Links:

• https://www.steveschramm.com/objections-to-christianity/
• https://www.steveschramm.com/seed-soil-soul/

Dr. Wise lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_LmhhL18U4

Mentioned: https://www.steveschramm.com/facts-faith-feelings/

Not only does this give me an advantage in the conversation because I don’t have to work hard defending things I’m either not sure about or would rather not muddy with dialogue with, but it also forces my interlocutor to think more carefully. It gives me control.

However, this is a luxury that is hard to come by with respect to whether or not Christianity is ultimately true.

The kicker is, I believe that’s actually a very good thing. Here’s why.

Christianity Deals in Reality

There is a popular book by Dr. Michael Heiser that has been circulating for a few years now called The Unseen Realm. It’s a great book, but that’s beside my point. The original working title of the book was, The Myth That is True. 

As I’ve contended in a book of my own, Christianity is a Story; not any story, but the Story of all stories. Other writers have traded on this idea as well, such as Greg Koukl and C.S. Lewis. 

But this particular Story is one that is grounded in reality. It’s the real deal.

This has some important implications that we’ll discuss below.

If we’re not careful, we’ll use unfortunate language when sharing our Story that casts doubt on it from the get-go. We live in a culture that does not understand “Christianese,” so when we share with others, we’d be well advised not to “market” it as though it were a fairytale. 

For example, when we talk about the resurrection of Christ, we need to learn how to articulate this as though it were a real, historical event, because it was! 

As I’ve written elsewhere, I do not advocate for a “setting aside” of the Bible in these discussions—however, neither do I advocate for a “setting aside” of the important scholarship that has been done to demonstrate this is a real event that happened in human history. 

Christianity Offers Real Hope

I won’t pretend to know any statistics, but history and my own experience tell me that, while many do come to believe in Christ through an evaluation of the evidence and a desire to know the truth, most come by way of a broken heart or a broken life. 

Christianity flourishes through times of persecution and brokenness.

Why is this? Why is that Christianity can take a life and turn it around, often during a time of great suffering and pain?

This is because of what Christianity—grounded in reality—offers. It offers real hope to the helpless, hopeless, and brokenhearted. 

Through his resurrection, Christ demonstrated that he alone has victory over death, hell, and the grave. He has overcome, and promised that anyone who would believe in him and trust in his finished work to save them, could have eternal life.

Fortunately, we not only have the promise of eternal life then, but of abundant life now. Only Christ offers this because only Christ can offer this. 

Christianity is Testable

Finally, because this Story is grounded in reality, we can test it! We can know it’s true! 

The reason this matters is precisely because our backward, relativistic culture would have you believe Christianity is just one of many legitimate options. 

It has good maxims and virtues to teach like any other religious system of thought (so the thinking goes), so it might be good for you to be a Christian, but there’s no reason for them to be one too. 

The problem with that thinking is that it divorces Christianity from reality, which is to say, it assumes Christianity is false. Christianity is exclusivist. Jesus said, “I am the way…no man comes…except through me.” 

So for the hope, virtues, and maxims that Christianity offers to be meaningful, it must be true, which means every other worldview must be false. This is why it matters that Christianity makes strong claims. (By the way, the Apostle Paul thought the same thing! See 1 Corinthians 15:17.)

In what ways is Christianity testable? Many, but two come to mind as the most important: History, and prophecy. In fact, we see these emphasized in 2 Peter 1: 16-21. 

History is the domain of eyewitness verification, and what they recorded about what they saw. Our acceptance of Christ’s historicity comes backed with lots of this eyewitness evidence; much more than would ever be expected of a first-century carpenter. 

We have at least four independent sources found in the gospel traditions themselves, and around 17 extrabiblical sources that confirm various aspects of his life and work. 

But we also have “a more sure word of prophecy”—that is, history recorded in advance.

Christ’s arrival in history is not an isolated event. In fact, he was “slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8), and many details of his life and work were written hundreds of years before his arrival. One prophecy concerning his death, found in Psalm 22, was written around 1,000 years before his birth, and even before the means of his death—crucifixion—was invented. 

So when we argue for the truth of Christianity, we make strong claims. We make claims to exclusivity. We make claims about historical events. We make claims about biblical consistency. We make claims that history has been recorded in advance.

But these claims are a good thing. They underscore the fact that Christianity is grounded in reality. And that means our faith is meaningful.

—

Prefer to listen to this post? Listen below:

The post Christianity makes strong claims! And that’s a good thing. appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Links:

• Episode 49: Can We Ever Find the Biblical Kinds?
• Carl Linneaus

Mentioned: 

• Bill Barrick YouTube Series

Decision Making Book

Links mentioned: 

• https://www.steveschramm.com/gap-theory/

These days, it’s harder than ever to get to the bottom of the truth.

Unfortunately, relativism is alive and well. And sometimes, it’s downright painful and even deadly to accept the truth.

We are commanded by Jesus, though, to live in the truth. And in this week’s episode, we are going to take a look at holding a firm commitment to true things, even in the face of a backwards culture.

The post The Importance of Believing True Things appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Some, like myself, think that Moses wrote these early chapters and that he intended to teach God’s creation of the world in terms of six, literal, 24 hour days. Others believe that while he did write that, that is not what he intended to teach.

Still others believe that’s not even what he wrote—or that he wasn’t even the writer!

So I have one simple question for those who take a view other than my own. Listen in to this week’s episode to find out what it is.

The post The One Question Critics of a Literal Genesis Need to Answer appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

After all, many churches are having to resort to gimmicks in order to even get people in the door!

But I wonder if the problem is of a different nature entirely?

That’s the subject of this week’s episode. I hope you enjoy!

The post God’s Word Builds God’s Church appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Don’t get me wrong—the distinction is vitally important, but we must remember that our own subjective stories about how the gospel impacted us are, for some people, going to be more persuasive than arguments and evidence.

Full Transcript:

All right. My friends, it’s been a little while since we have been able to connect, but I had something on my mind that I just wanted to go ahead and share with you this week. And that is about the power of subjectivity. Now there’s a reason why I want to talk about this. And I think it’s pretty important over in against a, a thought stream that appears in apologetics conversations quite a bit, and it’s an important thought stream. But there is the other side of it that sometimes as people who are really interested in apologetics, we can drift off into.

And I think it’s dangerous if we do not give proper due and proper respect to the other side of the coin. So what I’m speaking to here primarily is the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity. Let me explain what I mean by that. If for some reason you are not familiar with these terms, if you, if you’ve never really given any thought to what these terms mean and how these terms should be put into practice. So if if something is objective, that means that it is outside of you. It’s, it’s not something that you are coming to determine rather it’s it’s something that you are coming to a believe about the real objective world, whatever it is, you know, maybe you’re coming to believe it, or maybe it’s just a fact that exists, whatever. It’s something about the real objective world.

In other words, the, the earth is, is round. The earth is not flat. The earth is round. Now that’s not something that is, is, is the way it is because of something we decided inside of ourselves. But it is something that is true about the world out there. It’s something that is an objective fact about the way the world really, really is. And we are coming to recognize that that fact, or that bit of information about the world. Now on the on the flip side of the coin is the subjectivity. And this is where the, the source of the belief or whatever is coming from within the subject instead of outside of the subject case. So this is the inside outside distinction that I, I first heard this from Greg Koukl. So I want to give him the credit.

I don’t know if maybe he heard it from somewhere else. Probably not. He’s a pretty brilliant guy. So he probably came up with it. But, but subjective is, is all about what’s inside and then objective is all about what’s outside. And so that’s a careful distinction now what has happened in popular culture is that those items have become very confused. And so that is in fact why the team at Stand to Reason (Greg Koukl’s organization) have a theme for their reality apologetics conference. The one for, I believe it was 2020, I believe the 2020 theme was truth is not ice cream. Now, the reason they titled it that way is multifaceted. I mean, first of all, it’s just a catchy title. That’s pretty cool.

But the reason is because of this confusion that has happened in culture and it’s been happening for awhile. Truth is not like ice cream. Truth is something objective. There is no your truth. Truth is not a subjective thing. It’s just not. It’s a, it’s an objective thing about the way the world is out there. No, somebody you know, me and my wife for example, have a differing opinion on the best flavor of ice cream. We have a different opinion about the tastiness of pickles. Ah, okay. For me I think pickles are absolutely horrible and my wife thinks they are one of the best things on the planet. So understand that there is a key distinction between deciding that you like pickles and deciding that the earth is round and not flat.

Pickles have a taste, but how you feel about that taste, how that taste appeals to you is a very, very different thing from being able to objectively identify the existence of the pickle or the shape, for example, of the pickle. These are objective features of reality. So truth is not ice cream. These are two kinds of separate things, and it’s very important that we do maintain this distinction. However, what we don’t want to do is drift into the unfortunate place where we disregard the power of storytelling. So I actually wrote a book about this (shameless plug) called God, the Great Commission, and You, and the subtitle, which attempts to kind of really get at the thrust of the book is How to Tell the Greatest Story Ever Told. And incidentally, I think Justin Brierley and the team at Unbelievable must’ve stolen that from me because that’s also what they decided to title their most recent, Unbelievable conference that they had.

Obviously I’m just kidding. But I did not steal that from them. I I came up with that first. So anyway that is how I frame the conversation aspect of that in the book, how to tell the greatest story ever told and it is about sharing the gospel. It’s about being able to bring people to Jesus. The idea there is though there, I think in many of our churches, we have a skewed understanding of how this must be done. I mean, I come from a background where basically, if you didn’t spell it out in exactly this way, and you didn’t attend certain events and this, that, and the other thing then you weren’t doing it right. There were a certain sort of elite in the church who were doing this the correct way, and everybody else was essentially living in sin.

And I’ve, I’ve come to a different view of that these days. I think that you can share the gospel in ways that are that some would consider to be an unconventional. And I’ve spoken of Mike Bechtle’s work in the past. He’s written a great book. Actually the name of it is slipping my mind right now for some reason, but Oh, I know it’s called Evangelism for the Rest of Us by Mike Bechtle. And it’s a really great book that speaks about how you can be introverted and still actually be very confident sharing the gospel. And so that’s a great book, but there is a, a subjective element to what happens to each and every one of us, whenever we get saved, whenever we come to the Lord came. And I think that that story is unique to me, that story is unique to my son who just asked the Lord to save him the other night.

It’s unique to the apostle Paul as well. The apostle Paul had he conversion experience on the Damascus road that you and I did not have. He had a story to tell others. And you have a story to tell others, and I have a story to tell, tell others. So it’s very important that we don’t get this confused. And now, now we kind of dig even deeper into this for, for just a moment. Oftentimes this question comes up of how early in a conversation do we get into the apologetic stuff. How, when do we go for the stuff about you just resurrection arguments for the existence of God, et cetera. And I’ve actually heard William Lane Craig response to this and given his status, I guess you would say that other people have given him as, as, as you know, basically being the greatest living apologists there is today, you might find his answer to this fascinating.

And I’m just gonna, I’m just gonna paraphrase it. But essentially what he believes on this is that actually we should not be starting with apologetics, what we should be doing is...

Recently, a Facebook friend of mine (and good brother in Christ) raised a startling proposition: Should one be compelled by Scripture to take a young age view of world history, it would be preferable to regard the Bible as teaching error.

Now, there’s some context to this (which we discuss at length in the episode), but is this really the best path to take? Is the evidence for an old earth SO untouchable that we should regard the Bible as teaching error if we are compelled it teaches otherwise?

Listen in to this week’s episode here to hear my response: https://www.steveschramm.com/rant-creation-frustration/

Enduring Together,
Steve

The post RANT: Creation Frustration appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

The Bible Nerd Society is a group of intensely passionate Bible-believers. We explore the world of the Bible, endeavor to fall more in love with Jesus every day, and build a thoughtful defense for the Christian worldview. We study topics including biblical studies, theology, Christian apologetics, creation science, and philosophy.

Here’s the Truth of the Matter

These days, information is being manipulated and censored. It is harder than ever to gain a fair hearing on the world’s most popular platforms, and support is waning for writers and content creators trying to make a difference in God’s world. While I’m under no delusion that I have all of the answers, I know that God has given me the zeal and skill of teaching and instructing others in the nerdalicous aspects of the faith.

Are you a Bible Nerd?

To be frank—I am here to start a movement. A retaliation against Bible boredom. A look into the true worldview of the Bible, making the best scholarship accessible and cultivating a passionate community of others who want to see Jesus high and lifted up. If that sounds like something you’d be interested in, keep reading…

Why Your Support Matters

I do not have a 501C(3) non-profit, nor do I intend to start one. However, as someone that God has entrusted with the gift of teaching, I feel it is my calling and duty to equip the church with resources that expose the intellectual side of Christianity, looking deeply at Bible themes, theology, and apologetics. But with work and family commitments, technology costs, and the costs of acquiring information and tools to aid in Bible study (any one of which far surpasses the cost of your subscription for one month), it can be difficult to maintain a tight community and valuable content for free.

What’s In It For Me?

This is a completely fair question, and I’m proud to announce that I’ve thought it through and have some AMAZING benefits to offer paid members of the Society. Benefits include:

1. Digital All-Access Pass. I love to create digital products like eBooks, audiobooks, video courses, and practical instruction guides. Upon subscribing, you will not only receive access to the archive of newsletter posts, but INSTANT access to download every single digital resource I’ve ever created—oh, and every future one I create. Is it okay if I overdeliver?
2. Expert Guest Posts. I have been SO fortunate to forge relationships with established experts, teachers, and advanced students in a variety of subject matters including biblical studies, philosophy, genetics, and more! Occasionally they will be contributing guest content to the Society—just for you!
3. Become my Book Editor. As a Society member, not only will you gain access to all of my eBooks AND audiobooks, but the primary focus of the Newsletter content will be the development of future books. Yep—I want you to interact with and comment on my ideas and help me develop the book before it ever goes to print! I will keep track of all contributors and give you a special mention in the front matter of the book, as well as promotion if you have a ministry of your own!
4. Daily Discussion Thread. This is what I’m most excited about. I receive emails on a regular basis from my community, but I’m often forced by my commitments to wait until I get a “free moment” to respond (those are few and far between!). Plus, I think my community could benefit from interaction with each other rather than just me. Every few days I will post a discussion thread for Society members to chime in on and interact with ideas!
5. Join the Movement. Most importantly, you will be joining the fight against Bible boredom. Our mission to help everyday Christians become PASSIONATE Bible nerds. But I can’t do it without your support!

I would love for you to join me by supporting our cause and becoming a paid subscriber of the Bible Nerd Society. Will you join me? Usually all of the above would cost an already low $5/month or $30/year. But for the Christmas season, you can get locked into the FOREVER rate of just $2.50/month or $15/year! ==>Click here to subscribe today!<==

The post Join the Bible Nerd Society! appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

But the blow is worsened by the fact that, in a biblical worldview, rejection of the Messiah is inextricably linked with rejection of the Creator of the cosmos.

Much like the son who sits in the lap of his father while slapping his face, or the man with the saw tirelessly sawing away at the very branch holding him firmly to the tree, mankind rejects his maker.

We are going to look at these rejection motifs in today’s episode of the Bible Nerd Podcast.

Here’s the link to the episode: https://www.steveschramm.com/the-rejected-messiah/

Enduring Together,
Steve

The post The Rejected Messiah (John 1:10-11) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

John continues his logic in denoting that, within the Word, is life.

And, whatever that “life” is, it is also the light of men.

While these are familiar verses of Scripture, what may be unfamiliar to you is the deep theological connection these concepts share with the Hebrew Bible.

In this episode of the Bible Nerd Podcast, we’ll take a deep dive into these verses of Scripture to uncover the essence and importance of John’s mission as the witness of the Light.

Here’s the link: https://www.steveschramm.com/jesus-the-life-and-the-light

Enduring Together,
Steve

The post Jesus, the Life and the Light (John 1:4-9) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

We think of Jesus as the One who died for us. We think of him as the Lord of all and Savior-King. We think of him as the baby, lying in a manger, wrapped in swaddling clothes.

But what rarely crosses our minds is a startling truth about Jesus that the Bible is anything but silent about.

In fact, it’s central to John’s theology and grounds his arguments in the entire first chapter of his book.

The fact is—Jesus is the creator and he is the sustainer of all things, visible and invisible.

As we continue in our John series, we are looking at this aspect of Jesus, the Word, and how other biblical authors “hyperlinked” back to this theme.

Here’s the link to listen in: https://www.steveschramm.com/jesus-creator-sustainer/

Enduring Together,
Steve

The post Jesus as Creator—and Sustainer—Of All Things (John 1:3) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

In Greek, the word is logos, meaning “word” or “message.”

When we endeavor to dive deeper into the text, we find some amazing things, including:

1. How the trinity solves the most ancient and fundamental philosophical problem known to man.
2. An explicit articulation of multiplicity in the godhead.
3. The relation of, yet distinctions between, the Word and the Wisdom of God (a common Old Testament theme).

In this brand new series on the podcast, we are taking a deep dive into the book of John.

This is an amazing book…

It teaches a high Christology and goes deep into the nature, role, and person of the Christ…and yet, it is written from the intimate perspective of none other than John, the Beloved.

In this podcast episode, after some brief announcements, we explore John 1:1-2 together and begin to unpack some of these ideas.

Join me here: https://www.steveschramm.com/jesus-the-word/

Enduring Together,
 Steve

The post Jesus, the Word (John 1:1-2) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Here is something insightful that my friend Jonathan had to say:

I see then the value of tearing down false authorities which compete with God’s Word—it is fairly simple to show that, taken in isolation, human logic & evidence-based methods are inadequate as means of judging the truth of God & His Word. If I’m not mistaken, the real challenge which confronts the unbeliever is not a lack of information, but a lack of righteousness (as Voddie Baucham likes to say). The unbeliever needs to recognize his sinful rebellion against the Creator and submit to God’s authority. Only when he admits that he’s living in God’s world will his mind be properly oriented to examine the evidence. That much is clear to me, but it’s difficult to share that with an unsaved coworker, for instance. “Repent, or we can’t properly talk about evidence” doesn’t strike me as an easy way to build bridges. It certainly doesn’t have the same appeal as the evidentialist’s mantra “let’s examine the evidence together, and see what conclusions we can draw.”

I want to make some comments about his thoughts here and describe my approach to presuppositional apologetics.

Here is just some of what we discuss in the episode:

1. Biblically, one’s standing with God is always at issue—not whether or not the evidence is supportive of a given claim.
2. Why can’t the Bible itself count as evidence?
3. Claims of the Bible must be considered when discussing a biblical proposition.

Take a listen here: https://www.steveschramm.com/my-approach-to-apologetics/

Enduring Together,
Steve

The post My approach to apologetics appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

That have been ripped entirely of their biblical context and used to promote unbiblical ideas.

While this is unfortunate, it happens ALL the time.

What can be done?

