A brand new podcast, a brand new book, and a little announcement about the future. These are exciting times! I love and appreciate you ALL. <3

What is the CORRECT way to engage in discussions about our Christian convictions? Which apologetic methodology is true? Did Matt Walsh bomb his interview with Joe? All that and more this week!

One of the biggest problems in the church today is leaders and scholars who think the DETAILS of a passage can be divorced from the POINT of the passage. In this episode, we discuss this trend and see if there's any truth to it. 

This is God's world, and yet, many Christians are intimidated by science (the study of the natural world). But there are PLENTY of reasons not to be intimidated by it, and instead, EMBRACE it as Christians! 

I met God when I was 4 years old. This has often caused me to resent not having a radical experience of changing from an extraordinarily sinful lifestyle to a lifestyle of obedience to God's will. In this episode, I confront that resentment and offer 34 reasons to be thankful if you met God early and to pray for your children (and others) to do the same.

It's common in biblical scholarship today to suggest that the biblical writers held the view that the earth is flat, there was a solid dome above the earth, etc. Is this true? What's the basis for this claim?

As Christians committed to sharing our ideas in the public square, inevitably we will encounter difficult scenarios. Perhaps someone has offered a challenge to your convictions that you have never considered before, and this challenge begins to cause you spiritual and emotional anxiety. Today I’d like to consider just five of the possible reasons why you–yes you!–can’t defend your faith or answer tough objections, and then leave you with some practical advice to get started.Links: https://www.steveschramm.com/objections-to-christianity/ https://www.steveschramm.com/seed-soil-soul/

Quick update!

Do you have trouble with emotional connection and/or practical application in your Christian life? May I ask suggest you try out "saved" mode? Learn all about it in this episode!!

In this edition of the podcast, we're continuing our series in Dr. Kurt Wise's "Faith, Form, and Time" book. We talk about the floating forest theory and how it explains things in a creationist framework that only evolution seemed to explain just a short time ago.Dr. Wise lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_LmhhL18U4

Welcome to episode 200!!!!! I can't believe I've been doing this podcast for nearly 5 years now 🤯. In this episode, I reflect on the past 5 years and introduce you to an awesome new free resource. 

In a recent conversation, it became clear to me that most people's idea of the creationist enterprise has not aged well in the last couple of decades. Many still believe creationism just is "anti-evolutionism," when in reality, that's not the case at all. This week we talk about the difference and try to help folks understand why modern creationists are just trying to be good scientists.

Many Christians misunderstand faith. While it seems like a simple concept, you might be surprised to discover that you have a view of faith different from the biblical writers. Check out this episode to learn more!]Mentioned: https://www.steveschramm.com/facts-faith-feelings/

Jonah is not a fish story---it's my story, and yours. Here's a take on the book of Jonah you've probably never heard that should really get you thinking. 

Hey friends, in this episode, I'm sharing a message with you that I recently preached at church on the subject of what happens when a Christian sins. I pray it helps you!

In this episode, I want to talk to you about the fine boundary between transcendence (biblical) thinking and continuity (mythical) thinking. How can we simultaneously affirm the ancient Near Eastern situation of the biblical writers, while not caving to mythical nonsense? I think this is the way. 

How do you make a biblically based decision, confident that God will bless it and work it out for good? In this episode we discuss my thoughts from the book Decision Making and the WIll of God. 

Could genetic mutation, natural selection, and even animal carnivory be a GRACE from God? It might seem strange, but I think the biblical answer is yes. Take a listen to this episode continuing our series on Dr. Kurt Wise's Faith, Form, and Time.

In this episode, we summarize much of the biological information we've been talking about in this series. As it turns out, creation theories of biology have quite a bit of explanatory power over and against the theory of evolution.

In general, I am a fan of making modest claims. That is, the less I have to commit myself to in defense of a position, the better!Not only does this give me an advantage in the conversation because I don’t have to work hard defending things I’m either not sure about or would rather not muddy with dialogue with, but it also forces my interlocutor to think more carefully. It gives me control.However, this is a luxury that is hard to come by with respect to whether or not Christianity is ultimately true.The kicker is, I believe that’s actually a very good thing. Here’s why.Christianity Deals in RealityThere is a popular book by Dr. Michael Heiser that has been circulating for a few years now called The Unseen Realm. It’s a great book, but that’s beside my point. The original working title of the book was, The Myth That is True. As I’ve contended in a book of my own, Christianity is a Story; not any story, but the Story of all stories. Other writers have traded on this idea as well, such as Greg Koukl and C.S. Lewis. But this particular Story is one that is grounded in reality. It’s the real deal.This has some important implications that we’ll discuss below.If we’re not careful, we’ll use unfortunate language when sharing our Story that casts doubt on it from the get-go. We live in a culture that does not understand “Christianese,” so when we share with others, we’d be well advised not to “market” it as though it were a fairytale. For example, when we talk about the resurrection of Christ, we need to learn how to articulate this as though it were a real, historical event, because it was! As I’ve written elsewhere, I do not advocate for a “setting aside” of the Bible in these discussions—however, neither do I advocate for a “setting aside” of the important scholarship that has been done to demonstrate this is a real event that happened in human history. Christianity Offers Real HopeI won’t pretend to know any statistics, but history and my own experience tell me that, while many do come to believe in Christ through an evaluation of the evidence and a desire to know the truth, most come by way of a broken heart or a broken life. Christianity flourishes through times of persecution and brokenness.Why is this? Why is that Christianity can take a life and turn it around, often during a time of great suffering and pain?This is because of what Christianity—grounded in reality—offers. It offers real hope to the helpless, hopeless, and brokenhearted. Through his resurrection, Christ demonstrated that he alone has victory over death, hell, and the grave. He has overcome, and promised that anyone who would believe in him and trust in his finished work to save them, could have eternal life.Fortunately, we not only have the promise of eternal life then, but of abundant life now. Only Christ offers this because only Christ can offer this. Christianity is TestableFinally, because this Story is grounded in reality, we can test it! We can know it’s true! The reason this matters is precisely because our backward, relativistic culture would have you believe Christianity is just one of many legitimate options. It has good maxims and virtues to teach like any other religious system of thought (so the thinking goes), so it might be good for you to be a Christian, but there’s no reason for them to be one too. The problem with that thinking is that it divorces Christianity from reality, which is to say, it assumes Christianity is false. Christianity is exclusivist. Jesus said, “I am the way…no man comes…except through me.” So for the hope, virtues, and maxims that Christianity offers to be meaningful, it must be true, which means every other worldview must be false. This is why it matters that Christianity makes strong claims. (By the way, the Apostle Paul thought the same thing! See 1 Corinthians 15:17.)In what ways is Christianity testable? Many, but two come to mind as the most important: History, and prophecy. In fact, we see these emphasized in 2 Peter 1: 16-21. History is the domain of eyewitness verification, and what they recorded about what they saw. Our acceptance of Christ’s historicity comes backed with lots of this eyewitness evidence; much more than would ever be expected of a first-century carpenter. We have at least four independent sources found in the gospel traditions themselves, and around 17 extrabiblical sources that confirm various aspects of his life and work. But we also have “a more sure word of prophecy”—that is, history recorded in advance.Christ’s arrival in history is not an isolated event. In fact, he was “slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8), and many details of his life and work were written hundreds of years before his arrival. One prophecy concerning his death, found in Psalm 22, was written around 1,000 years before his birth, and even before the means of his death—crucifixion—was invented. So when we argue for the truth of Christianity, we make strong claims. We make claims to exclusivity. We make claims about historical events. We make claims about biblical consistency. We make claims that history has been recorded in advance.But these claims are a good thing. They underscore the fact that Christianity is grounded in reality. And that means our faith is meaningful.—Prefer to listen to this post? Listen below:The post Christianity makes strong claims! And that’s a good thing. appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Biology is a major battlefield in the creation/evolution debate. In this episode, we'll talk through the expectations of creation vs evolution as it relates to the field of biology. Enjoy the show!

One of the core distinctives of Young Age Creationism is that biological dissimilarity (or, discontinuity) is expected, over and against the evolutionary expectation of continuous similarity. In this episode, we discuss that difference as well as the tool used by creationists to help classify organisms.Links: Episode 49: Can We Ever Find the Biblical Kinds? Carl Linneaus

How can a young age creationist make a scientific case for the God of the Bible as the creator of the universe? In this episode, we explore Dr. Wise's compelling evidence from science for our amazing Creator!

This week continues our study in the book, Faith, Form, and Time by Dr. Kurt Wise. What does a well-considered creationist chronology look like? This is a detail-packed episode that lays it out for you!

How should we understand the relationship between science and the Bible? That's our topic of discussion for this week as we continue in our series, Faith, Form, and Time by Dr. Kurt Wise. 

In creation, God seems to give us just enough information to come to him, but not enough to force us. How does this truth inform our understanding of and relationship to creation? That's our topic in this episode!

OK - what's the deal with heaven? Can we address the elephant in the room? Heaven -- at least in the way most people think about it -- sounds kinda boring. Fortunately, the biblical teaching about heaven paints a different picture, which Emily and I discuss in this episode. 

Oh man, I am SO excited to cover one of my favorite books, Faith, Form, and Time by Dr. Kurt Wise! In this episode, I introduce the series, and talk about why I chose this book and author. The book is a fantastic introduction to the scientific ideas behind young age creationism. Enjoy!

Having been saved at a very young age, it was DEFINITELY a shock to find there were considerable objections to the Christian faith. Did that happen to you? A friend or loved one? In this episode, I talk about some practical strategies to help you deal with that situation. Happy Easter! He is Risen!

Christians hold "life" as of uttermost importance, because God does! However, I am concerned that far too many Christians have not taken hold of the abundant life that Jesus and other NT writers mention often. How can we, as Bible nerds, take hold of the abundant Christian life in our practical, every day experience?

Description: The Bible sometimes warns us about the dangers of philosophy. But what does the Bible actually mean by philosophy? In this episode, we discuss what the Bible means when it tells us to avoid philosophy, and why philosophy truly is a biblical discipline.

Did you know that many of your current ideas are influenced by information you already had? In marketing, there is a phenomenon known as "pre-framing" that can be very negatively influential when we are doing Bible study. In this episode, we'll talk all about it and give you three practical tips for how to overcome this problem.

In a recent conversation, it became clear to me that most people's idea of the creationist enterprise has not aged well in the last couple of decades. Many still believe creationism just is "anti-evolutionism," when in reality, that's not the case at all. This week we talk about the difference and try to help folks understand why modern creationists are just trying to be good scientists.

Based on a listener question, I thought I would take the time to clarify an issue on which I have changed my view over the past few years. It's a controversial one! Who were the Sons of God in Genesis 6?! In this episode, I discuss what I used to believe, what I NOW believe, and why it's important to admit when you're wrong.

It's SO very important, if we're doing to have meaningful dialogue with anyone, that we learn the careful art of making distinctions and listening well before responding. Why does it matter, and how can we practically do it? That's the subject of this week's episode!

Throughout the "What's with the Age of the Earth" series, we've mostly discussed why I take the young age creationist position. But a philosophically astute listener (and friend of mine!) asked me how I would argue for old age creationism, and I thought I would take him up on the chance to publicly answer that. So, if I were going to make a case for old age creationism, here's how I'd do it. 

“Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn These days, it’s harder than ever to get to the bottom of the truth. Unfortunately, relativism is alive and well. And sometimes, it’s downright painful and even deadly to accept the truth. […]

What would it mean for the world of science if, in fact, the young age creationist hermeneutic is true? That's the question Dr. William Lane Craig ponders in his new book. In this episode, we discuss the comments of a creationist earth scientist, Paul Garner in relation to Dr. Craig's question.

In this final episode of our current series on creation, we take a deeper look at what scientific evidence Christians can appeal to that shows consistency with the biblical data. This one is pretty interesting (and a little) technical, so buckle up!

As we continue our series on creation, we begin looking at the "M" in our "A.D.A.M." framework, talking about the many scientific evidences available to creationists. Before diving in, we first look at the philosophy of science and why I believe creationists deserve a seat at the table.

You might be surprised to learn that your view of creation has implications for even the death and resurrection of Jesus. In this episode, we continue the "What's with the Age of the Earth" series and discuss why a physically resurrected Savior depends upon a physically existent Adam.

One of the BIGGEST questions surrounding the "age of the earth" issue relates to whether or not God would have created a world in which death, disease, suffering, and bloodshed exist. In this episode, we will tackle this issue clearly and biblically and attempt to gain a better understanding of the implications.Mentioned: Bill Barrick YouTube Series

In this episode, we are beginning to dive deep into the question of why creationists are so passionate about...well, creation! The accuracy of the biblical account could be at stake, and that is no light matter. Join me and Emily as we discuss this important issue!

Is it ALWAYS clear what is wrong or right for a Christian? There really do seem to be gray areas... how do we navigate those in a way that is honoring to the Lord and consistent with biblical teaching? Let's talk about it!Decision Making Book

Did you know that thinking scientifically in terms of long ages and deep time is actually a construct developed only within the last few hundred years? Prior to then, almost everyone accepted the biblical account of earth history as fact! Here's why that's important.

In this episode, Emily and I discuss the age of the earth. This is part 1 of what will be a multi-part series discussing the age of the earth. What are the different views and the differences between them? That's what we cover in this episode!Links mentioned: https://www.steveschramm.com/gap-theory/

In this episode, Emily and I tackle the BIGGEST question of all: Why ANYTHING?! Why this HUGE universe, and little bitty "us"? How DID God create? Is the universe young or old, and why? We discuss all of these questions and more!

OK - what's the deal with heaven? Can we address the elephant in the room? Heaven -- at least in the way most people think about it -- sounds kinda boring. Fortunately, the biblical teaching about heaven paints a different picture, which Emily and I discuss in this episode. 

Happy Thanksgiving!

This episode is a Wednesday night sermon taught during our "God Is" series. In this message, we look at the concept of mercy, which often has "middle child syndrome" between the grace and judgment of God.

In our pluralistic society, it's easy to get sucked into the idea that all religions can "coexist" with one another, in the sense they can all be true (or at least carry some significant measure of truth value). In this episode, we talk about how Emily struggled with this throughout her time in college and how Christians can respond to this claim.

Hello my friends! In this week's conversation with Emily, we take a dive into Molinism; or, the view that God's sovereignty is compatible with the free will of man in a meaningful way. I can't wait for you to listen in!

Have you ever wondered why God bothered to create us at all? I mean, if God does not need us, why go through all of the trouble? As we discuss the episode, the reality is the beautiful truth that God's love and desire for family transcends even the depths of our sin.

Welcome back to the podcast! In this episode, we are starting a conversation series with my friend Emily! We talk about lots of things including questioning God, the right way to share your faith, and the idea that Truth is like a medicine label, not like ice cream. Enjoy!

“Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn These days, it’s harder than ever to get to the bottom of the truth. Unfortunately, relativism is alive and well. And sometimes, it’s downright painful and even deadly to accept the truth. We are commanded by Jesus, though, to live in the truth. And in this week’s episode, we are going to take a look at holding a firm commitment to true things, even in the face of a backwards culture.   The post The Importance of Believing True Things appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

When it comes to the very first chapters of the Bible, there is no shortage of disagreement about the meaning. Some, like myself, think that Moses wrote these early chapters and that he intended to teach God’s creation of the world in terms of six, literal, 24 hour days. Others believe that while he did write that, that is not what he intended to teach. Still others believe that’s not even what he wrote—or that he wasn’t even the writer! So I have one simple question for those who take a view other than my own. Listen in to this week’s episode to find out what it is. The post The One Question Critics of a Literal Genesis Need to Answer appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

In our day and age, it’s common to hear that people are no longer interested in church. After all, many churches are having to resort to gimmicks in order to even get people in the door! But I wonder if the problem is of a different nature entirely? That’s the subject of this week’s episode. I hope you enjoy! The post God’s Word Builds God’s Church appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

In our pursuits to be careful and skilled apologists, I think we often get concerns relative to objectivity and subjectivity out of balance. Don’t get me wrong—the distinction is vitally important, but we must remember that our own subjective stories about how the gospel impacted us are, for some people, going to be more persuasive than arguments and evidence. Full Transcript: All right. My friends, it’s been a little while since we have been able to connect, but I had something on my mind that I just wanted to go ahead and share with you this week. And that is about the power of subjectivity. Now there’s a reason why I want to talk about this. And I think it’s pretty important over in against a, a thought stream that appears in apologetics conversations quite a bit, and it’s an important thought stream. But there is the other side of it that sometimes as people who are really interested in apologetics, we can drift off into. And I think it’s dangerous if we do not give proper due and proper respect to the other side of the coin. So what I’m speaking to here primarily is the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity. Let me explain what I mean by that. If for some reason you are not familiar with these terms, if you, if you’ve never really given any thought to what these terms mean and how these terms should be put into practice. So if if something is objective, that means that it is outside of you. It’s, it’s not something that you are coming to determine rather it’s it’s something that you are coming to a believe about the real objective world, whatever it is, you know, maybe you’re coming to believe it, or maybe it’s just a fact that exists, whatever. It’s something about the real objective world. In other words, the, the earth is, is round. The earth is not flat. The earth is round. Now that’s not something that is, is, is the way it is because of something we decided inside of ourselves. But it is something that is true about the world out there. It’s something that is an objective fact about the way the world really, really is. And we are coming to recognize that that fact, or that bit of information about the world. Now on the on the flip side of the coin is the subjectivity. And this is where the, the source of the belief or whatever is coming from within the subject instead of outside of the subject case. So this is the inside outside distinction that I, I first heard this from Greg Koukl. So I want to give him the credit. I don’t know if maybe he heard it from somewhere else. Probably not. He’s a pretty brilliant guy. So he probably came up with it. But, but subjective is, is all about what’s inside and then objective is all about what’s outside. And so that’s a careful distinction now what has happened in popular culture is that those items have become very confused. And so that is in fact why the team at Stand to Reason (Greg Koukl’s organization) have a theme for their reality apologetics conference. The one for, I believe it was 2020, I believe the 2020 theme was truth is not ice cream. Now, the reason they titled it that way is multifaceted. I mean, first of all, it’s just a catchy title. That’s pretty cool. But the reason is because of this confusion that has happened in culture and it’s been happening for awhile. Truth is not like ice cream. Truth is something objective. There is no your truth. Truth is not a subjective thing. It’s just not. It’s a, it’s an objective thing about the way the world is out there. No, somebody you know, me and my wife for example, have a differing opinion on the best flavor of ice cream. We have a different opinion about the tastiness of pickles. Ah, okay. For me I think pickles are absolutely horrible and my wife thinks they are one of the best things on the planet. So understand that there is a key distinction between deciding that you like pickles and deciding that the earth is round and not flat. Pickles have a taste, but how you feel about that taste, how that taste appeals to you is a very, very different thing from being able to objectively identify the existence of the pickle or the shape, for example, of the pickle. These are objective features of reality. So truth is not ice cream. These are two kinds of separate things, and it’s very important that we do maintain this distinction. However, what we don’t want to do is drift into the unfortunate place where we disregard the power of storytelling. So I actually wrote a book about this (shameless plug) called God, the Great Commission, and You, and the subtitle, which attempts to kind of really get at the thrust of the book is How to Tell the Greatest Story Ever Told. And incidentally, I think Justin Brierley and the team at Unbelievable must’ve stolen that from me because that’s also what they decided to title their most recent, Unbelievable conference that they had. Obviously I’m just kidding. But I did not steal that from them. I I came up with that first. So anyway that is how I frame the conversation aspect of that in the book, how to tell the greatest story ever told and it is about sharing the gospel. It’s about being able to bring people to Jesus. The idea there is though there, I think in many of our churches, we have a skewed understanding of how this must be done. I mean, I come from a background where basically, if you didn’t spell it out in exactly this way, and you didn’t attend certain events and this, that, and the other thing then you weren’t doing it right. There were a certain sort of elite in the church who were doing this the correct way, and everybody else was essentially living in sin. And I’ve, I’ve come to a different view of that these days. I think that you can share the gospel in ways that are that some would consider to be an unconventional. And I’ve spoken of Mike Bechtle’s work in the past. He’s written a great book. Actually the name of it is slipping my mind right now for some reason, but Oh, I know it’s called Evangelism for the Rest of Us by Mike Bechtle. And it’s a really great book that speaks about how you can be introverted and still actually be very confident sharing the gospel. And so that’s a great book, but there is a, a subjective element to what happens to each and every one of us, whenever we get saved, whenever we come to the Lord came. And I think that that story is unique to me, that story is unique to my son who just asked the Lord to save him the other night. It’s unique to the apostle Paul as well. The apostle Paul had he conversion experience on the Damascus road that you and I did not have. He had a story to tell others. And you have a story to tell others, and I have a story to tell, tell others. So it’s very important that we don’t get this confused. And now, now we kind of dig even deeper into this for, for just a moment. Oftentimes this question comes up of how early in a conversation do we get into the apologetic stuff. How, when do we go for the stuff about you just resurrection arguments for the existence of God, et cetera. And I’ve actually heard William Lane Craig response to this and given his status, I guess you would say that other people have given him as, as, as you know, basically being the greatest living apologists there is today, you might find his answer to this fascinating. And I’m just gonna, I’m just gonna paraphrase it. But essentially what he believes on this is that actually we should not be starting with apologetics, what we should be doing is plain old evangelism. Telling people what happened to us, how the Lord saved us, how the Lord works in our lives. And then when questions arise, then we dive into apologetics. And we can have authentic apologetics and also defensive apologetics. But, but, but that enterprise comes into play only after the sharing of the gospel, the telling of the gospel story. And if you look throughout the Bible, okay, we, we see this kind of thing as well. So many of us, I think once you romanticize and instead of generalizing, I’ll just speak for myself. Right. there’s a romantic romanticism almost of apologetics because it’s such a good thing. And it’s, and it’s a needed thing, but we mustn’t forget that though. We can speak objective truth through apologetics. We can also tell the story about what happened to us now. Of course, it’s an objective thing that happened to us, but still we have a subjective experience of that. We could tell our story that does have value that does have merit. And often it’s the best thing to do in a given conversation to just lead with that and then see where it goes. As a matter of fact, I’ve heard Craig give an answer and I’m just using him as an example, because I remember specifically a couple of different responses that he’s given to to this question, different versions of this question. And another thing that I have heard him make mention of is that before you even start diving in to arguments and evidence for the existence of God and the the life and the death and the resurrection of Jesus and things of that nature, the very next thing you should do after just kind of doing regular old evangelism is just to simply, if they start asking questions, give them a list. Well, maybe somebody says, well, there’s, there’s, you know, science has disproven God, right. Or nobody really believes that stuff. Right. Well, actually you could just say something like that. Well, actually right off the top of my head, I can think of five very good arguments for the existence of God and then just list them out, you know? And Craig would say something like, you know, the Kalam cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the ontological, and just actually list them out. And he says that that might be enough for some people just to hear that there are arguments and they’ve been thought through, they may not even want to go the next step of actually hearing any sort of justification for the truth of those arguments. So there are definitely ways that we can take them these kinds of conversations to the next level, but in heating his advice, I think it would be very important and very useful to only get to those more complicated parts of the conversation when they are necessary, when you’re being pressed on a particular point, you know, maybe somebody starts to bring up the problem of evil and, you know no matter how many times we hear it, that’s a legitimate concern. Oftentimes people are bringing up the problem of evil because they have a experience of evil that causes them to question the goodness of God. So that’s a legitimate concern. We must dive in and find out more about why they’re answering that or asking that question so that we can answer it in a way that is powerful for them and not just merely the objective truth of the matter. So storytelling is a very, very powerful medium. It is. I think the what should be the primary means of sharing the gospel? And I, you know, I mean, I had things to repent for here. I mean, when I first started getting into apologetics, I was really adamant about this. And I don’t want to say, I looked down on people who who didn’t use apologetics and their sharing of the gospel. But definitely I looked at people who only had storytelling in their arsenal and thought of them as being a weaker in some sense in the ability to witness. And now I guess there is some truth to that. If you do start to get pressed for questions then you’re going to need to be able to, to give a reasoned defense and sure enough, the Bible sure does command. I mean, this is apologetics one-on-one–1 Peter 3:15. We need to be ready to give an answer to those who ask, but, you know remembering that a lot of times it’s just going to be sharing about what has happened to us and that’s going to be enough to convince other people and of course living our lives as it apologetic for the gospel is another powerful way to go about that as well. In fact, I think you could argue that the primary thrust of first Peter three 15 is, is that in the midst of suffering in the midst of trial, in the midst of persecution, how well does your life exemplify the gospel? That’s the question. Well, thank you for allowing me to share with you just a few minutes today. I know this, this episode comes on the heels of not really having recorded anything in the past few months. I just for a little update for any of you who might who might care beyond just the content of the episode. I I went full time in my web design business, which I’m really excited about. And I went full-time on January 15th and I, I had a goal, right. I had a goal set that by June, I would take on five new clients and that would help me feel better about the financial situation and everything. Certainly we had everything as secure. We, it wasn’t like a total leap in the dark here. But at the same time it was definitely, you know it was, it was a move of faith. It was a matter of faith to to step out and do this. And I I have to be honest I wasn’t expecting what happened. I immediately got seven new clients pretty much the first week or two that I was on my own. And so here I am thinking that, Oh, okay, well, I’ll just go ahead and go on my own, the workload won’t really increase that much. And actually this will give me more time. I can, I can get back into being more consistent in the podcast and in blogging, etc. But the exact opposite happened. So I get email updates every week. I get lots of people who are still downloading the podcast every week. And so that is a wonderful blessing, even though I haven’t been able to give it the attention that it deserves. So I appreciate you hanging in there and allowing me to speak to you here this week, you know, I don’t know what the future holds. I don’t know if I’ll be able to do this every week or not. I’d love to. But regardless I thank you for your thoughts. I thank you for, you know, I received emails from you guys occasionally, and that’s really, really sweet. You can always email steve@steveschramm.com. I’d love to hear from you and hear that that what we’re doing here even as sporadically as it’s being done these days makes some sort of an impact. All right, God bless you. And we will see you in the next episode. The post The Power of Subjectivity appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Young age creationists may be some of the most misunderstood people in Christendom. In this week’s episode, we discuss some of the core differences that surround the divide. Recently, a Facebook friend of mine (and good brother in Christ) raised a startling proposition: Should one be compelled by Scripture to take a young age view of world history, it would be preferable to regard the Bible as teaching error. Now, there’s some context to this (which we discuss at length in the episode), but is this really the best path to take? Is the evidence for an old earth SO untouchable that we should regard the Bible as teaching error if we are compelled it teaches otherwise? Listen in to this week’s episode here to hear my response: https://www.steveschramm.com/rant-creation-frustration/ Enduring Together, Steve The post RANT: Creation Frustration appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Why subscribe?The Bible Nerd Society is a group of intensely passionate Bible-believers. We explore the world of the Bible, endeavor to fall more in love with Jesus every day, and build a thoughtful defense for the Christian worldview. We study topics including biblical studies, theology, Christian apologetics, creation science, and philosophy.Here’s the Truth of the MatterThese days, information is being manipulated and censored. It is harder than ever to gain a fair hearing on the world’s most popular platforms, and support is waning for writers and content creators trying to make a difference in God’s world. While I’m under no delusion that I have all of the answers, I know that God has given me the zeal and skill of teaching and instructing others in the nerdalicous aspects of the faith.Are you a Bible Nerd?To be frank—I am here to start a movement. A retaliation against Bible boredom. A look into the true worldview of the Bible, making the best scholarship accessible and cultivating a passionate community of others who want to see Jesus high and lifted up. If that sounds like something you’d be interested in, keep reading…Why Your Support MattersI do not have a 501C(3) non-profit, nor do I intend to start one. However, as someone that God has entrusted with the gift of teaching, I feel it is my calling and duty to equip the church with resources that expose the intellectual side of Christianity, looking deeply at Bible themes, theology, and apologetics. But with work and family commitments, technology costs, and the costs of acquiring information and tools to aid in Bible study (any one of which far surpasses the cost of your subscription for one month), it can be difficult to maintain a tight community and valuable content for free.What’s In It For Me?This is a completely fair question, and I’m proud to announce that I’ve thought it through and have some AMAZING benefits to offer paid members of the Society. Benefits include: Digital All-Access Pass. I love to create digital products like eBooks, audiobooks, video courses, and practical instruction guides. Upon subscribing, you will not only receive access to the archive of newsletter posts, but INSTANT access to download every single digital resource I’ve ever created—oh, and every future one I create. Is it okay if I overdeliver? Expert Guest Posts. I have been SO fortunate to forge relationships with established experts, teachers, and advanced students in a variety of subject matters including biblical studies, philosophy, genetics, and more! Occasionally they will be contributing guest content to the Society—just for you! Become my Book Editor. As a Society member, not only will you gain access to all of my eBooks AND audiobooks, but the primary focus of the Newsletter content will be the development of future books. Yep—I want you to interact with and comment on my ideas and help me develop the book before it ever goes to print! I will keep track of all contributors and give you a special mention in the front matter of the book, as well as promotion if you have a ministry of your own! Daily Discussion Thread. This is what I’m most excited about. I receive emails on a regular basis from my community, but I’m often forced by my commitments to wait until I get a “free moment” to respond (those are few and far between!). Plus, I think my community could benefit from interaction with each other rather than just me. Every few days I will post a discussion thread for Society members to chime in on and interact with ideas! Join the Movement. Most importantly, you will be joining the fight against Bible boredom. Our mission to help everyday Christians become PASSIONATE Bible nerds. But I can’t do it without your support! I would love for you to join me by supporting our cause and becoming a paid subscriber of the Bible Nerd Society. Will you join me? Usually all of the above would cost an already low $5/month or $30/year. But for the Christmas season, you can get locked into the FOREVER rate of just $2.50/month or $15/year! ==>Click here to subscribe today!<==The post Join the Bible Nerd Society! appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

One of the most poignant ideas found in the Bible is the theme of rejection of the Messiah. But the blow is worsened by the fact that, in a biblical worldview, rejection of the Messiah is inextricably linked with rejection of the Creator of the cosmos. Much like the son who sits in the lap of his father while slapping his face, or the man with the saw tirelessly sawing away at the very branch holding him firmly to the tree, mankind rejects his maker. We are going to look at these rejection motifs in today’s episode of the Bible Nerd Podcast. Here’s the link to the episode: https://www.steveschramm.com/the-rejected-messiah/ Enduring Together, Steve The post The Rejected Messiah (John 1:10-11) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

In the Book of John, we are introduced to the Word, who we find out is also the Creator. John continues his logic in denoting that, within the Word, is life. And, whatever that “life” is, it is also the light of men. While these are familiar verses of Scripture, what may be unfamiliar to you is the deep theological connection these concepts share with the Hebrew Bible. In this episode of the Bible Nerd Podcast, we’ll take a deep dive into these verses of Scripture to uncover the essence and importance of John’s mission as the witness of the Light. Here’s the link: https://www.steveschramm.com/jesus-the-life-and-the-light Enduring Together, Steve The post Jesus, the Life and the Light (John 1:4-9) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

When we think of the name “Jesus” any number of images immediately come to mind. We think of Jesus as the One who died for us. We think of him as the Lord of all and Savior-King. We think of him as the baby, lying in a manger, wrapped in swaddling clothes. But what rarely crosses our minds is a startling truth about Jesus that the Bible is anything but silent about. In fact, it’s central to John’s theology and grounds his arguments in the entire first chapter of his book. The fact is—Jesus is the creator and he is the sustainer of all things, visible and invisible. As we continue in our John series, we are looking at this aspect of Jesus, the Word, and how other biblical authors “hyperlinked” back to this theme. Here’s the link to listen in: https://www.steveschramm.com/jesus-creator-sustainer/ Enduring Together, Steve The post Jesus as Creator—and Sustainer—Of All Things (John 1:3) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

John chapter 1 introduces us to the Person of Jesus…as the Second Person of the Trinity: The Word.In Greek, the word is logos, meaning “word” or “message.”When we endeavor to dive deeper into the text, we find some amazing things, including: How the trinity solves the most ancient and fundamental philosophical problem known to man. An explicit articulation of multiplicity in the godhead. The relation of, yet distinctions between, the Word and the Wisdom of God (a common Old Testament theme). In this brand new series on the podcast, we are taking a deep dive into the book of John.This is an amazing book…It teaches a high Christology and goes deep into the nature, role, and person of the Christ…and yet, it is written from the intimate perspective of none other than John, the Beloved.In this podcast episode, after some brief announcements, we explore John 1:1-2 together and begin to unpack some of these ideas.Join me here: https://www.steveschramm.com/jesus-the-word/Enduring Together, SteveThe post Jesus, the Word (John 1:1-2) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

A recent question from a reader of mine sparked the idea that it may be time to bring up the issue of apologetics methodology again… Here is something insightful that my friend Jonathan had to say: I see then the value of tearing down false authorities which compete with God’s Word—it is fairly simple to show that, taken in isolation, human logic & evidence-based methods are inadequate as means of judging the truth of God & His Word. If I’m not mistaken, the real challenge which confronts the unbeliever is not a lack of information, but a lack of righteousness (as Voddie Baucham likes to say). The unbeliever needs to recognize his sinful rebellion against the Creator and submit to God’s authority. Only when he admits that he’s living in God’s world will his mind be properly oriented to examine the evidence. That much is clear to me, but it’s difficult to share that with an unsaved coworker, for instance. “Repent, or we can’t properly talk about evidence” doesn’t strike me as an easy way to build bridges. It certainly doesn’t have the same appeal as the evidentialist’s mantra “let’s examine the evidence together, and see what conclusions we can draw.” I want to make some comments about his thoughts here and describe my approach to presuppositional apologetics. Here is just some of what we discuss in the episode: Biblically, one’s standing with God is always at issue—not whether or not the evidence is supportive of a given claim. Why can’t the Bible itself count as evidence? Claims of the Bible must be considered when discussing a biblical proposition. Take a listen here: https://www.steveschramm.com/my-approach-to-apologetics/ Enduring Together, Steve The post My approach to apologetics appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

We often see t-shirts, signs, and other paraphernalia promoting biblically based concepts… That have been ripped entirely of their biblical context and used to promote unbiblical ideas. While this is unfortunate, it happens ALL the time. What can be done? Promoting real, biblical kindness. Listen to this week’s Bible Nerd Podcast for more: https://www.steveschramm.com/be-kind-no-like-actually/ Enduring Together, Steve The post Be Kind. No, like, Actually. appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

When we really love something, it’s not hard to defend it. For example: Your family. Wouldn’t you defend your family if they were being falsely accused or afflicted? Your freedom. When push comes to shove, many of us stand and fight for the freedom we enjoy here in America. Your friends. You wouldn’t let your friends go without a defense if they needed you to step up. What about the Bible though? Do you love—and know it—well enough to defend it? Here’s the link to listen: www.SteveSchramm.com/love-defend Enduring Together, Steve The post What we love, we’ll defend appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Have you ever heard of cancel culture? It’s a shame that this thinking has often drifted into the church. In this episode of the Bible Nerd Podcast, I spend a couple minutes dealing with an example I’ve seen of creationist “cancel culture” and what we can do to be biblically faithful all while avoiding a bad attitude. Here’s the link: https://www.steveschramm.com/creationist-cancel-culture Enduring Together, Steve The post Creationist Cancel Culture appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Hello, friends! It has been a short while since our last time together, and I wanted to pop in for a few moments to give an update, some announcements, and share with you a message I gave recently at church. Here are some important highlights/links you may want to know about: The podcast IS coming back. I am still taking a hiatus, but the question is definitely NOT, “Are you coming back?” I certainly am. I recently released a physical version of my book, God, the Great Commission, and You. Here’s the Amazon link. I recently was asked to participate in a series of discussions with The Mentionables surrounding the topic of deconversion. It was an awesome and fruitful time (not mention close to six hours of Bible nerdery). You can find those discussions here and here. Going to be playing some messages that I have recently delivered at church. Today’s is from Genesis 4! (Note: The audio quality is not wonderful, but I think the content is worth bearing through it.) Thank you so much for your continued support and listenership. Steve The post Another Update (And Talking About Door Demons) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Hey guys! I sure hope this finds you doing well. If you’ve been listening along to the Bible Nerd Podcast for awhile and following along here on the blog, I want to say THANK YOU so much! I have an update for you—it’s less than 5 minutes, so be sure to take a listen below. Thanks! The post A SUPER Exciting Update About the Podcast appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

As Christians, a primary concern of ours ought to be the evangelism of the lost. This has always been a particularly difficult idea for me, though, because I am certainly an introverted person and do have difficulty connecting with others in spontaneous encounters. I have written about this before here, and even wrote a book that deals with this in more depth. Suffice it to say, I believe that there is a place on the spectrum where all personality styles can shine; in other words, there’s no excuse not to be doing evangelism. It just may look a bit different for one person than it does for another. If you’re breathing and you’re a follower of Christ, you have a role to play in his great commission. That’s the bottom line. The Evangelism CrisisThe difficulties I mentioned above have, unfortunately, left a giant mark on the state of evangelism within the Christian church. A 2019 study conducted by the Barna Group was revealing: Almost all practicing Christians believe that part of their faith means being a witness about Jesus (ranging from 95% to 97% among all generational groups), and that the best thing that could ever happen to someone is for them to know Jesus (94% to 97%). Millennials in particular feel equipped to share their faith with others. For instance, almost three-quarters say they know how to respond when someone raises questions about faith (73%), and that they are gifted at sharing their faith with other people (73%). This is higher than any other generational group: Gen X (66%), Boomers (59%) and Elders (56%).Despite this, many Millennials are unsure about the actual practice of evangelism. Almost half of Millennials (47%) agree at least somewhat that it is wrong to share one’s personal beliefs with someone of a different faith in hopes that they will one day share the same faith. This is compared to a little over one-quarter of Gen X (27%), and one in five Boomers (19%) and Elders (20%). (Though Gen Z teens were not included in this study, their thoroughly post-Christian posture will likely amplify this stance toward evangelism.)Quite obviously, this is troubling—especially during a time with so much cultural upheaval regarding issues of race, sexual orientation, and gender differences. The world needs the gospel now more than ever, and to think almost half of Christians in my generation think we ought not try to bring others to the faith is almost mind-blowing! I wonder, though, how much of this is a function of studied, rational thinking versus being driven to inaction by fear.Many Are Afraid to ShareVery many feel as though outright presentations of the gospel are nerve-racking experiences that should be avoided. While I want to disagree with this ideologically, as a card-carrying introvert, I get it! It’s not because I’m ashamed of the gospel; I have just as much trouble making cold calls for my web design business. I’ll talk all day long about Jesus as long as you ask first.The study above gives me pause, though. I’m not entirely sure whether we can say the participants in this study were afraid just to bring it up, afraid to talk through the issues, or whether fear was even the demotivating force. Here’s what I do know: I would answer that I am equipped to answer the questions, I would also answer that I am reasonably skilled at sharing with others, but I would not answer that it is wrong to share my beliefs in the hopes of bringing another along. I also know that one cannot seriously read the Bible and come away with anything close to the idea that evangelism is unbiblical or immoral. This leads me to believe that fear of the conversation is the true driver behind these responses. And if that’s the case, as we’ll discuss below, I believe there’s a remedy. Many Are Too Extreme When they ShareThere is another side to this, however, that is a bit troubling. While some are so reserved they end up sitting on the sidelines, others are so outspoken they border on uncharitable and tend to look down on those who don’t find evangelism so easy. Here again, the lines are rather blurry. Perhaps the idea of street preaching is a good example. Is street preaching bad, immoral, or unbiblical? Certainly not in itself. However, characteristic among many street preachers is the inability and/or failure to seriously engage ideas. Where one can be loud and overpowering, there is less “need” for rational discourse, so the thinking goes. Just preach louder at ’em and the Spirit will do the rest! Amen!? Well, I’m not so sure.I happen to know a thing or two about my generation and those upcoming, and one thing I know is that we’re characteristically tired of being screamed at. We’re willing to trade our beliefs, but we demand to know why we should.Many street preachers are excellent at their craft and have the desire and ability to engage in meaningful discourse, so I want to be careful not to lump folks together. But sadly, those who can do this are few and far between. So where do we go from here? I think there’s a two-part solution to this problem.Solution, Part 1: Put Down the Cookie CutterAs per the usual, truth is so rarely found in the extremes. In most ideological conversations, there’s a middle ground that answers more questions, includes more people, and is more preferable for a number of reasons. This issue is no different. Here’s the issue: Many of us (myself included) grew up in a context where evangelism was not a lifestyle, it was an event. If you weren’t doing the profoundly extroverted evangelism “event” you were living in sin and disobedience. The issue has become, since most people believe that just is evangelism, they sit out altogether. They’ve given up it entirely! Worse, as I believe can be argued from the study above, this belief has become so axiomatic that many now believe it’s morally wrong to try to share your beliefs with the intent of converting others! Certainly, we’ve missed the mark. We can begin to repair these wounds by putting down the cookie cutter we have given to the idea of evangelism. Everyone—from any background, with any personality style—can and should do their part in the Great Commission. For some more practical ideas of what this might look like, see my book God, the Great Commission, and You. It does not have to be hard. Why not invite the neighbors over for a meal and minister to them? Show the love of Christ, and see where the conversation goes. Ask God for an opportunity. He’ll probably put one in your path! Be radically different. I’ll share an example of the perfect opportunity—and my subsequent failure to capitalize on it. I was filling up my cup of water at work one afternoon, and one of the attorneys at my firm asked why I was always so happy. I think I responded with some unhelpful neutral rhetoric: “Well, there’s no sense in being sad, right?!” Or something like that. But what a perfect opportunity this would have been to mention Christ.Not to mention, it would have been the truth! I am happy because of who Jesus is and who he says I am, in him. That is the source of my joy. Why didn’t I just tell her that? She brought it up, after all! I have since then made it more of a priority. It turns out that, in this dark world, people actually will and do ask why something is different about you, if you’re truly living like your citizenship is in another world. I’ll preach to you and myself at the same time: If people aren’t asking, what are they really seeing when they see you?Evangelism does not have to look the same for you as it does for me. It doesn’t have to look the same for us as it does for your cousin, or your pastor. We are uniquely created in God’s image, and he can use us according to how he created us.Solution, Part 2: Each One Reach One.This is a tremendously practical example, and one that we often miss even if we give lip service to it during particular outreach campaigns at church.I want to give you a radical idea. What if you made it one of your primary missions in life to disciple just one person in the faith? Notice that the Great Commission is not the command to make converts; rather, to make disciples.Many who boast about their superior evangelism skills are good at the art of persuasion; few of them give thought to what meaningful followup looks like. By beginning with a more holistic (and accurate, mind you) definition of evangelism—namely, the one Jesus gave, we can gain a whole new perspective on and appreciation for the task. It’s notoriously hard to nail down these sorts of numbers, but for the sake of argument, let’s agree with this Wikipedia entry that there are 619 million evangelicals in the world, and that “evangelical” is the accurate term for “those who are actually saved.” (Again, both of these are disputable; this exercise is for the sake of argument.)In a world post-COVID-19, we’re all much more familiar with the concept of exponential growth than we used to be. All this means is that something (whether bacteria, a virus, or the gospel) is spread at such a fast rate that vast numbers of the population are affected in rapid succession. If every evangelical Christian was able to bring just one person to the Lord, the entire world would be saved in just over 12 years. Now I get there are a bazillion factors and this theoretical notion is not ultimately realistic. But surely you see the point?We’ve made evangelism into this “impossible” task, perhaps because it’s easier than ever now to get a sense for how big the world is. You think, “What can I do to where I am? There are too many people to be reached!” But if our goal was to radically pursue one person in their development as a Christ-follower, what could the world become?Therefore, I say, if you’re afraid to get in the game: Start small. Figure out in what way you are truly good at connecting with people. We all have this ability because of the kind of creatures we are, but that doesn’t mean it looks the same for everyone. Don’t worry about fitting into someone else’s cookie cutter. Don’t burden yourself with reaching the entire world. Start with one. The post Evangelism and Exponential Growth appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

