Tag Archives: New Testament

News

Courting rules: what should a Christian woman be looking for in a man?

23 Comments

Here’s a post from Christian men’s issues blogger Dalrock, in which he gives advice to Christian women about how early they should marry. He himself is happily married, but he does not like the way that Christian women have been influenced by feminism inside and outside of the church.

Excerpt:

I propose that young women should take their husband hunt seriously from the beginning.  This means not looking for boyfriends, dates, friends with benefits, etc.  They should be looking for a husband from day 1, focusing exclusively on men who meet all three of the following criteria:

  1. Men who are (or are likely to be) interested in marrying her.
  2. Men she finds attractive enough that she is able to fall head over heels in love with him.
  3. Men she is ready to submit to as a wife and follow his leadership for the duration of her life.

Bullet number one should be obvious, but it is certainly worth stating.  One difference I’ve noted between men and women is women often don’t stick to the set of available options when making their selection.  A woman considering her options in marriage shouldn’t consider the recent interest (accepted or otherwise) from the exciting guy in the local band for some no strings attached sex, or even for a long term relationship.  If he isn’t interested in marriage, she shouldn’t consider him when considering her options.  The same goes for men who might be interested in marriage but don’t demonstrate an interest in marryingher.  Of course, none of the above is always a valid option so long as the woman is honest with herself that this means she is willing to risk foregoing marriage altogether with the hope that her available options will ultimately improve.

Bullet number two is an interesting one.  Many young women set out on a path to what Mentu describes as pursuing the serial monogamy hall of fame, falling in love with a series of (they hope) ever better men.  Early in their search they would no doubt have this as their number one must have criteria.  However, after some period of time even chaste women who find they haven’t located a husband are tempted to lower their standards in this area in order to not have to compromise in the areas of wealth and success.  I’ve argued strongly that women should not do this, and continue to feel this way.

Bullet number three is where it gets interesting.  While wives submitting to their husbands is a clear command in the new testament, very few devout Christians even take this seriously in practice.  It flies against the norms of our culture, and even those who are very traditional are likely to be alarmed by the statement.

In fact, bullet number three should frighten you.  If it doesn’t, you likely aren’t understanding the gravity of the situation.  I’m assuming it immediately raised questions in your mind like:

  • What if he is abusive?
  • What if he won’t take her needs and wants into sufficient consideration when making decisions?
  • What if he is prone to make risky or irresponsible decisions?
  • What if he isn’t faithful?
  • What if he isn’t motivated to work to provide for his family?
  • What are his religious and moral values?
  • Is he a kind person?
  • Is he mentally and emotionally stable?
  • Is he capable of leading her in a way which she is comfortable following? (leadership style/game)

The proof that this is the right process is that these are all of the right questions.  These are the questions women looking to marry should be asking but very often aren’t.

I think it is important to focus on that third point. Women today often are not evaluating men for the purpose of finding one who will lead them, especially on spiritual and moral issues. Many women today think that they can get into a relationship with a man and that the man will be happy with not being the spiritual and moral leader in the relationship. However, it must be said that men are meant to lead the relationship, and if they don’t lead, then both the woman and the man will be miserable.

So it’s important that both men and women have an idea of what leadership looks like. Here are some suggestions. The man should have certain goals. For example, mine are 1) earning and saving enough to keep my wife at home once the children arrive so we get effective children, 2) impacting the church with apologetics, 3) impacting the university with apologetics, 4) impacting the culture through writing about economics, politics, etc. The point of relationships is for the woman to ask the man what he intends to do, what preparations he has made, and what he needs her to do, and then to build her up so that she can do what’s needed. The purpose of courting is for the man to explain how he wants to lead, and then the woman chooses the man who will lead her wisely and well, and while taking her needs into account.

What should happen during the relationship is that the man should communicate what he wants to do and then he should try to get the woman to participate in it. She should let the man know that she is interested in his plans and is willing to be prepared to support him. For example, she can ask for things to read and then take action on problems that he cares about. If he is concerned about the skyrocketing debt, she should read economics and then write or speak about the problem convincingly to her friends. If he is concerned about single motherhood by choice or same-sex marriage, then she should read about those issues and then write or speak about those problems and move the ball forward. His job is to state his plan and supply her with tools, like books and lectures and tickets to apologetics conferences. The man practices leading and the woman practices supporting and helping. She is able to see whether she likes his plan and whether she likes helping him with it and whether he is good at motivating her and supplying her material and emotional needs so that she can help him properly.

