Recent Radio Archives for Jim on STR and on WORD FM

Greg Koukl and Melinda Penner from Stand to Reason invited Jim to host the Stand to Reason Radio Show. He interviewed James Emery White, discussing his new book Christ Among the Dragons: Finding Our Way through Cultural Challenges and talking about Christian "Case Making", the Non-Canonical Gospels, how we can develop a robust College ministry and how we can communicate the Christian worldview to a non-believing world.

Some of the caller questions were: How would you start developing an apologetics curriculum for college students? The whole New Testament is a fraud? What should the Christian reaction be to Glenn Beck's (a Mormon) calling for spiritual renewal? We don't have the original manuscripts of the New Testament so we can't know if it's accurate? Mark 16 is about people who are snakes? How do we communicate the Christian worldview to unbelievers? Am I a Christian?

Listen here to the broadcast.

John Hall and Kathy Emmons from WORD FM 101.5 interviewed Jim on the John and Kathy Show about the recent advertising from the Mormon Church and the Glenn Beck "Restoring Honor" rally. Are the differences between Mormonism and Christianity significant? Should we join forces and work together for the common good?

Listen to the interview here.

Kathy and Sam from WORD FM 101.5 also interviewed Jim earlier in the month on the John and Kathy Show about the Non-Canonical Gospels. Should we consider them to be reliable sources of information about Jesus? Is the New Testament a reliable eyewitness account?

Listen to the interview here.

Recent Radio Archives for Jim on STR and on WORD FM

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 167

What Do the Non-Canonical Gospels Say About Jesus? (Part 2)

In this podcast, Jim continues his examination of the ancient non-canonical writings to see what they say about Jesus.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 167

Why Grading on the Curve Doesn't Work

Most people today seem to think they are doing “good enough” when it comes to pleasing God. In fact, they often seem confident that He will have no difficulty in seeing their “goodness” and welcoming them into heaven. As a result, they don't spend much time thinking about God, or about ultimate things, and they never really get to know Him in any meaningful way. In my last post, I suggested that such people seem to think that God is grading them on a curve. They really don’t need to worry much about the next life, they think, because God just doesn't expect that much of them. But how sound a conclusion is that?

Grading on a curve usually means that the teacher is taking into consideration the difficulty of the subject matter and adjusting downward the grading scale. If most of the class gets a 60 on the test, and if the test is particularly difficult, then what would otherwise be an F might in fact become an A. This downward adjustment in grading seems to be increasingly common these days; it's called grade inflation. We see something similar in children's sports, where it is increasingly common for kids to receive trophies simply for showing up; where games that can only be won or lost by totaling up the points earned are no longer being scored; where, in short, kids are given the impression that holding themselves to a standard of excellence is not necessary. This readjustment of what constitutes a "good" outcome often makes intuitive sense to people. After all, they reason, we are not perfect, so why should we expect ourselves to live up to perfect expectations?

But grade inflation doesn't apply to every field, and a moment's reflection should make us thankful that it does not. The Navy runs a nuclear power school for its next generation of officers who will handle one of the most dangerous activities known to man. If a particular class just isn't up to snuff, flunking them and starting fresh with a new class makes perfect sense. Similarly, would anyone want to fly with a pilot, or be operated upon by a surgeon, who really didn't master the subject matter but got an A anyway? In these areas, even if no one in the class can perform up to what is required, wouldn't common sense still dictate that grading on a curve would be a very bad idea?

So what kind of class is this thing we call human life, what test will we be taking, and what exactly does the "teacher" expect of us? The "bad news" of Christianity, of course, is that a perfect God has some pretty high standards. Far from lowering His expectations, we are told that though many are invited, few are chosen. In short, God is not grading on a curve, but is instead expecting - no, requiring - us to have a perfect score. That's why standing before God trying to impress him with our accomplishments is such a bad idea. That's why, by contrast, finding out what God actually expects from us is a much smarter approach.

In the end, the good news is that God's perfect fairness provided us a solution. In the end, it is not at all our performance that matters. Thankfully, God the Son has already taken and passed the test with a perfect score. It is simply for us to place our trust in Him.

Why Grading on the Curve Doesn't Work

When Is Good Good Enough?

Your son walks in, test paper in hand. You glance over and wince, seeing the big “60” in red ink at the top.

“Don’t worry,” he says, “I did good on this test.”

You ignore the faulty grammar. One problem at a time, you think, mulling over in your mind just how long you will ground him.

“No, really,” he persists, “you should have seen the other scores. Mine was really good!”

“Good,” you think out loud, “how can you call a sixty good?”

“Check it out,” he calls out over his shoulder as he walks away, “you’ll see.”

He's seems confident and he may have a point, so you call the teacher. After all, without knowing more about the class and the test, how can you really know?

After the call, you head to the family room, where you find your son on the couch, legs propped up while he’s staring at the tube.

“I’ve got good news and bad news,” you begin. “The good news is that you did, indeed, get the highest score in the class. Congratulations. The bad news is that you all flunked!”

What does this little parent’s nightmare have to do with apologetics? Well, the young man in this story bears a pretty strong resemblance to many of the secularists you will encounter today. They have a pretty strong intuitive notion that they’re doing pretty “good” on this little test called life, so if there is a God – and they’re not granting there is – well, they’re just not that worried about it. After all, they think, they’re not doing anything really bad, like killing people or stealing, and more importantly, they're just like the rest of the "class" - all of their role models, their friends, their acquaintances.

