CHRISTIAN

My Photo
Name:
Location: Para, Brazil

Monday, May 31, 2021

Plants

 

Were Plants or Humans Created First?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Q.

Were plants or humans created first?

A.

Most knowledgeable Christians read this question and immediately recall what Genesis 1 teaches: plants were created on day three (vss. 9-11) and humans on day six (vss. 24-31). Skeptics, however, have long criticized Genesis 1 and 2 as being contradictory.

 According to Bible critic Dennis McKinsey, “God made the fruit trees on the third day and created man three days later” in Genesis 1, but in Genesis 2 “God made man before the fruit trees” (1984, 22:1, emp. added). 

McKinsey’s criticism centers on Genesis 2:8-9a: “The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.” Allegedly, these verses contradict the chronology of Genesis 1:9-11,24-31.

The main reason that skeptics see disharmony in the events recorded in the first two chapters of the Bible (especially regarding the order of God’s creation of vegetation and man) is because they fail to realize that Genesis 1 and 2 serve different purposes. Chapter one (including 2:1-4) focuses on the order of the creation events; chapter two (2:5-25) simply provides more detailed information about some of the events mentioned in chapter one.

Consider a basketball announcer who, from beginning to end, tells of every point that each player scores in a particular game. After the game, however, the statistics are tallied, and the announcer informs the audience who scored all of the points, from most to fewest. Whereas earlier, the points were all announced in the precise order in which they were scored (and by whom), later, the results are presented non-sequentially.

Similar to a post-game summary that never is intended to be a regurgitation of what previously was announced sequentially, Genesis 2 never was meant to be a chronological accounting of the Creation. Whereas Genesis 1 is arranged chronologically, Genesis 2 is arranged topically.

REFERENCE

McKinsey, Dennis (1984), “The Creation Accounts,” Biblical Errancy, 22:1-3, October.





Copyright © Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Sunday, May 30, 2021

Blind Faith? Video 5 min

https://apologeticspress.org/MediaPlayer.aspx?media=5928 


Click on the link above

Saturday, May 29, 2021

Sun, Moon, Stars

 

When Were the Sun, Moon, and Stars Created?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

At first glance, this seems like an easy question. Just as children have been singing for generations, it was on day four when God made “the Sun, Moon, and stars galore.” Some, however, have alleged that the “sun, moon and stars were created ‘in the beginning’ (Gen. 1:1)” (Thurman, 2006, p. 3), rather than on day four of Creation. Presumably,

on the fourth day, God “set” the sun, moon and stars in the heavens to govern the days, months, seasons and years (verse 17). When God “set” the lights in the heavens, it was much like when we “set” a clock. And that really is what God did—He “set” His clock on the 4th day. But these (the sun, moon, stars) were all created “in the beginning” (Gen. 1:1) (Thurman, 2006, p. 3, emp. added).

The problem with this line of argumentation is that it contradicts what the Bible says.

Certainly, “[i]n the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). But, it was not until later that God created the Sun, Moon, and stars. Genesis 1:14-19 reads:

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.

Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19, emp. added).

God not only “set” (Hebrew nathan) the Sun, Moon, and stars in their precise locations in the heavens on the fourth day of Creation, but it was on this day when God literally “made” (Hebrew asah) these heavenly bodies. 

Similar to how God initially made the land and seas void of animal life (which later was created on days five and six of Creation), the “heavens” were made “in the beginning,” but the hosts of heaven (which now inhabit them) were created “in the firmament of the heavens” on day four (Genesis 1:14).

Consider also how God spoke light into existence on day one of Creation, saying, “Let there be light” (1:3, emp. added). On the fourth day God declared, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens...and it was so” (1:14-15, emp. added). Gary Workman commented on this similarity, saying:

“Let there be lights” (v. 14) is identical in grammatical construction with other statements of “let there be...” in the chapter. Therefore the command can only mean that God spoke the luminaries into existence on the fourth day just as he had created the initial light on day one and the firmament on day two (1989, p. 3).

On day one God made intrinsic light; on day four He made the generators of light. Keep in mind that “the Father of lights” (James 1:17), Who is “light” (1 John 1:5), could create light easily without first having to create the Sun, Moon, and stars.

 Just as God could produce a fruit-bearing tree on day three without a seed, He could produce light supernaturally on day one without the “usual” light bearers (which subsequently were created on day four). Again, there is no indication in Scripture that the generators of light already were made before day four.

Suppose, however, that the creation of the heavens “in the beginning” had included the creation of the Sun, Moon, and stars (which Genesis 1:14-19 says were made on day four). 

One still would not be justified in trying to appease the evolutionary timeline by claiming that the “beginning” took place billions of years before the six days of Creation. Why? Because God said, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day” (Exodus 20:11, emp. added). Both the heavens and all that is in the heavens were created during the six-day creation.

In truth, on day one God created “the heavens,” and on day four He made the Sun, Moon, and stars. And all things were made within the six days of Creation. No “rightly divided” (2 Timothy 2:15) Bible passage will lead a person to any other conclusion.

REFERENCES

Thurman, Clem (2006), “How Was Light Before the Sun?” Gospel Minutes, September 8.

Workman, Gary (1989), “Questions from Genesis One,” The Restorer, 9[5/6]:3-5, May/June.




Copyright © Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Friday, May 28, 2021

Capital Punishment

 

Does Exodus 20:13 Prohibit Capital Punishment?

by AP Staff

Despite God commanding the use of capital punishment for more than sixteen offenses (see Miller, 2002), some people still allege that there is a discrepancy between the biblical commands to execute certain offenders, and the sixth commandment in Exodus 20:13. 

The classical translation of Exodus 20:13, and the one used in many versions of the Bible, reads: “Thou shalt not kill.” This rendering is most familiar, and leads many to believe that Exodus 20:13 prohibits all killing.

A clarification of this alleged discrepancy lies in a proper understanding of the Hebrew word rendered “kill” in Exodus 20:13—ratsach. It is used forty-three times in the Old Testament (Wigram, 2001, p. 1190), and often is translated as “murder.” Koehler and Baumgartner defined ratsach as “kill,” “murder,” or “slay” in the verbal forms, and as “manslayer” in the participle form.

 In the participle, there appears to be no difference between intentional and accidental killing (Holladay, 1988, p. 346). Brown, Driver, and Briggs defined ratsach as “murder, slay,” and noted also that the distinction between unintentional and intentional killing does not seem to be carried by this word (2001, p. 953). Domeris spoke of the use of ratsach in Exodus 20:13:

As it stands, it is a blanket prohibition against the taking of a person’s life by an individual or by a mob, who target an individual, with all the attendant savagery. In the wider context of the OT, the prohibition may be defined more narrowly as the taking of a life outside of the parameters (as in the case of war or capital punishment), laid down by God… (1997, 3:1188-1189, parenthetical item in orig.).

The lexicons give the meaning of ratsach as killing someone outside of the grounds set by God, which included warfare and executions.