We’re changing it up this week a little bit on the blog and podcast. Below you’ll find a detailed outline I used when I taught an overview of the Book of Daniel. The podcast will be a teaching discussion of this outline, so feel free to read the outline as if it were a blog post, but the most beneficial would undoubtedly be to hear the podcast discussion on this one. Many blessings!   WRITER:  The authorship and dating of Daniel are highly controversial, with folks (even Bible-believing Christians) holding various opinions. One primary reason for this is the stunning prophetic accuracy, although many argue on the basis that it appears to include linguistic details from a later time period. The early date (held by most conservative scholars) is the 6th century BC, which would place the book having been written in the time period in which it is set (a reasonable idea). The later date is in the 2nd century BC, roughly 400 years later. The latter view would also entail that Daniel himself was not the writer, but perhaps some anonymous Jew writing under the pseudonym, Daniel. KEY VERSE: And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. (Daniel 2:44) INTERESTING FACTS: His name means “God is my judge.” Daniel’s life and ministry span the entire seventy-year period of Babylonian Captivity. Daniel was deported to Babylon (some 900 miles away) when he was sixteen years old. He was selected for special service in Babylon, and was given three years of training in the best of Babylon’s schools. He was given a Babylonian name – Belteshazzar, meaning “Bel Protect his Life.” Bel was a title assigned to various Mesopotamian gods. 9 out of the 12 chapters in Daniel revolve around dreams. Of the 2,930 Bible characters, Daniel is one of the few well known characters about whom nothing negative is ever written. Joseph is yet another. Daniel’s life was characterized by: Faith Prayer Courage Consistency Lack of compromise The Book of Daniel has been called the “Apocalypse of the Old Testament.” – It was written in the genre of Jewish apocalyptic literature. The Book of Daniel was written to offer encouragement to the Jewish exiles by revealing God’s sovereign will for Israel after the period of Gentile domination. Daniel is the only book in the Hebrew Bible that directly attests belief in bodily resurrection (Dan 12:2–3). THE RELIABILITY OF DANIEL: Daniel can be thought of as self-authenticating, due to its highly accurate prophetic messaging. More on this below. Jesus himself affirms direct authorship by Daniel, with special respect to future prophecy (Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14, Matthew 26:64, etc.). The book’s author is named within, has features consistent with the time period it purports to be written in, and seems to accurately deal with events around the time of writing as well as events in both the near and distant future. The Prophet Ezekiel, who lived contemporaneously with Daniel, mentions Daniel three times (14:14, 20; 28:3). The Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament and quite literally “The Bible” for many NT writers) contains a copy of Daniel, which seems VERY unlikely on the “critical,” 2nd century view. This is because it is likely the books of the Septuagint were all translated at the same time, which would mean Daniel had been accepted as canon and carried over 300 miles away to Alexandra a mere 30 years after its writing.  Because Daniel is written both in Hebrew and Aramaic, and some of the Aramaic features seem to be from the 2nd century, this leads some (even evangelical) scholars to accept the late date. However, this is a moot point. The reality is there are ways to explain the language we have present from either the critical late date or conservative early date perspective. Thus, there is no reason to reject the latter. KEY THEMES: Prayer Daniel 6:10 gives a subtle yet powerful insight into Daniel’s life: It was a life of faithful prayer. Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime. This suggests that Daniel’s life was marked by prayer. He loved God, trusted God, and relied on God for everything.  God reveals the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams to him in a vision. Verse 17 strongly underscores the importance of prayer to Daniel. He and his friends urged Yahweh to give Daniel the interpretation so they would not be destroyed with Babylon’s wise men. Power Daniel’s integrity and faithfulness to God was without compromise. Notice his rejection of the king’s delicacies in Daniel 1:8. John MacArthur notes, “Those enticing morsels and vintage wines—perks of the king’s service—had been ritually dedicated to Babylon’s false gods. What’s more, eating food prepared to Babylonian standards was likely to put the young exiles in violation of God’s laws concerning unclean foods (cf. Leviticus 7:23-27; Leviticus 11). Daniel wanted no participation in any pagan feast, even to the slightest degree. That would be a form of idolatry that would provoke the wrath of a jealous God (Exodus 20:4-5). His decision, though immediately dealing with food and wine, was ultimately a decision about who he worshiped.” Daniel 3: Daniel’s cohorts, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, refused to bow to the golden statue the king had set up. (Note that the king was not suggesting that the statue was his god. It was rather a kind of tangible image used for worship and veneration, most probably of the chief Babylon deity, Marduk. A common misconception surrounds v. 25. The Aramaic word for “son of of God” here is bar elahin. Some interpret this to be a theophany, but the usage for this is the term malak Yahweh—”angel of the Lord.” Likely, this was a member of God’s divine angelic council.  At the end of Daniel 4, we see an incredibly practical lesson on pride. In short, the Lord gives Nebudchadnezzar a vision and Daniel interprets it, having to do with what will come upon him if he remains prideful and fails to recognize that Yahweh, the One True God, has ultimate power over earthly rulers. This raises an interesting question: Did Nebuchadnezzar get saved? One of the writers at GotQuestions examines this helpfully: “The exclamations of Nebuchadnezzar recorded in the book of Daniel have led some to consider the possibility that Nebuchadnezzar became a believer in the one true God. History records Nebuchadnezzar being a follower of the Babylonian gods Nabu and Marduk. Is it possible that Nebuchadnezzar renounced these false gods and instead only worshipped the one true God? Yes, it is possible. If nothing else, Nebuchadnezzar became a henotheist, believing in many gods but worshipping only one God as supreme. Based on his words recorded in Daniel, it definitely seems like Nebuchadnezzar submitted himself to the one true God. Further evidence is the fact that God refers to Nebuchadnezzar as “my servant” three times in the book of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 25:9; 27:6; 43:10). Was Nebuchadnezzar saved? Ultimately, this is not a question that can be answered dogmatically. Whatever the case, the story of Nebuchadnezzar is an example of God’s sovereignty over all men and the truth that “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He will” (Proverbs 21:1).” Daniel 6:1-3 – Demonstrates how power over self often leads to power over others in God’s economy—an example of great leadership. This additional authority is bestowed upon him by Darius, having already had been given a position of leadership under similar circumstances by Nebuchadnezzar (2:46-49) Daniel was an example of godliness Daniel 6:4-5 – Then the presidents and princes sought to find occasion against Daniel concerning the kingdom; but they could find none occasion nor fault; forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him. Then said these men, We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God. Ezekiel places him in the ranks of Noah and Job (14:14) They found fault with Jesus concerning “the law of his God” too! Prophecy Arnold Fruchtenbaum writes, “That Daniel was indeed a prophet is well substantiated. He accurately prophesied the rise of the Medo-Persian, Greek and Roman empires even at a time when the Babylonian Empire, which preceded them all, was at its height. He accurately predicted the fortunes, conflicts, wars and conspiracies of the two kingdoms of Syria and Egypt between the fracturing of the Greek Empire and the conquest by Rome. He prophesied the role of the Maccabees during this period. It is Daniel’s detailed accuracy in his prophecies that has caused many critics to try to give a late date to the book of Daniel, although no evidence has been discovered that would negate the book’s composition at the time that it claims to have been written.” Regarding Nations and Rulers In Daniel 2, King Nebuchadnezzar had a troubling dream, and Daniel’s description and interpretation laid out a comprehensive timeline involving four empires: Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome (the fourth emerging in two successive phases, fragmenting and ultimately recombining into a final form). Later in his life, Daniel himself was given a series of four visions (recorded in Daniel 7), which, while using very different idioms, encompassed the same four empires. Just as Daniel had predicted, the Babylonian Empire was ultimately conquered by the Persians; the Persians were, in turn, conquered by the Greeks; and the Greeks were ultimately conquered by the Romans. But who conquered the Romans? No one. The Roman Empire ultimately disintegrated into pieces. Many books deal with the so-called silent years—the four hundred years between the Old and New Testaments—but what many overlook is that this period is also chronicled in Daniel in advance with such specificity that skeptics have had to insist that it was written after the fact. This is refuted by the fact that the Old Testament was translated into Greek three centuries before the New Testament period. Also, Jesus personally attributed the writing of the book to Daniel, the prophet (Matt. 24:15,Mark 13:14).1 After failing to learn the lesson God taught Nebuchadnezzar, his replacement, Belshazzar, found himself caught in the same tangled web of pride and self-aggrandizement. After he saw the “writing on the wall,” we read that his “his loins were loosed” (6:6). He was scared! But this is actually a prophetic moment (see Isaiah 44:24-45:1). Isaiah had written about Cyrus by name, who would come on the scene just a few years after Belshazzar, 150 years prior to these events. Daniel delivered the letter, and Cyrus was friendly to the Jews. Regarding the Messiah and the End Times “Son of Man” – Daniel 7:13 In Jewish thought, the “Son of man” was a messianic figure who would play a major role in the coming apocalypse. The Lexham Bible Dictionary explains, “In the early to mid-20th century, scholarship posited that texts referred to an apocalyptic figure—a divine heavenly being—who would appear at the end of time to complete the work of judgment and bring final salvation to God’s people (Boussett, Kyrios Christos, 31–55; Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 348–53; Tödt, Son of Man, 22–31). This apocalyptic figure seems to feature in Jewish texts such as 1 Enoch 46–71 and 4 Ezra 13. In both of these texts, an authoritative heavenly figure appears at God’s side to judge the world and bring salvation. Both 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra play a major role in the Jewish concept of the Messiah.” Multiple times, Jesus adorns this title in response to challenges of his authority. In Mark 2:10-11 Jesus says, “But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.” This was a huge claim. For the Jews, only Yahweh could forgive sins. This was Jesus claiming equality with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and grounding his identity in prior special revelation. Similarly, in John 5:26-27 Jesus claims, “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.” Again, we see Jesus as the Son of man, claiming direct authority from Yahweh to execute judgment. The Seventy Weeks of Daniel (Read Daniel 9:24-27) The term weeks is not to be taken literally here. The genre is highly poetic, and the actual word here (shabu’im) means “seventy.” In this context, it has the idea “weeks of years.”  This prophecy is unanimously understood by conservative Bible scholars to represent an abridged timeline of events leading up to the arrival of the Messiah (Week 69), at which time a break in the sequence happens. Week 70 represents the “week” (7-year period) of tribulation, preceding the millennial reign of Christ. There’s lots of AWESOME stuff in this prophecy, but to understand the force of it, let’s look at just one series of events, regarding the exact date of the pronunciation of Jesus as King.  173,880 days would occur between the command to rebuild Jerusalem (and its walls, specifically) and the presentation of the Messiah as King. On March 14, 445BC, the decree to rebuild the city and its walls went out from Artaxerxes Longimanus. Jesus denounced every attempt to regard himself as “king”—except the one he arranged at the triumphal entry, in fulfillment of Zechariah’s prophecy (9:9).  Per Missler: “This occurred on the tenth of Nisan, or April 6, 32 AD.19 When you convert the Hebrew text into the terms of our calendar, you discover that there were exactly 173,880 days between the decree of Artaxerxes and the presentation of the “Messiah the King” to Israel. Gabriel’s prophecy, given to Daniel five centuries earlier—and translated into Greek three centuries before the fact—was fulfilled to the exact day!”2 BOTTOM LINE While there are many, I’d like to highlight three important, practical takeaways from the Book of Daniel: God is the Ruler of rulers. Despite the attempts of prideful kings to usurp him, God powerfully demonstrates his supreme authority by exacting judgment on the most powerful of earthly men. God will reward the faithful. Daniel lived a life marked by faithfulness and devotion. Despite all of the theological and prophetic significance of this book, Daniel is personally known for his faithfulness (6:4) and his prayer life (6:10). God controls the future. Again, we’ve seen only a fraction of the prophetic and eschatological detail available for the student of Daniel to discover. What’s clear is that God knows and sovereignly arranges the future to suit his good purposes. And with that assurance comes comfort, hope, and peace in the midst of trouble. The post Daniel: A Portrait of Prayer, Power, and Prophecy appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Although evolution and abiogenesis are two very important parts of the origins conversation, there is often some confusion about how these relate to one another. Are they ultimately the same thing? Is there a distinction? What, if any, is the distinction? Do they relate to one another in some way? These are important questions that we will attempt to answer as we go along. I would like to frame our discussion in terms of the two most common viewpoints with respect to this issue. Typically, the creationist will make the mistake of conflating these concepts into one. They may say something like, “We know evolution didn’t happen because evolution cannot create life.” Because of its imprecision, as we’ll see, evolutionists take issue with this. On the other hand, the evolutionist will say something like, “Abiogenesis is irrelevant to whether or not evolution occurred.” However, creationists take issue with this because it misses a crucial point. Defining the Terms The term “evolution” essentially means change over time. To determine how much change requires a lot more work. We have to determine the molecular limits of DNA and RNA, consider factors such as epigenetic and other environmental circumstances, etc. As you might imagine, there is no shortage of opinion with respect to what evolution can accomplish. Many believe that evolutionary mechanisms can, on their own, account for significant changes between populations. These changes are the route through which biological evolution has occurred from, on the evolutionist’s view, the moment just after life began. And therefore, all life is ultimately related. Others believe that certain organisms must haven been specially created to have distinctions from others. So while a wolf may be in the “evolutionary” lineage of your family chihuahua, a leopard would not be. As you can see here, there is a multiplicity of ways that experts seek to define evolution, and as scientists learn more about what is actually is, those definitions often become outdated. The most important takeaway is that we are referring to biological evolution. The semantics matter. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, means “the origin of life from nonliving matter” according to Webster’s. What’s interesting is that, in support of this definition, they cite David Warmflash et. al. on the following: According to the conventional hypothesis, the earliest living cells emerged as a result of chemical evolution on our planet billions of years ago in a process called abiogenesis. Therefore, the “conventional hypothesis” would seem to rely on some sort of evolution, namely chemical evolution, in order for the process of abiogenesis to take place. Biogenesis simply means “the origin of life.” According to one source, the Law of Biogenesis is: The principle that living organisms develop only from other living organisms and not from nonliving matter.1 Thus, we are working with two distinct, but related concepts: The arising of organic (living) matter from non-living matter, and its subsequent change over time. What Evolution Does Evolution tends to be a moving target. This is hardly surprising. After all, those who hold to this theory expect to account for all biodiversity we observe in the world, over a great amount of the purported 4.5 billion year history of life on Earth. To be sure, this is no small task, which is why so many question whether it has the goods. My interview with Dr. Micheal Behe discusses the abilities and inabilities of evolutionary mechanisms is far greater detail than we’ll go in this article, so I would encourage you to check it out. In short, though, evolution works by the invocation of a number of biological processes, most of which can be summarized by the statement, “random mutation acting on natural selection.” There is further clarification needed for the concept of “randomness.” There is quite some debate on what is meant by this term. The most common idea is that randomness is akin to “chance.” In other words, the changes that take place are random in that they could have been any other way—they just “happen” to be the way they are. Others seem to believe that “random” in this sense should be understood as, “irrespective of its usefulness to the organism.” While this clarification is more germane to the question of whether or not evolution can be a guided process, it’s still important to understand what is meant. We’ll assume the latter definition for the sake of argument. Virtually everyone agrees that natural selection occurs. In fact, it has to. It’s merely a way of representing the tautology that “those who are selected survive, and those who survive were selected.” In other words, survival of the fittest. Therefore, evolution works by impartial mutation of the genetic code, and only those mutations which prove beneficial to the organism will ultimately survive the refiner’s fire and be successfully integrated into the species population. While one may take issue with what evolution is ultimately able to accomplish, it is nevertheless true that it refers to the change that takes place over time in biological organisms. What Biogenesis Does Biogenesis is concerned with reproduction. In other words, how new organisms come to be. As described above, all life that we know of comes from another living organism. So biogenesis is not a molecular process, but rather a conceptual term describing the possibility of life to produce more life. Abiogenesis, in contrast, is a conceptual term which is defined as: “The generation of life from non-living material…[which] occurred through stepwise chemical and molecular evolution over millions of years.”2 Again, there is no process that is able to account for this leap; the term merely refers to the concept. What is clear, though, is that scientists do, in fact, appeal to the evolutionary development of life on Earth in order to explain abiogenesis. The problem is that there is zero physical evidence to support the fact that it took place. As organic chemist Dr. James Tour summarizes: Beyond our planet, all the others that have been probed are lifeless, a result in accord with our chemical expectations. The laws of physics and chemistry’s Periodic Table are universal, suggesting that life based upon amino acids, nucleotides, saccharides and lipids is an anomaly. Life should not exist anywhere in our universe. Life should not even exist on the surface of the earth. Therefore, by definition, abiogenesis does not take place by the same processes which allegedly drive biological evolution; nevertheless, a broad appeal to the evolutionary scenario—especially chemical and molecular evolution—is required to even entertain its plausibility.3 The Dependency Crisis As we have seen, there is evidence that both the evolutionists’ and creationists’ failure to properly define terms and concepts is a contributing factor to the confusion that often surrounds this topic. However, there is at least one more problem: Without abiogenesis, biological evolution has nothing to do. In other words, evolutionary mechanisms have nothing to act upon if life does not exist. We all recognize this point; it often leads the evolutionist to double-down: “We’re here, so evolution must have happened!” they might say. The problem is two-fold. First, that is a logical fallacy because that we are here is irrelevant to the question of how we are here. Second, it fails to appreciate that the entire evolutionary history of life can be called into question if, on the philosophical system which undergirds their theory (philosophical naturalism), life is not possible. If there’s no life, there’s no evolution. Thus, if life is not possible, there is strong reason to doubt that evolution has occurred. This means that even though they are distinct in meaning, evolution and abiogenesis are very much related and very much part of the same discussion. They need each other! Without one, the other fails. The post Evolution and Abiogenesis: Different, or the Same? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

The below is an excerpt from my upcoming book, How to Fall in Love with The Bible: And Beat Bible Boredom Once and For All. It has been slightly edited and formatted for publishing on the blog. Enjoy! — When we think about “context” there are certain concepts that come to mind involving grammar, genre, literary devices, and other linguistic features. More astute individuals will go even beyond this to include extra-biblical historical referents, where the text is within the larger canon of Scripture (including the surrounding passages), etc. These are all extremely important concepts and should be considered! I believe the context question is even more pervasive than that, though. Theologians choose to think about these things in a variety of ways, so rather than thinking there is a particular method to follow, it’s more as though there is a matrix of ideas that should be intentionally considered. We’ll briefly discuss five categories that I believe helpfully summarize the variety of contexts that must be considered when approaching the biblical text: Spiritual Here, the word supernatural would also be appropriate. Simply put, the Bible is a book that reports supernatural events. Naturalism and a biblical worldview are diametrically opposed to one another. This is important because many of us come from Christian traditions that have a predisposed bias against the supernatural. What is meant by supernatural? While the answer could quickly lead us into subject matter the length of another book, it’s important to grasp the basic idea here. A lengthy quote from Dr. Michael Heiser, in his book Supernatural, will be helpful: I’m not talking about the big stuff, such as whether Jesus was God come to earth, who then died on the cross and rose from the dead. I’m not even thinking of miracle stories like the exodus, when God rescued Israel from Egypt by making a way for them through the Red Sea. Most Christians would say they believe those things. After all, if you don’t believe in God and Jesus, or that they could do miraculous things, what’s the point of saying you’re a Christian? I’m talking about the little-known supernatural stuff you run into occasionally when reading the Bible but rarely hear about in church. Here’s an example. In 1 Kings 22, there’s a story about a wicked king of Israel, Ahab. He wants to join forces with the king of Judah to attack an enemy at a place called Ramoth-gilead. Judah’s king wants a glimpse into the future—he wants to know what’s going to happen if they attack. So the two kings ask Ahab’s prophets and get thumbs up all around. But those prophets are just telling Ahab what he wants to hear, and both kings know it. So they decide to ask God’s prophet, a fellow named Micaiah. What he says isn’t good news for Ahab: Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; and the LORD said, “Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?” And one said one thing, and another said another. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, “I will entice him.” And the LORD said to him, “By what means?” And he said, “I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.” And he said, “You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.” Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you. (1 Kings 22:19–23) Did you catch what the Bible’s asking you to believe? That God meets with a group of spirit beings to decide what happens on earth? Is that for real? Here’s another example, courtesy of Jude: And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day. (Jude 1:6) God sent a bunch of angels to an underground prison? Really? As I said, the Bible has a lot of strange things in it, especially about the unseen, spiritual world. I’ve met many Christians who have no trouble with the Bible’s less controversial (at least among Christians) teachings about the supernatural, such as who Jesus was and what he did, but passages like this tend to make them more than a little uneasy, so they ignore them. I’ve seen that tendency up close. My wife and I once visited a church where the pastor was preaching a series based on 1 Peter. The morning he hit 1 Peter 3:18–22, the first thing he said after getting behind the pulpit was, “We’re going to skip these verses. They’re just too weird.” What he meant by weird was that those verses contained supernatural elements that just didn’t fit into his theology. Such as: For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits—to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. (1 Pet. 3:18–20 NIV) Who—and where—were these imprisoned spirits? That pastor either didn’t know or didn’t like the answer, so he simply chose to ignore these verses. As a Bible scholar, I’ve learned that strange passages (and lots of other little-known and little-understood parts of Scripture) are actually very important. They teach specific ideas about God, the unseen world, and our own lives. Believe it or not, if we were aware of them and understood what they meant, as difficult and puzzling as they are, it would change the way we think about God, each other, why we’re here, and our ultimate destiny. The more I study the Bible, the more convinced I am that we need to take seriously the biblical claims about the unseen world. In fact, there’s a delicate balance between conspiracy theory and fact. Some people take this stuff too far; they see the devil behind every decision they don’t agree with. Others, as Dr. Heiser lamented, ignore it all together. It’s easier to brush it off than to admit the reality. If that’s you, I’ll remind you of the Apostle Paul’s words: Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. How often we find ourselves fighting the wrong battles! We tear down other people instead of realizing the true enemy to be the devil and his minions. A firm grasp of the unseen world is therefore a necessary precursor both to understanding your Bible and, frankly, being a fruitful Christian. Political As this and the next contextual marker will make clear, something that makes the biblical worldview so interesting is the extent to which it is situated in real history. That’s the really striking bit of information that counterbalances our last contextual marker; namely, that the Bible is riddled with echoes from another world. For biblical writers, there is not a sharp distinction between the “otherworldly” and this world. Rather, they are interconnected and affect each other in extremely significant ways. Understanding what is happening in the real world around the biblical writers, especially politically, is important for understanding much of the prophetic material in the Bible. It’s also helpful for grounding biblical events in the events of the day. Take, for example, Pontious Pilate. The Baker Encyclopedia writes of him: Appointed by Tiberius as the fifth prefect of Judea, and who served in that capacity from AD 26–36. He appears prominently in the trial narratives of the Gospels as the Roman governor who authorized Jesus’ crucifixion. In addition he appears in a variety of extrabiblical sources as a dispassionate administrator who relentlessly pursued Roman authority in Judea.1 Those extrabiblical mentions include the Roman writer Tacitus, who places him in direct connection with the crucifixion of Jesus, and also the Jewish historian Josephus, who describes three different incidents during the career of the prefect. Such information not only helps us date biblical information, but also contributes to the reliability and authenticity of the Scriptures. If the Scriptures report to us reliably about even the most insignificant of details, why not think they would report reliability about the important ones? To cherry pick information like this is to credit the biblical writers with precisely the level of intellect and acumen that skeptics want to deny them in other contexts. If the goal is to deal fairly with the data, then considering the political context of any given portion of Scripture will be an immensely helpful exercise. Cultural Similarly, the Bible was written in a particular time and place, and understanding more about the particular time and place in which passages of Scripture was written is helpful in determining authorship, whether editorial hands were monkeying with the text or not, etc. Additionally, we must understand that the biblical writers were not stupid; however, they just did not have access to the kind of information we have today. Therefore, Scripture will often report things with less scientific and historical precision than we would like, and will often make use of phenomenological and/or under-determinative language. They will write things as they see them and as they believe them to be, even if it differs from our current understanding. By way of example: for ancient cultures, the center of consciousness was not the brain; rather, it was the bowels (see Jer. 17:10, for example).2 A serious effort must be made to understand the manners, customs, and other cultural nuances of the biblical world. Again, this all works toward loving the Bible for what it is, rather than loving (or hating!) the Bible for something that it isn’t. Literary Only now do we return to some of those literary considerations mentioned above. In this category I am including such ideas as genre, literary devices, grammar, parts of speech, syntax, lexical concerns, and situation within the biblical canon. Each one of these is important and certainly warrants (and receives) attention in a hermeneutics book. However, as hopefully has been made clear, it seems to me these things alone are dramatically insufficient for understanding the biblical text. Interpreting the Bible is a holistic enterprise that will include the study of the actual words and their relationship to other words, sure; but even the words are beholden to the cultural, political, and spiritual contexts we’ve discussed. As just one example, consider hyperbole, a literary device we use all the time to intentionally exaggerate information in order to achieve a desired effect. If I say, “My son’s soccer team destroyed the other team last Saturday” you do not call the police because my son and his team have committed a serious crime and literally destroyed other people. The example seems almost silly, but we have to reckon with the presence of this kind of thing in the text of the Bible. Why not think they used language in much the same way? For biblical writers, though, the political and cultural contexts were different; therefore, it is reasonable to expect we might see this sort of literary device show up in ways that are not immediately obvious to us. Consider the example of Deuteronomy 7:1-3. This one passage is helpful because it includes not one, but two possible examples of ancient hyperbole: When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. Here’s the first example: The Hebrew word behind the phrase “utterly destroy” is haḥărēm. The idea is to “devote to destruction.” To be sure, regarding the conquest accounts, there is much conversation to be had. It certainly goes far beyond the discussion of just one Hebrew word. For now, though, note what Dr. Paul Copan has observed regarding use of such language in the ancient Near East: Joshua’s conventional warfare rhetoric was common in many other ancient Near Eastern military accounts in the second and first millennia BC. The language is typically exaggerated and full of bravado, depicting total devastation. The knowing ancient Near Eastern reader recognized this as hyperbole; the accounts weren’t understood to be literally true. This language, Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen observes, has misled many Old Testament scholars in their assessments of the book of Joshua; some have concluded that the language of wholesale slaughter and total occupation—which didn’t (from all other indications) actually take place—proves that these accounts are falsehoods. But ancient Near Eastern accounts readily used “utterly/completely destroy” and other obliteration language even when the event didn’t literally happen that way.3 In ancient times, hyperbole was often used in—get this—military annals. Doesn’t this make sense? It’s about bragging rights! The idea is to send a message to readers that we’re not playing around. Our team is big, bad, and dominates. And this is exactly the sense I used the term in my soccer team example, albeit with much less literal bloodshed. We don’t often think in these terms, but the evidence is plentiful, relatively speaking. The same was true in a theological sense, which leads into our second example of hyperbole found in this text. Notice that each nation Israel is to defeat is greater and mightier (i.e., larger) than she is. Why might this pose a problem? Because if we take the number of Israelites reported by the text literally, we end up with geographical and archaeological absurdity. This is a problem that has puzzled scholars of the Old Testament for years. One proposed solution argues that such inflated numbers are yet another example of ancient hyperbole.4 To be sure, this opinion is highly contested; some suggest it, along with other proposed solutions, may create more problems than taking the numbers at face value.5 Such scholars simply punt, suggesting that the text be taken at face value, while recognizing that there is likely some other consideration that may, in the future, provide a satisfactory answer. Regardless, my ultimate point stands: the biblical text is a product of the time in which it was written, and careful sensitivity to that fact will lead to more accurate interpretation of it. Interpretive This final contextual category has to do with the interpretation and application of the text to the life of the reader. This context is constrained by each of the categories already mentioned. Too many times, Bible study groups meet, read a text, and go around the room explaining what the text “meant to them.” The problem is that this relativizes Bible interpretation. When seeking to really understand how a concept, passage, or teaching from the Bible applies to our lives, we must first reach the proper interpretation of it. In an earlier chapter of the book, we noted in Jeremiah 29:11 two ways of interpreting the text. One way has God as the cosmic life coach; the other way, as the merciful Judge of the universe. The relativized approach would seem to suggest that both interpretations are correct, but this can’t be right. If the text means to teach particular truth that corresponds to reality, it can only have one meaning—the right one, whatever it is. In that passage it is obvious which interpretation is correct: God will show mercy on his people and has a plan for them, but judgment—by his hand—is first. The interpretive context, then, is the one that is allowed by the other contexts. We must be able to make application from the Bible to our lives, or else, the Bible has no purchase in our lives. But such application is based on proper interpretation; they are linked inextricably. Conclusion A proper evaluation and exegesis of the biblical text will necessitate the consideration of these contextual parameters. If you fail to consider these categories, only one conclusion, as mentioned above, follows: You either love the Bible for what it isn’t, or you hate the Bible for what it is. Neither of those are acceptable. The post The 5 Contexts of Biblical Interpretation appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Genesis 3:6-8 provides a sobering look into the human condition:And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.This familiar passage records the first instance of human sin—the event that set the downward spiral of the precious creation of God in motion.However, it also creates a theological puzzle for some. The passage here teaches that the Lord was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, looking for Adam. Believe it or not, there’s a legitimate question here, because how one sees this passage could actually lead one to find a particular genre of writing in the text. Let me set up the problem, and then we’ll discuss some of the ways theologians wrestle with this passage. The “Problem”The Bible tells us some things about the nature of God. It directly tells us he is a spirit (John 4:24), he made the world and everything in it and dwells in a temple not made with hands (Acts 17:24), he is immortal and no man can see him (1 Timothy 6:16), and he is eternal and invisible (1 Timothy 1:17). Indirectly, we can infer similar things from the text of the Bible. For example, the Bible assumes God exists from the very first verse. That verse, Genesis 1:1, says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” There is no word for “universe” in Hebrew—“the heavens and the earth” is a Hebrew merism, where two contrasting parts are used to indicate the whole. Thus, the point is everything other than God was created by God. But if all that is true—no one has seen God and he is immaterial by nature—how could he walk with Adam in the garden?This problem is compounded by the fact that God tells Moses in Exodus 33:20, “Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.” So if someone were to see God, he would die! How do we resolve this puzzle?The “Solutions”Over the years I have heard different positions that aim to account for this odd passage of Scripture:  It is merely a theophany.  It is merely anthropomorphic language.  It is both a theophany and anthropomorphic language. At first glance this may not seem like such a big deal, but based on what may be argued given the conclusion one reaches, it quickly becomes one. William Lane Craig, for example, argues that this passage utilizes merely anthropomorphic language, which would ostensibly place it squarely within the “mytho-historical” interpretation he has offered as of late.1We’ll define and discuss each of these solutions in turn. Merely a Theophany?A theophany refers broadly to a human-form or otherwise human-perceptible manifestation of Yahweh.2The verses in question would seem to evidence a visual manifestation of Yahweh—a theophany. The Lexham Bible Dictionary (LBD) defines the term as such:A theophany is an appearance of God that people can discern—not all appearances of God are recognized by people. The term comes from the Greek theos, “god,” and the verb phaino, “to appear” or “be revealed.”Since people cannot possibly process God’s nature as a disembodied, formless spirit, theophany allows God to make His presence known in a physical way that people can discern through their senses. Theophanies also address the problem in the Old Testament that people cannot withstand direct contact with the unfiltered divine presence (Exod 33:20; compare Deut. 5:24; Judg. 6:22, 23; 13:22). Theophany both protects people, and allows for contact with God.Theophanies in the Old Testament occur when God takes form in the natural world, as a phenomena (like wind, spirit, or the burning bush) or when God takes human form (like the Angel of Yahweh).3Does this event in Scripture qualify? There are varying opinions. Some believe that this event does not qualify because there is language missing that seems to be present in other pericopes which are ostensibly more obvious instances of theophany. Craig argues along these lines in response to a questioner:There are lots of theophanies in the Old Testament. But is that the most plausible interpretation of Genesis 2-3? I raised two reasons for thinking that it is not: (1) Genesis 2-3 lack the language indicative of a theophany. In Genesis 18.1 we read, “And the Lord appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre. . . .” There is nothing like that in Genesis 2-3. (2) God is described anthropomorphically in Genesis 2-3 even when He is not appearing to anyone. The first example is in the description of His fashioning Adam out of the dust of the earth and breathing into his nostrils the breath of life. This cannot be an appearance to Adam because Adam wasn’t even alive yet! The second example is God’s fashioning Eve out of Adam’s rib. Since God had put Adam to sleep to perform this surgery, God cannot be appearing to Adam, since he is unconscious (and, of course, Eve doesn’t even exist yet, so God isn’t appearing to her).Now you challenge my first reason for thinking that Genesis 2-3 are not describing theophanies. You point out that the language of “appearing” is absent from some theophanies. Consider the cases cited from the Pentateuch, since these are the relevant cases for Genesis. Notice that although Jacob’s wrestling with a man in Genesis 32.22-30 does not use the language of God’s appearing to him, it is so characterized in retrospect: “God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Paddan-aram, and blessed him. And God said to him, ‘Your name is Jacob; no longer shall your name be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name’” (Gen 35.9-10), the very re-naming of Jacob mentioned in the wrestling episode. Similarly, Genesis 35.1 says, “God said to Jacob, ‘Arise, go up to Bethel, and dwell there; and make there an altar to the God who appeared to you when you fled from your brother Esau,” referring back to Jacob’s dream in Genesis 28.10-17. Jacob’s life was apparently punctuated by a series of divine theophanies providentially directing Jacob.In some cases there are other expressions that tip off the reader that one is dealing with a theophany. For example, in the appearance to Hagar [n.b. not Exodus 3.7-13, but Genesis 16.7-13], we encounter the mysterious figure of “the angel of the Lord,” who is described as an angel and yet also as Lord and God. In Genesis 31.3-13 Jacob describes a similar figure in a dream who is both “the angel of God” (v 11) and yet “the God of Bethel” (v 13), Who, you’ll remember, appeared to Jacob there (Genesis 35.1). In the appearance to Moses in Exodus 3.2, we read, “the angel of the Lord appeared to him.”Now in Genesis 2-3 this sort of language is entirely missing. There is neither language of God’s appearing nor of the mysterious angel of the Lord. These stories just don’t read like theophanies.Taken together with my second point, that in Genesis 2-3 God is described anthropomorphically even when He is not appearing to anyone, I think that construing the human descriptions of God in Genesis 2-3 as literary anthropomorphisms is more plausible than taking them to be literal theophanies.Prima facie, Craig makes a compelling case. However, there is one a priori assumption undergirding his response which threatens the entire argument: Although the language of appearance nor the language of the angel is present here, why think we must look for them? Given how Old Testament scholars define the term theophany, there is quite a broad range of applications. Here’s the LBD on manifestations in the Old Testament: In the Old Testament, God appears in various ways—including as a force of nature. These forms are manifested in storms, accompanied by thunder and lightning (Exod 19:16; 2 Sam 22:12–16; Pss 18:9–12 [MT 10–13]; Amos 1:2; Zech 9:14). Closely associated with these natural appearances is God’s manifestation in the form of fire (Gen 15:7; Exod 3:2; 19:18; Deut 1:33; Judg 6:21; 2 Chr 7:1; Neh 9:12, 19) and smoke (Exod 19:18; 2 Sam 22:9; Psa 18:18; Isa 4:5; 6:4). God’s presence is sometimes accompanied by things similar to volcanic activity (Exod 19:18; Deut 4:11; Pss 97:5; 104:32; Nah 1:5, 6) as well as earthquakes (Exod 19:16–25; Pss 68:7–8; Isa 29:5–6), and clouds (Exod 13:21; 34:5; Num 9:15–22; Ezek 1:4).Outside of these elemental theophanies, God is pictured in human forms as well. Adam and Eve hear the sound of God walking in Eden (Gen 3:8), Abraham is visited by three men at Mamre (Gen 18:1–2), Jacob wrestles with God as he appears as a man (Gen 32:24, 28), and Moses views God’s back (Exod 33:18–23). The Angel of the Lord, who conveys divine messages (Gen 16:7–12; 21:17–18; Num 22:32–35), sometimes turns out to be God himself (Gen 18:16–17; Num 22:22–35; Judg 6:11–23; 13:3–22; Zech 3:1–2). God also appears as a divine warrior, leading Israel into battle (Exod 15; Deut 33:2; Psa 24:8) and at times fighting against Israel because of their disobedience (Isa 9:8–10:11 [MT 9:7–10]; Mic 1).4As is made clear from visiting even a few of the above-referenced passages, for scholars of the Old Testament, no such restriction as “appearance language” or “the mysterious Angel of the Lord” is made on classifying a theophanic manifestation. Thus, Craig’s assessment on this point assumes what it trying to prove by improperly defining the criteria for an Old Testament theophany. But more to the point, the passage does not seem to be merely theophanic in nature. It does seem to include anthropomorphic language; that is, language that attributes human characteristics to God. We’ll return to the synthesis of these concepts in a moment. For now, let’s discuss if the language contained in this pericope could be merely anthropomorphic.Merely Anthropomorphic Language?I mentioned above that it may not be immediately obvious why such an obscure-sounding issue matters—I also hinted that it may have something to do with identifying the genre of a text. In fact, this is the trajectory Craig leans upon in his argument for taking this pericope as a mere “literary anthropomorphism.” For if this instance and others like it recorded in Genesis 2-3 are not theophanic but are merely anthropomorphic, they could properly belong to the folkloric category of myth.5 Craig explains further:Read in light of Genesis 3, God’s creation of Adam in Genesis 2 takes on an anthropomorphic character as well. Here God is portrayed (like the Mesopotamian goddess Nintur shaping bits of clay into a human being, or the Egyptian God Khnum sitting at his potter’s wheel forming man) as fashioning man out of the dust of the ground and then breathing into his nostrils the breath of life so that the earthen figure comes to life. We’re not told whether God similarly formed the animals when, “out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and bird of the air” (Genesis 2:19) but we can’t help but wonder if they weren’t formed in the same way as man. When God takes one of the sleeping Adam’s ribs, closes up the flesh, and builds a woman out of it, the story sounds like a physical surgery which God performs on Adam, followed by his building a woman out of the extracted body part. Similarly, given God’s bodily presence in the Garden, the conversations between God and the protagonists in the story of the Fall (namely Adam, Eve, and the serpent) read like a dialogue between persons who are physically present to one another. God’s making garments for Adam and Eve out of animal skins and driving them out of the Garden sound again like physical acts by the humanoid God. Given the exalted transcendent nature of God described in the creation story, the Pentateuchal author could not possibly have intended these anthropomorphic descriptions to be taken literally. They are in the figurative language of myth.For Craig then, these instances (along with others he mentions about the water cycle and tree of life) are “fantastic” (palpably false) and are therefore intended to be figurative and symbolic. To clarify the significance of this, if Craig can show that this passage utilizes merely literary anthropomorphism, he can avoid the need to interpret this passage as though the events took place as stated—a view that the theophanic interpretation would require.But to what does he appeal to take this position? In the above quotation which is most directly applicable to the question asked by this article, he seems to appeal to two places: The existence of the “clay” motif found in other ancient sources. The contrast between the “exalted nature of God” in the creation story and what would seem to be implied by taking these descriptions literally.  The ClayWith respect to the first, I find this an odd position for Craig to take. The reason is that he denies a functional (or, vocational) view of the image of God because the closest ancient Near Eastern (ANE) parallel to the idea he could find in his research comes out of Egypt, where the image is tied to incarnation—an obvious departure from the biblical account. In a similar fashion, as we’ll see, the biblical account seems to starkly contrast those Craig mentions.Craig also readily denies the notion that the stories in Genesis have been merely borrowed from other cultures and demythologized. But given all of these were written down prior to the biblical account, he would seem forced to take a sort of “shared history” position when it comes to ANE parallels—meaning the reason for the similarities in the text is the shared history these people groups once had prior to the dispersion at Babel in Genesis 11. But if this is the case, we need not assume Genesis shares the same genre as these other texts! Instead, we can look to the Genesis story for the true, historical description, and take the other occurrences throughout the ANE as distortions of the true event.Now this may seem like special pleading at first, but I think there are at least three reasons to think it is not. First, there are many clear differences between the way the account is recorded in Genesis and the way these accounts are presented in ANE literature.6 This is a giant topic and one we cannot spend time on here. Suffice it to say that in nearly all cases, reading the creation account in Genesis beside even the closest of similar accounts from around the ancient world reveals drastic differences, a contention Craig agrees with. Thus, for Craig to appeal to similarity with other myths here seems to contradict his belief in how strikingly different these passages are when compared to others from around the ANE.Second, these texts give every expected indication of Hebrew historical narrative. In their paper Genesis 1-11 as Historical Narrative, Phillips and Fouts provide 11 reasons to think these portions of Scripture represent Hebrew historical narrative. They conclude:In short, there are numerous grammatical, contextual, and theological reasons to believe that Genesis 1-11 is Hebrew historical narrative. Included among the implications which follow from such a position are that 1) humanity’s origin is taken back to Adam on Day Six of the Creation Week; 2) the age of humanity is directly tied to and derivable from the historical “chrono-genealogies” in Genesis 5 and 11; and 3) the burden of exegetical proof rests on anyone who interprets the days of the creation week to mean anything other than 24 hour days.Since these passages were written in Biblical Hebrew, we should use what is known of Biblical Hebrew texts in to determine their genre. While symbolic and/or figurative writing can certainly contain historical information, the degree to which the information is historical is quite vague.7 Since these passages are likely written narratively, the biblical clay motif is most plausibly to be read in factual terms.Third and finally, the biblical clay motif is written more realistically—that is to say, it actually lacks the sort of fantastic detail that the extra biblical accounts Craig mentions contain. This seems to be the case with respect to other pericopes in Genesis 1-11 as well, such as the flood story. Opinions vary widely. Some think the biblical flood never happened, some think it was only regional, some think it was worldwide, etc. However, one virtually undeniable fact is that the biblical flood story is more realistic than any other of Israel’s neighbors as studies (like this one) have shown. We have also covered some of that material before, here.In Genesis 3, notice that we do not see any mention of the potter’s wheel, an exaggerated explanation of shaping the individual, or anything of the sort. The text merely says, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7).This is hardly fantastic or surprising; after all, Jesus uses clay to heal/restore a blind man during his earthly ministry. How might God have described this account differently for ancient readers whose vocabulary lacked scientific precision? In fact, the stark difference brings to mind another stark difference which Craig often mentions himself in debates and lectures: The legendary retelling of the empty tomb story found in the pseudepigraphical Gospel of Peter, which contains such fantastic details as a talking cross which extends up into the heavens! Critics argue that the canonical gospel accounts do in fact include legendary details though, such as the angel who was present. How does Craig anticipate this notion? Here’s the fourth leg of his argument for the historicity of the empty tomb narrative: 4. The nature of the narrative itself is theologically unadorned and nonapologetic. The resurrection is not described, and we have noted the lack of later theological motifs that a late legend might be expected to contain. This suggests the account is primitive and factual, even if dramatization occurs in the role of the angel.Notice that, on the basis of what is missing, Craig concludes we have historical writing here, despite the fact that one motif might have some sort of literary “dramatization.” This does not lead him to conclude it is not factual. Now, if Craig were responding to my accusation, he might take issue because of the genre of the gospels. But that just is the issue! Sure—the gospels are demonstrably Greco-Roman biography. And I believe that the narratives in Genesis are demonstrably Hebrew historical narrative. On that assumption, a mere reference to God’s forming man from dust is hardly like anything we see in the ancient Near Eastern world.For these reasons and more, I believe Craig’s first reason, the clay motif, is not sufficient to show that this account is mythological in nature.8The Exalted Nature of GodThe second of Craig’s reasons, which I have paraphrased as, “The contrast between the ‘exalted nature of God’ in the creation story and what would seem to be implied by taking these descriptions literally,” seems extremely vague. It seems to me the entire biblical record is clear about the exalted transcendent nature of God, and yet, it describes his interactions with humankind within spacio-temporal history. Theologically, it would seem preferable to read the account this way! In ANE traditions, humanity is an afterthought. They are created to be subservient to the gods, do their bidding, feed them, etc. In contrast, the biblical record presents the one, true transcendent creator God who wanted a human family, and so created mankind in his image that he may be able to love and commune with God. And in fact, he is not far removed, but rather has a regular, in-present, communal relationship with those whom he first created. Therefore, the very fact which Craig thinks undermines taking this anthropomorphism literally actually seems to argue for taking it literally. Is It Both?As is the case with many things in biblical interpretation, this may not be an “either/or” but rather a case of “both/and.” That is not to say that two contradictory notions can be true at the same time. It is merely to say that one identification may not necessarily rule out another. For example, can a passage be poetic and historical? Of course! Look no further than the song of Deborah in Judges 5. We have seen good reason to think that the passage in question, Genesis 3, has the hallmarks of both theophanic appearance and literary anthropomorphism. To take one view over the other does not do justice to the text. In fact, Heiser’s textual note in the Faithlife Study Bible argues that it is both:This signals that the writer wants the reader to picture God as a human being (an anthropomorphism) present in the garden of Eden. This is the first theophany in the OT—an appearance of God to human beings in a manner that can be processed by the human senses.9Thus, it simply strains the text to imagine it is theophanic over anthropomorphic, or vice versa. What Does it All Mean?As we have seen, while it may not appear significant at first glance, it turns out that if this passage can be said to be merely anthropomorphic, it may lend credence to the notion that this passage is “mytho-historical,” or at least contains mythic elements. But the evidence just does not bear this out. Instead we have seen reason to think that Old Testament scholars have correctly identified this as a theophanic appearance, which places it in the theologically satisfying position of being a literal view into God’s close communion with and condescension to his human imagers—right from the very beginning.The post God in the Garden in the Cool of the Day: A Man, or a Myth? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

