Always be prepared to give an answer

1 Peter 3:15  has for the past several years been one of my favorite verses in the Bible. This verse states “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect. (NIV)” This verse commands us to be bold (and yet polite) witnesses to Jesus’ saving power at work in our lives. It commands us to be prepared to share our faith in a reasonable and winsome way whenever the opportunity arises. 

I am also convinced that this verse endorses the project of “Christian Apologetics.” Christian Apologetics is often a confusing term to many Christians. Often it is thought to connote “apologizing” for being a Christian. This could not be further from the truth. The word “Apologetics” comes from the Greek word “Apologia” which simply means to make a defense. Thus, the term Christian Apologetics could be reasonably defined as “Defending the core doctrines of the Christian faith.”

Christian Apologetics as practiced by people such as William Lane Craig, Michael Licona, Gary Habermas, Ravi Zacharias, Nabeel Qureshi, and others, typically focuses on how belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God is more reasonable than the belief that God does not exist. Furthermore, these Apologists will try to show that the Resurrection of Jesus is supported by the historical evidence we have available. Fundamentally, the task of the Christian Apologist is to demonstrate that Christianity better corresponds to reality than any other worldview.

The work of Christian Apologists (especially the work of William Lane Craig and Nabeel Qureshi) was very helpful to me a couple of years ago when I questioned the truth of the Christian faith. Their work helped show me that the Christian faith is reasonable and can withstand the most challenging questions of the skeptics.

Unfortunately, many Christian people have a very negative view of Christian Apologetics. Sadly, I think this is sometimes due to a misunderstanding of the word “faith.” Many are convinced that having true and authentic “faith” means believing something wholeheartedly without evidence. Demanding that what we believe be reasonable is for some Christians a sign that the person asking for evidence has a weak and inauthentic faith. However, God has not asked for us to believe in him without evidence. Rather, Romans 1 demonstrates that God has revealed himself to us in nature and John 1 tells us that he has revealed himself to us in his son Jesus of Nazareth. The work of the Apologist is to show that these truths are reasonable and can be supported by the evidence. Faith is not believing “what you know ain’t so,” nor is it believing something without evidence. Finally, it is not belief based on emotion or sentimentality. Faith is placing our trust in God’s revelation of himself because it is reasonable and best corresponds to reality.

I am convinced that more Christians in the western world will need to embrace the project of Christian Apologetics in the coming years if we want to be effective in sharing our faith. Answers soaked in emotion and sentimentality will do little to sway the hearts and minds of people in the information age. Yes, we need to share our personal testimonies of how Christ saved us, we need to share how comforting Christianity is to the human heart and soul, but we must also demonstrate that Christian faith is reasonable. I see no other way to win people to Christ in the 21st century. Indeed, I am glad that when I had questions and doubts, someone was there to show me that my worldview was reasonable, without it, I doubt I would be a Christian today. Thus, whenever you are tempted to dismiss the task of Christian Apologetics remember that there are many people like me who continue to walk with Jesus largely due to the work of those that defend the Christian faith.

 

Advertisements

The Moral Argument for God’s Existence

Hi everyone, what you are about to read is an excerpt from a book I am currently writing that should be finished near the end of the year. I hope you enjoy reading it.

In August of 2014 I could finally hang on my office wall a little certificate that read that I had been “ordained to the Gospel Ministry at Rincon Baptist Temple.” However, I could not help but feel a little hypocritical. Here I was sitting in my office at the Baptist Church that had ordained me, and where I was serving as a Pastor, and I doubted whether God even existed! There was a part of me that desperately wanted to share what I was experiencing with others, but I thought I would inspire little confidence in the people I was leading if I shared what I was going through. Maybe this wasn’t right, but I simply didn’t want my doubts to poison other people’s faith. So, I turned to my books and the internet to find the answers to my questions.

It did not take me long to find out that there are a lot of opinions out there about whether God really exists or not! I was not surprised about the fact that there were many intelligent people out there defending the idea that God does not exist. Indeed, I earned my bachelor’s degree at a State University where many of my professors were atheists or agnostics, so this did not really surprise me. What did surprise me were the number of intelligent Christian people out there who were making eloquent arguments for the existence of God.

To make a long story short, even though I came to admire (and still do) the intelligence and the accomplishments of those who were defending the idea that God does not exist, I ultimately found the arguments for Theism (the idea that God exists) more plausible. Now, if I were to present all the arguments in favor of God’s existence exhaustively then this book would be very long (and probably a little boring) so I am just going to present the “Moral Argument” for God’s existence because it is the argument that I personally found the most compelling when conducting my research.

Probably my first exposure to the “Moral Argument” for God’s existence came through reading C.S Lewis’s Mere Christianity. In his book, Lewis argues that every society both past and present has some understanding of right and wrong. Lewis wisely notes in Mere Christianity that codes of morality from different cultures can often differ substantially in terms of their details and emphases, but they often share many important similarities as well. To demonstrate his point Lewis argues thusly

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behavior known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities. But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and our own…Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two make five.[1]

To illustrate Lewis’s point from another angle, you would be hard pressed to find someone who would argue that the events of the Holocaust were morally right. Sure, you might find the odd (and gravely mistaken) person who denies that the Holocaust took place, but we would rightly conclude that the person who tries to defend the atrocities of the Holocaust, many of which were perpetrated against helpless and innocent children, is grossly morally deficient. The evidence from history and the study of other cultures, and perhaps more importantly, our own experience, seems to point to the fact that some things are objectively morally right, and some things are objectively morally wrong. Regardless of where we come from there seems to be within human beings a near universal sense inside of us that certain things are so cruel and so unloving that no sane person should ever consider doing them. This fact has lead many people, including myself, to ask this important question. Why? Why is it that human beings from many different cultures and backgrounds, unless they are morally deficient, sense that certain things are morally right, and certain things are morally wrong?

Lewis’s answer to this question is that the existence of moral values in every culture imply the existence of a transcendent moral law giver. Namely, God. I am inclined to agree with Lewis on this point. Indeed, the Christian faith teaches that all human beings are made in “God’s image.” This idea expresses that like God, people can reason, be creative, and make moral judgements. Human beings can intuit the difference between right and wrong (albeit often imperfectly) because God has designed us to. God has given people a conscience.

[1] Lewis, Mere Christianity, 19.

Has America lost it’s love for children?

Recently I read a rather troubling article in the New York Times that states that U.S. birthrates have continued to decline to record lows for two years in a row. You can read the full article here at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/us/fertility-rate-decline-united-states.html . Why is this a problem? Well for one, the article noted that it is only due to immigration that the United States’s population is continuing to grow. Praise God for immigration! Second, with fewer children being born the challenge of replacing older people in the workforce and caring for elderly parents and grandparents only becomes more accute. Finally, looking at the problem from a spiritual perspective I have to wonder if the decline in U.S. birthrates is indicative of a deeper and more profound moral problem. Has America lost it’s love for children?

Now it should be noted that the article suggests that some women are opting to have children later in life to focus on their careers. They want a family, they are simply delaying starting one. If this is correct then we could see birthrates rise in the next couple of years as these people attain their career goals and start having children. Then again, how many of us have said we would do something in the next couple of years only to find that tomorrow never comes? Let me just say that I am not against women having careers. Indeed, my wife Allison is beginning graduate school in the Fall of 2018 to pursue her goal of becoming a Liscensed Professional Counselor (and make twice what I do to boot!) I believe that women have a lot to contribute to our society and are better suited to many professions than men are. So my concern is not with women having careers at all.

My concern is that when you take into account the multiple realities of abortion on demand, absentee fathers, and continual declines in birthrates, have we reached a place in America where having children is simply not all that important anymore? Are children a nuisance, a burden to many Americans? Is this part of the reason that Toys R Us will be closing it’s doors soon? (Sure the high prices probably did’nt help either.) Psalm 127:3 tells us that “Children are a reward from the Lord (NLT)” but have many Americans lost sight of this and exchanged one of life’s greatest rewards for lesser joys? Finally, as Christians what is our responsiblity as we face this challenge in our culture? What do we do to demonstrate in a loving, winsome, and persuasive way that children are one of life’s greatest blessings? What do you think?

 

 

Arminianism: A Most Misunderstood Theology

Hi folks, please read with an open mind and feel free to share your thoughts. Blessings to all who proclaim Christ as Savior and Lord, Julian Pace.

 

I don’t think it would be an understatement to say that Arminian theology has fallen on hard times in recent years. I tend to think this is because many of the United States’ most influential preachers tend to be far more sympathetic towards Calvinism than Arminianism. Indeed, some of America’s best-known preachers do not make any bones about the fact that they are staunch Calvinists. Pastors and theologians like John Macarthur, John Piper, Matt Chandler, Mark Driscoll, David Platt, and Al Mohler openly profess their embrace of Calvinism as well as their rejection of Arminian theology. Turn on Christian radio, walk into a Lifeway bookstore, or attend a Passion conference and you will hear sermons and see dozens of resources written by these men. While many theologians teaching at Seminaries in the United States are Arminians, I can’t think of an American preacher who openly professes to be an Arminian and enjoys the influence and popularity of say a John Macarthur (maybe William Willimon?) Macarthur has authored one of the most popular study Bibles in the United States, can you name a Study Bible written by an equally influential Arminian preacher?  I am also convinced that many people are fearful of claiming to be Arminian because of the charges that have been leveled against it by some of the United States’ most prominent preachers. Piper has called Arminian theology “Man Centered” and Macarthur has equivocated it with the heresy of Semi-Pelagianism. These preachers and theologians are listened to by millions of American Christians and have a major impact on the American Church’s thinking, practice, and spirituality. Thus, when these Christians hear these preachers speak negatively about Arminianism, many Christians understandably conclude that these well-educated and eloquent preachers must certainly be right. However, I am convinced that Arminian theology is oftentimes misunderstood, probably by even many Arminians themselves!

Although Calvinists have critiqued Arminian theology for dozens of reasons I will, for the sake of brevity, only respond to those objections that appear (in my judgement) most often in Calvinist literature and sermons. First, Calvinists will often argue that Arminian theology is unscriptural because it fails to appreciate man’s sinfulness and his utter inability to respond to God’s offer of salvation. In short, Arminians wrongly reject the scriptural teaching of total depravity. Second, Arminian theology forces one to accept that Christians can “lose” their salvation which could lead to a lack of assurance in a believer’s life. Third, Arminians reject God’s sovereignty.

When dialoging with Calvinists it has been my experience that they are quite surprised when I tell them that I affirm the doctrine of total depravity. Often, they are even further surprised when I tell them that every “Classical” Arminian affirms total depravity as well. I affirm, with the Calvinist, the scriptural teaching of Romans 3:11 that without God’s intervening grace we would never pursue a right relationship with God. Sin has so damaged our will that we can’t exercise the slightest inclination towards God without divine aid. The Arminian solution to this problem is the doctrine of “prevenient grace.” This doctrine teaches that God in his mercy has enlightened the will of people to the extent that they have the choice to freely choose or reject him. Without God’s gift of “prevenient grace”, we don’t have the ability to choose God. All we can do is rebel against God. Both the Calvinist and the Arminian affirm that we need to receive God’s grace prior to justification due to our depraved nature. The key difference between the two positions is that the Calvinist believes in irresistible grace while the Arminian believes in enabling grace. For the Calvinist, if God has elected to save you, he will graciously regenerate your will prior to justification which will certainly lead you to exercise faith in God. The Arminian posits that God’s gift of “prevenient grace” is for all people and it gives you the ability to choose God, or freely reject him. God regenerates and frees our will so that we are then able to exercise a right attitude towards God if we so choose. Thus, for the Arminian, salvation is all of God’s grace. If God had not taken the initiative in salvation we would never have sought him. The positions are distinct, but they are both an attempt to solve the problem of man’s total inability to choose God without the help of divine aid.

Many Christians have rejected Arminian theology because they believe that if they affirm it then they are required to affirm conditional security (aka a person who is genuinely saved can lose their salvation.) What might surprise the person investigating Arminian theology is that while many Arminians have affirmed conditional security (aka John Wesley and Adam Clarke) many have not! Indeed, Jacob Arminius of whom Arminian theology is named after, never dogmatically affirmed conditionally security and in fact made several statements in his writings that were quite supportive of eternal security! Many Arminians throughout history have believed in the doctrine of eternal security. Frankly, Arminian theology allows for both opinions in its system. If you feel you can’t affirm Arminian theology because you are convinced from the scriptures of the truth of eternal security, then worry no more, a belief in eternal security is entirely compatible with an Arminian framework.

It is often said that Arminians reject God’s sovereignty. This is simply not the case. Like the Calvinist, the Arminian affirms that God has exhaustive foreknowledge and is all powerful. The difference between the Arminian and the Calvinist’s view of God’s sovereignty is that the Calvinist believes that God has determined every aspect of history and has thus rendered each historical event certain. Thus, when Adam and Eve rebelled against God, they could not have chosen otherwise because God before the foundation of time determined that they would sin against him. The Arminian view quite rightly distinguishes between God’s permissive and decretal will. God in his foreknowledge knew that Satan, Adam, and Eve would rebel against him, but they could have chosen to do otherwise. Their choice to rebel was permitted by God but it was not determined by him. While I can appreciate the Calvinist’s desire to affirm God’s sovereignty, I still must reject their view because I do not see how it does not lead to God being the author of sin. If God determined every historical event, thus rendering certain that Satan, Adam, and Eve would rebel and sin against him without the possibility of doing otherwise, then it seems that sin originated in the mind and will of God. To affirm this, as the Calvinist would agree, is blasphemous.

I want to close by noting that I have been positively influenced by several Calvinist theologians. I have benefited greatly from the work of Calvinist theologians like R.C. Sproul, Tim Keller, Charles Spurgeon, and many, many others. There is much I appreciate about the Reformed tradition in general. Thus, my goal here is not to smear Calvinism or its proponents even though I ultimately can’t affirm some of what it teaches. Rather, my goal is to dispense with some of the more common, and I think erroneous, objections that have been leveled against Arminianism so that people will give it a fair hearing once more. I think someone who approaches Arminian theology with an open mind will find that this doctrinal system takes seriously the depraved nature of people, robustly affirms God’s sovereignty, and is thoroughly grounded in the biblical witness.

 

Wolfhart Pannenberg: Theologian of the Resurrection

With Easter Sunday rapidly approaching it is only fitting to recognize one of the greatest defenders of the historicity of the Resurrection in the twentieth Century, Wolfhart Pannenberg. Pannenberg felt that the study of Theology should be undertaken like other Academic disciplines and in his lifelong quest for truth he found that the Christian faith was deeply intellectually satisfying. I hope you enjoy reading about one of the greatest theological minds of the twentieth century, Wolfhart Pannenberg. Blessings and peace to all, Julian Pace.

He vehemently defended the Resurrection but denied the Virgin Birth. He was hugely influential but leaves few disciples. – Fred Sanders writing for Christianity Today upon the death of Wolfhart Pannenberg

It would not be implausible to say that one day church historians will include Wolfhart Pannenberg, along with Karl Barth, Thomas Oden, and J.I. Packer, as one of the greatest theological minds of the twentieth century. Pannenberg’s prowess in the fields of theology, philosophy, history, and the natural sciences set him apart from his contemporaries. In his lifetime, he molded a unique theological system that on the one hand was generally traditional and Lutheran, yet probing and rational in a way that placed him squarely within the tradition of the Enlightenment. It is probable that his most important contribution to Christian theology was his stirring defense of the bodily resurrection of Jesus and how he saw this event as the key to all of history, indeed the key to all revelation as well.[1]

Wolfhart Pannenberg was born in Stettin, Germany (now Szczecin, Poland) in 1928, and though he was baptized as an infant into the established Lutheran church he was raised in a secular household. Despite his unchurched and secular background, Pannenberg was apparently a spiritually sensitive person and at sixteen was privy to what he would later call his “Light Experience”.[2] This powerful experience led Pannenberg to critically investigate the world’s religions in light of their philosophical and intellectual merits. The results of this intellectual quest, combined with the guidance of Pannenberg’s literature teacher who was a member of the Confessing Church during the second World War, led Pannenberg to conclude that Christianity was the most reasonable faith system available and therefore he became a Christian.[3]

For virtually his entire career, Pannenberg was a creature of the academy and it is in the field of academic theology that he produced the most written work. However, it should not be overlooked that his contributions in defending the historicity of the Resurrection have influenced and continue to shape the thinking of Evangelical theologians and New Testament scholars to the present day.[4] Indeed, this aspect of his theological output is probably his most enduring legacy. While Pannenberg’s staunch defense of the historicity of Jesus’ Resurrection has won him many admirers in the Evangelical and Roman Catholic world, his liberal German peers were shocked at his findings. While Pannenberg was undoubtedly shaped by the liberal biblical criticism that was, and remains, rampant in German universities, this did not stop him from making the case that the evidence from the Pauline epistles and the existence of the church itself plausibly leads to the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth did indeed rise from the dead.[5]

Dean of Beeson Divinity School Timothy George, is right to point out that Pannenberg’s thinking on several critical theological issues present some problems for Evangelicals.[6] Pannenberg rejected the Virgin birth, Chalcedonian Christology, as well as the concept of biblical inerrancy. However, this did not stop Pannenberg from taking the scriptures seriously and he felt that since the Bible was the record of God’s dealings with man it should be studied vigorously. In conclusion, Evangelicals should approach the work of Wolfhart Pannenberg critically but also with an eye to learn. Despite his errors on important theological issues, Pannenberg’s work on the Resurrection has inspired many other Evangelical theologians and scholars to defend the Resurrection’s historicity with an even greater level of sophistication. Indeed, one cannot help but wonder how many have been persuaded to accept the claims of Christ in part due to the work of Wolfhart Pannenberg. Pannenberg demonstrated that Christianity is a belief system that is firmly grounded in historical events and therefore one need not sacrifice rational thinking and critical investigation on the altar of blind faith. For this reason alone, Pannenberg deserves our enduring respect and admiration.

References

[1] Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus-God and Man. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: (The Westminster Press, 1977), 67-69.

[2] Michael Root, “The Achievement of Wolfhart Pannenberg.” First Things (March 2012): 3-4. Accessed April 5, 2017. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/03/the­achievement­of­wolfhart­pannenberg.

[3] Michael Root, “The Achievement of Wolfhart Pannenberg.” 3.

[4] William Lane Craig, “The Resurrection of Jesus” Accessed April 5, 2017. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-resurrection-of-jesus. It is evident when reading Craig that the influence of Pannenberg is present. This is only reasonable as Craig did doctoral work under Pannenberg in Germany. Other Evangelicals like Gary Habermas and Michael Licona have built on Pannenberg’s work on the Resurrection.

[5] Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus-God and Man. 88-106.

[6] David Roach “Dean George on Wolfhart Pannenberg.” Accessed April 5, 2017 http://www.beesondivinity.com/fromthedean/posts/dean-george-on-wolfhart-pannenberg.

For Further Reading

Braaten, Carl E., and Philip Clayton, eds. The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg: Twelve American Critiques with an Autobiographical Essay and Response. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1988.

Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1983.

Olive, Don. Wolfhart Pannenberg. Makers of the Modern Theological Mind. Grand Rapids, MI: Word Publishing, 1977.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus-God and Man. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1977.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. The Apostles Creed: In the Light of Today’s Questions. 1st ed. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1972.

 

The day Psalm 127:3 finally made sense to me.

It is hard to believe that almost seven months have passed since that day. A day I will never forget. For most people February, 21, 2016 was probably a day much like any other. For me it was unusual as it was one of the very few Sundays when I did not attend church services. Waking up at almost nine o’clock on a Sunday-weird. But we were told to be at the hospital at eleven o’clock sharp to prepare for surgery which of course left attending services out of the question. You see, today was the day my baby boy, Josiah, would draw his first breath and be born via Caesarian section.

To say that I am a stoic fellow would be laughable but I have always liked to think that I am a man of some composure. Certainly, there are always risks when your wife has a baby but I knew she was in the hands of good surgeons who would do their best to keep her and my little boy safe. Besides, it’s not like this was a path I had never been down before. My little girl Gabriella had been born almost a year prior and God had brought us through this process. There were complications but now Gabby was a happy, healthy, and inquisitive little one year old. In fact, these things were all in the back of my mind as I prepared to welcome my son Josiah into the world.

While on the way to the hospital I found myself asking a multitude of questions. What if having your second child is simply not as exciting as when you had your first? Would this time be as special? Would I love this little boy as much as I loved my little girl? All these questions raced through my head and I truly wondered if I was up to the challenge of raising another little youngster.

As a nurse helped me prepare for surgery I felt like I was about to star in a medical drama as I was bedecked in disposable scrubs complete with gloves, mask, and all the necessary accoutrements. With my lovely wife Allison already prepared for surgery I was ushered into the operating room and the doctors set about their work and in just about ten minutes I heard my son cry for the very first time!

It was at this moment that all the veneer of bravado broke down. I was the father of a baby boy! His cries had brought me tears of joy and I could barely contain the feelings of happiness that welled up inside of me. When the nurses informed me he was nearly nine pounds and they joked that “we have a little football player” I could not help but feel a small sense of pride as I thought about my little boy’s future. In just a few minutes I held my little boy in my arms for the very first time. His little hands grasped my thumb as if to hold on for dear life. His every soft, moist breaths forced the hair on my arms to tingle just slightly. It was at this moment I realized that my son, even though I had known him only a few moments, already had a special place in my heart that no one could ever fill quite like he did. It was also at this time that I really began to grasp the truth of Psalm 127:3. This verse says “Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring a reward from him. (NIV)” As a Christian I had always known the truth of this verse but I believe it was in that little hospital room, just Josiah and I, when I began to really experience this truth. Yes, children really are rewards. Precious, tiny, little gifts from God above.