However, it appears that another nuance of the word could be killing by striking a blow. In the passages concerning the cities of refuge, the definition of ratsach is narrowed to one who strikes a death blow against another person, usually motivated by feelings of anger or hatred:

But if he strikes him with an iron implement, so that he dies, he is a murderer [participle of ratsach, “one who murders”]; the murderer shall surely be put to death. And if he strikes him with a stone in the hand, buy which one could die, and he does die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. Or if he strikes him with a wooden hand weapon, by which one could die, and he does die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death.

 The avenger of blood himself shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death. If he pushes him out of hatred or, while lying in wait, hurls something at him so that he dies, or in enmity he strikes him with his hand so that he dies, the one who struck him shall surely be put to death. He is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him (Numbers 35:16-21, emp. added).

But if anyone hates his neighbor, lies in wait for him, rises against him and strikes him mortally, so that he dies, and he flees to one of these cities, then the elders of his city shall send and bring him from there, and deliver him over to the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die (Deuteronomy 19:11-12, emp. added). [NOTE: Ratsach does not appear in verses 11-12, but is used earlier in the context.]

One also may ratsach without intent or hatred:

However, if he pushes him suddenly without enmity, or throws anything at him without lying in wait, or uses a stone by which a man could die, throwing it at him without seeing him, so that he dies, while he was not his enemy or seeking his harm, then the congregation shall judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood according to these judgments (Numbers 35:22-24).

And this is the case of the manslayer [participle of ratsach] who flees there, that he may live: whoever kills his neighbor unintentionally, not having hated him in time past—as when a man goes to the woods with his neighbor to cut timber, and his hand swings a stroke with the ax to cut down the tree, and the head slips from the handle and strikes his neighbor so that he dies—he shall flee to one of these cities and live; lest the avenger of blood, while his anger is hot, pursue the manslayer and overtake him, because the way is long, and kill him, though he was not deserving of death, since he had not hated the victim in time past (Deuteronomy 19:4-6).

Therefore, it appears that the proper translation and understanding of ratsach would be: “to kill by striking or pushing, usually in malice, but sometimes unintentionally.”

Many of the forty-three occurrences of ratsach support this meaning. It is used thirty-two times in reference to the one who strikes and kills his brother, and then flees to the city of refuge, and is used twice as one of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17).

 Deuteronomy 22:26 commands the execution of any man who raped a betrothed girl in the country, and compares the sentence he is to receive with the sentence of one who commits ratsach against his neighbor. This may support the translation of killing by striking, since Deuteronomy 22:26 uses the phrase “rises against his neighbor,” perhaps denoting a violent action involved in the killing.

Ratsach in Judges 20:4 refers to a concubine who was murdered in Gibeah. Judges 19:22-28 records that she was raped and abused, which probably included striking her in such a way as to cause mortal injury. Thus, she was referred to as haniretsachah, literally “the woman who was murdered” by the injuries sustained. In 1 Kings 21:19, Elijah is told to ask Ahab if he had ratsach Naboth in order to take his vineyard.

 According to 1 Kings 21:10, Jezebel, wife of King Ahab, ordered, in Ahab’s name, that Naboth be stoned to death—thus the king is questioned about the ratsach of Naboth. Both of these passages support ratsach as a murder by striking, as does 2 Kings 6:32, where the son of Ahab is called the “son of a murderer.”

Job 24:14, Psalm 62:3, Psalm 94:6, Isaiah 1:21, Jeremiah 7:9, and Hosea 4:2 do not support any further refinement of ratsach, but they do not prohibit a refinement either. Proverbs 22:13 refers to a man being ratsach by a lion, which could refer to a lion striking and killing a person. 

In speaking of the sins of God’s people, the prophet Hosea compares robbers lying in wait to priests murdering: “As bands of robbers lie in wait for a man, so the company of priests murder on the way to Shechem; surely they commit lewdness” (6:9). Usually, robbers would beat their victims to death, so it is probable that the ratsach committed by the priests carried the same connotation—of murder by beating.

Numbers 35:30 brings an interesting understanding to the word ratsach: “Whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death [ratsach] on the testimony of witnesses; but one witness is not sufficient testimony against a person for the death penalty.” 

It appears that God was allowing a retributive punishment in the case of one who killed, with malice aforethought, by striking. As he gave, so he got—this being in agreement with the “eye for an eye” principle of Exodus 21:23-25: “But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

In Exodus 20:13, God prohibited a person from striking and killing another person in anger. However, since God elsewhere commanded capital punishment, with a proper understanding of the word ratsach in Exodus 20:13, there is no discrepancy in the Old Testament between capital punishment and the Ten Commandments.

REFERENCES

Brown, Francis, et al. (2001), The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

Domeris, W.R. (1997), “רצח,” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Holladay, William L. (1988), A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Miller, Dave (2002), “Capital Punishment and the Bible,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1974.

Wigram, George V. (2001), The Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance of the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).




Copyright © Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Thursday, May 27, 2021

Video 4 min

 https://apologeticspress.org/MediaPlayer.aspx?media=5940


Click on the link above

Wednesday, May 26, 2021

Christianity

 

“Christianity Could Not Possibly Be True”

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

What did atheistic author Mike Davis allege was the “smoking gun” that proved to him once and for all that “Christianity could not possibly be true”? What “sealed the issue” and led him to believe “Jesus was wrong...and no more deserving of our belief than any other guy”? 

When did the case against the Bible and Christianity become “closed”? In chapter one of his book, The Atheist’s Introduction to the New Testament: How the Bible Undermines the Basic Teachings of Christianity, Davis explained that Matthew 24:34 was the deciding factor.

In Matthew 24:34, Jesus stated: “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.” According to Davis, since “Jesus tells his listeners that the judgment day will come before the generation he’s speaking to passes away,” and since that generation passed away 1,900 years ago, Jesus “could not have been divine” and the Bible is “untrustworthy” (2008, pp. 1-2).

In actuality, what Davis confesses ultimately “proved” to him that the Bible and Jesus are unreliable is nothing more than a misinterpretation of Scripture. Jesus was not mistaken in His comments in Matthew 24:34—Jesus’ generation did not pass away prior to witnessing the things Jesus foretold in Matthew 24:4-34. But, Jesus did not foretell in those verses what Davis assumes He foretold.

 Davis and many others believe that, prior to verse 34, Jesus was describing events that would take place shortly before Judgment Day at the end of time. The fact of the matter is, however, Jesus was prophesying about the coming destruction upon Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and not the final Judgment.

When the disciples went to show Jesus the temple buildings (Matthew 24:1), Jesus said, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down” (24:2). Later, when Jesus was on the Mount of Olives, the disciples asked Him three questions, beginning with “when will these things be?” (24:3). In verses 4-34, Jesus revealed several signs that would indicate Rome’s destruction of Jerusalem, including the temple, was near.