The reductio ad absurdum is perhaps one of the most useful and important philosophical arguments. The Latin name given to the argument seeks to accurately describe it—that is, it means to “reduce to absurdity.” The point is easy to grasp, I think. An argument that is self-refuting is one that can be reduced to absurdity. This argument is a favorite among presuppositional apologists because the PA’s point is that non-Christian worldviews all reduce to absurdity. Although it’s tempting, I will refrain from spending too much time making that association here, but instead make a practical application to that end a bit later. So what’s an example of an argument that reduces to absurdity? Consider the following statement: All knowledge is derived from the use of the five senses.But there’s a problem. The statement makes a knowledge claim which was not derived from the five senses! The claim is a philosophical one that reduces to absurdity because it cannot sustain its own burden. Since one could not know via the five senses that all knowledge derives from them, this claim is self-refuting and, therefore, absurd. Many don’t realize how this thinking has crept into everyday use. Consider the wayward child who wishes to follow his friends in a risky endeavor, despite knowing the potential consequences: “But everybody will be there!” he protests.Mom and dad, in their wisdom, reply to the child: “Oh yeah, well if everybody jumped off a bridge, would you do that too?” The point is that if you follow the child’s thinking to its logical conclusion, it creates an absurd situation.We see this kind of thing in popular New Atheist arguments. “Only the hard sciences provide truth.” Really? Is it true that only the hard sciences provide truth? If so, then the claim is false, because we did not apprehend that truth by using the hard sciences. The most common and potentially most recognizable is the post-modernists’ claim that there is no truth. But if it’s true that there is no truth, then it’s also true that there is truth—a glaring contradiction.As you see, this can be a very powerful tactic, because a surprising number of arguments which seek to set themselves up against the knowledge of God fall into this trap.Speaking of tactics…TacticsOne of my favorite authors, Greg Koukl, calls this the “Taking the Roof Off” tactic in his book, Tactics. He provides a helpful illustration to set up the study:If you were visiting Los Angeles and wanted to go to Santa Barbara up the coast, someone might draw a map to guide you to your destination. If, however, you followed the instructions very carefully and took the highway they suggested but found yourself in Riverside, on your way to the desert, you would know something was wrong with the route you were given. In a similar fashion, worldviews are like maps. They are someone’s idea of what the world is like. The individual ideas making up a worldview are like highways leading to different destinations. If you use the map but arrive at a strange destination, either part of the map is inaccurate (the part about the highway you were driving on), or the map itself is the wrong one for the region. I realize that this last option is not likely when you are talking about real maps. I doubt you would try to find your way around New York using a map of Chicago. But this kind of thing happens all the time with worldviews. Sometimes the roads are wrong on otherwise good worldview maps. At other times, worldview maps are inadequate for the actual terrain.1He is making a grand point here. Many people make this simple mistake at the worldview level—a level which, as Koukl demonstrates below, can lead to undesirable social consequences.Koukl explains a scenario in which Mother Teresa attempted to lobby for the forgiveness of a criminal. This demonstrates just how important the concept of the reductio is—it can have disastrous consequences in our thinking:Mother Teresa once appealed to the governor of California to stay the execution of a vicious double murderer. She reasoned that since Jesus would forgive, the governor should forgive. Though the intentions were good, the argument itself proves too much, as our tactic demonstrates. When applied consistently, this view becomes a reason to forgo any punishment for any crime, because one could always argue, “Jesus would forgive.” Emptying every prison does not seem to be what Jesus would advise, since great evil would result. Capital punishment might be faulted on other grounds, but not on this one. Here is the analysis. Claim: If Jesus would forgive capital criminals, then it is wrong to execute them. Taking the Roof Off: On this reasoning, it would be wrong for government to punish any criminal, because one could always say, “Jesus would forgive.” This seems absurd, especially when Scripture states that the purpose of government is to punish evildoers, not forgive them.Therefore: Even though Jesus might forgive murderers, that does not mean it is wrong for the government to punish them.2In a final example from Greg, it becomes clear that such arguments can literally lead to the difference in mentality between life and death:Virtually every argument in favor of abortion could equally justify killing newborns if pressed to its logical conclusion. If it’s acceptable to take the life of an innocent human being on one side of the birth canal, why forbid it on the other side? A seven-inch journey cannot miraculously transform a “nonhuman tissue mass” into a valuable human being. When someone justifies abortion by saying, “Women have the right to choose,” use a version of Taking the Roof Off called Trotting Out the Toddler. Ask if a woman should have the right to kill her one-year-old child for the same reason. Since both an unborn child and a one-year-old are human beings, the same moral rule should apply to each. The logic of choice, privacy, and personal bodily rights endangers newborns, not just the unborn. At the University of New Mexico, a student said we should abort children to save them from future child abuse. Former Stand to Reason speaker Steve Wagner “trotted out the toddler” in response. “Should we also kill two-year-olds to save them from future child abuse?” “I hadn’t thought about that,” the student said. And that’s the point. People don’t think about the logical implications of their ideas. It’s our job to help them see where their ideas logically take them.3A Monkey WrenchI should point out one liability, here. Not everything that sounds contradictory actually is. In a few moments we’ll examine biblical examples of the reductio, some of which are employed by Jesus himself. However, Jesus also taught paradoxical truths. Paradoxes are often surface-level contradictions that are not logically fallacious when examined closely. Many proverbs are like this as well. They are designed to create tension in your thinking for the purpose of making you dig deeper and think harder. For example, when Jesus says, “He who is first shall be last,” he is saying something that is broadly logically contradictory. In an undefined sense, if someone is first, he cannot be last. However, Jesus’ point was that someone who takes all for himself now (a selfish person) will be placing themselves at the end of the line later. “They have their reward” and are therefore “last” in God’s kingdom. But someone who makes little of himself now for the good of others (a selfless person) will have a greater reward and will be “first” in God’s kingdom. What made me think of this point was actually the song I was listening to when finishing up the above section. The song is “Beautiful Terrible Cross” by Selah. The song is named this way, of course, intentionally. On the surface, we don’t normally think of beautiful things as being terrible. In our minds, these are logically contradictory ideas. Every line in the song is incredible, but this one in particular serves to make the point: Oh, we gained the riches of Heaven Jesus, You paid the horrible cost We stand forgiven and praise You For the beautiful terrible crossThe cross is beautiful because of what we gained; terrible because of what he had to give. The surprise engendered by the title requires us to think deeper about it. Again, it creates a sort of tension in our minds that will not let us rest until we understand what the writer means. In this way, even the title of a song has the potential to say more than some writers can say in an entire song. So paradoxes are useful and should not be considered contradictory.4Biblical Examples Let’s have a look at a couple of biblical examples. Jesus was quite the philosopher, and often stopped the pharisaical religious leaders in their tracks running reductio ad absurdum arguments on them.Consider the scene in Matthew 12:9-13. Jesus had just been in an altercation (vv. 1-8) with the Pharisees in which he also used a reductio, although it’s a harder one to spot. And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue: And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days. Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.Here, Jesus takes the Pharisees to task by pointing out the absurdity in their view. On what grounds was Jesus going to heal on the Sabbath? This would apparently be unlawful! And yet, Jesus knew (and so did they) that they’d have no issue rescuing one of their own sheep if it had fallen into a pit on the Sabbath. Therefore, the Pharisees’ argument was absurd. The Apostle Paul was another sound thinker. He was trained in the halls of Judaisms finest and brought a wealth of knowledge into his discussions with the Grecians. One of the Apostle’s most famous encounters found him before the Areopagus in Acts 17. Here are vv. 22-31:Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.Paul makes a calculated move here. It appears subtle to us, but his audience would’ve immediately felt the force of his point. In vs. 28, he is quoting Epimenides and Aratus, Greek writers and philosophers who wrote these words for Zeus, not Yahweh. What is Paul’s point? Throughout the pericope above, Paul is essentially making the point that the Grecians have a contradictory worldview because they are borrowing from the God of the Bible. They worship manmade idols as if they have the power and attributes of Yahweh.Paul declares the “unknown God” to them, who they’ve erected an altar for. His point is in line with his thinking in Romans 1:19-20. They worship the “unknown god” in ignorance. Yahweh is who they ought to worship, especially given that he gave all men assurance of his identity by raising from the dead (v. 31). In one swift move, he has reduced their entire worldview to absurdity by demonstrating that they direct worship toward a god who does not have the attributes required to produce the goods they worship him for.As you can hopefully see, we should not dismiss carefully thinking about these ideas because they appear to be abstract. If Jesus and Paul used them in the public square with the philosophers and religious leaders of their day, why think we should not do the same? In a day where we have many “armchair philosophers,” we should be ready to respond with careful thinking.Using it in PracticeIn Tactics, Koukl provides a helpful grid for using this in real conversation. First, distill the idea down to its most basic principle or assertion. Do the work to make sure you understand the claim correctly. Second, he suggests giving the idea a “mental test drive.” Ask yourself:If I follow this principle consistently, what are the consequences? What implications might it have for other issues? Does it take me somewhere that seems wrong, counterintuitive, or absurd? The answers to these questions may not be immediately obvious but often become clear later, after you have given the issue some thought.Finally, point the problem out to your interlocutor. Allow her the time to think carefully and reflect on the problem for herself, and to the extent possible, help her understand that she will have to modify her thinking in some way to remain consistent. By employing the reductio ad absurdum, you join a long list of philosophers, careful thinkers, and concerned parents who all realize that ideas have consequences, and absurd ones should be exposed for their irrationality. Whether the issue is justifying juvenile disobedience or defending a woman’s “right” to “choose,” bad ideas must be exposed. The reductio is a tactic that is simple to employ and yet is the death knell to bad thinking. I would invite you to learn more about it and begin to use it in conversation with others.The post The Art of the Reductio appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

I’ve recently been in a discussion with a friend of mine (and faithful reader of the blog!) about the divine council worldview. Among other things, we discussed concerns about the “gods” of Psalm 82. Here it is in its entirety: God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; He judgeth among the gods. How long will ye judge unjustly, And accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: Do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: Rid them out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither will they understand; They walk on in darkness: All the foundations of the earth are out of course. I have said, Ye are gods; And all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, And fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth: For thou shalt inherit all nations.There seem to be three primary ways of understanding this who the “gods” are in this passage, two of which involve humans and one of which involves heavenly beings: Israel’s judges Kings of other nations Spiritual beings  There’s a lot to unpack here, so first, let’s take a look at why each view claims what it does.  Judges. On this view, the “gods” are the judges God appointed over Israel prior to receiving their first king. The strongest argument for this view, in my opinion, is that these gods receive judgment from Yahweh for failing to do precisely those duties which God tasked the judges with. The New Bible Commentary notes: “So what does it all mean? (i) The ‘gods’ may be the shadowy but real ‘principalities and powers’ working their own evil way in the affairs of earth (Is. 24:21; Dn. 10:12–13, 20; Eph. 6:12). The OT occasionally uses ‘gods’/‘sons of God’ for angelic beings (8:5; Jb. 1:6). (ii) The duties specified in vs 2–4 are, however, those of Israel’s judges (Ex. 22:22–24; 23:6–7; Dt. 1:16–17; 10:17–18; 16:18–20); their work is to exercise ‘the Lord’s judgment’ (Dt. 1:17). To bring a case ‘before God’ and ‘before the priests/judges’ are interchangeable terms (Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 9; Dt. 17:8–13; 19:17). Furthermore, the Lord Jesus understood ‘gods’ as humans ‘to whom the word of God came’ (Jn. 10:35).1 Kings of other nations. Supporters of this position see the context brought into focus by vv. 7b-8 as requiring the kings of all other nations to be in view. Thus, this Psalm describes God’s judging the rulers of other nations for failing to take care of their people. Spiritual beings. Those who take this view rest their case on the meaning of the word elohim in v. 1. The word appears twice in this verse, the first time a singular reference (to Yahweh) and the second a plural (each demanded by the grammar of the verse). The argument suggests that God’s council is made up of other heavenly beings, and thus, God is standing in the midst of these heavenly beings; the lesser gods. They are being judged for their failure to do as he commanded and watch over the people over the nations.  There are multiple ways we could go about discussing this. For a fuller discussion of these passages, I would recommend Tim Chaffey’s Fallen.2 For our purposes, though, I am going to point out just a few of the biggest problems for each view, landing eventually on what I believe to be most likely correct. The Problem with Israelite JudgesFor me, it seems very compelling that the exact problem Yahweh has with these “gods” is the failure to perform duties that he assigned to Israel’s judges. Despite this, I believe the “judges” view faces some insurmountable problems.One problem is that the context is quite clearly all nations of the earth (see vv. 7b-8), and Israel’s judges were at no point given jurisdiction of the nations. In our dialogue, my friend mentioned that he thinks these two verses could be disconnected from the rest of the passage in the sense that, even if only judges are in view, the Psalm is merely closing with extolling God as the ruler of all nations. There are a least two problems with his solution. First of all, the word “judge” here is used. It is the same Hebrew lemma (or, dictionary word) as is used in v. 1. This would seem to indicate that this Psalm is presenting a holistic picture: The Psalmist is extolling God because he judges the nations and their leaders, including their gods. In other words, he judges among the gods of those nations. Further, this is made clearer when noting the “inheritance” language of v. 8b. Here’s the question to ask: Why does the Psalmist include the fact that all the nations belong to Yahweh? Does this credential somehow lend more credence to the notion that he stands in authority over the affairs of Israel? It’s not clear how. It seems to me that, as Israel’s God, he has authority of them regardless. However, if this Psalm is describing Yahweh’s right to judge all nations, even though he’s Israel’s God, its inclusion makes sense. We’ll return to this later when we discuss the “spiritual beings” view.A second problem is that Israelite judges are never granted a portion in God’s divine council elsewhere in Scripture, yet heavenly beings absolutely are (see Ps. 89:5-8). They are certainly never considered “sons of the Most High”—human “sons of God” are part of NT theology, not OT.A potential difficulty here arises from a discussion of Exodus 21 and 22, which in turn leads into a much larger discussion about what Scripture means by the term elohim. Chaffey sets up the problem:Meredith Kline cited Psalm 82 as evidence that Israelite judges were called ’elohim because of their God-like dignity and authority…It is true that many English Bibles have translated ’elohim as judges in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8–9. Contrary to Kline’s statement, the rationale for doing this was not based on ancient Jewish lofty views of their judges. Instead, the immediate context seemed to imply that human judges were in view. However, a closer examination reveals that even in these passages ’elohim does not refer to human judges.3Rather than rehash the arguments, let’s let Chaffey summarize his findings on the term elohim:Do all of these ’elohim have something in common? Put another way, how could God, false gods, angels, demons, and the spirit of Samuel all be called ’elohim? Well, they all seem to share a couple of attributes. With the exception of Jesus Christ, none of them possess a permanent physical body. Also, they are all residents of the spiritual realm, or more accurately, the spiritual realm is their primary place of operation.4He cites Heiser for agreement: Dr. Michael Heiser, an expert in ancient Near Eastern languages, agrees with defining ’elohim based on location. He explained that Christians struggle to wrap their minds around the flexibility of this term because we are accustomed to thinking of it only in relation to the God of the Bible. Since He possesses unique and unshared attributes, it is difficult to think of other entities being called ’elohim: “While it’s true that the word came to be used as a name for the God of Israel, the term itself has no essence that must be equated with Yahweh. The Old Testament passages…that have demons and spirits of the dead as elohim forbid such an equation. This equation must be dispensed with. The word elohim more broadly does not refer to “deity attributes.” Rather, it points to a plane of existence. An elohim is simply a being whose proper habitation is the spirit world.” 5To summarize: A study of the word elohim in Scripture reveals that each and every time (out of 2,876 times) the word is mentioned in Scripture, it is clearly referring to a member of the unseen world, with the potential exception of two pericopes in Exodus. Thus, either the passage at present (Psalm 82) argues, along with Exodus, that human judges can be called elohim, or the passages in Exodus have been incorrectly translated this way. Given the clarity and overabundance of times this word is used to point to spiritual beings, it would seem to require a pretty airtight case that translating the word as human judges is correct, or even warranted, in these passages. Put another way, if it can easily mean “God” and the translation judges is not demanded by the context, it would seem more reasonable to translate them in this way. Both passages in question refer to bringing someone “before the judges.” But as Chaffey notes, these passages would more sensibly be translated “before God,” given the way such terminology is used elsewhere in the surrounding passages. He writes: We need to keep in mind that when this law was given, God was actually in the midst of the Israelite community—His divine presence was in the tabernacle—and someone could really be brought before Him. In fact, throughout this section of the Bible, several verses speak of people who must come before the Lord...Look at each of the following verses that speak of people coming before God. In the first two verses, it is the same word, ’elohim, that is used, and the NKJV translates it as “God.” Then Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took a burnt offering and other sacrifices to offer to God [’elohim]. And Aaron came with all the elders of Israel to eat bread with Moses’ father-in-law before God [’elohim]. (Exodus 18:12, NKJV) Listen now to my voice; I will give you counsel, and God [‘elohim] will be with you: Stand before God [‘elohim] for the people, so that you may bring the difficulties to God [’elohim]. (Exodus 18:19) Three times in the year all your males shall appear before the Lord GOD. (Exodus 23:17) Now He said to Moses, “Come up to the LORD [YHWH], you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and worship from afar. And Moses alone shall come near the LORD [YHWH], but they shall not come near; nor shall the people go up with him.” (Exodus 24:1–2) By comparing these passages we see that the Israelites were expected to come before the Lord for a variety of reasons. This may have been done during certain religious ceremonies and legal matters, or even under special circumstances. So it would be consistent to follow the example of the ESV to translate ’elohim as “God” in Exodus 21:6 and 22:9 instead of introducing a novel interpretation of the word that is not found anywhere else in Scripture.6Given the above, there is not a shred of biblical support for the legitimacy of translating Psalm 82’s elohim as the human judges of Israel. The Hebrew word Is most plausibly used only of unseen entities, and restricting these gods to Israel’s judges fails to explain the larger context of all nations given by the passage. The Problem with Kings of Other NationsBelieve it or not, this view is even less likely than the judges view given above, which may sound odd given that much of the above discussion focused on “all the nations” being the correct context.Above, a problem I mentioned with the judges view was that they “are never granted a portion in God’s divine council elsewhere in Scripture, yet heavenly beings absolutely are (see Ps. 89:5-8). They are certainly never considered “sons of the Most High”—human “sons of God” are part of NT theology, not OT.”The same exact problem applies here. God certainly does not confer with the earthy kings of other nations as part of his council. Nor are they considered “sons of God” or “sons of the Most High.” We also saw above that elohim, the word rendered gods in English, is a term that applies to spiritual beings in over 2,500 places in Scripture, and is quite arguably not once used to denote an earthly being. Obviously, this would apply to earthly kings as well as earthly judges. So while the judges view at least has another place in Scripture where translation decisions may have an impact on how we understand the term, we have nothing in Scripture that would seem to help the earthly kings view. An additional problem with the kings view is introduced by vs. 7. The verse says that these elohim will die like humans and fall (or, again, die) like any other ruler. The force of this judgment seems quite benign since men will always die like men. However, in some ancient cultures, it is true that their kings were often viewed as having some sort of divine capacity and were given unique memorial and burial rituals. Is this what the biblical text is referring to? That they would not receive special veneration at their funerals? That seems unlikely because it would imply that Yahweh recognized these rituals as having at least some sort of legitimacy. Further, just because there was some association between deity and kingship in certain cultures did not make such kings any less human! Certainly, God would not recognize them as such.Finally, in our dialogue, my friend asserted that v. 7 would be problematic for the spiritual beings view (and thus, support a human view) since spiritual beings cannot die like men. For to do so, they would have to first live like a man. And further, humans have two deaths: Physical and spiritual, whereas spiritual beings only have one (spiritual).Here was my response:I think the biggest problem is that your points depend on taking the phrase “like men” in an extremely literal sense. This is a Psalm. When Tim McGraw says he hopes that, someday, we get the chance to “live like we are dying” he is not implying that we should live as though we are on our deathbed, in the hospital, eating terrible food. But instead, that we should “live life to the fullest.” In other words, there’s a sense in which the phase can be taken that expresses the writers point, given the context. It seems to me this is the same kind of idea. God is not saying these gods will have to become like a man, die two deaths, have a chance at redemption, etc. Instead he seems to be saying, “Your mortality is conditional. Your status (as a son of the Most High) does not protect you. Just because you are a son of God does mean you cannot die like a man.”Therefore, it would appear something else entirely is going on here. The “Problem” with the Spiritual Beings ViewI placed the word “problem” in air quotes above not because I wanted to front-load this view with the idea that there are no problems, but rather, because the potential problems are of an altogether different nature. Really, there is only one problem; it’s simple to understand, but it’s a doozy:If this view is true, spiritual beings called gods exist that are not Yahweh.This would seem to be a big problem given the way most have traditionally understood Israelite monotheism.7Note something telling, though—there’s no textual problem with this approach. That is to say, the text itself not only allows this interpretation, but argues for it, since the plain meaning of elohim elsewhere denotes spiritual beings. Is this problem insurmountable for the spiritual beings view?Positive Argument for Spiritual Beings in Psalm 82This passage seems to be just one idea in the matrix of the Divine Council Worldview (DCW). Put succinctly, this view maintains that the gods of other nations around Israel were real—not like Yahweh in the sense of his attributes, but like him insofar as they are members of the unseen world.8There are three chief elements in the passage which, in my opinion, show this is unmistakably a divine council scene: (1) the language of the council, (2) Yahweh’s identification of the council, and (3) the language of Yahweh’s inheritance. The Language of the Council The first “tell” that this is a divine council scene comes, not surprisingly, from the Hebrew words that tell us it is. In transliterated Hebrew, it looks like this:mizmor le’asaph elohim nitstsav ba’adath-el beqerev elohim yishpoThe text pretty much says: “God has taken his place in the divine council (or, assembly).”That such a council exists is clear both from Scripture and even outside of Scripture. First, Scripture teaches this concept in numerous places, and can be seen in many passages throughout the Hebrew Bible.9Aside from Psalm 82, this idea is perhaps taught most clearly just a few chapters later, in Psalm 89:5-8:And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O Lord: Thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints. For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? Who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord? God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, And to be had in reverence of all them that are about him. O Lord God of hosts, Who is a strong Lord like unto thee? Or to thy faithfulness round about thee?Unfortunately, some translations seem to obscure the meaning of this passage by translating the word qedoshim as “saints.” The liability here is that we tend to import our understanding of the word “saint” (i.e., our deceased Christian loved ones) into this passage, when that is not at all what is in view. It’s important to realize that in Jewish theology, there is no such idea as “to be absent with the body is to be present with the Lord.” Again, this is Christian thinking and would not be found anywhere in Hebrew writing. For Hebrews, the departed dead go to a sort of intermediary place known as Sheol. The hope of the ancient Israelite was that, at the final resurrection, Yahweh would rescue them from Sheol to live with him.10As it turns out, most translators (I think rightly) render this passage as “holy ones.” Chaffey comments:There are clear references to the divine council in these verses, such as the “assembly of the holy ones” (v. 5) and the “council of the holy ones” (v. 7). The Hebrew word for “holy ones” is qedoshim, and it can refer to holy people, holy angels, or even the author of holiness, God, as it does in Proverbs 9:10. Some Christians have sought to identify this assembly as a group of holy people that worship the Lord, but the context makes this interpretation implausible. The setting is undoubtedly in “the heavens” (v. 5), also called “the skies” (v. 6) or literally, the “clouds.” God is referred to as “LORD God of hosts” a term widely acknowledged as a reference to God ruling over angelic beings. There can be little question that heavenly beings are in view in these verses. Verse 6 makes this point even stronger when it asks the rhetorical question, “Who among the heavenly beings is like the LORD?” Obviously, the answer is that there are none like Yahweh among the other heavenly beings. The words translated as “heavenly beings” are bene elim, which could just as accurately be translated as “sons of God.”11Therefore, Psalm 82 appears to be setting the scene as God presiding in judgment over his divine council for their transgressions. Second, the “council” is not merely an Israelite idea; most ancient cultures have a very similar concept. In fact, a perfectly legitimate translation of Psalm 82:1 would be that God has taken his place in “the council of El.” While most assume that “El” is just another name for Yahweh, it is that, but more. It’s the proper name for the Canaanite high god. Thus, some see this passage as a polemic against the Canaanite religion in much the same way the 10 plagues served as a polemic against the gods of Egypt. In other words, the passage would be depicting a scene where Yahweh takes his rightful place in the midst of El’s council (an invasion of sorts) and pronounces judgment on them for their treatment of their people.It certainly appears to have this effect; there’s no reason, however, to think the passage holds merely polemical intent, given the overabundance (mentioned above) of Scriptural references to Yahweh’s council and its participants. The point is that the existence of a divine council is found throughout ancient writings. Some seem to think this means the Israelites would have held the opposite view of these ancient cultures, but, at least in this case, such a position is demonstrably false. Yahweh’s Identification of the CouncilIn v. 6, we see our second “tell” that this is a divine council scene; namely, Yahweh tells precisely who these gods were. According to God himself, these individuals are children (or, sons) of the Most High. Although some commentators want to see the Israelite judges in view with this phrase, we have already seen reason to think that understanding is unlikely. “Sons of the Most High” is the Hebrew bene elyon, and could be legitimately translated “sons of God.”12 Such a designation is well-known by biblical scholars as being a reference to heavenly beings (see Genesis 6:1-4, Job 1:6, Job 38:7, etc). Job 38:7 is a particularly helpful example for our purposes:When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?In the verse above, God is responding with a host of rhetorical questions to the diatribe that has been the book to this point. There are many poetic elements happening in these passages (Job 38-40). One of the ways we identify Hebrew poetry is the presence of couplets, commonly called “parallelism.” While English poetry rhymes with sound, Hebrew poetry “rhymes” with ideas.Thus, the same ideas are being expressed, using slightly different language, in v. 7a and 7b above. Whatever the “morning stars” are, so are the sons of God. Many scholars seem to think that ancient cultures, even the ancient Hebrews, thought the stars were literally divine beings since they moved in the sky. But even if that is not the case, there is always tight association in the biblical text between angelic or heavenly beings and so-called “star language.”13What’s more, the context of the passage makes clear these cannot be humans, since they are rejoicing with Yahweh as he creates the earth! So we see here a tight association: sons of the Most High (God) are just sons of God, which are clearly identified throughout the Hebrew Bible as heavenly beings. Yahweh therefore identifies exactly who he is talking to in this divine council scene. There is one more striking piece to discuss here, though I saved it for last because it is part of New Testament theology. Since we, as believers, view the entire Bible as inspired, it is important to see what New Testament authors thought about the usage of Old Testament terms and passages. In Luke 1, we see the announcement to Mary from the angel Gabriel. He declares to her: And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. (Luke 1:31-33)The phrase “Son of the Highest” is the same thing as “Son of the Most High.” Jesus is the Son of the Most High! Whether or not Scripture teaches God can have more than one “son” is well beyond the scope of this post; suffice it to say that it sure seems possible, given the Old Testament evidence above.14.What seems to follow from this is that these other “sons of the Most High” are at least in some ways similar to the Son of the Most High! Mere humans are not in view; Jesus was not a mere human, and neither were the sons of God.The Language of Yahweh’s InheritanceThere are two lesser-known concepts extremely important to forming a sound biblical theology: Inheritance and allotment. Allow me to briefly summarize the concept. The Bible teaches that, at the Tower of Babel incident in Genesis 11, God scattered the nations and placed them under the jurisdiction of the lesser gods. Then, he supernaturally intervened to create for himself a people from Abram and Sarai: Israel. This is most clearly taught in Deuteronomy 32:7-8:Remember the days of old, Consider the years of many generations: Ask thy father, and he will shew thee; Thy elders, and they will tell thee. When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, When he separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people According to the number of the children of Israel.One thing in this passage might stand out as immediately problematic, though. The text says the nations were divided according to the children of Israel. But Babel (i.e., the division of the nations) took place prior to the establishment of Israel! Furthermore, the nations at Babel were divided into 70 (see Genesis 10); there were only 12 tribes of Israel. What is going on here?Chaffey explains:Most English translations follow the Masoretic Text in verse 8 and instead of “sons of God” they have “sons of Israel” (bene yisrael). So why does the ESV have “sons of God” and the NET Bible have “heavenly assembly”? If you look at the text notes in most Bibles you will find the answer. The Septuagint has always had “angels of God” or “sons of God” in this verse. Two fragments of this verse have been discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which predate the Masoretic Text. One fragment has bene ’elohim and the other fragment is incomplete, but it has bene ’el (the rest of the word is not present). Obviously, the word was not Israel in this text, but it could easily have been ’elohim or ’elim. Either one of these names would have yielded the same meaning: the sons of God.15What may surprise you is just how much Moses writes about this event! Here’s Deuteronomy 4:19-20:And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven. But the Lord hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day.And Deuteronomy 29:24-26:Even all nations shall say, Wherefore hath the Lord done thus unto this land? what meaneth the heat of this great anger? Then men shall say, Because they have forsaken the covenant of the Lord God of their fathers, which he made with them when he brought them forth out of the land of Egypt: For they went and served other gods, and worshipped them, gods whom they knew not, and whom he had not given unto them:Chaffey provides a very helpful summary which brings us back around to Psalm 82:As strange as it may seem to modern readers, when we put all of these passages together, we see that God gave control of one nation to each bene ’elohim of the divine council. Or put another way, he allotted gods to each of the nations, although He kept Israel for Himself. He charged these gods to rule justly, and now we know why—so that the people would seek God [see Acts 17:26-27]. But we learn from Psalm 82 that they showed partiality to the wicked (v. 2) rather than providing justice. They failed to uphold the practices God required of them, such as defending the poor and fatherless and being just toward the afflicted and needy (v. 3). Do you remember the last line of that psalm? It will make more sense now that we’ve looked at these three passages in Deuteronomy. Psalm 82:8 states, “Arise, O God, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations” (ESV). At Babel, God gave the bene ’elohim authority over the nations, except for the one nation He would start with one man and his barren wife (Abram and Sarai). By the time Psalm 82 was written, the divine council members had failed miserably in their assigned tasks. They had led their own peoples into idolatry and injustice. Consequently, they deserved to be judged, and Yahweh would inherit all the nations.16From the above, it seems clear to me that any attempt to make human judges or pagan rulers out of Psalm 82 just fails to reckon with the other biblical data which speaks of these events and the existence of God’s heavenly council.ConclusionAlthough there are a lot of ideas here, and some of it may be new to you, you should not be alarmed or overwhelmed. This view has gospel implications, but only in the sense that it makes more of the mission of Jesus. Certainly, nothing is taken away from the gospel by the divine council worldview, and therefore, you can rest easy knowing that this information and context, while helpful to have, is not something to fret over. We want to be careful students of the text; if nothing else, perhaps this little exercise will be helpful in showing you how to penetrate the text a bit deeper and discover concepts you’ve never noticed before. Thank God, all nations are his, and all people who will call on his name, are his! That means you and me! And for that, there is reason to rejoice.The post Who are the “gods” of Psalm 82? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

What is ministry? The word “ministry” has a variety of contexts, and I think it’s something quite often misunderstood. There’s a danger in thinking you are not really in ministry unless you are serving full time in a pastoral position. I think this is quite mistaken thinking. It is true that certain people are called by God to do specific tasks that we often associate with “ministry”—however, as we’ll discuss below there’s much more to it than that. More Than Professional Right off the bat, it seems clear to me that ministry is something that goes beyond being a pastor, elder, or deacon for a local church. The word most often translated “ministry” in the New Testament is diakonia. It appears 34 times and in a variety of contexts. It appears twice in Acts 6:1-4, in an interesting way: And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. “Ministration” in v.1 and “ministry” in v.4 are the same Greek lemma, diakonia. Notice the issue of the passage: Almost humorously, smack dab at the beginning of the church, people are complaining because their needs are not being met. What’s going on here is that Christianity is spreading so fast and the disciples of Jesus were working so hard to minister in teaching the Word that some of their other duties were being neglected. Thus, they appoint other disciples to take over these particular duties in order that they can continue “the ministry of the Word.” But does this mean the ministry of the Word, whatever that is, is more important? It seems to me this question requires some nuanced thinking: In one sense, it certainly seems appropriate to say that the preaching and teaching of God’s Word is of maximal importance. After all, the preaching of God’s Word is how people come to believe (1 Cor. 1:21). The disciples obviously thought this role was extremely important. However, it is also true that God’s plan for bringing people to himself involves ministering to others through service. In fact, to see this, we need not look further than the next few verses of our same passage (v.5-7): And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith. As a direct result of this decision, the Word of God increased, the number of disciples multiplied, and even many priests were converted! Grant Osbourne reflects on the success of this decision: All three verbs in verse 7 are imperfects, stressing ongoing activity. The “word” is not just the gospel but an epithet for the church as the people of the word. So it means, “the church kept on growing.” Moreover, it did not just grow; it “increased rapidly” (or “kept on multiplying greatly”), perhaps even more than earlier. Most astoundingly of all, “a large number of priests,” who had replaced the Pharisees as the major opponents of God’s people, “became obedient to the faith,” another epithet for conversion. Scholars estimate there were between 18,000 and 20,000 priests and Levites all told. That a significant number became Christ followers is a major sign of God’s blessing on the church. The principle is clear—every crisis is a Spirit-led opportunity to surrender further to him and discover a newfound depth of strength, resulting in an even greater growth of the church.1 These seven men who were appointed could have chosen to complain because they did not get to pray, study, and teach the word full-time. Instead, they were obedient to their spiritual vocation, and the church multiplied. The lesson is important: When God’s people are obedient, his glorious purposes are fulfilled and his blessings rain down. Don’t think that because your ministry doesn’t look like somebody else’s, it’s not “real” ministry. That’s misguided—and unscriptural—thinking. But Also Professional Sure enough, though, there are particular offices of ministry given for the local church. There is a need for pastors, deacons, elders, evangelists, etc. As we saw just above, there are those who are gifted with the ability to teach, to preach, and to shepherd a flock. While a great many churches have a bi-vocational pastor, you do see many churches who employ an entire pastoral team full-time. And whether or not they are able to devote their entire schedule to the ministry, they are no less devoted in station. There are different “professional” ministry stations, most of which are represented in Ephesians 4:11-13: And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. Here, have distinctions made between roles that also happen to overlap at times. Andrew Knowles puts it succinctly: Paul lists some gifts that help the church to preach and teach God’s word. Apostles are sent by God to pioneer church growth in new areas. Prophets speak God’s word in a direct and challenging way to particular situations. Evangelists share the gospel clearly, so that people can understand and come to faith in Christ. Pastors and teachers are able to care for and teach local congregations. There are many kinds of spiritual gifts. There is a different selection in Paul’s letter to the Romans (Romans 12:6–8). But all spiritual gifts have the same purpose: to build up and strengthen God’s people. Every gift is to be used in serving others, both inside and outside the church.2 There’s a temptation for Bible nerds like myself to get caught up debates like whether the apostleship continued, whether the same thing is meant by the terms “pastor” and “teacher” or if they connote separate duties, etc. Instead, let’s capture the wider point. There are official positions of ministry, but just as the “unofficial” positions, they are for the purpose of serving the flock of God and bringing more people to him. Spirituals Gifts In 1 Cor. 12, the Apostle Paul launches into comprehensive teaching on spiritual gifts in the church. Lowrey summarizes this way: The list here includes nine gifts. (1) Wisdom refers to insight into doctrinal truth. Paul exercised and expressed this gift in this letter (e.g., 2:6). (2) Knowledge refers to the ability to apply doctrinal truth to life. Paul also exercised and expressed this gift in this letter (e.g., 12:1–3; 11:3). (Cf. the recurrence of the phrase “Do you not know” in 3:16; 5:6; 6:2–3, 9, 15–16, 19; 9:13, 24; also cf. 8:1–3, 10–11). (3) Faith as a spiritual gift is probably an unusual measure of trust in God beyond that exercised by most Christians (e.g., 13:2). (4) Healing is the ability to restore health (e.g., Acts 3:7; 19:12) and also to hold off death itself temporarily (Acts 9:40; 20:9–10). (5) Miraculous powers may refer to exorcising demons (Acts 19:12) or inducing physical disability (Acts 13:11) or even death (Acts 5:5, 9). (6) Prophecy is the ability, like that of the Old Testament prophets, to declare a message of God for His people (1 Cor. 14:3). (7) Ability to distinguish between spirits is the gift to differentiate the Word of God proclaimed by a true prophet from that of a satanic deceiver (cf. 2 Cor. 11:14–15; 1 John 4:1). If the Corinthians possessed this gift (cf. 1 Cor. 1:7), it was not being put to good use (cf. 12:1–3). (8) Tongues refers to the ability to speak an unlearned, living language (e.g., Acts 2:11). (9) Interpretation was the ability to translate an unlearned, known language expressed in the assembly (1 Cor. 14:27). With the possible exception of faith, all these gifts seem to have been confirmatory and foundational gifts for the establishment of the church (cf. Heb. 2:4; Eph. 2:20) and were therefore temporary.3 Again, here, there’s the danger of stepping into a theological debate that would miss the point. While I do think many of the gifts mentioned here are not necessarily relevant today, I also believe God can do what he wants. Thus, suffice it to say that I place myself into what is colloquially called the cautious but open category. Paul’s point, though, can be applied to ministerial gifts of all kinds. Do you serve on the worship team at church? In the media ministry? The bus ministry? The nursing home ministry? The women’s ministry? The point is you are in ministry! Paul clarifies the importance of each and every role given to the body of Christ: For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular (Eph. 12:12-27). Ministry is therefore something we can all be involved in. If you’re a follower of Christ, you have a role in ministry. The question is, what are you doing for heaven’s sake? Are you stepping up in the areas you know you can, or do you just a warm a pew each Sunday? I have moved churches twice in my adult Christian life. One time was an intentional choice based on a variety of factors, the other time was due to relocation. In both instances, I made it a point to let the leadership of the church know how I could help. In my opinion, that’s all it takes. There is no shortage of work to do! You don’t have to insert yourself! All you have to do is be willing, able, and available. Those folks God has appointed to lead you will, if they are being faithful to their task, help you to use your gifts and abilities for the Lord in the ministry of the local, New Testament church. The post What is Ministry? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Note: This post makes mention of Ravi Zacharias. It is with a heavy heart that I must acknowledge a tragic independent report concerning evidence of sexual abuse and predatory behavior on the part of Ravi Zacharias. This man was a huge inspiration to me, as is evident from reading my blog, and the news was more than heart shattering. Some ministries leaders have come to the conclusion that removing articles about and references to Ravi is the right move; I have come to a different conclusion, and here is why: Though I cannot begin go to imagine the grief or pain of those Ravi hurt and the emotional toll of his behavior, it is also the case that to discredit a piece of information due to the character of the source of such behavior is to commit the genetic fallacy. If I quote or mention Ravi, it is because I believe those items to contain truth value on their own merit. To go back and change previously written information without a careful disclaimer is, I believe, a form of revisionist history. If a disclaimer must be offered anyway, I believe there is value in keeping the material accessible. So while I know it is a difficult ask to say, “Just trust the ideas and disregard his personal character,” I must ask that of you as a careful thinker. I have seen a lot of comparisons by Christians to not removing Ravi’s work because biblical characters like King David and others had fallen into terrible sin, and they have obviously been given to us as a gift to learn from (Romans 15:4). Why “cancel” Ravi if we’re not “cancelling” the Bible? It does seem to me, though, that there are two problems with this line of thinking: (1) These books are inspired by God and thus we can trust his revelation to us. They were examples given for a purpose. (2) These characters also seemed to show true biblical repentance of their wicked actions. Ravi remained unrepentant until his dying day. Therefore, I do not think these are 1-and-1 comparisons. This behavior reflects SERIOUS error and dangerous behavior on the part of Ravi and, to an unknown degree, RZIM as a whole, and that must not be taken lightly or swept under the rug. I do not expect you to agree completely with this decision. I do ask that you respect the thought, prayer, and seeking of counsel in which I engaged regarding it. Do miracles happen? One of the primary reasons people take issue with religious thought is that it almost necessarily involves a concept of the miraculous—an offensive idea to one living in the 21st century West. We’ve got it all figured out, right? We know that “science has disproven miracles” and that the laws of nature can basically account for most (all?) phenomena that we experience. Actually, it may surprise you that this attitude toward the miraculous is not shared by most people in the world. Even so, it’s an issue worth talking about, because the possibility of the miraculous is most definitely required for the Christian worldview to be true. It makes miracle claims: Creation ex-nihilo, bodily resurrection, miraculous healing—none of these can work if the miraculous cannot happen. What is a miracle? This is a good place to start. After all, how can we form an opinion about the miraculous if we don’t even know what it is? The 18th-century philosopher David Hume famously objected to miracles. In Can Man Live Without God?, Zacharias clarifies and succinctly responds to Hume: Hume’s argument against miracles…runs something like this: Since a miracle is a violation or exception to a law of nature, by definition it is based on the lower degree of probability. A wise man, says Hume, will always base his belief on the highest degree of probability; therefore, a wise man will disbelieve in miracles. Hume’s argument is somewhat strained once again. For example, the possibility of this world happening, even according to the strongest antitheist, is as close to zero as one can get. Therefore, the wise man should deny the existence of the world. His argument is dreadfully circular: He first assumes that miracles can never happen and then concludes that they have never occurred. The real wise man, to counter Hume, would be one who would make his conclusion based on the evidence.1 I think most skeptics would agree that we should make judgments based on arguments and evidence, therefore, it would be prudent to first discover whether a miracle has occurred, rather than to speculate whether they can. And here is why we have to know what counts as a miracle. Is the mere fact that there is something rather than nothing a miracle? What else can it be? Hume simply got the definition wrong. He claims that a miracle violates the laws of nature, but why think this is the case? Do I violate the laws of nature when I interrupt my falling pen from hitting the ground? Surely not; I merely intervene. The subject of Divine Action (i.e, God’s working and interacting within the world) is a huge one, but it is certainly not defeasible by the mere assertion that the laws of nature are violated when the miraculous takes place. To the skeptic of miracles, I would simply begin with one of the naturalist’s favorite subjects: human evolution. For the sake of argument, if evolution had occurred, by what measurement would we decide whether or not it was miraculous? Was it just the laws of nature working on biological material? If probability is to be brought to be bear, does that change the equation? Dr. William Lane Craig responds to the idea that human evolution could have occurred without an intelligent designer: …the idea that evolution could have occurred without an intelligent Designer is so improbable as to be fantastic. This has been demonstrated by Barrow and Tipler in their book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the odds of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4^-360 (110,000)^, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God! And here the Christian can be much more open to where the evidence leads. He could say, “Well, God could have used evolution; He could have used special creation. I’m open to the evidence.” But, you see, for the naturalist evolution is the only game in town! No matter how fantastic the odds, no matter how improbable the evidence, he’s stuck with it because he hasn’t got an intelligent Designer. So it seems to me that the Christian can be far more objective on this point. After all, if you were to find watch lying on the ground, and, say, it didn’t function exactly perfectly, it lost one minute per hour, would you therefore conclude that the watch was not designed properly? Again, it’s all in how we’re defining the terms. If evolution did occur, it seems to me it would have been miraculous by any reasonable definition. The fact is: We live in a miraculous world. Of all the world’s we’ve discovered via modern technology, we live on the only one that is life-permitting. Even if one would not go so far as to the claim things like human evolution2 and the existence of something rather than nothing are miraculous, they still provide prima facie evidence that the miraculous cannot be ruled out. It would arbitrary to claim these are brute facts of some sort. For example, to say that it just so happens to be a property of universe’s to pop into existence out of nothing is to say exactly nothing! Why don’t milkshakes or rhinoceroses pop into existence out of nothing? Of course, to my earlier point, this does not bolster Hume’s objection in any way. For example, the creation of the world could not possibly have violated laws of nature, for the simple reason that there were no laws of nature to violate! There was nothing! Thus, we have every reason to think a miracle could occur. Miracles Don’t Happen? Again, the very reason we are so offended by the idea of miracles in the West is because our scientific knowledge has advanced to the point that it seems unthinkable, for many, that something supernatural could occur. But one looks beyond his own back yard, this objection fades into blackness. In fact—and this was startling, to me—even many Americans seem to have no problem thinking something miraculous has happened to them. Investigating this issue, Lee Strobel uncovered the following: Most of all, I wanted to know how many people have had an experience that they can only explain as being a miracle of God. As it turns out, nearly two out of five US adults (38 percent) said they have had such an experience—which means that an eye-popping 94,792,000 Americans are convinced that God has performed at least one miracle for them personally. That is an astonishing number!3 This raises an important question that is often overlooked: Does personal experience count? After all, if over 94,000,000 people believe they have had an experience of the miraculous—and therefore, the supernatural—isn’t that worth checking into? Something is going on. Furthermore, there are many specific reports of miracle claims. I am not talking about first-person, private experiences, either. There are hundreds of peer-reviewed medical journal entries around the subject of near-death experiences, alone! Habermas cites just one here: For instance, in a well-documented incident, a young girl had nearly drowned, not registering a pulse for 19 minutes. The emergency room physician observed that he “stood over Katie’s lifeless body in the intensive care unit.” A CT scan showed that she had massive brain swelling, and she was without a gag reflex, while being “profoundly comatose.” Dr. Melvin Morse reported, “When I first saw her, her pupils were fixed and dilated, meaning that irreversible brain damage had most likely occurred.” Her breathing was performed artificially and she was given very little chance to survive. But only three days later, the girl surprisingly revived and made a full recovery. Katie began repeating an incredible wealth of specific facts regarding the emergency room, her resuscitation, and even physical descriptions of the two physicians. Morse confirmed that, “a child with Katie’s symptoms should have the absence of any brain function and therefore should comprehend nothing.” Katie recalled these recent details for almost an hour. Further, during her comatose state, she said that an angel named Elizabeth allowed her to view her family at home. Katie correctly reported very specific details concerning the clothing and positions of each family member, identified a popular rock song that her sister listened to, observed her father, and then watched while her mother cooked dinner. She even correctly identified the food: roast chicken and rice. Later, she shocked her parents by relating details from just a few days before (see Melvin Morse and Paul Perry, Closer to the Light (N.Y.: Random House, 1990), 3-14 and Transformed by the Light (N.Y.: Random House, 1992), 22-23). For an introductory look into the possibility of miracles, complete with a plethora of anecdotal experiences and expert opinion, see Strobel’s The Case for Miracles. For the scholarly “standard” on the subject, See Keener’s two-volume set, Miracles.4 Summarizing, Keener notes: What the radical Enlightenment excluded as implausible based on the principle of analogy, much of today’s world can accept on the same principle of analogy. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide claim to have experienced or witnessed what they believe are miracles. Eyewitness claims to dramatic recoveries appear in a wide variety of cultures, among Christians often successfully emulating models of healings found in the Gospels and Acts. Granted, such healings do not occur on every occasion and are fairly unpredictable in their occurrence; yet they seem to appear with special frequency in cultures and circles that welcome them. Conclusion: Their Problem, Not Ours The fact is, in a Christian worldview, we can explain these accounts. Millions of people around in the world, including the close to 100,000,000 accounts just in the United States, are not involved in a mass conspiracy to see and claim the miraculous where there is none. Do people make false miracle claims? Absolutely. All the time. But false claims do not invalidate potentially true ones. Thus, the insurmountable task of finding a sufficient naturalistic explanation for these claims lays at the feet of the skeptic wishing to claim that miraculous can’t happen and/or never happens. The post Do Miracles Happen? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Without a doubt, one of the most important questions one can ask is, “How can I know I’m saved?” In many ways, this is the most basic question a person can ask! And yet, the question is actually quite complex. There are words to define, concepts to explore, and beliefs to espouse before one can really have a satisfactory answer. As we explore a biblical answer to this question, it may be as good a time as any to reflect honestly on your answer. Saved? Most of us grow up with the notion that there is a salvation “event” that takes place in our lives. Do I still believe that today? My answer would be yes, but it’s complicated. Ephesians 1:3-4 seems to describe what this “event” looks like: In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. Pauls opens his letter with a theological treatise; he is underscoring what Jesus has accomplished, and will go on to draw some conclusions about a life of proper faith and practice for the Ephesian church. Notice in this passage that Paul describes that once one “trusts” (i.e., “places their hope in”) Christ, after hearing the gospel and believing, they are “sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise,” which acts a “down payment” of their inheritance. What’s being described here is beautiful; it is the process of reconciliation between God and man. Salvation is therefore God’s rescue, via the work of Jesus on the cross, of a sinner—and his sealing them for their final day of redemption. There’s a natural question that arises at this point. What are we saved from? The answer is multi-faceted. Are we saved from Satan? Our flesh? God himself? Scripture can be leveraged in support of all of the above. And yet, a mere reflection on the nature of the world provides a sufficient answer: We all know the world is broken. Greg Koukl beautifully makes the point in The Story of Reality: None of us can long avoid the gnawing sense of guilt we feel for the bad things we have done. This is a good thing, of course, for a couple of reasons. For one, the person who never feels bad about doing bad things (an especially unpleasant kind of person known as a sociopath) is not likely to stop himself from doing something dreadful when it suits him. But there is another reason. It is a very small step from feeling guilty to realizing that we feel guilty because we are guilty. And that is precisely what the Story tells us. We are broken, true enough. But we are not simply malfunctioning. We are not machines that need to be fixed. We are transgressors who need to be forgiven. We have not merely “made mistakes,” like getting our sums wrong when balancing accounts. We have sinned. And with sin comes guilt. And with guilt comes punishment. The sin must be answered for. It must be paid for in some way. Atoned for, if you will. The issue is that something is wrong with the world. It’s not the way it is supposed to be. We are separated from God, and we evidence that separation each and every day through our disobedience to our Creator. That we are in need of rescue is virtually inarguable; Chesterton famously quipped, “The one doctrine of Christianity which is empirically verifiable is the fallenness of man.” To be saved, then, is to place your undying trust in the Person and Work of Jesus, and to enthusiastically affirm the words of the Apostle John: “He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” (1 John 5:10-13). Bulls and goats, or something else? One confusion that arises with folks, even some seasoned Christians, is that of Old Testament sacrifices. A lengthy passage from the book of Hebrews brings out the issue: For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin (10:1-18). I get it. Most people fall asleep reading through the Pentateuchal passages that describe these sacrifices, and we cannot explore them with any depth here. The drive-by treatment they are usually given often leads people to think that, in Old Testament days, these sacrifices were the atonement for sin. But it’s important that, at the very least, we grasp how the writer of Hebrews understands the role of these sacrifices. These sacrifices were never about the atonement for sin, because it’s clear they could not satisfy the necessary conditions. And this raises another good question! Namely, why the law at all? This question is answered by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:19-25: Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. In the above passage, Paul gives two important reasons for the addition of the law: Transgressions Teaching There are a couple of different ways to parse what is meant by “transgressions,” here. Some take this to mean that God added the law to produce/increase transgressions, but this does not seem to be the most natural reading of the text. Proponents of this take argue on the basis of Romans 5:20a, which reads “Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound.” At face value, this may seem to suggest the law itself was “added” in order to cause sin to abound. But why think that is the case? Given that God destroyed the entire world on the basis of the proliferation of sin (see Genesis 6-8), why would God add a system designed to multiply sin? This proposal makes little sense. Witmer’s comments on this point are quite helpful in reading this passage more carefully: Is the statement in Romans 5:20a a purpose or a result clause? The coming of the Mosaic Law (clearly meant here in light of vv. 13–14) did result in the abounding of “the trespass” (the consequence of any law), but (also in the light of vv. 13–14 and 4:15) the Mosaic Law came in “so that” (purpose) abounding sin might be recognized as abounding trespass. The result was that where sin increased (lit., “abounded”; cf. 5:20) grace increased all the more (“overflowed superlatively”; cf. “overflow” in v. 15). What a contrast! No matter how great human sin becomes, God’s grace overflows beyond it and abundantly exceeds it. No wonder Paul wrote that God’s grace “is sufficient” (2 Cor. 12:9). God’s goal (hina, so, introduces a purpose clause) is that His grace might reign through righteousness (the righteousness of Christ provided for people) to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Once again Paul spoke of reigning in connection with life. In verse 17 those who received God’s gift “reign in life” through Christ. Here God’s grace is personified as reigning and bringing eternal life.1 So it seems to me that Romans 5:20a is consistent in teaching that the law was added because of transgressions; sin needed to be recognized as such, but also “kept in check” as one commentator2 notes: “…it was given because of transgressions, that is, the Law was given to be a means for checking sins. It served as a restrainer of sins by showing them to be transgressions of God’s Law which would incur His wrath (cf. 1 Tim. 1:8–11).” Thus, Heiser is correct in noting that “Paul is consistent in both viewing the law as something positive, but also viewing it as something inadequate.”3 But the law was also a teacher. Its purpose was not only to restrain transgression, but to expose its gravity. While the blood of bulls and goats could not save, it could serve as a gruesome yet effective reminder that God is holy, and nothing less than utter purity would be allowed to broach his space. This is really good news. Why? Because it demonstrates clearly that keeping the law is impossible; even the strictest Jewish sects who made much of the law not could follow it consistently (see Matt. 23:15 or 12:1-8, for example). Grace is necessary. The Apostle Paul wrote to the Ephesians, But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. God loved you when you were dead—that is, judicially unrighteous. Unfit for the kingdom. Unfit for Glory. Unfit for him. He made for provision for your salvation, and to claim it for yourself, all you have to do is believe that he did. So based on the biblical doctrine of salvation, the question answers itself. You can know you are saved because you believe in the One who saved you. You cannot lose it for a moral failure because you did not earn it in virtue of moral success. The simple answer is, God did the work. The real question is—do you believe it? The post How Can I Know I’m Saved? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