If you are trying to present the Good News to such a person, you might find him a bit less than interested in hearing what you have to say. Even if you are presenting an intellectually solid case, you may not get much traction. After all, you are in essence offering to tutor him when he thinks he’s already getting an A. He doesn’t need your answers, your solution to the problem, until he first begins to realize that he may well be flunking the class. This analogy, and others like it, can be a pretty good starting point to get the modern-day secularist thinking about what he may not have thought about before: just where did he get this notion that he would be graded on a curve?

In my next post, I’ll try to flesh out in a bit more detail how you might go about doing that.

When Is Good Good Enough?

The Poor and Social Justice

Kevin DeYoung does a great job of looking at 7 passages commonly cited by Christians to promote the "social gospel". My frustration has been that this "social gospel" can often manifest itself as service to the poor and needy minus any true gospel. This is what many young Christians are being fed as the reality of Christianity. In this series of blogs that uses sound biblical exegesis, De Young looks carefully at Isaiah 1; Isaiah 58; Jeremiah 22; Matthew 25:31-46; Amos 5; Micah 6:8 and Luke 4:16-21. DeYoung has these final thoughts,

(1) ...the alleviation of poverty is simply not the main storyline of Scripture. Some Christians talk like the Bible is almost entirely about the poor, as if the story from Genesis to Revelation is largely the story of God taking the side of the poor in an effort to raise the minimum wage and provide universal health care. As we tried to show earlier, the biblical narrative is chiefly concerned with how a holy God can dwell with an unholy people. Granted, one aspect of living a holy life is treating the poor with compassion and pursuing justice, but this hardly makes poverty the central theme in the Bible. If our story does not center on Jesus Christ, and the story of Jesus Christ does not center on his death and resurrection for sin, we have gotten the story all out of whack.

(2) Likewise, we must remember that the “poor” in Scripture are usually the pious poor. They are the righteous poor, the people of God oppressed by their enemies yet still depending on him to come through on their behalf (see for example Psalm 10; 69; 72; 82). This does not mean “the poor” should be evacuated of any economic component. After all the pious poor are very often the materially poor. But it does mean that the poor God favors are not the slothful poor (Prov. 6:6-11; 2 Thess 3:6-12), nor the disobedient poor (Prov. 30:9), but the humble poor who wait on God (Matthew 5:3; 6:33).

(3) We should note that almost all the references to caring for the poor in the Bible are references to the poor within the covenant community. The “least of these” in Matthew 25 are our brothers in Christ, most likely traveling missionaries in need of hospitality. Paul was eager to help the poor, but his concern was for the impoverished church in Jerusalem. It is simply not accurate to say, in the words of one popular book, “The Bible is clear from the Old Testament through the New that God’s people always had a responsibility to see that everyone in their society was cared for at a basic-needs level.” You can make a good case that the church has a responsibility to see that everyone in their local church community is cared for, but you cannot make a very good case that the church must be the social custodian for everyone in their society. Christians are enjoined to do good to all people, but the priority is “especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10).

(4) Justice, as a biblical category, is not synonymous with anything and everything we feel would be good for the world. We are often told that creation care is a justice issue, the gap between rich and poor is a justice issue, advocating for a “living wage” is a justice issue. But the examination of the main social justice texts has shown that justice is a much more prosaic category in the Bible. Doing justice means following the rule of law, showing impartiality, not stealing, not swindling, not taking advantage of the weak because they are too uninformed or unconnected to stop you. I dare say that most Christians in America are not guilty of these sorts of injustices, nor should they be made to feel that they are. We are not interested in people feeling bad just to feel bad, or worse, people thinking there is moral high ground in professing most loudly how bad they feel about themselves. If we are guilty of sin, let us repent, receive forgiveness, and change. When Christians are guilty of injustice they should be rebuked and admonished in the strongest terms. But when it comes to doing good in our communities and in the world, let’s not turn every possibility into a responsibility and every opportunity into an ought. If we want to see our brother and sisters do more for the poor, we’ll go farther and be on safer ground if we use grace as our motivating principle instead of guilt.

As we serve and give out of our thankfulness to God for His grace, I want to be wise in how we respond and read God's word being careful not to inject our meaning, even if it is out of love.

The Poor and Social Justice

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 166

What Do the Non-Canonical Gospels Say About Jesus? (Part 1)

In this podcast, Jim begins to examine the ancient non-canonical writings to see what they say about Jesus. Are these documents alternate eyewitness accounts? Do they express the truth about Jesus, lost over the centuries? Are there any good reasons for us to trust what they have to say, and do they agree with the New Testament documents in any way?

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 166

Infinite Punishment for a Finite Crime?

Trying to explain how a good God created Hell can be a challenge for the Christian apologist. In my last post, I considered the distinction between torture – which implies intentional infliction of punishment for the pleasure of doing so – and torment which is a byproduct of the God’s legitimate end of separating Himself from those who have rejected Him. A related challenge often encountered when discussing the doctrine of Hell is the seeming unfairness in endless punishment for what appear to be brief – in some cases extremely brief – temporal actions.

PleaseConvinceMe.com contains a thought-provoking treatment of this question. You can see the article here. The article reminds us of the fact that the amount of time a crime takes to commit bears very little relationship to the length of punishment it merits. After all, a person’s life can be snuffed out in the wink of an eye, an act which rightly merits a sentence of death or life in prison without the possibility of parole. But, on further reflection, perhaps the case is even stronger; perhaps it is too generous to view the crime as simply the operative act, and not view it from the perspective of the injured party.