 [NOTE: “The fall of the Hebrew system is set forth in the sort of apocalyptic nomenclature that is characteristic of Old Testament literature, e.g., when the prophets pictorially portray the overthrow of Jehovah’s enemies (cf. Isaiah 13:10-11; 34:2ff; Ezekiel 32:7-8)” (Jackson, n.d.); cf. Matthew 24:29-31; see Miller, 2003.] In verses 35-51 (and all of chapter 25), Jesus answered the disciples’ last two questions: “what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3). To summarize, in Matthew 24:4-34 Jesus foretold of the coming destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, while in 24:35-25:46 He commented on His future return and final Judgment of the world.

How sad it is that so many atheists and skeptics believe they have disproven the Bible and Christianity, when, in reality, they have simply twisted the biblical text to mean something God never intended (cf. 2 Peter 3:16). The fact that Mike Davis highlights Matthew 24:34 as the verse that once and for all proved to him the Bible is unreliable should tell us something about the extreme weakness of the skeptic’s case against Christianity.

REFERENCES

Davis, Mike (2008), The Atheist’s Introduction to the New Testament (Outskirts Press: Denver, CO).

Jackson, Wayne (no date), “A Study of Matthew 24,” http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/19-a-study-of-matthew-24.

Miller, Dave (2003), “There Will Be No Signs!” http://apologeticspress.org/articles/1838.




Copyright ©  Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, May 25, 2021

Question

 

Will Earth “Be Burned Up” or “Abide Forever”?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Q.

According to certain Bible critics, 2 Peter 3:10 contradicts Ecclesiastes 1:4. Whereas Peter wrote, “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up” (emp. added).

 Solomon declared in the book of Ecclesiastes, “One generation passes away, and another generation comes; but the earth abides forever” (emp. added). Is one of these two declarations an “erroneous statement” as skeptic David Miles contends (2007), or is there a logical explanation regarding why the “burned up” Earth is said to “abide forever”?

A.

The answer to this question actually is very simple: the Bible frequently uses the term “forever” (Hebrew olam) in a more limited sense, to mean “a long duration,” and not necessarily a literal eternal existence (see Olam, 1999). Consider a few examples:

  • Prior to the Israelites’ departure from Egypt, Moses instituted the Passover. He then added: “And you shall observe this thing as an ordinance for you and your sons forever” (Exodus 12:24, emp. added).

  • Under the Law of Moses, when a servant pledged allegiance to his master, the master would “take an awl and thrust it through” the servant’s ear to the door (Deuteronomy 15:17). This was a sign that the servant would work for his master “forever” (15:17).

  • After the Israelites visited King Rehoboam and petitioned him to lighten their burdens (2 Chronicles 10:3-4), the elders advised the king to be kind to the people and they would be his servants “forever” (10:7).

Like so many words throughout Scripture that have more than one meaning, the term “forever” must be understood in light of the context in which it is found. The above-mentioned passages clearly use “forever” in a limited sense, referring to a “long duration” and not literal unendingness. 

What’s more, considering how many words (e.g., “forever”) have more than one meaning, skeptics cannot justifiably label passages like Ecclesiastes 1:4 and 2 Peter 3:10 contradictory unless they can prove both passages are using the word in the exact same sense. The proper understanding of these passages is that though the Earth has outlasted countless generations (lasting “forever” in limited sense), one day the Earth “will be burned up.”

Finally, we frequently use the word “forever” in a limited sense in the 21st century (e.g., “that lecture lasted forever”). One wonders why skeptics disallow the Bible writers the same freedom in their use of words such as “forever.”

REFERENCES

Miles, David (2007), “Letters,” Montgomery Advertiser, December 10, [On-line], URL: http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071113/ OPINION02/711130304/1014/OPINION.

Olam (1999), Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon (Logos Research Systems: Bellingham, WA).




Copyright © Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Monday, May 24, 2021

Living Fossils?

 “Living Fossils”—Evolution’s Innate Circular Reasoning

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


Another earthshaking find within the evolutionary community only spotlights once again the inherent irrationality of the faltering, fallacious theory. During a Southeast Asian expedition, retired Florida State University science professor, David Redfield, captured the first photos of the Laotian rock rat, once believed to have gone extinct more than 11 million years ago.
 The fossilized remains, collected previously from sites in Pakistan, India, Thailand, China, and Japan, were thought to verify this last known relative of a long-extinct family of rodents known as Diatomyidae (“Retired Professor Captures...,” 2006). Surprise, surprise—another alleged “ancestor” eliminated from the tattered evolutionary tree.

Observe the two contrasting, conflicting, mutually exclusive approaches to the created realm:

1. Evolution: All animals we see today are advanced forms of primitive precursors, and descendants of a single ancestor. As more advanced forms have evolved by means of adaptation, natural selection, survival of the fittest, and genetic mutation, the earlier forms were naturally displaced and disappeared. Fossils, millions of years old, represent life forms that were the evolutionary predecessors of present life forms, but which went extinct long ago.

2. Creation: God created a spectrum of animals during the six-day week of Creation. While reproducing only after their own “kind” (an ambiguous Hebrew term that likely parallels the modern taxonomic classification “family”), these animals were created with the genetic potential for producing a variety of other species, giving rise to the diversity of animal life presently on the planet. Along the way, due mostly to environmental factors, many animals have become extinct. However, other species have escaped detection by humans for centuries, only to be rediscovered in some remote area.

Which of these two viewpoints fits the actual physical facts? Obviously, the latter. Evolutionists repeatedly find themselves in the embarrassing position of discovering that the alleged evolutionary ancestors of current life forms, that supposedly went extinct millions of years ago, are in fact still living. They are forced to cover their tracks by inventing a self-contradictory, nonsensical term to identify these anomalies—in this case, “living fossils.” But that’s like a round square. Philosophers and logicians refer to such duplicitous posturing as irrational and “logical contradiction.” Evolutionists call it “science.”

REFERENCE
“Retired Professor Captures a ‘Living Fossil’ on Video” (2006), Research in Review, June 13, [On-line], URL: http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/rockrat/more.html.

Copyright © Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved




Sunday, May 23, 2021

Hosea Video 6 min

https://bibleproject.com/explore/video/hosea/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=bibleproject.com&utm_campaign=bible+study&utm_content=hosea14/#watch 


Click on the link and wait for a moment.

Saturday, May 22, 2021

It's Your Life!

 

It's Your Life!

You Have Only One Shot
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


The present pluralistic climate that prevails in American culture has disastrous implications. To suggest that all religions, all ideologies, all philosophies, and all beliefs are of equal validity, and ought to be tolerated as such, is to generate social anarchy and the destabilization of society that can end only in national suicide.
Unless a single value system remains substantially intact in any given civilization, that society will lack the necessary “glue” to hold together. But even more tragic are the eternal implications for those who reject the truth regarding the only moral and spiritual reality, i.e., the Christian system.

For example, take the notion of reincarnation, a belief that permeates Hinduism, Buddhism, and New Age philosophy, and thus characterizes the thinking of upwards of two billion people (for brief discussions of reincarnation, see Valea, 2006; “Recarnation,” 2007).

 Here is a sinister doctrine that robs those masses of their one and only opportunity to prepare for afterlife. Reincarnation is the idea that at death, all human souls (according to some, animals as well) simply “recycle” into another body on Earth, and that this rebirth process is repeated over and over again until the individual eventually reaches the ultimate spiritual condition—nirvana and enlightenment.