And that’s what women should be doing with men when they are young. Men are not for fun. Men are leaders. And women should be evaluating men to see which one has a good plan and good leadership skills. Women are not choosing entertainment and pleasure when they choose a man – they are choosing the person who will prepare them and lead them. And that’s what men should be selected for. Life is an adventure. It’s important to have goals and to work with someone you like.

Related posts

News

William Lane Craig debates Peter Atkins: Does God Exist?

6 Comments

I noticed that Apologetics 315 posted the video of a debate from the Reasonable Faith speaking tour in the UK:

This is a must-see debate. You will love this debate. LOVE IT. I LOVED THIS DEBATE.

Details:

On Wednesday 26th October 2011 William Lane Craig debated Peter Atkins on the topic: Does God Exist? This debate took place at the University of Manchester  as part of the UK Reasonable Faith Tour with William Lane Craig. The debate was chaired by Christopher Whitehead, Head of Chemistry School at the University. Post-debate discussion was moderated by Peter S Williams, Philosopher in Residence at the Damaris Trust, UK.

Dr. William Lane Craig:

William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an American analytic philosopher, philosophical theologian, and Christian apologist. He is known for his work on the philosophy of time and the philosophy of religion, specifically the existence of God and the defense of Christian theism. He has authored or edited over 30 books including The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology(co-authored with Quentin Smith, 1993), Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship to Time (2001), and Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (co-edited with Quentin Smith, 2007).

Craig received a Bachelor of Arts degree in communications from Wheaton College, Illinois, in 1971 and two summa cum laudemaster’s degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, in 1975, in philosophy of religion and ecclesiastical history. He earned a Ph.D. in philosophy under John Hick at the University of Birmingham, England in 1977 and a Th.D. underWolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich in 1984.

Dr. Peter Atkins:

Peter William Atkins (born 10 August 1940) is a British chemist and former Professor of Chemistry at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Lincoln College. He is a prolific writer of popular chemistry textbooks, including Physical Chemistry, Inorganic Chemistry, and Molecular Quantum Mechanics. Atkins is also the author of a number of science books for the general public, including Atkins’ Molecules and Galileo’s Finger: The Ten Great Ideas of Science.

Atkins studied chemistry at the University of Leicester, obtaining a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, and – in 1964 – a PhD for research into electron spin resonance spectroscopy, and other aspects of theoretical chemistry. Atkins then took a postdoctoral position at the UCLA as aHarkness Fellow of the Commonwealth fund. He returned to Oxford in 1965 as fellow and tutor of Lincoln College, and lecturer in physical chemistry (later, professor of physical chemistry).

You can get the audio of the debate here, along with links to their previous debate from 1998. This debate is accessible and understandable to novice-level Christians.

I am happy when debates like this come out. I have friends who are Christians who doubt the importance of apologetics in evangelism, because they don’t think that apologists can prove anything or win arguments. I have friends who are skeptical of using arguments that assume a 14-billion year old universe, because they think that the Big Bang is compatible with atheism (!). I have friends who think that philosophical arguments have no persuasive force. I have friends who think that nothing can be proven from history, beyond a reasonable doubt. I have co-workers who ask me whether anyone wins these debates. I think that this debate answers all of those questions.

This debate clearly shows why Christians should not shy away from studying science, philosophy and history. We will not discover anything that harms Christian theism by thinking logically and by looking at the evidence. To the contrary, it is the atheist who makes war on the progress of science, and who is forced to resist the clear experimental evidence, and to resort to baseless speculations and blind faith. If you want to see a good debate with an intelligent atheist, I recommend watching the debate between William Lane Craig and Peter Millican instead. But if you want to see a really, really overwhelming defeat for atheism, watch this debate. It is very clear at the end of this debate why Richard Dawkins refused to debate William Lane Craig at Oxford.

SUMMARY OF THE OPENING SPEECHES

I only had time to summarize the first two speeches. Keep in mind that Dr. Craig always shines in his rebuttals, and this debate is no different. So you’ll want to watch those rebuttals. Dr. Atkins literally says in this debate in his first rebuttal “There was nothing here originally. There is nothing here now. But it is an interesting form of nothing which seems to be something.” And the audience laughs nervously. This debate is like that. You will see a clear winner and clear loser in this debate. This fight is decided by knockout.