Promoting real, biblical kindness.

Listen to this week’s Bible Nerd Podcast for more: https://www.steveschramm.com/be-kind-no-like-actually/

Enduring Together,
Steve

The post Be Kind. No, like, Actually. appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

For example:

Your family. Wouldn’t you defend your family if they were being falsely accused or afflicted?

Your freedom. When push comes to shove, many of us stand and fight for the freedom we enjoy here in America.

Your friends. You wouldn’t let your friends go without a defense if they needed you to step up.

What about the Bible though? Do you love—and know it—well enough to defend it?

Here’s the link to listen: www.SteveSchramm.com/love-defend

Enduring Together,
Steve

The post What we love, we’ll defend appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

It’s a shame that this thinking has often drifted into the church.

In this episode of the Bible Nerd Podcast, I spend a couple minutes dealing with an example I’ve seen of creationist “cancel culture” and what we can do to be biblically faithful all while avoiding a bad attitude.

Here’s the link: https://www.steveschramm.com/creationist-cancel-culture

Enduring Together,
Steve

The post Creationist Cancel Culture appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

It has been a short while since our last time together, and I wanted to pop in for a few moments to give an update, some announcements, and share with you a message I gave recently at church.

Here are some important highlights/links you may want to know about:

• The podcast IS coming back. I am still taking a hiatus, but the question is definitely NOT, “Are you coming back?” I certainly am.
• I recently released a physical version of my book, God, the Great Commission, and You. Here’s the Amazon link.
• I recently was asked to participate in a series of discussions with The Mentionables surrounding the topic of deconversion. It was an awesome and fruitful time (not mention close to six hours of Bible nerdery). You can find those discussions here and here.
• Going to be playing some messages that I have recently delivered at church. Today’s is from Genesis 4! (Note: The audio quality is not wonderful, but I think the content is worth bearing through it.)

Thank you so much for your continued support and listenership.

Steve

The post Another Update (And Talking About Door Demons) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

I have an update for you—it’s less than 5 minutes, so be sure to take a listen below.

Thanks!

The post A SUPER Exciting Update About the Podcast appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

I have written about this before here, and even wrote a book that deals with this in more depth. 

Suffice it to say, I believe that there is a place on the spectrum where all personality styles can shine; in other words, there’s no excuse not to be doing evangelism. It just may look a bit different for one person than it does for another. 

If you’re breathing and you’re a follower of Christ, you have a role to play in his great commission. That’s the bottom line. 

The Evangelism Crisis

The difficulties I mentioned above have, unfortunately, left a giant mark on the state of evangelism within the Christian church. 

A 2019 study conducted by the Barna Group was revealing: 

Quite obviously, this is troubling—especially during a time with so much cultural upheaval regarding issues of race, sexual orientation, and gender differences. 

The world needs the gospel now more than ever, and to think almost half of Christians in my generation think we ought not try to bring others to the faith is almost mind-blowing! 

I wonder, though, how much of this is a function of studied, rational thinking versus being driven to inaction by fear.

Many Are Afraid to Share

Very many feel as though outright presentations of the gospel are nerve-racking experiences that should be avoided. 

While I want to disagree with this ideologically, as a card-carrying introvert, I get it! It’s not because I’m ashamed of the gospel; I have just as much trouble making cold calls for my web design business. 

I’ll talk all day long about Jesus as long as you ask first.

The study above gives me pause, though. I’m not entirely sure whether we can say the participants in this study were afraid just to bring it up, afraid to talk through the issues, or whether fear was even the demotivating force. 

Here’s what I do know: I would answer that I am equipped to answer the questions, I would also answer that I am reasonably skilled at sharing with others, but I would not answer that it is wrong to share my beliefs in the hopes of bringing another along. 

I also know that one cannot seriously read the Bible and come away with anything close to the idea that evangelism is unbiblical or immoral. This leads me to believe that fear of the conversation is the true driver behind these responses. 

And if that’s the case, as we’ll discuss below, I believe there’s a remedy. 

Many Are Too Extreme When they Share

There is another side to this, however, that is a bit troubling. While some are so reserved they end up sitting on the sidelines, others are so outspoken they border on uncharitable and tend to look down on those who don’t find evangelism so easy. 

Here again, the lines are rather blurry. Perhaps the idea of street preaching is a good example. Is street preaching bad, immoral, or unbiblical? Certainly not in itself. 

However, characteristic among many street preachers is the inability and/or failure to seriously engage ideas. Where one can be loud and overpowering, there is less “need” for rational discourse, so the thinking goes. 

Just preach louder at ’em and the Spirit will do the rest! Amen!? 

Well, I’m not so sure.

I happen to know a thing or two about my generation and those upcoming, and one thing I know is that we’re characteristically tired of being screamed at. We’re willing to trade our beliefs, but we demand to know why we should.

Many street preachers are excellent at their craft and have the desire and ability to engage in meaningful discourse, so I want to be careful not to lump folks together. But sadly, those who can do this are few and far between. 

So where do we go from here? I think there’s a two-part solution to this problem.

Solution, Part 1: Put Down the Cookie Cutter

As per the usual, truth is so rarely found in the extremes. In most ideological conversations, there’s a middle ground that answers more questions, includes more people, and is more preferable for a number of reasons. 

This issue is no different. 

Here’s the issue: Many of us (myself included) grew up in a context where evangelism was not a lifestyle, it was an event. If you weren’t doing the profoundly extroverted evangelism “event” you were living in sin and disobedience. 

The issue has become, since most people believe that just is evangelism, they sit out altogether. They’ve given up it entirely! Worse, as I believe can be argued from the study above, this belief has become so axiomatic that many now believe it’s morally wrong to try to share your beliefs with the intent of converting others! 

Certainly, we’ve missed the mark. We can begin to repair these wounds by putting down the cookie cutter we have given to the idea of evangelism. Everyone—from any background, with any personality style—can and should do their part in the Great Commission. 

For some more practical ideas of what this might look like, see my book God, the Great Commission, and You. It does not have to be hard. Why not invite the neighbors over for a meal and minister to them? Show the love of Christ, and see where the conversation goes. 

Ask God for an opportunity. He’ll probably put one in your path! Be radically different. I’ll share an example of the perfect opportunity—and my subsequent failure to capitalize on it. 

I was filling up my cup of water at work one afternoon, and one of the attorneys at my firm asked why I was always

WRITER: 

The authorship and dating of Daniel are highly controversial, with folks (even Bible-believing Christians) holding various opinions. One primary reason for this is the stunning prophetic accuracy, although many argue on the basis that it appears to include linguistic details from a later time period. The early date (held by most conservative scholars) is the 6th century BC, which would place the book having been written in the time period in which it is set (a reasonable idea). The later date is in the 2nd century BC, roughly 400 years later. The latter view would also entail that Daniel himself was not the writer, but perhaps some anonymous Jew writing under the pseudonym, Daniel.

KEY VERSE:

And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. (Daniel 2:44)

INTERESTING FACTS:

• His name means “God is my judge.”
• Daniel’s life and ministry span the entire seventy-year period of Babylonian Captivity.
• Daniel was deported to Babylon (some 900 miles away) when he was sixteen years old.
• He was selected for special service in Babylon, and was given three years of training in the best of Babylon’s schools.
• He was given a Babylonian name – Belteshazzar, meaning “Bel Protect his Life.”
  • Bel was a title assigned to various Mesopotamian gods.
• 9 out of the 12 chapters in Daniel revolve around dreams.
• Of the 2,930 Bible characters, Daniel is one of the few well known characters about whom nothing negative is ever written. Joseph is yet another.
• Daniel’s life was characterized by:
  • Faith
  • Prayer
  • Courage
  • Consistency
  • Lack of compromise
• The Book of Daniel has been called the “Apocalypse of the Old Testament.” – It was written in the genre of Jewish apocalyptic literature.
• The Book of Daniel was written to offer encouragement to the Jewish exiles by revealing God’s sovereign will for Israel after the period of Gentile domination.
• Daniel is the only book in the Hebrew Bible that directly attests belief in bodily resurrection (Dan 12:2–3).

THE RELIABILITY OF DANIEL:

• Daniel can be thought of as self-authenticating, due to its highly accurate prophetic messaging. More on this below.
• Jesus himself affirms direct authorship by Daniel, with special respect to future prophecy (Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14, Matthew 26:64, etc.).
• The book’s author is named within, has features consistent with the time period it purports to be written in, and seems to accurately deal with events around the time of writing as well as events in both the near and distant future.
• The Prophet Ezekiel, who lived contemporaneously with Daniel, mentions Daniel three times (14:14, 20; 28:3).
• The Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament and quite literally “The Bible” for many NT writers) contains a copy of Daniel, which seems VERY unlikely on the “critical,” 2nd century view. This is because it is likely the books of the Septuagint were all translated at the same time, which would mean Daniel had been accepted as canon and carried over 300 miles away to Alexandra a mere 30 years after its writing. 
• Because Daniel is written both in Hebrew and Aramaic, and some of the Aramaic features seem to be from the 2nd century, this leads some (even evangelical) scholars to accept the late date. However, this is a moot point. The reality is there are ways to explain the language we have present from either the critical late date or conservative early date perspective. Thus, there is no reason to reject the latter.

KEY THEMES:

• Prayer
  • Daniel 6:10 gives a subtle yet powerful insight into Daniel’s life: It was a life of faithful prayer.
    • Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.
    • This suggests that Daniel’s life was marked by prayer. He loved God, trusted God, and relied on God for everything. 
  • God reveals the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams to him in a vision. Verse 17 strongly underscores the importance of prayer to Daniel. He and his friends urged Yahweh to give Daniel the interpretation so they would not be destroyed with Babylon’s wise men.
• Power
  • Daniel’s integrity and faithfulness to God was without compromise. Notice his rejection of the king’s delicacies in Daniel 1:8.
    • John MacArthur notes, “Those enticing morsels and vintage wines—perks of the king’s service—had been ritually dedicated to Babylon’s false gods. What’s more, eating food prepared to Babylonian standards was likely to put the young exiles in violation of God’s laws concernin...

Are they ultimately the same thing? Is there a distinction? What, if any, is the distinction? Do they relate to one another in some way?

These are important questions that we will attempt to answer as we go along. I would like to frame our discussion in terms of the two most common viewpoints with respect to this issue.

Typically, the creationist will make the mistake of conflating these concepts into one. They may say something like, “We know evolution didn’t happen because evolution cannot create life.” Because of its imprecision, as we’ll see, evolutionists take issue with this.

On the other hand, the evolutionist will say something like, “Abiogenesis is irrelevant to whether or not evolution occurred.” However, creationists take issue with this because it misses a crucial point.

Defining the Terms

The term “evolution” essentially means change over time. To determine how much change requires a lot more work.

We have to determine the molecular limits of DNA and RNA, consider factors such as epigenetic and other environmental circumstances, etc. As you might imagine, there is no shortage of opinion with respect to what evolution can accomplish.

Many believe that evolutionary mechanisms can, on their own, account for significant changes between populations. These changes are the route through which biological evolution has occurred from, on the evolutionist’s view, the moment just after life began. And therefore, all life is ultimately related.

Others believe that certain organisms must haven been specially created to have distinctions from others. So while a wolf may be in the “evolutionary” lineage of your family chihuahua, a leopard would not be.

As you can see here, there is a multiplicity of ways that experts seek to define evolution, and as scientists learn more about what is actually is, those definitions often become outdated.

The most important takeaway is that we are referring to biological evolution. The semantics matter.

Abiogenesis, on the other hand, means “the origin of life from nonliving matter” according to Webster’s. What’s interesting is that, in support of this definition, they cite David Warmflash et. al. on the following:

According to the conventional hypothesis, the earliest living cells emerged as a result of chemical evolution on our planet billions of years ago in a process called abiogenesis.

Therefore, the “conventional hypothesis” would seem to rely on some sort of evolution, namely chemical evolution, in order for the process of abiogenesis to take place.

Biogenesis simply means “the origin of life.” According to one source, the Law of Biogenesis is:

The principle that living organisms develop only from other living organisms and not from nonliving matter.1

Thus, we are working with two distinct, but related concepts: The arising of organic (living) matter from non-living matter, and its subsequent change over time.

What Evolution Does

Evolution tends to be a moving target. This is hardly surprising. After all, those who hold to this theory expect to account for all biodiversity we observe in the world, over a great amount of the purported 4.5 billion year history of life on Earth.

To be sure, this is no small task, which is why so many question whether it has the goods.

My interview with Dr. Micheal Behe discusses the abilities and inabilities of evolutionary mechanisms is far greater detail than we’ll go in this article, so I would encourage you to check it out.

In short, though, evolution works by the invocation of a number of biological processes, most of which can be summarized by the statement, “random mutation acting on natural selection.”

There is further clarification needed for the concept of “randomness.” There is quite some debate on what is meant by this term. The most common idea is that randomness is akin to “chance.” In other words, the changes that take place are random in that they could have...

—

When we think about “context” there are certain concepts that come to mind involving grammar, genre, literary devices, and other linguistic features. More astute individuals will go even beyond this to include extra-biblical historical referents, where the text is within the larger canon of Scripture (including the surrounding passages), etc.

These are all extremely important concepts and should be considered! I believe the context question is even more pervasive than that, though.

Theologians choose to think about these things in a variety of ways, so rather than thinking there is a particular method to follow, it’s more as though there is a matrix of ideas that should be intentionally considered. We’ll briefly discuss five categories that I believe helpfully summarize the variety of contexts that must be considered when approaching the biblical text:

Spiritual

Here, the word supernatural would also be appropriate. Simply put, the Bible is a book that reports supernatural events. Naturalism and a biblical worldview are diametrically opposed to one another. This is important because many of us come from Christian traditions that have a predisposed bias against the supernatural. What is meant by supernatural? While the answer could quickly lead us into subject matter the length of another book, it’s important to grasp the basic idea here.

A lengthy quote from Dr. Michael Heiser, in his book Supernatural, will be helpful:

I’m not talking about the big stuff, such as whether Jesus was God come to earth, who then died on the cross and rose from the dead. I’m not even thinking of miracle stories like the exodus, when God rescued Israel from Egypt by making a way for them through the Red Sea. Most Christians would say they believe those things. After all, if you don’t believe in God and Jesus, or that they could do miraculous things, what’s the point of saying you’re a Christian? I’m talking about the little-known supernatural stuff you run into occasionally when reading the Bible but rarely hear about in church. Here’s an example. In 1 Kings 22, there’s a story about a wicked king of Israel, Ahab. He wants to join forces with the king of Judah to attack an enemy at a place called Ramoth-gilead. Judah’s king wants a glimpse into the future—he wants to know what’s going to happen if they attack. So the two kings ask Ahab’s prophets and get thumbs up all around. But those prophets are just telling Ahab what he wants to hear, and both kings know it. So they decide to ask God’s prophet, a fellow named Micaiah. What he says isn’t good news for Ahab: Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; and the LORD said, “Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?” And one said one thing, and another said another. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, “I will entice him.” And the LORD said to him, “By what means?” And he said, “I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.” And he said, “You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.” Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you. (1 Kings 22:19–23) Did you catch what the Bible’s asking you to believe? That God meets with a group of spirit beings to decide what happens on earth? Is that for real? Here’s another example, courtesy of Jude: And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day. (Jude 1:6) God sent a bunch of angels to an underground prison? Really? As I said, the Bible has a lot of strange things in it, especially about the unseen, spiritual world. I’ve met many Christians who have no trouble with the Bible’s less controversial (at least among Christians) teachings about the supernatural, such as who Jesus was and what he did, but passages like this tend to make them more than a little uneasy, so they ignore them. I’ve seen that tendency up close. My wife and I once visited a church where the pastor was preaching a series based on 1 Peter. The morning he hit 1 Peter 3:18–22, the first thing he said after getting behind the pulpit was, “We’re going to skip these verses. They’re just too weird.” What he meant by weird was that those verses contained supernatural elements that just didn’t fit into his theology. Such as: For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits—to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. (1 Pet. 3:18–20 NIV) Who—and where—were these imprisoned spirits? That pastor either didn’t know or didn’t like the answer, so he simply chose to ignore these verses. As a Bible scholar, I’ve learned that strange passages (and lots of other little-known and little-understood parts of Scripture) are actually very important. They teach specific ideas about God, the unseen world, and our own lives. Believe it or not, if we were aware of them and understood what they meant, as difficult and puzzling as they are, it would change the way we think about God, each other, why we’re here, and our ultimate destiny.

The more I study the Bible, the more convinced I am that we need to take seriously the biblical claims about the unseen world. In fact, there’s a delicate balance between conspiracy theory and fact. Some people take this stuff too far; they see the devil behind every decision they don’t agree with. Others, as Dr. Heiser lamented, ignore it all together. It’s easier to brush it off than to admit the reality. If that’s you, I’ll remind you of the Apostle Paul’s words:

Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

How often we find ourselves fighting the wrong battles! We tear down other people instead of realizing the true enemy to be the devil and his minions. A firm grasp of the unseen world is therefore a necessary precursor both to understanding your Bible and, frankly, being a fruitful Christian.

Political

This familiar passage records the first instance of human sin—the event that set the downward spiral of the precious creation of God in motion.

However, it also creates a theological puzzle for some. The passage here teaches that the Lord was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, looking for Adam. 

Believe it or not, there’s a legitimate question here, because how one sees this passage could actually lead one to find a particular genre of writing in the text. Let me set up the problem, and then we’ll discuss some of the ways theologians wrestle with this passage. 

The “Problem”

The Bible tells us some things about the nature of God. It directly tells us he is a spirit (John 4:24), he made the world and everything in it and dwells in a temple not made with hands (Acts 17:24), he is immortal and no man can see him (1 Timothy 6:16), and he is eternal and invisible (1 Timothy 1:17). 

Indirectly, we can infer similar things from the text of the Bible. For example, the Bible assumes God exists from the very first verse. That verse, Genesis 1:1, says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” 

There is no word for “universe” in Hebrew—“the heavens and the earth” is a Hebrew merism, where two contrasting parts are used to indicate the whole. Thus, the point is everything other than God was created by God. 

But if all that is true—no one has seen God and he is immaterial by nature—how could he walk with Adam in the garden?

This problem is compounded by the fact that God tells Moses in Exodus 33:20, “Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.” So if someone were to see God, he would die! 

How do we resolve this puzzle?

The “Solutions”

Over the years I have heard different positions that aim to account for this odd passage of Scripture: 

• It is merely a theophany. 
• It is merely anthropomorphic language. 
• It is both a theophany and anthropomorphic language.

At first glance this may not seem like such a big deal, but based on what may be argued given the conclusion one reaches, it quickly becomes one. 

William Lane Craig, for example, argues that this passage utilizes merely anthropomorphic language, which would ostensibly place it squarely within the “mytho-historical” interpretation he has offered as of late.1

We’ll define and discuss each of these solutions in turn. 