Such a viewpoint inevitably must bring a sense of false comfort to the individual who embraces it. He or she naturally is not overly concerned with moral behavior and life choices. After all, multiple opportunities to live life over again are forthcoming. Herein lays the tragedy. 

The fact of the matter is that a human being has but “one shot” at life (Miller, 2003). Every person lives but one life on Earth and then must face death and Judgment (Hebrews 9:27). At death, a person’s spirit enters the Hadean realm to await the final Judgment and is unable to return to Earth (read Luke 16:19-31; cf. Miller, 2005). Consequently, it is absolutely imperative for every human being to examine God’s Word (the Bible) to ascertain how life is to be lived in view of eternity (cf. Butt, 2003). 

Millions of people literally are squandering their one and only opportunity to prepare themselves to secure everlasting happiness, and so will be consigned instead to everlasting torment (Matthew 25:31-46).

 Any doctrine that softens a person’s will to be conscientious regarding morality and behavior is a sinister doctrine that ought to be exposed and repudiated (Ephesians 5:11; 1 John 4:1).

REFERENCES
Butt, Kyle (2003), “Reincarnation and the Bible,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2298.

Miller, Dave (2003), “One Second After Death,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2244.

Miller, Dave (2005), “Afterlife and the Bible,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2672.

Valea, Ernest (2006), “Reincarnation: Its Meaning and Consequences,” [On-line], URL: http://www.comparativereligion.com/reincarnation.html.

“Reincarnation” (2007), Wikipedia, [On-line], URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2011 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Bible Bullets" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org

THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 2011

The Law of Causality-Science or Not?

God and the Laws of Science: The Law of Causality
by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Introduction

The Law of Cause and Effect states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause. The mass of a paper clip is not going to provide sufficient gravitational pull to cause a tidal wave. There must be an adequate cause for the tidal wave, like a massive, offshore, underwater earthquake (“Tsunamis,” 2000, p. 1064). Leaning against a mountain will certainly not cause it to topple over. Jumping up and down on the ground will not cause an earthquake. If a chair is not placed in an empty room, the room will remain chairless. If matter was not made and placed in the Universe, we would not exist. There must be an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause for every material effect. Perhaps the Law of Cause and Effect seems intuitive to most, but common sense is foreign to many when God is brought into the discussion.

Causality and History

The Law of Cause and Effect, or Law/Principle of Causality, has been investigated and recognized for millennia. In Phaedo, written by Plato in 360 B.C., an “investigation of nature” is spoken of concerning causality, wherein “the causes of everything, why each thing comes into being and why it perishes and why it exists” are discussed (Plato, 1966, 1:96a-b, emp. added). In 350 B.C., Aristotle contributed more to the causality discussion by stipulating that causes can be “spoken of in four senses”: material, formal, efficient, and final (Aristotle, 2009, 1[3]). Moving forward two millennia in no way changed the established fact pressed by the Law of Cause and Effect. In 1781, the renowned philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote concerning the Principle of Causality in his Critique of Pure Reason that “everything that happens presupposes a previous condition, which it follows with absolute certainty, in conformity with a rule.... All changes take place according to the law of the connection of Cause and Effect” (Kant, 1781). Fast forwarding another 350 years, our understanding of the world still did not cause the law to be discredited. In 1934, W.T. Stace, professor of philosophy at Princeton University, in A Critical History of Greek Philosophy, wrote:

Every student of logic knows that this is the ultimate canon of the sciences, the foundation of them all. If we did not believe the truth of causation, namely, everything which has a beginning has a cause, and that in the same circumstances the same things invariably happen, all the sciences would at once crumble to dust. In every scientific investigation this truth is assumed (1934, p. 6, emp. added).
The truth of causality is so substantiated that it is taken for granted in scientific investigation.

A few decades later, the Law of Cause and Effect still had not been repealed. In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Richard Taylor wrote, “Nevertheless, it is hardly disputable that the idea of causation is not only indispensable in the common affairs of life but in all applied sciences as well” (1967, p. 57, emp. added). Even today, when scientific exploration has brought us to unprecedented heights of knowledge, the age old Law of Causality cannot be denied. Today’s dictionaries define “causality” as:

“the principle that nothing can happen without being caused” (“Causality,” 2009).

“the principle that everything has a cause” (“Causality,” 2008).
Indeed, the Law of Cause and Effect is not, and cannot rationally be, denied—except when necessary in order to prop up a deficient worldview. Its ramifications have been argued for years, but after the dust settles, the Law of Cause and Effect still stands unscathed, having weathered the trials thrust upon it for thousands of years.

The Law of Causality—A Problem for Atheists

Creationists have absolutely no problem with the truth articulated by this God-ordained law from antiquity. The Bible, in essence, articulated the principle millennia ago when in Hebrews 3:4 it says that “every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God.” A house must have a cause—namely, a builder. It will not build itself. However, evolutionists are left in a quandary when trying to explain how the effect of the infinitely complex Universe could have come about without a cause. Three decades ago, Robert Jastrow, founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, wrote:

The Universe, and everything that has happened in it since the beginning of time, are a grand effect without a known cause. An effect without a known cause? That is not the world of science; it is a world of witchcraft, of wild events and the whims of demons, a medieval world that science has tried to banish. As scientists, what are we to make of this picture? I do not know. I would only like to present the evidence for the statement that the Universe, and man himself, originated in a moment when time began (1977, p. 21).
When Jastrow says that there is no “known cause” for everything in the Universe, he is referring to the fact that there is no known natural cause. If atheism were true, there must be a natural explanation of what caused the Universe. Scientists and philosophers recognize that there must be a cause that would be sufficient to bring about matter and the Universe—and yet no natural cause is known. The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms says that “causality,” in physics, is “the principle that an event cannot precede its cause” (2003, p. 346). However, the atheist must concede that in order for his/her claim to be valid, the effect of the Universe not only preceded its cause, but actually came about without it! Such a viewpoint is hardly in keeping with science. Scientifically speaking, according to the Law of Cause and Effect, there had to be a Cause for the Universe. The only book on the planet which contains characteristics that prove its production to be above human capability is the Bible (see Butt, 2007). The God of the Bible is its author (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and in the very first verse of the inspired material He gave to humans, He articulated with authority and clarity that He is the Cause Who brought about the Universe and all that is in it.

Uncaused Cause?

Often the atheist or skeptic, attempting to distract and side-step the truth of this law without responding to it, retorts, “But if everything had to have a beginning, why does the same concept not apply to God?” Notice that this statement is based on a misunderstanding of what the Law of Cause and Effect claims concerning the Universe. The law states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause. The God of the Bible is a spiritual Being (John 4:24) and therefore is not governed by physical law.