Consider for a moment two men each firing a single shot at his intended victim. The first uses a high powered handgun; the second, a plastic air pistol. Each involves a similar action and takes no more than a few seconds. But the one act, in that instant, stops a vibrant, beating heart, while the other only momentarily stings. We punish these similar acts differently because the harm of murder has nothing to do with the time it took to commit, but everything to do with the harm inflicted. The murder victim remains dead, after all, despite the fact that a moment earlier, he had every right to live until the point of his natural death, which may have been decades away. The sting of the pellet, on the other hand, causes no lasting harm and is soon forgotten. In a sense, every day of living, of planning, of enjoying the company of loved ones, that was ripped from the deceased amounts to a re-infliction of the harm. Moreover, the agony that is inflicted upon the victim’s family and friends will also last for decades. So, while from the killer’s perspective, the criminal conduct for which he suffers punishment may seem quite limited, it is anything but limited when viewed from the victim’s or the victim’s family’s perspective.

How does this apply to God, and to the question of eternal punishment? God of course cannot be victimized. But each of our sins, each of our criminal offenses if you will, is against Him. Since God is not limited by time, perceiving every moment in an endless eternal present, then each of our offenses against Him is therefore eternally present to Him. By that measure, eternal separation from Him – eternal punishment – starts to make a bit more sense.

Thank God, then, that the eternal Son stands in the gap for us, with the power, and the love and the eternal will to receive the punishment we so rightly deserve.

Infinite Punishment for a Finite Crime?

Who Needs a Man, Anyway?

Once again, Hollywood raises the topic of parenting and family with a flurry of controversy. Actress Jennifer Aniston is promoting her new movie, “The Switch,” in which she plays a single woman who chooses artificial insemination. In an interview, Aniston suggests woman do not need to wait for a man to have children. And an increasing number of women agree.

Certainly women can have children without a man, through adoption or artificial insemination. But the more important question is, should they? Should women purposely parent a child knowing the child will never have a father? Of course there are millions of single mothers out there. I was one. And like me many, if not most, did not plan to raise their children alone but circumstances dictated otherwise. I am not talking about those single moms. I am talking about women like Aniston who suggest they don’t need to “fiddle with a man to have a child.”

Before answering the question of should they, I think we must ask what is in the best interest of the child? When a woman decides she is going to go through artificial insemination because she is tired of waiting for the “perfect man” to come along, is she motivated by self-interest or is she thinking about the child’s needs above her own? Certainly we know the importance of a father in a child’s life. These stats make it clear:

- Facts on Fatherless Kids
- Fatherless Children

So why would we knowingly put a child in a situation that will, from the start, create greater challenges and difficulties? It seems to be a decision that is made with woman’s own desire to be a mom—which is certainly a good and noble desire, as far as it goes—above the child’s best interest. Aniston's comments shift the emphasis from child's well-being to the woman's interest and abilities.

I realize there are certain cases where women have heroically saved children from horrible situations through adoption. These cases are unique. But notice, the child’s well-being is the primary concern. These women should be commended. However, we cannot forget these children also need the unique relationship that only males can provide and these women should make all attempts to provide it. Sometimes a dad is just not possible but other males, like an uncle, grandfather or a close friend, can step in.

Aniston’s comments are damaging because they promote the idea that fathers are optional. The absence of fathers in the home has had a devastating affect on society. When Hollywood celebrities casually talk about bringing children into the world without having “to fiddle with a man to have that child,” it erodes our view of men and the vital role they play in the lives of children.

God created the family with mothers and fathers as the ideal. When we decide to change the rules, the effects are devastating.

Who Needs a Man, Anyway?

Toddler Murders Provoke Pro-Life Insight

Once again another shocking crime involving the murder of two toddlers at the hands of their own mother has occurred. Each time one of these horrific deeds happens I find myself intrigued by the public’s outrage as to how a mother could do such a thing to her own children. The reason it intrigues me is because I see a real cognitive dissonance between society’s disapproval of a mother’s right to choose death for her toddler but general approval of her right to choose death for a child in the womb. Is it possible those people who hold these two positions know of some significant differences that would qualify a toddler as a human being worthy of life but disqualify an unborn child of enjoying that same distinction?

For an answer to this question lets turn to Philosopher and Bio-Ethicist Scott Klusendorf of Life Training Institute to shed some light on the issue,

“The unborn differs from the newborn in four ways, none of which are relevant to its status as a human being. Those four ways are size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. The acronym SLED is a helpful reminder of those differences:

Size: the unborn are smaller than newborns, but since when has size had anything to do with the rights that people have? Men are generally larger than women, does that mean they deserve more rights? Is Shaquel O'Neal more of a person than feminist Gloria Steinem simply because he is larger? Clearly size isn't the issue.

Level of development: True, the unborn are less developed than newborns, but this too is morally irrelevant. A newborn for that matter is less developed than a toddler. A toddler is less developed than an adolescent. An adolescent is less developed than an adult. But we speak of all as equally human. Is a child of four, for example, less of a person because she has not yet developed sexually? It follows, then, that the ability to perform human functions is not a necessary condition for human personhood. Rather, a person is one with the natural, inherent capacity to give rise to personal acts--even if she lacks the current ability to perform those acts. People who are unconscious do not have the present capacity to perform personal acts. We don't kill them because of it. Nor should we kill the unborn.