Merely a Theophany?

A theophany refers broadly to a human-form or otherwise human-perceptible manifestation of Yahweh.2

The verses in question would seem to evidence a visual manifestation of Yahweh—a theophany. The Lexham Bible Dictionary (LBD) defines the term as such:

Does this event in Scripture qualify? 

There are varying opinions. Some believe that this event does not qualify because there is language missing that seems to be present in other pericopes which are ostensibly more obvious instances of theophany. 

Craig argues along these lines in response to a questioner:

The Latin name given to the argument seeks to accurately describe it—that is, it means to “reduce to absurdity.” The point is easy to grasp, I think. 

An argument that is self-refuting is one that can be reduced to absurdity. This argument is a favorite among presuppositional apologists because the PA’s point is that non-Christian worldviews all reduce to absurdity. Although it’s tempting, I will refrain from spending too much time making that association here, but instead make a practical application to that end a bit later. 

So what’s an example of an argument that reduces to absurdity? Consider the following statement: All knowledge is derived from the use of the five senses.

But there’s a problem. The statement makes a knowledge claim which was not derived from the five senses! The claim is a philosophical one that reduces to absurdity because it cannot sustain its own burden. 

Since one could not know via the five senses that all knowledge derives from them, this claim is self-refuting and, therefore, absurd. 

Many don’t realize how this thinking has crept into everyday use. Consider the wayward child who wishes to follow his friends in a risky endeavor, despite knowing the potential consequences: “But everybody will be there!” he protests.

Mom and dad, in their wisdom, reply to the child: “Oh yeah, well if everybody jumped off a bridge, would you do that too?” The point is that if you follow the child’s thinking to its logical conclusion, it creates an absurd situation.

We see this kind of thing in popular New Atheist arguments. “Only the hard sciences provide truth.” Really? Is it true that only the hard sciences provide truth? If so, then the claim is false, because we did not apprehend that truth by using the hard sciences. 

The most common and potentially most recognizable is the post-modernists’ claim that there is no truth. But if it’s true that there is no truth, then it’s also true that there is truth—a glaring contradiction.

As you see, this can be a very powerful tactic, because a surprising number of arguments which seek to set themselves up against the knowledge of God fall into this trap.

Speaking of tactics…

Tactics

One of my favorite authors, Greg Koukl, calls this the “Taking the Roof Off” tactic in his book, Tactics. 

He provides a helpful illustration to set up the study:

He is making a grand point here. Many people make this simple mistake at the worldview level—a level which, as Koukl demonstrates below, can lead to undesirable social consequences.

Koukl explains a scenario in which Mother Teresa attempted to lobby for the forgiveness of a criminal. This demonstrates just how important the concept of the reductio is—it can have disastrous consequences in our thinking:

In a final example from Greg, it becomes clear that such arguments can literally lead to the difference in mentality between life and death:

A Monkey Wrench

I should point out one liability, here. Not everything that sounds contradictory actually is. In a few moments we’ll examine biblical examples of the reductio, some of which are employed by Jesus himself. 

However, Jesus also taught paradoxical truths. Paradoxes are often surface-level contradictions that are not logically fallacious when examined closely. Many proverbs are like this as well. They are designed to create tension in your thinking for the purpose of making you dig deeper and think harder. 

For example, when Jesus says, “He who is first shall be last,” he is saying something tha...

Here it is in its entirety: 

There seem to be three primary ways of understanding this who the “gods” are in this passage, two of which involve humans and one of which involves heavenly beings:

• Israel’s judges
• Kings of other nations
• Spiritual beings 

There’s a lot to unpack here, so first, let’s take a look at why each view claims what it does. 

• Judges. On this view, the “gods” are the judges God appointed over Israel prior to receiving their first king. The strongest argument for this view, in my opinion, is that these gods receive judgment from Yahweh for failing to do precisely those duties which God tasked the judges with. The New Bible Commentary notes: “So what does it all mean? (i) The ‘gods’ may be the shadowy but real ‘principalities and powers’ working their own evil way in the affairs of earth (Is. 24:21; Dn. 10:12–13, 20; Eph. 6:12). The OT occasionally uses ‘gods’/‘sons of God’ for angelic beings (8:5; Jb. 1:6). (ii) The duties specified in vs 2–4 are, however, those of Israel’s judges (Ex. 22:22–24; 23:6–7; Dt. 1:16–17; 10:17–18; 16:18–20); their work is to exercise ‘the Lord’s judgment’ (Dt. 1:17). To bring a case ‘before God’ and ‘before the priests/judges’ are interchangeable terms (Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 9; Dt. 17:8–13; 19:17). Furthermore, the Lord Jesus understood ‘gods’ as humans ‘to whom the word of God came’ (Jn. 10:35).1
• Kings of other nations. Supporters of this position see the context brought into focus by vv. 7b-8 as requiring the kings of all other nations to be in view. Thus, this Psalm describes God’s judging the rulers of other nations for failing to take care of their people.
• Spiritual beings. Those who take this view rest their case on the meaning of the word elohim in v. 1. The word appears twice in this verse, the first time a singular reference (to Yahweh) and the second a plural (each demanded by the grammar of the verse). The argument suggests that God’s council is made up of other heavenly beings, and thus, God is standing in the midst of these heavenly beings; the lesser gods. They are being judged for their failure to do as he commanded and watch over the people over the nations. 

There are multiple ways we could go about discussing this. For a fuller discussion of these passages, I would recommend Tim Chaffey’s Fallen.2 For our purposes, though, I am going to point out just a few of the biggest problems for each view, landing eventually on what I believe to be most likely correct. 

The Problem with Israelite Judges

For me, it seems very compelling that the exact problem Yahweh has with these “gods” is the failure to perform duties that he assigned to Israel’s judges. Despite this, I believe the “judges” view faces some insurmountable problems.

One problem is that the context is quite clearly all nations of the earth (see vv. 7b-8), and Israel’s judges were at no point given jurisdiction of the nations. In our dialogue, my friend mentioned that he thinks these two verses could be disconnected from the rest of the passage in the sense that, even if only judges are in view, the Psalm is merely closing with extolling God as the ruler of all nations. 

There are a least two problems with his solution. 

First of all, the word “judge” here is used. It is the same Hebrew lemma (or, dictionary word) as is used in v. 1. This would seem to indicate that this Psalm is presenting a holistic picture: The Psalmist is extolling God because he judges the nations and their leaders, including their gods. In other words, he judges among the gods of those nations. 

Further, this is made clearer when noting the “inheritance” language of v. 8b. Here’s the question to ask: Why does the Psalmist include the fact that all the nations belong to Yahweh? Does this credential somehow lend more credence to the notion that he stands in authority over the affairs of Israel? It’s not clear how. It seems to me that, as Israel’s God, he has authority of them regardless. 

However, if this Psalm is describing Yahweh’s right to judge all nations, even though he’s Israel’s God, its inclusion makes sense. We’ll return to this later when we discuss the “spiritual beings” view.

A second problem is that Israelite judges are never granted a portion in God’s divine council elsewhere in Scripture, yet heavenly beings absolutely are (see Ps. 89:5-8). They are certainly never considered “sons of the Most High”—human “sons of God” are part of NT theology, not OT.

A potential difficulty here arises from a discussion of Exodus 21 and 22, which in turn leads into a much larger discussion about what Scripture means by the term elohim. Chaffey sets up the problem:

Rather than rehash the arguments, let’s let Chaffey summarize his findings on the term elohim:

He cites Heiser for agreement: 

There’s a danger in thinking you are not really in ministry unless you are serving full time in a pastoral position.

I think this is quite mistaken thinking.

It is true that certain people are called by God to do specific tasks that we often associate with “ministry”—however, as we’ll discuss below there’s much more to it than that.

More Than Professional

Right off the bat, it seems clear to me that ministry is something that goes beyond being a pastor, elder, or deacon for a local church.

The word most often translated “ministry” in the New Testament is diakonia. It appears 34 times and in a variety of contexts. It appears twice in Acts 6:1-4, in an interesting way:

And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

“Ministration” in v.1 and “ministry” in v.4 are the same Greek lemma, diakonia.

Notice the issue of the passage: Almost humorously, smack dab at the beginning of the church, people are complaining because their needs are not being met.

What’s going on here is that Christianity is spreading so fast and the disciples of Jesus were working so hard to minister in teaching the Word that some of their other duties were being neglected.

Thus, they appoint other disciples to take over these particular duties in order that they can continue “the ministry of the Word.” But does this mean the ministry of the Word, whatever that is, is more important?

It seems to me this question requires some nuanced thinking:

In one sense, it certainly seems appropriate to say that the preaching and teaching of God’s Word is of maximal importance. After all, the preaching of God’s Word is how people come to believe (1 Cor. 1:21). The disciples obviously thought this role was extremely important.

However, it is also true that God’s plan for bringing people to himself involves ministering to others through service. In fact, to see this, we need not look further than the next few verses of our same passage (v.5-7):

And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

As a direct result of this decision, the Word of God increased, the number of disciples multiplied, and even many priests were converted!

Grant Osbourne reflects on the success of this decision:

All three verbs in verse 7 are imperfects, stressing ongoing activity. The “word” is not just the gospel but an epithet for the church as the people of the word. So it means, “the church kept on growing.” Moreover, it did not just grow; it “increased rapidly” (or “kept on multiplying greatly”), perhaps even more than earlier. Most astoundingly of all, “a large number of priests,” who had replaced the Pharisees as the major opponents of God’s people, “became obedient to the faith,” another epithet for conversion. Scholars estimate there were between 18,000 and 20,000 priests and Levites all told. That a significant number became Christ followers is a major sign of God’s blessing on the church. The principle is clear—every crisis is a Spirit-led opportunity to surrender further to him and discover a newfound depth of strength, resulting in an even greater growth of the church.1

These seven men who were appointed could have chosen to complain because they did not get to pray, study, and teach the word full-time. Instead, they were obedient to their spiritual vocation, and the church multiplied.

The lesson is important: When God’s people are obedient, his glorious purposes are fulfilled and his blessings rain down.

Don’t think that because your ministry doesn’t look like somebody else’s, it’s not “real” ministry. That’s misguided—and unscriptural—thinking.

But Also Professional

Sure enough, though, there are particular offices of ministry given for the local church. There is a need for pastors, deacons, elders, evangelists, etc.

As we saw just above, there are those who are gifted with the ability to teach, to preach, and to shepherd a flock.

While a great many churches have a

1. Though I cannot begin go to imagine the grief or pain of those Ravi hurt and the emotional toll of his behavior, it is also the case that to discredit a piece of information due to the character of the source of such behavior is to commit the genetic fallacy. If I quote or mention Ravi, it is because I believe those items to contain truth value on their own merit.
2. To go back and change previously written information without a careful disclaimer is, I believe, a form of revisionist history. If a disclaimer must be offered anyway, I believe there is value in keeping the material accessible. So while I know it is a difficult ask to say, “Just trust the ideas and disregard his personal character,” I must ask that of you as a careful thinker.
3. I have seen a lot of comparisons by Christians to not removing Ravi’s work because biblical characters like King David and others had fallen into terrible sin, and they have obviously been given to us as a gift to learn from (Romans 15:4). Why “cancel” Ravi if we’re not “cancelling” the Bible? It does seem to me, though, that there are two problems with this line of thinking: (1) These books are inspired by God and thus we can trust his revelation to us. They were examples given for a purpose. (2) These characters also seemed to show true biblical repentance of their wicked actions. Ravi remained unrepentant until his dying day. Therefore, I do not think these are 1-and-1 comparisons. This behavior reflects SERIOUS error and dangerous behavior on the part of Ravi and, to an unknown degree, RZIM as a whole, and that must not be taken lightly or swept under the rug.

I do not expect you to agree completely with this decision. I do ask that you respect the thought, prayer, and seeking of counsel in which I engaged regarding it.

Do miracles happen?

One of the primary reasons people take issue with religious thought is that it almost necessarily involves a concept of the miraculous—an offensive idea to one living in the 21st century West.

We’ve got it all figured out, right?

We know that “science has disproven miracles” and that the laws of nature can basically account for most (all?) phenomena that we experience.

Actually, it may surprise you that this attitude toward the miraculous is not shared by most people in the world.

Even so, it’s an issue worth talking about, because the possibility of the miraculous is most definitely required for the Christian worldview to be true. It makes miracle claims: Creation ex-nihilo, bodily resurrection, miraculous healing—none of these can work if the miraculous cannot happen.

What is a miracle?

This is a good place to start. After all, how can we form an opinion about the miraculous if we don’t even know what it is?

The 18th-century philosopher David Hume famously objected to miracles. In Can Man Live Without God?, Zacharias clarifies and succinctly responds to Hume:

Hume’s argument against miracles…runs something like this: Since a miracle is a violation or exception to a law of nature, by definition it is based on the lower degree of probability. A wise man, says Hume, will always base his belief on the highest degree of probability; therefore, a wise man will disbelieve in miracles.

Hume’s argument is somewhat strained once again. For example, the possibility of this world happening, even according to the strongest antitheist, is as close to zero as one can get. Therefore, the wise man should deny the existence of the world. His argument is dreadfully circular: He first assumes that miracles can never happen and then concludes that they have never occurred. The real wise man, to counter Hume, would be one who would make his conclusion based on the evidence.1

I think most skeptics would agree that we should make judgments based on arguments and evidence, therefore, it would be prudent to first discover whether a miracle has occurred, rather than to speculate whether they can.

And here is why we have to know what counts as a miracle. Is the mere fact that there is something rather than nothing a miracle? What else can it be?

Hume simply got the definition wrong. He claims that a miracle violates the laws of nature, but why think this is the case? Do I violate the laws of nature when I interrupt my falling pen from hitting the ground? Surely not; I merely intervene.

The subject of Divine Action (i.e, God’s working and interacting within the world) is a huge one, but it is certainly not defeasible by the mere assertion that the laws of nature are violated when the miraculous takes place.

To the skeptic of miracles, I would simply begin with one of the naturalist’s favorite subjects: human evolution.

For the sake of argument, if evolution had occurred, by what measurement would we decide whether or not it was miraculous? Was it just the laws of nature working on biological material? If probability is to be brought to be bear, does that change the equa...

In many ways, this is the most basic question a person can ask! And yet, the question is actually quite complex. There are words to define, concepts to explore, and beliefs to espouse before one can really have a satisfactory answer.

As we explore a biblical answer to this question, it may be as good a time as any to reflect honestly on your answer.

Saved?

Most of us grow up with the notion that there is a salvation “event” that takes place in our lives. Do I still believe that today?

My answer would be yes, but it’s complicated.

Ephesians 1:3-4 seems to describe what this “event” looks like:

In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Pauls opens his letter with a theological treatise; he is underscoring what Jesus has accomplished, and will go on to draw some conclusions about a life of proper faith and practice for the Ephesian church.

Notice in this passage that Paul describes that once one “trusts” (i.e., “places their hope in”) Christ, after hearing the gospel and believing, they are “sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise,” which acts a “down payment” of their inheritance.

What’s being described here is beautiful; it is the process of reconciliation between God and man. Salvation is therefore God’s rescue, via the work of Jesus on the cross, of a sinner—and his sealing them for their final day of redemption.

There’s a natural question that arises at this point. What are we saved from?

The answer is multi-faceted. Are we saved from Satan? Our flesh? God himself?

Scripture can be leveraged in support of all of the above. And yet, a mere reflection on the nature of the world provides a sufficient answer: We all know the world is broken.

Greg Koukl beautifully makes the point in The Story of Reality:

None of us can long avoid the gnawing sense of guilt we feel for the bad things we have done. This is a good thing, of course, for a couple of reasons. For one, the person who never feels bad about doing bad things (an especially unpleasant kind of person known as a sociopath) is not likely to stop himself from doing something dreadful when it suits him. But there is another reason. It is a very small step from feeling guilty to realizing that we feel guilty because we are guilty. And that is precisely what the Story tells us. We are broken, true enough. But we are not simply malfunctioning. We are not machines that need to be fixed. We are transgressors who need to be forgiven. We have not merely “made mistakes,” like getting our sums wrong when balancing accounts. We have sinned. And with sin comes guilt. And with guilt comes punishment. The sin must be answered for. It must be paid for in some way. Atoned for, if you will.

The issue is that something is wrong with the world. It’s not the way it is supposed to be. We are separated from God, and we evidence that separation each and every day through our disobedience to our Creator.

That we are in need of rescue is virtually inarguable; Chesterton famously quipped, “The one doctrine of Christianity which is empirically verifiable is the fallenness of man.”

To be saved, then, is to place your undying trust in the Person and Work of Jesus, and to enthusiastically affirm the words of the Apostle John: “He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” (1 John 5:10-13).

Bulls and goats, or something else?

One confusion that arises with folks, even some seasoned Christians, is that of Old Testament sacrifices.

A lengthy passage from the book of Hebrews brings out the issue:

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws int...

We not only get to celebrate our Savior’s Passion for us, but we are presented with new opportunities to present it in the public arena.

I spent the other day listening to debates, lectures, and Q&A sessions around the Resurrection of Jesus. One such presentation from none other than Dr. Lydia McGrew, one of the smartest and sweetest Christian ladies and philosophers I know, touted a “Maximal Data” approach to arguing for the truthfulness of the New Testament accounts of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

(I mean, I don’t know that many smart, sweet, female Christian philosophers; but I’m proud to know her!)

Maximal vs. Minimal

The first half of her presentation described a variety of approaches to this question, all of which fall under what is commonly called a “minimal facts” approach to presenting this data.

Two leading proponents of such an approach are also two of the leading scholars of the Resurrection in the world, Drs. Gary Habermas and Mike Licona.

And while even between them there is slight variation in approach,1 the central idea is this: We can have confidence that the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are truthful, even if we only use the data which secular historians will grant.

The motive behind taking such an approach is virtuous, however, as Lydia helpfully noted, I think there are some problems that result in this approach weakening the overall case.

Some of the issues involve a lack of clarity around what many scholars are actually willing to grant about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances, too many unnecessary2 concessions to liberal scholarship, a watered-down definition of gospel “reliability,” the need to defend additional information that renders the approach not so “minimal” after all, etc.

For Lydia (and her husband, Tim, who have defended the resurrection together), the strength of the case lies not in how few data points mainstream scholars will grant, but how many data points are well-evidenced.

This is the “maximal data” approach.

A few hallmarks of the approach are:

1. A succinct presentation. Some object to using this argument because they assume it would take too long in a debate setting. This is not so. For example, as Lydia mentioned, the approach could be presented in a simple trilemma: Either the disciples were deceived, they were mistaken, or they were telling the truth.