Recall also what Professor W.T. Stace wrote in A Critical History of Greek Philosophy concerning causality. “[E]verything which has a beginning has a cause” (1934, p. 6, emp. added). As mentioned above, scientists and philosophers recognize that, logically, there must be an initial cause of the Universe. [Those who attempt to argue the eternality of the Universe are in direct contradiction with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (see Miller, 2007).] However, God, not being a physical, finite being, but an eternal, spiritual being (by definition), would not be subject to the condition of requiring a beginning. Therefore, the law does not apply to Him. Psalm 90:2 says concerning God, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God” (emp. added). The Bible describes God as a Being who has always been and always will be—“from everlasting to everlasting.” He, therefore, had no beginning. Hebrews 3:4 again states, “every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God,” indicating that God is not constrained by the Law of Cause and Effect as are houses, but rather, is the Chief Builder—the Uncaused Causer—the Being who initially set all effects into motion. The point stands. The Law of Cause and Effect supports the creation model, not the atheistic evolutionary model.

REFERENCES

Aristotle (2009), Metaphysics, trans. W.D. Ross, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.1.i.html.

Butt, Kyle (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/Behold%20the%20Word%20of%20God.pdf.

“Causality” (2009), Collins English Dictionary—Complete & Unabridged, 10th ed. (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers), http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Causality?x=35&y=25.

“Causality” (2008), Concise Oxford English Dictionary, (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press), http://www.wordreference.com/definition/causality.

Jastrow, Robert (1977), Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).

Kant, Immanuel (1781), The Critique of Pure Reason, trans. J.M.D. Meiklejohn (London: Henry G. Bohn), 1878 edition, http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/critique-of-pure-reason.txt.

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.

Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.

Plato (1966), Plato in Twelve Volumes, trans. Harold North Fowler (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DPhaedo%3Asection%3D96a.

Stace, W.T. (1934), A Critical History of Greek Philosophy (London: Macmillan and Co.).

Taylor, Richard (1967), “Causation,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: Philosophical Library).

“Tsunamis” (2000), The Oxford Companion to the Earth, ed. Paul L. Hancock & Brian J. Skinner (Oxford University Press).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2011 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Sensible Science" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org

TUESDAY, JANUARY 04, 2011

NEVER ENOUGH

Never Enough
by Kyle Butt, M.A.


“How can a person refuse to believe in God in the face of so much evidence that proves His existence?” In my travels and experiences teaching Christian evidences, this question often arises. Many who encounter for the first time the evidence for the existence of God, the inspiration of the Bible, and the deity of Christ, simply cannot understand how a person could deny such evidence and maintain an atheistic or agnostic position. Why doesn’t the force of such evidence compel all those who hear it to become believers in God and the Bible?

The simple answer to such a question is that some have decided not to believe the truth about God and the Bible, regardless of how much evidence is presented. The story of the resurrection of Lazarus provides a perfect biblical illustration of this attitude. In John 11, the Bible records the facts regarding one of Jesus’ more spectacular miracles. His friend Lazarus, a denizen of the city of Bethany, became sick and died. The dead man’s body was buried in a tomb and remained there for four days. Mary and Martha, Lazarus’ sisters, were deeply grieving over the loss of their brother. When Jesus arrived in the city, He asked to be taken to the tomb. He then instructed those at the tomb to remove the stone covering the entrance. Martha attempted to dissuade Jesus from this course of action by informing Him that her dead brother’s body had been in the tomb four days, and was decayed to the point that his body would stink. Yet, in an awesome show of God’s power over death, Jesus called Lazarus forth from the grave, bringing him back to life.

By bringing Lazarus back to life, Jesus provided evidence that proved His claims to deity. Such evidence should have been sufficient for any honest observer to conclude that Jesus was from God. In fact, the Jewish leaders admitted that Jesus worked many signs (John 11:47). Because of these signs, they were afraid that all the people would believe in Jesus if He continued His ministry. What, then, was their reaction to the signs that they recognized Jesus performed? In John 12:10-11, the Bible says: “But the chief priests took counsel that they might also put Lazarus to death, because on account of him many of the Jews went away and believed in Jesus.”

These villainous leaders were not in the least motivated to assess the evidence honestly and believe in Jesus. In fact, in order to keep others from doing so, they considered killing an innocent man—Lazarus—simply because his life provided convincing evidence of Jesus’ deity. They knew Jesus raised him from the dead, but refused to allow this forceful piece of evidence to alter their predetermined beliefs and actions. Such is still the case today. Those who refuse to accept the compelling evidence that proves God’s existence, the Bible’s inspiration, and the deity of Christ do so based on a predetermined irrationality and not an honest assessment of the facts. That is why the inspired apostle Paul noted that any who deny the existence of God will be “without excuse” on the Day of Judgment (Romans 1:20).





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2011 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Bible Bullets" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org

Friday, May 21, 2021

Answer: Gods Defense Recipe

 

Preparing to Give an Answer: God's Defense Recipe in 1 Peter 3:15

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

 

 

The English word “apologetics” is often confused with the word “apologize,” yet the two words are nearly exact opposites. There certainly is a time and a place for Christians to express regret and apologize for our many mistakes and sins, but Christian apologetics has nothing to do with such remorse. 

A pitcher in baseball might apologize for hitting a batter with a 90-mile-per-hour fastball (since that’s not an authorized part of the game), but a dodgeball player has no need to say he’s sorry for striking another player with a ball. On the contrary, he may logically defend himself, offering a 180-degree-different kind of “apology.”

The English word “apologetics” is derived from the Greek noun apologia meaning a “reply” or “defense,” and the Greek verb apologeomai meaning to “defend oneself” and, more specifically, “to speak in one’s own defense against charges presumed to be false.”1

 More than anyone else in the New Testament, “apologetics” is associated with the apostle Paul. To those in Corinth who questioned Paul’s claim of apostleship, he gave a “defense” (1 Corinthians 9:3). In his joyful letter to the church in Philippi, Paul reminded them that he was “appointed for the defense of the Gospel” (Philippians 1:16-17; 1:7).

A few years before Paul became a follower of Christ, Jesus prophesied that His disciples would “answer” or “defend” the truth of Jesus Christ “before kings and rulers” (Luke 21:14,12). This prophecy came into clear fulfillment during Paul’s missionary journeys and imprisonments (cf. Acts 9:15), as the Lord used him to reason with and “reply” before all manner of rulers.2

 Before Governor Felix, Paul gave an “answer” (NKJV) or “defense” (NASB). About two years later, Paul “made his defense” (NIV) before Governor Festus (Acts 25:8), and then again before Festus and King Agrippa II (26:1-2), even denying Festus’ charge of insanity by pointing out that his apologia was grounded in “truth and reason” (26:25).

Though the word apologia is used only once in the New Testament in association with the apostle Peter, it is this apostle (Peter, and not Paul) whom the Holy Spirit used to give us perhaps the most complete (yet concise) picture of God-approved defenders of Christianity. Peter used the term apologia one time in 1 Peter, yet the apostle clearly details how Christians are to be Christ-like defenders. Indeed, Peter gives the Lord’s Church a perfect recipe for defending divine doctrine.

To Christians who were scattered throughout various parts of the northern half of Asia Minor in roughly the early-to-mid 60s A.D. (1:1),3 Peter wrote: “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (3:15).

