Restitutio

Apologetics 4: Teleological Arguments for God’s Existence If someone asked you, “Why do you believe in God?” How would you answer? Sadly, most of us would flounder around, maybe talking about the bible or second-hand miracles. However, philosophers have long identified three classic approaches to reasoning about God’s existence: the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments. In this lecture, you’ll learn several versions of the teleological argument–evidence for intelligent design–so that you can reason from the complexity of creation to the existence of the creator. If you would like to take this class for credit, please contact the Atlanta Bible College so you can register and do the necessary work for a grade. Notes: introduce three main arguments cosmological: cause and effect teleological: order and design ontological: reason alone general approach for teleological arguments: the universe exhibits a certain level of order and design a design requires a designer a designer of the universe exists what proof is there that a painter exists? a painting what does a building prove? a builder exists what about a tree? it is more complex than a painting or building, doesn’t this prove a tree-maker exists relating to design or purpose especially in nature (m-w.com) it is based on order and design Romans 1.18-20 and Psalm 19.1-4 Advantages to the teleological argument It is very easy to prove because it is in experience The argument uses well established scientific facts to prove the existence of God True science will always lead to God. In the end science it the study of the creation and thus an indirect study of the Creator. “The conflicts between ‘science’ and ‘religion’ occur in historical science, not in operational science.” (Answer’s Book, p. 21) classic formulation: William Paley’s Watchmaker Argument Suppose you were walking along the beach and saw a watch on the ground… How many parts are in the watch? biological complexity, cosmic complexity, the just right conditions for earth (distance from sun, etc.) Cell Complexity (Biological Teleological Argument) Consider a human cell blood-clotting mechanism, the bacterial flagellum, photosynthetic apparatus, pupal transformation from caterpillars to butterflies, complexity of human brain, “The most reasonable inference from such observations is that outside intelligence was responsible for a vast original store of biological information in the form of created populations of fully functioning organisms. Such intelligence vastly surpasses human intelligence…” (Answer’s Book, p. 29) Information in DNA (Origin of Code Approach) it is an encoding/decoding system the sequence represents something other than itself (i.e. the genes contain the information about what an organism will be) It has an alphabet and a syntax (the combinations of letters mean something) A DNA sequence can be copied and stored on other media without a loss of information (only language has this property) In fact even committed atheists will refer to it as the DNA code (code is a language; think of Morse code or computer code) The DNA code contains information which is neither matter nor energy (though it is stored/transmitted/encoded/decoded by matter and energy) Language comes from a mind (there are no languages that do not come from a mind) this argument hinges on this assertion

In this interview with philosopher Dr. Dale Tuggy, I ask him questions about his personal spiritual journey.  Dr. Tuggy is an analytic philosopher who works on world religions and the doctrine of the Trinity.  He’s a tenured professor of philosophy at the State University of New York at Fredonia.  Furthermore, he runs a popular website called trinities.org where he blogs and hosts a podcast of the same name.  Dr. Tuggy also wrote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the Trinity, an excellent read, including a very informative supplemental reading called “unitarianism.”  In what follows I interview Dr. Tuggy about his own journey of faith, including how he became a Christian, what got him into philosophy, how he came to doubt the traditional doctrine of the trinity, and where he sees the future of the biblical unitarian movement going. To get in touch with Professor Tuggy, visit Trinities.org or his personal bio page.  Also, you can subscribe to his podcast on iTunes or Google Play and follow him Youtube.

