Confronting Silly Beliefs

Lawrence Krauss, an atheist, has said, "You've got to confront silly beliefs by telling them they are silly," adding, "If you're trying to convince people, pointing out that what they believe is nonsense is a better way to bring them around." But is this true?

I have been doing this with atheists and evolutionists for years, telling them that their beliefs are silly and pointing out to them that what they believe is utter nonsense. However, even though I defeat them at every turn and show them the utter ridiculousness of what they believe and how it simply is not true and is not science, even though they admit defeat and agree that I have completely dismantled what they believe in, yet they choose to continue believing it (or a sad replacement for it). Why? Simple.

“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.” –Sir. Arthur Keith

“Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” –George Wald

These two quotes show the irrational and prideful ego of atheists and evolutionists. They have no scientific evidence to support their beliefs, yet because the only alternative is one where they are subject to a higher authority, they willfully choose to suppress the truth and blindly place their faith in what they know to be impossible and untrue. And they purposefully and knowingly deceive others with the same lies they try to convince themselves.

I can convince any honest atheist or evolutionist (honest being the key word here) beyond the shadow of a doubt that their beliefs are false and impossible. Yet, amidst their submission to the truth of the facts and in spite of their agreement with my irrefutable evidence, they still continue to cling to the belief that was buried six feet deep. Why? Because no amount of evidence, no matter how convincing the arguments are, will ever change their hearts. If you brought before them a live dinosaur (dragon), they would not change their beliefs; they would only try to fit what stands contrary to them in with what they want to believe. Only God can change their hearts in such a manner so as they finally come to terms with the overwhelming facts and evidence stacked against their beliefs. Scientific and/or otherwise.

No matter how wise I am, no matter how intellectual I am, no matter how well I present my arguments, no matter how much evidence I mount against my counterpart, while they may admit defeat and agree with me that their position is impossible, I will never be able to fully change their mind, and I certainly will never be able to change their heart. Because this is God's area of expertise, I have resolved to do only what I can and leave the rest in God's hands. I will speak the truth in whatever area is being discussed, but whether or not my counterpart accepts it, agrees with it, or changes their mind on it is entirely up to God. I do not have that kind of power (nor do you, Christian), nor is it my responsibility to do (nor am I called to do such).

It is God who is sovereign over all things. It is He who is able to take a heart and change it from a heart of stone to a heart of flesh. All I can do is answer a person, in whatever season, as to the hope I have within me. I will answer a person truthfully, whether they want to accept it or not, without trying to force them to accept it, leaving what they do with what I say up to them. The rest is between them and God. I can pray for them, pray that God would use what I say and shape them accordingly, but that is it. That is the extent of my part. The rest is up to God. You Christians reading this would do well to learn from it. The conviction and conversion of an individual is NOT your responsibility. You do NOT have the power to do such. STOP repeating yourself, saying the same thing in different ways, trying to force people to accept the truth and convert to the faith. You are only going to create false converts. The conviction of sin, righteousness, and judgment belongs to the Holy Spirit. The conversion of a soul belongs to God. You are to do ONLY your part and NO MORE. "Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and doctrine." 2 Timothy 4:2

Gavin Ortlund's Confusion On Baptism

Gavin Ortlund wrote an article titled, Why I Changed My Mind About Baptism. In this article, the argument he presents is poor, weak, and twisted, revealing a lack of knowledge and understanding not only of baptism, but also of circumcision. In his article, he writes: "The faith of an Israelite child's parents was not what determined the child's right to circumcision; it was the child's association with the nation of Israel." While this is not entirely accurate or correct, the same argument can be applied to baptism and the church. So once again, it supports infant baptism because a child's association with the church is that they are full members thereof.

When you were born, were you born as a full citizen of your country with all the rights and responsibilities thereof? Yes, you were. However, because you were young, you did not know of these rights and responsibilities and could not appropriate them. You had to be taught them. When you were older, you then either embraced them as your own or rejected them, which is treason and demands you leave your country. The same is true concerning circumcision and baptism. The son circumcised on the 8th day had no faith of his own. He knew nothing of the covenant promises and had to be taught it. As he grew, he could then embrace what he was taught by faith and appropriate the blessings unto himself, or reject what he was taught and appropriate the curses unto himself. The same is also true of baptism, which people would see and understand if they practiced it in accordance with what we see in the Scriptures.