2. Strong reliability. In other words, there’s an emphasis on the reliability of the New Testament documents as giving accurate information. The minimal approach would argue its case in spite of assumed unreliability (even if only for the sake of argument). But why take this approach, since there’s good evidence the documents are reliable?3

3. The breadth of scholarship. The minimal facts approach often ignores points that only conservative scholars will accept; it even ignores the empty tomb story, which over 75% of all scholars will grant as...

Of course, I agree.

But so many make the mistaking of thinking marriage is more of a constitutional union. In other words, one is married insofar as they have a piece of paper that declares it to be so.

This isn’t necessarily wrong, but it is not the full picture.

Early on in my ministry, I wrote about the true definition of marriage:

Marriage has nothing to do with love, feelings, emotions, judges, preachers, court documents, soulmates, knots, ribbons, or even wedding ceremonies. Marriage is not horizontal; it is vertical. It is a promise first to God and second to your spouse.

The government’s redefinition of marriage allows for union’s of a nature that God never intended to take place. But if marriage is a particular thing, it cannot be redefined willy-nilly.

God says marriage is the union of one man and one woman becoming one flesh for one lifetime.

Marriage is defined this way for a reason; it is the depiction of another kind of marriage—the marriage between Christ and his bride.

The Marriage Metaphor

The marriage relationship is used throughout the Bible in a metaphorical sense. The idea is to connect God’s true definition of marriage with the relationship we enter into when we become “in Christ.”

John Eldridge writes in Desire:

God is the source of all masculine power; God is also the fountain of all feminine allure. Come to think of it, he is the wellspring of everything that has ever romanced your heart. The thundering strength of a waterfall, the delicacy of a flower, the stirring capacity of music, the richness of wine. The masculine and the feminine that fill all creation come from the same heart. What we have sought, what we have tasted in part with our earthly lovers, we will come face-to-face with in our True Love.

In other words, the loving marriage you enjoy today is pale in comparison to the Divine Union with have with Christ.

However, it is a similar feeling. A healthy marriage will involve sacrifice, unconditional love, euphoric sexual connection, and implicit trust.

But what about the unhealthy marriage?

The Destruction Caused by Sin

Thinking on this theme of marriage in the Bible the other day, it became even more clear to me how destructive sin is.

Let’s be honest: For many of us, “sinning against God” is a bit abstract.

We know what it means, we know it’s bad, and the most attentive of us realize it hurts a person—and I’m not talking about you!

Often times, sin has disastrous consequences for those around us. Particularly the people we love.

But outside of taking another’s life, there is perhaps no sin you can perform against another as grievous as marital infidelity. And in a biblical worldview, it’s no mystery as to why.

The pain caused when you sin against your partner causes a ripple effect throughout your life, but it certainly affects your lover the most. They have entrusted their life to you, and in what may have been nothing more than a momentary lapse of judgment, you have broken that trust.

Of course, this often leads to something worse—an exchange. You exchange the relationship, the love, and the promise for something superficial; a fake; a mirage.

The same exact thing happens when one turns his back on God. The Bible calls this exchanging the truth of God for a lie (Romans 1:25). This grieves the heart of God in a way we can’t understand, but which we can catch a tiny glimpse of in the marriage metaphor.

In the same way marital infidelity (adultery) destroys a marriage, spiritual infidelity (idolatry) destroys your relationship with God.

Sure, it’s possible to make amends. Infidelity does not necessarily lead to divorce; neither does idolatry necessarily lead to apostasy.

But even with that assumption, think of the hurt, pain, and damage that has been done.

Fortunately, there is total reconciliation in Christ. I am thankful that to be “in Christ” means “there is now no more condemnation” (Romans 8:1).

The next time you consider that pet sin, that evil thought you are harboring inside, that malice that grips you when you see a certain person, that allure which comes so easily to our flesh—think about what that sin does against God by framing it in the context of the immediately tangible.

What if it was your wife? Your husband?

Keep that relationship alive and well by following James’ advice: “Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he wil...

At this time, I am able to keep a consistent schedule blogging each week, and my podcast episodes are usually a more in-depth dive into that blog topic, using it as an outline/manuscript and expanding from there. This seems to be working really well, so I am going to keep doing it. I had really good intentions for that last rebrand, but listenership went down almost immediately (despite subject matter staying the same) and, since nobody knows (or cares! LOL) who I am, it always feels weird promoting “The Steve Schramm Show.”

That said, I am announcing a new rebrand of the podcast today. Again, the subject matter is the same: Creation, theology, apologetics, biblical studies. But I am really passionate these days about helping people become lovers of God’s Word; hence the book I am in the midst of writing.

Again, the material is the same, based on info in my blog posts and other special episodes like interviews, etc. It will be “The Bible Nerd Podcast.” The ever-talented Tiffany Schramm designed the artwork for me!

The logic is threefold:

1. It’s a great representation of me. I’m a huge nerd. I do IT work and build websites for a living. I LOVE Star Trek. And I LOVE the Bible. People also call me a Bible nerd all the time, so it works.
2. Immediately you know whether or not this podcast is for you. I am trying to find other Bible nerds. That’s my audience. People who love the Bible and want to know it better.
3. It also accurately reflects the goal. The goal is, essentially, to make more Bible nerds! People who just love God’s Word. So the idea is to create a movement about a love for God’s Word and the Christian Worldview. I think this theme helps to accomplish that.

So I would love your feedback and thoughts! Feel free to email me at steve@steveschramm.com! Or, you can leave your thoughts in the comments below.

The post It’s Wonderful to Be a Bible Nerd appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Even the concept itself is striking. The God who created the universe wants to communicate with us, and used the written word to do it.

It should not come as a shock that much time, money, and effort is given to the process of discovering the accurate reading and understanding of biblical texts.

Of course, those resources are not limited to the discovery of God’s Word, but the availability of it as well. That is, translating and disseminating God’s Word across the nations of the world.

In the Western World, the predominant language is English.

There is a rich history of English tradition when it comes to translations of the Bible. Without a doubt, the King James Bible is the most well-known, longest-standing, and widely disseminated.

Hailing from the time of Shakespeare—a time when many would argue that the English language was at its peak of beauty—even its critics label it a literary masterpiece.

As of today, there are around ~450 different English translations of the Bible.

With the availability of God’s Word in unprecedented abundance, a question is raised in the minds of many Christians today—is it important to study the original languages of the Bible?

Let’s explore that question, by starting with another one.

Where is God’s Word?

One of the big questions Christian theologians have wrestled with involves the nature and location of God’s Word.

This concerns the doctrines of inspiration (what the Bible is) and preservation (where the Bible is).

These ideas are related, of course. A Bible that is written but inaccessible to God’s people is not productive for God’s purposes. Thus, we might start with the assumption that if God spoke, we generally have access to what he spoke.

Some see a problem here, though, because with the exception of very few, scholars are in agreement that the locus of God’s Word is the original autographs.

This means that the intended meaning of the text is found only by understanding the intent of the original author of a given portion of Scripture—all of his cultural nuances, his assumptions, and his writing technique must be considered. And that, generally speaking, copies of the work are granted no such status.

If only the original autographs of God’s Word can be considered inspired and, therefore, inerrant and infallible, where does that leave our English translations?1

When the preacher instructs us to open the Bible at worship services throughout the week, what are we really reading?

The Use and Misuse of English Translations

The field of textual criticism is, well, messy.

That is not to say we cannot learn much from these scholars, nor is it to say that we’ve no hope of understanding the Bible!

It simply means that we cannot pretend as though a perfect, complete, English Bible fell from the sky with instructions on how to infallibly read it.

There is much to consider when you factor what is involved to move a text from the mind of God, through an inspired biblical author, through the pen of translators (both amateur and professional), and into your hands.

Not the least of these considerations is how the message might be transmitted. A flawed view of this process might lead one to believe that God inspired translations as well as the originals.

Why is this flawed? A couple reasons, minimally:

1. If we agree to the doctrine of a closed canon, there’s no reason to think God would inspire a new version of the text. Some who take this view think that God would do this, citing Paul’s various translations of the Old Testament as proof-positive. The problem is that Paul is regarded by other authors of Scripture to be a divinely appointed author himself; not merely a translator to new audiences. Thus, the analogy does not hold.

2. Given the over-abundance of manuscript evidence we have for the Bible, a doctrine of preservation that makes use of this evidence seems preferable to one that can only be affirmed by faith. One might say they have faith that God doubly inspired the Bible (that is, inspired a translation as well as the originals). But there’s really no evidence that can be used to prove this.

   <...

Some of them have plenty of training, but little thoughtfulness. In other words, rather than approaching the Bible charitably, they usually assume the truth of whatever theological narrative fits their narrative.

I’ve seen this in various groups of people:

• Those who used to profess to be Christians but have now “deconstructed”

• Those who spend lots of time learning about Christianity from atheist YouTubers

• Those who are looking for any opportunity to cast a negative light on the God of the Bible

• Those who have no intent to be disingenuous, but don’t know any better

Some people may fit all three of the above, some may not fit in those categories at all.

The point is that bad theology persists in these groups and it’s a big, big problem.

Here are just three of the numerous problems bad theology presents.

Bad Theology Kills Conversations

Both Christians and atheists are often guilty of failing to use good philosophy. Philosophy is the art of making distinctions. The ability to recognize one idea as distinct from another idea, even one that is closely related, is the essence of philosophy.

Now, some argue that philosophy is a subset of theology; some argue the opposite. I’m not speaking to that debate right now. Regardless, failing to use good philosophy is the failure to use good theology. Insofar as you will not make proper distinctions about God, his creation, and how he interacts with it you will end up with bad theology.

How does that lead to killing conversations?

For two or more people to remain in an extended discussion about important ideas, a method of communication will need to be established. This means a few agreements and concessions have to be made throughout. Otherwise, no conversation between two people who fundamentally disagree can be productive.

Here’s a practical example:

Let’s say that Atheist (A) in conversation with Christian (C) takes issue with the fact that Yahweh seems to be a God of warfare. One read through the Book of Joshua would make any 21st-century person living in the West a bit squeamish. We have this idea that the same God who is also “tenderhearted Jesus” would never have commanded the slaughtering of entire people groups.

Leaving aside the fact that the “tenderhearted Jesus” idea is a myth, there is room for lots of theological nuance and discussion around affirming the so-called “conquest narrative” as historical, God-ordained truth.

By the way, I am not rampaging against A here. C may be ignorant of this information as well!

Such details like…

• Often, warfare language in the ancient Near East was rife with hyperbole.

• The conquests were not against any people group willy-nilly; they were the result of holy war against the giant clans.

• Worship of false gods in Canaanite territories was so disgusting and vile that if it were occurring today, many would be mad if God was not intervening!

• God actually waited over 400 years before bringing about this judgment (Genesis 15:13-16).

All that to say this: When understood properly in its theological context, there is much more going on that a genocidal cosmic dictator randomly commanding his people to obliterate another over some land.

That’s not at all what is going on here.

Now—either A or C could, of course, choose to disagree with what has been presented above. But they then need to provide arguments and evidence for taking the text another way. Regardless, what they could not do is blindly assert that ethnic genocide is in view.

And often, this is where the conversation stops. A asserts that this is a case of ethnic genocide, and C either (1) doesn’t have a good answer or (2) ends up defending God’s actions, but in a way that basically concedes the point of genocide.

As long as bad theology is proliferated, there is little room for distinction and discussion about ideas like this.

Bad Theology is Misleading

Bad theology not only kills conversations but can be terribly misleading with respect to all sorts of ideas: the nature of God, anthropology, angelology and demonology, etc.

One of the worst examples I’ve seen of this is captured “nicely(?)” in a popular Internet meme. There are different versions of this, so I’ll express it in the terms the good folks at Got Questions did: “God sacrificed himself to himself to save humanity from himself because of a rule he made himself.”

(As an aside, watch Christian philosopher William Lane Craig dismantle a few very popular atheist memes like this one here.)

We had a fabulous discussion about the evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

It’s Easter season, and for many of us, this is a time in history unlike any we’ve ever seen. And in a time when many are seeking hope and desperate to find it, I am so thankful that Jesus is who he is and did what he did. He is the hope of the nations.

If you’ve never heard the strong historical evidence in favor of the resurrection before, or, if it’s been a while and you just need a refresher, I think you’ll really enjoy this one.

The post SPECIAL EDITION: Evidence for the Resurrection appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

I get the sense that this is one of those ideas that has been cliché in Christian culture, such that its true meaning and/or significance is actually lost among those who are familiar with it.

The author of a popular-level book based on her exciting contribution to the scholarly theological literature, Bearing God’s Name, relayed the following in an interview:

My dissertation was on the command not to take the Lord’s name in vain, which is how most of us read it in English. I was exploring the possibility of not reading it as speech-related. In the history of interpretation, most scholars have assumed that this command has something to do with speech. It’s either prohibiting false oaths or mispronunciation of the name, or the use of God’s name in magic or in cursing. There’s all sorts of speech-related possibilities. I read the command as an injunction not to bear Yahweh’s name in vain—so not to misrepresent him among the nations. So it’s as though Yahweh put his name on his people to claim them as his own, and then he says to them, “You shall not claim to belong to me and go out and live like the pagans.”…The closest passage in the book of Exodus to this command that uses ns with shem (the word “name”) is in the high priestly garments. When the high priestly garments are described, he is actually bearing the names of the 12 tribes on the jewels on his breast piece and on the jewels on his shoulder pieces. And it says, “You shall wear these, and so you shall bear the names of the sons of Israel for a memorial before me in the tabernacle.” So there’s a concrete example there of what it would look like to bear a name. They each have a share in his ministry by having their names all on his person. He represents them before Yahweh, and so we are supposed to represent Yahweh before the nations. And then, of course, the high priest also has the medallion on his forehead that says “wholly belonging to Yahweh” on it.

Remembering that the New Testament has a profoundly Jewish context, it is no surprise to see this theme carry over from the Old Testament, in spite of the decreased usage density.1

There are numerous points of significance to the idea of bearing God’s name, and as we saw above, they go well beyond the concept of ill-speaking.

The Name of the Lord Confers Authority

Much of the time, the phrase “the name of the Lord” in the New Testament is used to denote divine authority in the Person of Christ. Frankly, it was used to identify Jesus as God.

Mark 11:9-11 describes a scene from the so-called Triumphal Entry of Jesus into Jerusalem:

And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest. And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.

Although this was not an instance of Jesus claiming divine authority, it reveals the contextual understanding that first-century Jews had of their Messiah. Of course, they ultimately stood in rejection of Jesus as this figure; they did not expect the Cross (1 Corinthians 2:8).

The point is this: The confirmation that Messiah had come was bound up in the notion that he would bear the name of God. He would not merely come speaking the name, but in the name—in other words, as his representative.

The Name of the Lord Confers Power

To bear God’s name is also a matter of having power. This is, again, because true power is bound up in Yahweh—the God of the Hebrews.

He has all power and all authority in heaven and earth. There is no power more powerful than him. He is all-powerful.

Consider Acts 19:13-17:

Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.

The power by which these demons were overcome was that which can only be manifested in the name of the Lord.

In James 5, we see an example of this “name theology” as applied to prayer; specifically, prayer for the sick.

Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms. Is any sick am...

I have little doubt that, growing up, you received advice that sounded something like: Read your Bible cover to cover once per year. Every morning read another few verses. Et cetera.

This always seemed challenging to me. And though I have done it a few times now, somehow, I never quite felt like I did enough.

There was always one more day to go, and it really felt more like a chore to slog through than it should have.

These days, I’m becoming less and less convinced that this advice was sound.

Reading the Bible straight through with the goal of completing in one year has a few liabilities:

• As mentioned above, it can feel like a chore.

• The Bible is not written to be read straight through.

• It can be difficult to make important textual connections when reading the Bible linearly.

I recently came across a helpful piece of advice from Sean McDowell, which admittedly served as the impetus for writing this piece. Questioning whether quantity should be our goal, Sean asks:

But why should that be our goal? Why should our Scripture reading be about how much we read? There is undoubtedly value in daily Scripture reading. My point is not to minimize this important discipline. But honestly, how much do people really retain after the “Bible in a year plan”? My suspicion is that it may be less than we think.

Sean is really on to something here.

There is a glaring lack of depth to the biblical literacy of most Christians today, sad to say. It doesn’t take much to realize this.

And yet, many Christians that I’ve known seem to have a daily Bible reading habit! Why the disconnect? What is the problem?

I think the problem is a wrongheaded idea of the goal behind reading the Bible daily.

Why Read?

The Bible is God’s special revelation to mankind. In it, we learn truths about the nature of God, the nature of reality, and the nature of our ultimate destiny.

Quite literally, it is the single most important collection of literature on the planet. Its creation was the result of divinely superintended production and preservation. There is nothing like it.

The goal of reading the Bible, then, is to know the Divine Speaker behind it.

And the problem is that merely reading it has quite a casual connotation. It is something that requires a much deeper and much closer inspection. It needs to be studied. Its depths need to be plumbed.

Now, I’m not necessarily saying a casual read-through is uncalled for. Sean puts it nicely:

If the goal is primarily to get through the Bible [in a] year, then this is a great plan.

But he’s absolutely correct to question whether that should always be the goal. Perhaps that is the goal for your family Bible time, for example.

Personally, though, I cannot tell you how many times I’ve received almost supernatural insight from carefully considering just one or two verses over and above a mechanical read-through.

Studying the Bible > Reading the Bible

Embracing an attitude of study and reflection may serve us better than a robotic commitment to reading. I say this for a few reasons:

• Studying allows for connections to be made. There are no accidentals or incidentals in the Bible. If it’s there, it was placed there for a purpose. Even if the purpose seems small! By the way, many things that sound “strange” to our ears often get glossed over. I have found that if I dig deeper into those strange stories or motifs, I learn more than I could have imagined possible.

• Studying forces a commitment to critical thinking. This one might seem strange, but it seems to me that if one takes the time to carefully approach the Bible in its context, according to the appropriate literary genre, historical setting, etc., it will force one to slow down and think more carefully and critically. This is because natural questions will arise that beg for the student to answer them.

• Times are hard, and getting harder. My brothers and sisters here in the West seem to know little of the persecution that happens to Christians worldwide. There will come a day when ownership of God’s Word is a dangerous privilege, rather th...

My first inclination was to think, what kind of question is that?! But as I thought deeper, it became clear that this question is quite revealing about the current state of our culture.

In our world, kids are treated as though they are an inconvenience. They are an “add-on” that some parents find nice to have, and others would rather not.

Some Christian parents have children merely because of cultural compulsion, but treat them and discipline them according to their own convenience. Dr. Tedd Trip explains:

Some parents have no noble goal at all; they simply want to control their children. These parents want their children to mind, to behave, to be good, to be nice. They remind their children of how things were when they were youngsters. Frequently they employ the “tried and true” methods of discipline—whatever their parents did that seemed to work. They want children who are manageable. They want them to do the right thing (whatever that is at the moment). The bottom line is to control their kids. But the control is not directed toward specific character development objectives. The concern is personal convenience and public appearance. (Tripp, Shepherding a Child’s Heart)

The kids are okay to keep around, as long as they do their part to make the family look good and don’t cause too much trouble.