Environment: True, the unborn is located in a different place, but how does a change in location suddenly change a non-human entity into a human one? Did you stop being human when you walked from your house to the car? From the kitchen to the den? Clearly, where one is has no bearing on who one is. A child in the incubator of her mother's womb is no less a child then the one being sustained by neonatal technology. Ladies and gentlemen, you don't stop being human simply because you have a different address.

Degree of dependency: If viability is what makes one human, then all those dependent on kidney machines, heart pace-makers and insulin would have to be declared non-persons. There is no ethical difference between an unborn child who is plugged into and dependent upon its mother and a kidney patient who is plugged into and dependent upon a kidney machine. Siamese twins do not forfeit their right to live simply because they depend on each other’s circulatory systems.

We can see, then, that the unborn child differs from a newborn one in only four ways--size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency-- and none of those differences are good reasons for disqualifying it as fully human.”

Those of us who are pro-life would do well by learning how to defend the humanity of the unborn using the "SLED" argument offered by Klusendorf. If we employ solid reasoning such as this we may be able to persuade people to take their legitimate moral concern for the life of a toddler and understand why they should have the same concern for the life of the unborn as well.

For further instruction and persuasive pro-life training please visit Life Training Institutes website.

Toddler Murders Provoke Pro-Life Insight

LDS Church to Censor Christians by Buying Manti Road

The bus doors open, and out stream dozens of matching-tee-shirt-wearing LDS pageant-goers. They quickly traverse the short distance to become part of a bulky and growing line at temple lawn gates. A little wait, and they'll be able to pick the best seats, and save them for later when the Mormon Miracle Pageant begins. But for now, they happily chat and enjoy the ambiance on the road directly east of the temple grounds.

Next to this line of temple visitors another, much smaller, group is beginning to form. These folks are holding Bibles, and they are here to try to engage loitering Mormons in conversations about the LDS religion and the Bible. They hope to be able to find people who will hear the gospel of Christ, and accept Him as the Lord and Savior of their lives.

The public road on which they are all standing (which hereafter I'll call "100-East" for brevity) has served for the last 20 years as a place where evangelicals and Mormons can meet, in the relaxed, summer-evening atmosphere, and exercise their constitutional rights to free speech, and freedom of religion.

But now, as in the cases of the Stafford Road in Palymra, NY, and a portion of Main Street in Salt Lake City, UT, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is stepping in to cut off this interaction by purchasing and privatizing 100-East. In recent years, the LDS church authorities have tried to silence Christian evangelists by posting signs that state “NO PROSELYTING OR EVANGELIZING ALLOWED – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” as well as a rescinded attempt to both identify and restrict evangelists from using the restrooms nearest the pageant. Although local Christian pastors and leaders have worked with the LDS church, meeting with them and even complying with some of their wishes, the LDS church seems set on responding to the questions and sincere interest by the Christian evangelists by buying up land and pushing them away.

A few years ago, county government proposed that a convention center and fairgrounds be built near the Manti temple. A traffic-impact study was done, and based on that study, UDOT (the Utah Dept. of Transportation) concluded that traffic moving north off of 100-East would present a problem for that kind of new development. The city closed 100-East to vehicles (but not pedestrians) at the north end. Oddly, it seems that there has been a reversal on those plans, and neither a convention center nor fairgrounds is being built, but still the road remains closed. (Also, the question is begged, where was the project money coming from)?

Local ranchers have been using 100-East for as long as Manti has been a city; it is an important part of their most natural and least problematic cattle-moving route. The north-end closure structure does not hinder the ranchers currently, but they ARE discouraged to know that the church will not allow any further such use of 100-East once they own it. The LDS church has already bought up the property on the other side of the street from the temple, and after ripping up the pavement at 100-South, will be able to further expand and beautify the temple grounds.

The ACLU has gotten involved because of the constitutional issues. This legal body may not succeed, however, because although it hopes to defend a small rural town from a corporate religious giant, the Manti City Government is itself composed of members of the LDS church. Also, because the Church financed Salt Lake City's legal battle with the ACLU, it is reasonable to expect the Manti community to receive similar financial incentive/aid.

If the LDS church purchases 100-East, Christians can expect to be forced to leave (or worse) for attempting to engage Mormons in any fashion (also see here).

There may be things that can be done to prevent the Mormon Church from buying the Manti road; there may be things that can be done to ensure that they will not kick Christian evangelicals off of it. This blogger doesn't deem it likely - but perhaps getting the word out to more people will do some good. In the meantime, we will continue to pray knowing that God is in control.

LDS Church to Censor Christians by Buying Manti Road

Torture, or Torment? Is there a Difference?

On a recent Stand to Reason podcast, a caller challenged Greg Koukl as to the nature of hell, arguing that a loving God could not engage in eternal torture. Greg rightly drew the distinction between torture, which implies a certain motive or sick pleasure on the part of the doer, and torment, which does not. Drawing on the symbol of fire, the caller pressed the point, asking how causing someone to burn eternally and to experience the pain and agony of burning could not be characterized as torture.

This is a good question, and a very difficult challenge for the Christian apologist to meet. After all, Jesus used similar imagery, when He compared Hell to the perpetual fires in the garbage dump outside Jerusalem, in the place called Gehenna.