William Lane Craig opening speech:

1. the origin of the universe
2. the moral argument
3. the resurrection of Jesus

Peter Atkins opening speech:

1. Dr. Craig is stupid, lazy and evil:
– Dr. Craig’s arguments are old: from the 11th century! Old arguments can’t be true
– Dr. Craig is just asserting that “God did it” because he is lazy
– Dr. Craig feels pressured to agree with the theistic majority
– Dr. Craig needs a psychological crutch to comfort him
– Dr. Craig is fearful of death
– Dr. Craig is just wishing for an eternal life of bliss
– Dr. Craig is driven by his heart, and not by his head

2. Origin of the universe:
– Maybe the universe is eternal and has no beginning – we don’t know
– Maybe mommy universes can give birth to daughter universes
– It is naive to think that a cause is needed to cause the creation of the universe from nothing
– Science is just about to show how it is possible that something appears out of nothing without cause
– Some scientists have already begun to speculate about about how something can come into being out of nothing
– Maybe nothing is not really nothing, but it is actually something
– It would be admitting defeat to say that God created the universe out of nothing

3. Fine-Tuning:
– It could be the case that the fundamental constants are not variable
– It could be the case that the fine-tuning of the cosmic constants is a happy accident
– It could be the case that there are billions of billions of unobservable universes that are not fine tuned
– It could be the case that the cosmic constants in these billions and billions of unobservable universes are all random so that some are fine-tuned
– Anyone who infers that an intelligence is the best explanation of a finely-tuned set of life-permitting cosmic constants is lazy

4. Purpose:
– Philosophers and theologians are stupid
– I don’t think that there is purpose in the universe
– I think that the universe is more grand if there is no purpose, so there is no purpose

5. Miracles:
– I don’t think that miracles happen
– The resurrection is a fabrication
– It could be the case that Jesus didn’t exist
– It could be the case that Jesus wasn’t really crucified
– It could be the case that Jesus didn’t  really die after being crucified
– It could be the case that the disciples stole his body
– It could be the case that the women went to the wrong hole in the ground
– the gospels are political propaganda written long after the events they are reporting on

6. Theodicy:
– God has no morally sufficient reason for allowing humans to perform actions that result in suffering
– God has no morally sufficient reason for allowing nature to cause suffering

7. Morality:
–  customs and conventions emerges arbitrarily in different times and places based on an awareness of the consequences of actions, as well as various anecdotes and experiences
–  these customs and conventions are decided based on the goal for survival, in much the same way as politeness and manners emerge for decorum and to avoid offense
– it is childish to presume that there is an umpire God who decides moral values and duties

8. Religious believers are stupid, lazy and evil:
– the notion of God has arisen because people are stupid and want to be comforted
– there are no arguments or evidences for belief in God
– people who believe in God do not think, but instead take refuge in incomprehensible nonsense

News

Easter is a good time to learn how to defend the resurrection of Jesus

4 Comments

First, let’s briefly talk about whether the Bible supports talking about the resurrection with non-Christians.

There are lots and lots of Christians in the world, but almost none of them are comfortable talking about the resurrection with non-Christians, in a way that doesn’t use crazy Christianese language and doesn’t assume that the Bible is inerrant. But I think that this situation is wrong for three reasons.

First, Jesus says that his resurrection is a sign so that people will believe in his other theological claims.

Matthew 12:38-40:

38Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you.”

39He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Second, Paul says that if the resurrection didn’t happen then we are all wasting our time with Christianity.

1 Corinthians 15:13-19:

13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.

14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.

16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.

17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.

19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

And third, Peter uses the resurrection as evidence in his evangelistic efforts.

Acts 2:22-24, 29-33, 36:

22“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

23This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

24But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

29“Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day.

30But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.

31Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.

32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.

33Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.

36“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

So, how can you do what Jesus, Paul and Peter do with your non-Christian friends?

You can do it, too – and you must

Most non-Christians don’t like to hear about the resurrection, because if a religious teacher really rose from the dead, then they would have to care about what that person said. Many people don’t want to have to adjust their lives to someone else’s rules and values – they don’t want to have to follow anyone but themselves. Many people have also heard that that they will separated away from God when they die unless they respond to the Easter story and develop a relationship with Jesus over the course of their lives.

But aside from the dislike of authority issue, there’s another reason why people don’t want to hear about the Easter story. Many people think that when Christians talk about Easter, that we are just telling our personal your personal opinions, not telling about what really happened in history. So not only are these stories threatening to their autonomy, but they are also just our opinions. And our opinions can be ignored – especially when they are opinions that put burdens on them to re-prioritize their lives.

