If Christianity Is So Good, Why Are Christians So Bad?

/ Apologetics, Plugs / 3 Comments

Back in the 90s, there was a British TV show called Men Behaving Badly. (For the record, I never watched it, so don’t quiz me on the details!) I sometimes wonder how long it will be before someone creates a TV show called Christians Behaving Badly. There would be no shortage of material, I’m sure, and it could run indefinitely. That’s not a happy thought, if you’re a Christian. It’s an even less happy thought that you (or me) might be featured in one of its episodes.

Christian apologetics has often focused on philosophical, historical, and scientific objections to the faith. How can the existence of God be reconciled with the existence of evil? Why think that the Gospels are reliable sources for the life of Jesus? Doesn’t the theory of evolution render incredible the biblical account of human origins? And so on. But in my observation, the most common objections to Christianity are increasingly moral ones. Sometimes they take the form of moral objections to the teachings of the Bible or the teachings of Christ. Frequently, however, they take aim at the immoral behavior of Christians. The Crusaders. Christian slaveholders. Philandering televangelists. Homophobic fundamentalist preachers. The driver who cut in front of you the other day and nearly caused a pileup (yeah, that guy’s fish sticker won’t be leading anyone into the arms of Jesus).

Arguably it’s not merely a moral problem for Christianity; it’s an evidential problem. If Christianity were true, wouldn’t we expect Christians to be better behaved that non-Christians? But they aren’t. So isn’t that evidence against the truth of Christianity? As one of Nietzsche’s lines has been paraphrased: “I might believe in the Redeemer if his followers looked more redeemed.”

If Christianity Is So Good...In the seventh book in The Big Ten series, pastor-scholar Mark Coppenger wrestles honestly with the problem of “bad Christians.” Coppenger begins by scrutinizing the title question (“If Christianity is so good, why are Christians so bad?”) and suggests we need to think carefully about how the question itself is framed and what assumptions lie behind it. The remaining chapters explore what the Bible and the history of the church actually teach us about the behavior of professing Christians, about the nature of Christian conversion, about the effects that the gospel has had on individuals and societies, and how Christianity fares when compared with its religious and non-religious competitors. The verdict? Yes, there have been (and will continue to be) many “bad Christians,” but when the balance of evidence is taken into account, the scandal of Christian hypocrisy gives us no good reason to reject the claims of Christ himself about his identity and his mission. Indeed, the sin of hypocrisy is just one of the myriad human failings for which Jesus came to make atonement. (As someone once quipped, “If you think the church is full of hypocrites, don’t worry — there’s always room for one more!”) In addition, Coppenger argues, Christians have been given various ‘antibodies’ with which to fight the ‘infection’ of sin in their own lives and in the church as an institution. He also makes the insightful point that our modern principles of religious liberty and freedom of speech, which allow non-believers to criticize Christians and hold them publicly accountable, have historically Christian roots. Christianity has thus supplied the instruments for its own correction.

Here are some of the endorsements for If Christianity Is So Good, Why Are Christians So Bad?:

This book models concise expression, shrewd logic, clear organization, subtle wit, brutal honesty, graphic illustration, cultural savvy, and charitable characterization of opponents. It answers the title’s question as much by showing how to think about the matter as by seeking out best answers. — Robert W. Yarbrough, Professor of New Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri

Over the last 25 years whilst running Christianity Explored courses at my local church – All Souls, Langham Place – I have had to say on every course that the poet Swinburne said, ‘I would love Christ, where it not for his leprous bride, the church.’ I then plead with people to not allow their experience of so–called Christians in the church to stop them looking at Jesus. This book will be a very helpful tool for us at All Souls with some people who come to investigate but have had their hearts broken by the behaviour of Christians they’ve known. I’m so grateful for it and have already made a mental list of those whom I need to send it to. — Rico Tice, Evangelist; Co–founder of Christianity Explored Ministries

This book doesn’t whitewash the bad behaviour of many Christians, but it also offers some helpful insights, theological context, and practical wisdom for how Christians can respond to this important challenge. — Sean McDowell , Professor of Christian Apologetics, Biola University, La Mirada, California