The response to this challenge requires us to tease out the assumption that the question contains. By asserting that God “causes” someone to burn eternally and that God “inflicts agony,” the question compels the answer that yes, this would be torture. The real issue, though, is whether God does those things to the souls in Hell, or whether those lost souls experience an everlasting torment that is a consequence – and not a separate goal - of the fact that they are in Hell.

In the Civil War, doctors treated most bullet wounds to an arm or leg by amputating the limb, no doubt an excruciating experience in the days before anesthetics. But these actions were done not to torture the patient but to accomplish some good purpose – namely, to save him. The patient no doubt felt tormented, but this was a natural consequence of the necessary action that was taken; it would not be fair to say the doctor had engaged in torture. On the other hand, if one side had taken perfectly healthy prisoners of war and amputated a limb to inflict pain, either to coerce cooperation or as a method of terror, this would indeed be torture. Similarly, if a modern surgeon decided to amputate without anesthetics, it would be fair to characterize such actions as torture.

Christians believe that God is all good and that whatever he creates must also be good. Hell is a place of separation He has created for those deserving of such separation. Hell must be good and must serve a good purpose. But if Hell is a place in which God actively inflicts agony simply to terrorize or for some other evil purpose, then Hell cannot be a good place, and God cannot be good. Alternatively, if God could accomplish His legitimate purpose of separating wrongdoers from Him without inflicting the level of torment that exists in Hell, then, once again, it would seem evil to inflict such agony.

How, then, does orthodox Christianity makes sense of this place called Hell?

I submit that the answer lies in understanding that the torment spoken of is the natural consequence of the legitimate end God accomplishes with Hell, and not a separate, sadistic purpose to inflict agony. What is that end? Separation from Him. And what is He? Perfection. Absolute, unlimited, infinite perfection, the kind that we as human beings cannot even begin to fathom. Remember your first love? Or the way you felt when you beheld your first child? Or reuniting with your spouse after a period apart? Conversely, can you recall the first time you were homesick, or the first time you experienced the death of a loved one? Now magnify these feelings – not by a hundred, a thousand, or even a billion, but by infinity, and by eternity. Start to get the picture? If the “goodness” of the people we love can cause us such torment when we are separated from them, and if that goodness is a mere shadow of the infinite perfection of God, then I shudder to imagine what knowing but not be able to experience the infinite beauty and pefection of God would be like.

The Lake of Fire is but a candle to such torment.

Torture, or Torment? Is there a Difference?

First Things First

Our culture has a serious problem with truth. It denies that it exists and reflexively condemns those who claim to know it. The postmodern belief that we are all trapped within our own individual perceptions with no ability to know or access reality has filtered down from the academy and taken its root in various forms with the common man on the street. This idea plays itself out in everyday conversation with such statements as, "It's arrogant to think you know the truth", "That's just your opinion", "Who are you to say?", and the self-defeating Grandfather of them all, "There is no truth."

The notion that truth is individual and relative has replaced the belief that anyone can actually posses real knowledge. This idea is supported and taught implicitly everyday in the vast majority of high schools, colleges and through various forms of media whether in movies, television shows, news programs or popular music. It has literally become the very air that we breathe. It's as if our society has been intellectually swept away in a swirling tornado of absolute subjectivism.

Facing down the barrel of this formidable assault on knowledge, how can those of us who believe in absolute truth ever hope to combat and persuade those who've ingested and become infected by the postmodern Kool-aid? Fortunately for us there's a philosophical field of study known as epistemology that addresses and answers this question. Epistemology is simply a fancy sounding word that stands for how we know what we know. It examines the very first principles that all knowledge rests upon; namely logic, truth, and justification. By studying these first things first you can easily become equipped to point out the fatal flaws that disqualify relativism as a legitimate position and provide positive evidence that objective truth is actually knowable. And it's upon this foundation that the case for Christianity is made substantially more solid.

A good place to start your study of epistemology is currently being provided for free in a video teaching series by R.C. Sproul at Ligonier.org. This is a great opportunity to learn a vital area of knowledge from a master philosopher and theologian. Take your first steps in learning these first things. Do I hear any seconds?

First Things First

Welcome Brent

Please welcome our newest blogger, Brent. In his own words,

I was introduced to Christianity as a child in a nominal Christian home and attended church minimally and sporadically which made me ignorant of what it really meant to be a Christian or to live out the faith. Lived my life as a practical atheist with an uninformed compartmentalized belief that some type of "God" existed. Went through a painful divorce when I was 26 that caused me to question and take a hard look at life’s point and purpose. Read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis and became convinced that Christianity was verifiably true. Became a follower of Christ with a strong appetite for apologetics. Earned a Certificate of Achievement in Christian Apologetics from Biola University in 2001 and am a Certified Ambassador through Stand to Reason. In my off time I enjoy spending time with my wife and two daughters, lifting weights, reading muscle car magazines and arguing for the truth of the Christian worldview through social networking sites.

I know that Brent will be a great addition to the PleaseConvinceMe Blog and I'm excited to see what he will bring to the discussion.

Welcome Brent

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 165

Questions About the Nature of Jesus

In this podcast, Jim answers listener email related to the nature of Jesus. How are we to understand the relationship between Jesus' humanity and His divinity? If there were times when He failed to use His divine power, does this mean that He lacked the power of God? Also, how do we know that the Gospels we have today are the same as the Gospels written in the 1st century?