WRITTEN TO CHRISTIANS, NOT “CLERGY”

While Jesus and the apostle Paul are the two premier apologists in Scripture, we must not make the tragic mistake of thinking that apologetics is only for “the preacher.” 

Too many Christians for far too long have incorrectly assumed that “ordained clergy” are those engaged in Christian apologetics—not the “regular Christian” husband and wife, mom and dad, or the baker, banker, and bus driver. Peter makes clear in his first epistle that he was writing, not to “apostles, prophets, and preachers,” but to Christians (1 Peter 4:16)—to “pilgrims” (1:1), the “elect” (1:2), the “begotten” (1:3), “children” of God (1:14). He was writing to any and all of God’s people in various provinces in Asia Minor—followers of Christ whom he describes as “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people” (2:9). 

In this letter, Peter specifically addressed various members of the body of Christ, including servants (2:18-25), wives (3:1-6), husbands (3:7), elders (5:1), and “younger people” (5:5). But overall, he was addressing “you” (1 Peter 5:1)4—Christians in local churches.

After expressly challenging “husbands” (1 Peter 3:7) to honor their wives and be the kind of godly men in the home that the Lord calls them to be,5 Peter went back to addressing “all of you” (3:8).

 When he wrote “always be ready to give a defense” (3:15), Peter was not addressing evangelists. He was not challenging some “special class of clergy.” He was talking to “all” Christians, to “followers of what is good” (3:13), to those who have been baptized in water for the remission of sins (3:20-21; cf. Acts 2:38).

Certainly, there are essential leadership roles for elders, deacons, and evangelists to fulfill in the Lord’s Church.6 Peter, in fact, has some very important commands for elders in chapter 5. However, the “defense” instruction of 1 Peter 3:15 is for all disciples of Christ.

When “a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem” several years earlier, “all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria” (Acts 8:1).7 

What did these dispersed disciples of Christ do? They “went everywhere preaching (euangelizo) the word” (Acts 8:4). They evangelized! “There is no evidence, nor is there any probability, that all these persons were ‘ordained’ to preach.”8 They were “just members” of the Church of Christ: “ordinary,”9 “common Christians.”10 Likewise, the dispersed Christians in Asia Minor to whom Peter wrote to “always be ready to give a defense” were just that—“Christians.” Indeed, Christian apologetics is for all of God’s people!

FOR SINCERE SAINTS, NOT COUNTERFEIT CHRISTIANS

Furthermore, according to Peter, Christian apologetics is for those with a “good conscience” who exemplify genuine, “good conduct in Christ” (1 Peter 3:16). Like Peter,11 Christians are imperfect people who stumble and fall along the way. Yet, we are to be real people of God, who “walk in the light” and “confess our sins” to one another (1 John 1:7,9; James 5:16). Having been “redeemed…with the precious blood of Christ” (1 Peter 1:18-19) and “called…out of darkness,” conscientious, God-approved Christian defenders walk in “His marvelous light” (2:9), “laying aside all…hypocrisy” (2:1). “[A]s obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts…but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct” (1:14-15).

Much of the time, long before any non-Christian listens to an apologia from a disciple of Christ, he will have inspected (to some degree) the life of this “so-called Christian.” Thus, Peter says to “abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation” (2:12).12

 In fact, it could be that for some (and perhaps many) unbelievers much less “defense” would be necessary in their conversion if they first saw continual, sincere righteous living on the part of the Christian. Only a few verses prior to 1 Peter 3:15, the apostle noted how some unbelieving husbands “without a word may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct” (3:1-2).13

Consider that before the apostle Paul ever wrote to Timothy, instructing him to “preach the word” and “do the work of an evangelist” (2 Timothy 4:2,5), he first highlighted the vital “genuine [unhypocritical]14 faith that is in you” (2 Timothy 1:5). 

Furthermore, years prior to Paul penning 2 Timothy, he desired this young servant of Christ to accompany him on his second missionary journey. Note carefully, however, that Paul only wanted this after coming to learn that Timothy “was well spoken of by the brethren” (Acts 16:2-3). Indeed, God’s recipe for Christian apologetics includes, first and foremost, this primary ingredient: a sincere saint.

It should come as no surprise that just before Peter commanded Christians to “be ready to give a defense,” he first said to “sanctify the Lord God in your hearts” (3:15). To “sanctify” (hagiazo) is “to treat as holy;” to regard in “reverence.”15 The word “sanctify” is derived from the Greek hagios, which pertains to “being dedicated or consecrated to the service of God.”16 

Similar to Jesus’ prayer to the Father, “hallowed (hagiazo) be Your name” (Matthew 6:9), Peter said, “sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts” (NASB). Peter was actually quoting from Isaiah 8:13: “The Lord of hosts, Him you shall hallow” (Hebrew qadash). How do we “hallow,” “sanctify,” or “set apart as holy” the Lord? Since God is by His very nature 100% “holy” (1:16) and needs absolutely no help from humanity in being holy, in what sense do we set Him apart as holy?

Peter said to sanctify the Lord “in your hearts.” Of the millions of thoughts that flood our minds, of all the memories, people, and things we hold dear in our hearts, One is specially set apart far and above all others—in the center of our being, on the throne of our hearts—the King of kings and Lord of lords, Jesus Christ. 

God wants Christians to give a defense only after they have hallowed Christ in their lives. Not an outward, hollow “holiness,” which manifests itself in “going through the motions” with Pharisee-like actions, but an inward, genuine, heart-felt reverence for Jesus Christ, which naturally impacts everything the Christian does—how we think, act, and talk—including how we “give a defense.” 

Sooner or later, hypocrisy only harms the Christian’s influence and defense, while an authentic surrendering to Jesus as Lord of our lives is the greatest aid in the apologist’s arsenal. “Sanctify” first; “Defend” second: always, always in that order.

COURAGEOUS, GOD-FEARING FOLLOWERS

Peter also detailed that genuine faithfulness from the inside-out is fundamental to Christian apologetics because followers of Christ often are called upon to give a defense in trying times. Peter knew a thing or two about suffering. Very soon after the establishment of the Church in Acts 2, Peter and John were repeatedly arrested, imprisoned, interrogated, threatened, and beaten (Acts 4-5). 

Peter was in Jerusalem during a time when “a great persecution arose against the church…at Jerusalem,” as Saul “made havoc of the church, entering every house, and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison” (Acts 8:1,3). Later, when “Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church,” including killing the apostle James, the king then arrested and imprisoned Peter (Acts 12:1-4), very likely with the intention of killing him, too (were it not for Peter’s divine deliverance from prison—Acts 12:5-19).

The Lord used this often-persecuted apostle to pen a letter to distressed Christians (likely sometime between A.D. 64-68)17 during the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero. Though there may not have been widespread, official imperial persecutions of Christians until a few decades later, Nero was no friend to Christians. 