Gavin goes on to ask this ridiculous question: "So, given paedobaptist presuppositions, why not baptize the grandchildren of believers, too? If we're really building off continuity with the Old Testament precedent, why stop at one generation?" The ridiculousness of this question can be seen in a number of ways. First, infant baptism does not stop at one generation. Where Gavin gets this foolish concept from I have no idea. There are families who, by God's grace, have a legacy of faith from generation to generation to generation, just as promised in Scripture. Each of these generations has faithfully baptized their children. The precedent of the Old Testament did not circumcise grandchildren, so where does Gavin draw this foolishness from?

Second, for a man who grew up in and around Presbyterians, Gavin has completely missed the mark on this issue. This may not entirely be his fault, but the fault of the churches he attended. As Bryan Chapell writes, "We must confess that some bring their children for this sacrament because of the sweetness of the ceremony, or because of the traditions of family and church, or even with the misguided expectation that somehow 'holy water' will magically protect their child from hell. Yet neither sentiment nor tradition nor superstition is sufficient reason for believers to bring their children to be baptized. ... We baptize infants because we believe that the Bible teaches us to do so."

Third, apparently Gavin is unaware that God does not have any grandchildren.

Gavin continues by making a fallacious argument. He writes, "Those who espouse infant baptism bear responsibility to define the word infant. ... But it's difficult to see how that would be consistent with Genesis 17 or the practice of God's people throughout the Old Testament." Paedobaptists bear no such responsibility. The command is clear from Scripture. Apparently Gavin does not understand Genesis 17 or the practice of God's people through the Old Testament. Once again, never were grandchildren circumcised. The children were always circumcised by their respective parents. Do you think Ishmael and Esau did not circumcise their children? They have nothing to do with Israel, but they have much to do with Abraham. Circumcision was always connected to the faith of the parents, regardless of the genuineness of that faith. If you have parents in the Presbyterian church whose faith is not genuine, and they baptize their infants, do you think that somehow changes anything? Gavin's mentality on this issue seems to be entwined in the misguided belief that baptizing your children somehow protects them from hell or ensures they will be Christians. For all his "intensive study," he does not seem to have learned a thing.

Gavin continues further by making a false statement: "In no biblical covenant or redemptive-historical era has the sacrament of initiation been for 'those who believe and their children.'" History disagrees with him, as does Reformed tradition.

Gavin ends his article by asking a bunch of ridiculous questions centered on his foolish concept regarding grandchildren. Where he pulled this theory from is beyond me, but it is clear that he is desperately reaching in his attempt to argue against something he has clearly failed to grasp through his "intensive study." The fact of this can be seen in his statement: "Better, and more continuous with circumcision and the OT precedent, I think, to define the church simply as the children of Abraham: defined by physical descent throughout the OT (Gen. 17:9), and defined by spiritual descent throughout the NT (Gal. 3:7)." Many Muslims are physical descendants of Abraham, yet they are not the church. It appears as though Gavin's confusion runs greater than simply baptism and circumcision, as he does not seem to understand who and what the church is either. In the Gospel of John, Jesus identifies the Jews as descendants of Abraham (8:37), but tells them they are not his children (8:39) but the children of their father, the devil (8:44). Being physically descended from Abraham did not mean you were part of the church. It has always been the spiritual descendants of Abraham in both the Old Testament and the New Testament who were part of the church.

Gavin, you need to conduct a lot more study. Your conclusion in your article is drawn from assumptions, as well as a lack of understanding concerning these elements. I would call it a blundering conclusion as the evidence from your article reveals a lack of knowledge and understanding of not only baptism and circumcision and everything surrounding them, but also of the church. In case you missed it, Paul refers to our baptism as circumcision (Col. 2:11-12). Both of these are in the metaphorical use, expressing a change of identity having taken place, which is what both circumcision and baptism infer, but may not be the reality. How many people in the OT were circumcised and yet no change ever took place in their life? How many people in the NT were baptized and yet no change ever took place? Judas? Simon Magus? Demas? See Baptism's Meaning.

See also Michael Horton's Infant Baptism: God's Grandchildren.

Knowing God

"Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence." 2 Peter 1:2-3

How does this passage say that grace and peace will be multiplied to us? "In the knowledge of God." How does this passage say that we are granted everything pertaining to life and godliness? "Through the knowledge of Him." Everything you need to be godly, to live a godly life, God gave you by His divine power. How? "Through the knowledge of Him." The main thing you need in order to be godly is to know God. You do not need different circumstances in your life in order to grow in godliness. You do not need new family or new friends or new people in your life in order to grow in godliness. You do not need new roommates in order to grow in godliness. You do not need a new personality in order to grow in godliness. What you need is to know God.

How do you get more grace and more peace? How do you live a godly life? You do so by knowing God. The reason people do not live godly lives is because they do not know God. When someone comes to know God, you will always get a godly life—because knowing God changes you. True, genuine, born again Christians have everything they need for life and godliness because they know God. He has lit up our hearts, given us a heart of flesh, regenerated us, made us spiritually alive, given us the new birth, and now we see Him as beautiful. He is our all in all. Nothing is more precious to us than Jesus. Before you are born again, you cannot even see the kingdom of God. Once you are born again, the very things that look foolish to the world—the cross, a dying Saviour—all of a sudden become the most attractive things to you in the world.

If you do not live a godly life, if your life looks no different now than it did before you were "saved," the reason is because you do not know God. Chances are that you are a false convert, have never been saved, are still dead in your trespasses and sins, and will spend eternity in Hell. Paul tells us to examine ourselves; test ourselves to see if we are indeed in the faith. If you are indeed outside the fold, all is not lost. If you truly desire to be saved, then seek God with all your heart, mind, and soul. Earnestly pray to Him and ask His forgiveness and salvation. Do not cease until He has given you an answer. Better to be sure you know Him than to find out you never knew Him and have Him declare, "Depart from me...I never knew you."

"Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Peter 1:5-8

The true knowledge of God renders you neither useless nor fruitless, but ensures you are growing in these qualities. If these qualities are not yours and are not increasing, be assured that you do not know God.

"They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him." Titus 1:16

"For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus." 2 Thessalonians 1:6-8

"The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love." 1 John 4:8

The Almost Christian

by Matthew Mead, taken from "The Almost Christian Discovered; or, The False Professor Tried!" 1661

"You almost persuade me to become a Christian!" Acts 26:28

How far a man may go in the way to heaven—and yet be but almost a Christian? This shown in twenty various steps:

1. A man may have much knowledge—and yet be but almost a Christian.
2. A man may have great and eminent spiritual gifts—and yet be but almost a Christian.
3. A man may have a high profession of religion, be much in external duties of godliness—and yet be but almost a Christian.
4. A man may go far in opposing his sin—and yet be but almost a Christian.
5. A man may hate sin—and yet be but almost a Christian.
6. A man may make great vows and promises, strong purposes and resolutions against sin—and yet be but an almost Christian.
7. A man may maintain a strife and combat against sin—and yet be but almost a Christian.
8. A man may be a member of a Christian church—and yet be but almost a Christian.
9. A man may have great hopes of Heaven—and yet be but almost a Christian.
10. A man may be under visible changes—and yet be but almost a Christian.
11. A man may be very zealous in matters of religion—and yet be but almost a Christian.
12. A man may be much in prayer—and yet be but almost a Christian.
13. A man may suffer for Christ—and yet be but almost a Christian.
14. A man may be called by God and embrace his call—and yet be but an almost Christian.
15. A man may have the Spirit of God—and yet be but almost a Christian.
16. A man may have faith—and yet be but almost a Christian.
17. A man may have a love to the people of God—and yet be but almost a Christian.
18. A man may obey the commands of God—and yet be but almost a Christian.
19. A man may be sanctified—and yet be but almost a Christian.
20. A man may do all the external duties and worship which a true Christian can—and yet be but almost a Christian.

Salesmanship Christianity

This is the form of Christianity that exists within the majority of North American churches. Many individuals have been sold a Jesus and Christianity, or a concept of Jesus and Christianity, that is unbiblical and untrue. The "Your Best Life Now" movement is rooted in salesmanship Christianity, turning Jesus into some commodity only as a means of making your life better. Anyone who has ever read the New Testament will know that this is not the Jesus or the Christianity presented in the Bible. This is what North American Christianity has come down to. It is no longer a matter of preaching the Law and the Gospel in order to convict sinners of their sinful ways and their need for a Saviour through repentance and faith; it has come down to selling people a Jesus or Christianity not found in the Scriptures in order to make false claims as to the number of people saved by these evangelists or organizations.

Altar calls, asking Jesus into your heart, making a "decision" for Christ, praying the "Sinner's Prayer," walking an aisle, signing a card, etc., etc., etc.; these are all methods of salesmanship Christianity, Pope-ishly declaring individuals as having been saved of whom the Lord Jesus has not saved or has not yet saved. We cannot tell someone they are now a Christian just because they did something. That is leading them into a life of self-righteousness. Yes, sometimes an individual is saved in spite of these methods, but none of these methods is what we find presented in God's Word.

The message of the cross is foolishness. God has chosen this method as His means of saving sinners. When professing Christians alter this method in favour of their own corrupt method, thinking it better, they are themselves confessing that they find God's method to be foolishness. They think themselves wiser than God. All we are to do is faithfully preach the Law and the Gospel, commanding sinners to repent and believe, and leave the rest up to God. God knows those He will save; we do not. When we try to force a conversion, thinking it is up to us to convert a soul, we are creating false converts and damning them to hell because of our own ignorance and stupidity.

Stop trying to sell Jesus and Christianity to those who are perishing! Preach the Law and the Gospel, precisely as Jesus and the Apostles did (e.g., Matt. 19:16-26; Mark 10:17-31; Luke 18:18-34), commanding sinners to repent and believe, and leave the salvation of sinners in the capable hands of Almighty God. The salvation of a soul is not left to us. This is God's realm. You and I can preach to every individual on this planet until we are blue in the face and we will never convert a single soul. God is in control of the conversion of lost souls. Let us not try to fill God's shoes by placing ourselves in His position. Let us stick to what He has called us to do, preaching the foolish message of the cross, whether we understand God's method or not.

Who convicts men of sin, righteousness, and judgment? The Holy Spirit! Not us, and certainly not our rhetoric. We are simply to answer them with the truth and leave the rest to God. Most people, including many professing Christians, will readily admit they are sinners, but have no clue why they are a sinner or what makes them a sinner because the Law has never been preached to them. Their idea of a testimony and being a sinner is doing something extreme like being a drunkard, a drug addict, a prostitute, or something like that. Even if you have never done any of those types of extreme things, God has still saved you from something. Examine the Ten Commandments and I guarantee that you, like myself, have broken all of them. You may not have physically murdered someone (I have not), but what did Jesus say? If you hate someone, you are guilty of murder. Why? Because it comes from the same source. If you look at a man or woman with lust, you are already guilty of committing adultery because it comes from the same source. When you preach the Law, people understand why they are sinners and what makes them sinners. Then, and only then, can you preach the Gospel. It makes no sense to offer someone a cure to a disease they are not convinced that they have.

Jesus is not a commodity. Anyone who has "accepted" Jesus or "made a decision" for Jesus based on some salesmanship-type pitch is destined to an eternity in Hell, and the person who sold them this pitch is guilty for it and has their blood on his/her hands. Jesus showed us how to do it and told us how to do it. But certain professing Christians think Jesus' method is foolish, and so they try to come up with their own, thinking themselves wiser than God. Preach the Law and the Gospel and leave the conversion of lost souls to the Holy Spirit, Who convicts men and women of sin, righteousness, and judgment.

Worldliness

by Fredrick Marsh

"Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever." 1 John 2:15-17

1. Worldliness is evil in its nature. Galatians 1:4
2. Worldliness is downward in its tendency. Ephesians 2:1-4
3. Worldliness is contaminating in its influence. James 1:27
4. Worldliness is antagonistic to God. James 4:4
5. Worldliness is corrupting in its association. 2 Peter 4:1; 2 Peter 2:20
6. Worldliness is unsatisfying in its pleasures. 1 Corinthians 7:31; 1 John 2:17
7. Worldliness is hateful in its opposition. 1 John 3:13

Separation from the world is the Lord's clear and definite direction. To be specific in our desires and efforts to be separate from the world—the following rules should be followed:

1. Go to no place where the Lord would not take you.
2. Be found in no company that is not helpful to your Christian life.
3. Be no party to any transaction upon which you cannot seek your Lord's approval.
4. Listen to no voice which would lead you away from the truth of God's Word.
5. Allow no pleasure to interfere with your attendance at the means of Grace.
6. Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God! 

Strive to do the will of God, as found in His Word—nothing less, nothing more, nothing else!

Women, Adorn Yourselves With Modest Clothing

"Likewise, women ought to adorn themselves modestly and discreetly with proper clothing, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments" 1 Timothy 2:9

Paul Washer's wife says, "If your clothing is a frame for your face, from which the glory of God is to shine, it's proper—if it draws attention to your face. If your clothing draws attention to your body, to outline it, to make it noticed, then it's sensual." This is a good rule of thumb to live by.

Gospel singers Yolanda Adams and Erica Campbell's opinions on this matter, along with several contemporary "Christian" women, conflict with the biblical interpretation. Yolanda Adams, arguing in defense of Erica Campbell's form-fitting dress seen above-left, claims that Erica Campbell was not trying to be sexual when she decided to wear the dress, but that it was simply a matter of style: "I know for a fact that Mary Mary, because I've known them for years, they don't try to be sexual," Adams told Think Positive magazine. "Some of the things that they want to wear, they're in style." Erica Campbell claims wearing that dress is about "confidence."

A Christian is not concerned with what is or is not "in style." They are concerned with modesty and what brings glory to God. Just because something is "in style" does not mean a Christian should be caught dead in it. Discernment, ladies! String bikinis are "in style," yet for a professing Christian woman to wear one is indecent and immodest. Only a couple decades ago, the secular authorities would have arrested these professing "Christian" women for the things they wear to the beach these days. Confidence has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Paul Washer's wife is correct. When women are drawing attention to their figure, or parts of their figure, by what they choose to wear, what they are doing is wrong!

I know several professing "Christian" women who claim that the questionable clothing they wear is a matter of being "comfortable." When you are wearing tank tops or t-shirts where the neckline drops to the bottom of your cleavage (let alone exposing your cleavage in the least), your choice in clothing has nothing to do with being "comfortable." You are merely lying to yourself. Every other man and woman knows exactly why you are wearing those kinds of clothing.

It has nothing to do with wearing sheets and moomoos, the way that ignorant and rebellious individuals like to exaggerate the issue. A woman can wear decent, modest clothing and still exhibit style, grace, and beauty. But this concept is foreign to worldly women and lost on their ignorance. When they have grown up in Sleeze Town and are influenced by Sleeze Town, they cannot see any clothing but Sleeze Town clothing as "comfortable" and "in style." I have seen secular women exhibit more modesty in their choice of clothing than many contemporary "Christian" women do. When a secular woman has more dignity in how she presents herself than a professing Christian woman does, there is something wrong.

Paul Washer is correct when he says, "In Philippians we are told to think on things that are excellent, that are noble, that are just, that are right, that are true. The way a woman carries herself and the way she dresses ought to promote the following types of words: modesty, discretion, wisdom, beauty, elegance and refinement, but not sensuality, luxury, extravagance."

Borrowed Faith

Many professing "Christians" have never made the Christian faith their own. They merely borrowed it from their parents for a time being. Make no mistake about it, those who merely borrow the Christian faith but never embrace it personally for themselves will end up spending eternity in Hell.

While many parents are brokenhearted when their children reject Christ in their adolescent years, what is worse is those parents who are lulled into a false sense of security simply because their children toed the line of faith until they left home. A borrowed faith leaving home is often the same as broken faith. The result is the same, it is just delayed.

The number one sign that your children are just borrowing your faith is that they rarely, if ever, ask questions.

Make sure your children own their faith. If they are not asking questions, start asking them questions.

Why Aren’t They Asking Questions? (from Natasha Crain)

• They may be just uninterested enough to not ask questions, but not so uninterested as to reject Christianity altogether. They’ll just borrow your faith for a while because that’s what’s in front of them on the buffet.

• They may not yet see the importance of Christian belief in their lives. It’s perceived as just another subject they’re learning about, like math. They’ll just borrow your faith for a while because they don’t think it’s important enough to think more deeply about.

• They may not have been exposed to enough non-Christian ideas yet. Their faith isn’t being challenged in preparation for the adult world. Challenge them. If you don’t, non-believers soon will. They’ll just borrow your faith for a while because they see no need not to.

• They may be scared or uncertain of your reaction. They’ll just borrow your faith for a while because that’s what they think is expected of them.

• They may be getting answers elsewhere – usually not the answers you’d like them to have. They’ll just borrow your faith for a while because they don’t want to rock the boat at home.

Here are 65 apologetics questions that Natasha Crain says that every Christian parent needs to learn how to answer:

Questions About the Existence and Nature of God

1. What key arguments are there for (and against) God’s existence?

2. What are the practical implications of an atheistic worldview?

3. Why would a good God allow evil to exist?

4. Why would a good God allow suffering to exist?

5. Why would God command the death of so many people in the Bible (e.g., the Canaanites)?

6. How can a loving God send people to hell?

7. Why does God remain so “hidden?”

8. Why does the “Old Testament God” seem different than the “New Testament God?”

9. Why would God need people to worship Him (isn’t that egotistical and arrogant)?


Questions About Truth and Worldviews

10. What is the difference between absolute and relative truth?

11. How can it be reasonable for Christians to claim knowledge of an objective truth?

12. What is the role and danger of using “common sense” in evaluating truth claims?

13. Isn’t hell an unreasonable punishment for not believing in a specific set of truth claims?

14. How can Christians think their personal religious experiences with God are any more “true” than those of adherents to other belief systems?

15. Do all religions ultimately point to the same God? Why or why not?

16. What are key similarities and differences between the world’s major religions (e.g., Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism)?

17. Is Christianity a less intelligent worldview than atheism? Why or why not?


Questions About Jesus

18. What extra-biblical evidence is there that Jesus existed (as a historical person)?

19. What major Old Testament prophecies did Jesus fulfill?

20. Was Jesus wrong about the timing of his second coming? Why or why not?

21. What are the key passages in the Bible that show Jesus claimed to be God?

22. What does the Bible say about the exclusivity of Jesus with regard to salvation?

23. Why did Jesus have to die on the cross for our sins to be forgiven (couldn’t God have just pardoned sins without a gruesome death involved)?

24. What are the four minimal facts of the resurrection that are “so strongly attested historically that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones?”

25. What are the main theories non-believers have about the resurrection (e.g., unknown tomb, wrong tomb, disciples stole the body, authorities hid the body, etc.)?

26. Why do Christians believe a supernatural (bodily) resurrection explains the minimal facts better than all the other theories?

27. Why does it matter whether or not Jesus was resurrected (and that the resurrection wasn’t simply a metaphor)?


Questions About the Bible

28. Who selected what books are in the Bible?

29. How were the books of the Bible selected?

30. Why were some “books” we know about today (e.g., the Gospel of Thomas) left out of the Bible?

31. How can we know that the Bible we have today is a reliable record of the original writings?

32. What major “contradictions” exist in the Bible (and what are the explanations)?

33. Does the Bible support slavery? Why or why not? (Don’t laugh at this and the next two questions…these come up constantly in discussion with atheists.)

34. Does the Bible support rape? Why or why not?

35. Does the Bible support human sacrifice? Why or why not?

36. What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

37. How do Christians determine what parts of the Bible are prescriptive and which are descriptive?


Science and Christianity

Young Earth Creationism

38. What is Young Earth Creationism (YEC)?

39. What are key pieces of scriptural support for the YEC interpretation of creation in six 24-hour days?

40. How do YECs determine that the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old?


Evidence for an Old Earth (i.e., billions of years old)

41. What areas of science have implications for the age of the earth?

42. What are major methods scientists use to estimate the age of the earth, and what is their consensus on the estimate?

43. What is the relationship between belief in a global flood and the age of the earth?


Old Earth Creationism

44. What is “Old Earth Creationism (OEC)?”

45. What are the major reasons OECs reject the YEC interpretation of creation?

46. What are the key pieces of scriptural support for the OEC interpretation?


Intelligent Design

47. What is Intelligent Design?

48. Why do Intelligent Design proponents consider it a scientific theory and not a religious one?

49. What are the major reasons Intelligent Design proponents reject evolution as a sufficient explanation for the existence of life?