We’re just off the heels of another Easter season, which should be a favorite time of year for all Christians. I know it is one of mine! We not only get to celebrate our Savior’s Passion for us, but we are presented with new opportunities to present it in the public arena. I spent the other day listening to debates, lectures, and Q&A sessions around the Resurrection of Jesus. One such presentation from none other than Dr. Lydia McGrew, one of the smartest and sweetest Christian ladies and philosophers I know, touted a “Maximal Data” approach to arguing for the truthfulness of the New Testament accounts of the death and resurrection of Jesus. (I mean, I don’t know that many smart, sweet, female Christian philosophers; but I’m proud to know her!) Maximal vs. Minimal The first half of her presentation described a variety of approaches to this question, all of which fall under what is commonly called a “minimal facts” approach to presenting this data. Two leading proponents of such an approach are also two of the leading scholars of the Resurrection in the world, Drs. Gary Habermas and Mike Licona. And while even between them there is slight variation in approach,1 the central idea is this: We can have confidence that the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are truthful, even if we only use the data which secular historians will grant. The motive behind taking such an approach is virtuous, however, as Lydia helpfully noted, I think there are some problems that result in this approach weakening the overall case. Some of the issues involve a lack of clarity around what many scholars are actually willing to grant about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances, too many unnecessary2 concessions to liberal scholarship, a watered-down definition of gospel “reliability,” the need to defend additional information that renders the approach not so “minimal” after all, etc. For Lydia (and her husband, Tim, who have defended the resurrection together), the strength of the case lies not in how few data points mainstream scholars will grant, but how many data points are well-evidenced. This is the “maximal data” approach. A few hallmarks of the approach are: A succinct presentation. Some object to using this argument because they assume it would take too long in a debate setting. This is not so. For example, as Lydia mentioned, the approach could be presented in a simple trilemma: Either the disciples were deceived, they were mistaken, or they were telling the truth. Strong reliability. In other words, there’s an emphasis on the reliability of the New Testament documents as giving accurate information. The minimal approach would argue its case in spite of assumed unreliability (even if only for the sake of argument). But why take this approach, since there’s good evidence the documents are reliable?3 The breadth of scholarship. The minimal facts approach often ignores points that only conservative scholars will accept; it even ignores the empty tomb story, which over 75% of all scholars will grant as of 2005 according to Habermas. But again, why? It seems to me that this practice merely encourages the incorrect assumption that conservative scholars are not objective researchers and reporters. Why play further into this narrative? Why I Prefer the Maximal Data Approach I see zero reason to think the gospels cannot be treated as reliable sources. Again, that is a point that would be up for debate in a debate, but it also is well-evidenced! I also see zero reason to think that believing scholars cannot be considered objective voices with respect to the evidence at hand. The fact is, there is a powerful cumulative case to be made for the truthfulness of the resurrection narratives. There is a preponderance of evidence available to us; I say use it! Let me echo Lydia in saying that Habermas, Licona, and others who advocate a minimal facts approach pretty much believe the same data the McGrew’s suggest using. What’s at issue is in what context this data should be presented, and how. To treat everyone fairly, let me say that both Habermas and Licona both willfully admit that on any given day, they make change their mind on how to approach things! They will use different data, in different contexts, with different people. The point is this: We don’t have to bow the skeptic’s (faulty) request to present only that data which folks who take a non-Christian worldview will grant. The maximal data approach rejects that request by asserting a more well-defined starting point, arguing from the breadth of the data available, and avoiding unnecessary concessions about the facts. The post On Lydia McGrew’s Maximal Data Approach to Presenting the Resurrection of Jesus appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

There are multiple references to marriage in the Bible. In fact, many go so far as to say that God invented marriage. Of course, I agree. But so many make the mistaking of thinking marriage is more of a constitutional union. In other words, one is married insofar as they have a piece of paper that declares it to be so. This isn’t necessarily wrong, but it is not the full picture. Early on in my ministry, I wrote about the true definition of marriage: Marriage has nothing to do with love, feelings, emotions, judges, preachers, court documents, soulmates, knots, ribbons, or even wedding ceremonies. Marriage is not horizontal; it is vertical. It is a promise first to God and second to your spouse. The government’s redefinition of marriage allows for union’s of a nature that God never intended to take place. But if marriage is a particular thing, it cannot be redefined willy-nilly. God says marriage is the union of one man and one woman becoming one flesh for one lifetime. Marriage is defined this way for a reason; it is the depiction of another kind of marriage—the marriage between Christ and his bride. The Marriage Metaphor The marriage relationship is used throughout the Bible in a metaphorical sense. The idea is to connect God’s true definition of marriage with the relationship we enter into when we become “in Christ.” John Eldridge writes in Desire: God is the source of all masculine power; God is also the fountain of all feminine allure. Come to think of it, he is the wellspring of everything that has ever romanced your heart. The thundering strength of a waterfall, the delicacy of a flower, the stirring capacity of music, the richness of wine. The masculine and the feminine that fill all creation come from the same heart. What we have sought, what we have tasted in part with our earthly lovers, we will come face-to-face with in our True Love. In other words, the loving marriage you enjoy today is pale in comparison to the Divine Union with have with Christ. However, it is a similar feeling. A healthy marriage will involve sacrifice, unconditional love, euphoric sexual connection, and implicit trust. But what about the unhealthy marriage? The Destruction Caused by Sin Thinking on this theme of marriage in the Bible the other day, it became even more clear to me how destructive sin is. Let’s be honest: For many of us, “sinning against God” is a bit abstract. We know what it means, we know it’s bad, and the most attentive of us realize it hurts a person—and I’m not talking about you! Often times, sin has disastrous consequences for those around us. Particularly the people we love. But outside of taking another’s life, there is perhaps no sin you can perform against another as grievous as marital infidelity. And in a biblical worldview, it’s no mystery as to why. The pain caused when you sin against your partner causes a ripple effect throughout your life, but it certainly affects your lover the most. They have entrusted their life to you, and in what may have been nothing more than a momentary lapse of judgment, you have broken that trust. Of course, this often leads to something worse—an exchange. You exchange the relationship, the love, and the promise for something superficial; a fake; a mirage. The same exact thing happens when one turns his back on God. The Bible calls this exchanging the truth of God for a lie (Romans 1:25). This grieves the heart of God in a way we can’t understand, but which we can catch a tiny glimpse of in the marriage metaphor. In the same way marital infidelity (adultery) destroys a marriage, spiritual infidelity (idolatry) destroys your relationship with God. Sure, it’s possible to make amends. Infidelity does not necessarily lead to divorce; neither does idolatry necessarily lead to apostasy. But even with that assumption, think of the hurt, pain, and damage that has been done. Fortunately, there is total reconciliation in Christ. I am thankful that to be “in Christ” means “there is now no more condemnation” (Romans 8:1). The next time you consider that pet sin, that evil thought you are harboring inside, that malice that grips you when you see a certain person, that allure which comes so easily to our flesh—think about what that sin does against God by framing it in the context of the immediately tangible. What if it was your wife? Your husband? Keep that relationship alive and well by following James’ advice: “Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you” (James 4:7). The post Marriage in the Bible and Sinning Against God appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

When I first started the podcast (2017!!!) I began with a sharp focus on creationism. Around 50 episodes in, I rebranded to the Steve Schramm Show in order to speak to more broad topics, because I was getting low on time to devote to the ministry and was going to have to stop blogging. At this time, I am able to keep a consistent schedule blogging each week, and my podcast episodes are usually a more in-depth dive into that blog topic, using it as an outline/manuscript and expanding from there. This seems to be working really well, so I am going to keep doing it. I had really good intentions for that last rebrand, but listenership went down almost immediately (despite subject matter staying the same) and, since nobody knows (or cares! LOL) who I am, it always feels weird promoting “The Steve Schramm Show.” That said, I am announcing a new rebrand of the podcast today. Again, the subject matter is the same: Creation, theology, apologetics, biblical studies. But I am really passionate these days about helping people become lovers of God’s Word; hence the book I am in the midst of writing. Again, the material is the same, based on info in my blog posts and other special episodes like interviews, etc. It will be “The Bible Nerd Podcast.” The ever-talented Tiffany Schramm designed the artwork for me!           The logic is threefold: It’s a great representation of me. I’m a huge nerd. I do IT work and build websites for a living. I LOVE Star Trek. And I LOVE the Bible. People also call me a Bible nerd all the time, so it works. Immediately you know whether or not this podcast is for you. I am trying to find other Bible nerds. That’s my audience. People who love the Bible and want to know it better. It also accurately reflects the goal. The goal is, essentially, to make more Bible nerds! People who just love God’s Word. So the idea is to create a movement about a love for God’s Word and the Christian Worldview. I think this theme helps to accomplish that. So I would love your feedback and thoughts! Feel free to email me at steve@steveschramm.com! Or, you can leave your thoughts in the comments below. The post It’s Wonderful to Be a Bible Nerd appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

God’s Word is, no doubt, the most influential book that has ever been written—and it was written in Hebrew and Greek—not English. Even the concept itself is striking. The God who created the universe wants to communicate with us, and used the written word to do it. It should not come as a shock that much time, money, and effort is given to the process of discovering the accurate reading and understanding of biblical texts. Of course, those resources are not limited to the discovery of God’s Word, but the availability of it as well. That is, translating and disseminating God’s Word across the nations of the world. In the Western World, the predominant language is English. There is a rich history of English tradition when it comes to translations of the Bible. Without a doubt, the King James Bible is the most well-known, longest-standing, and widely disseminated. Hailing from the time of Shakespeare—a time when many would argue that the English language was at its peak of beauty—even its critics label it a literary masterpiece. As of today, there are around ~450 different English translations of the Bible. With the availability of God’s Word in unprecedented abundance, a question is raised in the minds of many Christians today—is it important to study the original languages of the Bible? Let’s explore that question, by starting with another one. Where is God’s Word? One of the big questions Christian theologians have wrestled with involves the nature and location of God’s Word. This concerns the doctrines of inspiration (what the Bible is) and preservation (where the Bible is). These ideas are related, of course. A Bible that is written but inaccessible to God’s people is not productive for God’s purposes. Thus, we might start with the assumption that if God spoke, we generally have access to what he spoke. Some see a problem here, though, because with the exception of very few, scholars are in agreement that the locus of God’s Word is the original autographs. This means that the intended meaning of the text is found only by understanding the intent of the original author of a given portion of Scripture—all of his cultural nuances, his assumptions, and his writing technique must be considered. And that, generally speaking, copies of the work are granted no such status. If only the original autographs of God’s Word can be considered inspired and, therefore, inerrant and infallible, where does that leave our English translations?1 When the preacher instructs us to open the Bible at worship services throughout the week, what are we really reading? The Use and Misuse of English Translations The field of textual criticism is, well, messy. That is not to say we cannot learn much from these scholars, nor is it to say that we’ve no hope of understanding the Bible! It simply means that we cannot pretend as though a perfect, complete, English Bible fell from the sky with instructions on how to infallibly read it. There is much to consider when you factor what is involved to move a text from the mind of God, through an inspired biblical author, through the pen of translators (both amateur and professional), and into your hands. Not the least of these considerations is how the message might be transmitted. A flawed view of this process might lead one to believe that God inspired translations as well as the originals. Why is this flawed? A couple reasons, minimally: If we agree to the doctrine of a closed canon, there’s no reason to think God would inspire a new version of the text. Some who take this view think that God would do this, citing Paul’s various translations of the Old Testament as proof-positive. The problem is that Paul is regarded by other authors of Scripture to be a divinely appointed author himself; not merely a translator to new audiences. Thus, the analogy does not hold. Given the over-abundance of manuscript evidence we have for the Bible, a doctrine of preservation that makes use of this evidence seems preferable to one that can only be affirmed by faith. One might say they have faith that God doubly inspired the Bible (that is, inspired a translation as well as the originals). But there’s really no evidence that can be used to prove this. The way God’s Word was persevered is quite incredible! We have over 5,000 extant copies in the original languages, and more than 20,000 manuscript copies produced in the earliest centuries following their original authorship. Thus, to corrupt the text over time would take a conspiracy so miraculous that it would serve as proof for God’s existence! Differences do exist in many of these manuscript copies, no doubt. In fact, one could make scary-sounding claims like this one: There are more variations among our manuscripts than words in the New Testament. (Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus) I mean, this sounds pretty scary! That is, until you realize that the vast majority—like, 99%+—of such differences amount to little more than the scribal transposition of a letter or the slight movement of a punctuation mark. Ryan Leasure provides an accurate summary of the scholarship on his blog. He concludes: In sum, 99.75% of all textual variants don’t effect our reading of the text. These variants include spelling errors, word order changes, synonyms, and nonsense readings. This means, when you read your New Testament today, you can be confident that the text has been preserved for your reading and not radically altered as some skeptics say. Of the remaining variants, none of them effect any core doctrine of the Christian faith. The point is this one: Because of the sheer amount of data we have to work with, we can know with extreme precision what was originally written down in texts we don’t even have. From this data, then, we can draw some conclusions. While we don’t have access to the originals, this abundance of manuscript evidence seems to represent what was written in the originals with breathtaking accuracy. Quite obviously, we can count on our English translation of the Bible to present us with an accurate account of what was originally written—whether or not one agrees with the content that is presented. However, we cannot conclude that our particular translation is inspired. Such translations make no claim to be inspired of God; they are rather a testament to the mountain of manuscript evidence and extraordinary scholarship that has gone into understanding the text of the Bible. The Usefulness of the Hebrew and Greek Texts So, why study the Hebrew and Greek, then? After all, we can certainly affirm the inspiration of the original autographs without need to study them—especially if our translations are based on manuscript copies that seem to reflect the originals with near-100% accuracy. Here’s what we have so far: Originals — inspired Early copies — preserved Translations — neither So even though we can understand the text well by reading translations of the Bible, we could understand even better by equipping ourselves with the tools to read the text in its original languages. There’s one example I return to often because it makes the point so well: The “firmament” mentioned Genesis 1. Many translations render it this way; others choose the word expanse. The Hebrew word is raqia. Now, to be sure, there is debate amongst very smart people as to what this word connotes. However, most agree that the word seems to mean expanse and carries the idea of a beaten out, extended surface. For a scientifically imprecise (to say the least) culture like that of the ancient Israelites, such a word seems plenty adequate to describe what is in the heavens above. The word firmament (Latin: firmamemtum), however, carries baggage; namely, the word “firm.” It suggests something solid and supportive. Without taking the care to look into the meaning of the Hebrew word, one might walk away with the idea that the Bible is describing a literal, solid dome above the earth. For a while, many creationists believed this is exactly what the Bible taught, and sought scientific support for this! Many Hebrew scholars even today believe the Bible is referring to this, but find a solution in dismissing the Israelite cosmology as errant. It seems to me neither option is necessary. The Hebrew word does not seem to imply a hard surface, so why take that route at all? This is just one such example. By studying the Hebrew and Greek texts, one can come to a fuller and richer understanding of what has been written to the believer. Conclusion To wrap up, let me give one important caveat. Although it would be exciting and certainly warranted in some cases, I do not think it is necessary to learn Hebrew and Greek with the intent of reading and speaking them fluently. In fact, I’m not even sure that would be a good idea for most people. Rather, what I have in view is availing oneself of study tools that allow for a deeper dive into these words and phrases, the meanings behind them, and how they were used across the biblical revelation and in their culture. Familiarize yourself with the basics of each language. For example, just learning that biblical Hebrew was written right to left and that Koine Greek words have genders can be helpful when it comes to discerning nuances in word choice. Finally, I have to say that I am not where I want to be on this. I have ambitions to learn much more than I do about the original languages! So even if you’ve never read a word of Hebrew or Greek, you’re not alone. There’s no better time to start than today. The post Should Christians Study the Hebrew and Greek Texts of the Bible Today? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Part of the problem when sharing your faith with biblical skeptics is that, more often than not, they have little training in biblical theology, which often results in their having a bad theology. Some of them have plenty of training, but little thoughtfulness. In other words, rather than approaching the Bible charitably, they usually assume the truth of whatever theological narrative fits their narrative. I’ve seen this in various groups of people: Those who used to profess to be Christians but have now “deconstructed” Those who spend lots of time learning about Christianity from atheist YouTubers Those who are looking for any opportunity to cast a negative light on the God of the Bible Those who have no intent to be disingenuous, but don’t know any better Some people may fit all three of the above, some may not fit in those categories at all. The point is that bad theology persists in these groups and it’s a big, big problem. Here are just three of the numerous problems bad theology presents. Bad Theology Kills Conversations Both Christians and atheists are often guilty of failing to use good philosophy. Philosophy is the art of making distinctions. The ability to recognize one idea as distinct from another idea, even one that is closely related, is the essence of philosophy. Now, some argue that philosophy is a subset of theology; some argue the opposite. I’m not speaking to that debate right now. Regardless, failing to use good philosophy is the failure to use good theology. Insofar as you will not make proper distinctions about God, his creation, and how he interacts with it you will end up with bad theology. How does that lead to killing conversations? For two or more people to remain in an extended discussion about important ideas, a method of communication will need to be established. This means a few agreements and concessions have to be made throughout. Otherwise, no conversation between two people who fundamentally disagree can be productive. Here’s a practical example: Let’s say that Atheist (A) in conversation with Christian (C) takes issue with the fact that Yahweh seems to be a God of warfare. One read through the Book of Joshua would make any 21st-century person living in the West a bit squeamish. We have this idea that the same God who is also “tenderhearted Jesus” would never have commanded the slaughtering of entire people groups. Leaving aside the fact that the “tenderhearted Jesus” idea is a myth, there is room for lots of theological nuance and discussion around affirming the so-called “conquest narrative” as historical, God-ordained truth. By the way, I am not rampaging against A here. C may be ignorant of this information as well! Such details like… Often, warfare language in the ancient Near East was rife with hyperbole. The conquests were not against any people group willy-nilly; they were the result of holy war against the giant clans. Worship of false gods in Canaanite territories was so disgusting and vile that if it were occurring today, many would be mad if God was not intervening! God actually waited over 400 years before bringing about this judgment (Genesis 15:13-16). All that to say this: When understood properly in its theological context, there is much more going on that a genocidal cosmic dictator randomly commanding his people to obliterate another over some land. That’s not at all what is going on here. Now—either A or C could, of course, choose to disagree with what has been presented above. But they then need to provide arguments and evidence for taking the text another way. Regardless, what they could not do is blindly assert that ethnic genocide is in view. And often, this is where the conversation stops. A asserts that this is a case of ethnic genocide, and C either (1) doesn’t have a good answer or (2) ends up defending God’s actions, but in a way that basically concedes the point of genocide. As long as bad theology is proliferated, there is little room for distinction and discussion about ideas like this. Bad Theology is Misleading Bad theology not only kills conversations but can be terribly misleading with respect to all sorts of ideas: the nature of God, anthropology, angelology and demonology, etc. One of the worst examples I’ve seen of this is captured “nicely(?)” in a popular Internet meme. There are different versions of this, so I’ll express it in the terms the good folks at Got Questions did: “God sacrificed himself to himself to save humanity from himself because of a rule he made himself.” (As an aside, watch Christian philosopher William Lane Craig dismantle a few very popular atheist memes like this one here.) Back to the meme. This statement, though oddly persuading for some, is absolutely rife with bad theology. As GQM has already given a sound point-by-point rebuttal, there’s no need for me to reinvent the wheel. I will make an observation, though. The problem with a quick jab like this one is that it has rhetorical force. That is, it has a kind of surface-level persuasiveness to it that quickly calls to mind the Christian story. Without thinking through the ideas, lukewarm or apathetic Christians could easily be shaken by this! And of course, it is mostly atheists who proliferate this meme and others like it, so I have every reason to think many of them do ultimately believe this accurately represents the Christian story. Nevertheless, it is bad theology and it is misleading. Since this is ultimately not what classical Christianity affirms, to set up this view and then attack it would be to attack a straw man. Thus, this commits the strawman fallacy. Bad Theology Leads to Deconstruction Finally, bad theology could lead to the deconstruction of a Christian’s belief. Deconstruction refers to the “tearing down” of one’s Christian affirmation and identification.1 A recent example of this comes through the testimony of the comedic duo and Internet sensations, Rhett and Link. R&L were raised in an evangelical Christian environment not too far from where I live now in North Carolina. They have recently released a few tell-all podcast episodes and YouTube videos breaking down their individual paths to deconstruction. While they requested not to be psychoanalyzed, that’s a bit lofty a request when you tell millions of people your story—especially when many of those who hear it (fans, even) spend no shortage of time professionally studying and teaching aspects of Christian theology and apologetics. Again, numerous point-by-point rebuttals/lamentations are available from both friends and acquaintances of mine. Here are a few of my favorite takes on the issue: An open letter to Rhett McLaughlin Responding to Rhett and Link’s “Spiritual Deconstruction” (w/ Mike Licona) 5 Lessons From Rhett and Link’s Spiritual Deconstruction Spoiler alert: Bad theology is the issue. Now, allow me to stress that both Rhett and Link were raised in what I believe to be doctrinally sound churches. Although I would disagree with the Calvinism that at least Rhett was raised up in, my Calvinist friends are squarely within the realm of classical Christian orthodoxy. I have no reason to think that they were given bad information with respect to the essentials. And, they both were involved (at least to some extent) in Christian leadership. These were not weekend Christians; they believed it, they lived it, they were committed to it, and they could even defend it. So what happened? Well, a number of things. See the links above. But I think a huge part of the problem was simply bad theology! To speak very broadly, Rhett had a problem understanding the relationship between science and the biblical worldview. This lead to questioning one thing after the other, to eventually questioning if he could trust what scholars said about Jesus. Link’s issue centered more on the problem of evil, which led to questioning God’s disposition toward hot-button social issues of today like homosexuality and gender neutrality. They both seemed to have difficulty trusting experts who affirmed Christianity. For them, those experts had a “bias” the others did not, and thus were motivated to conclude favorably toward the Christian view. This particular point is more philosophical than theological, but as mentioned above they are very much related. What’s interesting is how bad theology leads to bad philosophy. I think this was captured nicely by a comment on one of the links I shared above, which (I think) was actually written by a friend of mine and committed reader of this blog: It is incredible to me that people can look at, on the one hand, the idea that everything came from the God of the Bible and, on the other hand, the idea that everything came from literally nothing and conclude that the latter is not only more believable, but does not require faith. If it doesn’t require faith, then please describe a time when anyone anywhere has ever observed something coming from nothing. The reality is that our experience tells us that everything that begins to exist has an external and independent cause. To say that something began to exist out of nothing with no cause requires you to believe something happened that is completely contrary to everything you have ever seen. That sounds a lot like faith to me, and not just any kind of faith, but the kind that blindly jumps into the abyss. (Comment written by Tim L. on the Creation.com article shared above) To be clear, Rhett and Link now both identify as “hopeful agnostics.” They have not necessarily descended into a sort of materialistic naturalism, but it certainly seems as though they are on that trajectory. If that is where they land, bad theology will have led them to a point where they are willing to accept the philosophically bankrupt position that nothing produced something billions of years ago, and in relatively recent history, fish evolved into moon-landing, space-traveling philosophers. It sounds like a bad fairytale, but it is the truth. How Should We Respond? The all-important question is, what do we do now? How do we navigate these conversations? Let me offer a couple of practical suggestions: Don’t be surprised. 1 Corinthians 2:14 says, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” When a person is not a partaker of God’s saving grace, they are futile thinkers and are unable to understand spiritual things. In some cases, this leads to utter irrationality. You may have a leg up in any given conversation by going into it with modest goals and the expectation that they may not be approaching these issues with a sound mind. Deal with worldview. I know it’s not popular that I am a proponent of presuppositional apologetics (although I hate the name and the implications that come with it). But I think a balanced approach (like the one I outline here) can be persuasive and useful when dealing with folks who, like Rhett and Link, have all the evidence they need—yet still reject. The goal is to show that they have a worldview that is built upon a sinking foundation; where each day, they unknowingly saw off the branch of the tree on which they are “firmly” perched. Learn good theology. I suppose this one should be obvious, but take it upon yourself to learn what good theology is! They say that experts don’t identify counterfeit money by studying the counterfeits, but by a meticulous study of the real thing. What an illustration! Learn good theology, and when you have the chance to deal with open-minded skeptics, try your best to educate them on why their objections are missing the mark. At the very least, I hope this post will help you identify areas in your own walk where you may need to develop a better theology. Maybe it’s your theology of suffering, of creation, or something else. Regardless, God has given us a sound mind. Let’s use it for his glory. The post Atheism and the Problem of Bad Theology appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

This week, I’m excited to release this special edition of the podcast, which features an interview between myself and a friend of mine, Aaron Simpkins, on the True Strength Life podcast. We had a fabulous discussion about the evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. It’s Easter season, and for many of us, this is a time in history unlike any we’ve ever seen. And in a time when many are seeking hope and desperate to find it, I am so thankful that Jesus is who he is and did what he did. He is the hope of the nations. If you’ve never heard the strong historical evidence in favor of the resurrection before, or, if it’s been a while and you just need a refresher, I think you’ll really enjoy this one. The post SPECIAL EDITION: Evidence for the Resurrection appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

“The name of the Lord” is a phrase used throughout Scripture by multiple different authors. I wonder if we truly grasp what it really means, though, to call upon his name? I get the sense that this is one of those ideas that has been cliché in Christian culture, such that its true meaning and/or significance is actually lost among those who are familiar with it. The author of a popular-level book based on her exciting contribution to the scholarly theological literature, Bearing God’s Name, relayed the following in an interview: My dissertation was on the command not to take the Lord’s name in vain, which is how most of us read it in English. I was exploring the possibility of not reading it as speech-related. In the history of interpretation, most scholars have assumed that this command has something to do with speech. It’s either prohibiting false oaths or mispronunciation of the name, or the use of God’s name in magic or in cursing. There’s all sorts of speech-related possibilities. I read the command as an injunction not to bear Yahweh’s name in vain—so not to misrepresent him among the nations. So it’s as though Yahweh put his name on his people to claim them as his own, and then he says to them, “You shall not claim to belong to me and go out and live like the pagans.”…The closest passage in the book of Exodus to this command that uses ns with shem (the word “name”) is in the high priestly garments. When the high priestly garments are described, he is actually bearing the names of the 12 tribes on the jewels on his breast piece and on the jewels on his shoulder pieces. And it says, “You shall wear these, and so you shall bear the names of the sons of Israel for a memorial before me in the tabernacle.” So there’s a concrete example there of what it would look like to bear a name. They each have a share in his ministry by having their names all on his person. He represents them before Yahweh, and so we are supposed to represent Yahweh before the nations. And then, of course, the high priest also has the medallion on his forehead that says “wholly belonging to Yahweh” on it. Remembering that the New Testament has a profoundly Jewish context, it is no surprise to see this theme carry over from the Old Testament, in spite of the decreased usage density.1 There are numerous points of significance to the idea of bearing God’s name, and as we saw above, they go well beyond the concept of ill-speaking. The Name of the Lord Confers Authority Much of the time, the phrase “the name of the Lord” in the New Testament is used to denote divine authority in the Person of Christ. Frankly, it was used to identify Jesus as God. Mark 11:9-11 describes a scene from the so-called Triumphal Entry of Jesus into Jerusalem: And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest. And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve. Although this was not an instance of Jesus claiming divine authority, it reveals the contextual understanding that first-century Jews had of their Messiah. Of course, they ultimately stood in rejection of Jesus as this figure; they did not expect the Cross (1 Corinthians 2:8). The point is this: The confirmation that Messiah had come was bound up in the notion that he would bear the name of God. He would not merely come speaking the name, but in the name—in other words, as his representative. The Name of the Lord Confers Power To bear God’s name is also a matter of having power. This is, again, because true power is bound up in Yahweh—the God of the Hebrews. He has all power and all authority in heaven and earth. There is no power more powerful than him. He is all-powerful. Consider Acts 19:13-17: Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified. The power by which these demons were overcome was that which can only be manifested in the name of the Lord. In James 5, we see an example of this “name theology” as applied to prayer; specifically, prayer for the sick. Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms. Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. (James 5:13-15) There is nothing “special” here about someone in the church who has the title “elder,” nor is there any special property of the oil with which they were commanded to use. Rather, the power to heal came through an appeal to the name of the Lord. Again, not the word(s) associated with God’s name, but the meaning, power, and authority behind it. The Name of the Lord Confers Salvation In perhaps one of the most easily recognized instances of this passage, Romans 10:13 declares: For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. In this passage, we see another interesting aspect of “the name.” In modern vernacular, this particular usage of the motif gives us the most trouble. When we speak and/or think like this, it comes naturally to resort back to the idea of speech or language. But that’s not what’s going on here. It’s not as though someone who merely speaks the name of Jesus will invite salvation into her life. This is to rip “the name” out of its Scriptural context and give it a meaning it was never intended to have. Rather, in accordance with what we learned above, it is to take on the name of Christ. The marriage analogy is relevant, and given how often it is used in Scripture, some exciting new ideas may be forming in your mind right now. Calling upon the name of the Lord, then, means trusting in what he revealed to be true. It means true, genuine repentance from your wicked ways and the pursuit of a godly life.2 It means becoming a bearer of God’s name, representing him before the world, and following him in unwavering believing loyalty. Of course, beyond our salvation, our loyalty to God’s name also contributes to our sanctification: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) We are judicially declared “just” in the sight of God because Christ’s blood has been applied to our account; we are justified “in the name of the Lord Jesus” because we are “in Christ,” who himself bears the name of Yahweh. For deeper study into the history, significance, and practical application of so-called “name theology,” see Carmen Imes’ book, Bearing God’s Name. The post What Does it Mean to Call on the Name of the Lord? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

When it comes to reading the Bible, there is no shortage of optional plans, methods, and routines to choose from. But what if your version of reading the Bible is not contributing to your Christian growth, and stunting it instead? I have little doubt that, growing up, you received advice that sounded something like: Read your Bible cover to cover once per year. Every morning read another few verses. Et cetera. This always seemed challenging to me. And though I have done it a few times now, somehow, I never quite felt like I did enough. There was always one more day to go, and it really felt more like a chore to slog through than it should have. These days, I’m becoming less and less convinced that this advice was sound. Reading the Bible straight through with the goal of completing in one year has a few liabilities: As mentioned above, it can feel like a chore. The Bible is not written to be read straight through. It can be difficult to make important textual connections when reading the Bible linearly. I recently came across a helpful piece of advice from Sean McDowell, which admittedly served as the impetus for writing this piece. Questioning whether quantity should be our goal, Sean asks: But why should that be our goal? Why should our Scripture reading be about how much we read? There is undoubtedly value in daily Scripture reading. My point is not to minimize this important discipline. But honestly, how much do people really retain after the “Bible in a year plan”? My suspicion is that it may be less than we think. Sean is really on to something here. There is a glaring lack of depth to the biblical literacy of most Christians today, sad to say. It doesn’t take much to realize this. And yet, many Christians that I’ve known seem to have a daily Bible reading habit! Why the disconnect? What is the problem? I think the problem is a wrongheaded idea of the goal behind reading the Bible daily. Why Read? The Bible is God’s special revelation to mankind. In it, we learn truths about the nature of God, the nature of reality, and the nature of our ultimate destiny. Quite literally, it is the single most important collection of literature on the planet. Its creation was the result of divinely superintended production and preservation. There is nothing like it. The goal of reading the Bible, then, is to know the Divine Speaker behind it. And the problem is that merely reading it has quite a casual connotation. It is something that requires a much deeper and much closer inspection. It needs to be studied. Its depths need to be plumbed. Now, I’m not necessarily saying a casual read-through is uncalled for. Sean puts it nicely: If the goal is primarily to get through the Bible [in a] year, then this is a great plan. But he’s absolutely correct to question whether that should always be the goal. Perhaps that is the goal for your family Bible time, for example. Personally, though, I cannot tell you how many times I’ve received almost supernatural insight from carefully considering just one or two verses over and above a mechanical read-through. Studying the Bible > Reading the Bible Embracing an attitude of study and reflection may serve us better than a robotic commitment to reading. I say this for a few reasons: Studying allows for connections to be made. There are no accidentals or incidentals in the Bible. If it’s there, it was placed there for a purpose. Even if the purpose seems small! By the way, many things that sound “strange” to our ears often get glossed over. I have found that if I dig deeper into those strange stories or motifs, I learn more than I could have imagined possible. Studying forces a commitment to critical thinking. This one might seem strange, but it seems to me that if one takes the time to carefully approach the Bible in its context, according to the appropriate literary genre, historical setting, etc., it will force one to slow down and think more carefully and critically. This is because natural questions will arise that beg for the student to answer them. Times are hard, and getting harder. My brothers and sisters here in the West seem to know little of the persecution that happens to Christians worldwide. There will come a day when ownership of God’s Word is a dangerous privilege, rather than an expected right. You will not know God’s Word by reading it. Intimate knowledge requires study, thought, and interaction. My #1 Practical Tip for Reading the Bible Well I want to be clear that I do not endorse a particular method for studying the Bible over another. There are so many helpful tools and ideas. For example, you may reserve your study to a tool like Logos Bible Software by Faithlife. Or, you may prefer to use a heavily referenced study Bible—or, you may intentionally choose a Bible without even so much as a cross-reference! Rather, I think my point can be captured in just two words: Slow down. Many readers know I love a good aphorism. This one may sound a bit cheesy, but I guarantee it’s memorable: Slow down your speed when the Bible you read. This one tip will help you practically apply my thoughts here to whichever method you choose. One book at a time, over and over. Following the cross-references of an idea. Using a thematic approach. Reading chronologically. Reading cover-to-cover. All of these approaches will be dramatically more effective if you simply slow down, think carefully and critically, and intentionally look for connections between books, writers, and themes in the text. Don’t just “read.” Study slowly and soak up God’s truth. The post Reading the Bible may be a bad thing. Here’s why. appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

While reading the response to a question on Quora a while back, another user’s question caught my eye. What makes having kids worth it?, the questioner asked. My first inclination was to think, what kind of question is that?! But as I thought deeper, it became clear that this question is quite revealing about the current state of our culture. In our world, kids are treated as though they are an inconvenience. They are an “add-on” that some parents find nice to have, and others would rather not. Some Christian parents have children merely because of cultural compulsion, but treat them and discipline them according to their own convenience. Dr. Tedd Trip explains: Some parents have no noble goal at all; they simply want to control their children. These parents want their children to mind, to behave, to be good, to be nice. They remind their children of how things were when they were youngsters. Frequently they employ the “tried and true” methods of discipline—whatever their parents did that seemed to work. They want children who are manageable. They want them to do the right thing (whatever that is at the moment). The bottom line is to control their kids. But the control is not directed toward specific character development objectives. The concern is personal convenience and public appearance. (Tripp, Shepherding a Child’s Heart) The kids are okay to keep around, as long as they do their part to make the family look good and don’t cause too much trouble. Sadly, if we’re honest, we all fall into this trap at one time or another. None of us are perfect parents. The Purpose of Having Children So, what is the core of the problem? I think it’s a failure to understand why we have children. This idea was captured beautifully in a 2017 blog post by my friend, Lindsay Harold. It’s short enough to include here in its entirety: The number one reason Christian couples do not want children (or want very few children) is because they do not understand the purpose of children according to the Bible. Our culture tells us children are for self-actualization. They’re what you have when you’re settled, financially secure, and need something to care for in order to give you purpose and also increase your social status or to make you feel good about yourself. But if children are for self-actualization, then you wouldn’t want to have one when it might be difficult or get in the way of other types of self-actualization like having money for vacations or a big house or having freedom to travel or having time to yourself now and then. You certainly wouldn’t need very many of them. A single child or maybe two is plenty and having more than that would result in diminishing returns or even negative returns as the workload and expense from multiple children mounts and people start to look at you funny due to your excessive procreation. Because of this view of children, they are often seen as burdens when they cause us stress or expense or limit our freedom, but also as commodities to be obtained when we want one. People obtain children by surrogacy or sperm donation or IVF because they feel entitled to have one as part of their pursuit of self-actualization. Their life feels incomplete without a child, so they deserve to have one by any means necessary. So even when children are wanted, it is often for selfish reasons of the parents, not because they understand the purpose of children. And when children show up when they aren’t wanted, they are seen as invaders or parasites and discarded through abortion or neglected. It’s all part of the same false view of children as a means to the end of parental happiness Even in Christian circles, we repeat the mantra that children are a blessing, but we don’t always understand what that means. We adopt the culture’s attitude, but Christianize it. So we’re still thinking that children being a blessing means a blessing to us. When you’ve got a crying baby at 2:00am or you’re sitting in the emergency room with your child after they took a flying leap and broke a bone or you’re dealing with a difficult teenager or you’re doing your 4th load of laundry for the day and your toddler wets their pants yet again, there are a lot of things on your mind, but “This is such a blessing” is probably not one of them. Children are a lot of work and a lot of expense and even a lot of heartache at times. So what does the Bible mean when it says children are a blessing? Yes, they are certainly a blessing to their parents in many ways, but it’s much more than that. Children are meant to be a blessing to the whole world. Even from an earthly perspective, a child is a future worker, innovator, consumer, and contributor to society in many ways. We need children to keep the economy and our culture thriving and to pass it on to the next generation. Having a child is an investment in the future, not just for ourselves, but for the world. More importantly, a child raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord is a light in a dark world, to lead others to Jesus and influence their culture for Christ. A child is a legacy to pass down a heritage of serving Christ to future generations. And perhaps most importantly, a child is an immortal soul who will live forever and is meant to praise and worship God and bring glory to our Creator. The purpose for children is not self-actualization of their parents. Children don’t exist to make their parents feel good about themselves (which is good, because they don’t always do that). Children exist to know and serve God and to be used by Him to change the world, or at least their corner of it. Having children and raising them, for a Christian, is a way of helping to bring the world into subjection to Christ and bringing more people to heaven. It’s not about the parents and what makes them happy. It’s about fulfilling God’s plan. Every Christian, whether they know it or not, is on a mission to serve God. Having children is an important way of doing that because they’re a way to multiply the impact and take that impact down through the years. Even for those who can’t have biological children of their own, children are still important and we are all called to foster the growth of the children around us in whatever ways we can. If you can have children, have them because they’re part of your mission for God to impact the world around you for many years to come. If you can’t, encourage those around you who are having children and help children who need your influence in order to know and love God. Children are worth the pain and the work and the expense many times over, but not because they make the lives of their parents so wonderful. Sometimes they do, and that’s great. But let’s not overlook the bigger picture. It’s not about the parents. It’s about implementing God’s plan here on earth and populating heaven with more people to glorify God. Thus, children are “worth it” because they are worth something to God. They are to be a blessing to the world and bring glory to God. As long as we go along with the cultural lie that our children exist to bring us happiness, status, or be little humans to otherwise control for our purposes, we will see increasing acceptance for unbiblical parenting ideas in the church. This goes for gruesome “parenting” ideas like abortion as well. Abortion is merely a consistent deduction from this unbiblical perspective. As long as children are a commodity, this will persist. Christian Parents: Your Mission As a parent who follows Christ, you, therefore, have a responsibility. That responsibility is threefold, minimally: To raise children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. The Bible has much to say about parenting children. Children are to be disciplined, taught to understand their role within the family, the government, and the Church, and taught about who God is and what it means to know and follow him. To teach your children how to be an imager of God. To be human is to be an “imager” of God. By divine decree, human beings share in the responsibility to care for God’s creation. This not only means we help care for the world we live in, but we help care for the people God has entrusted us with. This means caring for their physical and spiritual well-being. To lead your children into an eternal relationship with God. There is nothing more important for a person than understanding who they are in God’s economy. How a child (then teenager, then adult, etc.) relates to God is the ultimate question. They must be taught that they live in sin, and that Jesus has provided the only way of escape. The danger in having children is that we tend toward unbiblical ideas. We can easily be legalistic by demanding that our kids conform to some extra-biblical standard, and then disowning them when they violate that construct. In contrast, we can easily be liberalistic by conforming to our culture’s idea of letting them “be who they want to” and discover God “on their own.” Both of the above ideas are a misappropriation of God’s attitude toward children. And make no mistake, God has placed us in his position of authority in our children’s lives. We are to be agents of God in our children’s lives. Children are “worth it” because they are worth something to God. And as such, they should be worth something to us. The post What Makes Having Kids Worth It? A Biblical Answer to the Wrong Question. appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

For Christmas, I received an awesome Zox wristband. (By the way, these things rock, and each purchase provides a YEAR of clean water to someone living in need.) One side of the wristband has a neat wood/orange pattern. The other side says, “Against the Grain.” As I looked down at that wristband one day, it occurred to me that, as Christians, this is exactly what we ought to do. Unfortunately, we live in a world of identity politics. The way you are treated by those wishing to promote this system is not based on ideology and ultimate truth, but on skin color, socio-economic status, etc. The dangers of such an idea cannot be understated. Why? Because all are one in Christ. That is, there are really only two groups of people in the world: Saved, and unsaved. You believe in God and honor him as Lord, or you don’t. Here’s Dictionary.com on “going against the grain” for those unfamiliar with the metaphor: To go contrary to someone’s natural disposition: “Having to get up this early in the morning really goes against my grain.” This refers to the fact that someone who rubs his hand against the grain on a piece of lumber will get splinters. So then, as Christ-followers, what is the “grain” we ought to go against? What should we resist in order to be like Christ? The Grain of Society A constant theme throughout the Scriptures involves the uncomfortable doctrine of separation. What’s meant is not a sort of isolationism, though; we are Christ’s hands and feet in the world! What’s meant is a separation of ideology. There is something different about us. Not because we’re better, but because we’re forgiven! We’ve all heard it before: “The ground is level at the foot of the cross.” Each one of us has the opportunity for redemption. God is just, and will see to it that any who would accept his free gift of salvation have the opportunity. When we place our highest priority in the material things of the world, we betray the life Christ has called us to (Romans 12:1-2). Ideas matter, and most often, our ideas run contrary to those around us. Tempting as it may be to give in, we must stand strong for the gospel and be a light in this dark world—at whatever cost. The Grain of Sex It’s no accident that, wherever we see an implosion of culture, the grain of sex has become god. Many (rightly) refer to this as “the religion of sex.” Unfortunately, those in positions of Christian leadership fall just as guilty. In recent days I’ve learned of sexual predators in the pulpits of influential churches, as well as folks pining for governmental leadership who claim to be Christian yet reject biblical teaching about sexuality. Sex is a good thing, but many have distorted it to the point that it controls every decision. In Romans 1, we see the abuse of sexuality as a judgment of God, and the natural outworking of rejecting the knowledge of him. As influencers for Christ (whether or not you have a “platform” to stand on), we must remain vigilant, watchful, and prayerful that we do not fall into sin in the grain of sex. The Grain of Self The grain of self is ultimately the root of all issues: pride. A familiar verse, Proverbs 16:18, says, “Pride goeth before destruction, And an haughty spirit before a fall.” The problem that plagues all humanity is a desire to become god, deciding good and evil for ourselves. Only by means of divine rescue can we escape the grasp of such a motive. Ultimately, as long as we’re serving self, we cannot really serve God. Our motives will always be impure. In John 5:30 Jesus declares, I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. How amazing what we seek to accomplish by ourselves and for ourselves, yet Christ, our example—God in the flesh—was bound and determined to do only the will of the Father. Ultimately, then, the path to destruction is lined with those going with the grain. It’s easy to go along with the world into destruction; the allure is great, the immediate rewards are often pleasing, and the promise of grandeur is everywhere. But the path to righteousness, the narrow path, is lined by those who, like Jesus, decide to go against the grain of society, sex, and self. The post Don’t Be Afraid to Go Against the Grain—That’s What Jesus Did appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

As it turns out, many Christians are confused about how and what happens when a person “gets saved.” This is Christianese language we’re all used to using, but sometimes, it can be hard to communicate to others what we mean. I’ve dealt with the distinctness of Christian salvation here. In this piece, I’d like to discuss three elements of salvation. When does conversion take place in a person’s life? What evidence will be demonstrated when this happens? For how long is a person saved? First An unfortunate, yet common mistake many Christians make is expecting others to conform their moral ideals to ours. According to the Bible, this is not possible. Actually, there’s quite an interesting tension here. Romans 2:14-15 declares that all will be held accountable precisely because God’s moral law has been written on the hearts of all he has created. In other words, on judgment day, nobody will be standing in moral judgment over Yahweh, their Creator. And yet, in apparent contradistinction, 1 Corinthians 2:14-16 reads: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. This passage seems to suggest that it’s no wonder the “natural” man doesn’t do things God’s way! To do things his way requires spiritual discernment, which is impossible for the unbeliever. We often tend to legalism, unfortunately. Such is the human way. When others don’t think, walk, talk, or act just like us, we treat them as outsiders. They’re not part of the club. While in a certain sense this may be true, it should not cause us to lose focus on the real goal and approach unbelievers with faulty expectations. As the old saying goes, “We catch ’em, God cleans ’em!” When it comes to bringing others to Christ, let’s focus on our task. Our part of the mission is to sow the seed and introduce people to Christ. He takes care of the rest. Before moving on, let me caveat the above just a bit: I am not saying we should stay out of socio-political issues that derive from a Christian view of morality. For example, I think Christians ought to do all they (ethically) can to lobby for legislation against abortion. As sad as the case may be, it should not be surprising to us how many wish to celebrate their ability to control life and death. Frankly, they want to play God. Therefore, the best way to contradict their efforts is to bring them to the real God, that they might submit to him. Everything—and I do mean everything—changes in the person who truly submits and surrenders to God. Fruitful Well if everything changes, that suggests there must be some evidence in the life of a person who decides to follow Jesus. Indeed, this is precisely what we should expect. In a well-known discourse written to the church at Galatia, the Apostle Paul writes the following: Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another. (Galatians 5:19-26) I think vs. 24 is a marvelous statement of what it means to turn from death unto life; from unbeliever to believer: And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. The Galatians were confused people on these matters. They were being influenced by a group who taught that salvation required works in order to be effective. In contrast, Paul and others taught that works were a byproduct of salvation, not something that contributed to it. So we have yet another arena of Christian theology where the concept of “evidence” comes into play. The evidence that a prophet was from the Lord was simply that the prophecy would come to pass (see Duetoronomy 17). The evidence that Jesus rose from the dead was that his was a bodily resurrection, recorded by multiple eyewitnesses and prophesied by biblical writers of old (see 2 Peter 1). And the evidence that a person knows the Lord is the manifestation of the fruit of the spirit in his or her life. It is in this sense only(!) that Christians are licensed fruit inspectors. Since we’re taught to mark and avoid those who teach contrary to the Scriptures (Romans 16:17), we must be aware at all times when there are “wolves” among us. While this does not mean we should avoid unbelievers altogether, neither does it mean we should looking to find fault in everyone we meet, it does mean we are well within our rights to judge whether a person knows the Lord on the basis of their outward testimony. The Lord alone knows their hearts, but we have been given discernment and the criteria needed to protect ourselves from those who teach contrary to the gospel. Final Although I am a firm believer in the doctrine of eternal security, I’d like for my comments here to be taken as distinct from that debate. What I really want to hone in on is the concept of “believing loyalty.” There is no shortage of discussion around how God’s people were “saved” in different periods of time. Covenantalists maintain that God deals with people over the course of history by making covenants with them, wherein each party agrees to uphold their end of the bargain to achieve the end of being in right relationship with him. Of course, on their view, no covenant has ever been kept except for the covenant of grace, which is wholly executed by God. In contrast, dispensationalists maintain that God deals with people in different ways throughout the course of history, with specific emphasis on a sharp distinction between the Church and Israel. I think there is some truth to be found in both positions. I personally prefer to express my view in terms of “believing loyalty,” which I believe captures what the Bible means to teach on the finality of salvation. For one, this avoids the negative connotations of other views. Plus, it allows me to follow the biblical text where it leads with respect to ancillary details, without forcing me to fit my view of salvation into a pre-determined system. So, what is “believing loyalty?” In Supernatural, Dr. Michael Heiser writes the following: The Law was not how Israelites achieved salvation—it was how they showed loyalty to the God they believed in. Salvation for an Israelite was about faith in the promises and character of the God of gods and about refusing to worship another god. It was about belief and loyalty from the heart, not earning brownie points with God. King David did awful things like commit adultery and arrange a murder (2 Sam. 11). According to the Law, he was a lawbreaker and deserved to die for his crimes. Even so, he never wavered in his belief in Yahweh as the Most High God. He never switched his loyalty to another god. And God was merciful to him. The same is true in the New Testament. Believing the gospel means believing that the God of Israel came to earth as a man, voluntarily died on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins, and rose again on the third day. We must embrace that by faith and then show our loyalty to Jesus by forsaking all other gods. Regardless of what those other gods may say about salvation, the Bible tells us there is no salvation in any other name than Jesus (Acts 4:12) and that faith must remain intact (Rom. 11:17–24; Heb. 3:19; 10:22, 38–39). Personal failure is not the same as trading Jesus for another god—and God can tell the difference. Again, many hours could be spent (and have been) sparring over whether or not one can ever lose their salvation and other fun theological questions. The fact remains that, for those who never trade their loyalty to Yahweh, salvation is final. Though we fail him every day, he will never fail us. And that is reason to rejoice! The post What is the Nature of Conversion? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” But what if that were not so? God, our Creator, is beautiful. And so is his creation. To talk about the objectivity of beauty, I’ve brought on a good friend of mine, nature photographer, and creation enthusiast, Pat Mingarelli. Pat has written articles for us before on the site (here and here) and I thought his would be an awesome perspective to hear on Creation Conversations. Enjoy this interview as we discuss subjects like objective beauty, how nature gives metaphors about the Person of God, and even some practical tips if you want to get started in nature photography. Don’t miss it! Mentioned in the Episode: The Fibonacci Sequence  Purposeful Overdesign Pat’s Ministry   Bad art examples:     The post Beauty in God’s Creation w/ Pat Mingarelli appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

The Bible is a book that, oftentimes, lays strange truths before us—at least, truths that are strange to 21st-century eyes. Reactions to these claims vary. Some attempt to shirk their responsibility to accept these claims by finding more comfortable solutions. In 1 Samuel 28, did the witch really divine Samuel unto Saul? I have heard lots of benign attempts at understanding this passage, but why not take it at face value? In the supernatural world we live in (and especially the one the biblical writers introduce us to), it’s absolutely possible that divine, intelligent evil was responsible for the witchcraft the text relays to us here. What about the “magicians” of Pharoah in the Exodus story? Could they really have done the things the text claims, or was it more akin to the sleight of hand that can be observed in Las Vegas or on late night television? More and more, I’ve become convinced that ought not to shy away when we read something strange in the Bible. Rather, we should embrace it! We should allow it to inform us of what the biblical writers really thought, and how they interacted with their world. One such strange phenomena is the so-called “great age of the patriarchs.” The Bible reports to us that, prior to the watery destruction of the earth recorded in Genesis 6-8, human beings were living upwards of 1000 years. This sounds absolutely preposterous to the reader informed of modern genetics. And, accordingly, attempts to rationalize and/or sanitize these accounts can be found. Perhaps in the ancient Near East (ANE), it was common to use such large numbers to represent other points, more theological or political in nature. Perhaps the text merely aims to convey a sense of family relationships to us, such that generations could have been skipped, and the large numbers are merely a way of conveying that hidden meaning analogically. Or, as with the instances above, perhaps the text is merely trying to tell us history in the truest sense of the word. Perhaps these figures really did live to be almost 1000 years old! What then? How is that possible given what we know about human history, human lifespans throughout history from other sources, and modern genetics? The Biblical Claim First and foremost, let me state upfront that I do think the proper reading is that the ages are meant to be taken at face value. That is not to say that we must appropriate a sort of wooden literalism to them, though. I’m okay if the flood started in the 601st year of Noah’s life, for example, even though the text rounds out to the 600th year. What we cannot do is extrapolate these ages to mean whatever we want. We can’t say that this really meant Noah was only 60 years old when the flood started. There is zero indication from the text that such an interpretation would be warranted. On the contrary, we do have evidence that the biblical authors often used round numbers, and in fact, we know this was a practice common to ANE writers in general. In our modern world, we often strive for precision, but we must allow the Bible to be what it is. Trustworthy, for sure, but reporting in a way that sometimes deviates from what we might expect. In the case of the Genesis 5 and 11 chronogenealogies, however, we have lots of detail and very good reason to think the ages reported should be taken fairly literally. Difficulties of Science The Bible says it, that settles it, right? Well certainly I believe that to be true. However, it would only be honest to take the concerns of modern science into consideration. There is much to learn from modern science. It is not the big bad boogeyman. In fact, it can be used to our advantage. The face value problem is, then, that most believe modern science has entirely ruled out the possibility of people ever having lived to these incredible ages. We find no fossil evidence of human beings ever having lived to these ages—a suggestion that is reasonable if young age creationism is true, but hard to believe if humans have been on the scenes for tens of thousands of years. Assuming the widely accepted long-age timescale, there is no reason to think this was genetically possible either. No time in history would serve to provide the necessary conditions to produce such a drastic change as we see between the antediluvian patriarchs and the post-diluvian patriarchs. This leads to a reasonable question. What Happened After the Flood? After the flood we observe a number of interesting things. For one, lifespans seem to radically decrease. While the oldest man to live before the flood was Methuselah at 969 years old, the oldest to ever live after the flood was Eber at only 464 years old. From there the number only goes down with each successive generation, until it settles to ~90 years. Although it might not be directly related to the question of these long ages, we also see a rapid increase in change within the animal kinds. We have every reason to think that the animals on board the ark were much different, at least in most cases, than their modern descendants today. And yet, we also have every reason to think there were animals as we experience them today living just hundreds of years after the flood.1 While early creationist thought held that the most likely contributing factor was the radically altered ecology of the reorganized world, most creationists today have abandoned a few of the necessary assumptions this position would require, such as the Canopy Theory. This, along with advances in genetic science (and with specific respect to young age creationist research), has led to the more prevalent view today that the radical decrease in lifespan is due primarily to genetic factors, with the ecology playing a more tertiary role. This entails that there was a plethora of genetic diversity available to natural selection prior to the flood. (Yes, creationists believe in natural selection. It is observable.) Since such genetic diversity would not yet have been subjected to any bottlenecks or thousands of years of degradation and devolution, it is perfectly reasonable to think that pre-flood (and therefore, pre-genetic-bottleneck) humans had much longer lifespans than those we observe today.2 Conclusion Although we don’t have all the answers, and there is much more work to do from a scientific perspective, we can feel confident that the Bible is accurately reporting the pre-flood patriarchal ages. This is because of assumptions that follow logically from a young age creationist interpretation of the Bible, such as created genetic diversity and a genetic bottleneck created by the flood scenario’s reducing of the human population to just eight souls. These, taken together with other genetic, epigenetic, and ecological changes to the post-flood environment, serve to underscore the scientific plausibility of the biblically-reported ages. The post How Could Humans Have Lived to Over 900 Years Old? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

The gods are real. This is a shocking truth most Old Testament scholars have come to understand that has not made its way in the pews. The gods of Israel’s ancient Near Eastern neighbors were not literally made of stone, gold, or any other material. Rather, they were real spiritual beings that had a dramatic—and demonic—influence in the lives of their worshippers. If this sounds unlike anything you’ve ever heard, I’m not surprised. However, this idea is not new. It has been buried in the scholarship for decades (or longer). I’ve alluded to it in recent posts, and since I’ll probably allude to it often, I’d like to offer a concise explanation of the view here. What is a “God”? The Hebrew word for God or gods is elohim. It would be a mistake, however, to associate the word elohim—and therefore, the word “god”—with a particular set of attributes. This is a wholly Western idea that often colors our reading of the biblical text. The word simply refers to beings of a spiritual nature. For example, the Bible calls Samuel an elohim, after being summoned by the witch at Endor. In Psalm 8:5, we see the word used to describe what is translated in the New Testament as “angels” (angelous—Hebrews 2:9). Of course, there are deeper layers to uncover. The term angelous is not describing an ontological status. Meaning, it’s not describing a type of being, rather it denotes a role. The word simply means “messenger.” What we should not miss is that the word elohim is used often of beings that are not necessarily angels, but neither are they God. There are many elohim, but there is only one Yahweh. Similarly, Yahweh is an elohim, but no other elohim is Yahweh. The Divine Council So then, who are these elohim, and what do they do? Dr. Michal Heiser1 explains: The gods of Psalm 82:1 are called “sons of the Most High [God]” later in the psalm (v. 6). The “sons of God” appear several times in the Bible, usually in God’s presence (as in Job 1:6; 2:1). Job 38:7 tells us they were around before God began to fashion the earth and create humanity. And that is very interesting. God calls these spiritual beings his sons. Since he created them, the “family” language makes sense, in the same way you refer to your offspring as your son or daughter because you participated in their creation. But besides being their Father, God is also their king. In the ancient world, kings often ruled through their extended families. Kingship was passed on to heirs. Dominion was a family business. God is Lord of his council. And his sons have the next highest rank by virtue of their relationship with him. 2 This is often referred to as The Divine Council Worldview. In this worldview, there is an entire spiritual dimension—or meta-narrative—behind nearly every Bible story you’ve had memorized from Sunday School. To be sure, many continue through life never knowing this information, and one can be a committed Christian having no knowledge of this deeper meaning. Once you see it, though, you can’t unsee it, and for good reason. This “Unseen Realm”3 is very spiritually significant, and has implications for how we understand the Bible, understand God, and even how to understand ourselves. This is not high-minded spiritualistic theolo-jargon, but spiritually significant, practical truth that can change everything in our Christian walk. The Truth About Babel It’s impossible to understand much about this worldview if you don’t understand the true nature of the events of Genesis 11. Many rightly consider this event to describe the rebellion of the post-flood culture, where God retaliated by dispersing the people and dividing their language, culture, etc. In brief, the nations of the world (Genesis 10) were given over to the rule of these gods. Such an event is not made obvious in Genesis 11, but is made clear from other period writings along with Second Temple Jewish literature. But we’re not left to pull all of our information from extra-biblical texts. Deuteronomy 32:7-9 describes the event: Remember the days of old, Consider the years of many generations: Ask thy father, and he will shew thee; Thy elders, and they will tell thee. When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, When he separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people According to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance. Although this text says the bounds of the people were set according to the number of sons of Israel, this is not a good translation. The textual debate surrounding an alternative interpretation can be read about here, and is well beyond the scope of this discussion. Suffice it to say for now there is an overabundance of evidence to suggests that this passage should read “according to the number of the sons of God,” and refers back to an event (Babel) that took place before Israel was even a nation. To strike up a correlation in your mind, remember when all Israel begged for a king and God gave them Saul? Same situation. The rebels at Babel built a tower (called a Ziggaraut) that was meant to be a place to “summon” the gods. To bring the gods on their level. This was not the relationship God had in mind, and so as a judgment, he alotted the nations to these lesser elohim. But they rebelled, just like Adam and Eve in the garden. They turned the people toward magic, idol-worship, and other practices meant to draw worship for themselves, rather than for Yahweh.4 God’s judgment of these elohim can be read about in Psalm 82:1-8: God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; He judgeth among the gods. How long will ye judge unjustly, And accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: Do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: Rid them out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither will they understand; They walk on in darkness: All the foundations of the earth are out of course. I have said, Ye are gods; And all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, And fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth: For thou shalt inherit all nations. So, at this point you may be wondering what this means for you. Well, for one, it illuminates something about the Bible that has always seemed odd to me. And secondly, it means something about the nature of redemption—the life and work of Jesus Christ. We’ll discuss these in turn. Cosmic Geography Have you ever wondered about the unusual obsession with land among the biblical writers? The entire Old Testament seems to be concerned—in near exclusivity—with who has what land. From the conquests of Israel to their displacement into Babylonian exile, from the sacred spaces set up in the tabernacle to the grandiose temple built by King Solomon—it’s all about the land. Dr. Heiser sums it up: God’s allotment of the nations to other gods frames the entire Old Testament. How? The rest of the Old Testament is about the God of Israel and his people, the Israelites, in conflict with the gods of the other nations and the people who live in them.5 Every conquest, every instruction to ritual cleanliness, and every measure taken to approach God in absolute holiness has to do with the concept of Cosmic Geography and Sacred Space. Perhaps no other biblical story nicely and concisely demonstrates the nature of this motif than that of Naaman: My favorite Old Testament story that makes this point is found in 2 Kings 5. Naaman was a captain in the Syrian army. He was also a leper. After he followed Elisha’s instructions to wash himself seven times in the Jordan River, he was miraculously healed of leprosy. Naaman told Elisha, “I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel” (5:15). The prophet wouldn’t take payment, so Naaman humbly asked if he could load a mule with dirt to take home with him. Dirt? Why ask for dirt? Because that ground belonged to Israel’s God. It was holy. It’s no accident that we see the same kind of thinking in the New Testament. Paul uses a range of terms for hostile divine beings (Eph. 1:20–21; 3:10; 6:12; Col. 1:16; 2:15): rulers, authorities, powers, thrones. What do they have in common? They were all well-known terms used to describe geographical rulership.6 When read against this backdrop, the connections made throughout the text of the Bible light up like a well-lit Christmas tree. The Mission of Jesus But much more than just helping to understand the Bible, this worldview also illuminates the work of Jesus. According to Heiser: The cosmic geography that is the result of God’s judgment of the nations at Babel is the backdrop for Israel’s struggle. It also sets the stage for the gospel. The good news of Jesus’ work on the cross is that the people of God are no longer only Jews but rather all who believe in Jesus (Gal. 3). As the disciples go out into the world, the domain of Satan is transformed into God’s territory. The kingdom of God advances, regaining control of the nations.7 The work of Jesus Christ is therefore about more than the redemption of sin in the sense of breaking God’s law. It’s about God’s reclaiming the nations and their constituents from the forces of evil to whom they were once allotted. Why did Jesus send out 70 disciples in Luke 10:1? It was to spread the good news of the gospel to the 70 disinherited nations (Genesis 10). The entire book of Acts, in fact, is one big nod to this worldview. There are many details within biblical accounts that make much more sense in light of this worldview, and are extremely mysterious without it. In short, it’s impossible to understand the entirety of biblical revelation without understanding the drama playing out in the spiritual realm adjacent to the drama playing out in our physical world. Both are interesting, interconnected, and important to a truly biblical worldview. This piece was meant to be a short introduction to the Divine Council Worldview. If you’re intrigued and want to understand more about it, I invite you to read Dr. Heiser’s Supernatural. To go even deeper, his in-depth and scholarly yet still highly readable treatment, The Unseen Realm, is also available. The post The Gods Are Real: A Concise Explanation of the Supernatural Meta-narrative of Scripture appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

A common feature of the debate surrounding apologetic methodology involves speculation as to the ground of our Christian belief. We might summarize the question before us this way: Do we believe in Jesus because we believe the Bible, or do we believe the Bible because we believe in Jesus? Ultimately I’m going to take issue with the way the question is phrased, but since this is how it is usually cast, I’ll take some time to work through those questions, first. The Problem and the Tension Those interested in this debate usually take a hard position on either side. If you believe our faith is grounded in God’s Word, you’re likely a presuppositionalist. This view is most often associated with what’s known as “revelational epistemology,” which maintains that the only way anyone knows anything is by revelation from God. If you believe of our faith is grounded in Jesus himself, you’re likely an evidentialist or classicalist. This position would only require agreement with the consensus of New Testament scholarship that the gospels are reliable primary source documents about the life of Jesus of Nazareth—a belief in supernatural inspiration is not required but is rather something like a side effect of becoming a follower of Christ. The following quote by Dr. William Lane Craig nicely summarizes this view: Even taken as ordinary, fallible human records, the New Testament documents have been shown to be reliable with respect to these facts. Too many Christians naively think that unless you presuppose biblical inspiration and inerrancy, the historicity of the life of Jesus goes down the drain. This attitude, far from showing confidence in the Bible, actually betrays a profound lack of confidence in its historical credibility. Without the theological assumptions of inspiration and inerrancy to hold it up, the Bible is implicitly taken to be untrustworthy on this view. But once one becomes a Christian, then one submits to the teaching of the Lord Jesus. When we see how Jesus regarded the Old Testament, we perceive that he taught it to be the inspired and wholly reliable Word of God. So as his disciples, we should, too. We believe in the Bible because we believe in him. What’s interesting is that folks on both sides of the debate would surely want to affirm aspects of the other’s view. Certainly we all want to say that we learn things about God through special revelation—and, at the time same time, we all want to say that the gospels are historically reliable documents that teach about the life of Jesus. So what’s the real issue, then? As someone with friends on both sides of the issue (I personally find myself somewhat in the middle), it seems to me it rests on the important distinction between logical and chronological priority. How Do We Come to Know Things? While a broader discussion about epistemology might be helpful here, that’s a bit beyond the scope of this piece. For our purposes, let’s discuss logical priority vs chronological priority. The latter is rather easy to grasp. For event x to be chronologically prior to event y, event x must simply take place before event y in time. Logical priority constitutes x being a sufficient condition for y to take place. Fellow blogger J.W. Wartick has a concise, helpful explanation: Logical priority, broadly defined, is the way things are ontologically ordered. That is, to say that for two factors, x and y, x is logically prior to y if and only if x takes precedence over y. An example could be to use miracles and God (note this is just for the sake of example, I realize that some would argue miracles can exist without God, but I’m simply using it as an illustration). The existence of God is logically prior to miracles in the sense that if God does not exist, then miracles do not. In this case, God would be x, while miracles would be y. In order for y to be the case, x must also be the case, thus making x logically prior to y. From my view, then, a confusion (or ignorance) of this distinction is at the heart of the divide on the issue at hand. The evidentialist, it seems, wants to argue that we believe the Bible because we believe in Jesus on the basis that we can know about Jesus and even form true beliefs about who he was and what he did chronologically prior to forming a belief about the inspiration and authority of Scripture. The presuppositionalist might well agree with the latter half of the previous statement (I do!), but take issue with the first half, since our knowledge of who Jesus really was is based on the logically prior foundation laid by Scripture. He would reason that it is absurd to think that one should believe what Jesus claims about himself apart from prior revelation.1 Indeed, if not for the Messianic context of Christ’s life and work, he might well fall subject to the “liar” or “lunatic” poles of Lewis’ famous trilemma. And, sure enough, the evidentialist may agree! So, how do we decide which view, if either, is correct? Since we all ultimately affirm the inspiration and authority of Scripture, we can use Scripture itself to inform our thinking here. I think Scripture has more to say on this very issue than most people realize! How Do We Know Jesus? First, it would be prudent to explore just how we know who Jesus is, which we can do by finding where he grounds his own authority. The Son of Man There are two very important passages that demonstrate Jesus finding and proving his own authority by the Hebrew Scriptures, both of which trade on the “Son of man” motif found in Daniel 7. In Jewish thought, the “Son of man” was a messianic figure who would play a major role in the coming apocalypse. The Lexham Bible Dictionary explains, In the early to mid-20th century, scholarship posited that texts referred to an apocalyptic figure—a divine heavenly being—who would appear at the end of time to complete the work of judgment and bring final salvation to God’s people (Boussett, Kyrios Christos, 31–55; Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 348–53; Tödt, Son of Man, 22–31). This apocalyptic figure seems to feature in Jewish texts such as 1 Enoch 46–71 and 4 Ezra 13. In both of these texts, an authoritative heavenly figure appears at God’s side to judge the world and bring salvation. Both 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra play a major role in the Jewish concept of the Messiah. Multiple times, Jesus adorns this title in response to challenges of his authority. In Mark 2:10-11 Jesus says, But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. This was a huge claim. For the Jews, only Yahweh could forgive sins.2 This was Jesus claiming equality with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and grounding his identity in prior special revelation. Similarly, in John 5:26-27 Jesus claims, For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Again, we see Jesus as the Son of man, claiming direct authority from Yahweh to execute judgment. The force of Jesus’ assertions would be all but gone without the ability to tie his person to this messianic figure of the Hebrew Bible, but it’s not the only time he did that. The Messiah of Psalm 22 Written 1,000 years prior to the events of Christ’s death and even before the invention of death by crucifixion, Psalm 22 is a stunning messianic passage. It describes in detail the events surrounding the death of Christ. We know that Jesus thought of himself as the subject of Psalm 22 because he cries out “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” from the cross. Jesus was not randomly pulling a relevant line from the Hebrew Bible to apply to his situation. His usage here was very intentional. The intent was to call the entire passage to remembrance since that is how they often referenced a selection of Scripture in Bible days. The idea is that all of the thoughts surrounding the events of Psalm 22 come to mind when Jesus cries out its opening line from the cross. Again, without this context, Jesus’ death would just as well fit the intended meaning of the derogatory “King of Jews” moniker given to him. This context demonstrates he is the Messiah, the actual King of the Jews, as he claimed. The Road to Emmaus One final example is the walk to Emmaus that Jesus shares with a couple of travelers, found in Luke 24. Recall the note in v. 27: And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. Perhaps even more stunning is the words of Christ himself to these travelers in the two preceding verses (25b-26): O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Behooved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory? Of course, the word “Christ” just means “Messiah.” But the obvious suggestion here is that Christ’s life and work only have proper context if the prior revelation of Yahweh to his people confirms them. That seems to follow from all of the above examples of Jesus and his claims to divinity and authority. This would suggest that it is not unreasonable to think that we do, in fact, believe in Christ because we believe in the Bible, and not the other way around. Jesus called people to believe on him—sure enough. But remember the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom? In Jesus’ story, the rich man pleads with Abraham that he might go and warn his brothers about this place of torment in the afterlife. The answer? “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead” (Luke 16:29-31). In a stunning display, Jesus himself affirms that the writings of Moses and the Prophets have just as much power when it comes to persuasion toward belief as an eyewitness encounter of himself! But he’s not the only one who thought this way. New Testament Authors and the Priority of Special Revelation Two examples will serve to demonstrate that new revelation was always adjudicated by prior revelation, lest new believers be led astray by false teachers. The Bereans In Acts 17:11, the Bereans are commended and even hailed to be “more noble” than those in Thessalonica because they searched the Scriptures daily. But note the reason they did this: to see “whether those things were so.” What things? The things declared to them by God’s messengers, Paul and Silas (v. 10). Note that Paul, in particular, had a divine appointment. He was “called to be an Apostle” (Romans 1:1, 1 Corinthians 1:1). Thus, they did not just take Paul and Silas’ word for it. What they did meant nothing if it did not accord with the Word of God. Why think the same would not apply to the arrival of the Messiah? A More Sure Word In fact, I would argue that it certainly does! Note one of my favorite portions of Scripture, 2 Peter 1:16-21 (emphasis mine): For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Notice that Peter argues for the factual basis of his claims grounded in his own eyewitness testimony and experience of Christ. Such testimony is exactly the kind of thing historians use to ground the historical reality of Jesus’ life. But according to at least one inscripturated eyewitness himself, namely Peter, the prophecies which were inspired of God and written prior to these events were even more sure! That is to say, Peter knew that even when his mind or his eyes might fail him, God’s Word was sure above all else. For all of these reasons and more, I cannot accept the thesis that we believe in the Bible because we believe in Christ. To do so is to imply that what a man can write in a history book apart from the inspiration of God has more persuasive and revelatory value than the very documents which, given under inspiration, provide the necessary context to understand the life and work of Jesus. Given that neither Jesus himself or the biblical authors have such a mindset, and that the very opposite mindset is both demonstrated and commended in Scripture, I am forced to disagree strongly with this approach and anyone who wishes to promote it. The post The Foundation of Faith: Jesus, or the Bible? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Having grown up in church all my life, it was not uncommon to hear warnings against the idea of “change.” To be clear, I think those contexts were of righteous intent, and even have a Scriptural basis. If one is convinced that God does not change (Malachi 3:6) and God’s Word never changes (Psalm 119:89), one may rightly conclude that there is a degree of unhealthy change. But that is not to say that all change in one’s position is bad. Actually, I now believe the opposite to be true. If you’re not changing, you’re not growing. Passages such as Hebrews 5:13-14 and 1 Corinthians 3:2 strongly suggest that we must go deeper with God’s Word, which will necessarily lead to a growth in understanding and, quite likely, a change in theology. Assuming now that change can be a good thing, how should we handle it? Have you ever learned something new that rocked your world, and maybe has changed how you read the entire Bible? I have. Here are two examples. Molinism Molinism is the view that, through divine middle knowledge, God knew logically prior to creating the universe what any free creature would do given a particular set of circumstances. This view therefore reconciles divine sovereignty and human freedom. It shows that God can so arrange the world as to accomplish his purposes, while not violating the free decisions made by those whom he created. If you’re interested to learn more of the nuance behind this view, I’d invite you to check out my soteriological position here, or my interview with Tim Stratton here. Understanding God’s middle knowledge and how it works has been a game-changer in how I read the Bible and work through various aspects of my theology. The Divine Counsel Worldview This is a view I have recently been exposed to, which has quite literally changed how I understand almost every passage of Scripture. In extreme brief, the view demonstrates that the “gods” of ancient Israel’s neighbors were not reducible to stone idols. Rather, they are very real, intelligent, spiritual beings who were given rule over the scattered nations at Babel as a judgment for the people’s rebellion. Some of these beings, much like humanity in Genesis 3, turned wicked and made the free decision to reject Yahweh (see Psalm 82). The gospel is therefore not merely concerned with the salvation and restoration of our souls from the curse of sin, but is very much concerned with Christ—the Son of the Most High—reclaiming the nations under rightful rule and establishing his eternal family, both spiritual and human. What to Do? Unfortunately, this innate resistance to change within certain Christian communities has resulted in many being so paralyzed that they fail to study deeper. If change is possible and should be avoided, then so should any study which could lead to it. If that’s you, come on in! The water’s fine! You don’t have to fear. Sure, you might change your theology. But I’ve already demonstrated that the Bible assumes you will, and should! If you stay in the same place through the duration of your walk with God, you are not growing, and are therefore functionally denying that the Bible itself can change you. Here are four super practical steps that will help you navigate the muddy waters of theological change. Lift the essentials high. Take the time to understand what biblical essentialism is. What things are necessary for you to be considered a Bible-believing, Christ-following Christian? Do not deviate from these, and filter all other theological ideas through them. Good (consistent) ideas stay for further evaluation and integration into the full picture. Bad (inconsistent) ones immediately go. Read a variety of resources. One writer does not have complete purchase on Christian theology, nor does one group of writers within a closed system. Proverbs 11:14 is a helpful guide. Read varying perspectives, evaluate the arguments, weigh against the essentials, and find somewhere to land. Bridge gaps and make connections. It’s important that we view the Bible for what it actually is—a human document given by inspiration of God. This means that, all throughout, there are connections to be made and insights to be uncovered that could revolutionize our understanding of tertiary doctrines. Learn to think in terms of the whole instead of the parts when studying your Bible. Foster your relationship with God. This is of utmost importance. In your process of discovery and finding where you land with respect to theological views, do not neglect personal time spent with God. He is your Anchor, and Rock, and Father. God is not a mere object to be explored, but is rather a personal Being to be loved, worshiped, and cherished. Finally, allow me to simply underscore the importance of actually stepping out into discovery. To be blunt—a person cannot simply rest upon mommy and daddy’s blessed assurance forever. We each have our own walk to account for, and our own relationship with God to nurture. I, for one, shudder to think at how shallow my relationship would be with him today had I not stepped out to really get to know him for myself. — Prefer to listen to this post? Listen below: The post How to Handle Dramatic Changes to Your Theology appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

The Bible is not a “scientific textbook”—of that, I’m sure. But it seems to common among critics of young age creation to claim that we think it is. Why is this, and what can we do about it? In this short episode, I try to lay out the real issue here and give some thoughts around how to respond to this claim. Enjoy the show! The post Genesis 1-11 and the “Textbook Myth” appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Due to what I consider to be a misuse of ancient Near-Eastern (ANE) backgrounds among evangelical scholars in recent years, many young age creationists have steered clear of broaching this topic. This, I believe, is an error. The Problem, Explained So the first issue is this: Some scholars and a great deal more popularizers are advancing the idea that the historical background of the biblical writers has so much of an effect on the text that, in some cases, it can mean nearly anything we want it to with respect to certain issues. Broadly (and doctrinally) speaking, this could come to bear on things like: The nature, length, and order of creation. The real meaning of redemption. Death before sin. The limits of accommodation. Biblical inerrancy. And there’s probably a few more I’ve left out. However, there’s a second issue: On the other end, this ignorance has led many to almost completely write off ANE associations between Israel and her neighbors. And I’d only be honest in admitting that, at times, I’ve been guilty of this. The danger is that this thinking robs the modern reader of understanding the world in which the ancient writer found himself. This may not sound that important to you, but it should. Young age creationists are (rightly) obsessed with making sure the Bible’s historical claims are taken seriously. But how can we understand what those claims are without understanding the biblical worldview? For me personally, two examples have made this clear. Understanding Polemical Theology has helped me to make sense of some very confusing passages of Scripture. The shame is that for so long I’ve missed how theologically rich these passages are, now that I have this framework of thought in my tool belt! The second of these would be Michael Heiser’s Divine Council Worldview. Although not new to Heiser, he is best known for popularizing it. The view basically expands on the nature of the battle going on in God’s world—it is much more spiritual than most Christians—especially Westerners—are willing to make it. A Healthy Move With that said, I was really excited to see an article pop up in my feed that was written by Shane Doyle over at Creation Ministries International (CMI), entitled Ancient cosmology and the timescale of Genesis 1. Here is the provided synopsis of the article: Long-age interpreters often argue that the supposed ‘ancient cosmology’ of Genesis 1 implies that its seven-day timespan is incidental to the main point of the passage. This overreads the cosmological statements of Genesis 1, but it also does not follow; just because one ‘challenging’ element of a narrative passage may be incidental does not imply that all its ‘challenging’ elements are. Nor is there enough evidence to show that Genesis 1 derives its seven-day schema from any previously existing biblical or Ancient Near Eastern pattern. The Ancient Near Eastern context does not justify a rejection of the traditional ‘historical week’ reading of Genesis 1. I liked this article for two reasons: First, I read only one line that contained the sort of derogatory language I am usually critical of CMI for using, and it was actually not that bad. So, Kudos! I really liked this writer. The second reason is that this writer not only responded to the claim above but was non-dismissive of the importance of understanding ancient things with respect to understanding the Bible. I would like to see more of this approach by popularizers of creationism. It’s the balance between being totally dismissive because we disagree with what we believe to be some unjustified conclusions/over-readings, and allowing an ancient worldview to properly inform our understanding of the text. Therefore, rather than to be afraid of this thinking, we should think of it as an ally. Scholarship can help us to do that. A Nod to the Scholars There are lots of Hebrew/Old Testament scholars who are well aware of and give proper place to ANE backgrounds and the biblical text, but don’t allow the text to improperly inform the doctrines listed above. Without thinking hard, I can think of at least six or seven, most of whom are openly-affirming young age creationists. There are two, though, I’d love to highlight: John Currid and David Fouts. I picked these two for a reason. They each are known for their contribution to biblical historical backgrounds and yet remain committed young age creationists. The former is well known for both scholarly and popular level works in Polemical Theology, discussed above. This is important because many passages seem to be robbed of their historical value by popularizers who take the text to have only a polemical meaning. The latter is well known, among other things, for his demonstration that the Old Testament often uses inflated numbers in order to make a theological point. This is important because arguments like his are often used to show that the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 ought not to be taken literally. He obviously, to some length disagrees.1 In Conclusion In my opinion, therefore, we should embrace what scholars have to say about ANE backgrounds as it relates to the writing of the Old Testament. As with any idea we read or hear, we should keep our wits about us. I may disagree with some conclusions and interpretations of data that mainstream scientists put forth, but that in no way means I don’t value science or the methods that lay beneath it. We should approach these conversations willing to nuance the details. We don’t have to accept “that scholar said it, so it is fact”—neither do we have to say, “that scholar said it, it must be wrong.” To approach information this way is to be sorely misguided, and to rob God of the context in which he chose to reveal himself to us. This, friends, would be a grave error. — Prefer to listen to this post? Listen below: The post Don’t Fear “the Reaper”: Why Young Earth Creationists Can—and Should—Embrace the Ancient Near-Eastern Background of the Bible appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Have you ever heard the idea that it’s just as ridiculous—if not more so—to believe in a flat earth than a young earth? Or, that these two are somehow claims of equal proportions? Recently, a blogger who affirms evolutionary creationism took it upon himself (with some help) to produce a parody blog of Dr. Danny Faulkner’s, in which it was implied that the same claims could be made for a young earth as Faulkner makes for a flat earth, thereby refuting his own position. . I think this notion is terribly false, and is contradicted by at least three lines of evidence. Find out what they are and how to respond to this challenge in this week’s episode! The post Young Earth Claims ≠ Flat Earth Claims appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Although it’s not held widely by biblical scholars today, many are compelled to believe that the Bible teaches a view that would reconcile a recent view of humanity with an ancient view of the universe.1 There are numerous variations, but it is most commonly known as The Gap Theory (GT).2 I’d like to devote some time to a version of this which has recently come to my attention, taught by pastor and Bible teacher, James Knox. I don’t know anything about Knox, so I will do my best to refrain from any generalizations or unfair characterizations of his views. That said, I did find the overall tone of this presentation, well, troubling, and worth teasing out. He’s a pulpiteer, for sure. He comes across as confident, compelling, and well-argued. Unfortunately, I found that a quick visit to each of his proof texts was enough to cast considerable doubt on his view. There is, therefore, a lesson to underscore before moving any further: Test everything against the Scriptures, no matter who says it (including me). It is this very practice that earned the Bereans an eternal commendation inscripturated in Acts 17. A compelling presentation or convincing oration should not produce a higher level of confidence in our minds about its truthfulness, goodness, or validity. For anyone tempted to disagree, I’d merely ask you to consider how one the greatest orators of all-time—Adolf Hitler—was also one of the greatest menaces of all time. I’m not comparing Knox to Hitler; make no mistake, though—this presentation sounds compelling if you listen. In fact, I want to be careful to separate this man from his claims, especially since I don’t know him. He opens his presentation with a call to Christian unity, and the clear message that he does not think this is an issue which should divide the church or separate believers. On that, we can certainly agree. I do, however, find his exegetical claims wanting, at best. Let’s take a few moments to explore them. The Theory As we’ll examine proof texts for aspects of the theory in a moment, I’d like to provide a quick summary first. According to the GT, between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, there is a nondescript amount of time in which at least three events happened: The creation and forming of a “first earth,” the fall of Satan and his being cast down to earth (and thus the actual entrance of sin into the world), and the destruction of this first earth by some sort of watery cataclysm. Two general observations are necessary. First, this is not a view that is explicitly taught by any one portion of Scripture. Proponents must peruse the Bible and piece together this theory by doing some exegetical math, so to speak. This practice is not necessarily to be frowned upon. One could argue this is exactly what New Testament writers needed to do when seeking to understand how Jesus was, in fact, the promised Messiah of the Old Testament. Hebrew scholar Dr. Mike Heiser has ably argued that this is what the Apostle Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 2:8. Had Jesus’ arrival been made explicit in just one passage of Scripture, such that there would have been no mistaking it, the “princes of this world” could have thwarted the plan. The question is not in the validity of this practice (although some genre considerations might make that point arguable), but rather whether or not the texts pressed into service for Knox’s view will support his claims. Second, one is hard-pressed to arrive at this view merely due to an honest examination of the text. In other words, this view was literally created and is most usually defended to reconcile the findings of modern science with obvious chronological details in Scripture. Now, I question the basis for GT from the get-go since I think we do have evidence for a young earth from modern science. Regardless, this approach is an invalid starting point for any examination of the Bible. Our goal is not to massage the words of Scripture and the findings of modern science together in order to form a nice fit. Rather, it is to understand the meaning of the text, and determine the implications of it. If those implications demand that we reject a certain theory of modern science, so be it. If not, so be it. A Problem with the Program One of the issues in biblical studies has to do with systems, programs, and other spurious machinations that are invented to support a presupposed paradigm. In other words, if an idea does not work across the Revelation in general, it cannot be held consistently in part. Once you understand the real program—the story being told by Scripture, one is hard-pressed to find something more out of place than the GT. An in-depth discussion of that program is beyond the scope of this post, but you may find a useful resource in Dr. Heiser’s, What Does God Want? Generally speaking, we find a busy world of forward motion, both in accordance with and in opposition to God’s will, from the very beginning of creation. In fact, you’ll find the Story cast in those exact terms in Scriptures such as Mark 10:6; 13:9, 2 Peter 3:4, and John 8:44. We have every indication that very soon after time started ticking, Adam was created, and the story carries on. The Story is one about creation, rebellion, and redemption—both in the spiritual realm and the physical realm. But the nature of these events has been revealed to us in surprising detail! We don’t know everything, of course, but there is in fact very little mystery as to the major events of history from the beginning of creation. The GT posits that something rather mysterious—which the Bible only hints at in obscure passages—was going on before the beginning of creation that we know. How does this fit within God’s program? GT proponents argue that this is where we ought to place Satan’s fall and judgment. In fact, the Bible tells us very little about this incident, and what it does tell us cannot, as I’ll attempt to show, be used to demonstrate the GT.  The Grammar of Genesis 1 I’m a fan of keeping things simple. So I am going to pick up the above discussion in a moment. But first, I’d like to spoil all of the fun and tell you the simple reason why the GT is not discernible from the text of Genesis 1. Gap theorists must propose that this extensive block of time should be placed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. The problem with this idea is that Hebrew grammar precludes it from being possible. I was surprised to find this specific argument left out of Knox’s presentation; stated or unstated, however, the grammar of these verses is crucial to his view. Do we have exegetical license to find a large gap of time between these verses? According to Hebrew and Old Testament scholar, Dr. David Fouts, the answer is no. In his book Right From the Start he writes: The main verb of [Genesis] verse two is hāyeṯâ. This form, from the root hāyâ, normally is understood as the stative verb “to be.” When translated actively, i.e., as “to become,” the syntax often appears as the verb followed by the direct object prefixed by the lamedh preposition, as in 1 Sam. 22:2: “He became (form of hāyâ followed by lamedh) prince over them.” Admittedly, when the lamedh is absent, context can indicate the active nuance of “to become”, but such cases are unusual. Those who support the Gap theory argue that the verb hāyeṯâ should be translated with the active sense, and also should be understood as a past perfect (or, “pluperfect” in some grammars). In other words, it should be translated, “now the earth had become formless and void.…” One must concede that, grammatically, the verbal form itself can go either as a simple past of the stative verb: “now the earth was …” or as the past perfect “now the earth had become.” However, for it to be a past perfect there must be the proper setting. In the proximate context there must be a main verb in the past tense, in order to indicate that the action of the past perfect chronologically precedes the action of the main verb, i.e., some statement or event to which the past perfect provides a setting. Since this situation does not occur in verse two, and cannot be the bārāʾ of the topic sentence in verse one (which as we have seen stands alone) nor the initial verb of 1:3 (which continues the narrative sequencing), the translation “now the earth had become” is not possible. Driving the nail further into the coffin, we must understand that the Hebrew language has a well-known indicator for the consecutive passage of time, known as the waw consecutive. We see such a sequence beginning with the Days of Genesis 1, in verse 3. Not only is this form not present anywhere between verses 1 and 2, but we actually find a waw disjunctive—meaning, there is an explicit temporal disconnection between these verses! Dr. Jason Lisle writes3 in Understanding Genesis, Hebrew grammar disallows the possibility that “something happens between verses 1 and 2.” Namely, verse 2 begins with “And the earth” — a Hebrew grammatical construction called a “waw-disjunctive.” The construction occurs when a sentence starts with “and” followed by a non-verb, such as a noun. The waw-disjunctive indicates a break or interruption in the narrative. This is often for the purpose of providing additional information about what was previously stated. When used this way, it functions much the way we would use parenthesis in English — it shows that verse two is a comment on verse one. Verse two does not necessarily follow in time, but is a parenthetical description of the conditions of the earth that was mentioned in the previous verse. Thus, it is impossible for something to happen between verses one and two because there is literally no time between the two. Are you getting the picture? Gap theorists have identified one place in the entirety of Scripture where the time they require could be placed, and it happens to be precluded—on multiple fronts—by Hebrew grammar itself. This alone is enough to silence the view, and is the likely reason I cannot personally name one living Hebraist who defends this position. However, this is far from the only battleground on which gap theorists such as Knox wage war. In fact, much work is devoted to defending the GT from other portions of Scripture. Do those give us reason to think there is something to this view? Persnickety Proof Texts It is in this lengthy portion I will interact most closely with the particular arguments of Pastor James Knox. “Replenish” I was surprised to find that the first argument he makes, and frankly, where he really digs in his heels, is the word “replenish” found in Genesis 1:28. Cross-referencing with the usage of this word in Genesis 9:1 following God’s destruction of the world via a great deluge, Knox seems to think the Genesis 1:28 reference requires that a similar previous destruction occurred—one obviously omitted from Genesis 1, resulting in a need to repopulate the planet. In fact, he digs in so hard on this point that I think it would seriously undermine his view if shown wrong. The fact is that the word מָלָא (male’) that is translated “replenish” in these verses simply means “to fill.” For the King James translators to use the word replenish here is not incorrect; in Old English, that’s what the word “replenish” actually meant!4 So it’s not as though the writer is meaning to telegraph that the earth is to be filled again due to a previous destruction, but merely that it is to be filled, period. And this is no surprise, since God “formed the earth to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18). But, wait a minute. One of Knox’s arguments is that that verse—Isaiah 45:18—declares that God would not have created the earth in an “unformed and unfilled”5 state as Genesis 1:2 suggests. Is that the case? Here is the verse: For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, He created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else. Notice that in this passage, there is no sense of time whatsoever. If I were to paraphrase, I might say something like this: “God did not create the earth in vain, because he formed it to be inhabited.” Is this not precisely what we see in the creation account? God creates the universe and the Earth, and then proceeds to form it in order to be inhabited! At most, this passage says nothing about when it was formed to be inhabited, so cannot be used to form a positive argument for the GT. And what’s much more likely is that this verse is teaching a theological point about the supremacy of God on the basis of the details given in Genesis 1. The earth was indeed formed to be inhabited; that does not mean God “poofed” the earth into existence in a habitable state. Creation was a process, one the Bible explains in quite detail. 2 Peter 3 The next proof text we find Knox appealing to is 2 Peter 3:3-7. Here is the account: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. Most scholars see this passage as declaring the ignorance of scoffers towards three events in Earth history: the creation, the flood of Noah’s day, and the coming judgment. But Knox objects to this take. His reason? The “heavens” were not involved in the judgment of Noah’s day, but they are involved in the coming judgment mentioned. In order for the symmetry to remain, Knox argues, the “world that then was” which “perished” by “being overflowed with water” describes the otherwise nondescript judgment of the “original creation” proposed by gap theorists, which must also have included the “heavens.” Right off the bat, my suspicion is that a Greek scholar would be able to detect a construction in the language that precludes this possibility. I, however, am not one, so I am going to appeal to a few practical considerations instead. First, this only works by assuming there was another time when the world was overflowed by water, other than during “Noah’s Flood.” This is the only direct referent in Scripture we have to an event such as this, therefore, this passage would have to be teaching us of another one, which hardly seems justified by the text. Second, it’s not clear to me that there must be further clarification by the text in order to preserve the analogy. It’s not as though this is Hebrew poetry, where parallels depend upon individual words within a couplet/doublet. Third and finally, some have suggested that, in fact, the flood of Noah’s day did have universe-wide consequences. It’s not a hill I would die on (and neither would Dr. Kurt Wise), but consider with me his thoughts on this as a well-trained scientist. In his book Faith, Form, and Time following a discussion of physical evidence such as cratering on the moon, Mars, and the resurfacing of Venus, which may well be attributed to the events of the flood, he concludes: It is not impossible that the Flood may have occurred as a result of God’s changing some physical constant or constants of the universe. The sudden changes in radiometric decay rates suggested by some is consistent with this claim. If true, then the catastrophism in the days of Noah may have actually impacted not just the earth but perhaps the entire solar system—even the entire universe. Could the dust of the solar system be the result of this catastrophe? How about the asteroids? And what of exploding stars? There is opportunity for much young-age creationist research and reinterpretation. In my opinion, it’s much more likely for there to have been “universal” consequences during Noah’s Flood than to think these verses are teaching us of an entirely different event that happened long before the creation of the world we now know. Others have argued that the words “heavens of were of old” and “the earth standing in the water and out of the water” may be teaching the GT, but this is not at all clear. Most theologians who take these verses to be describing physical creation are convinced by the details in Genesis 1 that the earth was essentially created as a ball of water, from which the rest of the land was formed. These verses are consistent with that view. Further, to say the heavens are “of old” is not to say they are billions of years old. That is not indicated by the text. At the time of writing, the creation would be ~4,000 years old. That’s pretty old! To read billions of years of time into that statement is not sound. Job 22:8 If the evidence was not already wearing thin, Knox’s take on this particular verse is difficult to believe. Here is the verse (emphasis mine) in its context (vv. 1-11): Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered and said, Can a man be profitable unto God, as he that is wise may be profitable unto himself? Is it any pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art righteous? or is it gain to him, that thou makest thy ways perfect? Will he reprove thee for fear of thee? will he enter with thee into judgment? Is not thy wickedness great? and thine iniquities infinite? For thou hast taken a pledge from thy brother for nought, and stripped the naked of their clothing. Thou hast not given water to the weary to drink, and thou hast withholden bread from the hungry. But as for the mighty man, he had the earth; and the honourable man dwelt in it. Thou hast sent widows away empty, and the arms of the fatherless have been broken. Therefore snares are round about thee, and sudden fear troubleth thee; Or darkness, that thou canst not see; and abundance of waters cover thee. The context very clearly indicates that Eliphaz, one of Job’s “friends,” has launched into a withering critique of his past moral judgments and decisions. Eliphaz is moving from one event to the other, pulling stories from Job’s life to help him make sense of the perceived awful injustice being done to him. For Eliphaz, Job is getting his just desserts. The CSB translation of vv. 7-8 is perhaps clearer with respect to how v. 8 is situated in the story: You gave no water to the thirsty and withheld food from the famished, while the land belonged to a powerful man and an influential man lived on it. Strangely, Knox desires that we completely rip this verse out of context and see the “mighty man” as Satan and the “honorable man” as Adam! He claims this verse teaches there was a time when only two people were on the earth, Adam (the honorable man who lived there) and Satan (the mighty man who “had owned” it), and that this could only be situated in history after the fall of Satan and destruction of the old world. Of course, never once does the term “mighty man” refer to Satan or any other spiritual being in all the Bible, nor does the context have anything to do with the events of or before creation. This is a blatant (not to say confusing) mishandling of Scripture that must not be taken seriously. This verse simply describes a situation that was known by his friend Eliphaz, where Job apparently acted unjustly (perhaps for personal gain) during a time of drought and famine. Nothing more, nothing less.6 Isaiah 14 A scene from Isaiah 14:12-20 seems to describe the fall of Satan from his position in Yahweh’s Divine Council. Here are the verses in question: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; That opened not the house of his prisoners? All the kings of the nations, even all of them, Lie in glory, every one in his own house. But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, And as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, That go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, Because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: The seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. Knox argues that this entire event transpired prior to the creation of the current earth and heavens. He reasons that this must be the case, since that was the only time when Satan would have made “the earth to tremble” and “shook kingdoms” and “destroyed the cities of the world,” etc. I haven’t the space here to exegete this entire passage,7 neither will I claim expertise in prophetic language. However, it seems Knox has either missed or conveniently skipped v. 15 (emphasis mine): “Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit…” This seems to be describing the ultimate judgment and mockery of the one who is currently allowed rule and domain over the earth. Satan is, as it were, the Lord of the Dead. He wanted to be the Most High—the Lord of all; as a judgment, Yahweh, the actual Most High, made him Lord of the dead—those who die in sin.8 Yahweh will eventually spell the final defeat of death, hell, and the grave—and thus, of their leader. Verse 15 therefore indicates a shift in time. The events prior describe Satan’s fall, the events posterior describe his coming judgment, after which time it will absolutely be accurate to say that Satan made “the earth to tremble” and “shook kingdoms” and “destroyed the cities of the world,” through leaders such as the king of Babylon and others.9 Jeremiah 4:23 Jeremiah 4:23 is a well-known gap theorist proof-text. The usual argument involves an interesting phrase chosen by the writer which seems to borrow language from the creation account, “formless and void.” This is, indeed Genesis 1:2 language. Most interpreters (rightly) understand this passage to describing the desolation of Israel by Babylon’s forces. Thus, the gap theorist claims that the first use of this descriptive language in Genesis 1:2 also describes a state of destruction. Knox, however, takes it even further. He wants to say that Jeremiah 4:23 is not merely an analogy; it is the writer’s very description of the original world’s destruction! Knox is convinced of this view in part due to language found in verses 25-26: I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, And all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, And all the cities thereof were broken down At the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger. In Knox’s explanation of this passage, he incorrectly mentions that most scholars date the events of this passage to the time of the tribulation. He even goes so far as to mention that the language “there was no man” would not fit this time. There’s no indication, he rightly concludes, that the tribulation is associated with total annihilation. However, what most scholars believe this passage to be about is the condition of Israel after Babylon’s invasion, as briefly mentioned earlier. What should we make of these claims? Let’s go in reverse. First, it might be fair to say that the language of total annihilation does not apply to the Babylonian invasion, either. What’s interesting is that language is baked into the passage to guard against taking it too literally. Consider v. 27, emphasis added: For thus hath the Lord said, The whole land shall be desolate; Yet will I not make a full end. God is clear in communicating that, yes, the land will be made desolate. But he’s equally clear in communicating that a full end will not be made of Israel. This serves as a reminder that poetic and prophetic passages can easily lead to incorrect conclusions if pressed for a sort of wooden literalism. What, then, do vv. 25-26 intent to communicate? What the writer is telegraphing is a metaphorical description of the desolation. It’s no mistake that the language of creation is used here. The writer means to convey that the punishment against Israel for leaving her God will be so severe that it will be as though it were an undoing of creation. The unformed and unfilled nature of the land, the absence of light, the fleeing of the birds—these are all meant to picture a devastation so thorough it will be as though the world had never been formed and filled. Given the clear context of this passage, to rip v. 23 out of its context and see it as describing the condition of an old creation prior to God’s creating our current world is entirely unjustified. But what about, secondly, the view that one can read this language of destruction (again, from v. 23) back into the creation account? It is important to consider two things, minimally: The meaning of the words, and the context of the words. The expression in question here is tohu wa bohu (without form and void). What do these words mean? Respectively, they mean “unformed” and “unfilled.” Note that these words do not on their own denote destruction. It is apparent from their use in this passage that they can be used to picture a scene of destruction. However, since it is always context that determines meaning, we have to consider whether the use of this expression in the creation account is intended to signify a state of destruction. Since the words do not carry this connotation on their own, and there is no reason from the context of Genesis 1 to suppose there was a deconstruction of an old world going on, there is no reason to import this meaning from Jeremiah 4 into their meaning in Genesis 1. Of this connection, John MacArthur notes the following: What was once a fruitful land had become a wilderness (v. 26). It was a wasted, devastated place without any inhabitants. It had lost its former beauty. It didn’t have any form. It didn’t have any beauty. It had reverted to a state of barrenness that reminded Jeremiah of the state of the earth in the beginning, before God’s creative work had formed it into something beautiful. Isaiah borrows the same expression. Prophesying the destruction that would come in the day of the Lord’s vengeance against the Gentiles, he says their land will be turned into desolation. “He shall stretch out over it the line of confusion [tohu] and the stones of emptiness [bohu]” (Isaiah 34:11). That pictures God as the architect of judgment, using a plumb line of tohu, which is kept taut by weights made of bohu. So these words speak of waste and desolation. They describe the earth as a place devoid of form or inhabitants—a lifeless, barren place. It suggests that the very shape of the earth was unfinished and empty. The raw material was all there, but it had not yet been given form. The features of earth as we know it were undifferentiated, unseparated, unorganized, and uninhabited. (MacArthur, The Battle for the Beginning) As with the examples before, therefore, we see that Jeremiah 4 simply cannot support the exegetical weight demanded to prop up the GT. Genesis 1, Ecclesiastes 3, and the Distinction Between “Create” and “Made” Finally, our examination of Knox’s proof texts will find us where it all began, in Genesis 1, with some help from a supporting question in Ecclesiastes 3. Let’s look there first. In v. 15, Solomon writes the following: That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past. Solomon uses this sort of cryptic language often in the Book of Ecclesiastes. It seems that v. 15 hearkens back to 1:10-11: Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after. With this verse in mind, Knox asks a rhetorical question: “Are we to believe that God sat in darkness for a bazillion years until he decided to do something 6,000 years ago?”10 Here again, it seems that all this verse means to communicate is a theological point; this time around the timelessness of God. All humans are subject to the limitation of time, but God is not. History repeats itself for us, but God knows the end from the beginning. Ironically, assuming I’m right about the meaning of this passage, it actually undermines the point of Knox’s rhetorical question. Knox, by his own admission, cannot fathom that God would sit around for billions of years twiddling his thumbs. His solution, of course, is to say that God indeed created billions and billions of years ago, and even endured through a creation entirely unknown to us (save for its destruction, according to Knox and company). But this represents a giant misunderstanding about the nature of God, and the nature of time. As humans, we can only interpret our experience in the context of temporal reality. But God is not bound by such constraints, as this verse and others11 teach. In fact, as I’ve written on before, one of the most prominent views of the relationship between God and time is that God enters into time himself, but only upon his creative act. Therefore, one who believes the universe is merely 6,000 years is not faced with any sort of conundrum. No scenario where God twiddles his thumbs for countless eons is necessary to explain, because no such scenario exists. The spiritual realm is not bound by the passage of time. After all, even 13.8 billion years is a mere twinkling of the eye when compared to eternity. To even speak in such terms is to misunderstand the concepts of God’s timelessness, eternity, and self-existence. Ironically, then, the scenario Knox describes is only problematic for the person—such as himself—who affirms that the initial creative act was in fact such a long time ago! Knox ends his presentation with a return to Genesis 1:29ff. He settles into 2:1-3 and derives a common argument from them which trades on a distinction between the words “created” (bara) and “made” (asah). Here are the verses: Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. His claim is that these words have an important distinction in the kind of creative activity that is taking place. The claim is that bara indicates creation (that is, out of nothing) and asah indicates the forming of what has been previously created. Knox wants to say that we find nothing being created in the account until God begins populating the creation with life, suggesting that all work prior to the creation of new life was merely forming that which was already created. There are a few problems with this. First of all, if this were the case, it’s not clear why it would be a problem. Many do, in fact, think that only God’s initial creation was ex-nihilo, while the work that followed was merely the formation of the previously created materials. This idea itself does not require that the initial creative act was billions of years ago. It could simply be that God “created,” then subsequently “formed” beginning the next day. However, most Hebraists agree that the words bara and asah are synonymous, and can be used interchangeably. In fact, we need to look no further than the creation account itself to see this in action. Consider vv. 26-27: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. As the editors of the Faithlife Study Bible correctly note, The Hebrew verb used here, bara, is the same word used in Gen 1:1. However, the plural declaration “let us make” in v. 26 uses a different verb. The verbs for “make” (asah) and “form” (yatsar) are also used elsewhere with bara to refer to God’s work as Creator in chs. 1–2. In ch. 2, yet another verb is used for the fashioning of Adam (yatsar). These verbs are synonyms. Additionally, the very verses used by Knox in support of his claim, Genesis 2:1-3, undermine his point. Knox thinks that the phrase “created and made” indicates two different categories of action by God. But since we’ve already seen that these words are synonymous, the parallel is likely in place merely to underscore the point that God alone does the forming, making, and creating out of nothing. For the exegete who would wish to double down on this point, I’d simply ask what we should make of Exodus 20:11: For in six days the Lord made [asah] heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. If we pressed Knox’s point, we’d be forced to conclude that God merely formed the entire creation, having never created ex-nihilo! Obviously, this point does not work. It’s not relevant to Knox’s point, but there is an awesome distinction between bara and any other word describing the processes of creation and formation. A cruise throughout the Hebrew Bible will reveal that only one Being is ever the subject acting on the verb bara: Yahweh. This means that, while lots of beings both physical and spiritual can form and make things, only Yahweh is powerful enough to create them out of nothing. This is the true and important distinction between these words. What a God we serve! Conclusion In this discussion, we’ve noted some reasons why The Gap Theory should not be considered a viable interpretive option for the reader attempting to find millions or billions of years between the pages of Scripture. Along with an obvious lack of place for this motif within God’s larger program and a grammatical construction that will not allow for its insertion, we have examined and found wanting alleged proof texts which are unable to sustain the burden of supporting this view. — Prefer to listen to this post? Listen below: The post Is the Gap Theory Biblical? Refuting James Knox on the “Gap Fact.” appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

How do Neanderthals fit into a biblical worldview? Are cavemen, stone tools, hunter/gatherer lifestyles a threat to a biblically sound, young age creationist viewpoint? I don’t think so. Here’s why! Enjoy the show! Click here for more on Neanderthals. The post The Neanderthal Problem appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

In general, I am a fan of making modest claims. That is, the less I have to commit myself to in defense of a position, the better! Not only does this give me an advantage in the conversation because I don’t have to work hard defending things I’m either not sure about or would rather not muddy with dialogue with, but it also forces my interlocutor to think more carefully. It gives me control. However, this is a luxury that is hard to come by with respect to whether or not Christianity is ultimately true. The kicker is, I believe that’s actually a very good thing. Here’s why. Christianity Deals in Reality There is a popular book by Dr. Michael Heiser that has been circulating for a few years now called The Unseen Realm. It’s a great book, but that’s beside my point. The original working title of the book was, The Myth That is True. As I’ve contended in a book of my own, Christianity is a Story; not any story, but the Story of all stories. Other writers have traded on this idea as well, such as Greg Koukl and C.S. Lewis. But this particular Story is one that is grounded in reality. It’s the real deal. This has some important implications that we’ll discuss below. If we’re not careful, we’ll use unfortunate language when sharing our Story that casts doubt on it from the get-go. We live in a culture that does not understand “Christianese,” so when we share with others, we’d be well advised not to “market” it as though it were a fairytale. For example, when we talk about the resurrection of Christ, we need to learn how to articulate this as though it were a real, historical event, because it was! As I’ve written elsewhere, I do not advocate for a “setting aside” of the Bible in these discussions—however, neither do I advocate for a “setting aside” of the important scholarship that has been done to demonstrate this is a real event that happened in human history. Christianity Offers Real Hope I won’t pretend to know any statistics, but history and my own experience tell me that, while many do come to believe in Christ through an evaluation of the evidence and a desire to know the truth, most come by way of a broken heart or a broken life. Christianity flourishes through times of persecution and brokenness. Why is this? Why is that Christianity can take a life and turn it around, often during a time of great suffering and pain? This is because of what Christianity—grounded in reality—offers. It offers real hope to the helpless, hopeless, and brokenhearted. Through his resurrection, Christ demonstrated that he alone has victory over death, hell, and the grave. He has overcome, and promised that anyone who would believe in him and trust in his finished work to save them, could have eternal life. Fortunately, we not only have the promise of eternal life then, but of abundant life now. Only Christ offers this because only Christ can offer this. Christianity is Testable Finally, because this Story is grounded in reality, we can test it! We can know it’s true! The reason this matters is precisely because our backward, relativistic culture would have you believe Christianity is just one of many legitimate options. It has good maxims and virtues to teach like any other religious system of thought (so the thinking goes), so it might be good for you to be a Christian, but there’s no reason for them to be one too. The problem with that thinking is that it divorces Christianity from reality, which is to say, it assumes Christianity is false. Christianity is exclusivist. Jesus said, “I am the way…no man comes…except through me.” So for the hope, virtues, and maxims that Christianity offers to be meaningful, it must be true, which means every other worldview must be false. This is why it matters that Christianity makes strong claims. (By the way, the Apostle Paul thought the same thing! See 1 Corinthians 15:17.) In what ways is Christianity testable? Many, but two come to mind as the most important: History, and prophecy. In fact, we see these emphasized in 2 Peter 1: 16-21. History is the domain of eyewitness verification, and what they recorded about what they saw. Our acceptance of Christ’s historicity comes backed with lots of this eyewitness evidence; much more than would ever be expected of a first-century carpenter. We have at least four independent sources found in the gospel traditions themselves, and around 17 extrabiblical sources that confirm various aspects of his life and work. But we also have “a more sure word of prophecy”—that is, history recorded in advance. Christ’s arrival in history is not an isolated event. In fact, he was “slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8), and many details of his life and work were written hundreds of years before his arrival. One prophecy concerning his death, found in Psalm 22, was written around 1,000 years before his birth, and even before the means of his death—crucifixion—was invented. So when we argue for the truth of Christianity, we make strong claims. We make claims to exclusivity. We make claims about historical events. We make claims about biblical consistency. We make claims that history has been recorded in advance. But these claims are a good thing. They underscore the fact that Christianity is grounded in reality. And that means our faith is meaningful. — Prefer to listen to this post? Listen below: The post Christianity makes strong claims! And that’s a good thing. appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

The other night at men’s small group, we began discussing sin and its consequences. I spoke up because something occurred to me in a unique way that I thought would be valuable for the group. Namely, why is it that sin is actually bad anyway? So in this week’s episode we discuss the concept of sin. We look at what sin is, what sin is not, and why it matters. Enjoy the show! The post Why Sin is Bad appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

I can only be honest—this week’s post will likely be a bit of a rant. I am really tired of educated people thinking they have a monopoly on truth. (How’s that for a loaded statement?) Ok, so there’s nothing wrong with education. Nor is there anything wrong with having the truth. What’s wrong is when someone thinks they have the truth in virtue of their specific education. It’s really sad how often I see this kind of thing within Christian circles. Brothers and sisters will absolutely lambaste each other not on the merits of their claims, but on the mere contents of their view! We have the necessary ability to make distinctions. We can understand the difference between orthodoxy, heterodoxy, and heresy. We very clearly, in most cases, distinguish where certain evangelical views land on that spectrum. When a person denies the trinity, they are by definition not Christian, and are guilty of heresy. Though it could be argued, I would say when a person holds to conditionalism as opposed to the eternal conscious torment (ECT) view of hell, they are heterodox on that issue. When a person affirms the virgin birth of Christ, they stand within orthodoxy. These are careful distinctions we have to make in order to operate effectively (and biblically, mind you) within the body of Christ. Snobs for Christ I see nothing wrong with having an education. Right now, I have an educational “bucket list,” if you will, that I would love to complete one day. This includes doctoral-level studies. At this time, I am unable to make this a reality. Will the day come? Perhaps. However, I’m not even sure how much it matters in most cases, for a couple of reasons. (Disclaimer: I’m obviously not claiming education is bad, nor are those who have one. I support education, and wish I had more. More on that in a moment.) Reason 1. Intellect/Understanding ≠ Education Level (There are Dumb, Educated People) I’m sure there are plenty of studies that demonstrate that, at some level, those who receive more education are “smarter.” There are some disciplines that emphasize critical thinking. For example, a professionally trained analytical philosopher might have some tools in the intellectual tool belt that most laymen don’t. But, not necessarily. Believe it or not, some of the brightest minds of days gone by were autodidacts (i.e., self-taught learners). Ever heard of Ben Franklin, Michael Faraday, or Bill Gates, to name a few? Of course, there are some specialized areas of knowledge within certain disciplines that the general public does not really have access to—however, there’s no reason self-studied laymen can’t understand how to craft sound arguments, how to understand most scientific claims, etc. So while it’s certainly true that those who receive an education could or should be “more intelligent” than those who do not, that is not necessarily the case. Reason 2. Credentials are (Apparently) Meaningless I can think of two examples right off the top of my head that are contentious among scholars within evangelicalism right now: New Testament literary device theories and the origins debate. With respect to the former, those familiar with the debate1 may or may not know that I have tremendous respect for the parties involved. Nevertheless, claims abound regarding the intellectual ability (concerning the issue being debated) of the dissenting side. I’m sorry, but this just isn’t the debate. Are the claims reasonable? That is the question. You may land differently on that question than me, but it doesn’t change the facts. Our goal is not to count scholarly heads, neither is it to investigate credentials. Let’s determine whether or not the arguments for/against are sound. With respect to the latter, a recent comment I observed (which admittedly served as the spark to write this piece)2 from a Wheaton college professor claimed that no “honest” or “real” scientist holds to young age creationism for scientific reasons. In fact, he went so far as to say that those Christians who “twist” and “distort” good science should be “shunned.” I’m sorry, but this is insanity. It demonstrates ignorance, a lack of integrity, and raises the question whether this man belongs in a Christian university in the first place. Disagree with the view? Fine. But his claims are false. I don’t care how long he has been a college professor or how much education he himself boasts. His claims are false, they (poorly) judge character and motive, and fail to make the distinction between the language of heresy (“shunned”) and orthodoxy/heterodoxy. You may not agree with them, but this list alone lays to rest the idea that a creationist cannot hold multiple Ph.D.’s and be quite well educated and even respected in their field! Yet, careless and absurd comments like this professor’s are made all the time. I’m not about to work toward credentials merely to be affirmed by others. Because at the end of the day, those credentials (apparently) don’t matter. To those who have the privilege of an advanced degree: Use it responsibly, and don’t be a snob for Christ. To those who don’t: Never stop learning, never stop reading, and never stop proving the snobs wrong. Anti-Intellectual Liabilities I want to conclude by making sure you don’t carry my thoughts here further than they are intended to go. If you’ve spent any time at all interacting with my work, you know good and well that I heavily criticize anti-intellectualism in the church. By no means do I advocate for this, and there are those who undermine their own claims to knowledge by an intellectual appeal to this vacuous posture. (Which is sorely ironic.) The thing is, we should not think in terms of a false dichotomy whereby to be intellectual is to be a snob and to be anti-intellectual is to be gracious. This is demonstrably false in many cases, and one simply does not follow from the other. Here’s the bottom line, then: Be gracious and committed to the development of your mind. Gracious intellectuals are some of my favorite people in the world, personally. They are committed to real dialogue/debate (rather than ad hominem-spewing-matches), and communicate with intellectual rigor and precision. We should all strive to be more like that. — Prefer to listen to this post? Listen below. The post Snobs for Christ: On Intellectual Snobbery in the Church appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Dr. Stephen Lloyd I love to discuss the topic of creationism; both the science and theology of it are simply fascinating to me. In fact, I love it so much that I have decided to create a special edition of S3 that focuses in on the creation discussion, called Creation Conversations. This week is the first episode of these special edition podcasts. I invited on a friend from across the pond, Stephen Lloyd, to kick us off. The goal of the discussion was to give an overview of what young age creationists teach and believe. It’s to really discuss why we feel this is an important issue. Stephen works part-time as a Researcher and Lecturer for the Biblical Creation Trust and is also pastor of Hope Church, Gravesend. He studied Materials Science at the University of Cambridge and became a Royal Society University Research Fellow. Steve also has a Diploma in Theology and Religious Studies from the University of Cambridge. He contributed to the book Debating Darwin published by Paternoster in 2009. Enjoy the show! Links: Chronological Creationism Paper From Jesus to Genesis Genesis 1 and the Age of the Earth Chronology Slide The Evidence of Science and Scripture — The Henry Center Clarity on the Methodology — The Henry Center The post Creation Conversations: Adam or Death — Which Came First? w/ Dr. Stephen Lloyd appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Tim Stratton One of the most important internal discussions I think Christians can have involves whether or not we have been endowed with free will by our Creator. I think that we have been, but not everyone agrees. Sadly, though, I do think an important dimension to this discussion is often overlooked: The question of why. Why does it matter whether or not we have free will? Why even have this discussion? To answer that question (and a few more!), I brought on my good friend Tim Stratton. Tim is the founder of FreeThinking Ministries, where he regularly writes, speaks, podcasts, and creates videos promoting the truth of the Christian worldview. He’s well-known for his work discussing classic arguments for God’s existence and—most relevant to our discussion today—various issues surrounding the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. I hope you enjoy our conversation! Links: FreeThinking Ministries Monergisitic Molinism Molinism is Biblical The post Why Fight for Free Will? w/ Tim Stratton appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Many times, good questions are the best way to get to the bottom of what people believe. Since we don’t have access to their hearts, we need to pry, probe, and ask them to prove why what they believe is true, lest we get caught having to give reasons for claims we haven’t even made! So what are some of the advantages of asking questions, and how can we work them into practical conversation? That’s what we’re discussing in this episode of the show. The post The Power of Asking Good Questions appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

I am BEYOND excited to announce a new podcast from our ministry called Theology on the Road! Links: Apple Podcasts Google Podcasts Spotify PocketCasts I hope you’ll join me on this adventure!   The post Introducing Theology on the Road appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

The other week I was privileged to be interviewed by David Pallman for his new YouTube channel, Faith Because of Reason. In this interview, I was given the opportunity to share young age creationism with an audience of folks who mostly disagree with it, and even believe it is harmful for the church. No matter where you land on this issue, as you listen to this interview, I will you will be encouraged and motivated to learn more about it. So this is part 2 of my interview with David Pallman on young age creationism. Enjoy the show! The post 103: Part 2 – What is Young Earth Creationism? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

The other week I was privileged to be interviewed by David Pallman for his new YouTube channel, Faith Because of Reason. In this interview, I was given the opportunity to share young age creationism with an audience of folks who mostly disagree with it, and even believe it is harmful for the church. No matter where you land on this issue, as you listen to this interview, I will you will be encouraged and motivated to learn more about it. So this is part 1 of my interview with David Pallman on young age creationism. Enjoy the show! The post 102: Part 1 – What is Young Earth Creationism? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

A fairly recent article written by a well-known apologist claims that young age creationism destroys the faith of young people, but I think his claim is misguided and wrongheaded. What does the Bible say about the nature of faith? When we examine closely, it appears faith is never actually an intellectual problem—rather, it’s a moral/spiritual problem. A person may choose to blame intellectual difficulty and ideas like young age creationism for their unbelief, but I believe the Bible grounds unbelief in something much more foundational than that. In this episode, I’ll discuss why I think young age creationism is not what causes folks to leave/reject Christianity and attempt to offer a more biblical answer. — Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 101: Does Young Age Creationism Destroy the Faith of Young Christians? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

What is the chief end of man? According to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and enjoy him forever.” But what does that mean for us? The Bible is clear (see Revelation 4:11) that we are created for God and his glory. Thus, we can only be truly human by coming into a personal relationship with the One who created us. In this 100th episode of the show, we reflect a bit on the goodness of God and what it means to be created in his image, for his glory, and to our everlasting enjoyment and satisfaction. — Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 100: The Glory and Enjoyment of God appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

When evaluating the evidence for Christian truth claims, many skeptics assert there simply is no evidence. What can we make of such an assessment? When folks talk about evidence (whether atheist, Christian, or otherwise), they often make the mistake of relegating the objective to the subjective. By understanding what evidence actually is, one can avoid the error of reducing reality to mere psychological misunderstanding. Listen in to this podcast as we discuss both the nature of evidence and why it would be inappropriate to say there is no evidence for something you are merely not convinced is true. (Make sure to click here or enter your info below to get today’s free lesson handout!) — Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 099: Not Convinced ≠ No Evidence appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

What’s the best way to know exactly what truths God meant to convey in his Word? Read the text! It’s easy in a world full of scholarly opinion to rest on the laurels of those you trust as faithful interpreters, but scholars have competing opinions, and you should be ready and able to adjudicate between them. By having thought through the context, historical setting, and genre of a given passage, you are much more likely to gain an accurate understanding of what a text meant to its original readers, and, therefore, its objective meaning. Here’s a suggested way of remembering this truth: The Text is where the Truth is found. Listen in to this week’s episode as I develop that thought and give some practical application on understanding truths from the Bible. — Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 098: Read the Text for Yourself! appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

The Christian faith is robust and able to withstand even the most challenging of attacks. But some attacks are really only challenging prima facie (at face value). A deeper dive reveals that many challenges are so superficial they hardly require a defense. In this week’s episode, we spend some time making the case for Christians to hold a more studied and rational faith. Then, we examine a recent atheist tirade I encountered and show how his questions—while seemingly difficult for the average Christian—fall down flat after a moment’s reflection. Enjoy the show! Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 097: Responding to an Internet Atheist Tirade appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

It’s the 4th of July here in America—a day we celebrate our independence as a nation. And, for Christians, a day to remember how good God is to us to live in the country we do. In my Bible reading I recently came across Exodus 13:8–9 which reads: And thou shalt shew thy son in that day, saying, This is done because of that which the LORD did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt. And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the LORD’S law may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath the LORD brought thee out of Egypt. In this episode—which breaks a bit from the norm—I give consideration to the concept of “remembrance” both in Hebrew life and in the Christian’s life and finish out with some practical admonition for my fellow brothers and sisters here in the USA.1 Enjoy the show! ————— Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 096: Remembrance appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

When discussing origins, the claim is often made that God made a “perfect” creation in the beginning. It’s easy to see why many think this, but is it correct? I think the answer is a resounding “no!” Now, if that sounds troublesome to you, then let me invite you to listen in to the episode before casting judgment. In the final analysis, I think you’ll agree with me! But we need to do some careful reflection in order to get there. Thanks for joining us this week! I hope you enjoy the show. ——— Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 095: Was God’s Original Creation Perfect? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Are moral facts obvious, and if so, can they be accounted for objectively? That’s the question before us in this week’s episode of the Steve Schramm Show. We’ll take a look at what philosophers mean by the notion of “intuition” and make the case that objective moral values and duties do, in fact, exist, and require a metaphysical grounding in order to be meaningful. Then, we answer questions about scientific evidence for God and how Satan was “allowed” to tempt Jesus. This week’s questions: Q: This is a genuine question for Christians: if there is no scientific evidence for a Christian God (or any God for that matter), then what makes you continue to be faithful? Q: How was Satan allowed to tempt Christ when he was in the desert for 40 days? Didn’t Christ, being the son of God, have power over evil? Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 094: Moral Facts Must Be Grounded appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Recently, noted Christian philosopher William Lane Craig announced his next area of study to be the Historical Adam. Dr. Craig is a researcher who is both highly respected and misunderstood by many, so I thought it might be useful and edifying to provide a commentary on his research as he provides updates on it. Our goal is to remain thoughtful and charitable, while taking the time to point out the strengths and weaknesses of his position. Enjoy the show! Mentioned in this lesson: Reasonable Faith — Update on Historical Adam The Book of Genesis — Dr. Bill Barrick Invite us in to speak! — Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 093: (Update 1) William Lane Craig and the Historical Adam appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

A couple of weeks ago, I interviewed Marc Lambert of the Hey, Pastor! Podcast on how to argue for young age creationism without an appeal to Genesis 1. This was an eye-opening discussion for many, but the question was left open as to what Genesis 1 can actually tell us. So I open this episode with some thoughts about what Genesis tells us given different understandings of its genre, and aim to show that our contention that Genesis 1 by itself does not answer the age of the earth question still stands. This week’s questions:: What is the genetic evidence for Adam and Eve? “The Bible doesn’t tell us the age of the universe!” Mentioned in this lesson: On the Origin of Eukaryotic Species’ Genotypic and Phenotypic Diversity 089: From Jesus to Genesis w/ Marc Lambert TCA Lesson 026: Genetic Evidence for a Recent Creation (BOH Series) Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 092: No, Genesis 1 Does Not Answer the Age of the Earth Question appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