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 165

Putting God on Trial

“I can’t believe in a God who would allow so much evil and suffering in the world.” Anyone who has tried his hand at apologetics has surely encountered this challenge. Claiming to be an atheist, this challenger is actually someone who is deeply offended by the world and angry at the God who set all this in motion.

In my last post, I restated the traditional Christian response to this problem of evil. God did not create the evil that surrounds us because evil is not a thing. Evil is a departure from the good, which God did create, and which God defines. This answer serves a particular purpose: it shows that the Christian belief system is internally coherent. For if God did create evil, he could not be the God described in the Bible, because an all-powerful, all-good God could not be the creator of evil.

But, the atheist insists, even if I grant that God did not create evil, He created all that is. Isn’t He, therefore, still responsible for all the evil that we see around us? In other words, if God isn’t guilty of the crime of actually creating evil, is He not still liable as an aider and abettor?

C.S. Lewis wrote about those who put God “in the dock.” As a criminal prosecutor, I found that I would often slip into this kind of thinking too, silently accusing God of not doing things the way He should have, the way I would have. The created order is filled with so much beauty, so much elegance, so much to be admired and to be awed by….yet, we know that something is also very much amiss. Every beautiful thing God has created has been marred in some way. Out of every good springs forth, weed-like, much that is bad, much that is evil. Why has God allowed this?

By satisfying the demands of logic, the traditional explanation of the nature of evil helps to defend the faith – in that sense it is classic apologetics – but notice what it does not attempt to do: it does not seek to defend God, which is in essence what this challenge is asking us to take on.

Putting God on trial … defending God against accusations of wrongdoing … what odd and backward notions these are. With what arrogance would the pot stand before the potter to accuse him of poor workmanship? How would the robot or the computer program rightly complain that the tasks to which they are put are not just? How does any created thing presume to know better than the one who designed it and brought it into being?

What answer, then, can the Christian apologist offer?

I submit that the answer stems from the recognition that we need not defend God. Yes, God is responsible. It is His creation, His universe, His set of rules to which both adhere. For reasons that make sense to Him, He endowed us with free will, knowing that we would use to rebel against Him. And he set in motion a creation in which suffering serves a purpose. Intuitively, we recognize the meaning of "no pain, no gain." We learn that arduous work leads to gain; we see that the cure of the physician or surgeon may at first be quite painful; the agony of labor precedes the birth of a child. The crucifixion of the Savior... well, that brought into effect the greatest gain that anyone can ever know.

At present, we see through darkened and distorted lenses. Free will and suffering. These concepts will never fully make sense to us. It is enough that they make sense to Him.

Putting God on Trial

Thinking About the Problem of Evil

One of the most common challenges to the Christian worldview is the problem of evil. In its common syllogistic form, the challenge can be reduced to: God created all things, evil is a thing, therefore God created evil. This challenge is not new. In the 4th century, St. Augustine tackled it, as did St. Thomas Aquinas centuries later. What we call evil, they explained, is in fact a deprivation of the good and is therefore not really a “thing” at all. Like the hole in a donut, it describes what is not there, what is missing. But this does not always satisfy the challenger. Often, they may counter: an all powerful, all loving God would not have allowed deprivations any more than he would have created evil.

This response seems to accept the difference between a deprivation and a thing, and confronts the believer with the same challenge: a good God would never have allowed such deprivations. But this challenge actually misses the point of the distinction that Augustine and Aquinas drew; through sloppy thinking, it continues to view evil as a thing, even though it adopts the language of deprivation.

Consider: what we see as evil, whether a thought or an act, can only be gauged if we first hold in our minds what the good would be. For example, using a knife to cut someone is evil when done by the assailant but not by the surgeon. Setting off an explosion is evil when used to harm others but not when used to carve out a tunnel. The knife and the cutting; the bomb and the blast – these may be “things’ in a manner of speaking, but any measure of evil in their use depends not on what they are, but on the extent to which their use departed from God’s perfect will.

We know this intuitively. And because some of us are better at knowing God’s will than others, we may mistakenly call something evil when in truth it is not. For example, a law prohibiting abortions would be viewed as “evil” by those who believe that a woman has the right to choose; they would view the act of stopping a woman from aborting her unborn child to be a departure from the “good” of free choice. This of course would be wrong. It would not be evil at all, but instead good, because such a law would comport with, and not defy, God’s will.

Those who reject Augustine’s approach will insist that these are examples of things – namely acts that are being done: stopping the woman by force of law, setting off the explosive, cutting into a person. They will insist that a good God would not have created them. This misunderstands the point: what constitutes evil is not the action or the thing, but the use to which it is put. God, as the infinite expression and definition of good, is by necessity the ultimate standard of what is good. Consequently, what we describe as evil is in reality a rough gauge of the extent to which the thought or act in question departs from God’s nature or will, or at least what we view that nature or will to be.

So, why does God allow evil? Because when he gave us free will, he meant for us to have, well, free will. The opposite of free will would be directed will. Whatever actions we took would be controlled, the way a robot’s or computer’s would be. In such a world, there would be no abortions, no stabbings, no hidden minefields. But such a world would not know freedom. God allows evil, even though he never created it, because if He does not allow us to depart from His perfect will, then free will would be an illusion.