And the table of contents (with some intriguing chapter titles):

  • Introduction
  • A Few Questions About the Question
  • I Suppose We Asked For It
  • Some You Might Have Missed
  • The Bible Tells Me So
  • Are You Sure About That? The Problem of False Professors
  • Are You Sure About That? Doubtful Narratives
  • Who’s Counting?
  • Antibodies: Devotional and Congregational
  • Antibodies: Beyond Home and Congregation
  • Environmental Protection
  • The Rest of the Story

If you know someone who has been soured toward Christianity by the bad behavior of Christians, this book won’t solve the problem itself (what book could do that?) but it will help to bring some fresh thinking and a more balanced perspective to the issue.

If Christianity Is So Good, Why Are Christians So Bad? Read More »

Has Science Made God Unnecessary?

/ Apologetics, Plugs / 1 Comment

One of the most frequently encountered objections to Christianity is that modern science has rendered belief in God intellectually untenable, along with many other central tenets of the Christian faith. This is closely related to what has been dubbed the “conflict thesis”: the idea that there is a deep and ultimately irresolvable conflict between science and religion. The objection arises in various forms. Sometimes it’s the claim that we no longer need to believe in God, because science has adequately explained in naturalistic terms what was previously ascribed to divine agency; the “God of the gaps” has been squeezed out as the ‘gaps’ have been filled. Sometimes it’s the criticism that Christianity depends on miracle claims (spoiler: it does) but such claims are at odds with a scientific view of the world, since miraculous events would violate the laws of nature. Sometimes it’s the charge that Christian doctrines irreconcilably conflict with well-established scientific theories, such as the Darwinian evolutionary account of human origins.

Has Science Made God Unnecessary?In the sixth book in The Big Ten series, Ransom Poythress tackles head-on these objections and others in the same vein. But he goes further still, pulling back “the curtain of science” to reveal the philosophical assumptions behind the methods of science, and arguing that Christian theism provides a far better justification for those assumptions than atheistic materialism. On closer inspection, it’s not so much that science vindicates Christianity as that Christianity vindicates science. Poythress also debunks a number of popular myths (such as the conflict thesis) along the way. If you have skeptical friends, colleagues, or family members who cite “modern science” as a reason to reject Christianity, consider giving them a copy of this book. It may not convert them, but at least it will move the conversation in a more informed and productive direction.

Here are two of the endorsements for Has Science Made God Unnecessary?:

Through the use of simple yet powerful analogies, an easygoing pace, and excellent references for those who want to dig deeper, Poythress reaches any interested reader with an answer that affirms Christianity while respecting and encouraging the proper roles of science. This is a great book for any youth group, college class, or seeker to think through. — John A. Bloom, Professor of Physics & Director of the MA, Science and Religion program, Biola University, La Mirada, California and author of The Natural Sciences: A Student’s Guide

Ransom Poythress is both an accomplished biologist and a knowledgeable biblical scholar. His commitment is to both the craft of science and the awareness of the reasons people throw up objections to its compatibility with Christian faith. He writes in a sympathetic, non-combative manner which ought to disarm all but the most obdurate sceptic. A must read by anyone concerned with the so-called science-vs-religion controversy. — William Edgar, Professor of Apologetics, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Here’s the table of contents:

  • Acknowledgements
  • Introduction: Understanding the Question
  • 1 The Conflict Thesis
  • 2 God of the Gaps Arguments
  • 3 Behind the Curtain of Science, Part I: Objectivity and Truth
  • 4 Behind the Curtain of Science, Part II: Materialist Assumptions
  • 5 Behind the Curtain of Science, Part III: Materialist Limitations
  • 6 Behind the Curtain of Science, Part IV: What’s Actually Necessary for Science
  • 7 Behind the Curtain of Science, Part V: Scientific Laws
  • 8 Behind the Curtain of Science, Part VI: Supernatural Assumptions and a Christian Philosophical Foundation for Science
  • 9 Miracles
  • 10 Evidence: What Does it Look Like?
  • 11 Big Bang and Fine-Tuning
  • 12 Origin of Life
  • 13 Evolution: the Big Picture
  • 14 Evolution: Darwin’s Defenders
  • Conclusion
  • Appendix: Additional Resources

As you can see, the chapter count is higher than for the other books in The Big Ten series. However, the page count is roughly the same — around 200 pages — which means that the book has shorter, more digestible chapters, and that’s a virtue for a book that delves into some semi-technical philosophical and scientific issues.

Incidentally, Dr. Poythress is the author of Richard Dawkins in P&R’s Great Thinkers series. Also recommended!

Has Science Made God Unnecessary? Read More »

Plantinga on Christian Boldness and Confidence

/ Ethics, Philosophy

Alvin Plantinga, “A Christian Life Partly Lived,” in Philosophers Who Believe, ed. Kelly James Clark (InterVarsity Press, 1993):

Our first responsibility [as Christian philosophers] is to the Lord and to the Christian community, not first of all to the philosophical community at large — although of course that is also a very serious responsibility, and a serious responsibility in part because of its connection with the first responsibility. In some cases this orientation may require a certain courage, or Christian boldness or confidence.21

21 Of course, I don’t mean to hold up myself as a model here: quite the contrary. A few years back I several times found myself thinking about a certain person, and feeling obliged to call him and speak with him about Christianity; this was a person for whom I had a lot of respect but who, I thought, had nothing but disdain for Christianity. I felt obliged to call this person, but always did my best to put the thought out of my mind, being impeded by fear and embarrassment: what would I say? “Hello, have you found Jesus?” And wouldn’t this person think I was completely out of my mind, not to mention really weird? Then later I heard that during this very time the person in question was in the process of becoming a Christian. I had been invited to take part in something of real importance and refused the invitation out of cowardice and stupidity.

(HT: Greg Welty)

Plantinga on Christian Boldness and Confidence Read More »

Why Should I Trust the Bible?

/ Apologetics, Plugs, Theology

According to the 2022 Ligonier State of Theology survey, 33% of American adults “strongly agree” and 18% “somewhat agree” with this statement: “The Bible is 100% accurate in all that it teaches.”

Given the advanced secularization of most Western societies, that’s quite surprising and even encouraging. But how many of those surveyed could explain to a skeptical unbeliever why the Bible should be considered trustworthy, not merely as a source of wisdom or moral instruction, but in its claim to be the Word of God? Only a small minority, I suspect. Certainly not as many as one might hope.

Why Should I Trust the Bible?In the fifth book in The Big Ten series, Timothy Paul Jones admits that the Bible is “a difficult book to believe” in our modern skeptical world, but argues that it is nevertheless reasonable to believe that the Bible is indeed what it purports to be: a library of divinely-inspired writings that communicate to us God’s plan of salvation for sinners. Jones is a gifted pastor, scholar, and apologist who manages to combine intellectual rigor with an engaging conversational style. With decades of experience in engaging skeptical questions, he takes the challenges seriously while showing that there are solid grounds for affirming the trustworthiness of the Bible (and the historical reliability of the Gospels in particular) and its accurate transmission through the centuries.

Here are two of the endorsements for the book:

Why Should I Trust the Bible? steps inside our most challenging doubts about the Bible and shows us a way out to faith in its truthfulness. Written in an disarmingly honest and straightforward way, Timothy Paul Jones’s down-to-earth stories and up-to-date scholarship create a space in our skeptical world for authentic belief in the Bible. Highly recommended! — Mark D. Allen, Executive Director, Center for Apologetics and Cultural Engagement at Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia & coauthor of Apologetics at the Cross

This is Timothy Paul Jones at his best. Witty. Transparent. Always wrestling with the hardest of questions while holding out the faith once for all delivered to the saints. This is an essential resource for contemplating and critiquing contemporary attacks on the trustworthiness of the Bible. — Dan DeWitt, Author of Life in the Wild & Associate Professor of Applied Theology and Apologetics, Cedarville University, Ohio

Here’s the table of contents:

  • 1 A Difficult Book to Believe?
  • 2 Were the Gospels Written to Tell What Happened in History?
  • 3 Are the Gospels Historically Plausible?
  • 4 Which Books Belong in the Bible?
  • 5 How Much of the Bible Must I Trust?
  • Appendix: How Accurately Was the Bible Copies?

A helpful study guide is also available for free download from the publisher’s website.

As a co-editor of the series, I can testify that this particular volume was one of the most enjoyable to review and edit because of Jones’ exceptional ability to communicate scholarly arguments in a way that a layperson can easily understand and appreciate. Why Should I Trust the Bible? is hardly the last word on the subject, but you’ll find it to be an excellent introductory answer to the question posed in its title. It’s the ideal resource to put in the hands of an under-equipped believer or an inquiring unbeliever.

Why Should I Trust the Bible? Read More »

How Could a Loving God Send Anyone to Hell?

/ Apologetics, Plugs, Theology / 1 Comment

If the problem of evil and suffering is the greatest challenge to the Christian faith, as many people think, then arguably the problem of hell is the most acute form of it. It’s one thing to believe that God permits suffering for a greater good purpose, and that the people of God will be decisively delivered from all suffering in the end (Rev. 21:3-4). It’s another thing to believe that those who are not reconciled to God will suffer eternal punishment for their sins (Rev. 14:9-11; 20:13-15). This is not a happy doctrine, to say the least, but it’s one that historically most Christians have taken to be the clear teaching of Christ and his apostles.

How Could a Loving God Send Anyone to Hell?How could a loving God send anyone to hell? How do we reconcile the goodness and mercy of God with the doctrine of eternal punishment? How could Jesus Christ, the paragon of compassion and virtue, countenance such a seemingly dark doctrine? These are fair questions. Indeed, they are hard but unavoidable questions for thoughtful Christians, not to mention for critics and skeptics.

There are no easy, simple, or comfortable answers. But there are answers, and we don’t have to engage in wild speculation to find them, because the key elements of those answers are provided in the same Bible from which the ‘problematic’ doctrine comes. In the fourth book in The Big Ten series, pastor and scholar Benjamin Skaug lays out those answers with candor and compassion, explaining and defending the doctrine of hell in the broader context of the teachings of Jesus, the apostles, and the Bible as a whole. In short, the doctrine of hell only makes moral and theological sense within the wider framework of the biblical storyline and worldview. No Christian doctrine stands alone; each theological ‘part’ must be interpreted in light of the whole. Ultimately, the darkness of hell only accentuates the brightness of the gospel: the good news of salvation by God’s free grace through Jesus Christ.

Here are two of the endorsements for the book:

You can tell a lot about a church based upon what is preached from the pulpit—and what isn’t. Thus, to survey the landscape of contemporary evangelicalism, it would be easy to conclude that few, if any, churches believe in a literal hell. Of course, the Scriptures as a whole, and our Lord Jesus Christ in particular, present an altogether different picture. Thankfully, Ben Skaug presents a compelling and biblical case for a literal hell and how it is rooted in the character of God. As believers in Christ, we don’t fear an eternity in hell, but the reality of it should motivate us to greater evangelistic witness. How Could a Loving God Send Anyone to Hell? provides just such motivation for the reader. — Jason K. Allen, President, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Hell is often misunderstood or rejected outright today. Ben Skaug helps us see that the doctrine of hell fits with what the Bible teaches about who God is, with the teaching of Jesus, and with the nature of human beings. Indeed, the message of the gospel doesn’t make sense without the doctrine of hell. Here is a book on hell that needs to be read, digested, believed, and acted upon. — Thomas R. Schreiner, James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation and Associate Dean, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky

Here’s the table of contents:

  • Introduction
  • 1 Who Can Judge the World?
  • 2 How Can a Loving God Send Anyone to Hell?
  • 3 What Does the Loving Jesus Teach about Hell?
  • 4 What Did the Loving Apostles Teach About Hell?
  • 5 How Can Hell Be Avoided?
  • 6 Is Hell Eternal?
  • 7 Is Hell Emptied?
  • 8 Conclusion
  • Appendix: Frequently Asked Questions

The appendix addresses the following questions:

  • “Is hell real?”
  • “Does Satan rule hell?”
  • “Are the images of hell found in the Bible literal or figurative?”
  • “Why is hell eternal when it seems that human sins are finite and limited?”
  • “If hell is so awful, and God wants to save people, then why does God not allow people to repent in hell?”
  • “If hell is so awful, and God does not want people to end up there, then why does He not provide more warning about it?”
  • “How can the saved be eternally happy knowing that some of their loved ones are in hell?”

If you know someone who is wrestling with questions about the Bible’s teaching about hell, or if you’re grappling with such questions yourself, I think you’ll find this book to be helpful and hopeful resource.

How Could a Loving God Send Anyone to Hell? Read More »

Update on The Big Ten Series

/ Apologetics, Plugs

I’ve been embarrassingly delinquent in keeping readers updated on the progress of The Big Ten series, which I’ve been co-editing with Greg Welty for Christian Focus. Five more volumes have been published since I last posted about it, and I will endeavor to post a brief summary of each one over the next couple of months.

In the meantime, here’s the list of all eight published volumes:

The final two entries in the series are in the pipeline. Working titles:

  • Why Do I Personally Experience Evil and Suffering?
  • Is There Really Only One Way to God?

It’s taken some time, but I’m really pleased with the way the series has developed and I’m very proud (in a brotherly, non-bragging kind of way) of the volumes published to date. If you’re not familiar with the series, please check it out. It’s a great resource for both skeptical unbelievers and questioning believers.

Update on The Big Ten Series Read More »

A Four-Case Defense of the Authorial Model of Divine Providence

/ Philosophy, Theology

I’m pleased to report that my paper “A Four-Case Defense of the Authorial Model of Divine Providence” has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Analytic Theology.

Abstract: Some advocates of the doctrine of meticulous (“risk-free”) divine providence, in response to the charge that such a strong view of divine providence makes God the “author of evil,” have appealed to an authorial model according to which the relationship of God to his creation is analogous to that of a human author and his or her literary creation. This response appears vulnerable to the objection that there is a critical disanalogy between the two kinds of authorship: in the case of divine authorship, unlike that of human authorship, the story is intentionally actualized, and thus the divine author is morally culpable for the evils written into that story. Call this the “actuality objection.” In this paper, I develop a four-case defense of the authorial model that aims to neutralize the actuality objection. I also respond to five objections to the authorial model and my defense of it.

A preprint version is available here.

Update (10/25/24): The published version is now available here.

A Four-Case Defense of the Authorial Model of Divine Providence Read More »

An Epistemological Argument Against Naturalism

/ Apologetics, Philosophy / 4 Comments

Consider the following epistemological argument against Naturalism (as defined below):

  1. If Naturalism is true, then all factual knowledge (i.e., knowledge of facts) is acquired empirically.
  2. Knowledge of necessary facts cannot be acquired empirically.
  3. We have some knowledge of necessary facts.
  4. Therefore, Naturalism is not true.

The insights behind the argument aren’t original to me, but the formulation is mine. Before I defend the three premises, let me clarify the key terms used in the argument.

Naturalism refers to the ontological thesis that only natural things exist, that is, things that exist spatiotemporally and can be described according to our best physical theories. On this definition, Naturalism is roughly equivalent to physicalism, the view that the fundamental ‘stuff’ of reality is physical and whatever exists can be accounted for (in principle) in terms of physical reality (physical particles, physical forces, etc.).1

Factual knowledge refers to knowledge of facts about the world; specifically, facts about an external world that exists independently of our minds. Factual knowledge is distinct from (1) analytical knowledge (i.e., knowledge of logical or conceptual truths, such as that a triangle is a polygon) and (2) knowledge of internal mental states (e.g., that I am currently experiencing pain). A simple example of factual knowledge would be that there are, at this present moment, more than two turtles in Turtle Pond.

Empirically means by way of sense experience or observation, that is, by means of our sensory organs (the standard five senses or any others we might have that operate on a similar basis).

Necessary facts are facts about what must be the case, as opposed to what merely is the case or could be the case. To know a necessary fact is to know not merely that something actually is the case, but also that it could not possibly have failed to be the case. Knowledge of necessary facts is a species of factual knowledge (as defined above).

Now, back to the argument. I think it’s fairly clear that the argument is logically valid: the conclusion follows from the three premises. If premises 2 and 3 are true, it follows that some factual knowledge is not acquired empirically, in which case — by modus tollens from premise 1 — Naturalism is not true.

So why think that the premises are true? Consider each in turn.

…

An Epistemological Argument Against NaturalismRead More »

  1. The physicalism could be reductive or non-reductive; I don’t think it makes a difference to the argument. Some self-professed naturalists hold to a more liberal ontology, e.g., allowing for sets or abstract mathematical objects. Whether those more liberal versions of naturalism are vulnerable to this argument is an open question that I won’t address here. ↩

An Epistemological Argument Against Naturalism Read More »

The Best Defenders and Defenses of Atheism?

/ Apologetics, Philosophy

Who are the best defenders of atheism? Where can one find the strongest defenses of atheism?

I get asked those questions from time to time, and they’re good questions, so I’m going to offer my own answers (for what they’re worth) in this post.

First, however, a few observations and caveats. For the last couple of decades, Christian apologists have tended to focus on the so-called New Atheists, most notably the “Four Horsemen” of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. There’s good sense in that. Among proponents of atheism, those writers receive the most attention from the public and media, whether or not they deserve it. They’re the loudest, most entertaining, most provocative, and most influential voices for the atheist cause in the public square. They’ve had a significant impact in promoting anti-religious skepticism and turning people away from Christianity. I continue to hear stories of ‘ex-Christians’ who say that reading The God Delusion or God Is Not Great shook their faith “to the core” and eventually destroyed it. I’m always taken aback by such reports, because I’ve read those books too, and there’s precious little in the way of serious and substantive argument in them. (Dennett is the most intellectually serious of the Four Horsemen, but he doesn’t so much argue for atheism as just take it for granted.)

But here’s the thing: the New Atheists are hardly the best and the brightest of contemporary atheists (despite Dennett’s unironic attempt to self-advertise as “the brights”). Their criticisms of religious beliefs do need to be refuted, of course, but as I’ve said before, that’s low-hanging fruit. The most sophisticated and formidable arguments in defense of atheism, and specifically for naturalism, come from academic philosophers, particularly those who specialize in philosophy of religion. They’re trained in logic and critical thinking. They’ve studied the scholarly literature. They’re well-versed in the arguments for and against the existence of God, both classical and contemporary. They actually know what they’re talking about.

…

The Best Defenders and Defenses of Atheism?Read More »

The Best Defenders and Defenses of Atheism? Read More »

Did Cornelius Van Til Coin the Term “Transcendental Argument”?

/ Philosophy / 7 Comments

A transcendental argument, simply defined, is an argument purporting to demonstrate that some X (such as a particular concept, belief, or state of affairs) is a necessary precondition of some undeniable feature of human cognition (e.g., that we have orderly experiences or make judgments). At least, that is the conventional understanding of the term today. But who was the first to use the term in that sense?

Surprisingly, it might have been Cornelius Van Til.

I’m currently working on a monograph on Van Til’s transcendental argument for God (more precisely, for Christian theism). Preparatory research has required me to review everything Van Til says, explicitly or implicitly, about transcendental argumentation across his corpus, and to take a deep dive into the contemporary literature on transcendental arguments. In the process, I discovered something quite interesting.

…

Did Cornelius Van Til Coin the Term “Transcendental Argument”?Read More »

Did Cornelius Van Til Coin the Term “Transcendental Argument”? Read More »