This week’s episode is a little different. I was recently given the opportunity to share some thoughts at my grandmothers funeral. I wanted to bring these thoughts to you all as well, because I believe many could learn from her life and example. Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! TRANSCRIPT: My grandmother—Mommom, as I knew her—passed away on Friday, May 10th, 2019. I was asked to speak at her funeral on the following Wednesday just briefly. These are powerful words: In Christ, there are no goodbyes And in Christ, there is no end So I’ll hold onto Jesus with all that I have To see you again And I close my eyes and I see your face If home’s where my heart is then I’m out of place Lord, won’t you give me strength to make it through somehow I’ve never been more homesick than now The hope we have in Jesus is really beautiful and unmatched. How do people live without it? I ask myself this question a lot. What can we learn from the life of someone who lived sold-out for Jesus? Here are four things I learned about life and Jesus from Mommom:   1. The Power of Devotion Mommom loved the Lord with all of her heart. Her life was marked by her service and devotion to God, the things of God, and the people of God around her. She loved her husband. She loved her church. She loved her family. But it was her love for God that enabled her to love these other things so deeply. She understood that love for others can only really be understood in the context of God’s love for us. She instilled this devotion within me, though I rarely live up to the precedent set by her example. Quite often I remember her speaking wisdom and truth into my life. She’d say something like, Whatever you do, always make sure to put the Lord first. If you do that, he’ll take care of the rest. Of course, Jesus said in Matthew 6:33, “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” So if I could you give you just one spiritual takeaway—just one peice of advice to take from my Mommom’s example—it would be to live a life that simply puts Christ first. If seeking God’s glory and God’s will is your primary focus, the rest—I can assure you—will fall right into place. 2. The Power of Prayer The devotion of Mommom’s spiritial life carried over into her prayer life. Though I wouldn’t trade my life and/or experiences for anything, it’s true that I wish I had gotten to spend more time with Mommom during the past 10-15 years. She would have, no doubt, had an even greater spiritual influence on my life had I been closer. At the same time, I know she spent much time in prayer for me. She told me, and frankly, I could feel it. Without a grandmother who knew how to appeal to God, I don’t know where I’d be. Would I have been raised in a Christian home? Would I have a love for gospel music? Would I have gotten to travel in full-time gospel music ministry? Would I have met my wife (who I met while traveling in full-time gospel music ministry)? Would I have three beautiful little boys? Would I have accepted the call to preach? Would I have been called to preach in the first place? I believe in a sovereign God. But I believe in a sovereign God who anticipates—and answers—the meaningful prayers of his people. I can only conclude that much of the good in my life is the result of her fervent and unceasing prayer life. 3. The Power of Diligence If one thing is certain, it’s that Mommom was not scared of a little hard work. In Ecclesiasates 9:10, King Solomon writes Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. Mommom understood something very important about the Christian life. Being a Christian is not a “Sunday” thing—it’s an every day thing, and it shows up in every area of our lives. It’s a worldview—a way of looking at the world which informs everything we do, right down to the most minute task. She had limitations that would leave many today completely helpless. But not Mommom. My Poppop was a hard worker, to be sure. But she didn’t leave him to do all the dirty work! She was legally blind, yet she knew her way around her house and her property and could always be seen working in the garden, picking up sticks or leaves, hanging clothes on the line, walking up and down the basement doing laundry, etc. She never even had a driver’s license, and yet she could navigate Philly to get to various doctor appointments with skill that would make a boy-scout blush! Any anytime friends came over, you could be sure they’d be offered plenty to eat and drink—over, and over, and over, and over—again. One of my favorite memories growing up at Open Bible Baptist Church and Victory Christian School was Holiday House, where Mommom helped sell antiques and other goods at the “Second Time Around.” Mommom loved to serve in any and every way possible. She was diligent for the Lord. I only pray that I learn to approach every opportunity as an opporunity to serve the Lord, in the same way she did. 4. The Power of Encouragement Last—but certainly not least—Mommom taught me the power of encouragement and being an encourager. Every time I spoke with her, I tried to be a blessing and encouagement to her. And yet, it seems that I was the one who always left encouraged. As you should understand by now, Mommom knew what was important. She knew that unless something was done to and for the glory of God, it wasn’t done in the right way or in the right spirit. So she always encouraged others to use their gifts and talents for the Lord. She let people know she was praying for them. She offered her help and extended her hand to those who needed it. I often think of how surprised some will be on Judgment Day. Some who worked, and worked, and worked without understanding the grace of God and desiring the only praise of men will hear “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matthew 7:22). And then there will be some devoted saints of God—like Norma Fitting—who’ll receive more crowns to cast at the feet of Jesus than some of the most well-known preachers and evangelists of days gone by. Her life will be eternally marked and defined by those most desirable words: “Well done, thou good and faithful servant” (Matthew 25:21). A Christian poet and illustrator named Dan Lietha penned a beautiful poem after the passing of a dear co-worker and ministry parter. It so beautifully captures what I want to express and etch into the memory of all who remember Mommom: Today I look up to the sky, with a smile and some tears. A friend has gone to a place on high, with no more sickness, pain, or fears. Lord, heal the pain as we miss our friend, we’re glad her pain is gone. May the memories of her life not end, and her testimony carry on. [And what a testimony she had, by the way.] Thank you, Jesus, that in this sorrow is found fantastic celebration. Will see our friend again tomorrow because of the gift of your salvation. One day I’ll go to that perfect place, with loved ones there to find. This time with a smile upon my face, but the tears will be left behind. Conclusion To the one who’d begin to feel sorry for her, don’t. She can see again. She is fellowshipping with friends and loved ones who’ve already breached eternity. But more than anything, her faith in Christ has become sight, and she’s experiencing Jesus face-to-face. Our grief may continue for days, for weeks, for months; but because of the hope of Christ, goodbye is not forever. If you don’t know the Jesus Mommom knew, she’d love nothing more than for you to meet him, today. Don’t wait a moment longer. Run to Jesus, and live in the power of devotion, prayer, diligence, and encouragement. The example of Mommom’s life is a gift to you, to me, and to all who knew her. Let’s take care not to waste something so precious. The post 091: 4 Things My Grandmother Taught Me appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

How do we transfer the Christian faith to Generation Z? While there are lots of resources detailing Gen Z and what to believe about them, there are virtually none which tell how to communicate with them—until now. So the Next Generation Will Know By Dr. Sean McDowell and J. Warner Wallace is a helpful, accessible volume that has the potential to transform your role as a youth pastor, Christian educator, or parent. In the interview, Sean and I discuss some of the most prominent themes in the book, including the most likely reason Gen Z is characterized by depression and loneliness and the tactical approach Sean and J. Warner personally take when training Gen Zers. Listen in now! I know you’ll learn a lot. Mentioned in this lesson: So the Next Generation Will Know Sean McDowell J. Warner Wallace Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 090: So the Next Generation Will Know w/ Dr. Sean McDowell appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

What if we could argue for the age of the earth without ever mentioning Genesis 1? Anyone who regularly argues for the truth of young age creationism will greatly appreciate this helpful lesson from host of the Hey, Pastor! podcast, Marc Lambert. In this episode, Marc begins with Jesus and walks us right back through the Bible’s unbroken chain of history—stopping just short of Genesis 1—to show that we don’t need Genesis 1 to answer the question of age. This is a compelling and fascinating interview with a dear Christian brother that I know you’ll enjoy! Mentioned in this lesson: The Hey, Pastor! Podcast Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 089: From Jesus to Genesis w/ Marc Lambert appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

There’s no doubt that theistic evolutionism—or, as their preferred moniker has it—evolutionary creationism, is on the rise. I could give numerous anecdotal reasons for this, but I’m not inclined to opine on the reasons for the wider trend. In this episode, I merely want to speak to the oddity of this trend at such a time as this. It would seem that the more we learn about life at the molecular level, the less Darwin’s theory is able to withstand. And yet, the more the church has hitched up its wagon. I think this is a mistake, and we’ll talk about why in this episode. Then, to wrap up, we answer a question about the life of Jesus and the nature of historical evidence. Mentioned in this lesson: Darwin Devolves Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 088: The Odd Thing About Theistic Evolution appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Recently the news reported of a tragic event that took place in Paris, France—the burning of the beloved Notre Dame Cathedral. While this is tragic, make no mistake, I was a bit unpleasantly surprised by some of the reactions I saw from the Christian community. Have we got to the place where the “building” is esteemed higher than it ought to be? In this episode I begin by giving a few thoughts around that. Then, we answer some questions from Quora about Christianity. This week’s questions: What is it like to shift from a devotional reading of the Bible to more of a historical/critical examination of it? My boyfriend is Muslim. We have been together for four years. Yesterday, he told me he will not marry me unless I become Muslim. I am so in love with him, but I don’t want to be Muslim. What should I do? What guides atheists to be good and stops them from doing evil since they don’t believe that hell is real? Mentioned in this lesson: The Creation Academy Ask questions: Go to steveschramm.com and click “Ask a Question” on the right. Use #askS3 on Twitter Join our free Facebook community and ask questions there. Email me. Free Email Course! Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 087: On the Burning of Notre Dame appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Dr. Michael Behe is one of the world’s foremost defenders of Intelligent Design theory—the notion that the biological project is not one of random selection and mutation, but rather, the purposeful arrangement of parts by a superior intelligence. His latest book, Darwin Devolves, takes the latest and best science we have on the molecular level of life and shows how Darwin’s theory is principally unable to account for the biodiversity of life we observe. Moreover, he demonstrates how Darwin’s mechanism does not promote change by evolution, but rather, devolution. Listen in on this fascinating interview as we discuss his research and take about an hour-long stroll through the pages of his book. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Some surprising facts about the history and origin of evolution theory. Why contemporary Darwin skeptics still fail to account for the molecular evidence. How “mind” is detectable and why, if it weren’t, we couldn’t really know anything at all. How the largest and longest study ever done on evolution supports the thesis of Darwin Devolves. Why critical feedback thus far has not dealt with the challenge Behe raises. Mentioned in this lesson: Get the book and keep up with critical feedback and responses. Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 086: Darwin Devolves w/ Dr. Michael Behe appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

In our Christian life, it’s not uncommon to wonder whether every circumstance we endure has been foreordained by God to take place. I, for one, have questioned whether certain things in life were necessary, such as the early death of my father. Strangely, though, I’ve never pondered so deeply about the presence of a hangnail on my finger. Here’s what I’m getting at: When we say everything happens for a reason, do we really mean every thing? I think we can form a biblically-based understanding of the sovereignty of God which preserves the pervasive sovereignty of God, the free will (and responsibility) of man, and the ultimate and immediate purposefulness (according to the will of God) of circumstances in our lives. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why, though I’m charitable toward those who hold this view, I think theological determinism is false from both biblical and philosophical angles. An offering as to how my view on Molinism actually holds the highest possible view of God’s sovereignty. A new possible aphorism to use in place of “everything happens for a reason.” Mentioned in this lesson: Resistance is Futile–or Is It? A Basic Defense of Monergistic Molinism Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 085: Does Everything Happen for a Reason? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Few creationists are as misunderstood as biologist and head of the Core Academy of Science, Dr. Todd Wood. Wood is a adamant defender of young age creationism and has completed two books in recent days that help to clarify his position and also share his position with an unlikely audience, theistic evolutionists. In this episode we’re going to be talking about his recent book, The Quest: Exploring Creation’s Hardest Problems. This was an awesome book that, frankly, I feel should be standard reading for any young age creationist. We could learn a lot from Dr. Wood. So while we’ll not cover the book extensively (you have to read it), I will give some of my thoughts and key takeaways from it, as well to share some helpful tips for creationists as we seek to interact with zeal, grace, and a firm commitment to the biblical creation account. Mentioned in this lesson: Todd’s Blog The Quest The Fool and the Heretic The Creation Academy 061: The Elephant in the Room Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 084: Thoughts on “The Quest” by Todd Wood appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Like most American families—Christian or not—my wife and I enjoy watching TV. As a culturally concerned Christian parent, however, there’s a need to be on the lookout for bad ideas in just about everything we consume. Sadly, most Christian parents are taken unsuspectingly by advanced marketing tactics that are made to appeal to emotional concerns of theirs, such as their own self-identify, in hopes of achieving political persuasiveness. The 17th Century political activist Andrew Fletcher said, “Let me make the songs of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.” Hundreds of years ago, Fletcher understood something that most people are not aware of—and thus, not on the lookout for—even today. In this episode of the show I want to unpack something that happened on a recent episode of the TV show, For the People, and explain the marketing tactic that was used to make the emotional appeal. Then, I’ll give you three steps you can use to help guard your family from being taken by these tactics when they appear. Mentioned in this lesson: Made to Stick Engineer Guy Review The Single Most Important Aspect of Apologetics is Knowing what the Bible Does and Does Not Teach. Here’s Why. Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 083: Pop Culture, Emotional Appeals, and the the Leftist Agenda appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Last week, we began talking about the idea that “you” have a “truth” that allows you to see reality, legitimately, in different terms from someone else. This is a fallacious notion that is ultimately nothing more than relativism in disguise. Unfortunately, the disguise has made it past the defenses of many well-meaning Christians. While last week’s episode focused more on the error, this week, we discuss the likely motivations behind this trend and suggest that the Bible itself offers the proper alternative to accomplishing these “good intentions” as I refer to them. This relativistic error is most noticeable in Christian self-development circles, and I bring a unique perspective to the issue because I do, indeed, highly value personal development. I think there is a biblically consistent philosophy of self-improvement, and it’s found in our union with Christ. Mentioned in this lesson: https://medium.com/the-mission/this-is-how-to-discover-your-personal-truth-and-live-according-to-your-highest-values-d9f1acd57097 https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/06/ocasio-cortez_people_being_more_concerned_about_me_being_factually_correct_than_morally_right.html https://www.steveschramm.com/union-with-christ/ Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 082: (Part 2) “Your Truth” is Not a Thing appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

There is a huge misunderstanding about the nature of truth in popular Christian circles today. Sadly, a lack of theological precision and the growth of apatheism have contributed greatly to this loss of truth. Many think truth doesn’t exist, and many think that it does but we could never know what it is! These notions are both false. So in this podcast we’re going to unpack a couple of quotes which serve to illiterate these views, and then bring some real clarity to this issue. In this lesson, you’ll learn: The simple definition of truth and why it must be objective. How and why an accurate understanding of reality is escaping even many Christian circles. A look into the motivation behind these ideas and the biblical answer to them. Mentioned in this lesson: https://medium.com/the-mission/this-is-how-to-discover-your-personal-truth-and-live-according-to-your-highest-values-d9f1acd57097 https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/06/ocasio-cortez_people_being_more_concerned_about_me_being_factually_correct_than_morally_right.html https://www.steveschramm.com/union-with-christ/ Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 081: (Part 1) “Your Truth” is Not a Thing appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Last week, we began discussing the importance of the pro-life argument, and how to understand the issue in simple terns. The fact is that arguments for abortion are quite weak, and many stay out of the debate altogether for the fear that they are not well-enough educated on this issue. In this final part of our miniseries, I’ll give a quick defense of the premises that make up the pro-life syllogism: It’s morally wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification. Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being without proper justification. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong. We’ll also talk about a few of the misleading/inaccurate terms that get thrown around in the abortion discussion. Ultimately, my prayer is that this short series leaves you feeling equipped to begin making the pro-life case. While this doesn’t answer every question or dilemma, it will get you started on the right foot. Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 080: (Part 2) Fighting for the Unborn: The Pro-Life Case Explained appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Do you feel mystified by the abortion debate? Does it seem like the world is just devolving into insanity as you fight for what seems to be an obvious human right? Would you like to be able to articulate a defense for the defenseless unborn with clarity and grace? If so, this podcast episode is for you. As Christians, we understand that all human life is intrinsically valuable; that is, from the moment of conception/fertilization, a human baby is growing in the womb of his/her mother, and that human baby has vale in virtue of its humanity. The best science we have today confirms this, and even our most basic moral intuition is that human life is valuable. Nevertheless, this is a complicated issue, and it’s easy to become frustrated. And as I’ve written about recently, I’ve been there too. In this series I am going to walk you through some thoughtful arguments which demonstrate the pro-life case. We’ll explain it in simple terms, and even try to work through the confusing terms, unclear arguments, and unrelated moral dilemmas that aim to distract from the simplicity of the pro-life case. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why we, as Christians, have a duty to stake our claim in this fight (and, it *is* a fight). A formal argument that makes the pro-life case clear. How an appeal to basic intuition can go a long way in this debate. Mentioned in this lesson: God, Teach Me to be Less Indifferent Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 079: (Part 1) Fighting for the Unborn: The Pro-Life Case Explained appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

A hot subject of evangelical study today is the relationship between Israel and her ancient Near Eastern neighbors. There are numerous views on this issue. Some say no relationship, some say it’s a deep relationship that means the Bible is another useless myth, and scholars land nearly everywhere in-between. This is far from a settled issue in academia. One scholar, Dr. John Currid, has become known for highlighting an important aspect of this relationship—called “Polemical Theology.” According to Currid, polemical theology is: …the use by biblical writers of the thought forms and stories that were common in ancient Near Eastern culture, while filling them with radically new meaning…The biblical authors take well-known expressions and motifs from the ancient Near Eastern milieu and apply them to the person and work of Yahweh, and not to the other gods of the ancient world. Polemical theology rejects any encroachment of false gods into orthodox belief; there is an absolute intolerance of polytheism. Polemical theology is monotheistic to the very core…The primary purpose of polemical theology is to demonstrate emphatically and graphically the distinctions between the worldview of the Hebrews and the beliefs and practices of the rest of the ancient Near East. It’s important to note that, in affirming this relationship, Currid does not deny the historicity of Genesis (or any of the Hebrew Bible). In fact, he believes polemical theology only serves to highlight the distinctness of Israel—in nearly every way possible. While polemical theology cannot explain every facet of the relationship between Israel and her neighbors, it goes a long way toward better understanding it. And—if I may say, provides a wonderful new lens through which to view the Word of God. I hope you’ll join me on part 3 of this journey! In this lesson we’ll briefly rehash what we talked about over the last few weeks, and look into the warranted extent to which polemical theology can be taken. Hey—don’t forget to download this week’s free handout, The #1 Textual Reason to Think Jesus Thought Genesis was History. ==>Click here to download it now!<== Enjoy the podcast! Mentioned in this lesson: Against the Gods The Bible Among the Myths TCA Lesson 022: Does John Walton Get Genesis Right? TCA Lesson 030: Who Was Ancient Man? Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 078: (Part 3) A Primer on Polemical Theology appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

A hot subject of evangelical study today is the relationship between Israel and her ancient Near Eastern neighbors. There are numerous views on this issue. Some say no relationship, some say it’s a deep relationship that means the Bible is another useless myth, and scholars land nearly everywhere in-between. This is far from a settled issue in academia. One scholar, Dr. John Currid, has become known for highlighting an important aspect of this relationship—called “Polemical Theology.” According to Currid, polemical theology is: …the use by biblical writers of the thought forms and stories that were common in ancient Near Eastern culture, while filling them with radically new meaning…The biblical authors take well-known expressions and motifs from the ancient Near Eastern milieu and apply them to the person and work of Yahweh, and not to the other gods of the ancient world. Polemical theology rejects any encroachment of false gods into orthodox belief; there is an absolute intolerance of polytheism. Polemical theology is monotheistic to the very core…The primary purpose of polemical theology is to demonstrate emphatically and graphically the distinctions between the worldview of the Hebrews and the beliefs and practices of the rest of the ancient Near East. It’s important to note that, in affirming this relationship, Currid does not deny the historicity of Genesis (or any of the Hebrew Bible). In fact, he believes polemical theology only serves to highlight the distinctness of Israel—in nearly every way possible. While polemical theology cannot explain every facet of the relationship between Israel and her neighbors, it goes a long way toward better understanding it. And—if I may say, provides a wonderful new lens through which to view the Word of God. I hope you’ll join me on part 2 of this journey! In this lesson we’ll briefly rehash what we talked about last week, and begin looking into some possible misuses of polemical theology we find growing in Christian circles. Hey—don’t forget to download this week’s free handout, The #1 Textual Reason to Think Jesus Thought Genesis was History. ==>Click here to download it now!<== Enjoy the podcast! Mentioned in this lesson: Against the Gods The Bible Among the Myths TCA Lesson 022: Does John Walton Get Genesis Right? TCA Lesson 030: Who Was Ancient Man? Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 077: (Part 2) A Primer on Polemical Theology appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

A hot subject of evangelical study today is the relationship between Israel and her ancient Near Eastern neighbors. There are numerous views on this issue. Some say no relationship, some say it’s a deep relationship that means the Bible is another useless myth, and scholars land nearly everywhere in-between. This is far from a settled issue in academia. One scholar, Dr. John Currid, has become known for highlighting an important aspect of this relationship—called “Polemical Theology.” According to Currid, polemical theology is: …the use by biblical writers of the thought forms and stories that were common in ancient Near Eastern culture, while filling them with radically new meaning…The biblical authors take well-known expressions and motifs from the ancient Near Eastern milieu and apply them to the person and work of Yahweh, and not to the other gods of the ancient world. Polemical theology rejects any encroachment of false gods into orthodox belief; there is an absolute intolerance of polytheism. Polemical theology is monotheistic to the very core…The primary purpose of polemical theology is to demonstrate emphatically and graphically the distinctions between the worldview of the Hebrews and the beliefs and practices of the rest of the ancient Near East. It’s important to note that, in affirming this relationship, Currid does not deny the historicity of Genesis (or any of the Hebrew Bible). In fact, he believes polemical theology only serves to highlight the distinctness of Israel—in nearly every way possible. While polemical theology cannot explain every facet of the relationship between Israel and her neighbors, it goes a long way toward better understanding it. And—if I may say, provides a wonderful new lens through which to view the Word of God. I hope you’ll join me on this journey! Hey—don’t forget to download this week’s free handout, The #1 Textual Reason to Think Jesus Thought Genesis was History. ==>Click here to download it now!<== Enjoy the podcast! Mentioned in this lesson: Against the Gods The Bible Among the Myths Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 076: A Primer on Polemical Theology appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Okay, so you’re first starting to dive into the Bible deeply and learn more about defending your spiritual convictions, and you’re stuck. Everybody teaches different things, so who do I trust? Is that you? Can you identify? Because I KNOW I can. Or, maybe you’ve been at this awhile and have more blogs to read, podcasts to listen to, and video to watch than you know what to do with! If you’re in either of these boats, this episode is for you. And trust me, you’re not alone. Countless others are struggling with the exact same problem, and I still struggle with it from time to time. But together we can struggle no more. In this episode we are going to walk through four categories (and nine questions) that will help you clarify who you should be learning from. Along the way, we’re even going to bust a huge myth—it’s the criteria you probably use right now to determine who you listen to, and it’s entirely wrongheaded. So buckle in! You’ll want to take notes, but you don’t have to! I’ve taken them for you in the form of a helpful checklist that will make all of this much easier, and much more tangible. ==>Click to download the Expert Evaluation Checklist.<== Enjoy the podcast! Mentioned in this lesson: Expert Evaluation Checklist: 9 Questions to Help You Know if You Can Trust Your Expert 5 Ways to Learn From Others Every Day of Your Life 062: How Does Science Relate to the Bible? 064: 7 Ways to Identify a Bad Argument (Part 1) 065: 7 Ways to Identify a Bad Argument (Part 2) Thanks so much for listening. Pleasesubscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 075: How to Know Which Experts to Trust appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Over the past few decades, there have been a number of young age creationist suggestions for a some important questions raised by Genesis 1. For example, what was the nature of the firmament? If the heavens were created in Verse 1 (Day 1), how were they given the same name as the firmament created on Day 2 (See v. 8-9)? In recent years Dr. Danny Faulkner has made some interesting observations about these passages, and discovered a startling implication for modern science that could potentially serve as evidence for the young age creationist view: The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. If you know anything about big bang cosmology, you’ve likely heard this term. It is the name given to a radiation field which penetrates each and every corner of the known universe. This is often interpreted as the best observable evidence for the big bang that we have today. Many creationists would likely contend that it actually isn’t evidence for the big bang, but that seems incredulous. While it certainly could serve as evidence for the big bang, it could also serve as evidence for something else! In fact, this week’s free lesson handout will help demystify the big bang. It’s called 3 Reasons Creationists (and Everyone Else!) Should Reject the Big Bang Theory. ==>Click here to download the free lesson handout now!<== There has not been a tidy explanation for the CMB within young age creationism—an unfortunate reality that still rings true today. However, the suggestion of Faulkner’s we’ll present within this podcast episode just may bring us closer. Humphreys (2014) has also posited an explanation; I’ll echo the sentiments of Dr. Faulkner by welcoming others to bring their solutions to the table. After reading and reflecting on Faulkner’s paper, one thing has become clear: The answer to this “problem” for young age creationists could indeed stem from a misunderstanding of the text. This is unfortunate; but not as unfortunate as the reality that many young age creationists are unwilling to change long-held traditions and beliefs, even in light of convincing evidence suggested by conservative scholars! My prayer is that you’ll listen with an open mind. As with all papers I review here on the podcast, I don’t teach this as though it’s the gospel truth! It’s merely a possibility I’ve deemed worthy of consideration. >>Don’t forget to join us in the brand new, (FREE!) Facebook community where you can ask questions and share your thoughts about this week’s episode. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why most Hebrew scholars reject the idea that Genesis 1:1 directly describes Creation Ex-Nihilo, and what the means for interpreting the rest of the chapter. A biblical proposition for the true identity of the firmament (Heb. rāqîaʿ). Hint: The solution is strikingly obvious, yet has been elusive from the creation literature for most of its existence. Three important implications that result from the above observations, and the additional benefit we just may have if this interpretation is correct: A creationist solution for the CMB. Mentioned in this lesson: Thoughts on the rāqîa‘ and a Possible Explanation for the Cosmic Microwave Background Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 074: A Young Age Creationist Explanation for the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Last week we began discussing a brand new solution to the so-called “distant starlight problem” facing young age creationists. A face value interpretation of Scripture suggests that the cosmos is young. Last week’s discussion mentioned, in brief, a few of the solutions that have been posited to this point. I’ve yet to be completely satisfied by any solution offered, but I must admit that I have relatively few questions about this one because: It lacks subjectivity. It is compatible with most current thought on astrophysics and cosmology. It is derived directly from Scripture. It is clear and unambiguous. Though we presented the model last week, this week, we will finish our discussion by first giving physical and biblical evidence for a young cosmos. Then, we’ll provide a detailed comparison between the CTC solution and other cosmologies (both Christian and secular). Finally, we’ll answer potential objections to the CTC to find whether they carry any weight. Don’t forget to download today’s FREE lesson handout: ==>Click here to download now.<== The handout gives my 5 personal step response to challengers of creationism who use the starlight problem as firepower. We have good answers! Don’t get discouraged. Here’s a teaser: We’re not the only ones with a problem ;] In this lesson, you’ll learn: How the CTC solution compares with other models, and why it’s the most parsimonious creationist solution. Specific physical evidence that shows why our universe is young, as seemingly suggested by Scripture. Why many potential objections to the ASC do not apply to the CTC because of its clarity and formulation. Mentioned in this lesson: Lesson Handout: A 5 Step Response to the Distant Starlight Issue A SOLUTION FOR THE DISTANT STARLIGHT PROBLEM USING CREATION TIME COORDINATES Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 073: (Part 2) Distant Starlight and Creation Time Coordinates appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Have you ever been stumped by the distant starlight problem? [If you’re not familiar, in brief, the distant starlight problem (also known as the light travel time problem) is the thesis that young age creationism cannot be true because light from distant stars would take many millions of years to reach Earth—which, on conventional cosmology, indicates such stars are millions of years old.]If you’re like me (and probably 99% of all other young age creationists) the answer is YES!!Over the years, a number of solutions to this problem have been proposed. Here’s a list of the most common: Light Created in Transit (Morris 1976) Variable Speed of Light (Setterfield 1989) Gravitational Time Dilation (Humphreys 1994) Supernational Time Dilation (Hartnett 2003) Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (Lisle 2010) Dasha Theory (Faulkner 2013) This problem is crippling for many, and with so many solutions having been proposed (and the unsettling lack of consensus among creationist astronomers), it’s no surprise that this issue might cause some unrest in taking Genesis at its word.This week I offer yet another solution proposed by a team of three writers at the 2018 International Conference on Creationism. The solution uses what the authors call “Creation Time Coordinates” (CTCs) to talk about the age of stars in our universe.The CTC solution is fascinating, refreshing, and best of all, is completely consistent with special relativity and leaves the door wide open for others to offer additional elements of a more complete young age cosmology.This EXCITING new solution needs to be heard, because I think it might be the most convincing thus far; so I’m excited to bring it to you today. Make sure you download this free 5-step guide that will help you respond when skeptics challenge you on the starlight issue.==>It’s the free lesson handout for today.<==In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why I’ve been unconvinced by many of the starlight solutions thus far, and how I think this one eases some of my concern about creation astronomy. The fundamental assumption that EVERY young age starlight model should reject. The mechanics and advantages of the Creation Time Coordinates solution, and what makes it different from the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (of which CTC is a reformulation). Mentioned in this lesson: A SOLUTION FOR THE DISTANT STARLIGHT PROBLEM USING CREATION TIME COORDINATES TCA Lesson 058: The Current State of Creation Astronomy II | S02L01 Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem A New Facebook Community! What is God’s Relationship to Time? Quick Response: Stand to Reason on Distant Starlight Lesson Handout: A 5 Step Response to the Distant Starlight Issue Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts!Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 072: (Part 1) Distant Starlight and Creation Time Coordinates appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Have you ever thought about the incomprehensibility of finite creatures like you me loving the infinite, eternal God of all glory? It’s amazing to think that God loves us; but how do we love him? Is it even possible? Using insights from the Bible, philosophy, and even science, we’re embarking on an in-depth study to find the answer to the question of how to love God. Make sure to fill out the form below (or click here) to download a practical, 4-step guide to connecting with God on a deeper level! In Luke 10, Jesus affirms the response of a religious lawyer who quotes the Hebrew Bible’s teaching on the matter: “And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself” (Luke 10:27). We’re in the fourth and final lesson of a series exploring the heart, soul, strength, and mind. Today, we dive right into the biblical command to love God with all of our strength and all of our mind. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why the notion of human beings possessing power at all rests in being made in God’s image How everything we know about the universe points to its having a beginning, and how the data matching what we know about God. We examine the misunderstanding many have about “faith,” and give biblical reasons why Christianity is, in fact, the only rational worldview. Mentioned in this lesson: The Creation Academy Predation Series: TCA Lesson 036: Creation and Predation—What Does the Bible Teach? TCA Lesson 037: Q&A: Creation and Predation TCA Lesson 038: Scripture, Sin, and Defending Christianity The Seed, the Soil, and the Soul Defend Your Faith FREE Course Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 071: How to Love God (Part 4) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

NOTE: At around 35 minutes, I get a bit trigger happy and refer to the great biblical writer Job as an Apostle. This is, of course, inaccurate, though one could argue his experience of God was just as certain as those who bear the title. This is the nevertheless a misspeaking and should be pointed out as such. Have you ever thought about the incomprehensibility of finite creatures like you me loving the infinite, eternal God of all glory? It’s amazing to think that God loves us; but how do we love him? Is it even possible? Using insights from the Bible, philosophy, and even science, we’re embarking on an in-depth study to find the answer to the question of how to love God. Make sure to fill out the form below (or click here) to download a practical, 4-step guide to connecting with God on a deeper level! In Luke 10, Jesus affirms the response of a religious lawyer who quotes the Hebrew Bible’s teaching on the matter: “And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself” (Luke 10:27). We’re in lesson three of a series exploring the heart, soul, strength, and mind. Today, we dive right into the biblical command to love God with all of our soul. There are many interesting biblical questions that relate to the soul. Are the soul and spirit the same thing? What does it mean to be “alive” in the biblical sense? Can animals love God? Lots of exciting questions to ponder today, as well as some exhortation to be thankful for the true “gift of life.” Listen in and enjoy! In this lesson, you’ll learn: The New Testament parallel to the Hebrew understanding of the soul, and how it helps distinguish “life” from “non-life” in the biblical sense. Many say that “life is a gift” rather flippantly, taking for granted how true that statement is. We talk about the metaphysical necessity of God, and why we, as continent beings, have more to be thankful for than we realize. We look at the biblical usage of the word “soul” and discover some important truths about the relationship between God and those souls he’s created. Mentioned in this lesson: The Creation Academy Predation Series: TCA Lesson 036: Creation and Predation—What Does the Bible Teach? TCA Lesson 037: Q&A: Creation and Predation TCA Lesson 038: Scripture, Sin, and Defending Christianity Book Review: Union with Christ: The Way to Know and Enjoy God Defend Your Faith FREE Course Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 070: How to Love God (Part 3) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Have you ever thought about the incomprehensibility of finite creatures like you me loving the infinite, eternal God of all glory? It’s amazing to think that God loves us; but how do we love him? Is it even possible? Using insights from the Bible, philosophy, and even science, we’re embarking on an in-depth study to find the answer to the question of how to love God. Make sure to fill out the form below (or click here) to download a practical, 4-step guide to connecting with God on a deeper level! In Luke 10, Jesus affirms the response of a religious lawyer who quotes the Hebrew Bible’s teaching on the matter: “And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself” (Luke 10:27). We’re in lesson two of a series exploring the heart, soul, strength, and mind. Today, we begin with an important announcement regarding a project we’ve been working on for some time now, The Creation Academy. Then, we begin looking at the biblical notion of the “heart.” The Bible teaches many important things about the heart. The heart is wicked and opposed to the things of God. Yet, the heart is able to changed by God and created anew! Listen in as we explore how God intended our heart to be used as our full expression of love toward him. In this lesson, you’ll learn: How the biblical usage of the word “heart” differs from our usage today, and what that means for how we love God. Why the key to loving God fully is the proper orientation of the heart toward him. Why the heart is sinful and wicked from birth, and how God’s overcoming grace works to change it. Mentioned in this lesson: The Creation Academy Knowledge and Christian Belief Defend Your Faith FREE Course Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 069: How to Love God (Part 2) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Have you ever thought about the incomprehensibility of finite creatures like you me loving the infinite, eternal God of all glory? It’s amazing to think that God loves us; but how do we love him? Is it even possible? Using insights from the Bible, philosophy, and even science, we’re embarking on an in-depth study to find the answer to the question of how to love God. Make sure to fill out the form below (or click here) to download a practical, 4-step guide to connecting with God on a deeper level! In Luke 10, Jesus affirms the response of a religious lawyer who quotes the Hebrew Bible’s teaching on the matter: “And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself” (Luke 10:27). In the coming weeks, we’ll explore the heart, soul, strength, and mind. And, today’s lesson will provide deep introductory insight into each notion. But more than anything, this lesson will establish what is meant by the word “love.” What sort of “love” is it that a finite, created being can give to an infinite, uncreated God? Listen in to this week’s show to find out. In this lesson, you’ll learn: How God has given us way to love him that is based on his own nature. The significance of being made in the image of God. The four meanings of the word “love” and how we can use sacrificial love to love God. Mentioned in this lesson: Defend Your Faith FREE Course Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 068: How to Love God (Part 1) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Perhaps there is no one more qualified than Josh Shoemaker and Dr. Gary Braness, with advanced degrees and certifications in apologetics, chemistry, and entomology (the study of insects) to shed light on the largely unexplored territory of God and the world of insects. Insects are really an amazing part of God’s creation. And though our childhood fascination with them usually begins to wain as we grow older, these two motivated Christian entomologists are calling for us to leave behind our entomological apathy and once again embrace a spirit of wonder and excitement about this, one of the “smallest”—and yet most expansive—facets of God’s world. Their new book, aptly titled God and the World of Insects, takes the reader on an exciting journey. Filled with information covering the theological, the entomological, the philosophical, and even the environmental, God and the World of Insects offers stunning new insight—using the latest available scientific research—into the incredible design of these creatures. In part two of our two part discussion, we discuss the irreducibly complex process of metamorphosis, ants and their navigational prowess, God’s purposes for insects, and much, much more. Don’t miss it! In this lesson, you’ll learn: How God uses the incredible process of butterfly metamorphosis to completely rewrite the biological code of a caterpillar. How ants—apparently, one of God’s choice creatures (see Proverbs 6:6)—are helping transform how entire cities route their traffic. About the incredible sophistication of bees and their foraging habits, and how bees communicate using a language (arguably second only to human language) to teach other bees how to find food. God’s four purposes for insects, how he uses them to accomplish his will, and how we can better serve God as their caretaker. Mentioned in this lesson: Waggle dance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFDGPgXtK-U Metamorphosis: http://www.metamorphosisthefilm.com/ FB Community: https://www.facebook.com/christianentomologists/ Bioinspiration: https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fphys.org%2Fnews%2F2018-06-dragonfly-larvae-effective-artificial-heart.html%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR2fGF6CDVSIdOemWf5g5BickLFWcbjzg7V_fs_Ki0EkJn5DD403wbeIYTY&h=AT2-DqRkrNk5uo1JtbgvA2wVZKa0kab0daPKK-IlmBPoMjweT2Yr8yYbZftbqD2HWbaV8bkzUtPq-r4TLYr1v-8SeGzqUoHZSrwcA10h00qhL0h-okpg9JXnFuTyPQhV_Fd5ja3e Insect Photos: https://mymodernmet.com/john-hallmen-insect-photography/?fbclid=IwAR3ThHevKDUV_z-e9Mx_IWHO_yV1CEalpyQXVnjq7nRmj0t4jrk14kfKIw0 Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 067: God and the World of Insects w/ Josh Shoemaker and Dr. Gary Braness (Part 2) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Perhaps there is no one more qualified than Josh Shoemaker and Dr. Gary Braness, with advanced degrees and certifications in apologetics, chemistry, and entomology (the study of insects) to shed light on the largely unexplored territory of God and the world of insects. Insects are really an amazing part of God’s creation. And though our childhood fascination with them usually begins to wain as we grow older, these two motivated Christian entomologists are calling for us to leave behind our entomological apathy and once again embrace a spirit of wonder and excitement about this, one of the “smallest”—and yet most expansive—facets of God’s world. Their new book, aptly titled God and the World of Insects, takes the reader on an exciting journey. Filled with information covering the theological, the entomological, the philosophical, and even the environmental, God and the World of Insects offers stunning new insight—using the latest available scientific research—into the incredible design of these creatures. In part one of our two-part discussion, we discuss their motivation for writing this book, and even begin to dive into this amazing world looking at the incredible convergence of insect species across the globe, and the intricacies of beetle design and environmental impact. Don’t miss it! In this lesson, you’ll learn: The story of two motivated entomologists who have begun to change the way people think about insects from a Christian perspective. Why collaboration in the Christian community is important, and how it leads to a greater impact for the Kingdom of God. How beetles—boasting the most abundant number of species in the world—are a crucial part of our ecosystem by filling unique ecological niches. Why the phenomena of “convergence” deals a striking blow to evolutionary naturalism, and how design makes better sense of the data. Mentioned in this lesson: Insect Photos: https://mymodernmet.com/john-hallmen-insect-photography/?fbclid=IwAR3ThHevKDUV_z-e9Mx_IWHO_yV1CEalpyQXVnjq7nRmj0t4jrk14kfKIw0 FB Community: https://www.facebook.com/christianentomologists/ God and the World of Insects (Book) Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 066: God and the World of Insects w/ Josh Shoemaker and Dr. Gary Braness (Part 1) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

When someone presents a claim or an objection to a claim you’ve made, are you able to spot the “fly in the ointment”? Bad arguments, unfortunately, run amuck in both Christian and non-Christian circles. Sometimes it’s obvious when an argument is bad, but sometimes it’s much less obvious and requires work to uncover the rotten spots. In this lesson (and last week’s lesson), I’m giving you some tools that will help you spot such deficiencies. More precisely, we can uncover these logical fallacies by asking certain questions. Over time, you will not have to run through arguments and evaluate them based on a list of questions; you’ll simply be able to pick out the problems at a glance. But it’s hard to get started if you don’t know how to evaluate an argument in the first place! Listen in as we teach you how to overcome challenges that are based on bad arguments. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why many arguments do little to nothing to advance another’s view because their reasons are irrelevant to the discussion. How to know when it is okay logically to quote someone as a expert authority in their field. How to determine whether a person’s rejection of your view has to do with the consequences it entails. The tactic that Jesus and other New Testament figures often used in their discussions to refute self-defeating worldviews. Mentioned in this lesson: Interesting in helping with video transcription? Email me! Logic: Our Moral Obligation 064: 7 Ways to Identify a Bad Argument (Part 1) Defend Your Faith FREE Course Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 065: 7 Ways to Identify a Bad Argument (Part 2) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

When someone presents a claim or an objection to a claim you’ve made, are you able to spot the “fly in the ointment”? Bad arguments, unfortunately, run amuck in both Christian and non-Christian circles. Sometimes it’s obvious when an argument is bad, but sometimes it’s much less obvious and requires work to uncover the rotten spots. In this lesson (and next week’s lesson), I want to give you some tools that will help you spot such deficiencies. More precisely, we can uncover these logical fallacies by asking certain questions. Over time, you will not have to run through arguments and evaluate them based on a list of questions; you’ll simply be able to pick out the problems at a glance. But it’s hard to get started if you don’t know how to evaluate an argument in the first place! Listen in as we teach you how to overcome challenges that are based on bad arguments. In this lesson, you’ll learn: How do tell the difference between an objection to your claim, and an objection to you! Sometimes, this is obvious, but not always! Why you must learn how to use the word “therefore.” You’d be surprised how many arguments fall flat because you can’t cogently use this word to seal the deal. Why no claim or argument is better than the assumptions on which it stands, and how to tell whether or not an assumption might be justified in a particular case. Mentioned in this lesson: Interesting in helping with video transcription? Email me! Therefore, Christianity is False? Defend Your Faith FREE Course Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 064: 7 Ways to Identify a Bad Argument (Part 1) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Our fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality, history, etc., will inevitably show up in our exploration of those things. But how do these assumptions affect our results? The answer to this question is the subject matter of today’s podcast lesson. We realize that, in order to do science, one must assume the uniformity of nature. If nature were not uniform, we could not expect to see the same results from a scientific experiment when the experiment was repeated. But here’s a question: Does that assumption necessarily extend indefinitely? Is it possible that, through supernatural intervention, there have been periods of earth history where some of the “rules” were changed? I think we have both biblical and scientific firepower to believe that’s the case. Listen in to this week’s show as I attempt to draw the proper distinction between the uniformity of nature and the philosophy of uniformitarianism, and give reasons to question whether the latter is a warranted assumption. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Two important questions to ask about any assumption you hold, which will help determine whether or not it is true. Why two of the 20th century’s most famous scientists (and anti-creationists!) were not uniformitarianists, and how that strengthens the biblical case for catastrophism. Three biblical (and three scientific) reasons to question the assumption of uniformitarianism. Why history confirmed by reliable eyewitnesses is always more helpful information than necessarily speculative scientific enterprises. Mentioned in this lesson: TCA Lesson 034: Is Young Age Creationism Pseudoscience? (Part 2) The Noachian Deluge: Does Scripture Say Global, or Local? TCA Lesson 053: A Flood of Evidence | S01L03 TCA Lesson 041: What on Earth is Science? (Goal Posts–Part 2) Should Christians Trust Scientists? Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 063: The Difference Between Uniformitarianism and the Uniformity of Nature appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

In a recent article I wrote for The Creation Club, I examined the major problem with “science vs. the Bible thinking.” That discussion led naturally to another question I received recently. The question goes like this: “At what point would I allow modern science to dictate my understanding of the Bible?” I provided my answer in the article; but I wanted to parse out my thinking and expand upon my reasoning for answering the way that I did. That answer is the subject matter of today’s lesson. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why the way this question is worded reveals a fundamental flaw in the process of hermenuetics. The big difference between allowing the Bible to dictate things about science and allowing science to dictate things about the Bible, and three biblical examples that help make my point. How to carefully point out the difference between a “ministerial” and “magisterial” use of extrabiblical information. Mentioned in this lesson: THE ONE BIG PROBLEM WITH “SCIENCE VS. THE BIBLE” THINKING Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 062: How Does Science Relate to the Bible? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

This week marks the beginning of The Steve Schramm Show—the next step in the life of the ministry. I don’t want to give away too much, so go ahead and take a listen! In this lesson, you’ll learn: My motivation for using my personal name for the podcast and ministry. Why I think this change will be positive for our ministry. What to expect in the immediate future. Mentioned in this lesson: The Creation Academy Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post 061: The Elephant in the Room appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

What exactly is science? And, how does it work? Does the scientific method require that we presuppose naturalism? Can one rationally affirm the validity of scientific exploration and the existence of God? We explore these questions and more in this episode of The Creation Academy. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why truths about the natural world are not determined by the scientific majority. Why Christian theism undergirds all scientific thinking, and, at the same time, refutes mythical thinking and naturalism. How the great scientists of days gone by used the core truths of Christianity to invent the procedure known today as the scientific method. Mentioned in this lesson: The Bible Among the Myths — Oswalt Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 060: How Does Science Work? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