Thinking About the Problem of Evil

Welcome Al

Please welcome our newest blogger, Al. Al developed an interest in apologetics in his late-20's. Raised in a Christian home, he didn't encounter many challenges to his faith until attending law school at UC Berkeley in the 1980's. Unable to explain just why he believed what he thought he believed, he followed the path of many Christian college students. Until, that is, he was introduced to the writings of CS Lewis. Since then, he has pursued his interest in apologetics, in the tradition of "faith seeking understanding." As a criminal prosecutor these past 23 years, Al has found that the search for the truth that is a criminal trial is also a great approach for learning and testing the faith. In his off time, Al is also an avid sailor and has coached softball and baseball for more years than he can remember.

I know that Al will be a great addition to the PleaseConvinceMe Blog and I'm excited to see what he will bring to the discussion.

Welcome Al

A Little Seed, Some Water and Some Sunshine

Have you ever grown a garden?

I tripped out to my vegetable patch this morning, to weed it or water it... and did neither of those things. Harvest season is here; it seems to have happened overnight. In the next couple of weeks, delicious tomatoes will be constantly gracing my table, and, picking, chopping, and bottling will become my main daily activity. But before I get started with all that, I'm going to take this moment to stop and say "WOW!" How awesome is it that the 100 or so seeds I planted in the spring have miraculously become as much fresh food as my family and I (and some friends and neighbors) can stand to eat, plus several dozen quarts of salsa for later?!

That's the way our benevolent God does things.

In Matt 14:17-21, Jesus turned five loaves of bread and two fishes into food for thousands, with leftovers. In Mal 3:10, God demonstrated how He adds blessings to benefits, when He admonished Israel to tithe and just see if they wouldn't reap more blessings than they could handle. In 1 Samuel, God defeated an army with just little David's sling and stone; in Judges, He defeated another with Gideon's small band of trumpeting lamp-holders. He just loves to take our little amount of participation, and make a whole lot out of it.

And when we try to garden...

The apostle Paul said of his ministry efforts, "I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour." (1 Cor 3:6-8)

Paul was right, of course. God created the seeds. Inside them, He put the instructions for making more. He made the soil in which to grow the seeds, the water with which to water them, and the sunshine to grow them. Our job is just to put the seeds in the soil, make sure they get water and light, and weed around them when they're young and vulnerable. God gives the increase. We get the food.

Similarly, God provides the Truth. He designed our hearts, and provides the Spirit, the Living Water (John 4:10, 7:38), and the Light (John 1:4,9) to nourish and grow the truth in our hearts. He weeds when necessary (Rev 3:19), and He produces harvest after bounteous harvest. It's a wonder of His Grace, Love, and Wisdom why He allows us a participatory role, but He does.

It may be you who first shares with an unsaved friend the hope you have in Christ. It may be me who shares with that same person a timely message of grace, and someone else who imparts some godly advice or wisdom. Someone who wasn't even around in the spring or summer seasons may be there at harvest time - to lead the person to the LORD in prayer. But all along, it was God who was giving the increase. It was a work that God was doing. And you and I get to enjoy the blessings from being a part of it.

An evangelical friend of mine says, "If you show up, God will use you." And that is where I want to leave this note. Trust God to do what He has always done. Trust Him to use the little opportunities He gives you to aid in some part of someone's salvation. Go into God's garden. If He gives you a seed, plant it. If He lets you weed around some baby plants, pull the weeds. If He shows you a water supply, water the growing plants. But decide to be a gardener with God. The results will bless and amaze you.

A Little Seed, Some Water and Some Sunshine

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 164

A Podcast for Chris Hitchens

Jim takes a break from his series on the nature and historicity of Jesus to talk directly to Christopher Hitchens following Chris' article in Vanity Fair, "Topic of Cancer". This special edition of the PleaseConvinceMe Podcast responds directly to Hitchens' comments about his own experience battling cancer, and offers the hope and reasonable perspective of the Christian Worldview.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 164

Joseph Smith's Priesthood

LDS History of the Church Vol. 4 (pp 571-81) includes an editorial the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. submitted to the Times and Seasons newspaper. "Try the Spirits" was written in response to "occurrences that [had] transpired amongst" his congregation. In the article, Smith identifies a spiritual problem-- that is, people wrongly believe God is behind every manifestation of power, but in fact the credit is very often due to an evil or deceiving spirit. He writes,

"...there always did... seem to be a lack of intelligence pertaining to this subject. Spirits of all kinds have been manifested, in every age, and almost amongst all people... and all contend their spirits are of God...

...all nations have been deceived, imposed upon and injured through the mischievous effects of false spirits."

Smith also offers the solution to this problem: it is only persons specifically chosen by God (i.e. apostles and prophets), including, of course, Joseph Smith himself, who are able to distinguish bad spirits from good ones "through the medium of the Priesthood."


Ironically, the LDS Church began with Joseph's own alleged spirit-visitation, a visitation which preceded any priesthood- "holding" on Joseph's part. Thus, by his own standard, he could not have discerned whether or not the spirits visiting him were true and good, or false and evil. More than that, though, Joseph's article reveals his understanding of the nature of priesthood. He writes:

"If Satan should appear as one in glory, who can tell his color, his signs, his appearance, his glory? ...who can drag into daylight and develop the hidden mysteries of the false spirits... We answer that no man can do this without the Priesthood, and having a knowledge of the laws by which the spirits are governed; for as "no man knows the things of God, but by the Spirit of God," so no man knows the spirit of the devil, and his power and influence, but by possessing intelligence which is more than human, and having unfolded through the medium of the Priesthood the mysterious operations of his devices..."