Just think for a minute what they must think of you when you talk about how they must “believe in Jesus” (whatever that means to a non-Christian) in order to be “saved” from eternal separation from God. They think that your opinions about religion are just like opinions about which flavor of ice cream is best – just your personal preferences. They don’t think that you are talking about anything real – something that really happened. How would you like to hear someone tell you that you are going to Hell for not liking vanilla ice cream? You’d think they were crazy! And that’s what non-Christians think of you, unless… Unless what? Unless you present publicly testable arguments and evidence to show them why they should consider the claims of Jesus.

No one complains that it is “mean and divisive” if their doctor diagonoses them with cancer. Because a challenging diagnosis is not the doctor’s personal opinion – it’s true objectively. You need to make your presentation of the gospel exactly like a doctor’s diagnosis. Am I making sense here?If you are telling them the truth and you can show them publicly testable reasons and evidence, what sense does it make for them to be offended? They might as well be offended by their credit card statement or their speeding ticket. And that’s why people in the New Testament were constantly appealing to evidence whenever they talked to people about why they ought to become Christians.

I have Jewish friends, Hindu friends, Muslim friends, atheist friends, etc. They do listen when  you talk about the Bible as a historical document, and when you talk about what we can know about the life of Jesus using historical methods. Telling people the truth with publicly testable arguments and evidence that they can assess for themselves works.

Some things to help you talk about the resurrection

The main thing to remember about talking about the resurrection in public with non-Christians is that you can’t assume that they believe everything in the Bible is true. Serious Christians get around this by using standard historical criteria to filter out the passages of the Bible that are most likely to be historical. A passage could be as small as 1 verse or it could be several verses. Some of the criteria that historians use to separate out the passages that are more likely to be “historical” would be things like: 1) how early after the events was the passage written? 2) in how many places does the passage appear? 3) Are the places where the passage appears independent from one another (e.g. – Mark’s gospel and Paul’s letters), 4) does it embarrass the author in some way? 5) Is the passage corroborated by other historical accounts not written by people who share the author’s views? Using these criteria and others, historians (and I mean even non-Christian historians) can extract a bare minimum set of historical facts about Jesus. On this view, it matters more that you know things like when books of the Bible were written, who wrote them, and whether they agree with other books in the Bible, and books outside the Bible. You have to do good history in order to bee able to talk about Jesus in public.

Once you establish these minimal facts, you argue that the best explanation of the facts is that God raised Jesus from the dead. Your opponent either has to disprove one of your minimal facts, or he has to propose an alternative explanation of those minimal facts that explains the data better.

Here is an example set of facts that almost no historian denies:

  • Jesus died by crucifixion
  • Jesus was buried in a tomb and the location was known
  • The tomb was later found empty by his women followers
  • He was seen by individuals and groups alive after his death
  • He was seen by skeptics like James after his death
  • He was seen by enemies like Paul after his death
  • The earliest message preached by the first Christians was that Jesus had been resurrected
  • Christians faced persecution from the Roman authorities for proclaiming the resurrection

So why do historians accept these facts and not others? See below for some links and even a real formal academic debate where this “minimal facts” approach was used.

The top 10 links to get you started

So with that out of the way, here are the top 10 links to help you along with your learning.

  1. How every Christian can learn to explain the resurrection of Jesus to others
  2. The earliest source for the minimal facts about the resurrection
  3. The earliest sources for the empty tomb narrative
  4. Who were the first witnesses to the empty tomb?
  5. Did the divinity of Jesus emerge slowly after many years of embellishments?
  6. What about all those other books that the Church left out the Bible?
  7. Assessing Bart Ehrman’s case against the resurrection of Jesus
  8. William Lane Craig debates radical skeptics on the resurrection of Jesus
  9. Did Christianity copy from Buddhism, Mithraism or the myth of Osiris?
  10. Quick overview of N.T. Wright’s case for the resurrection

Debates are a fun way to learn

Here’s a formal debate between two scholars, one Christian and one not, where you can see how to talk about the resurrection – even at a university:

Books on the resurrection

You can learn more about defending the resurrection on historical grounds by getting books by people who know how to make the case for the resurrection in formal academic debates. Mike Licona, for example, has debated skeptics like Bart Ehrman many times.