50. What does it mean that the universe appears to be “finely tuned?”


Evolution

51. What is evolution (from a purely scientific perspective)?

52. What are the key pieces of evidence for evolution?

53. What are the key questions evolution has not answered?

54. What do people mean when they talk about “macroevolution” versus “microevolution”?

55. Why do evolutionists reject the theory of intelligent design?

56. What are the theological implications for an acceptance of evolution?

57. What are the theological implications specifically for Adam and Eve not being literal, historical people?


Other Science and Christianity Questions

58. Why would Jesus-loving, Bible-believing Christians differ on their view of origins?

59. How can Christians believe miracles are possible, given what we know about science (e.g., the miracle of Jesus’ resurrection)?


Other Important (and Common) Questions

60. What does it mean (biblically) to have faith, and how is that different than the popular definition of faith?

61. If Christianity is true, why are there so many Christians whose lives look no different than those of non-believers (aren’t many Christians hypocrites)?

62. Why are there so many denominations (and does the fact of many denominations invalidate the truth of Christianity)?

63. Is Christianity “responsible” for millions of deaths throughout history? Why or why not, and what implications does the answer have for the evaluation of Christian truth claims?

64. What happens to people who have never heard the Gospel?

65. Why don’t miracles happen as frequently today as they did in the Bible?

Parents, it is your responsibility to teach your children biblical and spiritual things and to guide them to embrace the faith as their own. They are your responsibility. Not the pastor's. Not the church's. Yours! If your children grow up in a "Christian" household but never embrace Christianity due to a lack of knowledge and understanding concerning the faith, that is on you. Their blood shall be on your hands.

Growing up in a "Christian" household, going to church every Sunday, reading your Bible, saying your prayers, asking Jesus into your heart, walking an aisle, signing a card, etc. . . . none of these make you a Christian or a child of God. Christianity is not inherited. God does not have any grand children.

"Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it." Proverbs 22:6

Circumstantial Evidence

Books, movies, and television consistently attempt to downplay circumstantial evidence as if it is not enough to convict a criminal of a crime. This is false, and it is just one of hundreds of lies perpetuated in books, movies, and television that the average person is utterly ignorant to and gets brainwashed by because of frequent repetition. If you repeat a lie loud enough, long enough, and often enough, the average person will begin to believe it because of their sheer ignorance. That is why public school systems exist, so that you can dictate what they learn and indoctrinate them all at once by brainwashing them with false information. Like I frequently state, education merely serves to teach you how to think and believe the way your teachers think and believe. Unless it is something like mathematics, it rarely ever teaches you how to think objectively let alone how to think for yourself. The world does not like people who think for themselves, whether in the work force or elsewhere. Present day society is demonstrating that more and more.

Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence. Eye witnesses are direct evidence. Everything else is circumstantial evidence. A fingerprint at a crime scene is merely circumstantial evidence. The same weapon found at a person's house is circumstantial evidence. In many cases, circumstantial evidence it all that exists and is more than enough in convicting a criminal of a crime. Here are a few quotes taken from legal books with regard to circumstantial evidence:

Circumstantial Evidence
n. Evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact. There is a public perception that such evidence is weak ("all they have is circumstantial evidence"), but the probably conclusion from the circumstances may be so strong that there can be little doubt as to a vital fact ("beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, and "a preponderance of the evidence" in a civil case). Particularly in criminal cases, "eyewitness" ("I saw Frankie shoot Johnny") type evidence is often lacking and may be unreliable, so circumstantial evidence becomes essential. Prior threats to the victim, fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, ownership of the murder weapon, and the accused being seen in the neighborhood, certainly point to the suspect as being the killer, but each bit of evidence is circumstantial.

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Rights reserved.