Apologetics 3: Theism, Atheism, and Pantheism In Building Belief, Chad Meister uses a worldview comparison chart to simplify all the religions of the world into three broad categories: theism, atheism, and pantheism. This strategy will help you to compare and contrast five major aspects of these three worldviews, including theology, ontology, epistemology, axiology, and anthropology. Next, you can evaluate each of the three main possibilities on the basis of logic and livability. This way of looking at world religions can especially help you in talking to others about the faith. If you would like to take this class for credit, please contact the Atlanta Bible College so you can register and do the necessary work for a grade. Here now is lecture three: Theism, Atheism, and Pantheism. Notes: worldview: “a collection of beliefs and ideas about the central issues of life…the lens through which we ‘see’ all of reality” (Meister, 39)[1] theology: is there a God, if so what is God like? ontology: what is ultimate reality? epistemology: how do we acquire knowledge? axiology: what is the basis for morality? anthropology: who are we as human beings (Mesiter, p. 40) origin, meaning, morals, destiny the worldview approach is so helpful because there are thousands of religions and no one would have the time to study and evaluate them all since they can be categorized into three main worldviews, we can immediately eliminate huge numbers of them if we can disprove or prove one of these to be correct According to Meister, there are three worldviews: atheism, theism, and pantheism common objection1: how do you know that Christianity is right and all the other thousands of religions are wrong? how can you be so arrogant? common objection2: all religions are just the same anyhow like the blind man and the elephant   paradigm atheism pantheism theism God/gods/divinity (theology) no supernatural arguments for God God is everything; everything is God if God has a mind then he can’t be a rock; if he doesn’t have a mind then he is not a person one or more gods exist apart from nature problem of evil; no empirical test for supernatural beings reality (ontology) naturalism (big bang + evolution) big bang needs cause, origin of 1st life, Cambrian explosion no distinction between creator and creation why can’t I read minds if there is only one mind? physical and spiritual realities both exist; spiritual first then physical God of the gaps knowledge (epistemology) scientific method can’t prove logic, can’t understand love or altruism can’t trust senses; learn through meditation; look with in then I don’t need to listen to you teach me how to think about pantheism (only ideas I conceive of are true) knowledge gained through senses (scientific method) and revelation (divine insight) what about wackos who say God told them to kill their children? morality (axiology/ethics) socially constructed, determined by evolution if no absolute source for morals, then why follow them? selfishness leads to dysfunction evil is an illusion; eliminate attachments can’t detach from loving my children God sets absolute standard for right and wrong Euthyphro dilemma humanity (anthropology) physical only, electro-mechanical machines difficult to explain consciousness spiritual only, physical is a deception but I know I have a physical body! both physical and spiritual brain damage affects personality atheism description: theology: no God or supernatural ontology: naturalism (big bang + evolution) nothing outside of nature exists epistemology: scientific method, empiricism

What standards should Christians have when it comes to entertainment?  Can the bible offer any guidance for such a modern issue?  Every day shows, movies, books, and songs bombard us with all kinds of ideas and depictions that constantly nudge us in different directions.  Although, we like to think of ourselves as impervious to the subtle effects of violent movies, sex scenes, foul language, and so on, the truth is we are more like sponges than stones.  This is an important topic worthy of your consideration.

Apologetics 2: What Is Truth? In order to establish any of the claims of Christianity, we must first make a case for truth itself. How can you hope to provide reasons for God’s existence or Christ’s resurrection if the person your talking to claims, “That’s just your truth, and I’m glad it works for you, but it’s not true for me?” Learn how to use the law of non-contradiction to help explain what an objective truth claim is. Although many prefer the mushy relativism of our age, in the end, as Christians, we are stuck with Chris who claimed to be “the way, the truth, and the life,” and that “no one comes to the father but through me” (John 14.6). If you would like to take this class for credit, please contact the Atlanta Bible College so you can register and do the necessary work for a grade. Notes: pluralism/multi-culturalism definition: a theory that there are more than one or more than two kinds of ultimate reality a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain and develop their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization when Christians and non-believers are the only two options, life is simple throwing in Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Diana Eck’s four points on pluralism[1] First, pluralism is not diversity alone, but the energetic engagement with diversity. Diversity can and has meant the creation of religious ghettoes with little traffic between or among them. Today, religious diversity is a given, but pluralism is not a given; it is an achievement. Mere diversity without real encounter and relationship will yield increasing tensions in our societies. Second, pluralism is not just tolerance, but the active seeking of understanding across lines of difference. Tolerance is a necessary public virtue, but it does not require Christians and Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and ardent secularists to know anything about one another. Tolerance is too thin a foundation for a world of religious difference and proximity. It does nothing to remove our ignorance of one another, and leaves in place the stereotype, the half-truth, the fears that underlie old patterns of division and violence. In the world in which we live today, our ignorance of one another will be increasingly costly. Third, pluralism is not relativism, but the encounter of commitments. The new paradigm of pluralism does not require us to leave our identities and our commitments behind, for pluralism is the encounter of commitments. It means holding our deepest differences, even our religious differences, not in isolation, but in relationship to one another. Fourth, pluralism is based on dialogue. The language of pluralism is that of dialogue and encounter, give and take, criticism and self-criticism. Dialogue means both speaking and listening, and that process reveals both common understandings and real differences. Dialogue does not mean everyone at the “table” will agree with one another. Pluralism involves the commitment to being at the table — with one’s commitments. challenges of pluralism compete for adherents, financial contributions, legitimacy, political influence intermarriage (raising children), national identity, public education (Halloween for Christians), workplace (prayer time for Muslims, Sabbath for Jews) specific challenge to Christianity is Jesus really the only way? are all non-Christians going to hell? (more than 2/3 of the world) isn’t it intolerant and bigoted to say we have the only right way to God? cultures have their own moral standar

