isn’t a God, that he is just an idea man created. Well after reading the online article “Is there a God”, by Marilyn Adamson, I can say there is good reason to believe in not only a God, but to ultimately come to the conclusion that the God of the Bible is the true God.

To put the article in a nutshell, there are 6 reasons that suggest the existence of God.

The first suggestion of His presence is with the concept of intelligent design. Intelligent design is the idea that the intricate details of the universe point to a deliberate Designer. In other words, certain things in the universe seem to be just right. The author points to examples such as the perfect distance between the Earth and the sun, the perfect size of the Earth and the complexity of the eye which allows us to see seven million colors.

The second reason to suggest the existence of God is that fact that the universe had a beginning. In the beginning space, time and matter were all created. This would imply that whatever caused the beginning would not require space, time nor matter to exist  possibly implying a God.

The third idea is that the laws of nature remain uniform. The author points to constant laws such as the law of gravity and the speed of light. She even quotes Richard Feynman to establish her point,”The fact that there are rules at all is kind of a miracle”.

The fourth reason that she points out is the complexity of our DNA code. DNA code is not just something that pops out of nowhere; precise information like DNA would suggest a Designer.

A fifth suggestion of the presence of God is the effect He has on nonbelievers and atheists. The author proposes the question of why some atheists fight so hard against a being in which they think doesn’t exist. Perhaps they fight so hard because they know deep down there is a possibility that He exists, and they would want to decrease that possibility in their own minds.

The final argument isn’t really an argument for a God, but the God of the Bible. She discusses how Jesus Christ is one of the only prophets and teachers that claimed to be God, and He was claimed to do miracles in the healing of others and even rise from the dead.

She uses these 6 basic arguments to establish a God and later the God of the Bible. So what do I think?

Putting my input on the first argument, intelligent design, I think it is a great evidence for the existence of a Creator of the universe. I don’t think it is absolute proof for a God though, because there remains the possibility of everything happening by random chance. But the possibility of this happening is astronomically low due to all the factors that come into play when creating a habitable space for life. So while it isn’t absolute proof for a God, I think that it is a bigger jump to think that the whole universe just happened by random chance than by a Creator.

The second argument, personally, is one of the most compelling arguments that one could make for the existence of God. In the universe, it is observed that every effect has a cause, so it can be reasonably be thought that there was a cause for the beginning of the universe. We know that in the beginning space, time and matter came into existence all at once, which would imply that whatever caused the universe to form would have to be outside of space, time and matter. In other words, whatever caused the universe to exist must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial. I think this logic greatly points to a God.

My thoughts on the third argument are that I agree with the author. In an atheistic worldview, there isn’t a reason for why the laws of nature stay the same, so the laws at any point could change in their worldview. In specifically the Christian worldview God has fixed the order of the universe as written in Jeremiah 33:25, so in our worldview we should expect the laws to stay the same.

The fourth argument that the complexity of DNA requires a Designer is a strong argument. DNA is information that produces a product. Information can’t come from simply nothing; it requires intelligence. If you were to find a watch in the field, you wouldn’t assume it just appeared there, you would rightly assume it had a designer. The same is the case with the creation of the universe and should rightly suggest a Designer.

I do agree with the author when it comes to the idea that God does have a presence even among unbelievers and atheists. I think as His presence among them increases, either their rejection of Him will become more militant, or their acceptance of him will occur. If God didn’t exist, then why would some atheists have such passion against Him sometimes?

And finally, I agree with the last argument that points specifically towards the God of the Bible. Jesus is one of the most recognized figures in history that claimed to be God. He did this through showing the fulfillment of prophecies and through the various miracles He was claimed to do. There is no other religious figure like Jesus; Muhammad never claimed to be God, nor did Buddha, nor did Joseph Smith. So I agree with the author that having already established a good argument for the existence of God, I think Jesus is the manifestation of the true God in the flesh.

To wrap things up, I think there is good reason for the belief in a God. Although not having covered specifically the arguments for the Christian God in depth, I also think there is good reason for a belief in Him. In the end, this question of whether God exist or not is one of the most important questions to seek the answer for. So I hope you search, as there are eternal consequences.

Source:

Adamson, Marilyn. “Is There a God?” EveryStudent.com, http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html.

What is apologetics? Is it something that one should even care about? After doing some studies on the subject, I can say that apologetics can be just as important as theology itself. Upon reading the article “What is Apologetics” on Bible.org, I was able to find out the meaning of it, the history of it, and the importance of it.

Apologetics comes from the Greek apologia. Apologia literally means “speak away”, refering to the speaking away of an accusation. In plain old English, it means to provide  a defense, specifically of the Christian faith through reason and evidence.

Christian apologetics had its start in tandem with the Christian faith in the first century. The word apologia was written 17 times in the New Testament, and the word is most memorable in 1st Peter 3:15,”always be prepared to make a defense(apologia) to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you”. Although there were such notable early apologists such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian and others, apologetics didn’t become a specific field of theology until 1794. Throughout its history, it has always served a timeless purpose of answering the critiques though.

The purpose of apologetics can be summarized into 4 categories: defend,provide proof, refute and evangelize. Defending the faith would be like answering objections or answering “supposed” contradictions in the Bible. Providing proof would be like finding Noah’s Ark on the mountains of Ararat. Refuting would consist of attacking other worldviews such as Islam or Atheism and saying why they couldn’t stand. Finally, evangelizing is the most important aspect of apologetics. For as the other 3 categories are purely intellectual, this purpose is more spiritually oriented. Evangelizing is when after someone receives the intellectual truths, are offered to come to Christ and follow Him. This is the ultimate purpose of apologetics: to bring people to Christ.

Looking at apologetics, I can say its extremely important in bringing people to Christ. People do really have legitimate questions and objections to scripture. How can the Bible be true if scientist affirm evolution? How can the Bible be the Word of God if it CLEARLY contains contradictions? How do we know that we have the right books in the Bible anyway? All of these questions can come from a place of true questioning. Apologetics strives to solve these problems and answer them so that one may find the truth.

Now some might think that one won’t always need apologetics to give someone the gospel truth. That may be the case. But a lot of people find it hard to believe what they believe if they don’t know why they believe. This can make apologetics( the “Why” you believe) just as important as theology(the “What” you believe).

In the end, sometimes apologetics won’t fix a thing. The sad reality is that some people, regardless of the truth to matters, will reject Christianity anyways. They will reject the intellectual side to the issue, because spiritually they have already rejected the issue. Sometimes, people just put on the mask of intellectualism when they go against the Bible, but what is really underneath are deep spiritual issues. It is important to realize this, because sometimes we got to realize that we have no effect over another’s will, nor can we always have an effect to make them change their will. That ability to make someone change their own will belongs to no man, but God alone.

So ultimately, apologetics is important to establish certain beliefs, but it is what we do with those beliefs that really matter.

Sources:

“2. What Is Apologetics?” Bible.org, 20 Feb. 2006, bible.org/seriespage/2-what-apologetics.

 

 

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton