It's common today to hear statements like, "God can't exist because there's too much evil in the world. God wouldn't allow such a thing, so he doesn't exist," or how about this? "Christians don't treat other people that are different than them with dignity. They don't treat LGBTQ individuals with the worth they are due," or a third example. "From science we've been able to determine that God does not exist," or, "We've been able to determine some other claim that contradicts Christianity." All of this could be put in the category of sitting in God's lap to slap him in the face. Now, I didn't coin this term. I would be proud if I did. I heard apologist, Frank Turek use it several years ago. What's being described here is that this other person is borrowing something from God in order to then argue against him. They're borrowing something that only fits in the Christian world view to then argue against that world view, which is actually kind of a circular argument.

Now, I want to give you three examples, and they're those three we started out with. Evil, dignity, and what I'm going to call rationality.

How is it contradictory for someone to say “there's too much evil in the world, so God does not exist?” There are many ways to address this, like “how much evil is too much? Would you be satisfied with a little less?” Now, I'm not being glib there. There are multiple ways to address the problem of evil, but what I want to do today is suggest a way to not even have to deal with the problem of evil. To put the question back on the person and say, "What do you mean by evil?" Let's say they're not a Christian. Let's say they're an atheist. Where does evil fit in your world view? How is evil a thing in a world view that has no immaterial realities, that has only things that are physical? Because a consistent atheist isn't going to believe in God. They're not going to believe in objective morality (That's morality grounded outside of what I think about it. That's the same for everyone in a given set of circumstances and time).

They're not going to believe in those types of things, so when they complain about evil, they're actually complaining about something that doesn't even have a category or a place in their view of the worldview if they're consistent. That last part is key. We often talk in settings like this on podcasts or in books, like an atheist is consistent, or like Christians are consistent. All too often, we are not consistent with our beliefs. We hold contradictory views.

One of the processes and steps in growing up and maturing as a Christian, is to constantly be refining, constantly be reforming our views, and hopefully getting rid of the ones that are poor and don't fit, and harmonizing more and more aspects of how we view the world, how we view God, how we view scripture.

One of these is evil, and Christianity best explains the existence of evil and why people know there is evil. When someone starts complaining about evil, just ask them what they mean by that. “What does that mean? Do you think there's objective right and wrong? Has it always been wrong to, let's say murder someone? Would it be wrong if no one thought it was wrong?” If the atheist is consistent, they're going to have to say, "Well, if people didn't think it was wrong, then it wouldn't be wrong." What they've just shown is, is that the "evil in the world" is just a matter of human opinion. What they're really complaining about is something that goes against their preference or the preference of a large group of people, because actual, objective evil doesn't fit in their world view. They're having to borrow the existence of evil, which fits in a theistic world view from Christianity, in order to then argue against Christianity, argu…

How many women were at the tomb of Jesus? Was it one, two, or three? Is it Matthew's account, Mark's account, or John's account?

Oftentimes, when we talk about biblical contradictions, an example that’s brought up is the number of women at the tomb, because if you read Matthew, Mark, or John, you get different numbers. Let's read the different texts and then see how these things might fit together or even if there's the appearance of a contradiction. Here's what Matthew says, "Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave." There are two Marys there.

What about Mark? Here's what he says, "When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome brought spices so that they might come and anoint him. Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen." Mark presents three women. Matthew presented two. What about John? Here's what he says, "Now on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb while it was still dark." Isn't that interesting? There's only one woman listed there.

Now many people will present this as a contradiction. "See, one gospel says three, one says two, and one says one. The Bible's not true!" I want to address this in a few different ways. The first thing is, let's say the number of women at the tomb is actually a contradiction between the three gospels. Does that somehow mean Jesus didn’t rise from the dead? No, it doesn't. Just because you find what you think is an error or even, let's say, what is an error in scripture, that does not prove that Christianity is false or that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead or that Jesus wasn’t God. It doesn’t prove any of that.

Now I don’t think there's a contradiction here, and there are a few reasons for that. The first is that the gospels are not giving us an exact account of every detail that's true in every place from every perspective. Each of the gospel writers, called evangelists, have a perspective. They are highlighting different things. They might be tracing different characters. They're all saying something that’s true, but they're saying it from different perspectives.

For instance, if you were to ask me who was at my wedding, I would say, "Well, I was there, my wife was there," and I would list other specific names. I would be leaving people off, though. Does that mean they weren't there? No. If you ask my wife who was there, are you going to get a different list? You are. If you asked her friend or one of my friends, you're going to get a different list each time. What each person is going to be doing is highlighting people that were memorable to them or that played a key role or that they just wanted to emphasize.

By leaving people off, that doesn’t mean the person is saying who was not there. No gospel writer says, "This is the exhaustive list of everyone who was at the tomb." They don’t say that. We shouldn’t think that that’s indeed what's happening. I think it puts artificial constraints on the Bible, on the text, to say that whenever anyone makes a list, it has to be exhaustive. We don’t talk like that today. They certainly didn’t talk like that back then.

Let's look at John where he says that there's one woman. At least on the face of it, that’s what he says. Here's the whole text from John 20, "Now on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb while it was still dark and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb, so she ran and came to Simon Peter, to the other disciples, and said to him, 'They have taken away the Lord of the tomb and we do not know where they have laid him.'" Who's the "we"? It's just talking about her. She goes to another group …

Don't duck and cover when there's a knock on the door! Be prepared, so you can witness to the people who are already coming to you.

I'm curious, how do you feel about door-to-door evangelism. Is it hard for you to get up the courage and go knock on a stranger's door and ask if they've heard about Jesus? I'm not asking you to do that today. I'm not totally convinced that that's an effective means of evangelism in today's culture. God can certain act through whatever means he chooses. However, I want to reframe this. What about if someone knocks on your door and asks to tell you about Jehovah? What if they're Jehovah's Witnesses? The opportunity has come to you. You haven't had to go anywhere to look for it. You haven't had to go seek that out. It's literally knocked on your door.

The question is, though, are you prepared? Are you prepared to talk about Jesus with Jehovah's Witnesses? Because it all comes down to Jesus. Now oftentimes in Christian circles we will ask someone, "Do you believe in Jesus?" A lot of times they'll say yes, but this is the wrong question. Because if you asked a Muslim, "Do you believe in Jesus?" the answer is yes. There's more in the Koran about Jesus than Mohammed. If you ask a Mormon, "Do you believe in Jesus?" the answer is yes. If you ask a Jehovah's Witness, the answer is yes, and other groups too. This does not tell us about a person's salvation state, though. This doesn't tell us about what they understand about the gospel. Believing that Jesus was a person, even a divine person, doesn't tell us about a person's actual gospel beliefs.

There are some very specific things we need to get right about Jesus and that we need to be able to demonstrate to others. So today, specifically with an eye towards Jehovah's Witnesses, there are three points I want to us to cover. There is one God. There is only one deity. There is one God. That's the first point. The second point: Jesus and the Father are distinct persons. There's one God. Jesus and the Father are distinct persons. Third point: Jesus is God, not a created being. The Father is God, not a created being. By extension you could also say the Holy Spirit is God, not a created being. There are three persons in the one being of God, in the one deity, so that Jesus is fully divine, the Father is fully divine, but they are not each other. Jesus is distinct from the Father.

Now, what you may recognize is that these three points are the same three points we use when we're demonstrating the Trinity. What we're really doing here is kind of a subset of that, a different take on it, a different variation. The truth is the same. The fundamental truth is still that there are three persons in the one being of God and they are distinct from each other, but today we're going to focus in on Jesus.

Our first step: there is only God, one deity. The Old Testament speaks to this in its entirety, including the New Testament though. Let's look at several passages.

"Listen, Israel. The Lord is our God. The Lord is one." (Deuteronomy 6:4)

This is how God was understood throughout the whole entire Old Testament. 70% of the Bible testifies to the fact that God is one. In fact, 100% of the Bible testifies to the fact that God is one. But until the New Testament, it is not revealed that God is one being in three persons. Nonetheless, God is one: Deuteronomy 6:4.

We also have Isaiah 42:8:

”I am the Lord. That is my name. I will not share my glory with anyone else or the praise due me with idols."

He's not going to share his glory with anyone else. This is a singular being talking. There is one of whatever this is, and he's not going to share his glory or his praise with anyone else. There is one God who does not share his glory.

Another p…

Don't duck and cover when there's a knock on the door! Be prepared, so you can witness to the people who are already coming to you.

I'm curious, how do you feel about door-to-door evangelism. Is it hard for you to get up the courage and go knock on a stranger's door and ask if they've heard about Jesus? I'm not asking you to do that today. I'm not totally convinced that that's an effective means of evangelism in today's culture. God can certain act through whatever means he chooses. However, I want to reframe this. What about if someone knocks on your door and asks to tell you about Jehovah? What if they're Jehovah's Witnesses? The opportunity has come to you. You haven't had to go anywhere to look for it. You haven't had to go seek that out. It's literally knocked on your door.

The question is, though, are you prepared? Are you prepared to talk about Jesus with Jehovah's Witnesses? Because it all comes down to Jesus. Now oftentimes in Christian circles we will ask someone, "Do you believe in Jesus?" A lot of times they'll say yes, but this is the wrong question. Because if you asked a Muslim, "Do you believe in Jesus?" the answer is yes. There's more in the Koran about Jesus than Mohammed. If you ask a Mormon, "Do you believe in Jesus?" the answer is yes. If you ask a Jehovah's Witness, the answer is yes, and other groups too. This does not tell us about a person's salvation state, though. This doesn't tell us about what they understand about the gospel. Believing that Jesus was a person, even a divine person, doesn't tell us about a person's actual gospel beliefs.

There are some very specific things we need to get right about Jesus and that we need to be able to demonstrate to others. So today, specifically with an eye towards Jehovah's Witnesses, there are three points I want to us to cover. There is one God. There is only one deity. There is one God. That's the first point. The second point: Jesus and the Father are distinct persons. There's one God. Jesus and the Father are distinct persons. Third point: Jesus is God, not a created being. The Father is God, not a created being. By extension you could also say the Holy Spirit is God, not a created being. There are three persons in the one being of God, in the one deity, so that Jesus is fully divine, the Father is fully divine, but they are not each other. Jesus is distinct from the Father.

Now, what you may recognize is that these three points are the same three points we use when we're demonstrating the Trinity. What we're really doing here is kind of a subset of that, a different take on it, a different variation. The truth is the same. The fundamental truth is still that there are three persons in the one being of God and they are distinct from each other, but today we're going to focus in on Jesus.

Our first step: there is only God, one deity. The Old Testament speaks to this in its entirety, including the New Testament though. Let's look at several passages.

"Listen, Israel. The Lord is our God. The Lord is one." (Deuteronomy 6:4)

This is how God was understood throughout the whole entire Old Testament. 70% of the Bible testifies to the fact that God is one. In fact, 100% of the Bible testifies to the fact that God is one. But until the New Testament, it is not revealed that God is one being in three persons. Nonetheless, God is one: Deuteronomy 6:4.

We also have Isaiah 42:8:

”I am the Lord. That is my name. I will not share my glory with anyone else or the praise due me with idols."

He's not going to share his glory with anyone else. This is a singular being talking. There is one of whatever this is, and he's not going to share his glory or his praise with anyone else. There is one God who does not share his glory.

Another p…

What is the most foundational area of Christian faith?

Christians talk about and express faith in a variety of ways. It might be faith to take a new job not knowing how that's going to work out, or to teach a Sunday school class, or that type of thing. It might also be faith to move to Iraq and plant a church, that God is going to provide, that his will is going to be done, that the gospel will be spread. It might be faith that you placed in Jesus for salvation - you're trusting in Him to secure your salvation.

Today I want us to consider what I believe is the most foundational of all faiths, not as in religions, but as in the “type of things were we would exercise faith.” I want to read from Hebrews 11:1. You might be thinking, "Isn't this the faith chapter where people are commended for acting in such and such a way?" It is, and for the longest time, when I would read Hebrews 11, I would see the first verse, and then I would read on down and read about Noah and Abraham and all these other “heroes” of faith. But there is something very interesting in Verses 2 and 3. Let's start reading in Verse 1, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen, for by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." That's a description of creation.

Isn't that interesting that when the writer to the Hebrews starts listing things about faith, he first says that it's an assurance, it's a trust, it's a conviction of things not seen. I think all of those words communicate better today than the word “fait”h in our culture. Not that we let culture dictate what we believe, but we should always be striving for effective ways to communicate a timeless truth in our culture, and so one of those might be using a different word than faith. For instance, “assurance”, and I actually think “conviction” is better. That's the reason why it's the subtitle of the book Unapologetic, A Guide for Defending Your Christian Convictions. I remember people asking, "Why not faith?" I explained to them, "That word doesn't communicate well in our culture."

The writer to the Hebrews is using that same type of vocabulary: assurance, conviction. What is the first conviction he lists? He lists that by faith (or by conviction) we understand that the universe was created by God, so that literally the things that are visible, the things that are material, were made out of thing that were invisible (non-material). By faith we understand that God created, and I believe that this is the most foundational of all areas where Christians must exercise faith.

Now, could you never think about this in exercising Saving Faith in Jesus for Salvation? Yes, but as a part of a cohesive Christian worldview, knowledge of the fact that God created is foundational. I'm going to walk us through a few areas that demonstrate this. The first reason that having faith and trusting in the fact that God created everything is important is because this means the universe is orderly. You might be saying, "So what? I like things in their places, but what does it matter if the universe is orderly?" In an orderly universe, knowledge is possible. Actually coming to discover things that are true about reality is only possible in an ordered universe. This is what the whole scientific method is based on. The idea that you can do an experiment and you could do this experiment many times, it's repeatable, and you would get the same results if you were testing that same thing and controlling for the same types of things.

The way we discover knowledge in this universe is only possible because the universe is…

What is the most foundational area of Christian faith?

Christians talk about and express faith in a variety of ways. It might be faith to take a new job not knowing how that's going to work out, or to teach a Sunday school class, or that type of thing. It might also be faith to move to Iraq and plant a church, that God is going to provide, that his will is going to be done, that the gospel will be spread. It might be faith that you placed in Jesus for salvation - you're trusting in Him to secure your salvation.

Today I want us to consider what I believe is the most foundational of all faiths, not as in religions, but as in the “type of things were we would exercise faith.” I want to read from Hebrews 11:1. You might be thinking, "Isn't this the faith chapter where people are commended for acting in such and such a way?" It is, and for the longest time, when I would read Hebrews 11, I would see the first verse, and then I would read on down and read about Noah and Abraham and all these other “heroes” of faith. But there is something very interesting in Verses 2 and 3. Let's start reading in Verse 1, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen, for by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." That's a description of creation.

Isn't that interesting that when the writer to the Hebrews starts listing things about faith, he first says that it's an assurance, it's a trust, it's a conviction of things not seen. I think all of those words communicate better today than the word “fait”h in our culture. Not that we let culture dictate what we believe, but we should always be striving for effective ways to communicate a timeless truth in our culture, and so one of those might be using a different word than faith. For instance, “assurance”, and I actually think “conviction” is better. That's the reason why it's the subtitle of the book Unapologetic, A Guide for Defending Your Christian Convictions. I remember people asking, "Why not faith?" I explained to them, "That word doesn't communicate well in our culture."

The writer to the Hebrews is using that same type of vocabulary: assurance, conviction. What is the first conviction he lists? He lists that by faith (or by conviction) we understand that the universe was created by God, so that literally the things that are visible, the things that are material, were made out of thing that were invisible (non-material). By faith we understand that God created, and I believe that this is the most foundational of all areas where Christians must exercise faith.

Now, could you never think about this in exercising Saving Faith in Jesus for Salvation? Yes, but as a part of a cohesive Christian worldview, knowledge of the fact that God created is foundational. I'm going to walk us through a few areas that demonstrate this. The first reason that having faith and trusting in the fact that God created everything is important is because this means the universe is orderly. You might be saying, "So what? I like things in their places, but what does it matter if the universe is orderly?" In an orderly universe, knowledge is possible. Actually coming to discover things that are true about reality is only possible in an ordered universe. This is what the whole scientific method is based on. The idea that you can do an experiment and you could do this experiment many times, it's repeatable, and you would get the same results if you were testing that same thing and controlling for the same types of things.

The way we discover knowledge in this universe is only possible because the universe is…

I used to think abortion should be legal. 

We're in a political season, and it's common to hear political candidates talking about their views on abortion, and if they're pro-life or pro-choice, and you might think that settles the issue. But sometimes someone will say, “I'm very pro-life, but I think abortion should be legal.” As I've sat down and reflected on my life, I've come to realize that I held that belief at one point in time, and a particular conversation comes to mind that I remember vividly. I was sitting at a friend's house, quite a few of us were around, and somehow the issue of abortion came up. These friends of mine, they're conservative, Evangelical Christians, just like I was. However, I found myself, that day, with the liberal perspective. I was the one who said, "I think abortion is wrong. I think it's evil, but I don't think it's the government's place to say what people can do with their own bodies."

I wasn't making a women's rights argument. I was espousing more of a libertarian political view. I didn't want the government involved in very much, and, if I'm honest with you, that's kind of still my political bent, but here's what's interesting. If you really pick apart what I was saying, which some of my friends tried to do at the time, I was really saying, "I think abortion involves the killing of innocent children, and I think it should be legal." 

Anyone who says the same type of statement I said is really saying, "Abortion kills children, and people should be allowed to do it." People don't say those words, and so it can be helpful in conversation to present the issue more accurately, and so I'm going to role play a conversation for you that's actually similar to one I had with my friends many years ago.

It goes something like this: 

Person one: "I think abortion's wrong, but the government shouldn't be involved in saying if we should do it or not." 

Person two: "So, you think abortion involves killing a child or a human being that's alive?" 

Person one: " I do" 

Person two "So, you think it involves killing a child that's alive, but people should be allowed to do it. People should be allowed to murder. Is that your view?" 

It's going to be very hard for someone to actually say, "Yes, that's my view. People should be allowed to kill their children," because that's really what abortion is, and that's really what we're talking about with this issue.

Sometimes it's hard to determine what we're actually talking about, because we hide behind euphemisms. We hide behind “choice”, and “rights”, and “pro-choice”, and all of this, and they obscure the reality of what we're talking about. We're talking about the murder of children in their very mother's womb, the place they should be the safest, is now the place where they're in the most danger.

We need to use questions to bring that fact to light, to actually put the light of day on the issue being talked about, and that sample conversation we just had is a good way to do it.

There are people who will say, "I think it should be legal. I understand that it takes a life of an unborn child.” “That's my Christian conviction,” they'll say. “As a Christian, I think that, but, as an American citizen, I don't think the government should be involved in saying what people should do.” Or maybe they would say something like, "I don't think the government should legislate morality."

Well, that is a view that people do hold, but here's the issue with that view. It places what it means to be an Americanabove what it means to be a Christian. It's putting my political ideology above my biblical theology. It's letting my preferences for how a government should work override what it means to be created in the very image of God, and we should never do that. That's what I was do…

I used to think abortion should be legal. 

We're in a political season, and it's common to hear political candidates talking about their views on abortion, and if they're pro-life or pro-choice, and you might think that settles the issue. But sometimes someone will say, “I'm very pro-life, but I think abortion should be legal.” As I've sat down and reflected on my life, I've come to realize that I held that belief at one point in time, and a particular conversation comes to mind that I remember vividly. I was sitting at a friend's house, quite a few of us were around, and somehow the issue of abortion came up. These friends of mine, they're conservative, Evangelical Christians, just like I was. However, I found myself, that day, with the liberal perspective. I was the one who said, "I think abortion is wrong. I think it's evil, but I don't think it's the government's place to say what people can do with their own bodies."

I wasn't making a women's rights argument. I was espousing more of a libertarian political view. I didn't want the government involved in very much, and, if I'm honest with you, that's kind of still my political bent, but here's what's interesting. If you really pick apart what I was saying, which some of my friends tried to do at the time, I was really saying, "I think abortion involves the killing of innocent children, and I think it should be legal." 

Anyone who says the same type of statement I said is really saying, "Abortion kills children, and people should be allowed to do it." People don't say those words, and so it can be helpful in conversation to present the issue more accurately, and so I'm going to role play a conversation for you that's actually similar to one I had with my friends many years ago.

It goes something like this: 

Person one: "I think abortion's wrong, but the government shouldn't be involved in saying if we should do it or not." 

Person two: "So, you think abortion involves killing a child or a human being that's alive?" 

Person one: " I do" 

Person two "So, you think it involves killing a child that's alive, but people should be allowed to do it. People should be allowed to murder. Is that your view?" 

It's going to be very hard for someone to actually say, "Yes, that's my view. People should be allowed to kill their children," because that's really what abortion is, and that's really what we're talking about with this issue.

Sometimes it's hard to determine what we're actually talking about, because we hide behind euphemisms. We hide behind “choice”, and “rights”, and “pro-choice”, and all of this, and they obscure the reality of what we're talking about. We're talking about the murder of children in their very mother's womb, the place they should be the safest, is now the place where they're in the most danger.

We need to use questions to bring that fact to light, to actually put the light of day on the issue being talked about, and that sample conversation we just had is a good way to do it.

There are people who will say, "I think it should be legal. I understand that it takes a life of an unborn child.” “That's my Christian conviction,” they'll say. “As a Christian, I think that, but, as an American citizen, I don't think the government should be involved in saying what people should do.” Or maybe they would say something like, "I don't think the government should legislate morality."

Well, that is a view that people do hold, but here's the issue with that view. It places what it means to be an Americanabove what it means to be a Christian. It's putting my political ideology above my biblical theology. It's letting my preferences for how a government should work override what it means to be created in the very image of God, and we should never do that. That's what I was do…