Sadly, if we’re honest, we all fall into this trap at one time or another. None of us are perfect parents.

The Purpose of Having Children

So, what is the core of the problem? I think it’s a failure to understand why we have children. This idea was captured beautifully in a 2017 blog post by my friend, Lindsay Harold. It’s short enough to include here in its entirety:

The number one reason Christian couples do not want children (or want very few children) is because they do not understand the purpose of children according to the Bible.

Our culture tells us children are for self-actualization. They’re what you have when you’re settled, financially secure, and need something to care for in order to give you purpose and also increase your social status or to make you feel good about yourself. But if children are for self-actualization, then you wouldn’t want to have one when it might be difficult or get in the way of other types of self-actualization like having money for vacations or a big house or having freedom to travel or having time to yourself now and then. You certainly wouldn’t need very many of them. A single child or maybe two is plenty and having more than that would result in diminishing returns or even negative returns as the workload and expense from multiple children mounts and people start to look at you funny due to your excessive procreation.

Because of this view of children, they are often seen as burdens when they cause us stress or expense or limit our freedom, but also as commodities to be obtained when we want one. People obtain children by surrogacy or sperm donation or IVF because they feel entitled to have one as part of their pursuit of self-actualization. Their life feels incomplete without a child, so they deserve to have one by any means necessary. So even when children are wanted, it is often for selfish reasons of the parents, not because they understand the purpose of children. And when children show up when they aren’t wanted, they are seen as invaders or parasites and discarded through abortion or neglected. It’s all part of the same false view of children as a means to the end of parental happiness

Even in Christian circles, we repeat the mantra that children are a blessing, but we don’t always understand what that means. We adopt the culture’s attitude, but Christianize it. So we’re still thinking that children being a blessing means a blessing to us. When you’ve got a crying baby at 2:00am or you’re sitting in the emergency room with your child after they took a flying leap and broke a bone or you’re dealing with a difficult teenager or you’re doing your 4th load of laundry for the day and your toddler wets their pants yet again, there are a lot of things on your mind, but “This is such a blessing” is probably not one of them. Children are a lot of work and a lot of expense and even a lot of heartache at times.

So what does the Bible mean when it says children are a blessing? Yes, they are certainly a blessing to their parents in many ways, but it’s much more than that. Children are meant to be a blessing to the whole world. Even from an earthly perspective, a child is a future worker, innovator, consumer, and contributor to society in many ways. We need children to keep the economy and our culture thriving and to pass it on to the next generation. Having a child is an investment in the future, not just for ourselves, but for the world. More importantly, a child raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord is a light in a dark world, to lead others to Jesus and influence their culture for Christ. A child is a legacy to pass down a heritage of serving Christ to future generations. And perhaps most importantly, a child is an immortal soul who will live forever and is meant to praise and worship God and bring glory to our Creator.

The purpose for children is not self-actualization of their parents. Children don’t exist to make their parents feel good about themselves (which is good, because they don’t always do that). Children exist to know and serve God and to be used by Him to change the world, or at least their corner of it. Having children and raising them, for a Christian, is a way of helping to bring the world into subjection to Christ and bringing more people to heaven. It’s not about the parents and what makes them happy. It’s about fulfilling God’s plan.

Every Christian, whether they know it or not, is on a mission to serve God. Having children is an important way of doing that because they’re a way to multiply the impact and take that impact down through the years. Even for those who can’t have biological children of their own, children are still important and we are all...

(By the way, these things rock, and each purchase provides a YEAR of clean water to someone living in need.)

One side of the wristband has a neat wood/orange pattern. The other side says, “Against the Grain.”

As I looked down at that wristband one day, it occurred to me that, as Christians, this is exactly what we ought to do.

Unfortunately, we live in a world of identity politics. The way you are treated by those wishing to promote this system is not based on ideology and ultimate truth, but on skin color, socio-economic status, etc.

The dangers of such an idea cannot be understated. Why? Because all are one in Christ. That is, there are really only two groups of people in the world: Saved, and unsaved. You believe in God and honor him as Lord, or you don’t.

Here’s Dictionary.com on “going against the grain” for those unfamiliar with the metaphor:

To go contrary to someone’s natural disposition: “Having to get up this early in the morning really goes against my grain.” This refers to the fact that someone who rubs his hand against the grain on a piece of lumber will get splinters.

So then, as Christ-followers, what is the “grain” we ought to go against? What should we resist in order to be like Christ?

The Grain of Society

A constant theme throughout the Scriptures involves the uncomfortable doctrine of separation. What’s meant is not a sort of isolationism, though; we are Christ’s hands and feet in the world!

What’s meant is a separation of ideology.

There is something different about us. Not because we’re better, but because we’re forgiven! We’ve all heard it before: “The ground is level at the foot of the cross.” Each one of us has the opportunity for redemption. God is just, and will see to it that any who would accept his free gift of salvation have the opportunity.

When we place our highest priority in the material things of the world, we betray the life Christ has called us to (Romans 12:1-2).

Ideas matter, and most often, our ideas run contrary to those around us. Tempting as it may be to give in, we must stand strong for the gospel and be a light in this dark world—at whatever cost.

The Grain of Sex

It’s no accident that, wherever we see an implosion of culture, the grain of sex has become god.

Many (rightly) refer to this as “the religion of sex.”

Unfortunately, those in positions of Christian leadership fall just as guilty. In recent days I’ve learned of sexual predators in the pulpits of influential churches, as well as folks pining for governmental leadership who claim to be Christian yet reject biblical teaching about sexuality.

Sex is a good thing, but many have distorted it to the point that it controls every decision. In Romans 1, we see the abuse of sexuality as a judgment of God, and the natural outworking of rejecting the knowledge of him.

As influencers for Christ (whether or not you have a “platform” to stand on), we must remain vigilant, watchful, and prayerful that we do not fall into sin in the grain of sex.

The Grain of Self

The grain of self is ultimately the root of all issues: pride.

A familiar verse, Proverbs 16:18, says, “Pride goeth before destruction, And an haughty spirit before a fall.”

The problem that plagues all humanity is a desire to become god, deciding good and evil for ourselves.

Only by means of divine rescue can we escape the grasp of such a motive. Ultimately, as long as we’re serving self, we cannot really serve God. Our motives will always be impure.

In John 5:30 Jesus declares,

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

How amazing what we seek to accomplish by ourselves and for ourselves, yet Christ, our example—God in the flesh—was bound and determined to do only the will of the Father.

Ultimately, then, the path to destruction is lined with those going with the grain. It’s easy to go along with the world into destruction; the allure is great, the immediate rewards are often pleasing, and the promise of grandeur is everywhere.

But the path to righteousness, the narrow path, is lined by those who, like Jesus, decide to go against the grain of society, sex, and self.

The post Don’t Be Afraid to Go Against the Grain—That’s What Jesus Did appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

This is Christianese language we’re all used to using, but sometimes, it can be hard to communicate to others what we mean. I’ve dealt with the distinctness of Christian salvation here.

In this piece, I’d like to discuss three elements of salvation. When does conversion take place in a person’s life? What evidence will be demonstrated when this happens? For how long is a person saved?

First

An unfortunate, yet common mistake many Christians make is expecting others to conform their moral ideals to ours. According to the Bible, this is not possible.

Actually, there’s quite an interesting tension here. Romans 2:14-15 declares that all will be held accountable precisely because God’s moral law has been written on the hearts of all he has created.

In other words, on judgment day, nobody will be standing in moral judgment over Yahweh, their Creator.

And yet, in apparent contradistinction, 1 Corinthians 2:14-16 reads:

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

This passage seems to suggest that it’s no wonder the “natural” man doesn’t do things God’s way! To do things his way requires spiritual discernment, which is impossible for the unbeliever.

We often tend to legalism, unfortunately. Such is the human way.

When others don’t think, walk, talk, or act just like us, we treat them as outsiders. They’re not part of the club.

While in a certain sense this may be true, it should not cause us to lose focus on the real goal and approach unbelievers with faulty expectations.

As the old saying goes, “We catch ’em, God cleans ’em!”

When it comes to bringing others to Christ, let’s focus on our task. Our part of the mission is to sow the seed and introduce people to Christ. He takes care of the rest.

Before moving on, let me caveat the above just a bit: I am not saying we should stay out of socio-political issues that derive from a Christian view of morality. For example, I think Christians ought to do all they (ethically) can to lobby for legislation against abortion.

As sad as the case may be, it should not be surprising to us how many wish to celebrate their ability to control life and death. Frankly, they want to play God. Therefore, the best way to contradict their efforts is to bring them to the real God, that they might submit to him.

Everything—and I do mean everything—changes in the person who truly submits and surrenders to God.

Fruitful

Well if everything changes, that suggests there must be some evidence in the life of a person who decides to follow Jesus.

Indeed, this is precisely what we should expect. In a well-known discourse written to the church at Galatia, the Apostle Paul writes the following:

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another. (Galatians 5:19-26)

I think vs. 24 is a marvelous statement of what it means to turn from death unto life; from unbeliever to believer: And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

The Galatians were confused people on these matters. They were being influenced by a group who taught that salvation required works in order to be effective.

In contrast, Paul and others taught that works were a byproduct of salvation, not something that contributed to it.

So we have yet another arena of Christian theology where the concept of “evidence” comes into play. The evidence that a prophet was from the Lord was simply that the prophecy would come to pass (see Duetoronomy 17). The evidence that Jesus rose from the dead was that his was a bodily resurrection, recorded by multiple eyewitnesses and prophesied by biblical writers of old (see 2 Peter 1).

And the evidence that a person knows the Lord is the manifestation of the fruit of the spirit in his or her life.

It is in this sense only(!) that Christians are licensed fruit inspectors. Since we’re taught...

To talk about the objectivity of beauty, I’ve brought on a good friend of mine, nature photographer, and creation enthusiast, Pat Mingarelli. Pat has written articles for us before on the site (here and here) and I thought his would be an awesome perspective to hear on Creation Conversations.

Enjoy this interview as we discuss subjects like objective beauty, how nature gives metaphors about the Person of God, and even some practical tips if you want to get started in nature photography. Don’t miss it!

Mentioned in the Episode:

The Fibonacci Sequence 

Purposeful Overdesign

Pat’s Ministry

Bad art examples:

The post Beauty in God’s Creation w/ Pat Mingarelli appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Reactions to these claims vary.

Some attempt to shirk their responsibility to accept these claims by finding more comfortable solutions. In 1 Samuel 28, did the witch really divine Samuel unto Saul? I have heard lots of benign attempts at understanding this passage, but why not take it at face value?

In the supernatural world we live in (and especially the one the biblical writers introduce us to), it’s absolutely possible that divine, intelligent evil was responsible for the witchcraft the text relays to us here.

What about the “magicians” of Pharoah in the Exodus story?

Could they really have done the things the text claims, or was it more akin to the sleight of hand that can be observed in Las Vegas or on late night television?

More and more, I’ve become convinced that ought not to shy away when we read something strange in the Bible.

Rather, we should embrace it! We should allow it to inform us of what the biblical writers really thought, and how they interacted with their world.

One such strange phenomena is the so-called “great age of the patriarchs.” The Bible reports to us that, prior to the watery destruction of the earth recorded in Genesis 6-8, human beings were living upwards of 1000 years.

This sounds absolutely preposterous to the reader informed of modern genetics.

And, accordingly, attempts to rationalize and/or sanitize these accounts can be found. Perhaps in the ancient Near East (ANE), it was common to use such large numbers to represent other points, more theological or political in nature.

Perhaps the text merely aims to convey a sense of family relationships to us, such that generations could have been skipped, and the large numbers are merely a way of conveying that hidden meaning analogically.

Or, as with the instances above, perhaps the text is merely trying to tell us history in the truest sense of the word.

Perhaps these figures really did live to be almost 1000 years old! What then?

How is that possible given what we know about human history, human lifespans throughout history from other sources, and modern genetics?

The Biblical Claim

First and foremost, let me state upfront that I do think the proper reading is that the ages are meant to be taken at face value.

That is not to say that we must appropriate a sort of wooden literalism to them, though. I’m okay if the flood started in the 601st year of Noah’s life, for example, even though the text rounds out to the 600th year.

What we cannot do is extrapolate these ages to mean whatever we want. We can’t say that this really meant Noah was only 60 years old when the flood started. There is zero indication from the text that such an interpretation would be warranted.

On the contrary, we do have evidence that the biblical authors often used round numbers, and in fact, we know this was a practice common to ANE writers in general.

In our modern world, we often strive for precision, but we must allow the Bible to be what it is. Trustworthy, for sure, but reporting in a way that sometimes deviates from what we might expect.

In the case of the Genesis 5 and 11 chronogenealogies, however, we have lots of detail and very good reason to think the ages reported should be taken fairly literally.

Difficulties of Science

The Bible says it, that settles it, right?

Well certainly I believe that to be true. However, it would only be honest to take the concerns of modern science into consideration.

There is much to learn from modern science. It is not the big bad boogeyman. In fact, it can be used to our advantage.

The face value problem is, then, that most believe modern science has entirely ruled out the possibility of people ever having lived to these incredible ages.

We find no fossil evidence of human beings ever having lived to these ages—a suggestion that is reasonable if young age creationism is true, but hard to believe if humans have been on the scenes for tens of thousands of years.

Assuming the widely accepted long-age timescale, there is no reason to think this was genetically possible either. No time in history would serve to provide the necessary conditions to produce such a drastic change as we see between the antediluvian patriarchs and the post-diluvian patriarchs.

This leads to a reasonable question.

What Happened After the Flood?

After the flood we observe a number of interesting things.

For one, lifespans seem to radically decrease. While the oldest man to live before the flood was Methuselah at 969 years old, the oldest to ever live after the floo...

This is a shocking truth most Old Testament scholars have come to understand that has not made its way in the pews.

The gods of Israel’s ancient Near Eastern neighbors were not literally made of stone, gold, or any other material. Rather, they were real spiritual beings that had a dramatic—and demonic—influence in the lives of their worshippers.

If this sounds unlike anything you’ve ever heard, I’m not surprised. However, this idea is not new. It has been buried in the scholarship for decades (or longer).

I’ve alluded to it in recent posts, and since I’ll probably allude to it often, I’d like to offer a concise explanation of the view here.

What is a “God”?

The Hebrew word for God or gods is elohim. It would be a mistake, however, to associate the word elohim—and therefore, the word “god”—with a particular set of attributes.

This is a wholly Western idea that often colors our reading of the biblical text. The word simply refers to beings of a spiritual nature. For example, the Bible calls Samuel an elohim, after being summoned by the witch at Endor.

In Psalm 8:5, we see the word used to describe what is translated in the New Testament as “angels” (angelous—Hebrews 2:9). Of course, there are deeper layers to uncover.

The term angelous is not describing an ontological status. Meaning, it’s not describing a type of being, rather it denotes a role. The word simply means “messenger.”

What we should not miss is that the word elohim is used often of beings that are not necessarily angels, but neither are they God.

There are many elohim, but there is only one Yahweh. Similarly, Yahweh is an elohim, but no other elohim is Yahweh.

The Divine Council

So then, who are these elohim, and what do they do?

Dr. Michal Heiser1 explains:

The gods of Psalm 82:1 are called “sons of the Most High [God]” later in the psalm (v. 6). The “sons of God” appear several times in the Bible, usually in God’s presence (as in Job 1:6; 2:1). Job 38:7 tells us they were around before God began to fashion the earth and create humanity. And that is very interesting. God calls these spiritual beings his sons. Since he created them, the “family” language makes sense, in the same way you refer to your offspring as your son or daughter because you participated in their creation. But besides being their Father, God is also their king. In the ancient world, kings often ruled through their extended families. Kingship was passed on to heirs. Dominion was a family business. God is Lord of his council. And his sons have the next highest rank by virtue of their relationship with him. 2

This is often referred to as The Divine Council Worldview.

In this worldview, there is an entire spiritual dimension—or meta-narrative—behind nearly every Bible story you’ve had memorized from Sunday School.

To be sure, many continue through life never knowing this information, and one can be a committed Christian having no knowledge of this deeper meaning.

Once you see it, though, you can’t unsee it, and for good reason.

This “Unseen Realm”3 is very spiritually significant, and has implications for how we understand the Bible, understand God, and even how to understand ourselves.

This is not high-minded spiritualistic theolo-jargon, but spiritually significant, practical truth that can change everything in our Christian walk.

The Truth About Babel

It’s impossible to understand much about this worldview if you don’t understand the true nature of the events of Genesis 11.

Many rightly consider this event to describe the rebellion of the post-flood culture, where God retaliated by dispersing the people and dividing their language, culture, etc.

In brief, the nations of the world (Genesis 10) were given over to the rule of these gods. Such an event is not made obvious in Genesis 11, but is made cl...

We might summarize the question before us this way: Do we believe in Jesus because we believe the Bible, or do we believe the Bible because we believe in Jesus?

Ultimately I’m going to take issue with the way the question is phrased, but since this is how it is usually cast, I’ll take some time to work through those questions, first.

The Problem and the Tension

Those interested in this debate usually take a hard position on either side.

If you believe our faith is grounded in God’s Word, you’re likely a presuppositionalist. This view is most often associated with what’s known as “revelational epistemology,” which maintains that the only way anyone knows anything is by revelation from God.

If you believe of our faith is grounded in Jesus himself, you’re likely an evidentialist or classicalist. This position would only require agreement with the consensus of New Testament scholarship that the gospels are reliable primary source documents about the life of Jesus of Nazareth—a belief in supernatural inspiration is not required but is rather something like a side effect of becoming a follower of Christ.

The following quote by Dr. William Lane Craig nicely summarizes this view:

Even taken as ordinary, fallible human records, the New Testament documents have been shown to be reliable with respect to these facts. Too many Christians naively think that unless you presuppose biblical inspiration and inerrancy, the historicity of the life of Jesus goes down the drain. This attitude, far from showing confidence in the Bible, actually betrays a profound lack of confidence in its historical credibility. Without the theological assumptions of inspiration and inerrancy to hold it up, the Bible is implicitly taken to be untrustworthy on this view.

But once one becomes a Christian, then one submits to the teaching of the Lord Jesus. When we see how Jesus regarded the Old Testament, we perceive that he taught it to be the inspired and wholly reliable Word of God. So as his disciples, we should, too. We believe in the Bible because we believe in him.

What’s interesting is that folks on both sides of the debate would surely want to affirm aspects of the other’s view. Certainly we all want to say that we learn things about God through special revelation—and, at the time same time, we all want to say that the gospels are historically reliable documents that teach about the life of Jesus.

So what’s the real issue, then?