Circumstantial Evidence in the law of evidence, indirect evidence of a fact in issue. An inference of the fact in issue can be made from a consideration of a number of other facts. It is sometimes spoken of as a chain but better considered as a cable: the more strands, the stronger, and the absence of one of the strands does not break the connection. The lay person often considers it in some way inferior, but not the lawyer, who appreciates the difficulties inherent in direct eyewitness evidence. Nonetheless, it is only as good as the strands that comprise it. These may have to be evaluated in their own right, otherwise a sound inference maybe based on a defective premise, as where Othello, asking for proof of Desdemona's infidelity, was answered by Iago: 'It is impossible you should see this, Were they as prime as goats, as hot as monkeys, As salt as wolves in pride, and fools as gross As ignorance made drunk: but yet I say, If imputation and strong circumstances, Which lead directly to the door of truth, Will give you satisfaction, you might have it.' (Act 3, Scene 3, line 400).

Collins Dictionary of Law © W. J. Stewart, 2006.

Circumstantial Evidence
Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove.
Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.

The following examples illustrate the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence: If John testifies that he saw Tom raise a gun and fire it at Ann and that Ann then fell to the ground, John's testimony is direct evidence that Tom shot Ann. If the jury believes John's testimony, then it must conclude that Tom did in fact shoot Ann. If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John's testimony is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Tom shot Ann. The jury must determine whether John's testimony is credible.

Circumstantial evidence is most often employed in criminal trials. Many circumstances can create inferences about an accused's guilt in a criminal matter, including the accused's resistance to arrest; the presence of a motive or opportunity to commit the crime; the accused's presence at the time and place of the crime; any denials, evasions, or contradictions on the part of the accused; and the general conduct of the accused. In addition, much scientific evidence is circumstantial, because it requires a jury to make a connection between the circumstance and the fact in issue. For example, with fingerprint evidence, a jury must make a connection between this evidence that the accused handled some object tied to the crime and the commission of the crime itself.

Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence" (Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2.

Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

When addressing the circumstantial evidence surrounding the baptismal accounts in the Bible, each individual piece of circumstantial evidence builds up to make a monumental case against immersion as the proper mode of baptism. Yes, the secular world used baptizo (βαπτιζω) largely for immersion. But this is not how the biblical writers used it, which the circumstantial evidence shows. The secular world would used a particular Greek word in a particular way, but the biblical writers used it in a completely different way. In secular Greek literature, yes, the word meant to immerse. But the biblical usage does not support immersion, and Romans 6:4 has nothing to do with baptism whatsoever. The use of this verse is hermeneutical reaching on the part of Baptists and others. When studying the Bible, we need to look at all the evidence, both direct and indirect. Circumstantial evidence is frequently enough to decide a case.

It Is By Grace You Have Been Saved

A man is saved only by grace—only by grace! (See Eph. 2:5 and 2:8.) Faith is the instrument or vessel, and works are the evidences that prove, perfect, and complete that faith. (See James 2:22.)

"... (by grace you have been saved)," Ephesians 2:5

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9

"For by grace you have been saved." Through what? "Through faith." What is not of ourselves? "Faith." Why? "It is the gift of God." Why is it a gift of God? "That no one should boast." If you are saved by your faith, you can boast in your faith, which makes your faith "a result of works." Something you did. Something you look to in order to obtain salvation. Faith in your faith. You can say, "Look how great my faith is! My faith saved me!" No! God saved you! And for nothing you have done or will do, and for nothing in and of yourself. He saved you for His glory.

"But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are." Acts 15:11

Salvation is not the result of works. Anything you look to (other than Christ Jesus Himself) in order to obtain salvation will land you in Hell. Faith and works (works of the Law or good deeds) can be things you look to. Anything you do in order to obtain salvation will land you in Hell. Faith and works (works of the Law or good deeds) can be things you do.

Faith and repentance are both gifts from God. You cannot exercise faith unless God has granted faith to you, and you cannot exercise repentance unless God has granted repentance to you. If God grants you one, He will also grant you the other. In order to believe and repent, you would have to change from unregenerate to regenerate, you would have to change your heart of stone to a heart of flesh, you would have to change yourself from being dead in trespasses and sins to being spiritually alive; none of which you can do yourself! Once those changes have taken place by God's grace, you cannot reverse them. God saves us entirely or we are not saved at all!

"You do not believe, because you are not of My sheep." John 10:26