Brian and Rochelle Allen of Vermont share their journey of faith, including how they became discontent with the traditional evangelical doctrines they grew up believing.  In this interview they discuss how recontextualizing the bible in its Hebrew thought-world opened their eyes to understand Jesus so much better.  He is the Jewish Messiah sent to redeem Israel, not an eternally generated, second-person of a metaphysical Trinity.  In addition, they discuss how they studied their way out of the rapture ideology, popularized by the Left Behind book series.  I think you’ll find their story intriguing and heartfelt, but even more compelling is their intellectual humility.  This husband and wife team is a true example of what it means to be a Berean in the 21st century.

Apologetics 1: Introduction Have you ever heard of apologetics? This is the field where Christians seek to provide the reasons for why they believe what they believe. In a post-Christian society, it is increasingly important to understand the reasons for your faith. For example, why do you believe in God’s existence? Why do you think the bible is true? How do you know God raised Jesus from the dead? What about pain and suffering, modern science, or Christianity’s sexual ethics? In the next fifteen lectures, you’ll get answers to these important questions so you can build your own faith as well as get better at sharing it with others. If you would like to take this class for credit, please contact the Atlanta Bible College so you can register and do the necessary work for a grade. Here now is lecture one: Introduction. Notes: The Biblical Mandate for Apologetics 1 Peter 3.14-16 apologetics has nothing to do with apologizing, it is simply giving a reasoned defense of the faith two key guidelines: (1) gentleness, (2) respect ἀπολογία: a speech of defense, the act of making a defense as a speech: Acts 22.1 as written: 1 Corinthians 9.3 in court: 2 Timothy 4.16; Acts 25.16 defending the gospel: Philippians 1.7 “The task of apologetics is to show that the evidence that the New Testament calls people to commit their lives to is compelling evidence and worthy of our full commitment. That often involves a lot of work for the apologist. Sometimes we would rather duck the responsibility of doing our homework, of wrestling with the problems and answering the objections, and simply say to people, ‘Oh, you just have to take it all in faith.’ That’s the ultimate cop-out. That doesn’t honor Christ. We honor Christ by setting forth for people the cogency of the truth claims of Scripture, even as God himself does.[1]” Objections: Faith by definition excludes the possibility of certainty “Sadly, in our day many Christians argue that we ought not to be engaged in attempts to ‘prove’ the truth claims of Christianity, that faith and proof are incompatible. ”[2] blind faith vs. informed faith what did Jesus do? did he ask people to just believe that he was the Messiah without offering any reasons for that belief? John 5.36; John 10.24-25, 37-38; 14.10-11 Later on Jesus’ resurrection became the single most important proof of his claim to be Messiah. Acts 17.30-31; Romans 1.1-4 In the book of Acts, Jesus’ resurrection was mainly argued for on the basis of eye-witness testimony. Acts 1.22; 2.32; 3.15; 10.39-42; 13.31 this is not to say we can have complete certainty, faith is still required, but it’s not a leap of blind faith “The Bible never tells us to take a leap of faith into darkness and hope that there’s somebody out there. The Bible calls us to jump out of the darkness and into the light. That is not a blind leap.[3]” only the holy spirit can illuminate someone’s heart to believe much of apologetics is clearing out of the way barriers to belief Bible is full of contradictions Christians are all hypocrites How can there be a God if there is so much pain and suffering? Doesn’t God command genocide? Hasn’t science disproved miracles? What about evolution? What about the Big Bang? think of it like picking up rocks from the field before planting the seeds besides, God has chosen to work with the spoken word. foolishness of preaching (1 Cor 1.21)