As someone with friends on both sides of the issue (I personally find myself somewhat in the middle), it seems to me it rests on the important distinction between logical and chronological priority.

How Do We Come to Know Things?

While a broader discussion about epistemology might be helpful here, that’s a bit beyond the scope of this piece.

For our purposes, let’s discuss logical priority vs chronological priority.

The latter is rather easy to grasp. For event x to be chronologically prior to event y, event x must simply take place before event y in time.

Logical priority constitutes x being a sufficient condition for y to take place. Fellow blogger J.W. Wartick has a concise, helpful explanation:

Logical priority, broadly defined, is the way things are ontologically ordered. That is, to say that for two factors, x and y, x is logically prior to y if and only if x takes precedence over y. An example could be to use miracles and God (note this is just for the sake of example, I realize that some would argue miracles can exist without God, but I’m simply using it as an illustration). The existence of God is logically prior to miracles in the sense that if God does not exist, then miracles do not. In this case, God would be x, while miracles would be y. In order for y to be the case, x must also be the case, thus making

To be clear, I think those contexts were of righteous intent, and even have a Scriptural basis. If one is convinced that God does not change (Malachi 3:6) and God’s Word never changes (Psalm 119:89), one may rightly conclude that there is a degree of unhealthy change.

But that is not to say that all change in one’s position is bad.

Actually, I now believe the opposite to be true. If you’re not changing, you’re not growing.

Passages such as Hebrews 5:13-14 and 1 Corinthians 3:2 strongly suggest that we must go deeper with God’s Word, which will necessarily lead to a growth in understanding and, quite likely, a change in theology.

Assuming now that change can be a good thing, how should we handle it? Have you ever learned something new that rocked your world, and maybe has changed how you read the entire Bible?

I have. Here are two examples.

Molinism

Molinism is the view that, through divine middle knowledge, God knew logically prior to creating the universe what any free creature would do given a particular set of circumstances.

This view therefore reconciles divine sovereignty and human freedom. It shows that God can so arrange the world as to accomplish his purposes, while not violating the free decisions made by those whom he created.

If you’re interested to learn more of the nuance behind this view, I’d invite you to check out my soteriological position here, or my interview with Tim Stratton here.

Understanding God’s middle knowledge and how it works has been a game-changer in how I read the Bible and work through various aspects of my theology.

The Divine Counsel Worldview

This is a view I have recently been exposed to, which has quite literally changed how I understand almost every passage of Scripture.

In extreme brief, the view demonstrates that the “gods” of ancient Israel’s neighbors were not reducible to stone idols. Rather, they are very real, intelligent, spiritual beings who were given rule over the scattered nations at Babel as a judgment for the people’s rebellion.

Some of these beings, much like humanity in Genesis 3, turned wicked and made the free decision to reject Yahweh (see Psalm 82).

The gospel is therefore not merely concerned with the salvation and restoration of our souls from the curse of sin, but is very much concerned with Christ—the Son of the Most High—reclaiming the nations under rightful rule and establishing his eternal family, both spiritual and human.

What to Do?

Unfortunately, this innate resistance to change within certain Christian communities has resulted in many being so paralyzed that they fail to study deeper.

If change is possible and should be avoided, then so should any study which could lead to it.

If that’s you, come on in! The water’s fine! You don’t have to fear. Sure, you might change your theology.

But I’ve already demonstrated that the Bible assumes you will, and should!

If you stay in the same place through the duration of your walk with God, you are not growing, and are therefore functionally denying that the Bible itself can change you.

Here are four super practical steps that will help you navigate the muddy waters of theological change.

1. Lift the essentials high. Take the time to understand what biblical essentialism is. What things are necessary for you to be considered a Bible-believing, Christ-following Christian? Do not deviate from these, and filter all other theological ideas through them. Good (consistent) ideas stay for further evaluation and integration into the full picture. Bad (inconsistent) ones immediately go.

2. Read a variety of resources. One writer does not have complete purchase on Christian theology, nor does one group of writers within a closed system. Proverbs 11:14 is a helpful guide. Read varying perspectives, evaluate the arguments, weigh against the essentials, and find somewhere to land.

3. Bridge gaps and make connections. It’s important that we view the Bible for what it actually is—a human document given by inspiration of God. This means that, all throughout, there are connections to be made and insights to be uncovered that could revolutionize our understanding of tertiary doctrines. Learn to think in terms of the whole instead of the parts when studying your Bible.

But it seems to common among critics of young age creation to claim that we think it is. Why is this, and what can we do about it?

In this short episode, I try to lay out the real issue here and give some thoughts around how to respond to this claim.

Enjoy the show!

The post Genesis 1-11 and the “Textbook Myth” appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

This, I believe, is an error.

The Problem, Explained

So the first issue is this: Some scholars and a great deal more popularizers are advancing the idea that the historical background of the biblical writers has so much of an effect on the text that, in some cases, it can mean nearly anything we want it to with respect to certain issues.

Broadly (and doctrinally) speaking, this could come to bear on things like:

• The nature, length, and order of creation.

• The real meaning of redemption.

• Death before sin.

• The limits of accommodation.

• Biblical inerrancy.

And there’s probably a few more I’ve left out.

However, there’s a second issue: On the other end, this ignorance has led many to almost completely write off ANE associations between Israel and her neighbors. And I’d only be honest in admitting that, at times, I’ve been guilty of this.

The danger is that this thinking robs the modern reader of understanding the world in which the ancient writer found himself.

This may not sound that important to you, but it should. Young age creationists are (rightly) obsessed with making sure the Bible’s historical claims are taken seriously. But how can we understand what those claims are without understanding the biblical worldview?

For me personally, two examples have made this clear.

Understanding Polemical Theology has helped me to make sense of some very confusing passages of Scripture. The shame is that for so long I’ve missed how theologically rich these passages are, now that I have this framework of thought in my tool belt!

The second of these would be Michael Heiser’s Divine Council Worldview. Although not new to Heiser, he is best known for popularizing it. The view basically expands on the nature of the battle going on in God’s world—it is much more spiritual than most Christians—especially Westerners—are willing to make it.

A Healthy Move

With that said, I was really excited to see an article pop up in my feed that was written by Shane Doyle over at Creation Ministries International (CMI), entitled Ancient cosmology and the timescale of Genesis 1.

Here is the provided synopsis of the article:

Long-age interpreters often argue that the supposed ‘ancient cosmology’ of Genesis 1 implies that its seven-day timespan is incidental to the main point of the passage. This overreads the cosmological statements of Genesis 1, but it also does not follow; just because one ‘challenging’ element of a narrative passage may be incidental does not imply that all its ‘challenging’ elements are. Nor is there enough evidence to show that Genesis 1 derives its seven-day schema from any previously existing biblical or Ancient Near Eastern pattern. The Ancient Near Eastern context does not justify a rejection of the traditional ‘historical week’ reading of Genesis 1.

I liked this article for two reasons: First, I read only one line that contained the sort of derogatory language I am usually critical of CMI for using, and it was actually not that bad. So, Kudos! I really liked this writer.

The second reason is that this writer not only responded to the claim above but was non-dismissive of the importance of understanding ancient things with respect to understanding the Bible.

I would like to see more of this approach by popularizers of creationism. It’s the balance between being totally dismissive because we disagree with what we believe to be some unjustified conclusions/over-readings, and allowing an ancient worldview to properly inform our understanding of the text.

Therefore, rather than to be afraid of this thinking, we should think of it as an ally.

Scholarship can help us to do that.

A Nod to the Scholars

There are lots of Hebrew/Old Testament scholars who are well aware of and give proper place to ANE backgrounds and the biblical text, but don’t allow the text to improperly inform the doctrines listed above.

Without thinking hard, I can think of at least six or seven, most of whom are openly-affirming young age creationists.

There are two, though, I’d love to highlight: John Currid and David Fouts.

I picked these two for a reason. They each are known for their contribution to biblical historical backgrounds and yet remain committed young...

Recently, a blogger who affirms evolutionary creationism took it upon himself (with some help) to produce a parody blog of Dr. Danny Faulkner’s, in which it was implied that the same claims could be made for a young earth as Faulkner makes for a flat earth, thereby refuting his own position. .

I think this notion is terribly false, and is contradicted by at least three lines of evidence. Find out what they are and how to respond to this challenge in this week’s episode!

The post Young Earth Claims ≠ Flat Earth Claims appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

There are numerous variations, but it is most commonly known as The Gap Theory (GT).2

I’d like to devote some time to a version of this which has recently come to my attention, taught by pastor and Bible teacher, James Knox.

I don’t know anything about Knox, so I will do my best to refrain from any generalizations or unfair characterizations of his views. That said, I did find the overall tone of this presentation, well, troubling, and worth teasing out.

He’s a pulpiteer, for sure. He comes across as confident, compelling, and well-argued. Unfortunately, I found that a quick visit to each of his proof texts was enough to cast considerable doubt on his view.

There is, therefore, a lesson to underscore before moving any further: Test everything against the Scriptures, no matter who says it (including me).

It is this very practice that earned the Bereans an eternal commendation inscripturated in Acts 17. A compelling presentation or convincing oration should not produce a higher level of confidence in our minds about its truthfulness, goodness, or validity.

For anyone tempted to disagree, I’d merely ask you to consider how one the greatest orators of all-time—Adolf Hitler—was also one of the greatest menaces of all time. I’m not comparing Knox to Hitler; make no mistake, though—this presentation sounds compelling if you listen.

In fact, I want to be careful to separate this man from his claims, especially since I don’t know him. He opens his presentation with a call to Christian unity, and the clear message that he does not think this is an issue which should divide the church or separate believers.

On that, we can certainly agree.

I do, however, find his exegetical claims wanting, at best. Let’s take a few moments to explore them.

The Theory

As we’ll examine proof texts for aspects of the theory in a moment, I’d like to provide a quick summary first.

According to the GT, between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, there is a nondescript amount of time in which at least three events happened: The creation and forming of a “first earth,” the fall of Satan and his being cast down to earth (and thus the actual entrance of sin into the world), and the destruction of this first earth by some sort of watery cataclysm.

Two general observations are necessary.

First, this is not a view that is explicitly taught by any one portion of Scripture. Proponents must peruse the Bible and piece together this theory by doing some exegetical math, so to speak.

This practice is not necessarily to be frowned upon. One could argue this is exactly what New Testament writers needed to do when seeking to understand how Jesus was, in fact, the promised Messiah of the Old Testament.

Hebrew scholar Dr. Mike Heiser has ably argued that this is what the Apostle Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 2:8. Had Jesus’ arrival been made explicit in just one passage of Scripture, such that there would have been no mistaking it, the “princes of this world” could have thwarted the plan.

The question is not in the validity of this practice (although some genre considerations might make that point arguable), but rather whether or not the texts pressed into service for Knox’s view will support his claims.

Second, one is hard-pressed to arrive at this view merely due to an honest examination of the text. In other words, this view was literally created and is most usually defended to reconcile the findings of modern science with obvious chronological details in Scripture.

Now, I question the basis for GT from the get-go since I think we do have evidence for a young earth from modern science. Regardless, this approach is an invalid starting point for any examination of the Bible.

Our goal is not to massage the words of Scripture and the findings of modern science together in order to form a nice fit.

Rather, it is to understand the meaning of the text, and determine the implications of it. If those implications demand that we reject a certain theory of modern science, so be it. If not, so be it.

A Problem with the Program

One of the issues in biblical studies has to do with systems, programs, and other spurious machinations that are invented to support a presupposed paradigm.

In other words, if an idea does not work across the Revelation in general, it cannot be held consistently in part. Once you understand the real program—the story being told by Scripture, one is hard-pr...

Enjoy the show!

Click here for more on Neanderthals.

The post The Neanderthal Problem appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Not only does this give me an advantage in the conversation because I don’t have to work hard defending things I’m either not sure about or would rather not muddy with dialogue with, but it also forces my interlocutor to think more carefully. It gives me control.

However, this is a luxury that is hard to come by with respect to whether or not Christianity is ultimately true.

The kicker is, I believe that’s actually a very good thing. Here’s why.

Christianity Deals in Reality

There is a popular book by Dr. Michael Heiser that has been circulating for a few years now called The Unseen Realm. It’s a great book, but that’s beside my point. The original working title of the book was, The Myth That is True.

As I’ve contended in a book of my own, Christianity is a Story; not any story, but the Story of all stories. Other writers have traded on this idea as well, such as Greg Koukl and C.S. Lewis.

But this particular Story is one that is grounded in reality. It’s the real deal.

This has some important implications that we’ll discuss below.

If we’re not careful, we’ll use unfortunate language when sharing our Story that casts doubt on it from the get-go. We live in a culture that does not understand “Christianese,” so when we share with others, we’d be well advised not to “market” it as though it were a fairytale.

For example, when we talk about the resurrection of Christ, we need to learn how to articulate this as though it were a real, historical event, because it was!

As I’ve written elsewhere, I do not advocate for a “setting aside” of the Bible in these discussions—however, neither do I advocate for a “setting aside” of the important scholarship that has been done to demonstrate this is a real event that happened in human history.

Christianity Offers Real Hope

I won’t pretend to know any statistics, but history and my own experience tell me that, while many do come to believe in Christ through an evaluation of the evidence and a desire to know the truth, most come by way of a broken heart or a broken life.

Christianity flourishes through times of persecution and brokenness.

Why is this? Why is that Christianity can take a life and turn it around, often during a time of great suffering and pain?

This is because of what Christianity—grounded in reality—offers. It offers real hope to the helpless, hopeless, and brokenhearted.

Through his resurrection, Christ demonstrated that he alone has victory over death, hell, and the grave. He has overcome, and promised that anyone who would believe in him and trust in his finished work to save them, could have eternal life.

Fortunately, we not only have the promise of eternal life then, but of abundant life now. Only Christ offers this because only Christ can offer this.

Christianity is Testable

Finally, because this Story is grounded in reality, we can test it! We can know it’s true!

The reason this matters is precisely because our backward, relativistic culture would have you believe Christianity is just one of many legitimate options.

It has good maxims and virtues to teach like any other religious system of thought (so the thinking goes), so it might be good for you to be a Christian, but there’s no reason for them to be one too.

The problem with that thinking is that it divorces Christianity from reality, which is to say, it assumes Christianity is false. Christianity is exclusivist. Jesus said, “I am the way…no man comes…except through me.”

So for the hope, virtues, and maxims that Christianity offers to be meaningful, it must be true, which means every other worldview must be false. This is why it matters that Christianity makes strong claims. (By the way, the Apostle Paul thought the same thing! See 1 Corinthians 15:17.)

In what ways is Christianity testable? Many, but two come to mind as the most important: History, and prophecy. In fact, we see these emphasized in 2 Peter 1: 16-21.

History is the domain of eyewitness verification, and what they recorded about what they saw. Our acceptance of Christ’s historicity comes backed with lots of this eyewitness evidence; much more than would ever be expected of a first-century carpenter.

We have at least four independent sources found in the gospel traditions themselves, and around 17 extrabiblical sources...

So in this week’s episode we discuss the concept of sin. We look at what sin is, what sin is not, and why it matters.

Enjoy the show!

The post Why Sin is Bad appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

I am really tired of educated people thinking they have a monopoly on truth. (How’s that for a loaded statement?)

Ok, so there’s nothing wrong with education. Nor is there anything wrong with having the truth. What’s wrong is when someone thinks they have the truth in virtue of their specific education.

It’s really sad how often I see this kind of thing within Christian circles.

Brothers and sisters will absolutely lambaste each other not on the merits of their claims, but on the mere contents of their view!

We have the necessary ability to make distinctions. We can understand the difference between orthodoxy, heterodoxy, and heresy. We very clearly, in most cases, distinguish where certain evangelical views land on that spectrum.

When a person denies the trinity, they are by definition not Christian, and are guilty of heresy. Though it could be argued, I would say when a person holds to conditionalism as opposed to the eternal conscious torment (ECT) view of hell, they are heterodox on that issue. When a person affirms the virgin birth of Christ, they stand within orthodoxy.

These are careful distinctions we have to make in order to operate effectively (and biblically, mind you) within the body of Christ.

Snobs for Christ

I see nothing wrong with having an education. Right now, I have an educational “bucket list,” if you will, that I would love to complete one day. This includes doctoral-level studies.

At this time, I am unable to make this a reality. Will the day come? Perhaps. However, I’m not even sure how much it matters in most cases, for a couple of reasons.

(Disclaimer: I’m obviously not claiming education is bad, nor are those who have one. I support education, and wish I had more. More on that in a moment.)

Reason 1. Intellect/Understanding ≠ Education Level (There are Dumb, Educated People)

I’m sure there are plenty of studies that demonstrate that, at some level, those who receive more education are “smarter.”

There are some disciplines that emphasize critical thinking. For example, a professionally trained analytical philosopher might have some tools in the intellectual tool belt that most laymen don’t.

But, not necessarily. Believe it or not, some of the brightest minds of days gone by were autodidacts (i.e., self-taught learners). Ever heard of Ben Franklin, Michael Faraday, or Bill Gates, to name a few?

Of course, there are some specialized areas of knowledge within certain disciplines that the general public does not really have access to—however, there’s no reason self-studied laymen can’t understand how to craft sound arguments, how to understand most scientific claims, etc.

So while it’s certainly true that those who receive an education could or should be “more intelligent” than those who do not, that is not necessarily the case.

Reason 2. Credentials are (Apparently) Meaningless

I can think of two examples right off the top of my head that are contentious among scholars within evangelicalism right now: New Testament literary device theories and the origins debate.

With respect to the former, those familiar with the debate1 may or may not know that I have tremendous respect for the parties involved. Nevertheless, claims abound regarding the intellectual ability (concerning the issue being debated) of the dissenting side.

I’m sorry, but this just isn’t the debate. Are the claims reasonable? That is the question. You may land differently on that question than me, but it doesn’t change the facts.

Our goal is not to count scholarly heads, neither is it to investigate credentials. Let’s determine whether or not the arguments for/against are sound.

With respect to the latter, a recent comment I observed (which admittedly served as the spark to write this piece)2 from a Wheaton college professor claimed that no “honest” or “real” scientist holds to young age creationism for scientific reasons.

In fact, he went so far as to say that those Christians who “twist” and “distort” good science should be “shunned.”

I’m sorry, b...

I love to discuss the topic of creationism; both the science and theology of it are simply fascinating to me.

In fact, I love it so much that I have decided to create a special edition of S3 that focuses in on the creation discussion, called Creation Conversations. This week is the first episode of these special edition podcasts.

I invited on a friend from across the pond, Stephen Lloyd, to kick us off. The goal of the discussion was to give an overview of what young age creationists teach and believe. It’s to really discuss why we feel this is an important issue.

Stephen works part-time as a Researcher and Lecturer for the Biblical Creation Trust and is also pastor of Hope Church, Gravesend. He studied Materials Science at the University of Cambridge and became a Royal Society University Research Fellow. Steve also has a Diploma in Theology and Religious Studies from the University of Cambridge. He contributed to the book Debating Darwin published by Paternoster in 2009.