"...The Apostles in ancient times held the keys of this Priesthood... and consequently were enabled to unlock and unravel all things pertaining to... the future destiny of men, and the agency, power and influence of spirits; for they could control them at pleasure, bid them depart in the name of Jesus, and detect their mischievous and mysterious operations..."

"...Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and many other prophets possessed this power. Our Savior, the Apostles, and even the members of the Church were endowed with this gift..."

"...wicked spirits have their bounds, limits, and laws by which they are governed or controlled... it is very evident that they possess a power that none but those who have the Priesthood can control..."

Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church, believed that the priesthood is a power, and that it, among other things, enables a person to exercise control over evil spirits. Did Joseph Smith want this kind of power? Yes, he did. I recommend (among others) the free online book Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reexamined for a deeper understanding of these issues. (The book is about the testimonies and eyewitness accounts given by early neighbors of the Smith family, and a rebuttal of the later dismissal of these testimonies by LDS apologists. The appendix gives the neighbors' affidavits.)

Did Joseph think that the priesthood spoken of in the Bible was the kind of power he needed? Indeed, he did, as you can determine by reading his editorial in full (click on link, and then search for "Try the Spirits").

Of course, Joseph's perception of the Biblical priesthood was far from correct. Priesthood in the Bible is not a POWER, but a word referring to the role, responsibilities, and requirements of a priest--a person whose job is to represent the people before God. Old Testament priests did not study up on the "bounds, limits, and laws" governing demons so "they could control them at pleasure." On the other hand, before becoming a prophet Joseph Smith had made a name for himself attempting (and failing) to locate buried treasure with his peepstone. His failure, he claimed, was because of those pesky guarding ghosts....

Smith's need and desire for power, together with his quest for biblical-backing, provides a fine example of eisegesis (i.e., imposing one's own interpretation onto a biblical text). Joseph, in attempting to ascertain the role and nature of biblical priesthood, simply saw what he wished to see.

In conclusion, Smith describes one of the incidents that inspired his editorial. He writes:

"There have also been ministering angels in the Church which were of Satan appearing as an angel of light. A sister in the state of New York had a vision, who said it was told her that if she would go to a certain place in the woods, an angel would appear to her. She went at the appointed time, and saw a glorious personage descending, arrayed in white, with sandy colored hair; he commenced and told her to fear God, and said that her husband was called to do great things, but that he must not go more than one hundred miles from home, or he would not return; whereas God had called him [via Smith] to go to the ends of the earth, and he has since been more than one thousand miles from home, and is yet alive. Many true things were spoken by this personage, and many things that were false. How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? By the color of his hair; that is one of the signs that he can be known by and by his contradicting a former revelation."

The "spirits" Joseph consulted as he built his church DID contradict former revelation; irony, again. The nature of God, the number of gods, the nature of Jesus, the nature of man, the place of Jesus' atonement, the virginity of Mary, the role of and need for the priesthood, heaven and hell, just to name a few, are all Biblical revelations that have been contradicted in Joseph's religion. Setting aside hair color, were the spirits Joseph dealt with true and good? Or false and evil?

Mormonism's Jesus is one of many gods. He is Lucifer's spirit-brother, humankind's spirit-brother, and the son of the god "Elohim". He did not create all, he was not virgin born, and he is not to be directly worshiped by people on this planet. Mormonism thus fails the test of 1 John 4:1-3. Joseph's spirits, if they existed at all, were of the false and evil variety.

For more about Mormon spiritism, see "What Familiar Spirit Are Mormons Following?"

Joseph Smith's Priesthood

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 163

Was Jesus Worshiped As God (and Did He Accept This Worship)?

The first century Jews knew better than to place their worship or adoration in anything other than the God who created the Universe; to do so would be to break the first commandment of God. Yet it seems that those closest to Jesus were eager to worship Him as God. What impact does this have on our understanding of the nature of Jesus?

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 163

Practical Atheism

What we know to be true and how we live our lives based on those truths are vitally interconnected. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15 that if the resurrection of Christ was not a reality, then our faith is worthless and we are hopeless; we are liars and to be pitied. Without the truths of the Bible, we are a fragile and empty shell. Without trust in those truths to transform our lives, we are living as if they don't exist.

R. C. Sproul writes,

What is deadly to the church is when the external forms of religion are maintained while their substance is discarded. This we call practical atheism. Practical atheism appears when we live as if there were no God. The externals continue, but man becomes the central thrust of devotion as the attention of religious concern shifts away from man’s devotion to God to man’s devotion to man, bypassing God. The “ethic” of Christ continues in a superficial way, having been ripped from its supernatural, transcendent, and divine foundation.

Biblical Christianity knows nothing of a false dichotomy between devotion to God and concern for man. The Great Commandment incorporates both. It is because God is that human life matters so much. It is because of the reality of Christ that ethics are vital. It is because the cross was a real event that the sacraments can minister to us. It is because Christ really defeated death that the church offers hope. It is because of Jesus’ real act of atonement that our forgiveness is more than a feeling.

The church’s life and her creed may be distinguished but never separated. It is possible for the church to believe all the right things and do the wrong things. It is possible also to believe the wrong things and do the right things (but not for very long). We need right faith initiating right action. Honest faith—joined with honest action—bears witness to a real God and a real Christ.

Practical Atheism