Tag Archives: Bible Study

Commentary

Evangelism and apologetics: Which one is mandatory? Which one is optional?

11 Comments

The answer might surprise you – it surprised me! J. Warner Wallace explains. (H/T The Poached Egg)

Excerpt:

Why do we embrace the burden of evangelism while relegating the burden of Case Making to professional “apologists”? Paul says something interesting in his letter to the Ephesians:

Ephesians 4:11-13
And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.

Paul repeatedly tells us that some of us are designed and given to perform certain functions. Some are apostles, some are prophets, some are evangelists, some are teachers, and some are pastors. Think about that for a minute. The reasonable inference here is that some of us are given to function in this waysome of us are not. You may be gifted and given by God to be a pastor or you may not. In a similar way, you may not be an evangelist. We may be called to share our faith (as described in the passages in Mark, Luke, John and Acts), but we probably shouldn’t beat ourselves up and feel guilty if we aren’t great at evangelism. That may not be our gift or our God-given role.

But there’s another calling we ought to feel on our lives as Christians that we usually ignore altogether. Look at what Peter says in a letter written to “exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia”:

1 Peter 3:15-16:
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

When addressing Christ followers who had been dispersed into regions filled with non-believers, Peter reminded Christians that everyone shared a responsibility to defend what they believed.

I attended Intervarsity Christian Fellowship while getting my undergraduate degree and Campus Crusade for Christ while getting my graduate degree. Both groups had leadership teams that rejected apologetics – including the showing of debate DVDs – because evangelism was mandatory while apologetics was only for professionals who had a special gift. It turns out that they had it exactly backwards. Make sure you get your marching orders right.

Videos

Michael Licona debates Dale Martin on the divinity of Jesus

1 Comment

Dr. Michael Licona and Dr. Dale Martin discuss the question “Did Jesus Believe He Was Divine?” The second evening of the 2012 Religion Soup discussion took place Oct 19, 2012 at Acadia University.

Michael R. Licona (PhD University of Pretoria): is Associate Professor in Theology at Houston Baptist University. He was interviewed by Lee Strobel in his book The Case for the Real Jesus and appeared in Strobel’s The Case for Christ. He is the author of numerous books including The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach.

Dale B. Martin (PhD Yale University): is the Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies at Yale University. He specializes in the New Testament and Christian Origins. His books include: Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity; The Corinthian Body; Inventing Superstition; and Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation.

The video is here:

Here is the MP3 file. (79 Mb)

I did not summarize this, but I watched Licona’s opening speech. It was awesome! Both speakers are easy to listen to.

Dale Martin is openly gay, so he’s not conservative on what the Bible teaches, for sure, and strikes me as one of these postmodern Jesus Seminar people who uses religious words, but is a naturalist who believes in a liberal Jesus as a nice idea, but doesn’t believe in the conservative historical Jesus at all. He seems to be more like these John Dominic Crossan / Marcus Borg types. I looked at some of his publications, and I think it’s a situation where the liberal sexual practices he advocates constrain his theological and historical views. Sort of like John Dominic Crossan’s atheism and pluralism and political liberalism constrain his historical work. Still though, smart guy and in a debate he addresses the evidence, so it’s good to hear another voice.

The one annoying thing about this is that you should skip ahead about 7.5 minutes to get to the start of the debate. I would like to see churches get involved in doing these sorts of events. We need to get used to discussing these things with evidence.

News

When pastors get it right: Pulpit Freedom Sunday 2012

4 Comments

My favorite pastor Wayne Grudem, the best pastor on the face of the planet, explains why he participated in Pulpit Freedom Sunday 2012. (H/T Jeremy)

Excerpt:

This Sunday I have agreed to join nearly 1,500 pastors nationwide and participate in Pulpit Freedom Sunday, sponsored by Alliance Defending Freedom. In my sermon, I plan to recommend that people vote for one presidential candidate and one political party that I will name. We will then all send our sermons to the IRS.

This action is in violation of the 1954 “Johnson Amendment” to the Internal Revenue Code, which prohibits tax-exempt organizations like churches from endorsing any candidate by name. But in our nation, a higher law than the IRS code is the Constitution, which forbids laws “abridging freedom of speech” or “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion (First Amendment).

I fully understand that many pastors might never want to endorse a candidate from the pulpit (I have never done so before and I might never do so again). But that should be the decision of the pastors and their churches, just as it was in 1860 when many pastors (rightly) decided they had to tell citizens to vote for Abraham Lincoln in order to end the horrible evil of slavery. When the government censors what pastors can preach, I think it is an unconstitutional violation of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

[…]I have compiled a list of 24 differences between the two parties on issues with a moral component. Here are some of them where the parties differ:

The rule of law (vs. judges who change the original meaning of the Constitution), freedom of religion in public expression (vs. freedom of worship in private), protection of life (vs. glorying in unrestricted abortion rights), the preservation of marriage (vs. promoting same-sex relationships as “marriage”), the limitation of federal power (vs. an unconstrained federal government), parental choice in education for children of all income levels and all races (vs. protecting a government-regulated monopoly on schools), turning back government overspending and avoiding debt that we cannot repay (vs. reckless spending that threatens to bankrupt our children and our nation), caring for the poor by reducing taxes to leave more money in the job-creating private sector (vs. ever-increasing taxes that drain money from job-creating businesses), a strong military to protect us and the many small democracies that look to us for protection (vs. damaging defense cutbacks that leave smaller nations, the world’s sea lanes, and our own nation increasingly vulnerable), and a commitment to stand by Israel (vs. snubbing its leaders and demanding that it make ever-greater concessions).

You can read 5 reasons why pastors ought to have participated in Pulpit Freedom Sunday 2012 here.

Here’s one of their reasons:

1.  The issues the country is facing are biblical issues. Pastors, more than many others, are uniquely suited to speak to the issues confronting the country in this election season.  Issues such as life, marriage, the family, the economy, the poor, and many others are addressed specifically in scripture.  The effect of the Johnson Amendment has been to make these biblical issues “political,” as if slapping a “political” label on an issue somehow removes it from the purview of scripture.  For example, a pastor preaching a sermon thirty years ago that abortion is wrong was just being biblical. But that same sermon today is labeled as political and, as a result, the pastor is sidelined into silence.  It’s not that the church is somehow becoming “political.”  It’s that politics is invading the realm of the church.

We need more pastors to connect what the Bible says to policy and events in the real world. We need to take positions that are in accord with what God’s Word says, and we need to be ready to defend our positions in public using public arguments and public evidence – especially scientific research – that will be persuasive to non-Christians who do not accept the Bible. That’s the only way to stop the cultural decline caused by the secular left.

The best introductory book on the interface between Christianity and politics is “Indivisible: Restoring Faith, Family, and Freedom Before It’s Too Late“, co-authored by Jay Wesley Richards. The Kindle edition is $9.99. Richards’ Ph.D is from Princeton University.

The best comprehensive book is “Politics – According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture” by Wayne Grudem. The Kindle edition of that one is $4.99. Grudem’s is from Cambridge University. First-rate Christian scholarship on practical Christianity.

And you can listen to Grudem delivering Sunday school training at his church on every single chapter of that book right here. All free, and no ads. Be sure and scroll through all the previous years to get all the topics! Ethics, social policy, fiscal policy, foreign policy and more!