In this lesson, we continue our series on the 2018 ICC. The last portion of the podcast is dedicated to discussing Spencer’s paper on planet migration, but first, we discuss the issue of cratering and Earth/solar system impacts with none than Wayne Spencer himself! This was quite a fruitful discussion covering lots of ground, so you certainly don’t want to miss it. In this lesson, you’ll learn: What effects meteor impacts tend to have on the earth, and why we’ve no scientific reason to think the Earth has experienced millions of years of devastating bombardment. Danny Faulkner’s Day-Four Cratering Hypothesis and what it offers to creation research in this category. How the secular model of our solar system’s origin may actually help us understand the process behind God’s creating the universe in more understandable terms. Why we should think that most cratering on the earth took place during the flood, and the probabilistic certainly that the Ark would not have been devastated by such an event. How two relatively new models for the origin of our solar system cannot explain the origin of solar system, but do in fact point to the hypothesis of intelligent design. Mentioned in this lesson: Wayne Spencer — Creation Answers Good Heavens! Podcast Geophysical Effects of Impacts During the Genesis Flood — Wayne Spencer Catastrophic Impact Bombardment Surrounding the Genesis Flood — Wayne Spencer Interpreting Craters in Terms of the Day Four Cratering Hypothesis — Dr. Danny Faulkner Evaluating The Day Four Cratering Hypothesis — Wayne Spencer The Proposed Origin of Our Solar System with Planet Migration — Wayne Spencer Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 059: Impact Craters and Planet Migration w/ Wayne Spencer appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Much has happened in creationist astronomical research over the past two decades. In this first lesson of our new series, Selections from the 2018 ICC, we examine Faulkner’s latest “State of Creation Astronomy” and consider the good, the bad, and ugly. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Creationist research is taking on a new face–we’ll discuss why this is very, very good news. We continue to see confirmation of many young age indicators, and new ones arising. Find out what those are in addition to which ones we should stop using. There is more to learn with respect to creationist cosmology, but some promising new insights might prove helpful for the young age view. Mentioned in this lesson: Dr. Danny Faulkner The International Conference on Creationism The State of Creation Astronomy II TCA Lesson 039: The Case for Cosmological Redshifts Thoughts on the rāqîa‘ and a Possible Explanation for the Cosmic Microwave Background Defend Your Faith with Confidence (FREE Email Course!) Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 058: The Current State of Creation Astronomy II appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Our understanding of the existence and life of Neanderthals has been bolstered through new research in recent days. In this bonus lesson, we’re narrating an article written earlier this year which aims to demonstrate that evidence supports the contention that Neanderthals are really just humans. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why Neanderthal DNA does not prove any evolutionary relationship, but rather supports their humanity. Why young age creationism is the best biblical framework for interpreting the existence and life of Neanderthals. How evidence is increasingly showing the “dumb brute myth” to be just that—a myth—even according to secular publications. Mentioned in this lesson: https://www.steveschramm.com/neanderthals-humans/ Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 057: BONUS: 5 Reasons Why Neanderthals Were Simply Humans appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

This review lesson marks the end of our first official series, “The Destruction of Paradise.” Listen in for a brief review of the past 5 weeks, along with a spoiler alert about what’s ahead. The podcast returns on 9/27! Subscribe now so you don’t miss it when it comes out. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Series 01 Overview: The Destruction of Paradise (Click lesson name below to view.) The Theology of God’s Perfect Creation | S01L01 Why Adam was a Historical Figure w/ Dr. Edgar Andrews | S01L02 A Flood of Evidence | S01L03 Who Were the Sons of God? | S01L04 Noah Found Grace: Understanding God’s Rescue Plan | S01L05 Our next series: Selections from the 2018 International Conference on Creationism Mentioned in this lesson: Want to Volunteer? Click here! Defend Your Faith with Confidence TCA Lesson 016: Is Evolution Just a Theory? Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 056: Series 1 Wrap-Up! The Podcast Returns 9/27/18 appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

In the final teaching lesson of the “Destruction of Paradise” series, we’re taking a look at Noah. The Bible teaches that he was a righteous man, but is that why he was spared from the devastating flood waters? I think the answer might surprise you. Listen in this week as we discuss why “Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why God actually rescued Noah. Hint: It wasn’t because he was righteous! The only two things God requires if you’re to escape judgment. Why it is that God will sacrifice anything and everything for holiness. Five parallels between Noah’s Ark and Jesus Christ. Mentioned in this lesson: Want to Volunteer? Click here! Defend Your Faith with Confidence Noah’s Ark: A Picture of Jesus Christ Genesis w/ Dr. James Allman Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 055: Noah Found Grace: Understanding God’s Rescue Plan appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

One of the most controversial issues in the earliest chapters of the Bible is the identity of the sons of God in Genesis six. I have recently altered my own position on this and have begun to realize its significance to the Flood narrative. This week we’ll take a deep dive into this topic, which will hopefully give us a better understanding of why God destroyed the world with a great deluge. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why the “sons of God” issue has become so controversial and why it’s so important to understand it properly. The six reasons why I think the Fallen Angels view is untenable and not supported by the evidence. How the Sethite view seems to make sense of the theological data and is the clearest meaning of the text. Mentioned in this lesson: Want to Volunteer? Click here! Defend Your Faith with Confidence A RESPONSE TO CHUCK MISSLER Who Are the Sons of God in Genesis 6? Who Were the Nephilim? Genesis 6 and Numbers 13—A Fresh Look Is the “Sons of God” Passage in Genesis 6 Adapted Pagan Mythology? Mischievous Angels or Sethites? Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 054: Who Were the Sons of God? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

This week, I was interviewed by fellow apologist, Marc Lambert. Marc hosts the “Hey, Pastor!” podcast and is also a member of The Mentionables Network. We deal with the question, “If there was a global flood, why did God hide all of the evidence for it?” It was a great discussion that I think will be very beneficial. In this lesson, you’ll learn: What do we mean by “evidence?” What the two overarching paradigms of “time” are, and how they help us interpret the evidence for the Flood. Why Scripture seems pretty clear that this flood was global in scale, and not local. How fossils, rocks, and culture provide myriad evidence for the global flood account. Mentioned in this lesson: Is Genesis History? Student and Educators Conference Dr. Kurt Wise The Creation Academy A Visual Representation of Catastrophic Plate Tectonics Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 053: A Flood of Evidence appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

A growing trend amongst evangelicals today is to mythicize the biblical account of Adam and Eve. In his latest book, Dr. Edgar Andrews has taken that position to task and attempted to thoughtfully persuade readers of the necessity of a historical Adam. In this lesson, we have an extended discussion with Dr. Andrews about the content from his new book, and spend ample time on the scientific and biblical arguments to view Adam as a historical figure. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why “science” has not at all disproven the notion of an original created pair. How mankind’s position in the cosmos separates him from all other created organisms. Why evolutionists have begun considering alternative models to the traditional Modern Synthesis. Why deep time cannot rescue the evolutionary paradigm of man’s development. Detailed arguments which show that the biblical writers all thought Adam and Eve were real, historical figures. Mentioned in this lesson: Dr. Edgar Andrews What is Man? Adam, Alien, or Ape? Who Made God? Searching for a Theory of Everything The Creation Academy Honors Program Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 052: Why Adam was a Historical Figure w/ Dr. Edgar Andrews appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

The Psalmist said that the “heavens declare the glory of God.” And, as we find in Romans 1, God has made himself evident in his creation. Today’s lesson–the first in our brand new series, “The Destruction of Paradise”–deals with what can be learned about the nature of God directly from his creation. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why modern science provides powerful, inescapable confirmation of creation ex-nihilo. How God’s omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence are directly detectable scientifically. God creation reveals not only the attributes of God and his glory, but also his direction and purpose for the creation. Why God must, by necessity, have personhood and agency. Mentioned in this lesson: The Ontological Argument Faith, Form, and Time: What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms about Creation and the Age of the Universe The Creation Academy Honors Program Apply for Research Assistant Role Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 051: The Theology of God’s Perfect Creation appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

This week, we share a ministry update! This is the milestone 50th episode for us, praise God! Things have been happening around here, and we’re excited for what the Lord is doing. We introduce a slightly new format for the podcast going forward, and give on an update on The Creation Academy membership site. In this lesson, you’ll learn: The reason for our new and improved sound quality. Information about a new format for the podcast. An update to the name and mission of The Creation Academy.   Mentioned in this lesson: The Creation Academy   Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on Apple Podcasts! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 050: New Things appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Young age creationism suggests that Darwinian Evolution theory is incorrect. But this means most biological research today is headed in the wrong direction! How can this be? In this lesson, we discuss “baraminology”—or, the study of “created kinds.” There is legitimate and fascinating research being done in creationist biology! We take a basic look at this research today and discuss some of the major concepts. In this lesson, you’ll learn: What the biblical term min actually means, and whether or not it should be directly linked to biological classification. Why noodles tell us something wildly important about biosystematics (the classification of organisms). What the main methods of baraminology are and how they help us to uncover the created kinds. The correct and precise language creationists should use when discussing the classification of organisms. Mentioned in this lesson: Faith, Form, and Time: What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms about Creation and the Age of the Universe VISUALIZING BARAMINIC DISTANCES USING CLASSICAL MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING A REFINED BARAMIN CONCEPT Defend Your Faith with Confidence — FREE email course! Email Me Your Questions! Why Trust God? The Creation Academy Preaching Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to become a financial Partner of the ministry. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 049: Can We Ever Find the Biblical Kinds? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

If days 1-3 of creation are ordinary days as indicated by Genesis 1, yet have no sun to produce sunlight, what was “first light?” This week, we give a few scientific suggestions. But are these scientific suggestions necessary? Our fundamental presuppositions about how we approach the Bible will determine how we approach this. In this lesson, we’ll explore this issue theologically and scientifically. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why the context of Genesis 1 demands literal days, regardless of “subjective interpretive difficulties.” The three things we must consider when interpreting the Bible. How ANE cosmology may (or may not) affect what the author of Genesis 1 meant to convey. Mentioned in this lesson: Is the raqîa‘ (‘firmament’) a solid dome? Four In One Gospel of Jesus, by Nikola Dimitrov Defend Your Faith with Confidence — FREE email course! Email Me Your Questions! Why Trust God? The Creation Academy Preaching Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 048: On the Nature of “First Light” appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

A common claim of those opposed to young age creationism is that the events of Day Six pose a problem. How can Adam have named so many animals? Did trees grow at supernatural speeds? The questions are many, and this week will be devoted to answering them. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why the text of the Bible demands we must take Day Six literally. The real reason why Adam naming “all the animals” would not be a problem on a young age view. The importance of exegeting Scripture rather than imposing outside ideas. Why we should not fear the miraculous during the events of Creation Week. Mentioned in this lesson: Defend Your Faith with Confidence — FREE email course! https://creation.com/naming-the-animals-all-in-a-day-s-work-for-adam Email Me Your Questions! Why Trust God? The Creation Academy Preaching Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 047: Dealing with Day Six appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Every now and then, we must return to the “basics”! In this special episode, I talk about a new product I’ve just released and give some thoughts about what I think is the most important “basic” of all: integrity. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why getting back to the basics matters. How to get involved in the creation science community. Why Christian integrity is the most important “basic” of all. Mentioned in this lesson: New Products! Email Me Your Questions! Why Trust God? The Creation Academy Preaching Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 046: Getting Back to Creation Science Basics appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

A recent paper has caused quite a bit of stir in the creation science community, allegedly claiming that new research shows that the majority of today’s species are “recent”—within 200,000 years old. While this sounds like a great win for advocates of recent creation, there may be more to it than meets the eye. We’ll discuss this paper at length in this week’s lesson. In this lesson, you’ll learn: What the researchers actually concluded, and how they reached their conclusion. Why this could be a potential win for creation scientists, but we should approach this research with a careful commitment to ongoing study. What DNA barcoding is and how it helps us to classify species. Mentioned in this lesson: http://www.pontecorboli.com/digital1/humanevolution/blog/2018/05/22/why-should-mitochondria-define-species/ http://www.techtimes.com/articles/228798/20180530/massive-genetic-study-reveals-90-percent-of-earth-s-animals-appeared-at-the-same-time.htm http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2018/06/are-all-animal-species-really-same-age.html https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mitochondrial-dna/recent-functionally-diverse-origin-for-mitochondrial-genes-from-~2700-metazoan-species/ https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mitochondrial-genome-mutation-rate/ https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mitochondrial-dna/origin-human-mitochondrial-dna-differences-new-generation-time-data-both-suggest-unified-young-earth/ Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 045: Creation in the News: Today’s Species are “Recent?” appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

When talking about creation and evolution, there is often a gigantic disconnect in the way terms are used and understood. Worse, there are terms we often use as creationists that unknowingly give unjust ground to evolutionary thinking! Learn how to work through those terms in this lesson. In this lesson, you’ll learn: What constitutes “new information” and why it can’t be proof for evolutionary theory. What a scientific theory is, and why we should avoid trivializing evolution as such. Why Vestigial Organs do exist, and why they are still not necessarily proof of evolution. How to define what counts as a “transitional fossil.” Mentioned in this lesson: https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/information-theory-part-1/ https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/information-theory-part-1/ TCA Lesson 016: Is Evolution Just a Theory https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/vestigial-organs/vestigial-organs-evidence-for-evolution/ The Ultimate Proof of Creation, Lisle Faith, Form, and Time, Wise Email Me Your Questions! Why Trust God? The Creation Academy Preaching Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 044: Understanding Common Evolutionary Terms (Goal Posts–Part 5) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

When we look at the concept of worldview, the problem of redefinition is rampant. Even terms like “Christian” and “atheist” are misunderstood. In this lesson, we’ll tackle these terms and more and try to get an accurate understanding. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why something can’t come from “nothing,” and why quantum mechanics won’t help. How to define the term “worldview” and how to understand what makes one worldview unique from another. Is “atheism” itself a worldview? Many atheists claim it isn’t, but I argue otherwise in this lesson. The proper definition of a “Christian” according to the Bible itself. Why presuppositional apologetics is neither circular reasoning or non-evidential in nature, and why we use it here at the Creation Academy. Mentioned in this lesson: TCA Lesson 035: A Universe From “Nothing?” Pie in the Sky or Steak on the Plate: What is Christianity? The Scandinavian Skeptic (or: Why Atheism Is A Belief System) TCA Lesson 028: Does Believing in Billions of Years and/or Evolution Affect Someone’s Salvation? My Journey from Evidential to Presuppositional Apologetics Email Me Your Questions! Why Trust God? The Creation Academy Preaching Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 043: Getting Worldviews Right (Goal Posts–Part 4) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Please be advised that in this lesson, I erroneously confused intrabaraminic diversification with interbaraminic diversification. Intrabaraminic diversification has to do with the diversification of species within a created kind. Interbaraminic diversification has to do with alleged variation between the biblical kinds.   As we attempt to accurately give our position as creationists, it’s vital that we understand how evolutionists use certain terms. (Hint: It’s often much different than how we use them!) This in mind, we’ll examine three popular words, their common misuse, and some helpful alternatives. In this lesson, you’ll learn: What is meant by the term “evolution.” The best definition of a biblical “kind” and how to apply it to our observations of the natural worlds. The misconceptions involved with the term “species”, and why speciation is NOT evolution. Mentioned in this lesson: Epigenetics for the Rest of Us: Does it help the Creationist’s Case Against Evolution? TCA Lesson 016: Is Evolution Just a Theory? Email Me Your Questions! Why Trust God? The Creation Academy Preaching Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 042: Evolution, Kinds, and Species (Goal Posts–Part 3) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

One of the most misunderstood and incorrectly used words in the origins debate today is none other than science. What does it really mean, and what other definitions get incorrectly lumped in with it? That’s the sole subject matter of today’s lesson. In this lesson, you’ll learn: What science actually is. How to know what methodological/philosophical naturalism are, and how they influence scientists. Historical science—is it a creationist invention, or a scientifically acceptable framework? Mentioned in this lesson: Email Me Your Questions! Why Trust God? The Creation Academy Preaching Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 041: What on Earth is Science? (Goal Posts–Part 2) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

“It’s just semantics!”, right? How we communicate with one another is vitally important. It has everything to do with our Christian witness, and also, our ability to get the ear of those we have important conversations with. Evolutionists, creationists, etc. need to heed the advice in this five-part series: STOP SHIFTING THE GOAL POSTS. Enjoy! In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why defining terms is a MUST in a debate setting, and how to make sure it gets done. How to define the term “literal” as meant by biblical creationists. Six helpful principles to use for understanding Scripture. Mentioned in this lesson: A Biblical and Scientific Defense of Young Earth Creationism/A Debate Group TCA Lesson 028: Does Believing in Billions of Years and/or Evolution Affect Someone’s Salvation? Email Me Your Questions! Why Trust God? The Creation Academy Preaching Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 040: Stop Shifting the Goal Posts! (Part 1) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

In a recent paper, Dr. Danny Faulkner has made the case for cosmological redshifts. While many young age creationists have argued that redshift (with respect to quasars, especially) can be reduced to Doppler phenomena, Faulkner believes this contention to be in error for numerous reasons—not the least of which is the potential denial of general relativity. In this lesson, we explore his paper and present the case for cosmological redshifts. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why, as creationists, we should strive to maintain integrity. What the Hubble Relation is and why the universe is, in fact, expanding. The important evidence that suggests quasar redshifts are not local, but cosmological. Mentioned in this lesson: TCA Lesson 011: Why Creationists Should Be EXCITED About New Mainstream Discoveries The Case for Cosmological Redshifts Email Me Your Questions! Why Trust God? The Creation Academy Preaching Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 039: The Case for Cosmological Redshifts appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

In wrapping up this mini-series on Creation and Predation, we “zoom out” a bit and look at this issue in the wider context of Christian belief. Ultimately, if we’re to have a defense and a satisfying explanation for the way the world is, we’ll need to remain faithful to the Christian Story as presented in God’s Word. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why it’s important to think correctly about the fall. The cosmic scope and impact of the fall. The implications of sin and death on defending Christianity. Mentioned in this lesson: Email Me Your Questions! Why Trust God? The Creation Academy Preaching Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 038: Scripture, Sin, and Defending Christianity appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Last week, we began looking at the issue of creation and predation. Some natural questions for further discussion arose out of the study; this week’s podcast is a Q&A addressing those questions. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Where viruses and pathogens fit in the creation/fall model. How carnivory developed post-fall. Why Satan is not ultimately responsible for sin and death. Why Jesus is better than the OT sacrifices. Why the curse didn’t just make “bad things worse.” Mentioned in this lesson: Email Me Your Questions! Why Trust God? The Creation Academy Preaching Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 037: Q&A: Creation and Predation appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

In the biblical account of earth history, an important distinction is made about the initial state of the creation. In fact, the Christian answer to death, pain, suffering, and objective evil in the world hinges on this important distinction. This week and next, we’ll examine the biblical teaching on this subject and answer some pressing questions. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why Genesis 1:29-30 are important to theology and apologetics. Why animal and human death/suffering are unique from plant life. The four areas affected by our beliefs about predation. Mentioned in this lesson: Related: Does the Punishment for Original Sin Fit the Crime? Email Me Your Questions! Why Trust God? The Creation Academy Preaching Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 036: Creation and Predation—What Does the Bible Teach? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

In an attempt to explain the universe without God, Dr. Lawrence Krauss and others have argued that, indeed, the universe came into existence on its own–yes, a universe from nothing! Does this theory hold up? In this lesson, you’ll learn: The actual definition of “nothing.” The logical fallacies of scientism. The real motivation behind denying design. Why the universe didn’t create itself. Mentioned in this lesson: The Creation Reveals the Transcendence of God Why Trust God? The Creation Academy Preaching Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 035: A Universe From Nothing? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Last week, we began looking at why young age creationism ought not to be considered a pseudoscientific discipline. We dealt with dinosaurs and the deluge (flood). This week, we look at the topics of dating and Darwin. What does it mean to be pseudoscientific, anyway? And, does starting with the Bible indeed make us pseudoscientists? These questions and more will be answered in the conclusion of this two-part miniseries. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Where the “deep time” philosophy originated (hint: It’s not in the lab!). Do secular scientists really offer a better–or even the best–explanation? The driving assumptions that control mainstream science and creation science. The kinds of evolution and creationist’ acceptance of it. Why creationists are not pseudoscientists for rejecting Darwinian evolution theory. Mentioned in this lesson: https://www.steveschramm.com/historical-adam-authority-scripture/ https://www.steveschramm.com/5-myths-higher-education-peer-review/ https://www.steveschramm.com/flood-explain-geologic-column/ https://creation.com/scientists-wrong Why Trust God? The Creation Academy Preaching Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 034: Is Young Age Creationism Pseudoscience? (Part 2) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Often, recent creationists endure ridicule from both the secular and Christian communities. Terms like “pseudoscience” are thrown around usually without regard for a proper understanding of the view, and our conclusions are rejected a priori. Is this criticism justified? What are the real differences between this view and the conventional theory? We’re answering that in this two-part series. In this lesson, you’ll learn: My thoughts on the new Christian nature documentary, The Riot and the Dance. The evidence that suggests dinosaurs are consistent with a young earth/universe. Why a global flood is not unscientific and may actually be the best explanation Mentioned in this lesson: Echoes of the Jurassic https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/dinosaur-tissue/ https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/origins/dinosaurs-part-3/ https://isgenesishistory.com/product/igh-conference-videos/ Why Trust God? The Creation Academy Preaching Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 033: Is Young Age Creationism Pseudoscience? (Part 1) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

We’ve seen throughout this series that the Bible has significant things to say about the origin of humanity. In this final lesson of the series, we look at what factors have undermined the authority and perspicuity of Scripture, and what we can and should do about it as committed Christians and young age creationists. In this lesson, you’ll learn: How the collapse of morality in our culture has contributed to the move away from Scriptural authority. Why the clarity of Scripture has been undermined in light of old age geology and cosmology. How we better articulate our position in this debate and help others to see the truth of the Bible as presented in Genesis 1-11. Mentioned in this lesson: Searching for Adam: Genesis and the Truth About Man’s Origin TCA Lesson 017: Is Adam the Real Deal? Why Trust God? The Creation Academy Preaching Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 032: A Historical Adam and the Authority of Scripture (BOH Series) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

While the evolutionary history of mankind would suggest that we are related only by a common ancestor, the biblical view suggests that not only are we intelligently designed, but also united by a shared world history. What does that history look like, and what can it tell us about the future? In this lesson, you’ll learn: What to make of the many creation myths represented by different cultures. Why the anthropological evidence seems to point towards a shared human history. How to answer the objections raised against the Bible’s historical veracity with respect to Genesis 1-11 events. Mentioned in this lesson: Searching for Adam: Genesis and the Truth About Man’s Origin TCA Lesson 010: Flood Myths and Dates vs. the Biblical Account Why Trust God? The Creation Academy Preaching Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 031: Uncovering Our Shared World History (BOH Series) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

If the evolutionary story is true, we should expect to find a very different history of humanity than the one we actually observe. The truth is, there are many ancient marvels that our engineers and scientists have difficulty reproducing today! Does the Christian worldview provide a satisfying explanation? Find out on this week’s lesson. In this lesson, you’ll learn: How evolutionary history is irreconcilable with biblical history. Why Pre-Flood humanity was much more advanced than typically given credit for. About the incredible Roman artifact created with nanotechnology over 1600 years ago! How “primitive” cultures today use their intelliegence in different—and special—ways. Mentioned in this lesson: Searching for Adam: Genesis and the Truth About Man’s Origin Genetic Evidence for a Recent Creation (BOH Series) Why Trust God? The Creation Academy Preaching Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 030: Who Was Ancient Man? (BOH Series) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

What does the world look like when its leaders and key influencers hold to evolutionary ideas? In the so-called “struggle for life,” only the strongest survive. Is this teaching consistent with the idea that “all lives matter,” we should “care for our fellow man,” and live by “The Golden Rule?” In the lesson we deal with the tragic effects Darwin’s ideas have had throughout the course of history. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Who the surprising key individual was that connected Darwin’s philosophy with the eugenics movement. A deep biblical understanding of race and culture. What went wrong and how Darwinism influenced Hitler and other world leaders. The eugenics movement that is still alive and thriving today. Why Christ is the key and only solution to this mindset. Mentioned in this lesson: Searching for Adam: Genesis and the Truth About Man’s Origin Epigenetics for the Rest of Us: Does it help the Creationist’s Case Against Evolution? 5 Myths of Higher Education and Peer Review Do All Lives Really Matter? Only if Christianity is True! Who Was Adam, and Who Are We?  Why Trust God? The Creation Academy Preaching Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 029: Darwin and Favored Races: The Loss of Humanity in our Culture (BOH Series) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Can one to go heaven and believe in evolution/billions of years? This week, I analyze a recent debate which proposed that question. The Bible seems pretty clear as to the requirements for a soul to be saved. But perhaps there’s more to it? Listen this week to find out my take on this extremely important issue. In this lesson, you’ll learn: The clear difference between heresy and heterodoxy. Good reasons to believe the Bible teaches a recent creation. Why differences in theological persuasion do not necessarily constitute heresy. My thoughts on who won the debate and why. Mentioned in this lesson: A Biblical and Scientific Defense of Young Earth Creationism/A Debate Group Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 028: Does Believing in Billions of Years and/or Evolution Affect Someone’s Salvation? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

In the conventional history of mankind, we share a distant common ancestor with other hominids–namely, apes. But does this hold up from an anatomical perspective? Or is there is good evidence of a distinct difference in design? Dr. Stuart Burgess seems to think so. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why creationists should be taken seriously A brief understanding of creationist vs. evolutionist classification systems The stark anatomical differences between humans and apes Why the design of humans stands in clear contrast to the design of apes Mentioned in this lesson: Searching for Adam: Genesis and the Truth About Man’s Origin Why Trust God? The Creation Academy Preaching Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 027: The Anatomy of the Fearfully and Wonderfully Made (BOH Series) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

We’ve all heard it before—genetic evidence has conclusively proved that humanity is ancient. But is this a true statement? In this study we explore the genetic predictions and implications of a recent origin for humanity. We’ll even find that not only do creationists make valid predictions—but they better fit the observations. In this lesson, you’ll learn: The key factor in determining who’s right in the origin debate. The when and where of human origins. Why creationist predictions better fit the observed data in mtDNA. Why the biblical “out of Ararat” model is superior to the “out of Africa” model. Mentioned in this lesson: Searching for Adam: Genesis and the Truth About Man’s Origin Is Evolution Just a Theory? 5 Myths of Higher Education and Peer Review Why Trust God? The Creation Academy Preaching Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 026: Genetic Evidence for a Recent Creation (BOH Series) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Perhaps no argument against the biblical origin of humanity is used as often as fossil evidence. We are told that the fossils conclusively support the evolutionary story of humanity. But is this the reality? What are the facts surrounding the fossil evidence? That’s what we’re looking at this week. In this lesson, you’ll learn: The nature and completeness of the fossil record. The anatomical similarities/differences between ape and human fossils. The important role artistic license plays in the origins debate. A survey of the discovered fossil evidence and what conclusions can be drawn. Mentioned in this lesson: Dr. David Menton Searching for Adam: Genesis and the Truth About Man’s Origin Why Trust God? Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 025: Human Ancestry: The Fossil Evidence (BOH Series) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

This week’s lesson takes a break from our current series, the Biblical Origin of Humanity. I begin with some commentary on Theistic Evolutionism, and then answer a couple creation questions. We finish off with a very, very special announcement about a project I’ve been working on that I think you’ll love. In this lesson, you’ll learn: The sad realities of Theistic Evolutionism. Do creationists believe in the Pangea supercontinent? Is it circular reasoning to trust the Bible? A special announcement you won’t want to miss! Mentioned in this lesson: Noah’s Lost World Is it Circular to Prove the Bible with the Bible? Investigating the Undeniable Accuracy of the Bible Announcing: The Creation Academy Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 024: Creation Q&A and an Exciting Announcement appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Who was Adam? The Bible describes Adam as the first human being—made in the “image and likeness” of God. This is in stark contrast to the evolutionary view, which teaches that we are simply a higher evolved animal, simply the product of millions of years of mindless, undirected evolution. We explore the true nature of Adam in this week’s lesson and ask an even more important question. Who are we? In this lesson, you’ll learn: How theologians throughout history have understood the image of God. Why the Bible is unique when it comments on the origin of humanity. The implications of believing a view contrary to Scripture. Mentioned in this lesson: Searching for Adam: Genesis and the Truth About Man’s Origin Do All Lives Really Matter? Only if Christianity is True! Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 023: Who Was Adam, and Who Are We? (BOH Series) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Please excuse the slightly rough audio for the first 30 or so minutes. I am working to improve the audio overall but ended up with some unwanted vocal distortions throughout the first half of the podcast. I believe the content, however, is worth listening to regardless. John Walton—professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College and formerly of Moody Bible Institute—suggests that we have been looking at Genesis all wrong for quite some time. His view is that since it is characteristic of most Ancient Near Eastern literature to view creation in light of functionality vs. material origin, so should the biblical text be interpreted in such a way. In this lesson, we take on that view as part of our “Biblical Origin of Humanity” series. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why placing hermeneutical priority on ANE texts undermines biblical authority and inspiration. Why placing hermeneutical priority on ANE texts undermines biblical perspicuity. Why the functional view of origins is foreign to any reasonable understanding of the biblical text. Mentioned in this lesson: Searching for Adam: Genesis & the Truth About Man’s Origin Does the Punishment for Original Sin Fit the Crime? Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 022: Does John Walton Get Genesis Right? (BOH Series) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

In the evolutionary timescale, humanity came on the scene about 100,000 to 400,000 years ago, depending on who you ask. But the Bible seems to record an entirely different chronology. Is there any evidence—biblical or otherwise—that mankind is only around 6,000 years old? In this lesson we’re taking a biblical look at how we can know the universe was created by God only around 6,000 years ago. The Bible gives a strict chronology of human history, and that’s our subject matter for today. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why “day,” in Genesis 1, means a literal solar day. Why the order of creation is a huge stumbling block for those accept a “deep time” view of Genesis. How the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies convey a strict chronology of human history. Mentioned in this lesson: Searching for Adam: Genesis & the Truth About Man’s Origin Dr. Terry Mortenson Why Didn’t God Give the Light Source for Creation Days 1-3? Responding to an Old Earth Argument: Are the Days in Genesis Actually Long Ages? TCA Lesson 015: Observational Failures in Radioisotope Dating Methods Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 021: Placing Adam in Humanity’s History (BOH Series) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Is Adam all but gone but gone from the Church today? Many church leaders claim there is no need for a historical Adam and that he never existed. Others believe that he existed, but is not necessary to explain the human condition and that if he doesn’t exist after all, no big deal. Still others believe that the very gospel itself loses its entire foundation if we remove the notion of a historical Adam. Who is right? Have we any hope of finding Adam in the church again? In this lesson, you’ll learn: What cultural trends left Adam behind. The detailed lines of biblical evidence for Adam’s historicity. Why we must the protect the truth and historicity of Adam. Mentioned in this lesson: Why I am a Creationist — Dr. Kurt Wise Patterns of Evidence — Tim Mahoney Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 020: Where Did We Lose Adam? (BOH Series) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

This week we’re examing Adam, the New Testament, and the Church. Were the NT writers and church fathers convinced of Adam’s historicity? Despite the fact that many attempt to support an old earth and even an allegorical Adam by appealing to writers throughout the centuries, an examination of the historical data seems to yield completely different results. For instance, what did Augustine really believe about the creation? Did a historical Adam have a rightful place in Paul’s theology in passages such as 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5? What about influential remembers such as Luther and Calvin—where did they stand on Genesis and Adam? We cover two chapters in our textbook this week, so hold on tight! As always—I highly recommend you actually buy the book (link below). There is SO much information we could not cover in this podcast. These chapters are extremely enlightening and very interesting as well. In this lesson, you’ll learn: What the NT writers had to say about Adam. How the church has viewed Adam throughout the centuries. The downfall of Adam in theological circles. Mentioned in this lesson: Answers in Genesis on Augustine Searching for Adam: Genesis & the Truth About Man’s Origin Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 019: Adam, the New Testament, and the Church (BOH Series) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Please note that I had several audio malfunctions with the original upload. For best results, please delete your current copy of this episode if using an application which automatically downloads new podcast episodes when available, and re-download. If you have downloaded/listened after 9:30am today (12/14/17), the audio you have is the correct audio. Thanks for your patience! As we begin this series, The Biblical Origin of Humanity, we must first ask how the Old Testament writers seemed to view the creation account. Was it actual history? Was Adam merely allegorical–or are there direct ties between him and other historical characters as mentioned in Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament? Should the biblical text be treated like all other ANE texts, and should we assume the ancients were scientifically ignorant? We’ll answer these questions and more this week as we view Adam according to the Old Testament. In this lesson, you’ll learn: The reason why some stand on a historical Adam and others do not. The clarity of Scripture regarding the creation week and what it means for Adam. Why the ANE texts should not be used to determine biblical cosmology or geography. How the Old Testament writers viewed the historical Adam. Mentioned in this lesson: Dr. William D. Barrick Searching for Adam: Genesis & the Truth About Man’s Origin Special note (added 12/14/17, 8:41am): At 26:58, I erroneously claim that Moses did not realize he was writing under the inspiration and authorship of God, as many verses indicate that he was (see, for example, Exodus 17:14, Exodus 24:4, Exodus 34:27, Deuteronomy 31:19). I was talking too fast and got ahead of myself–my apologies for any confusion. Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 018: Adam According to the Old Testament (BOH Series) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

There is an unfortunate and disturbing trend amongst evangelicals today. In a world where some of the leading atheist philosophers and even many mainstream scientists are retreating from the idea of biological evolution over millions of years, much of the church has begun to accept it. Along with this acceptance comes a very dangerous trade-off: the existence of a historical Adam and Eve according to the clear teaching of Genesis. Scholars have made provision to allegorize away these “uncomfortable” parts of the Bible, and as a result, many have taken the inch and traveled a mile by changing God’s Word to accept what they think it ought to say about our origins, sin, and a whole host of other issues. This new series, the Biblical Origin of Humanity, will tackle this issue and delve into the Biblical, historical, scientific, and cultural evidence for Adam. In this lesson, you’ll learn: The premise of this series and our textbook, Searching for Adam. What you can expect to learn from this series. Why we must approach this debate with grace and intellectual honesty. Mentioned in this lesson: Dr. Terry Mortenson, Ph.D. Answers in Genesis Searching for Adam: Genesis & the Truth About Man’s Origin Are Origins a Question of Science, or Philosophy? Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 017: Is Adam the Real Deal? (New Series-The Biblical Origin of Humanity) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

“Evolution is just a theory!” Have you ever used this defense before? If so, prepare to be met with a challenge. We should be careful not to use this line of reasoning because scientists use this term differently than most do. It does raise an important question, though. Is evolution a scientific theory, and should it be treated as such? We answer these questions and more in this week’s lesson by examining a popular evolutionist meme. In this lesson, you’ll learn: How to define the word “theory” as meant by scientists. The one critical skill you need to demolish almost ANY evolutionary argument. Why Natural Selection is a WIN for Biblical Creation. Mentioned in this lesson: Is YEC a Conspiracy Theory? https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/evolution-not-even-theory/. Discerning Truth by Dr. Jason Lisle Defend Your Faith with Confidence Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 016: Is Evolution Just a Theory? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

One of the main reasons for believing the earth is billions of years old, evolutions claim, is that radioisotope dating methods provide quite old absolute ages. But, is that the full truth? Creation scientists have made some significant discoveries that stand in full contrast to this central dogma. In fact, we have many documented instances where the radiometric dates do not at all coincide with the known ages of the rocks. If these dating methods don’t work when we know the age of the test sample, why should we expect them to work when we don’t know it? In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why the assumptions made in radioisotope dating methods cannot be proven. Three specific examples of failed dating results. How a baby island fundamentally changes the need for “deep time.” Mentioned in this lesson: Defend Your Faith with Confidence (FREE email course!) The RATE Project Thousands…Not Billions by Don DeYoung Presuppositional Apologetics https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radio-dating-in-rubble/ https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/more-and-more-wrong-dates/ https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/radioactive-dating-failure/ https://creation.com/surtsey-the-young-island-that-looks-old Do creationists cherry-pick discordant dates? Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 015: Observational Failures in Radioisotope Dating Methods appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Recently, my family and I took a trip to the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter in Kentucky. This popular attraction, by the awesome folks at Answers in Genesis, is a great place to take the family for a getaway. It was nice, for a change, to have a vacation destination that actually built up our faith and was intentionally made to be God-honoring. In this week’s lesson, I provide some practical tips and takeaways you can choose to maximize your trip to these powerful attractions. In this lesson, you’ll learn: My favorite part about the Creation Museum. Why this ministry will be a game-changer for educating your family. Why you must interpret God’s World in light of God’s Word. My top tip to benefit from your trip to the Ark Encounter. Mentioned in this lesson: The Creation Museum The Ark Encounter Answers in Genesis Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 014: 5 Takeaways from The Creation Museum/Ark Encounter appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Last week, we dealt with arguments creationists shouldn’t use. To expand on that, we think anyone can use a simple, three-step process to become a well-informed Biblical creationist. Leaving out even just one of these steps can potentially lead you into erroneous thinking. But a faithful application of all three will help you to sort through the pseudoscience and be able to accurately and faithfully defend your faith with confidence. In this lesson, you’ll learn: The ultimate source of truth and the true purpose of creation science. A helpful list of resources and how to use them faithfully. The one thing you MUST do in order to discern truthfulness. Mentioned in this lesson: Journals Answers Research Journal Journal of Creation Creation Research Society Quarterly Creationist Organizations: Creation Ministries International (CMI) Answers in Genesis (AiG) Institute for Creation Research (ICR) Biblical Science Institute (BSI) Creation Today FB Groups YEC3 Biblical Creation Podcasts The Creation Academy Science, Scripture, & Salvation Real Science Radio Answers with Ken Ham (Podsync) Answers News Is Genesis History Conference Video Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 013: 3 Steps to Becoming an Informed Biblical Creationist appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

A fundamental scientific concept is that it is always changing. Since creationism is not anti-science, we must acknowledge this in order to remain consistent! Of course, old and/or bad scientific arguments have no effect on whether or not the Bible is true. It simply means we have progressed in our scientific knowledge, and must adjust accordingly. In this lesson, we look at some of those models as well as other bad arguments for Creation, and discuss why we should reconsider before using them to argue our position. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why creation scientists, like any scientist, should embrace change. Why science itself is not an ultimate authority. Arguments we should definitely not use because they are invalid. Arguments we probably should not use because they are doubtful. Mentioned in this lesson: CMI’s List of Bad Creation Arguments Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species by Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Ph.D Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 012: Creation Arguments You Should Probably Stop Considering appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

“Doom and gloom” creationism is out; the New Creationism is in! For so long, creationists have been known more for what we are against, rather than what we are for. This should change! Look–we all realize the bankruptcy of evolution theory. And, that is something we should talk about. But let’s work towards establishing new theories! Let’s make models that work. To quote one creation scientist, “let’s go explore!” In this lesson, you’ll learn: How the winds of change are blowing among the creation community. The real source of our faith. Why science should not be considered an authority. The main reason why science and creation are so exciting. Mentioned in this lesson: Dr. Todd Wood’s Blog Defend Your Faith with Confidence | The 4 Answers You Need to Overcome the Toughest Objections to Christianity Are Origins a Question of Science, or Philosophy? www.thecreationacademy.org Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 011: Why Creationists Should Be EXCITED About New Mainstream Discoveries appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

When you think of the Biblical Flood account, have you ever wondered if there is cultural evidence for such a deluge outside of the Bible? As it turns out, there are over 500 flood myths and legends worldwide! We’re going to look at the similarities, differences, and attempt to resolve some “problems” as it relates to the Bible’s account of history. This is a fascinating lesson with some, hopefully, helpful insight. Hope you enjoy! In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why the Bible’s dates should be considered over scientific dating methods. How many of the worlds flood myths are consistent with what we find in Scripture. Why natural explanations for these flood accounts just don’t hold water (pun intended). The solid evidence that proves the Biblical account to be correct (and most accurate). Mentioned in this lesson: http://www.icr.org/article/how-can-chinese-dynasties-extend-back-many-thousan/ https://creation.com/many-flood-legends https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/flood-legends/the-genesis-flood-not-just-another-legend/ Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 010: Flood Myths and Dates vs. the Biblical Account appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

The geologic column is often cited as fool-proof evidence for evolution. In fact, it is so good and so well-explains the naturalistic assumptions that we would almost have it to concede if we could not explain this from a Biblical worldview. Of course, we know of a major catastrophe which took place in Earth’s past–the great flood of Noah’s day. Could this be the explanation we need? In this lesson, you’ll learn: A basic understanding of how we got the geologic column. Why the column is not able to be scientifically dated. The most logical explanation for geologic column. The inherent danger of adding millions of years into God’s Word. Mentioned in this lesson: Scientific Creationism Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 009: Can the Flood Explain the Geologic Column? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

The flood of Noah’s day is much more than a fairy tale. We believe this describes a real event that happened as part of earth’s past. If that’s true, we should find evidence in the rock formations found around the world that indicates rapid, catastrophic moving of water, volcanic activity, and other such evidence that would be better explained by catastrophe rather than gradual movement. And, this is exactly what we find. In this lesson, you’ll learn: The Bible’s description of a mass extinction event by water. Strange anomalies in the strata indicate a rapid process–not a gradual one. The widely accepted scientific model that explains how this process happened. Mentioned in this lesson: https://answersingenesis.org/geology/grand-canyon-facts/no-slow-and-gradual-erosion/ https://answersingenesis.org/geology/grand-canyon/coconino-sandstone-most-powerful-argument-against-flood/ Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon.  God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 008: Basic Flood Sedimentology appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

It is quite notable that the notion of Darwinian Evolution has survived as long as it has considering the lack of observable evidence. Yet, it is the reigning scientific dogma of our day! How is this possible? Could Darwin’s famous finches really prove evolution after all? We’re tackling that this week as part of our series, The Basics of Creation Science. In this lesson, you’ll learn: The iconic role of Darwin’s finches on our society. The one major language barrier between worldviews. How so-called Microevolution is NOT the same as Macroevolution. Why our eyes betray what scientists say. Mentioned in this lesson: Dr. Henry Morris Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. Evolution vs. God by Ray Comfort Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 007: Do Darwin’s Famous Finches Prove Evolution? appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

I find it alarming how many evangelicals are willing to mess with the integrity of Scripture concerning the doctrine of creation. Those who have left (or have never affirmed) the young-age position simply dismiss it–saying it is not important. We disagree! But don’t take our word for it. The Bible is clear–a young earth is essential to a correct theology. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why the Old and New Testament depend upon a recent creation. Why a correct theology is important. Why construing the age of the earth is not helpful to the gospel, but harmful. Mentioned in this lesson: Does the Age of the Earth Matter, or is it a Secondary Doctrine? Does the Punishment for Original Sin Fit the Crime? Dr. Henry Morris Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 006: Why the Age of the Earth is Paramount to a Correct Theology appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Before we can look to science for evidence of a young earth, we must first have a clear understanding of the Biblical teaching. Science and methodologies change over time, but God’s Word never changes! Therefore, we anchor our beliefs on the Word of the One who not only was there–but created everything Himself! In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why “day” really means a “day.” How to reconcile discrepancies in the Genesis 1 account. Why the young earth is crucial for NT teaching. The final nail in the coffin–God’s purpose for creation week. Mentioned in this lesson: Answers in Genesis Why Didn’t God Give the Light Source for Creation Days 1-3? Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 005: The Bible and Young Earth Creationism appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

While you may believe in and even have a Biblical understanding of the Creation Science position, have you ever really considered it scientifically? That’s what we’re doing in this series! We’re going to explore a variety of topics in 10 short lessons to give us a better understanding of Creation from a scientific perspective. In this lesson, you’ll learn: What this series, The Basics of Creation Science, will be about. Mentioned in this lesson: New episode format, and radio show announcement. Show topics over the course of the next few weeks. Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 004: Introduction to The Basics of Creation Science appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Have you ever considered why you are a creationist? You may be a creationist, but for the wrong reasons! In this episode, we not only explore why I’m a Biblical creationist, but why I believe you should be too. In fact, we find that Jesus was! That’s good enough for me. Thanks for visiting and listening this week. God bless! In this lesson, you’ll learn: Why the Bible can be trusted on matters on Creation. The failure of naturalism to the explain the world around us. How Biblical creation is the ONLY explanation that even makes logical sense. Why Jesus Christ Himself believed in a literal, 6-day Creation. The sensibility of scientific evidence when looking through the right lens. Mentioned in this lesson:  Dr. Greg Bahnsen Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, please consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 003: Why I’m a Creationist (+ Why You Should Be Too) appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

In this week’s lesson, we’re talking about all things Creation. We examine the historical landscape of Biblical Creationism, and discuss what might be a better way forward. In this lesson, you’ll learn: Who founded the modern Creation movement. Where Creation has been and where it’s going. What Creation speakers and leaders can do to be taken seriously. Mentioned in this lesson: Dr. Henry Morris/ICR Kent Hovind CMI AiG Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 002: Building a Better Framework for Biblical Creationism appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Hey Everyone! In this week’s lesson, we are talking about radiometric dating! We talk about what it is, what it means for recent creationism, and how to look at the world with a different set of assumptions. In this lesson, you’ll learn: A short history of geological studies and dating. The one thing that hinders belief in the Bible and favors evolutionary theory. The three assumptions that make radiometric dating unreliable. A proposal for a new “set of eyes” through which to view the evidence. Mentioned in this lesson: Dr. Andrew Snelling Dr. Kurt Wise The Rate Project Is Genesis History Facebook Page Thanks so much for listening. Please subscribe and share on iTunes! Also, consider donating to the ministry on Patreon. God Bless! The post TCA Lesson 001: Radiometric Dating and Faulty Assumptions appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.