Some say faith-healing is a charade, concocted by charlatans to build their empires on the backs of the afflicted and suffering.  Others think that Christians who reject healing contradict what Jesus said and did, preferring the comfort of tradition instead of unleashing God’s mighty power.  What do you believe about supernatural healing?  Listen in to this interview with Bill and Ann DeNenno to hear what they’ve learned in four decades of pursuing and practicing healing.  In this interview they discuss the benefits of keeping an open mind so that you can learn from others outside your own tradition.  They go on to talk about deliverance (casting out demons), including both some of the excesses they witnessed as well as the genuine results they’ve encountered.  Next they explain inner healing and how God can set us free from emotional wounds that happened long ago, but still push us around today.  Lastly, they share about Christ-centered healing, where they look to Christ as both the example and the active agent in healing today. You can contact the DeNennos directly via email at bdenenno@gmail.com.

How much time do you spend with God alone?  Do you have a quiet time each day for scripture reading and prayer and meditation?  Drawing on the image of the vine in John 15, Keith Daniel passionately advocates for a daily devotional time to abide in him.  He argues that this time is the key to holy living.  If we commune with God consistently, then we can draw on the strength we receive then to walk with God the rest of the day.  Daniel believes this time is always under attack so you have to fight for it each and every day.

Today Hugh Knowlton joins Restitutio to talk about how to handle important doctrinal differences with other Christians.  So often such intra-Christian discussions generate more heat than light.  Does that mean we should all just ignore our differences, forcing smiles and hoping that no one peers beneath our thin veneer of unity?  Or should we charge headlong like a bull at the matador, eager to present our case and defeat all objections whatever the cost?  This interview will help you strike the balance between empathy and courage as Knowlton shows how he stood up for his monotheistic beliefs in a gracious way that refused to forsake kindness while disagreeing on a core issue.  In the course of the interview, Knowlton addresses five main questions from a biblical unitarian point of view: Based on John 1.1, do you believe that Jesus is eternal? Do you believe that Jesus is the creator? Does Isaiah 9.6 refer to Jesus when it calls him “God” and “eternal?” Why does Jesus receive worship if He is not God? If you do not believe that Jesus is God, who is he? Here is the text of the letter he sent: Dear Ben, As I have mentioned I don’t come from a traditional Trinitarian background and as a result, I have a different paradigm or way of thinking in regards to the relationship of God and His son, Jesus. Even though there is a difference I sincerely pray that what I believe will not bring offense or cause you to think that I am diminishing the Son if I believe, as I do, that he is not exactly the same (identical) as the Father. You will surely agree that Christology is a massive subject! I don’t consider myself a theologian or a master on this subject but do enjoy studying it occasionally; more so during the last several years when I have been attending an orthodox church where the Trinity is not questioned and alternative beliefs as to who Christ is are not generally welcomed. I am not out to change the Christian world to my beliefs but do like to do “a check up from the neck up” to see if what I hold true still makes sense or whether I need to consider changes. By fellowshipping with men like you, Larry and many others at PBC I have grown in my respect and understanding of your mindset and beliefs. It is good to gain understanding even if it does not end up with agreement on all points. Before I address your questions I want to say that my answers are, in my estimation, more of a summary of what I believe; they are certainly incomplete and are not as full an explanation with all the reasoning, historical evidence and scriptural support that I would like to include. I think that would take writing a book, which I want to avoid! I am sure more questions will be raised and if we want to continue a dialog, either in person or by email, we can both share more. In your email below you express a concern about ‘agreeing on His nature’. I don’t see a similar concern shared by Jesus, Paul, John or the other writers in the New Testament. I am not saying the concern does not exist but I don’t recall scriptures that place an abundant emphasis on it other than what I read in Math 16:13-17 where Jesus asks his disciples ‘Who do you say that I am?’ and Peter’s reply ‘You are the Christ (the Messiah), the son of the living God’. I think this is a great start for having common ground. And this is where I would like to start by addressing your last question as who I think Jesus is. I believe him to be the son of God, the Christ, the Messiah, the promised seed, my redeemer and savior, the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation, the resurrection, the way, the truth and the life, the bread of life, the living Word of God, He declared the Father and reveals