The historian Tacitus (who was also no fan of Christianity) noted how Nero, in A.D. 64, blamed Christians for the Great Fire in Rome. According to Tacitus: “Nero fabricated scapegoats—and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called).”18

Whether Peter had this or other Roman persecutions in mind when writing 1 Peter, we do not know. Regardless, as the book of Acts reveals, persecution was present in one place or another since the birth of the Lord’s Church, and the Christian “pilgrims of the Dispersion” in Asia Minor were not exempt. It seems they had already endured some difficulties (1:6-7), and Peter forewarned that more lay on the horizon.

Beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you; but rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ’s sufferings, that when His glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy. If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you…. But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a busybody in other people’s matters. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter…. Therefore let those who suffer according to the will of God commit their souls to Him in doing good, as to a faithful Creator (4:12-19).

Peter’s apologetics exhortation is firmly and deeply embedded in an epistle and immediate context of suffering. In the verses directly before and after 1 Peter 3:15, the apostle speaks of imminent Christian persecution: “when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed” (3:16). “

And even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you are blessed” (3:14; cf. Matthew 5:10-12). We are blessed if we endure suffering innocently19 like Christ20 (2:19-24). We are blessed if such suffering brings spiritual maturity and heavenly clarity in an otherwise potentially “cares-of-this-world” kind of earthly, sinful focus on life.

 Furthermore, we are blessed to grow spiritually from such suffering, including increasing in courage for Christ. In fact, Peter directly connected “suffering” (3:14a) and apologetics (3:15) with being courageous, as he quoted from Isaiah 8:12, saying, “And do not be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled” (3:14b).

Rather than cower fearfully in the face of manmade persecution and allow such fear to warp how we think, live, and “give a defense,” Isaiah challenged his hearers to fear God. “The Lord of hosts, Him you shall hallow; let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread” (Isaiah 8:13). 

Peter includes these thoughts both at the beginning and end of 1 Peter 3:15: (a) “sanctify the Lord God in your hearts” (which we’ve already examined), and (b) giving a defense “with…fear.” This “fear” is not in sinful fear of what man (or Satan) might do.

 Jesus explained: “[D]o not fear them…. Whatever I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops. And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:26-28). 

Indeed, as Peter rhetorically asked, “And who is he who will harm you if you become followers of what is good?... Do not be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled” (3:13-14). After all, as Peter reminded these young churches of the words of Psalm 34, our omniscient, omnipotent God is bigger than any problem that may come our way: “For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and His ears are open to their prayers; but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil” (3:12). Thus, “fear” God (1 Peter 1:17; 2:17; 3:15). As we “speak in the light” (Matthew 10:27) about the joy of our salvation, our total respect, reverence, and genuine, soul-stirring awe for our Savior and King serves as the rock-solid foundation of our apologia.

Is it not encouraging that God used the imperfect (but penitent) Peter to write these words? Recall that Peter cowered on the Sea of Galilee, fearfully denied Jesus three times, and even had a hypocritical moment later in life when he, for fear of some Jewish Christians, played favoritism and shunned his Gentile brethren (Galatians 2:11-14).

 It is this apostle (likely toward the end of his life) whom the Holy Spirit used to exhort struggling, flawed followers of Christ to courageously stand their ground, to “not be afraid,” and to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you.” Indeed, regardless of “whenever, wherever, and by whomever it is challenged,”21 we must speak up and explain the “reason for the hope” that is in us.

FULL OF HOPE, WITH EYES ON THE PRIZE

In one very real sense, biblical, Christian apologetics is not an intimidating graduate course or an overwhelming 800-page step-by-step book on how to answer nearly every challenge under the Sun. It’s not some dreaded Bible study or debate. The apologia of 1 Peter 3:15 is the natural response to the Lord being #1 in our lives (which at some point will likely include great books, classes, studies, and possible debates). 

Christian apologetics, on the most basic level, is the natural response of being in love with the Lord and living as sojourners in a foreign land with our eyes on the prize. Does a young woman who is righteously head-over-heels in love with her fiancé not have a natural glow and excitement about her? Is she not ready to defend and tell the world about her one love who is soon to sweep her off her feet and take her across the threshold of their new home?

 Likewise, the child of God loves to talk about her Father. The once-dead sinner loves to talk about his Savior. The bride of Christ loves to talk about her Husband and the reasons for her confident expectation of seeing Him face to face in heaven one day.

Peter called the Christians in Asia Minor “pilgrims” (1:1; 2:11) and “sojourners” (2:11). He reminded them how to conduct themselves “throughout the time of your stay here” (1:17). The simple yet profound fact about life on Earth is, we are all “just passing through” (like a brief stay in a hotel). 

Christians, however, live here with hope (the full expectation) of receiving (by the grace of God) “an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you” (1:4). 

As the sojourner Abraham left his homeland to dwell “in a foreign country” and “waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Hebrews 11:9-10), “our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:20). 

Many a dying, non-Christian has longed for some kind of “hope” of happiness after this life is over; the faithful child of God is overjoyed to “give a defense…for the hope” that is in us.

 A HOPE ANCHORED FIRMLY IN FACTS

Though the genuine hope of the Christian stirs up the strongest of emotions,22 do not make the grave mistake of thinking that the Christian’s hope is founded on emotion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our feelings are founded on facts. Our hope is firmly anchored in the truths of the Gospel—of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

 Peter was clear, saying, “[W]e did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitness of His majesty” (2 Peter 1:16).

 When Peter and the apostles were accused of being drunk on the first Pentecost following the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (Acts 2:13), Peter responded with a reasoned defense, not a mere emotional appeal. He reminded his hearers that God “attested” (apodedeigmenon) to the miracles that Jesus worked while He was alive and in their midst (Acts 2:22). 

That is, God “demonstrated”23 proof of the divine origin, message, and mission of Christ in such a way that people could actually see the evidence and make an informed, rational decision about Him (cf. John 10:37-38).

What’s more, the assembly on Pentecost knew that Jesus had been “put to death” only days earlier (Acts 2:23), but unlike the tomb of King David, Jesus’ tomb was empty only three days later. Unlike the body of David, which saw corruption, the dead body of Christ had been raised and would never see corruption.

 Yes, Peter directed the assembly to evaluate the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, including the implied empty tomb (Acts 2:24,29-32), the fulfillment of Psalm 16:8-11 (Acts 2:25-31), and the witnesses who stood before them testifying that they had actually seen the risen Savior (Acts 2:32).

The nearly 3,000 individuals who obeyed the Gospel on Pentecost were not swayed by flowery words, phony miracles, or mere emotional appeals. They were “cut to the heart” by evidence-based preaching. They reacted to a sermon filled with sensible argumentation and properly applied Scriptures.24 They responded to the apologia of Christ—to Christian apologetics.

 About 30 years following the events in Acts 2, Peter reminded the persecuted Christian pilgrims in 1 Peter that the hope for which they were to give a defense is a “living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1:3). Indeed, the evidence proves that “God…raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God” (1:21).