Enjoy the show!

Links:

• Chronological Creationism Paper
• From Jesus to Genesis
• Genesis 1 and the Age of the Earth
• Chronology Slide
• The Evidence of Science and Scripture — The Henry Center
• Clarity on the Methodology — The Henry Center

The post Creation Conversations: Adam or Death — Which Came First? w/ Dr. Stephen Lloyd appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

One of the most important internal discussions I think Christians can have involves whether or not we have been endowed with free will by our Creator.

I think that we have been, but not everyone agrees. Sadly, though, I do think an important dimension to this discussion is often overlooked: The question of why.

Why does it matter whether or not we have free will? Why even have this discussion? To answer that question (and a few more!), I brought on my good friend Tim Stratton.

Tim is the founder of FreeThinking Ministries, where he regularly writes, speaks, podcasts, and creates videos promoting the truth of the Christian worldview. He’s well-known for his work discussing classic arguments for God’s existence and—most relevant to our discussion today—various issues surrounding the sovereignty of God and the free will of man.

I hope you enjoy our conversation!

Links:

• FreeThinking Ministries
• Monergisitic Molinism
• Molinism is Biblical

The post Why Fight for Free Will? w/ Tim Stratton appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

So what are some of the advantages of asking questions, and how can we work them into practical conversation? That’s what we’re discussing in this episode of the show.

The post The Power of Asking Good Questions appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Links:

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify

PocketCasts

I hope you’ll join me on this adventure!

The post Introducing Theology on the Road appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

In this interview, I was given the opportunity to share young age creationism with an audience of folks who mostly disagree with it, and even believe it is harmful for the church.

No matter where you land on this issue, as you listen to this interview, I will you will be encouraged and motivated to learn more about it.

So this is part 2 of my interview with David Pallman on young age creationism.

Enjoy the show!

The post 103: Part 2 – What is Young Earth Creationism? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

In this interview, I was given the opportunity to share young age creationism with an audience of folks who mostly disagree with it, and even believe it is harmful for the church.

No matter where you land on this issue, as you listen to this interview, I will you will be encouraged and motivated to learn more about it.

So this is part 1 of my interview with David Pallman on young age creationism.

Enjoy the show!

The post 102: Part 1 – What is Young Earth Creationism? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

What does the Bible say about the nature of faith? When we examine closely, it appears faith is never actually an intellectual problem—rather, it’s a moral/spiritual problem.

A person may choose to blame intellectual difficulty and ideas like young age creationism for their unbelief, but I believe the Bible grounds unbelief in something much more foundational than that.

In this episode, I’ll discuss why I think young age creationism is not what causes folks to leave/reject Christianity and attempt to offer a more biblical answer.

—

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 101: Does Young Age Creationism Destroy the Faith of Young Christians? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

The Bible is clear (see Revelation 4:11) that we are created for God and his glory. Thus, we can only be truly human by coming into a personal relationship with the One who created us.

In this 100th episode of the show, we reflect a bit on the goodness of God and what it means to be created in his image, for his glory, and to our everlasting enjoyment and satisfaction.

—

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 100: The Glory and Enjoyment of God appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

When folks talk about evidence (whether atheist, Christian, or otherwise), they often make the mistake of relegating the objective to the subjective.

By understanding what evidence actually is, one can avoid the error of reducing reality to mere psychological misunderstanding.

Listen in to this podcast as we discuss both the nature of evidence and why it would be inappropriate to say there is no evidence for something you are merely not convinced is true.

(Make sure to click here or enter your info below to get today’s free lesson handout!)

—

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 099: Not Convinced ≠ No Evidence appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

It’s easy in a world full of scholarly opinion to rest on the laurels of those you trust as faithful interpreters, but scholars have competing opinions, and you should be ready and able to adjudicate between them.

By having thought through the context, historical setting, and genre of a given passage, you are much more likely to gain an accurate understanding of what a text meant to its original readers, and, therefore, its objective meaning.

Here’s a suggested way of remembering this truth: The Text is where the Truth is found.

Listen in to this week’s episode as I develop that thought and give some practical application on understanding truths from the Bible.

—

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 098: Read the Text for Yourself! appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

A deeper dive reveals that many challenges are so superficial they hardly require a defense. In this week’s episode, we spend some time making the case for Christians to hold a more studied and rational faith.

Then, we examine a recent atheist tirade I encountered and show how his questions—while seemingly difficult for the average Christian—fall down flat after a moment’s reflection.

Enjoy the show!

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 097: Responding to an Internet Atheist Tirade appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

In my Bible reading I recently came across Exodus 13:8–9 which reads:

And thou shalt shew thy son in that day, saying, This is done because of that which the LORD did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt. And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the LORD’S law may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath the LORD brought thee out of Egypt.

In this episode—which breaks a bit from the norm—I give consideration to the concept of “remembrance” both in Hebrew life and in the Christian’s life and finish out with some practical admonition for my fellow brothers and sisters here in the USA.1

Enjoy the show!

—————

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 096: Remembrance appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

I think the answer is a resounding “no!”

Now, if that sounds troublesome to you, then let me invite you to listen in to the episode before casting judgment. In the final analysis, I think you’ll agree with me! But we need to do some careful reflection in order to get there.

Thanks for joining us this week! I hope you enjoy the show.

———

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 095: Was God’s Original Creation Perfect? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

We’ll take a look at what philosophers mean by the notion of “intuition” and make the case that objective moral values and duties do, in fact, exist, and require a metaphysical grounding in order to be meaningful.

Then, we answer questions about scientific evidence for God and how Satan was “allowed” to tempt Jesus.

This week’s questions:

• Q: This is a genuine question for Christians: if there is no scientific evidence for a Christian God (or any God for that matter), then what makes you continue to be faithful?

• Q: How was Satan allowed to tempt Christ when he was in the desert for 40 days? Didn’t Christ, being the son of God, have power over evil?

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 094: Moral Facts Must Be Grounded appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Dr. Craig is a researcher who is both highly respected and misunderstood by many, so I thought it might be useful and edifying to provide a commentary on his research as he provides updates on it.

Our goal is to remain thoughtful and charitable, while taking the time to point out the strengths and weaknesses of his position.

Enjoy the show!

Mentioned in this lesson:

• Reasonable Faith — Update on Historical Adam
• The Book of Genesis — Dr. Bill Barrick
• Invite us in to speak!

—

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 093: (Update 1) William Lane Craig and the Historical Adam appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

This was an eye-opening discussion for many, but the question was left open as to what Genesis 1 can actually tell us.

So I open this episode with some thoughts about what Genesis tells us given different understandings of its genre, and aim to show that our contention that Genesis 1 by itself does not answer the age of the earth question still stands.

This week’s questions::

1. What is the genetic evidence for Adam and Eve?

2. “The Bible doesn’t tell us the age of the universe!”

Mentioned in this lesson:

• On the Origin of Eukaryotic Species’ Genotypic and Phenotypic Diversity

• 089: From Jesus to Genesis w/ Marc Lambert

• TCA Lesson 026: Genetic Evidence for a Recent Creation (BOH Series)

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 092: No, Genesis 1 Does Not Answer the Age of the Earth Question appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

TRANSCRIPT:

My grandmother—Mommom, as I knew her—passed away on Friday, May 10th, 2019.

I was asked to speak at her funeral on the following Wednesday just briefly.

These are powerful words:

In Christ, there are no goodbyes
And in Christ, there is no end
So I’ll hold onto Jesus with all that I have
To see you again

And I close my eyes and I see your face
If home’s where my heart is then I’m out of place
Lord, won’t you give me strength to make it through somehow
I’ve never been more homesick than now

The hope we have in Jesus is really beautiful and unmatched. How do people live without it? I ask myself this question a lot.

What can we learn from the life of someone who lived sold-out for Jesus?

Here are four things I learned about life and Jesus from Mommom:

1. The Power of Devotion

Mommom loved the Lord with all of her heart. Her life was marked by her service and devotion to God, the things of God, and the people of God around her.

She loved her husband. She loved her church. She loved her family. But it was her love for God that enabled her to love these other things so deeply. She understood that love for others can only really be understood in the context of God’s love for us.

She instilled this devotion within me, though I rarely live up to the precedent set by her example. Quite often I remember her speaking wisdom and truth into my life.

She’d say something like,

Whatever you do, always make sure to put the Lord first. If you do that, he’ll take care of the rest.

Of course, Jesus said in Matthew 6:33, “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.”

So if I could you give you just one spiritual takeaway—just one peice of advice to take from my Mommom’s example—it would be to live a life that simply puts Christ first.

If seeking God’s glory and God’s will is your primary focus, the rest—I can assure you—will fall right into place.

2. The Power of Prayer

The devotion of Mommom’s spiritial life carried over into her prayer life.

Though I wouldn’t trade my life and/or experiences for anything, it’s true that I wish I had gotten to spend more time with Mommom during the past 10-15 years.

She would have, no doubt, had an even greater spiritual influence on my life had I been closer. At the same time, I know she spent much time in prayer for me. She told me, and frankly, I could feel it.

Without a grandmother who knew how to appeal to God, I don’t know where I’d be. Would I have been raised in a Christian home? Would I have a love for gospel music? Would I have gotten to travel in full-time gospel music ministry? Would I have met my wife (who I met while traveling in full-time gospel music ministry)? Would I have three beautiful little boys? Would I have accepted the call to preach? Would I have been called to preach in the first place?

I believe in a sovereign God. But I believe in a sovereign God who anticipates—and answers—the meaningful prayers of his people. I can only conclude that much of the good in my life is the result of her fervent and unceasing prayer life.

3. The Power of Diligence

If one thing is certain, it’s that Mommom was not scared of a little hard work. In Ecclesiasates 9:10, King Solomon writes

Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

Mommom understood something very important about the Christian life. Being a Christian is not a “Sunday” thing—it’s an every day thing, and it shows up in every area of our lives. It’s a worldview—a way of looking at the world which informs everything we do, right down to the most minute task.

She had limitations that would leave many today completely helpless. But not Mommom. My Poppop was a hard worker, to be sure. But she didn’t leave him to do all the dirty work!

She was legally blind, yet she knew her way around her house and her property and could always be seen working in the garden, picking up sticks or leaves, hanging clothes on the line, walking up and down the basement doing laundry, etc.

She never even had a driver’s license, and yet she could navigate Philly to get to various doctor appointments with skill that would make a boy-scout blush!

Any anytime friends came over, you could be sure they’d be offered plenty to eat and drink—over, and over, and over, and over—again.

One of my favorite memories growing up at Open Bible Baptist Church and Victory Christian School was Holiday House, where Mommom helped sell antiques and other goods at the “Second Time Around.”

Mommom loved to serve in any and every way possible. She was diligent for the Lord. I only pray that I learn to approach every opportunity as an opporunity to serve the Lord, in the same way she did.

4. The Power of Encouragement

Last—but certainly not least—Mommom taught me the power of encouragement and being an encourager.

Every time I spoke with her, I tried to be a blessing and encouagement to her. And yet, it seems that I was the one who always left encouraged.

As you should understand by now, Mommom knew what was important. She knew that unless something was done to and for the glory of God, it wasn’t done in the right way or in the right spirit.

So she always encouraged others to use their gifts and talents for the Lord. She let people know she was praying for them. She offered her help and extended her hand to those who needed it.

I often think of how surprised some will be on Judgment Day. Some who worked, and worked, and worked without understanding the grace of God and desiring the only praise of men will hear “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matthew 7:22).

And then there will be some devoted saints of God—like Norma Fitting—who’ll receive more crowns to cast at the feet of Jesus than some of the most well-known preachers and evangelists of days gone by. Her life will be eternally marked and defined by those most desirable words: “Well done, thou good and faithful servant” (Matthew 25:21).

A Christian poet and illustrator named Dan Lietha penned a beautiful poem after the passing of a dear co-worker and ministry parter. It so beautifully captures what I want to express and etch into the memory of all who remember Mommom:

Today I look up to the sky, with a smile and some tears. A friend has gone to a place on high, with no more sickness, pain, or fears.
Lord, heal the pain as we miss our friend, we’re glad her pain is gone. May the memories of her life not end, and her testimony carry on. [And what a testimony she had, by the way.]
...

While there are lots of resources detailing Gen Z and what to believe about them, there are virtually none which tell how to communicate with them—until now.

So the Next Generation Will Know By Dr. Sean McDowell and J. Warner Wallace is a helpful, accessible volume that has the potential to transform your role as a youth pastor, Christian educator, or parent.

In the interview, Sean and I discuss some of the most prominent themes in the book, including the most likely reason Gen Z is characterized by depression and loneliness and the tactical approach Sean and J. Warner personally take when training Gen Zers.

Listen in now! I know you’ll learn a lot.

Mentioned in this lesson:

• So the Next Generation Will Know

• Sean McDowell

• J. Warner Wallace

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 090: So the Next Generation Will Know w/ Dr. Sean McDowell appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Anyone who regularly argues for the truth of young age creationism will greatly appreciate this helpful lesson from host of the Hey, Pastor! podcast, Marc Lambert.

In this episode, Marc begins with Jesus and walks us right back through the Bible’s unbroken chain of history—stopping just short of Genesis 1—to show that we don’t need Genesis 1 to answer the question of age.

This is a compelling and fascinating interview with a dear Christian brother that I know you’ll enjoy!

Mentioned in this lesson:

The Hey, Pastor! Podcast

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 089: From Jesus to Genesis w/ Marc Lambert appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

I could give numerous anecdotal reasons for this, but I’m not inclined to opine on the reasons for the wider trend. In this episode, I merely want to speak to the oddity of this trend at such a time as this.

It would seem that the more we learn about life at the molecular level, the less Darwin’s theory is able to withstand. And yet, the more the church has hitched up its wagon. I think this is a mistake, and we’ll talk about why in this episode.

Then, to wrap up, we answer a question about the life of Jesus and the nature of historical evidence.

Mentioned in this lesson:

• Darwin Devolves

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 088: The Odd Thing About Theistic Evolution appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

While this is tragic, make no mistake, I was a bit unpleasantly surprised by some of the reactions I saw from the Christian community. Have we got to the place where the “building” is esteemed higher than it ought to be?

In this episode I begin by giving a few thoughts around that. Then, we answer some questions from Quora about Christianity.

This week’s questions:

1. What is it like to shift from a devotional reading of the Bible to more of a historical/critical examination of it?

2. My boyfriend is Muslim. We have been together for four years. Yesterday, he told me he will not marry me unless I become Muslim. I am so in love with him, but I don’t want to be Muslim. What should I do?

3. What guides atheists to be good and stops them from doing evil since they don’t believe that hell is real?

Mentioned in this lesson:

• The Creation Academy

• Ask questions:

  • Go to steveschramm.com and click “Ask a Question” on the right.

  • Use #askS3 on Twitter

  • Join our free Facebook community and ask questions there.

  • Email me.

• Free Email Course!

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 087: On the Burning of Notre Dame appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

His latest book, Darwin Devolves, takes the latest and best science we have on the molecular level of life and shows how Darwin’s theory is principally unable to account for the biodiversity of life we observe.

Moreover, he demonstrates how Darwin’s mechanism does not promote change by evolution, but rather, devolution. Listen in on this fascinating interview as we discuss his research and take about an hour-long stroll through the pages of his book.

In this lesson, you’ll learn:

1. Some surprising facts about the history and origin of evolution theory.

2. Why contemporary Darwin skeptics still fail to account for the molecular evidence.

3. How “mind” is detectable and why, if it weren’t, we couldn’t really know anything at all.

4. How the largest and longest study ever done on evolution supports the thesis of Darwin Devolves.

5. Why critical feedback thus far has not dealt with the challenge Behe raises.

Mentioned in this lesson:

• Get the book and keep up with critical feedback and responses.

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 086: Darwin Devolves w/ Dr. Michael Behe appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

I, for one, have questioned whether certain things in life were necessary, such as the early death of my father. Strangely, though, I’ve never pondered so deeply about the presence of a hangnail on my finger.

Here’s what I’m getting at:

When we say everything happens for a reason, do we really mean every thing?

I think we can form a biblically-based understanding of the sovereignty of God which preserves the pervasive sovereignty of God, the free will (and responsibility) of man, and the ultimate and immediate purposefulness (according to the will of God) of circumstances in our lives.

In this lesson, you’ll learn:

1. Why, though I’m charitable toward those who hold this view, I think theological determinism is false from both biblical and philosophical angles.

2. An offering as to how my view on Molinism actually holds the highest possible view of God’s sovereignty.

3. A new possible aphorism to use in place of “everything happens for a reason.”

Mentioned in this lesson:

• Resistance is Futile–or Is It? A Basic Defense of Monergistic Molinism

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 085: Does Everything Happen for a Reason? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Wood is a adamant defender of young age creationism and has completed two books in recent days that help to clarify his position and also share his position with an unlikely audience, theistic evolutionists.

In this episode we’re going to be talking about his recent book, The Quest: Exploring Creation’s Hardest Problems. This was an awesome book that, frankly, I feel should be standard reading for any young age creationist. We could learn a lot from Dr. Wood.

So while we’ll not cover the book extensively (you have to read it), I will give some of my thoughts and key takeaways from it, as well to share some helpful tips for creationists as we seek to interact with zeal, grace, and a firm commitment to the biblical creation account.

Mentioned in this lesson:

• Todd’s Blog

• The Quest

• The Fool and the Heretic

• The Creation Academy

• 061: The Elephant in the Room

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 084: Thoughts on “The Quest” by Todd Wood appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

As a culturally concerned Christian parent, however, there’s a need to be on the lookout for bad ideas in just about everything we consume. Sadly, most Christian parents are taken unsuspectingly by advanced marketing tactics that are made to appeal to emotional concerns of theirs, such as their own self-identify, in hopes of achieving political persuasiveness.

The 17th Century political activist Andrew Fletcher said, “Let me make the songs of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.”

Hundreds of years ago, Fletcher understood something that most people are not aware of—and thus, not on the lookout for—even today.

In this episode of the show I want to unpack something that happened on a recent episode of the TV show, For the People, and explain the marketing tactic that was used to make the emotional appeal. Then, I’ll give you three steps you can use to help guard your family from being taken by these tactics when they appear.

Mentioned in this lesson:

• Made to Stick

• Engineer Guy Review

• The Single Most Important Aspect of Apologetics is Knowing what the Bible Does and Does Not Teach. Here’s Why.

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 083: Pop Culture, Emotional Appeals, and the the Leftist Agenda appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

This is a fallacious notion that is ultimately nothing more than relativism in disguise.

Unfortunately, the disguise has made it past the defenses of many well-meaning Christians.

