Pastor Joel Webbin and Elisa Childers dismantle five objections to Christianity, refuting New Testament corruption claims via 5,000 manuscripts and validating Jesus' resurrection through Gary Habermas's "minimal facts." They counter materialist science arguments by distinguishing natural from special revelation, clarify biblical slavery as voluntary servitude distinct from chattel systems, and confirm Jesus' historicity using ten non-Christian sources like Josephus. Ultimately, the discussion asserts that while apologetics addresses intellectual barriers, true faith requires the supernatural power of the gospel to transform hardened hearts. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Rejecting Faith Over Variations00:15:18
Hi, welcome to another episode of Theology Applied.
I am Pastor Joel Webbin with Right Response Ministries.
Today, I was privileged to have as a special guest, Elisa Childers.
She's done a lot of wonderful work in regards to taking a stand against progressive Christianity.
However, in this particular episode, we discussed five common objections to the Christian faith.
Five common objections to the Christian faith.
Enjoy.
Applying God's Word to every aspect of life.
This is.
Is Theology Applied?
Hi, welcome to another episode of Theology Applied.
I am Pastor Joel with Right Response Ministries.
And as I've already mentioned, I'm privileged to have as a special guest, Elisa Childers.
Elisa, would you just take a moment and introduce yourself to our listeners?
Yeah, hi, Joel.
Thanks so much for having me on the show.
I currently run an apologetics podcast and blog, and I just wrote a book that chronicles my journey of.
Encountering the ideas of progressive Christianity.
And so the book sort of walks the reader through my story and then how to answer progressive Christianity biblically along the way.
And so that's what I'm doing these days.
But in the past, I've been a musical recording artist with the CCM group Zoe Girl.
And most importantly, I'm a wife and a mom.
And that's my main gig, and I love it.
Amen.
That's good.
Okay.
So this is going to be a little bit different.
So I've heard some of your talks.
I think I heard you on Ali Best Stuck.
A few months back, and been blessed by your ministry and the things that you've done and the ways that you've spoken out against progressive Christianity.
But as we were talking a little bit before we started recording this episode, I thought, and you agreed, that it would be nice to do something a little bit different, not entirely out of your wheelhouse, something that I noticed that you've done before and that I thought would be really beneficial for our listeners.
So, really, if there was a main headline topic for this episode, it would be apologetics.
And what we're going to do is kind of maybe you could call it.
Apologetics 101, kind of a primer, a basics course.
And so what we're going to be hitting is not every nuance and every intricate detail of how to defend the Trinity, perhaps, but what we're going to do is what is your kind of your nine millimeter that you keep in Texas, you can open carry now, so that you keep on your side, that you pull out for the most common occasion.
So what are the five most common objections to the Christian faith, the five most regular objections?
Accusations or questions or opposition that you receive, and how could Christians respond?
So, I know that's a big question, but maybe we could just go one at a time.
So, maybe to start with, what's the most common objection that you've experienced, Elisa?
I think the most common one would have to do with any objection that's going to sort of make a claim against the reliability of the Bible.
And there's sort of two different areas that that will happen.
So, sometimes people will claim that.
The New Testament, in particular, that you have sitting in your lap today or on your desk, is not the same words that they wrote back in the first century.
And so often you'll hear people say things like, Oh my goodness, there are so many, they'll use the word mistakes in the manuscripts, so we can't even possibly know what they wrote in the first century.
So that would be one side of it.
The other side of it would have to do with, okay, let's even say we do have an accurate copy.
Well, those copies don't tell the truth about what happened in the first century.
This was just Some legendary things that sort of developed over time.
The earliest Christians didn't really think Jesus was God.
And so there's a little bit of an attack on the reliability of the information and also an attack on the reliability of the actual words themselves.
And so I think that the reason that's one of the main objections is depending on where somebody's coming from, we hear so many stories of people walking away from their faith or having serious doubts about their faith.
And almost always, one of those pillars is the Bible, because if that pillar gets knocked down, it sort of leaves you adrift.
Where do I look for?
For truth.
If my Bible isn't accurate and hasn't been telling me the truth, where do I go?
So I think that that's probably the biggest one, if I had to guess.
But there are some other really big ones, too.
Okay.
So, what are some of the ways that you would respond to that objection?
Well, let's take, for example, the idea that the manuscripts themselves have been corrupted.
This is a topic that early in my journey, I had a faith crisis of my own.
And this was a huge part of my journey, is trying to learn.
Why do we believe that the words we have in our New Testament are the words that they originally wrote?
This was a hugely unsettling question for me when I was trying to figure out what I believed about this faith that I'd had my whole life.
And so, what I discovered was that there's a science called textual criticism.
And essentially, this is a science that scholars use to reconstruct the wording of ancient documents when the original documents no longer exist.
And so, this isn't a A science that's only used with the Bible.
It's used with things like if you've ever read the Iliad or if you've ever read Shakespeare or even the Gettysburg Address.
Yeah, yes.
So textual critics are basically looking at the existing manuscripts and they're trying to figure out what the original wording was.
And this is because back then, every manuscript was handwritten by a human being.
So they didn't have printing presses or computers where they could print it out.
So humans would copy the text.
And so textual critics, to get A really good idea of what the original wording was.
They want to have a lot of manuscripts, as many as possible, and then they want those manuscripts to come from as early or as close to the original as possible.
And when they have a lot of manuscripts and then they have really early manuscripts together, that elevates the level of accuracy.
Now, the thing about the New Testament is the New Testament actually has more manuscripts and earlier manuscripts than any other work of ancient classical literature.
In fact, to the point that it actually dwarfs.
Any other ancient literature.
I think the closest one might be the Iliad.
So, with the New Testament, just the broad flyover, you've got over 5,000 manuscripts.
And every manuscript isn't necessarily an entire book.
Some of them are entire books.
Some of them are maybe a single page.
Some are even so small they're just like a postage stamp with a few words scribbled on there.
So, we have over 5,000 of those for the New Testament.
And arguably, the earliest one we have, it dates within.
30 to 100 years of the original, which is unprecedentedly early.
In fact, before they discovered this fragment, a lot of the liberal scholarship had to be corrected because they thought the book of John, which is where this manuscript came from, was much later.
And so these early manuscripts and then a lot of manuscripts helped them to put these things together.
Now, I think the main thing we have to understand is you might hear skeptics say, okay, among these 5,000 manuscripts, there are tons of, they might say, mistakes.
We call them variations.
So these are variations between the manuscripts.
So, you might have one manuscript that says Jesus Christ, and then another manuscript of the same text might say Christ Jesus, where the word order is switched.
So, that counts as a variant.
So, it's true.
We have anywhere, depends on which scholar you ask, anywhere from 350,000 to 500,000 of these variations between the manuscripts.
But the most important thing for Christians to understand is that the vast majority of these variations, and even skeptical scholars like Bart Ehrman will agree with this, the vast majority of those variations don't affect.
The meaning of the text at all.
It's just, you know, if you have Christ Jesus in one and Jesus Christ in another, nobody's confused about what that's saying, right?
So we know what it's saying.
And, you know, admittedly, there is a very small percentage of variations where scholars aren't sure exactly what the original wording was.
And in those cases, you know, there's debate, and I've heard scholars debate some of these things.
But here's the broad, flyover important point is that of this tiny percentage of variations where scholars aren't exactly sure what the original text was saying, not one of those.
Calls into question any cardinal Christian doctrine.
You have the gospel even outside of this.
So, in my view, if somebody's going to reject Christianity because of these variations, there's probably something else going on there.
And so, this obviously, I get excited about this stuff.
This is a topic that I dug really deep into, and I'm certainly not a scholar, but I found it really fascinating to learn a lot of this stuff because if you would have asked me before, you know, I had my faith crisis, why do you believe that?
We have an accurate copy.
I would have just said some spiritual answer, like, well, I'm sure that, you know, that it just is, or that God made sure it was that way.
And that's true, too.
But it's nice to know you can actually look into the evidence for it and know that that's actually true.
Amen.
Yeah.
So the spiritual answer is, like I said, that's true, too, because it is a good answer that the same Holy Spirit who inspired the text is able to preserve it.
But in God's preservation, whether it be the preservation of saints, of our souls, our faith, that Christ is the author and the finisher.
This idea that it's not just us clinging to Christ, but ultimately He holds us fast.
So we're not just persevering, but He's preserving.
So, in the issue of individual people and our salvation, God preserves, but He has means by which He does so.
So, the idea that God preserves is perfectly acceptable, and I would say it's even commendable for us to seek these things out.
It's the glory of kings to search out a matter.
God puts mysteries in the universe for us to explore, for us to discover.
And so, Wisdom draws out these things.
And so for us to say, okay, so God preserves his people.
Great, how?
You know, and to dive into the scripture and to see, oh, he preserves his people through the church.
He preserves his people by the spirit.
He sets the spirit as a seal, guaranteeing that which is to come, that cries out and bears witness within us, Abba Father.
And he preserves his people by, you know, the spirit of God, the saints of God, the people of God, and by the word, by the word of God, illuminating these things to us.
And so for us to do the same with the scripture and say, God preserves his word.
That's great and that's a good answer.
But how?
And for us to delve into how God, over the centuries and millennia, has preserved his word, I think is absolutely commendable.
And it also just inspires more awe and more worship, I think, in our hearts towards this God.
Real quick, I wanted to read a paragraph just since we're on the topic of the credibility of the scripture.
How do we know that the Bible is, in fact, the word of God?
This is from the Baptist Confession of Faith.
So, classic, Joel.
I got to throw it in there.
But this is the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, the first chapters of the Holy Scriptures.
Paragraph 5 says this, and this is really more of the spiritual answer.
And so, what Alicia has done is she's shown us some of the technical and practical side of how God carries this out.
But it says this We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church of God to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style.
That.
Some people would use this to say that they would point towards the King James.
And to be fair to that group, that would be the Texas Receptus group.
And so it's not only the King James, the Geneva Bible.
It's basically the received text.
And they would look at that style of the writing, the majesty of the style.
But I would argue that being adherent to the 1689 doesn't require you to adopt the TR position.
The majesty of the scripture, regardless of what translation you're using, it has a distinct majesty in it.
There's an efficacy of the doctrine.
The doctrine makes sense, it's logical.
66 books of the Bible written by 40 different human authors over the course of 1500 years, and there's a cohesive pattern that you don't just see a bunch of guys contradicting one another.
So, the doctrines that are logical and efficacious, the majesty of the style, it goes on, it says, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God, the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies.
The entire perfections thereof are arguments whereby it doth, there's the old language, not it does, it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God, yet notwithstanding.
Now, this is really important.
All these ways, all these ways we see that it is the Word of God, yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
And so, All of these things.
This is how God preserves His word.
This is how the scripture was written.
This is how we know it's reliable and true.
And yet, at the end of the day, it's exactly what you said, Elisa, that the person who's making this objection, at the end of the day, their heart is hardened.
There's usually, usually.
Now, it is possible because Jesus is merciful and kind.
So the bruised reed, He doesn't just walk up and kick it and break it in half.
And the smoldering wick, He doesn't spit on it and snuff it out.
He's a merciful priest.
And there are weak Christians.
There's a difference between a false convert.
And a weak convert.
And there are weak converts that they need to hear the practical, logical manner in which God has preserved his word and has kept it so that it is reliable and trustworthy.
And that's a weak Christian.
But there are some who would bring this objection.
The weak Christian is going to be a question, a genuine question.
There are some people they ask the question, but it's not a question.
It's a statement, it's an accusation.
It's an objection guised as a question.
And for that person, At the end of the day, one of the reasons they have the question to begin with is because, yeah, there's some practical information that we could enlighten them with, but at the end of the day, they don't have the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the word in their hearts.
But for the Christian, the weak convert, they do.
So they already have the Holy Spirit bearing witness in their hearts.
And for them to hear some of these details that Elisa just shared with us, all of a sudden the Spirit of God within them is just going to cry out, yes, yes, and affirm that truth and be greatly consoled and encouraged.
Presuppositional vs Evidential Approaches00:06:10
So, that said, any other thoughts on this first one before we move on to the next objection?
Yeah, I might just even add to that, too, because I think that in the culture that we live in, I don't even know if I would say it would be a weak Christian asking those questions.
I mean, it definitely could be.
But, you know, if you look at Mormonism, they almost have a similar thing.
They'll say, the burning in the bosom, do you feel that burning in the bosom?
And I think that sometimes people can be confused.
But I think the Holy Spirit uses some of the more, you know, just the evidence in the real world to actually do that work of confirming it to our hearts.
And I think that it's something that a lot of Christians go through a process of going, why do I believe this?
And I think that it can be a very healthy question to ask.
And also, just For skeptical friends that come and say, Well, you know, hey, the Mormon says they have a burning in the bosom, and you say the Holy Spirit's confirming it to you, but what is there in reality that I can look to and think about that will confirm this to me, too?
So it's just, it's neat to know that we have that available, and the Holy Spirit does use that kind of information in people's lives at various points of their journey.
I agree.
Yeah.
And I like R.C. Sproul.
He was an evidential or like classical apologist and less of the presuppositional.
Now, I would be in the presuppositional camp as a confession.
I got to be honest about that.
But I greatly appreciate R.C. Sproul, and he would make many, he would provide a lot of the same information that you've provided.
And you're right.
It is the Holy Spirit works with nature as well as with scripture, illuminating these things to us.
It's a great comfort and a great consolation.
I completely agree.
And one other thing that I think Sproul would add is a lot of times he would work from Christ.
To the scriptures.
So he would start with Christ first and he would talk about, you know, there's more evidence and more writing, more all these things for Jesus Christ than Caesar Augustus or any other historical figure, you know, and everybody, nobody has any problem with Plato.
Oh, yeah, of course, Plato, he was a philosopher, you know, Socrates, and we don't have nearly as many manuscripts and evidence of these characters as we do the God man, Christ Jesus.
And there's a lot of people today professing Christians, and some of them may be Christians and some of them may not, but who would say, yeah, Jesus, I love Jesus.
And okay, but what does Jesus say about the Bible?
You know, so working from Christ first, and then what does Jesus say about the Old Testament?
You know, and every jot and tittle.
And then Jesus is the same one.
So it's his authority confirming the Old Testament, and then his authority commissioning the apostles for the writing of the New Testament.
And so even the scripture, we can look to Jesus as, you know, the cornerstone.
And to write off, there's just, there really is no logical, no fair way of writing off Jesus Christ.
You have to do something with this.
With this man, Christ Jesus.
You either love him or hate him, you bless him or curse him, but you got to do something with Jesus.
He's not a fairy tale.
And I love that you brought up the presuppositional versus the evidential approach because when I was in a faith crisis of my own, I didn't even know what presuppositionalism was.
So it was more like I went more into the evidential route.
I would consider myself to be an evidentialist.
But at the same time, I think there's such value in allowing for both.
There's so much like I've heard debates and I'm listening to the presuppositionalism going, yes.
And then I listen to the evidence.
Yes.
And I think that there's great value and God uses all of it.
And so, yeah, so there's great.
I hate when people pit them against each other as if you have to, you know, pick one and be in like, you know, fight against the other.
I don't think you have to fight against it.
It's nine plus many ways.
Amen.
If you ever get the chance, I would encourage you.
John Frame, I really like, he, you know, he says, Well, isn't this circular logic?
Because that's the, you know, one of the big pushbacks against presuppositionalism.
Isn't this circular logic, right?
The Bible is the Bible because the Bible says it's the Bible.
And the Word of God says it's the Word of God.
And he would say, Yeah, but that is the number one reason because the Bible is self attesting.
That is the reason.
And it is circular logic.
And he said, and so let's just take a really big circle.
And he argues in his book, Apologetics, and he makes the evidential arguments and saying it's completely proper and completely appropriate.
Because sometimes you can be on the presuppositional side and you can say, look, what people are trying to do ultimately is they're trying to put God as the defendant and themselves in the seat of the judge, and we should never let that happen.
And I understand that, and I agree with that.
I do agree with that position.
Greg Bonson argued against that.
And at the end of the day, no, we don't get to judge God.
But I think that there is something to making a defense, and Bonson would, of course, adhere to that.
And so making a defense, always be prepared in season, out of season, to give an answer for the hope that you have, and to say the Bible is the Word of God precisely because it says it's the Word of God.
And then you just start taking them on this big circle, and you're resting it ultimately on the authority of the Word of God, but you're also giving all the practical, evidential, circumstantial evidence as well.
And I think really the big question, because there's some presuppositional guys who feel like they can't ever appeal to logic or Practical or evidence.
I think what makes, if you are in the presuppositional camp, I think ultimately the question is not whether or not you can use evidential arguments.
I think the question is simply what comes first, the chicken or the egg?
And so is it first the Word of God because God says it's the Word of God, and or is it first the Word of God because of these practical reasons and now I can, and it's the chicken or the egg.
And that is certainly a debate, but I think that.
Both are really helpful.
And so, even as a presuppositionalist, I often find myself giving practical evidence.
And I don't think that that's, I personally strongly would disagree with that being a contradiction to the presuppositional position.
So, anyways, any other thoughts, or do you want to go ahead and jump into the next objection?
Evidence for the Risen Jesus00:06:46
Well, let's jump into the next one because I think that one of the things you definitely hear from skeptics, and even sadly, even in the People who would identify themselves as Christians.
Of course, I mentioned that my book is about progressive Christianity.
So, in a lot of cases, not all progressive Christians have sort of denied the resurrection of Jesus, at least as it being a physical resurrection.
In the progressive world, it's like, well, whether or not he was really raised physically doesn't really matter.
And then, of course, skeptics are going to say there's no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.
And one of the things that really was so just exciting for me to learn was that.
There is actually a lot of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.
In fact, I argue, and I think this is true, I'm not saying you can prove the resurrection outside of the Bible, but even if you never opened a Bible in your life, there would be enough historical evidence from non Christian sources within 150 years of Jesus' life to get to that conclusion.
Because even secular scholars will admit that the earliest followers of Jesus had an experience in which they believed they had seen the risen Christ, and then they were willing to.
To go to their deaths and be willing, and they were willing to be tortured and beaten, holding that that belief was true.
And it's really interesting when you ask skeptics, what do you make of that?
If he wasn't really resurrected, what's the answer?
And they come up with a bunch of things that don't really work.
But the good news is there actually is quite a bit of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.
And so there's a scholar, a historian, Gary Habermas, and he collected over 1,400 of the most critical scholarly works on the resurrection.
Between 1975 and 2003.
Now, this spanned the gamut of the most conservative scholars to the most liberal to even atheist and, you know, hostile biblical scholars to the resurrection.
And he discovered that there were certain facts that virtually every scholar agreed upon.
And so he lays these out.
And so, four of those facts would be number one, virtually every scholar agrees that Jesus, well, first of all, existed.
You know, you're always going to have your outliers on the fringe, but that Jesus existed and was crucified.
In the Roman Empire.
So he died by Roman crucifixion.
So that's the first fact that virtually every scholar agrees on.
The second fact that virtually every scholar agrees on is that Jesus' disciples believed he rose from the dead and appeared to them and that they were willing to suffer and die for those beliefs.
And then there's a couple more facts they all agree on, and that's that Paul, who went from being not just skeptical, but an actual persecutor of the church, you know, breathing threats and murder against Christians, instantly flipped.
After having an experience that he believed was the risen Jesus.
Now, I'm wording that the way the skeptical scholars would word it.
We, of course, know that Paul did see the risen Jesus, but the skeptic might say that he believed he'd seen the risen Jesus.
But the point is that his life flipped on a dime from that one experience.
He went from literally bringing Christians to their deaths with Stephen the martyr, his cloaks being put at Paul's feet, to becoming like one of the greatest evangelists of all time and writing a good chunk of our New Testament.
And then the fourth fact that Virtually all scholars agree on is that Jesus' brother James was skeptical.
The Bible talks about Jesus' own brothers didn't even believe in him.
And he was suddenly converted after he believed he'd seen the risen Jesus.
And Paul writes about James' eyewitness account in 1 Corinthians 15, where he lists out all these eyewitnesses.
Paul lists 500 other eyewitnesses that, by the way, would have, most of them at least, would have been alive during the time that Paul wrote about them.
And if that wasn't true, Paul wouldn't have written that because they all could have been like, wait a second, you're saying I saw something I didn't see.
But nobody ever did anything like that.
And then there's one more fact that fewer scholars believe, but still about 75% of scholars believe that Jesus' tomb was found empty.
And so the thing I just love to ask people is given all those facts, Jesus died by Roman crucifixion, his disciples believed they'd seen the risen Jesus and were willing to suffer and die for that belief.
We've got Paul, the skeptic, flipping on a dime and James flipping on a dime who was skeptical.
I mean, this was Jesus' brother, right?
Like your little brother's the big brother's the Messiah.
I mean, that's a hard sell.
But he becomes the leader of the church in Rome, as we know.
So there are all these facts.
And so the thing I just like to ask people is how do you explain those facts?
And it's interesting just to watch people kind of think about that.
And so I have another blog post where I list some quotes from some different scholars.
So there's an atheist, Gerd Ludemann, a German New Testament scholar.
And he wrote that it may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them.
As the risen Christ.
Now, this is not a guy that believes that the New Testament is even historically reliable, but he's saying this is a fact.
Of course, Bart Ehrman, we mentioned as the skeptical scholar that grew up as a Christian, walked away from his faith, and he wrote this.
He said, Historians have no difficulty speaking about the belief in the resurrection of Jesus since this is a matter of public record.
It is a historical fact that some of Jesus' followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.
And then he wrote in a blog post, I pulled this from one of his blog posts.
He said, the most important thing to stress is that there are two historical realities that simply cannot be denied.
The followers of Jesus did claim that he came back to life, and if they had not claimed that, we would not have Christianity.
And then, of course, N.T. Wright, there's a famous quote from him where he says, as a historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him.
Because, of course, we know there were other people claiming to be the Jewish Messiah that were killed, and those stories just faded out.
The only thing that explains Christianity getting off the ground is that Jesus actually was resurrected from the dead.
And so those are just sort of some of what Gary Habermas refers to as the minimal facts.
Those are the minimal facts, just the most basic things that all scholars agree on.
And the question for everyone listening is how do you explain those facts?
Because there's different ways people will try to, but it's a lot more plausible that the best explanation is that Jesus actually rose from the dead.
Science and Materialist Filters00:05:21
That's really good.
I really appreciate that.
I'm just going to let your comments.
And everything that you've contributed right there lie.
I really don't have anything to add.
So let's go ahead and jump into the third objection, if you're ready.
Okay, now the third one is, and we hear this a lot from skeptics, and that's the idea that science has somehow disproved God.
This is something that, gosh, there's so many debates about.
There have been tons of books written.
But the thing I think where I just like to bust it down to its bare bones is that by nature, first of all, if even if you ask what is science, people are going to give you 100 different definitions.
Yeah, I was going to ask, are we talking about science or the science?
Right.
Like, because we could be talking about mathematics.
Science!
The science, yeah.
Because hashtag science, right?
That's the reason everybody gives writing.
But so if we're talking about the natural sciences, you know, by definition, that's trying to find the causes of things.
And so, you know, I think that's probably the broadest definition of what science is.
And so, scientists, just by definition, what they're doing is they're studying the material world.
So they're studying this one thing, but God is actually not.
Made of matter.
He's not material.
So whatever they're studying, just by its very nature, is not going to be investigating the question of God.
They're going to be studying the natural world.
And so, what is so interesting about the way so many scientists go about saying that they've disproved God is they'll say something like, I've heard this, like, all truth can be discovered by science, or the only truth we can know comes from science.
But think about that statement.
All truth comes from science.
Just take that statement.
That is a statement that is philosophical.
It's not scientific.
You can't test that in a lab.
So you have to have philosophical presuppositions basically undergirding how you're doing the science.
And so even for a scientist to say God does not exist, that's not a statement of science.
It's a philosophical statement that can't be proven in a lab.
They can't test it.
So, in order for scientists to assert that God doesn't exist, They have to filter their findings through the lens of materialism, which, you know, I guess a broad definition of materialism is it's the philosophical belief that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, that all phenomena are a result of material interactions.
And so it excludes just by nature the possibility of anything supernatural.
And there's a really interesting quote from one of the world's leaders in evolutionary biology.
This is a Harvard professor.
His name's Richard Lewontin.
And he actually admitted that scientists are committed to the philosophy of materialism.
And so the reason I'm harping on this is because when they're studying the material world, every scientist, in order to analyze the evidence, they have to use philosophy.
So this is why people like Frank Turek will say, science doesn't say anything, scientists do.
You can have scientists that all have the same data, but they differ and disagree on what the conclusion is because they're analyzing and they have to use philosophy to do that.
So you can't just, there's not, Anything in the material world where you just look at it and everybody knows the conclusion, maybe mathematics or something like that.
But here's what Richard Lewontin said.
He said, and he's talking about scientists, he said, We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
And then he goes on to say that.
For them, materialism is absolute because they can't allow a divine foot in the door.
They realize if they go outside of that materialism, they're making room for God.
So, in essence, they're not following the evidence everywhere it goes.
In fact, Berkeley philosophy professor John Searle famously compared this to a religion.
He said, Materialism is the religion of our time.
Like more traditional religions, it's accepted without question and provides the framework within which other questions can be posed, addressed.
And answered.
And so I think it's so interesting to realize that when scientists are studying the natural world, they definitely have a presupposition that they're coming to the science and they're analyzing it through that filter of materialism.
But there's a great illustration from Frank Turek's book, Stealing from God.
And I think this will kind of bring this home for everybody.
He says To say that a scientist can disprove the existence of God is like saying a mechanic can disprove the existence of Henry Ford.
It doesn't follow.
A mechanic's job isn't to discover who made the car, it's to figure out how the car works.
And so I think that's a really good analogy to help us kind of process.
You have to take a philosophical leap to say that science has disproved God.
Yeah, I completely agree.
That was really, really great, Elisa.
Thank you.
I completely agree.
Mechanics Cannot Disprove Ford00:02:18
And so part of what we're talking at this point is in talking about creation, we're talking about natural revelation.
And so for our listeners, if you're not familiar with these terms, I think they're helpful categories.
There's special revelation and natural revelation.
Special revelation would be, well, First and foremost, we have the Bible, both the Old and New Testament.
But it's more than that.
We have prophecy, we have visions, dreams.
And I'm not saying that these things continue today.
I would be in the cessationist camp, but that's where we got the Bible.
We got the Bible, the Old Testament, from prophets and dreams and visions and the Lord speaking.
And so all that would fall into the special revelation camp.
So even prophecies that were not in scripture rated, they were not written down, like in the early church.
You know, Philip had four daughters and they prophesied.
I don't.
We don't have a recording of any of those prophecies from Philip's four daughters, but we know that they did.
And if it was true prophecy, which that seems to be what the Bible says, then that was special revelation.
So special revelation is God's revelation through prophecy, through dreams, through visions, and of course, scripture.
And the chief is actually not scripture, the chief of special revelation is Christ.
Hebrews 1 says, Long ago, God spoke to our fathers in many ways and at many times, but in these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son.
He is the exact imprint of the Father's nature and the radiance of the glory of God, and He upholds the universe by the word of His power.
So, Jesus is the final revelation, and He is the pinnacle of special revelation.
Natural revelation, however, we see multiple places in the scripture.
I think Psalm 8, no, I think it's actually Psalm 16, would be an example of David, the psalmist, saying that the skies are.
Proclaim.
The skies are screaming and preaching the glory of God.
And so we see all throughout the scripture, but perhaps the most memorable and iconic portion of scripture, this speaks of natural revelation, how God is revealing something about himself by what he has made would be Romans 1.
So Romans 1, starting verse 18, it says, For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
So the truth is there.
Politicizing Everything Discernment00:03:28
But they're suppressing it.
Doug Wilson uses this illustration.
He says, Unbelievers are like people in a pool trying to hold a beach ball under the water.
And our job as Christians is to poke their arms, maybe tickle them a little bit, and say, What do you got there?
What do you got there?
So, for what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
For his invisible attributes, namely, now this is key, his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world in the things that have been made.
So, in these material things, there is something about God.
That can be seen.
And then it concludes verse 20 by saying, so that they are without an apologia, without an apologetic, without an excuse, an argument.
And so at the end of the day, it's important for us to recognize that the unbeliever, God forbid, if he does not save them and judgment has come and they're in hell, we should not think, oh, this poor person that just.
Their greatest, their primary problem was that they were ignorant.
I think a lot of times Christians, because we want to be sympathetic, we want to be compassionate, which are all good godly traits.
However, I think sometimes we're tempted to make excuses for the unbeliever.
And we think, in a nutshell, we do this we say they're rebelling against God.
And certainly they're doing things that are sinful, but they're rebelling against God because they're ignorant of God.
So we think that rebellion stems from ignorance.
But what Romans 1 tells us is that ignorance stems from rebellion.
So it's not first and foremost a matter of the intellect.
It's first and foremost a matter of the will.
Because people rebel against God, because they can't let the divine foot in the door, like Elisa just said, because every man does have an allegiance, because we should say it like this because neutrality is a myth.
There is no neutrality.
Math, it's like, well, math is neutral, two plus two.
And all of a sudden, wouldn't you know it, we have people saying, well, maybe two plus two isn't four.
Math is whiteness.
Math is white supremacy.
It's oppressive.
And so, even those things that we thought were new, and here's the thing that all truth is God's truth.
But what we're talking about is we're not just talking about the matter or the principle, but we're talking about people discerning, people interpreting, people observing this matter.
And those people have an allegiance.
So, the scientists have an allegiance.
So, even when COVID happened, I remember all the way back in March, I was really, really, really.
You know, like, whoa, let's slow down before we shut down, you know, the entire economy and every church in America.
You know, and I remember arguing with my elders and back and forth, and I was like, okay, you know, they're like, Joel, don't politicize everything.
And I said, I don't want to politicize everything.
But I think we're being naive if we don't recognize that everything is being politicized for us.
So we don't need to politicize everything.
But we're naive if we think that everything's not being politicized by someone.
And we need to be discerning enough to say, OK, data doesn't have an allegiance.
But where does data come from?
Researchers collecting data.
And then we have the media presenting data.
So we have godless Yale and the godless New York Times working in concert.
And we say that there's no moral agenda there.
Special Revelation Needed For God00:05:32
There's no, that's just, we must be innocent as doves, but we also need to be as cunning, as discerning as serpents.
So, Christians, we need to be childlike, another sprawl thing, but we cannot be childish.
We cannot be foolish.
And so, with this matter, the last thing that I was going to say with Romans 1 is it says, For his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived.
And that word perceived, it doesn't just mean.
That these attributes of God have been revealed.
But what Romans 1 says is that all people, not just believers, but all people through natural revelation have perceived.
So it's not just God manifested it, but the retina caught it.
It landed.
It was perceived.
It was seen by not just believers, but also unbelievers.
But what was seen?
Every single aspect about the Trinity?
No.
The gospel of Jesus Christ?
No.
You want the gospel?
You need special revelation for that.
Natural revelation is only sufficient for one thing, which is ultimately to condemn.
Paul says, namely, or that language means specifically, particularly what attributes of God?
His eternal power and divine nature, not his mercy, not his son, Christ Jesus.
What's been seen is that there is a God, he exists, he is eternal, he is the creator, he is divine, he is powerful, and by way of implication, he is worthy of our worship.
That is all seen.
But all of that is only sufficient.
These attributes of God, that knowledge of the Holy One, all that is capable of doing at the end of the day is precisely what Romans 1 says stripping every man of any excuse, taking away all.
So it's only really sufficient to condemn us before a holy God.
We need the special revelation of the gospel of Jesus Christ found in the scripture in order to ultimately for redemption, for salvation.
So, all that being said, my point is just to say that as we look at creation, it does say something about God, but.
The problem is that every man has an allegiance, so we're not always willing to admit what it says.
And then also, I think the other thing with natural revelation, part of the reason, this is my theory, but part of the reason I think that creation itself does not testify to more of God is because even creation, so not just the creature, humankind being fallen and therefore fallible in the way we observe and interpret matter, but also creation itself is under the curse.
So there are certain things about the natural world, we have to remember nature.
Reveals something about God.
However, even nature is fallen.
So there are certain things like death, for instance, that don't actually speak to who God is because, no, that's not what He made.
That's what we introduced into His creation by our sin.
And so we have to say natural revelation is a real theological category.
It is absolutely sufficient to condemn every man, woman, and child apart from the grace that is found only in Jesus Christ.
But we can't go too far with natural revelation.
I think sometimes some guys will say, You know, from natural revelation, everybody knows, you know, this doctrine and that doctrine.
Paul says, namely, his divine nature and eternal power.
It's a short list, but it says something.
And yeah, so, right.
That'd be tough.
So, all right.
Any other thoughts that you would like to add to that?
No, that was a very good breakdown.
Romans 1 is one of my favorite.
Of course, I hate referring to any chapter of the Bible as a favorite over another one, but I just think it speaks so.
You mentioned hell and how people would be like, well, how could God send people to hell because they've never heard the gospel?
And you make such a good point.
And I always go to Romans 1 with that too, because people.
I always like to ask people, first of all, put aside whatever you think hell is.
Just put that aside.
Why would you want to be with God for all eternity under his rule and reign, submitted to his ways, if you don't even like him now?
And I think we look at Romans 1, and like you said, everybody has that access to a certain degree of knowledge that God exists and even know things about him.
And like you mentioned, People reject that, and that's and that is where you know it is sufficient to condemn in that sense.
And so, there really isn't anyone ever going to hell just out of pure ignorance because everybody has a chance to respond to that natural revelation.
I thought that was a really good breakdown.
Thanks, thanks so much.
All right, so that was our third objection.
So, can we do a recap real quick?
The first one was, first one was, uh, have the new well, I guess we could say, have the new testament documents been corrupted?
Like, do we have a corrupted copy of that?
And then the second one was resurrection.
Resurrection evidence.
Is there evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?
And then has science disproved God?
Has science disproved God?
That was the third one.
All right.
Do you got two more for us?
Can we do five?
Yeah.
Okay, great.
The fourth would be this is a big one, and it's hard to do this on a quick flyover.
So I would just recommend that people dig deeper on this.
There have been books written.
There's Paul Copanz's Got a Moral Monster.
There's lots of.
Peter Williams is a great resource on this.
He has a couple of.
Lectures on YouTube about this.
Context of American Slavery00:13:17
But the general story about slavery in the Bible is one thing we have to understand is that the Bible, the Old Testament, was written in Hebrew mostly, and it's translated into English.
And then we as Americans, when we hear the word slave or slavery, the first thing that comes to our mind is the chattel slavery in the antebellum South, right?
This is our context for slavery.
But what we don't understand is that the word that's translated from Hebrew into English is the Hebrew word abed.
I actually watched a video from the translation committee for the ESV Bible having a discussion about whether or not they should change the English translation from slave to servant.
Because what the Old Testament is talking about, the system that God instituted, is nothing like what we Americans think of when we think of slavery, because we have a different context within which we experienced slavery.
So I think that's the first thing I would say.
And so the word abed in Hebrew doesn't Carry the same negative connotation it does in our modern context.
So, in ancient Israel, this was a type of servanthood.
It was voluntary.
So, it wasn't race based.
It wasn't based on being forced to do something.
It was a voluntary system that if a destitute person, maybe they owed a family some, you know, they owed them and they were in debt to this family, they could go live with that family.
They could be given food, shelter.
They had legal rights.
They had protection from physical mistreatment.
And even if their debt wasn't paid off after seven years, they were commanded to let them go and they were given generous gifts like flocks and grain and wine.
And so, some cases there were where the Israelites kept servants from surrounding nations, maybe conquered foes.
But those they were commanded to treat humanely and they were also protected from mistreatment under biblical law.
The thing we need to bear in mind is that the type of slavery we had in the United States.
Would have been punishable by death by Old Testament law because to kidnap someone or human trafficking, we might call it, this was punishable by death.
So that was the Old Testament system that God basically gave to Israel.
And the point of it was to keep people from dying.
You couldn't just go get a job at Starbucks back then, right?
If your crops failed, you could die.
And so this was a way for people to have kind of a plan B to get back on their feet, to work their way up and out of poverty.
It's an example of case law.
Of course, it Was not ideal that people would actually become destitute.
But like you mentioned, we live in a fallen world and stuff like that happens.
And so this was God's protection for people to be able to come up and out of destitution.
Now, in the New Testament context, it was a little different.
The slavery that was in the Roman Empire was not the same animal that God instituted for Israel in the Old Testament.
And different scholars will give different percentages on this.
I think Paul Copin says that.
85 to 90 percent of the Roman population were slaves.
I've heard that number a little lower from other scholars, but a good number of the Roman Empire, the people, just the average Joe living in the Roman Empire, were some type of slave.
And so we have to think about it this way first of all, there's nothing in the Bible that speaks positively of that type of slavery.
In fact, Paul condemns slave traders, he specifically talks about that.
But think about if the New Testament writers would have come out and said, okay, slavery's wrong.
What's going on is wrong.
All the slaves need to rebel against your masters.
I mean, this would have meant mass executions.
They could have been branded.
But instead, Paul teaches this radically subversive teaching that slaves are actually on equal terms with their masters in the eyes of God.
Now, that was radically countercultural.
And so that encouraged a change that began in the heart.
And this is the kind of teaching that would eventually play out and inspire people like William Wilberforce and John Wesley to actually oppose modern slavery and support abolition.
And so I think that.
With a question like slavery, does the Bible support slavery?
Absolutely not.
Not the kind of slavery we think of in America, the kind we've experienced.
Now, like I said, that word, ebed, could also usually be translated as servant, as some sort of a voluntary work to work your way up and out of slavery.
But nowhere does the Bible speak positively of this.
In fact, even the whole book of Philemon, Paul is saying, He sent the slave back and he says, Receive him as you receive me.
I mean, this was like elevating the status of people.
So, Yeah, I don't think it really holds water for people to just make a blanket statement that the Bible supports slavery.
They're not digging deep enough to understand what's really being said in there.
I completely agree.
I also think so.
Part of the problem is that Christians are not well educated.
So everything that you just said was really, really helpful.
And a lot of Christians just aren't prepared to get that response.
I think another part of it is that Christians, we're just too embarrassed of the scripture, we're too embarrassed of our God.
And we should have no problem passages.
You know, so I think sometimes I wish that Christians would just, you know, if somebody is pressing, well, your God condones slavery.
If you're not prepared, I would say, yeah, the Bible talks about slavery, and it does seem as though there are forms of slavery and instances of slavery and circumstances surrounding slavery that are acceptable to God.
And I'll do some homework.
In the meantime, so what?
I'm not going to apologize for that.
And so, like, even, you know, so I think of, you know, Southern slavery, and so I've done some reading and some research on Southern slavery and those kinds of things, but whether it be Darby or whether it be, you know, Jonathan Edwards would be certainly an example that people would be quick to throw him under the bus for having slaves.
But one thing I think to keep in mind certainly there were atrocious cruelty and mistreatment of slaves in America.
It was wrong in multiple reasons, and you named a lot of them race based.
Exodus, I believe, is either Exodus 20 or 21, or also in Leviticus, the manstealer.
The King James uses the term manstealing.
And manstealing would be punishable by death, and so kidnapping.
However, it is important to keep in mind with the wokeness that we swim in today and that has seeped its way into the church, you know, and the idea of just completely demonizing whiteness and, you know, white supremacy and colonialism and imperialism and all these kinds of things.
And it's really cool right now to hate America.
But it's important to keep in mind that, in terms of biblical terms, were there many white American slave owners who were not treating their slaves?
In a biblical manner.
Absolutely.
And I completely agree with you that the principles in Scripture are there.
I think it was in the mind of Paul, and more importantly, I think in the mind of God, that as we lived up to the principles of Scripture and Christ's likeness, that slavery would be abolished.
I thank God for William Wilberforce and these kinds of things.
The same is a lighter example than Scripture, but the U.S. Constitution.
Slavery is the bug.
Not the feature.
And as we lived up to our ideals, these bugs were eventually worked out.
That said, kidnapping, man stealing.
It is worth noting that many white Americans did not go to Africa and steal people, they went and bought them.
They bought them from other black Africans.
And so I just think that it's important that as we try to demonize one group of people just based on ethnicity, Skin pigment.
I think that it's worth acknowledging from a biblical perspective there's something to be said for America and slavery that was race based, slavery that would separate husbands from wives and separate families, a slavery that was abusive.
The Bible is clear about how the slave should be treated, a slavery that is lifelong with no hope of freedom, no hope of redemption, where it's not just a debt that's being worked off.
All those things, the Bible has something to say about it.
But there's also something to be said for if we're just going to say, well, white people are the people who own slaves, and America is the nation that owns slaves, and Christianity is the world religion that is pro slavery.
Man, I mean, that's just, that dog won't hunt.
I mean, we can real quick look at, you know, multiple other nations that have had slavery.
As long as humanity has existed, there has been slavery.
Chinese slavery.
I mean, virtually every ethnicity, every culture, every nation.
The survivors are taken into slavery and sold to some white folk.
And those white folk have scripture, like Jonathan Edwards, that tells them how to treat those slaves.
Do I think Jonathan Edwards should have owned slaves?
No.
But man, we.
It sure is nice having the luxury of being 200 years removed and get to look back on the past and point out every little flaw.
I hope that our great, great, great, great grandchildren will be a little bit nicer to us than we've been to our forefathers.
Well, and we have to look at the trajectory, too, because, you know, think about the fact that America and others actually abolished slavery.
Right.
And that's a huge step in the right direction.
You know, people act like slavery doesn't exist in other parts of the world, it exists all over the world.
I have friends who work very intently on this ministry where they literally, there's a country in Asia where they raise money and they go buy slaves to set them free.
And they set them up with like a small business and that's part of what they raise the money for.
But it's absolutely all over the world.
And yeah, I think that we have to look at the trajectory.
I mean, look how we have righted some of our wrongs, you know, and continue to try to do that.
And so, yeah.
I agree.
Yeah.
Yeah, I don't think it's a fair assessment of, certainly not a fair assessment of Scripture, of God, of Christianity, and I don't think it's a fair assessment of America.
America, I think, is the best country in human, the best empire in human history, and I think it's precisely because of biblical principles and, you know, even guys who weren't necessarily Christians like John Locke taking these principles from Scripture and applying them to, This idea of, at the end of the day, it's free grace makes free men.
And free men make free markets and they have freedom of speech and it makes a better world.
And I hope that our nation gets back to some of that.
Ali Bastucci recently said, I was talking about America last.
Our current presidency is kind of this America last thing.
And I think a lot of Christians are like, yeah, that's whoever would be first should be last.
Quote scripture, you know, and this idea of, you know, well, Jesus, Philippians 2, you know, he made himself nothing, he emptied himself and humbled himself to, and not realizing that an America last policy, it hurts others.
It's not just bad for America, it hurts the rest of the world.
And I think the big reason why is because of this idea of it's not whether, but which.
And that's, we just, I think we think naively, again, it's just this childishness where we think, well, if America doesn't do this, This is a bad thing to do, and if we don't do it, then it won't be done.
It's not whether, but which.
So there's, right, Chinese Empire, you know, or American.
Like, somebody's going to fill that territory in Afghanistan.
Somebody's going to do this.
Somebody's going to do that.
And so I think at the end of the day, I want our nation to be strong, and I want us to go back to these principles, and I want us to export an agenda and a worldview and a culture.
The problem, I think the problem is that for the last few decades, we just were not.
We're exporting secularism.
And secularism isn't much better than Islam or any other.
Secularism is likewise oppressive and it's not a solution.
Honest Doubt Seeking Truth00:04:17
And so we have some work to do.
But this idea of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
And I think that, again, comes from your worldview and back to the materialism idea that, you know, you believe in a Big Bang theory and, you know, everything came out of nothing, you know, then, yeah, then burn it all down and the phoenix will rise from the ashes.
Just deconstruct everything, tear it apart, burn it all.
But the Christian worldview says that, you know, that creation involves care, that you can't just throw something on the wall and it'll all just assemble in exactly the right positions and, you know, Things have to be built and they have to be labored over and they're not accidental.
So we can't just destroy and expect order to come from chaos.
That's the worldview.
And so we shouldn't be surprised when secular politics is simply following the worldview from their secular public school education, where they were taught evolution and taught that, hey, order comes from chaos.
And so let's just have chaos in the streets and let's have chaos here and chaos there and tear down this and burn that business and do that and do this.
And good things will happen.
That's not the American experiment.
That's not why this nation exists.
And so it doesn't mean we don't have work to do, but it's work.
It's not just deconstructing everything and thinking that something magical and wonderful will appear.
So, any other thoughts that you want to add on that fourth objection, slavery?
Yeah, no, I just, yeah, man, I just think that, you know, when I think about an objection like this, that if a person is reasonable and they learn the information, the answer's there.
And I think that so often with objections like this, I've talked about doubt being sort of like there's two kinds of doubt.
There's doubt, like honest doubt, seeking truthful answers, seeking the truth.
And then there's what I might call dishonest doubt, which I think we see a lot with so many of the deconstruction stories, which is someone looking for justification for the unbelief they already hold.
They're already out the door.
And so, oh, I can say that the Bible condones slavery, evil Bible, you know, done and done.
And I think that.
When people have these questions, just even doing a little self diagnosis, like, why am I asking this question?
Am I asking this question because I really want to know the truth?
Because ultimately, it's, you know, I don't want to get too far on a rabbit trail here, but when we become Christians, it's by faith, right?
We're saved by faith.
And that involves trusting God, that involves knowing that He's good and just and holy and all the things He says He is.
And if we believe that He's good and holy and just, then we know there's an explanation for something that seems on the surface to be.
Confusing about his character.
And I think that so many people come to the Old Testament without any trust for God's character.
And I think that, you know, just kind of keeping that in mind that with some of these difficult objections, there's really two kinds of way of going about it.
You can either really want to be searching for answers or you can just be looking to justify, you know, because you've got your foot already out the door anyway.
You're right.
I like that honest doubt versus dishonest doubt.
It's that.
It's okay to doubt.
Not okay meaning that it's not wrong at all, but it's permissible so long as we work through our doubts and go to God with our doubts.
But unbelief, unbelief is a sin.
And I think you're right.
And unbelief, again, it's back to Romans 1.
It doesn't ultimately stem from ignorance, it stems from rebellion.
It's a matter of the will, not just information, but it's rebellion that a heart is hardened and does not desire to know God or to trust Him or to serve Him.
And obey him and is harboring unbelief and is veiling that unbelief as this innocent doubt.
Well, I just have doubts, you know, and who wouldn't?
And, you know, and in some cases that may be genuine, but in other cases I think it's a guy's.
So that's really helpful.
All right, drum roll.
We're on the last one, huh?
So, what is our fifth objection?
Historical Sources Confirming Jesus00:04:28
So, the fifth one is one that I was hearing a lot on social media where people would come on, when I first started my blog, people would come on my social media and say, hey, you know, the only place that even talks about Jesus is the Bible.
There's not even any.
Where else can you find anything out about him?
And this was actually something that was brought up in a class I was in, actually in a church, what I talk about in my book of this progressive Christian church, where the pastor was kind of saying, Well, you know, all these Christians kind of blindly trust the Bible, but there's really not any, you know, have you ever wondered?
I think that's the way he worded it.
He said, Have you ever wondered why there's nothing that talks about Jesus outside the Bible?
And so this was kind of an important one for me to investigate.
And I sort of hinted at this earlier when I was talking about the resurrection evidence, but there's actually, 10 non Christian sources that mention Jesus within 150 years of his life.
And many of them are actually hostile to Christianity.
And the reason that matters is because if there was some sort of conspiracy to say that Jesus didn't exist, the skeptics wouldn't be mentioning him as a real person.
Like it obviously wasn't on their radar that they should try to make people think Jesus didn't exist.
And so he's mentioned by Josephus, who was the Jewish historian.
Famous Jewish historian.
He was mentioned by Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Pligen, Thallus, Suetonius, Lucian, Celsus.
Now, Celsus was an interesting guy because he was an actual, like, apologist against Christianity.
He was trying to convince people that Christianity was false.
That was his mission and his goal.
And even he talks about Jesus as a real person who actually lived and existed in history.
And there's the Jewish Talmud.
So, the interesting one, I'll probably just, because I know we're short on time, but I'll talk to you about one.
A lot of skeptics will say, well, hey, You can't use the Josephus quote because there's been some additions by scholars and scribes.
And so the quote from Josephus, and you can look this up online, it's free online.
You can also get the books that contain all of the works of Josephus.
And so when, and this is, he was born around 37 AD.
So he was born just a few years after Jesus' resurrection.
In his Antiquities of the Jews, he says, At this time there was a wise man named Jesus, his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous.
And so There are more sort of specific, fantastical, even supernatural versions of this quote that get circulated around.
And sometimes Christians erroneously will use those because it seems like Josephus is even saying Jesus is a God or he was a God.
And so I don't use that one because most scholars do agree that there were some additions from scribes in that version.
But an Arabic version was found, and virtually all scholars agree that this one is more accurate.
And that's the one I quote from.
But the point being that Josephus is mentioning Jesus as a real person.
And he actually mentions the brother of Jesus, James, as well in a different place.
So even twice we have Josephus mentioning Jesus as a real person.
And so the persecution of Christians was well documented.
Jesus as a historical person is well documented, not just by non Christian sources, but actually hostile sources.
And so, yeah, I was delighted to learn that the Bible isn't the only place that talks about Jesus.
That's really helpful.
Yeah.
Again, I've heard it said several times, but there's more evidence for Jesus of Nazareth as an actual person, a historical figure, than there is Caesar Augustus, than there is Plato, Socrates, any other person.
And we have no problem, it goes back to the whole moral issue rather than intellectual.
We have no problem just accepting, and when I say we, I mean virtually every single person that I've ever met, believer, unbeliever, accepting, oh, yeah, the history of Caesar Augustus, the history of.
Beowulf, the Odyssey, the Iliad, all these different things, and certainly Socrates and Plato and all these philosophers.
And then we get to Jesus, are we even sure that was a real person?
Meaning that it's not equal weights and measures.
It's not the same scrutiny being applied across the board.
Clearing Obstacles To Salvation00:11:26
No, it's very clear that there is an allegiance.
There is an allegiance, and it's a supernatural issue.
And at the end of the day, ultimately, we have.
We have to pray and cry out that, you know, it's not just ultimately persuading something.
We want to be persuasive.
We want to be compelling in our gospel presentation and having always been prepared in season and out of season to give an answer for the hope in which you have, which is 1 Peter, 1 Peter, verse, I have it here, 3, verse 15.
Yep.
And so we want to be prepared for all these things.
But at the end of the day, we have to remember that we're banking on a miracle, we're banking on God who raises the debt.
And there goes my Calvinism.
But I always tell people it's not just going in a hospital and offering medicine to those who are sick and dying.
And if they choose to take it, they'll get better.
But at the end of the day, I really do think that it's like going into a graveyard with people who are buried six feet under and raising the dead.
That Jesus with Lazarus, this idea of resurrection life, that we were dead in our trespasses and sins.
And I recognize there's a debate to be had there within the banner of Christian orthodoxy.
But that would be my commitment, that would be my conviction.
And I think that that's what God does.
In granting new life.
I think that's what's happening in evangelism.
And so at the end of the day, we are God's tools.
We're being used as the human agency.
But at the end of the day, God has to melt the heart of stone, He has to raise the dead to life.
Something, the will has to be overcome.
And it's not just a matter of if we only had more information.
And I think right now we're living in a culture beyond just Christianity, we're living in a culture where we have no lack of information.
That's not our problem.
It's not that we have so much information.
The problem is that we're drowning information.
And for some of us, we don't know what's true.
But when you look, and it's like we're so polarized and we're so divided.
And I think so much of that is not because this group just knows emphatically that this is fake news and this group knows that that's fake news.
And no, like, why are we so polar?
We're so polarized because everybody just believes what they want to be true.
It's a matter of the will.
You want something to be true.
You go into the equation with a presupposition, with a desire.
You have a desire.
You have a motive.
You have an agenda.
You have a purpose.
And then you accumulate for yourself those new sources, that data, that information, that narrative.
And it just makes me think of what Paul said you know, that in the last days, men will gather for themselves.
They'll have itching ears and they'll gather for themselves false teachers, people who will tell them what they want to hear.
And so I.
Yeah, I so appreciate you coming on the show.
I so appreciate you equipping our listeners with truth, with evidence, with facts that they can use in those conversations because it still matters.
Because I think that is part of the work of an evangelist is bringing the person.
Because, you know, the scripture says, being deceived, they deceive others.
And so there's this sense of like, I'm being deceitful, but I'm being deceitful.
My deceitfulness is stemming from the fact that I am deceived.
You know, even Romans 1 says that there's this lying and suppressing the truth and deeds of unrighteousness, but then there is a further.
Hardening and being handed over to your sin to where eventually you are becoming progressively blind.
And so there is actually an ignorance, a blindness.
The problem is that it's something that was voluntary.
It's something that was actually, you weren't born with it.
You were born being able to see at least some aspect of the nature of God.
And you chose, in your rebellion, you chose this further and further progression of ignorance by lying and suppressing the truth and then.
Consequently, being handed over further and further to your sin by God.
And so, what we're doing by giving people answers is we're helping them see your problem is not intellectual.
If it were intellectual, here's an answer.
And see, that didn't satisfy you, did it?
Now, for some, it will.
And those are the people that God is drawing, or the people who already are a Christian, but just needing some help and needing some answers.
But for the hardened heart unbeliever, You give them an answer, and it's not that your answer isn't logical, it's not that it's not reasonable or any of those things.
It actually will make them angry because what you're doing is you're taking away their apologia, their excuse.
And I think that that is a merciful thing to do.
That's exactly what Jesus does with the rich young ruler.
He approaches them How can I be saved?
Obey the commandments.
Which ones, you know, this one, all those I've kept since I was a boy.
And the Bible says, I love this it says that Jesus looked at him and loved him.
And then he said, Go and sell everything you have.
Not saying that here's the bar for all followers of Jesus, you have to sell everything you have.
But Jesus knew his heart.
He knew that greed was just one of, exactly.
He knew his idol.
He knew that was probably just one of many.
But Jesus said, we'll start with this one.
And he points on that.
And the man walks away.
But what I love is right before Jesus puts his finger on his sin, it says he looks at him and loved him.
And I think that Christians, we can do that with a haughty spirit, we can do it arrogantly.
But I do think that there is a way by God's grace, and as we grow in Christian formation into the image of Christ, And godly character, there is a way for us to give these answers in love, to look at the person who's challenging, to look at the person who's opposing, and love them like Jesus loves the rich young ruler, and then say, All right, if that's really your hang up, you're telling me that your problem is strictly ignorance, you don't know what to believe, or you've heard this other thing.
I'm going to refute it with logic, with reason, with facts, with evidence.
Here it is.
Here's how you can fact check it, here's how you can look it up.
I'm going to do that.
Because I love you and I want you to know.
And I think what can happen is God can use that not to save them necessarily, only the gospel saves, but He can use that to help the person realize, oh, I'm not ignorant.
I'm not a victim.
I just don't like God.
And I think that's a win.
I think that that is progress.
You know, when you walk away and the unbeliever says, yeah, I just, I don't, I hate the Christian God.
Um, praise God, that might be the only true statement that comes out of their mouth, you know.
And I think that that is preparing their heart, at least they're acknowledging this is the actual problem.
I don't like the Christian God.
And I think that that better positions, at the end of the day, God's sovereign, but I think it better positions a person to recognize here's the real problem, here's what we need.
And the last thing I always tell people is when you're giving evidence and all these kinds of things, remember those things are incredibly helpful, but it's the gospel that saves.
And so I think sometimes you can go back and forth and have a conversation, and sometimes it can get heated and all these kinds of things, but I think it's really helpful, maybe even on the front end or at least before the conversation ends, just to say, hey, can I just share with you the gospel?
This won't necessarily answer the questions you've been asking.
This won't, it's not evidential necessarily.
It's not this, it's not.
But can I just share with you the gospel story?
And I think it's just important for us as Christians to remember there's power in the gospel.
It's just powerful.
It is a supernatural.
You can make these intellectual arguments and all these things, and they're helpful and they're good, and we need to do it.
But there's the gospel is the power of God unto salvation.
There is something supernatural that happens when we preach the gospel of Christ, his incarnation, his sinless life, fulfilling all righteousness, death.
Not just as an example for sacrificial love, but as a substitute in our place, atoning for the wrath of God against sin and his bodily resurrection on the third day, his ascension into heaven.
There's something, it's the power unto salvation.
So I'll give you the final word, Alyssa.
Thank you so much for joining us.
Is there anything that you would like to leave our listeners with?
Well, that was just, that was great.
I think, you know, the way I see it too, I love what you said about just, you know, also, Ask if you can share the gospel because the Holy Spirit doesn't need the evidence.
You know, he could move someone's heart just with the gospel.
So it's important to do that.
And I think that the analogy I think works that makes sense is that, you know, not to confuse the evidence or apologetics with the gospel because it's not.
Apologetics is not the gospel.
But I've heard it said that apologetics can work, God can use it as something that will clear obstacles that maybe.
Somebody's got a blocked view of the cross.
Like their view is blocked.
Now, of course, the Holy Spirit can move that aside himself supernaturally, but like you said, there's human agency and he uses us to be able to sometimes, with good arguments and good evidence, to clear those obstacles so that someone can take a clear look at the cross.
And I think a great example of this is John the Baptist.
So here you have probably the one human being in the history of the world that should have no reason to doubt.
He touched.
The Son of God.
He baptizes Jesus.
He hears the audible voice of God at Jesus' baptism and sees the Holy Spirit descend like a dove.
Like that's encountering the Trinity with your senses right there.
He should never have questioned whether or not Jesus was who he said he was.
But when he's in jail, Herod's jail cell, for some reason, whether you want to call it doubt or you want to call it questioning or maybe he was panicking or whatever in his humanity, he sends his disciples to ask Jesus, Are you the one or should we look for another?
And Jesus could have just said, You know, just believe, just have faith.
John.
But he says, go back and tell them what you've seen.
And he references a prophecy about the miraculous deeds the Messiah would do.
And essentially, Jesus was giving John evidence like, look, you know, this is me.
You know, I am the one who's fulfilled these prophecies.
And I love how tender Jesus was to John in that moment.
And so I think that just to remember that, that Jesus has, and even in Jude, we know, have mercy on those who doubt.
I think Jesus is very tender toward people who have doubts.
I think we see that in the scriptures.
And so I don't know if anybody's listening to this and you are encountering doubts, it's okay to Press into those things, and God will meet you where you are.
And there are answers, and if you're looking for them, you're going to find them, and they're really good answers.
So, yeah, that's probably what I'd leave everyone with.
That's great.
Amen.
Alisa Childers, thanks so much for coming on the show.
Oh, it was so fun.
Thank you.
As a special thank you for your gift of any amount, we'll be happy to send you a free digital book from our store.
To access this offer, visit rightresponseministries.comslash offer.
We highly recommend Pastor Joel's book, Am I Truly Saved?
If you or someone you know has wrestled with doubts about the love of God, this would be a great resource.
As a reminder, to get this offer, go to rightresponseministries.comslash offer.