PREPARE TO ANSWER

Since our hope is evidence-based, it is paramount to learn the reasons for our hope—for our own eternal benefit and for the benefit of others (as we teach and answer questions). Unlike the miraculously inspired apostles to whom Jesus said, “Therefore settle it in your hearts not to meditate beforehand on what you will answer (apologeomai); for I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to contradict or resist” (Luke 21:14-15), Christians today must prepare themselves to give a defense. We must “get ready.”

Peter said, “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God” (4:11). If so, then we must first learn the Word of God. We first learn enough to reasonably conclude why we should become Christians—“having been born again…through the word of God” (1:23). 

Then, “like newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby” (2:2). After all, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). 

When Jesus was challenged by Satan, the Lord quoted Scripture and used it accurately (Matthew 4:1-11). When Jesus was challenged by the Pharisees and others, He logically pointed out flaws in their irrational arguments, while also making perfect reference to and application of the Old Testament (cf. Matthew 5; 12:1-14,22-30). 

Indeed, “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5). 

As we patiently prepare ourselves to answer those who ask us a reason for the hope that is in us, let’s “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18).

DEFEND WITH THE RIGHT ATTITUDE

In our reasoning with others of the hope that is in us, we must keep in mind what Peter noted at the end of 1 Peter 3:15—that our defense is to be made “with meekness and fear.”

 Christians are to try to be Christ-like at all times, including when we defend the truth. Our teaching is to be characterized “with gentleness and reverence” (3:15, NASB). We are to “honor all people” as we “fear God” (2:17). As we “proclaim the praises of Him” who called us “out of darkness into His marvelous light,” we must be “clothed with humility” (2:9; 5:5).

About 15 years ago, a man who identified himself as a Catholic priest wrote an unsolicited letter to Apologetics Press. We had never heard of this gentleman before reading his note. Although, sadly, he is very misled in his adherence to Catholic doctrine,25 consider some of his analysis of a handful of preachers in the Church of Christ. [NOTE: He refers to preachers as “elders.”]

As a Roman Catholic priest who follows non-Catholic religions with some interest…I have observed a lot of meanness, rudeness, and lack of basic civility among CoC [Church of Christ—EL] elders, especially recently. How does one explain this? In general (no doubt there are exceptions perhaps many), Christian love seems deficient in the way they seek to promote truth.

In general, they strike me as tending to be suspicious, rash and uncharitable in their judgments about other people’s motives, prone to arrogance, and even too eager to call someone a liar, more so than the average pagan in the streets. These comments are based on only my limited experience, to be sure, and sometimes, no doubt, I am guilty of some of the very same sins and character flaws.

I was considering doing some kind of oral interaction with an elder or two about Catholic matters. Now it looks to me like this would be a royal invitation to verbal abuse, misrepresentation, and even character assassination….

Some members of the Lord’s Church might tend to dismiss this criticism with a wave of the hand, but we believe this gentleman was right in his assessment and denouncement of some who attempt to “defend the truth” yet do so in an unchristlike manner.26

What’s more, we all need to be reminded of the necessity and seriousness of “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). We must examine ourselves and ensure that our teachings and defense of the truth are done lovingly and patiently, confidently yet kindly, neither rudely nor arrogantly (1 Corinthians 13).

Keep in mind what the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy shortly before commanding him to “preach the word” (2 Timothy 4:2). He described “a servant of the Lord” as one who “must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition” (2 Timothy 2:24-25).

Peter repeatedly reminds Christians to be humble in all areas of life. We are to be submissive to governing authorities (2:13), to masters (2:18), (wives) to husbands (3:1), to elders (5:5), and in general “to one another” (5:5).27

 With this same submissive spirit, Christians are called upon to give a defense “with gentleness and reverence” (3:15, NASB). Yes, let’s teach and preach while being “clothed with humility, for ‘God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.’ Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time” (3:5-6).

CONCLUSION

First Peter 3:15 is embedded within a marvelous epistle that provides clear context and commentary on a perfect apologetics passage. Every sincere-hearted Christian should draw encouragement from this verse to follow God courageously in the face of suffering and persecution. 

With a Christ-like attitude, with our eyes firmly fixed on the ultimate prize, and with our hope anchored in the facts of the Gospel, we, indeed, can give a reasonable defense. And, we can rejoice in the fact that honest and good-hearted unbelievers will eventually “glorify God in the day of visitation” (1 Peter 2:12).

ENDNOTES

1 Frederick Danker, et al. (2000), Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago), pp. 116-117.

2 Including teaching Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus (Acts 13:4-12), on his first missionary journey and standing before Gallio, proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18:11-17), on his second missionary journey.

3 All chapter and verse citations that do not have a Bible book listed are from 1 Peter.

4 The phrase “among you” in this verse is another clear indication that he was writing to “regular Christians.”

5 Not cruel masters who lord over their wives, but Christ-like men who (are commanded to) “dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered” (3:7).

6 Acts 14:23; 1 Timothy 3:1-13; Philippians 1:1; Ephesians 4:11-12.

7 NIV.

8 Albert Barnes (1997), Notes on the Old and New Testaments: Acts (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

9 R.C.H. Lenski (2001), The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, (US: Hendrickson), p. 314.

10 Barnes.

11 Matthew 27:69-75; Galatians 2:11-14.

12 It seems likely that this “day of visitation” is a reference to the day that a non-Christian becomes a child of God—when the Lord would, in a sense, “visit me with Your salvation” (Psalm 10-6:4).

13 Considering how many Christians, including countless church leaders, have struggled with sexual purity, Peter’s repeated reminders to be “chaste,” “pure,” and “holy in all your conduct” cannot be overemphasized. Disciples of Christ who fail to put away lewdness, lusts, revelries, etc. (4:3), and who hypocritically “give a defense,” do (and have done!) much damage to the cause of Christ. Sadly, this damage can be exponentially greater in our day of instant Internet search engines, 24-hour news coverage, and social media.

14 From the Greek anupokritos, which is from hupokrites (from which we get our English word “hypocrite”).

15 Danker, p. 10.

16 Ibid., pp. 10-11.

17 Cf. Peter Davids (1990), The First Epistle of Peter (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), p. 10.

18 Tacitus (1952 reprint), The Annals and the Histories, trans. Michael Grant (Chicago: William Benton), 15.44, parenthetical comment in orig.

19 Though on an imperfect, fallen level (Romans 3:23).

20 Who did so on a flawless level.

21 Dick Sztanyo, as quoted in Kyle Butt (2001), “What Is Apologetics?” https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=826.

22 From excitement for what’s to come after this life is over, to the joy of talking about it, to sadness for those who do not currently have it.

23 R.J. Knowling (2002), The Expositor’s Greek New Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), 2:82.

24 See Dave Miller (2019), Is Christianity Logical? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), pp. 49-50.

25 Moises Pinedo (2008), What the Bible Says About the Catholic Church (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), https://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/wtbsatcc.pdf.

26 We actually know the handful of preachers to whom he was referring, as other parts of his letter revealed their identity. It is also noteworthy that the Catholic priest humbly acknowledged his own shortcomings in his critique.

27 An apologist is no more to be arrogant than an elder is to be domineering (1 Peter 5:3).




Copyright ©  Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.