While last week’s episode focused more on the error, this week, we discuss the likely motivations behind this trend and suggest that the Bible itself offers the proper alternative to accomplishing these “good intentions” as I refer to them.

This relativistic error is most noticeable in Christian self-development circles, and I bring a unique perspective to the issue because I do, indeed, highly value personal development.

I think there is a biblically consistent philosophy of self-improvement, and it’s found in our union with Christ.

Mentioned in this lesson:

• https://medium.com/the-mission/this-is-how-to-discover-your-personal-truth-and-live-according-to-your-highest-values-d9f1acd57097
• https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/06/ocasio-cortez_people_being_more_concerned_about_me_being_factually_correct_than_morally_right.html
• https://www.steveschramm.com/union-with-christ/

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 082: (Part 2) “Your Truth” is Not a Thing appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Sadly, a lack of theological precision and the growth of apatheism have contributed greatly to this loss of truth. Many think truth doesn’t exist, and many think that it does but we could never know what it is!

These notions are both false.

So in this podcast we’re going to unpack a couple of quotes which serve to illiterate these views, and then bring some real clarity to this issue.

In this lesson, you’ll learn:

1. The simple definition of truth and why it must be objective.

2. How and why an accurate understanding of reality is escaping even many Christian circles.

3. A look into the motivation behind these ideas and the biblical answer to them.

Mentioned in this lesson:

• https://medium.com/the-mission/this-is-how-to-discover-your-personal-truth-and-live-according-to-your-highest-values-d9f1acd57097
• https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/06/ocasio-cortez_people_being_more_concerned_about_me_being_factually_correct_than_morally_right.html
• https://www.steveschramm.com/union-with-christ/

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 081: (Part 1) “Your Truth” is Not a Thing appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

The fact is that arguments for abortion are quite weak, and many stay out of the debate altogether for the fear that they are not well-enough educated on this issue.

In this final part of our miniseries, I’ll give a quick defense of the premises that make up the pro-life syllogism:

1. It’s morally wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification.

2. Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being without proper justification.

3. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

We’ll also talk about a few of the misleading/inaccurate terms that get thrown around in the abortion discussion. Ultimately, my prayer is that this short series leaves you feeling equipped to begin making the pro-life case.

While this doesn’t answer every question or dilemma, it will get you started on the right foot.

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 080: (Part 2) Fighting for the Unborn: The Pro-Life Case Explained appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

If so, this podcast episode is for you.

As Christians, we understand that all human life is intrinsically valuable; that is, from the moment of conception/fertilization, a human baby is growing in the womb of his/her mother, and that human baby has vale in virtue of its humanity.

The best science we have today confirms this, and even our most basic moral intuition is that human life is valuable.

Nevertheless, this is a complicated issue, and it’s easy to become frustrated. And as I’ve written about recently, I’ve been there too.

In this series I am going to walk you through some thoughtful arguments which demonstrate the pro-life case. We’ll explain it in simple terms, and even try to work through the confusing terms, unclear arguments, and unrelated moral dilemmas that aim to distract from the simplicity of the pro-life case.

In this lesson, you’ll learn:

1. Why we, as Christians, have a duty to stake our claim in this fight (and, it *is* a fight).

2. A formal argument that makes the pro-life case clear.

3. How an appeal to basic intuition can go a long way in this debate.

Mentioned in this lesson:

• God, Teach Me to be Less Indifferent

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 079: (Part 1) Fighting for the Unborn: The Pro-Life Case Explained appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

There are numerous views on this issue. Some say no relationship, some say it’s a deep relationship that means the Bible is another useless myth, and scholars land nearly everywhere in-between. This is far from a settled issue in academia.
One scholar, Dr. John Currid, has become known for highlighting an important aspect of this relationship—called “Polemical Theology.”

According to Currid, polemical theology is:

…the use by biblical writers of the thought forms and stories that were common in ancient Near Eastern culture, while filling them with radically new meaning…The biblical authors take well-known expressions and motifs from the ancient Near Eastern milieu and apply them to the person and work of Yahweh, and not to the other gods of the ancient world. Polemical theology rejects any encroachment of false gods into orthodox belief; there is an absolute intolerance of polytheism. Polemical theology is monotheistic to the very core…The primary purpose of polemical theology is to demonstrate emphatically and graphically the distinctions between the worldview of the Hebrews and the beliefs and practices of the rest of the ancient Near East.

It’s important to note that, in affirming this relationship, Currid does not deny the historicity of Genesis (or any of the Hebrew Bible). In fact, he believes polemical theology only serves to highlight the distinctness of Israel—in nearly every way possible.

While polemical theology cannot explain every facet of the relationship between Israel and her neighbors, it goes a long way toward better understanding it. And—if I may say, provides a wonderful new lens through which to view the Word of God.

I hope you’ll join me on part 3 of this journey! In this lesson we’ll briefly rehash what we talked about over the last few weeks, and look into the warranted extent to which polemical theology can be taken.

Hey—don’t forget to download this week’s free handout, The #1 Textual Reason to Think Jesus Thought Genesis was History.

==>Click here to download it now!<==

Enjoy the podcast!

Mentioned in this lesson:

• Against the Gods

• The Bible Among the Myths

• TCA Lesson 022: Does John Walton Get Genesis Right?

• TCA Lesson 030: Who Was Ancient Man?

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 078: (Part 3) A Primer on Polemical Theology appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

There are numerous views on this issue. Some say no relationship, some say it’s a deep relationship that means the Bible is another useless myth, and scholars land nearly everywhere in-between. This is far from a settled issue in academia.

One scholar, Dr. John Currid, has become known for highlighting an important aspect of this relationship—called “Polemical Theology.”

According to Currid, polemical theology is:

…the use by biblical writers of the thought forms and stories that were common in ancient Near Eastern culture, while filling them with radically new meaning…The biblical authors take well-known expressions and motifs from the ancient Near Eastern milieu and apply them to the person and work of Yahweh, and not to the other gods of the ancient world. Polemical theology rejects any encroachment of false gods into orthodox belief; there is an absolute intolerance of polytheism. Polemical theology is monotheistic to the very core…The primary purpose of polemical theology is to demonstrate emphatically and graphically the distinctions between the worldview of the Hebrews and the beliefs and practices of the rest of the ancient Near East.

It’s important to note that, in affirming this relationship, Currid does not deny the historicity of Genesis (or any of the Hebrew Bible). In fact, he believes polemical theology only serves to highlight the distinctness of Israel—in nearly every way possible.

While polemical theology cannot explain every facet of the relationship between Israel and her neighbors, it goes a long way toward better understanding it. And—if I may say, provides a wonderful new lens through which to view the Word of God.

I hope you’ll join me on part 2 of this journey! In this lesson we’ll briefly rehash what we talked about last week, and begin looking into some possible misuses of polemical theology we find growing in Christian circles.

Hey—don’t forget to download this week’s free handout, The #1 Textual Reason to Think Jesus Thought Genesis was History.

==>Click here to download it now!<==

Enjoy the podcast!

Mentioned in this lesson:

• Against the Gods

• The Bible Among the Myths

• TCA Lesson 022: Does John Walton Get Genesis Right?

• TCA Lesson 030: Who Was Ancient Man?

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 077: (Part 2) A Primer on Polemical Theology appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

There are numerous views on this issue. Some say no relationship, some say it’s a deep relationship that means the Bible is another useless myth, and scholars land nearly everywhere in-between. This is far from a settled issue in academia.

One scholar, Dr. John Currid, has become known for highlighting an important aspect of this relationship—called “Polemical Theology.”

According to Currid, polemical theology is:

…the use by biblical writers of the thought forms and stories that were common in ancient Near Eastern culture, while filling them with radically new meaning…The biblical authors take well-known expressions and motifs from the ancient Near Eastern milieu and apply them to the person and work of Yahweh, and not to the other gods of the ancient world. Polemical theology rejects any encroachment of false gods into orthodox belief; there is an absolute intolerance of polytheism. Polemical theology is monotheistic to the very core…The primary purpose of polemical theology is to demonstrate emphatically and graphically the distinctions between the worldview of the Hebrews and the beliefs and practices of the rest of the ancient Near East.

It’s important to note that, in affirming this relationship, Currid does not deny the historicity of Genesis (or any of the Hebrew Bible). In fact, he believes polemical theology only serves to highlight the distinctness of Israel—in nearly every way possible.

While polemical theology cannot explain every facet of the relationship between Israel and her neighbors, it goes a long way toward better understanding it. And—if I may say, provides a wonderful new lens through which to view the Word of God.

I hope you’ll join me on this journey!

Hey—don’t forget to download this week’s free handout, The #1 Textual Reason to Think Jesus Thought Genesis was History.

==>Click here to download it now!<==

Enjoy the podcast!

Mentioned in this lesson:

• Against the Gods

• The Bible Among the Myths

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 076: A Primer on Polemical Theology appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Everybody teaches different things, so who do I trust?

Is that you? Can you identify? Because I KNOW I can. Or, maybe you’ve been at this awhile and have more blogs to read, podcasts to listen to, and video to watch than you know what to do with!

If you’re in either of these boats, this episode is for you. And trust me, you’re not alone. Countless others are struggling with the exact same problem, and I still struggle with it from time to time.

But together we can struggle no more.

In this episode we are going to walk through four categories (and nine questions) that will help you clarify who you should be learning from. Along the way, we’re even going to bust a huge myth—it’s the criteria you probably use right now to determine who you listen to, and it’s entirely wrongheaded.

So buckle in! You’ll want to take notes, but you don’t have to! I’ve taken them for you in the form of a helpful checklist that will make all of this much easier, and much more tangible.

==>Click to download the Expert Evaluation Checklist.<==

Enjoy the podcast!

Mentioned in this lesson:

• Expert Evaluation Checklist: 9 Questions to Help You Know if You Can Trust Your Expert

• 5 Ways to Learn From Others Every Day of Your Life

• 062: How Does Science Relate to the Bible?

• 064: 7 Ways to Identify a Bad Argument (Part 1)

• 065: 7 Ways to Identify a Bad Argument (Part 2)

Thanks so much for listening. Pleasesubscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 075: How to Know Which Experts to Trust appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

In recent years Dr. Danny Faulkner has made some interesting observations about these passages, and discovered a startling implication for modern science that could potentially serve as evidence for the young age creationist view: The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

If you know anything about big bang cosmology, you’ve likely heard this term. It is the name given to a radiation field which penetrates each and every corner of the known universe. This is often interpreted as the best observable evidence for the big bang that we have today. Many creationists would likely contend that it actually isn’t evidence for the big bang, but that seems incredulous. While it certainly could serve as evidence for the big bang, it could also serve as evidence for something else!

In fact, this week’s free lesson handout will help demystify the big bang. It’s called 3 Reasons Creationists (and Everyone Else!) Should Reject the Big Bang Theory.

==>Click here to download the free lesson handout now!<==

There has not been a tidy explanation for the CMB within young age creationism—an unfortunate reality that still rings true today. However, the suggestion of Faulkner’s we’ll present within this podcast episode just may bring us closer. Humphreys (2014) has also posited an explanation; I’ll echo the sentiments of Dr. Faulkner by welcoming others to bring their solutions to the table.

After reading and reflecting on Faulkner’s paper, one thing has become clear: The answer to this “problem” for young age creationists could indeed stem from a misunderstanding of the text. This is unfortunate; but not as unfortunate as the reality that many young age creationists are unwilling to change long-held traditions and beliefs, even in light of convincing evidence suggested by conservative scholars!

My prayer is that you’ll listen with an open mind. As with all papers I review here on the podcast, I don’t teach this as though it’s the gospel truth! It’s merely a possibility I’ve deemed worthy of consideration.

>>Don’t forget to join us in the brand new, (FREE!) Facebook community where you can ask questions and share your thoughts about this week’s episode.

In this lesson, you’ll learn:

1. Why most Hebrew scholars reject the idea that Genesis 1:1 directly describes Creation Ex-Nihilo, and what the means for interpreting the rest of the chapter.

2. A biblical proposition for the true identity of the firmament (Heb. rāqîaʿ). Hint: The solution is strikingly obvious, yet has been elusive from the creation literature for most of its existence.

3. Three important implications that result from the above observations, and the additional benefit we just may have if this interpretation is correct: A creationist solution for the CMB.

Mentioned in this lesson:

Thoughts on the rāqîa‘ and a Possible Explanation for the Cosmic Microwave Background

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 074: A Young Age Creationist Explanation for the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

A face value interpretation of Scripture suggests that the cosmos is young. Last week’s discussion mentioned, in brief, a few of the solutions that have been posited to this point. I’ve yet to be completely satisfied by any solution offered, but I must admit that I have relatively few questions about this one because:

1. It lacks subjectivity.

2. It is compatible with most current thought on astrophysics and cosmology.

3. It is derived directly from Scripture.

4. It is clear and unambiguous.

Though we presented the model last week, this week, we will finish our discussion by first giving physical and biblical evidence for a young cosmos. Then, we’ll provide a detailed comparison between the CTC solution and other cosmologies (both Christian and secular).

Finally, we’ll answer potential objections to the CTC to find whether they carry any weight.

Don’t forget to download today’s FREE lesson handout:

==>Click here to download now.<==

The handout gives my 5 personal step response to challengers of creationism who use the starlight problem as firepower. We have good answers! Don’t get discouraged. Here’s a teaser: We’re not the only ones with a problem ;]

In this lesson, you’ll learn:

1. How the CTC solution compares with other models, and why it’s the most parsimonious creationist solution.

2. Specific physical evidence that shows why our universe is young, as seemingly suggested by Scripture.

3. Why many potential objections to the ASC do not apply to the CTC because of its clarity and formulation.

Mentioned in this lesson:

• Lesson Handout: A 5 Step Response to the Distant Starlight Issue

• A SOLUTION FOR THE DISTANT STARLIGHT PROBLEM USING CREATION TIME COORDINATES

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 073: (Part 2) Distant Starlight and Creation Time Coordinates appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

1. Light Created in Transit (Morris 1976)

2. Variable Speed of Light (Setterfield 1989)

3. Gravitational Time Dilation (Humphreys 1994)

4. Supernational Time Dilation (Hartnett 2003)

5. Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (Lisle 2010)

6. Dasha Theory (Faulkner 2013)

This problem is crippling for many, and with so many solutions having been proposed (and the unsettling lack of consensus among creationist astronomers), it’s no surprise that this issue might cause some unrest in taking Genesis at its word.

This week I offer yet another solution proposed by a team of three writers at the 2018 International Conference on Creationism. The solution uses what the authors call “Creation Time Coordinates” (CTCs) to talk about the age of stars in our universe.

The CTC solution is fascinating, refreshing, and best of all, is completely consistent with special relativity and leaves the door wide open for others to offer additional elements of a more complete young age cosmology.

This EXCITING new solution needs to be heard, because I think it might be the most convincing thus far; so I’m excited to bring it to you today. Make sure you download this free 5-step guide that will help you respond when skeptics challenge you on the starlight issue.

==>It’s the free lesson handout for today.<==

In this lesson, you’ll learn:

1. Why I’ve been unconvinced by many of the starlight solutions thus far, and how I think this one eases some of my concern about creation astronomy.

2. The fundamental assumption that EVERY young age starlight model should reject.

3. The mechanics and advantages of the Creation Time Coordinates solution, and what makes it different from the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (of which CTC is a reformulation).
   
   

Mentioned in this lesson:

• A SOLUTION FOR THE DISTANT STARLIGHT PROBLEM USING CREATION TIME COORDINATES

• TCA Lesson 058: The Current State of Creation Astronomy II | S02L01

• Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem

• A New Facebook Community!

• What is God’s Relationship to Time?

• Quick Response: Stand to Reason on Distant Starlight

• Lesson Handout: A 5 Step Response to the Distant Starlight Issue

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 072: (Part 1) Distant Starlight and Creation Time Coordinates appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

It’s amazing to think that God loves us; but how do we love him? Is it even possible?

Using insights from the Bible, philosophy, and even science, we’re embarking on an in-depth study to find the answer to the question of how to love God.

Make sure to fill out the form below (or click here) to download a practical, 4-step guide to connecting with God on a deeper level!

In Luke 10, Jesus affirms the response of a religious lawyer who quotes the Hebrew Bible’s teaching on the matter: “And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself” (Luke 10:27).

We’re in the fourth and final lesson of a series exploring the heart, soul, strength, and mind. Today, we dive right into the biblical command to love God with all of our strength and all of our mind.

In this lesson, you’ll learn:

1. Why the notion of human beings possessing power at all rests in being made in God’s image

2. How everything we know about the universe points to its having a beginning, and how the data matching what we know about God.

3. We examine the misunderstanding many have about “faith,” and give biblical reasons why Christianity is, in fact, the only rational worldview.

Mentioned in this lesson:

• The Creation Academy

• Predation Series:

  • TCA Lesson 036: Creation and Predation—What Does the Bible Teach?

  • TCA Lesson 037: Q&A: Creation and Predation

  • TCA Lesson 038: Scripture, Sin, and Defending Christianity

• The Seed, the Soil, and the Soul

• Defend Your Faith FREE Course

Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!

Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless!

The post 071: How to Love God (Part 4) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Have you ever thought about the incomprehensibility of finite creatures like you me loving the infinite, eternal God of all glory?

It’s amazing to think that God loves us; but how do we love him? Is it even possible?

Using insights from the Bible, philosophy, and even science, we’re embarking on an in-depth study to find the answer to the question of how to love God.

Make sure to fill out the form below (or click here) to download a practical, 4-step guide to connecting with God on a deeper level!

In Luke 10, Jesus affirms the response of a religious lawyer who quotes the Hebrew Bible’s teaching on the matter: “And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself” (Luke 10:27).

We’re in lesson three of a series exploring the heart, soul, strength, and mind. Today, we dive right into the biblical command to love God with all of our soul.

There are many interesting biblical questions that relate to the soul. Are the soul and spirit the same thing? What does it mean to be “alive” in the biblical sense? Can animals love God? Lots of exciting questions to ponder today, as well as some exhortation to be thankful for the true “gift of life.” Listen in and enjoy!

In this lesson, you’ll learn:

1. The New Testament parallel to the Hebrew understanding of the soul, and how it helps distinguish “life” from “non-life” in the biblical sense.

2. Many say that “life is a gift” rather flippantly, taking for granted how true that statement is. We talk about the metaphysical necessity of God, and why we, as continent beings, have more to be thankful for than we realize.

3. We look at the biblical usage of the word “soul” and discover some important truths about the relationship between God and those souls he’s created.

Mentioned in this lesson:

• The Creation Academy

• Predation Series:

  • TCA Lesson 036: Creation and Predation—What Does the Bible Teach?

  • TCA Lesson 037: Q&A: Creation and Predation

  • TCA Lesson 038: Scripture, Sin, and Defending Christianity

• Book Review: Union with Christ: The Way to Know and Enjoy God

• Defend Your Faith FREE Course