Articles - Page 9 of 18 - Existence of God

Letters with the Mosque Next Door
How a budding friendship between a pastor and an imam brought a community together.
Jim Powell and Kamil Mufti

In the winter of 2007, Jim Powell contacted the leaders of the largest mosque in his community, knowing he would be moving next door to them within the year. After the initial phone conversation, it was agreed that a lunch would be set up between the elders of his church and the elders of the mosque: a lunch that eventually happened in the spring of 2007.

In 2010, when a Florida pastor made national and international news because of his plan to burn the Qur’an, Jim once again contacted the leaders of the mosque, now his church’s next-door neighbors. In his letter to them, he wrote:

“Jesus said that the hallmark of the Christian faith was love, and yet that is often the last virtue many of his followers practice. Furthermore, as Christians, we are called to avoid being judgmental, to work towards living at peace with all people, and that grace, mercy, and forgiveness are to be at the forefront of our lives. Unfortunately, many who profess to follow Jesus forget this, or they choose to ignore such elementary teachings as they allow their personal agendas and sinful nature to trump the Lord’s will.

“There is so much more that I could say. Yet for now, let me assure you that the hate speech which the media reports does not represent a majority of Christians, and it does not represent the mindset of the leadership of Richwoods Christian Church.

“If you would ever like to have dialogue on this topic, I would be more than glad to visit with you or any individuals that may be interested.”

After Jim and Kamil Mufti, the mosque’s imam, taught a class on the Abrahamic faiths together at Bradley University, their friendship evolved. Eventually Kamil invited Jim to teach a four-week class on Christianity at the mosque, and a relationship began to build—not merely between Jim and Kamil, but between their respective congregations. Soon, interactions that had been based on fear gave way to understanding.

In the correspondence below, Kamil and Jim speak candidly to one another about the challenges and benefits of reaching out to those we do not understand.

Kamil,

Complete article, here

A little over 2000 years ago a Roman procurator asked the question, “WHAT IS TRUTH?” [1] Today this question is rarely, if ever asked, with the exception of a witness in a trial—“Do you solemnly (swear/affirm) that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, (so help you God/under pains and penalties of perjury)?”

To speak of truth, or to inject a truth claim into a conversation today, is tantamount to heresy, and is usually met with a ferocious attack by relativist proponents. Philosopher Peter Kreeft observes that of all the symptoms of decay in our culture, relativism is the most disastrous. It is, in the words of Michael Novak, “an invisible gas, odorless and deadly, that is polluting every free society on earth.” C. S. Lewis called it “the disease that will certainly end our species (and… damn our souls) if it is not crushed.” And as William Gairdner notes, “Ironically, relativism has become our only absolute.”[2]

But what is relativism? Here are two definitions:

Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. This means that all moral positions, all religious systems, all art forms, all political movements, etc., are truths that are relative to the individual.

Relativism is the belief that there’s no absolute truth, only the truths that a particular individual or culture happen to believe. If you believe in relativism, then you think different people can have different views about what’s moral and immoral.

Relativism may be a philosophical position, but is it a tenable one? Can all points of view be equally valid as the relativist worldview claims? If so, does this mean that Mother Teresa’s point of view and that of Hitlers,’ are equally valid? Or that of Pol Pot and John Paul ll? It doesn’t take many examples to realize that the relativist worldview is bankrupt of logical consistency, empirical adequacy, and experiential relevance. Contrary beliefs can exist, contrary truths cannot.

The problem with relativism is that it is self-refuting, and as such, cannot be lived. Ask anyone who espouses relativism if it is true that all things are relative? If they say yes, then simply ask the question, “Well, is the statement you just made relative? If it is, and it has to be under your definition of relativism, then it is simply your opinion, and why should I value your opinion over mine or anyone else’s for that matter.” So if relativism is untenable, then objective truth must be the ethical and moral bedrock on which the universe was created, regardless of whether a person chooses to believe it or not.

Author and Chair of Philosophy and Ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University, Paul Copan stated, “Truth is true—even if no one knows it. Truth is true—even if no one admits it. Truth is true—even if no one agrees what it is. Truth is true—even if no one follows it. Truth is true— even if no one but God grasps it fully.”[3] Winston Churchill concurs, “Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but, in the end, there it is.”

In his book, The Turn of the Tide, Prof Keith Ward offers the following observation:

It is a central heresy of our culture to say that all truth is relative; that one thing may be true for me and quite another may be true for you. This absurdity destroys the very notion of truth…. and is the result of muddled thinking. No one can seriously believe that a belief which contradicts his or her own is just as true. The expression ‘It is true for me’ is self-confuting. Either a thing is true or it is not… Can we imagine saying, ‘Well the earth is round to me; but it may be flat to you’? The earth is either round or flat; it cannot be both; and what you or I think about it is irrelevant. You may claim that religion and ethics is not a matter of truth at all. Very well, do not use the word ‘true’; but if you use it, do not render it unintelligible by adding that empty phrase, ‘for me.”[4]

Alan Bloom explains how relativism has become one of the crowning virtues of our age:

“Relativism is necessary to openness; and this is the virtue, the only virtue, which all primary education for more than fifty years has dedicated itself to inculcating. Openness–and the relativism that makes it the only plausible stance in the face of various claims to truth . . .–is the great insight of our times.”[5]

However, this “great insight” is having a devastating effect on today’s Western culture/society as it is permeating the very fabric of society and influencing how people think and consequently act. Calling the conflict between relativism and objectivism “the central cultural opposition of our time,” author and philosopher, Richard J. Bernstein reports that the result of this conflict is that, “There is an uneasiness that has spread throughout intellectual and cultural life. It affects almost every discipline and every aspect of culture” (see footnote below)

William Lane Craig gives the somber warning as to where relativism, when applied to religious dialogue, leads:

“Religious diversity thus calls for a response of openness, and a necessary condition of openness is relativism. Since religious relativism is obviously incompatible with the objective truth of Christianity, religious diversity therefore implies that normative Christian truth claims can be neither made nor defended. Thus, we are led to the paradoxical result that in the name of religious diversity traditional Christianity is de-legitimated and marginalized.”[6]

Relativism and tolerance, as it has been redefined, are the two crowning virtues of Western culture today. But how has this redefining process been accomplished?

In his milestone book, The Intolerance of Tolerance, D. A. Carson states, “The political left controls culture (the media, entertainment, education, and politics). The new tolerance is a cultural force, not an intellectual force.”[7]

In his article, Why the ‘New’ Tolerance Is Actually Intolerant, Mark Driscoll offers the following comparison between the old view of tolerance, that being its original and true meaning, and the new view of tolerance, that being the redefining of the original and true meaning to fit the relativist worldview:

The old view of tolerance assumed that:

(1) there is objective truth that can be known;
(2) various people, groups and perspectives each think they know what that objective truth is and
(3) as people/groups disagree, dialogue and debate their conflicting views of the truth, everyone involved will have an opportunity to learn, grow, change and possibly arrive together at the truth.

The new view of tolerance assumes that:

(1) there is no objective truth that can be known;
(2) various people, groups and perspectives do not have the truth but only what they believe to be the truth and
(3) various people, groups and perspectives should not argue and debate their disagreements because there is no truth to be discovered, and to assume otherwise only leads to needless conflicts and prejudices….the new tolerance…denies moral absolutes while holding to the moral absolute that there is no moral absolute. I know that’s confusing. It’s like saying, “There is no such thing as absolute truth”—to which the question should be asked, “So does that mean you’re lying when you want us to believe your absolute statement that truth does not exist?” You cannot say absolutely that there are no absolutes. I hope you see that the statement itself saws off the very limb it’s sitting on.[8]

Defining Truth and Relativism-Norman Geisler

Relativism Refutes Itself-William Lane Craig

How Can Christians Demonstrate Tolerance–Greg Koukl-str.org

Are Christians Intolerant?-Greg Koukl

Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air-Francis Beckwith and Greg Koukl

Other articles re relativism/redefining of tolerance:

True for you, but not for me-but can that be true?-by Lane Davis-article here
“That’s true for you, but not for me.” (Relativism)-by Paul Copan-article here
Is There an Absolute Truth?-J. Warner Wallace-article here

Notes:
[1] Bible, John 18:38
[2] William Gairdner, The Book of Absolutes, MQUP, 2008
[3] Paul Copan, True for You, But Not for Me, Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998
[4] Keith Ward, The Turn of the Tide, p 144 (BBC)
[5] Alan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987, p. 26. Calling the conflict between relativism and objectivism “the central cultural opposition of our time,” Bernstein reports that as a result of this conflict “There is an uneasiness that has spread throughout intellectual and cultural life. It affects almost every discipline and every aspect of culture” (Richard J. Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983, pp. 7, 1.
[6] William Lane Craig, Politically Incorrect Salvation, article can be found, here
[7] D. A. Carson, The Intolerance of Tolerance, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2012, p. 104
[8] Mark Driscoll, Why the ‘New’ Tolerance is Actually Intolerant, (see link above for the complete article)

In a few weeks, a very special conference on evangelism will take place at Wheaton College called Amplify. It’s a bit of a mystery why there aren’t more conferences like this in light of the fact that so few churches are actually growing through evangelism. Maybe there’s a connection.

Just look at the worship movement that’s swept across the world. Worship conferences and seminars abound. These conferences have become catalysts that help identify and train worship leaders who are providing local churches of all types and sizes with an incredible worship experience. It would be hard to find a church that doesn’t have a worship leader or a worship team consistently laboring to help inspire every believer to be a worshipper. I’m convinced that if we follow this same pattern we would see evangelism become just as prevalent as worship.

With a few adjustments they can become “engaging churches.” These are congregations that are intentionally equipping believers to engage unbelievers with the gospel. It starts with finding and releasing these evangelism leaders who will build an evangelism team that equips the body of believers in this vital ministry. In scripture, these leaders are called evangelists. When these evangelists are identified and trained, they will provide the consistent leadership that can transform any church into an engaging church.

For complete article, here

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the corner stone, the foundation, the historical bedrock of the Christian faith. As Paul so definitively put it, “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins….but in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. (1 Corinthians 15:17-20) It is not surprising then that attacks on the veracity of the Resurrection account, via naturalistic explanations, have been waged since it took place via the works of the pagan philosopher Celsus (AD 178) and philosopher Lucian of Samosata (AD 115-200), and continue to be brought to bear on the event even today via the works of David Hume, Bertrand Russell, and the New Atheists ‘four horsemen.’

The purpose of such anti-supernatural explanations is to discredit and nullify the historicity of the event. It is for this reason that “Resurrection apologtics” is one of the strongest affirmations of the truth of the Christian worldview, a branch of apologetics that every apologist, and Christian for that matter, should be well-versed in so as to “always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks them for the reason of the hope that is in them…” (1 Pet. 3:15)

What is ‘historical bedrock’?

Michael Licona offers the following definition:

“By ‘historical bedrock’ pertaining to the fate of Jesus, I am referring to
(1) Jesus’ death by crucifixion,
(2) the beliefs of Jesus’ disciples that he had risen from the dead and had appeared to them in both individual and group settings, and
(3) the conversion of a persecutor of the Christian church later known as Paul based on an experience he perceived was an appearance of the risen Jesus to him.”

Thus, it is on this firm foundation, this “historical bedrock,” that Jesus’ resurrection is affirmed. [1]

But what of the competing naturalistic explanations? Are they founded on ‘historical bedrock,’ or is it the case that each of these explanations is built on ‘historical sand?’ Let’s follow the evidence and see where it leads.

In comparing the naturalistic explanations and the historicity of the resurrection, Michael Licona states, “…if the resurrection hypothesis is superior to the naturalistic explanations, the context will serve to strengthen the hypothesis that the resurrection of Jesus was historical and that the event was a miracle. Moreover, it is important to remember that our commitment to using only the historical bedrock serves as a safeguard from confusing urban legend with fact.” [2]

Top Four Naturalistic Explanations for the Resurrection

The top four naturalistic explanations offered for the Resurrection are as follows:

1) The Swoon Theory
2) The Theft Theory
3) The Hallucination Theory
4) The Wrong Tomb Theory

British attorney, J. N. D. Anderson, understands the importance of the reliability and truthfulness of evidence when assessing the truth claim of any event. As per the testimony of the historicity of the resurrection he offers the following criteria for assessment:

“A point which needs stressing is that the evidence must be considered as a whole. It is comparatively easy to find an alternative explanation for one or another of the different strands which make up this testimony. But such explanations are valueless unless they fit the other strands in the testimony as well. A number of different theories, each of which might conceivably be applicable to part of the evidence but which do not themselves cohere into an intelligible pattern, can provide no alternative to the one interpretation which fits the whole.”[3]

I will cover each of these in brief with a list of resources at the end of this article for those who are interested in further study.

The ‘swoon’ theory

The swoon theory postulates that although Jesus was nailed to the cross, he was taken down from the cross while still alive. He was then placed in the tomb and the cool air of the tomb revived him and he rose up and departed from the tomb under his own strength. Another version of the theory also adds the “reviving effects of the spices with which He had been embalmed.” [4]

There have been a number of refutations by New Testament scholars (ranging from conservative to skeptic) to this theory, so I will refer only to what I consider to be the most definitive:

Again, attorney J. N. D. Anderson states, “This theory does not stand up to investigation.” [5]

T. J. Thorburn observes, “It would be difficult to imagine even the most powerful of men, after enduring all these, not succumbing to death. Moreover, it is recorded that the victims of crucifixion seldom recovered, even under the most favorable circumstances….Then there is the most impossible thing of all; the poor, weak Jesus, with difficulty holding Himself erect, in hiding, disguised, and finally dying—this Jesus an object of faith. Of exalted emotion, of the triumph of His adherents, a risen conqueror, and Son of God! Here in fact, the theory begins to grow paltry, absurd, worth only of rejections.”[6]

Then we have the most convincing refutation of the swoon theory by skeptic David Friedrich Strauss. Strauss’ refutation has become known as the ‘nail in the coffin’ of the theory. Although a non-believer in the resurrection, Strauss saw the absurdity of the swoon theory and offered the following refutation:

It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about week and ill, wanting medical treatment, who require bandaging, strengthening and indulgence, and who still at last yielded to his sufferings, could have given to the disciples the impression that he was a Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life, an impression which lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which he had made upon them in life and in death, at the most could only have given it an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, [or] have elevated their reverence into worship. [7]

What is the ‘swoon theory’ and is it true?

What about the “swoon theory?”-Gary Habermas

The Theft/Conspiracy Theory

In this view it is understood that the disciples came during the night and stole the body from the tomb. The Jewish leaders, upon hearing that the tomb was found empty, perpetrated the ‘theft and/or stolen body’ theory/story in order to discredit the resurrection:

While they were going, behold, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place. And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers and said, “Tell people, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ And if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day. (Matthew 28:11-15 ESV)

Wilbur M. Smith comments:

It should be noticed first of all that the Jewish authorities never questioned the report of the guards. They did not themselves go out to see if the tomb was empty, because they knew it was empty. The guards would never have come back with such a story as this on their lips unless they were reporting actual, indisputable occurrences, as far as they we able to apprehend them. The story which the Jewish authorities told the soldiers to repeat was a story to explain how the tomb became empty.[8]

According to the writings of Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho (AD 130) states that the Jewish authorities had dispatched representatives throughout the Mediterranean to explain Jesus’ followers had stolen Jesus’ body.

Albert Roper writes:

Let us be fair. We are confronted with an explanation which to reasonable minds simply cannot explain; a solution which does not solve. When the chief priests induced Pilate to “command…that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day,” the factual record justifies the conclusion that the sepulchre was in very truth made “sure.” Reasoning, therefore, from that record, we are inescapably faced with the conclusion that the measures taken to prevent the friends of Jesus from stealing His body now constitute unimpeachable proof that they could not and did not steal it.[9]

E. Le Camus reasons thus in refuting the theft/stolen body theory:

If Jesus, who had been laid in the tomb on Friday, was not there on Sunday, either He was removed or He came forth by His own power. There is no other alternative. Was He removed? By whom? By friends or by enemies? The latter had set a squad of soldiers to guard Him, therefore they had no intention of causing Him to disappear. Moreover, their prudence could not counsel this. This would have made the way too easy for stories of the resurrection which the disciples might invent. The wisest course was for them to guard Him as a proof. Thus they could reply to every pretension that might arise: “Here is the corpse, He is not risen.” As for His friends, they had nether the intention nor the power to remove Him.[10]

The conspiracy theory was refuted by the early church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea in his Demonstratio evangelica(314-18AD). Eusebius argues that it would be inconsistent to hold that the disciples were on one hand followers of Jesus with His high moral teaching and yet on the other hand such base liars as to invent all these miraculous stories about Jesus. It makes no sense to say that the men who learned and then taught the ethics of Jesus would themselves be deceivers.

Not only that, Eusebius continues, but it is inconceivable that such a conspiracy could ever be formed or hold together. Eusebius composes a wonderfully satirical speech, which he imagines to have been delivered when the disciples first joined together in this conspiracy:

“Let us band together,” the speaker proclaims, “to invent all the miracles and resurrection appearances which we never saw and let us carry the sham even to death! Why not die for nothing? Why dislike torture and whipping inflicted for no good reason? let us go out to all nations and overthrow their institutions and denounce their gods! And even if we don’t convince anybody, at least we’ll have the satisfaction of drawing down on ourselves the punishment for our own deceit.”

Through this satire, Eusebius wants to show how ridiculous it is to imagine that the disciples invented the whole thing. But even if they had, he continues, the plot would never have held together. How could so many persona agree unanimously to lie about these things? Could such an enterprise engineered by liars ever endure? Eusebius pints out that these men went to their deaths testifying to the truth of what they believed. It is unbelievable that they would suffer and die for nothing. And how could the testimonies of all these deceivers agree? The disciples gave up family, worldly pleasures, and money to out into foreign lands to preach what they believed. They could not have been liars. Eusebius, himself a great historian, emphasizes that if we distrust these men. then we must distrust all writers of history and records. If we accept the testimony of secular historians, then we must be the same standard also accept the reliability of the disciple’ testimony to the resurrection.[11]

Was Jesus’ Body Stolen?-William Lane Craig

Could the Disciples Have Stolen Jesus’ Body?-A lawyers perspective

In Part 2, we’ll take a look at the hallucination and wrong tomb hypothesis.

Footnotes:
[1] Michael R. Licona, Historians and Miracle Claims, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 12 (2014), pgs.106-129
[2] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus-A New Historiographical Approach, IVP, 2010, pg. 302
[3] J.N.D. Anderson, A Dialogue on Christ’s Resurrection, Christianity Today, April 1968
[4] Ernest F. Kevan, The Resurrection of Christ, 1961, pg. 9
[5] Ibid, J.N.D. Anderson
[6] Thomas J. Throburn, The Resurrection; Narratives and Modern Criticism, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd., 1910, pgs. 183-85
[7] David Friedrich Strauss, The Life of Jesus for the People, 2d ed. Vol. 1, London: Williams and Norgate., 1879, pg. 412
[8] Wilbur M. Smith, Therefore Stand: Christian Apologetics, Grand Rapids; Baker Book House, 1965, pg. 375-76
[9] Albert Roper, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1965, pg. 34
[10]E. Le Camus, The Life of Christ, Vol. 3, New York; The Cathedral Library Association, 1908, pg. 482
[11] William Lane Craig, The Son Rises-The Histoical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, Wipf & Stock, 2000, pgs. 24-25

Of all that can transpire in a bedroom, nothing can be as titillating to the religious, or those of us who write about them, as a dying man’s conversion.

Oscar Wilde’s deathbed baptism remains a coup for the Roman Catholic Church 116 years later, and an embarrassment for those who cherish his legacy of hedonism. In his new biography of the poet Wallace Stevens, Paul Mariani repeats the claim that Mr. Stevens was baptized by a priest as he lay dying in a Hartford hospital.

There are others. Karen Edmisten, in her 2013 book “Deathbed Conversions: Finding Faith at the Finish Line,” recounts, with varying degrees of historical support, the putative deathbed conversions of Buffalo Bill Cody, John Wayne, the gangster Dutch Schultz and the mathematician John von Neumann.

The latest controversy about a late-in-life religious turn involves Christopher Hitchens, one of world’s most prominent atheists. In his new book, “The Faith of Christopher Hitchens: The Restless Soul of the World’s Most Notorious Atheist,” the evangelical writer Larry Alex Taunton writes about his friendship with Mr. Hitchens, the witty and impious author of “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything,” who died of esophageal cancer in 2011. Mr. Taunton describes intimate talks that occurred during drives the two took together, which left him wondering if a dying Mr. Hitchens was edging toward belief in God. Unsurprisingly, evangelicals have celebrated the book, while some of Mr. Hitchens’s secular friends have winced.

For complete article, here

Connect the Dots: Responding to the Tough Questions in Word, Story and Deed
Trinity Western University, Langley, BC Canada
July 10 – July 15, 2016

What’s the toughest question about or objection to the Christian faith you’ve been faced with? Perhaps it concerned God and science; or the problem of evil; or gender and sexuality; or violence and the Old Testament. Questions like these can be challenging and intimidating—but at the same time, they can present incredible opportunities if we can learn to connect our answers to the gospel.

But because the gospel is more than just words, good apologetics needs to engage the heart and the imagination as well as the head if we are going to reach the questioner behind the question. We also need to learn to get inside the lives of those with whom we share Christ, to learn what makes them tick and then show how the Christian faith explains those things they care deeply about—justice and compassion, beauty and art, science and truth—in a way that other worldviews do not.

RZIM Canada’s 2016 Summer School, taking place in beautiful British Columbia, will help you learn to tackle the big questions—but do so in a way that addresses the whole person. We’ll show how the best answers are intellectually rich, imaginatively powerful, and make a practical difference in the real world.
Canadian culture is undergoing seismic shifts and that can sometimes be unnerving. But 2,000 years ago, the apostle Paul, writing to Christians who were also struggling to engage their culture and share their faith, encouraged his readers to “Let your speech be always gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person” (Col 4:6). I warmly invite you to join members of the RZIM speaking team and other world-class speakers next summer who want to help you to do that more effectively, so that you can be better equipped not just to answer questions but to answer people.

I hope to see you there.

Andy Bannister

reMind-Renewing the Mind-Revolutionizing the Culture
Conference web site/registration, here

Thank you for your interest in our 2nd Annual reMind Conference. Last year, our first conference was a hit, as over 540 youth and young adults (as well as some not so young adults!) had their minds renewed so they could revolutionize the culture. That is the recurring theme of reMind—taken from the Apostle Paul’s words in Romans 12:2 “be transformed by the renewal of your MIND.”

Everything that was once considered foundational is now being challenged. Western culture stands at a precipice as it runs headlong into a future of its own making. And you, our youth and young adults, are at the forefront, being pushed ever closer to the edge. And so we’ve brought some of the best speakers in the world to help you hold the line and withstand the challenges that threaten to push you over the edge.

But it isn’t enough to just withstand the challenges. As ambassadors for Christ, we need to stand with our challengers. Those who challenge the Christian faith are not our enemies. They are, like us, sinners in need of a Savior. The gospel’s beauty is founded in two ways: (1) it has the evidence and logic that allows it to withstand the intellectual challenges of our day, and (2) its truths are so beautifully intertwined that they can touch the challenger’s heart.

To equip you to present these two foundations, we’ve assembled world-class speakers and scholars. Check out our speakers’ pages on this site. Top communicators will teach you how to defend the Bible, understand the history of the Resurrection, and see how science and Christianity complement each other. You’ll learn how to address tough contemporary issues like sexuality and tolerance as well.

We’ve had you in mind every step of the way. On behalf of RZIM, our volunteers, and the rest of the speakers, I invite you to browse our site and register for what is sure to be an amazing weekend.

Abdu Murray
North American Director, RZIM

When attending the recent Thinking 2016 Apologetics Conference, I came across the book, The Gentle Answer-To The Muslim Accusation of Biblical Falsification , by Dr. Gordon Nickel. [1] Once I began reading the book, I found it difficult to put down, as Dr. Nickel takes the reader on a comprehensive and chronological journey of the development of the Islamic doctrine of biblical falsification/corruption. Dr. Nickel targets both the Christian and Muslim audience, asking questions and presenting challenges to the Muslim reader, as well as informing the Christian reader of the reasoning that is behind the Muslim accusation of biblical falsification/corruption. I highly recommend the book as it will equip those of us in Muslim ministry with an “answer to him that asks us of the reason of the hope that is in us, yet, with gentleness and respect.” (1 Peter 3:15)

I am including here excerpts of the first chapter of the book, in which Dr. Nickel explains the reason and purpose for which the book is written:

Chapter One
Invitation to Read and Reason

The refusal of Muslims and non-Muslims to read each other’s scriptures is frequently based on deep-seated prejudices and feelings of political enmity. In some cases, people even believe they are forbidden to read the scriptures of the other. They may refuse to read the scripture of the other out of fear.How can we reason together if we refuse to read? Prohibitions against reading make reasoning impossible, and we are left with only second-hand impressions of the scriptures rather than a useful knowledge of the contents of the scriptures themselves.One Muslim scholar who faced a prohibitions against reading the Bible, pushed back with a strong argument that reading the Bible is fully in line with Islamic tradition. Al-Biqa-i (d. 1480 AD) faced criticism from other scholars in Cairo in the fifteenth century for including material from the Bible in his great commentary on the Qur’an, Naxm al-durar fi tanasub al-ayat wa l-suwar )”String of pearls concerning the harmony of verses and suras”). Al-Biqa I argued that permission to read the Bible, and even commands to consult it, go back to the Qur’an and the sunnah (life example) of the messenger of Islam.

By actually reading the Bible, al-Biqa-i found much that attracted him. For example, after quoting a long passage from the book of Jeremiah in his commentary on the Qur’an, al-Biqa-i described the passage as “a speech that is sublime in its style, exquisite in tis tenderness, such that it crushes the livers, rends the hearts, and makes the eyes swell with tears.” Such joys are lost to those who refuse to read the Bible, or who choose to obey a prohibition against reading the Bible out of fear.

Therefore, this book is an invitation to read and reason together.

This book is offered as a gentle answer to a Muslim book, which has done a great deal of damage to reading and reasoning between Muslims and non-Muslims, the Izhar al-haqq. Rahmat Allah Kairanwi published the book in 1864 in Arabic. The book continues to be published in Arabic (1998) and is widely distributed throughout India in the Urdu translation Ba-ibal se Qur’an tak. The Arabic title translates as “Demonstration of truth.” The following pages will show that key accusations contained in the book are in fact false. In any case, the Izhar al-haqq was not an invitation to read and reason. Rather, the Muslim book was an angry attack claiming the authentic Torah an Gospel had disappeared because Jews and Christians had falsified the original text.

The intention of this answer is to invite friendly conversation between Muslims and non-Muslims. The accusations of the Izahr al-haqq must be answered. Not to answer might mean to some that the accusations of the Izher al-haqq are correct; or that non-Muslims do not know how to answer, that they have no answer, or that they do not care enough to take the time to answer. But false accusations must be answered. Many Muslims demand an answer—either sincerely wanting to know the non-Muslim response, or rhetorically as an attack, wanting non-Muslims to say the accusations are true.

We offer this gentle answer not only to refute false and damaging accusations against the Bible, but also to bring a blessing to the accuser, to give the reason for the hope that we have. Therefore, though this book includes responses to the most serious accusations contained in the Izhar al-haqq, the final section of the book will offer relevant and important biblical truths never touched by the Izhar. [2]

During a recent debate with Christian apologist Andy Bannister,[3] and Muslim apologist, Shabir Ally,[4] Andy highlighted the book and recommended it to the attendees saying, “Amazing book…and is probably, considered in scholarship now, the definitive answer to what Shabir has said. What’s interesting about Gordon’s book, is that he actually tracks where the idea of biblical corruption began in Islam and why, because it’s not in the Qur’an. In fact every time the Qur’an mentions the former scriptures by name, it says very positive things about them, so does the hadith, so does the sunnah.” (Please see the video excerpt of their debate below.)

It is interesting to see how Shabir reacts to Andy’s recommendation of the book. Shabir is usually calm, courteous and forthright in his presentations, considered to be a real gentleman by the Christian apologists that he has debated. However, on this occasion he is noticeably upset with Andy for highlighting and promoting the book, and publicly challenges Gordon Nickel to a debate, telling Andy that unless he wants to produce Dr. Nickel on the spot, that he should not mention the book again. Although Shabir may have a number of reasons for reacting in such a way, my personal take is that Dr. Nickel’s book is, as Andy put it, the “definitive answer” to the accusations of falsification/corruption found in the Izher al-haqq, accusations that have negatively impacted the Muslim community since its publication. But more importantly, The Gentle Answer is a masterful expose and truth bearer, presented in a “gentle” format, that when read with an open heart, will help to set our Muslim brothers and sisters free and enable them to read the Torah and the Gospels with eyes that are free from the falsehoods of the Izher. Let us pray that the Holy Spirit will use this book to bring many into Jesus’ glorious Kingdom.

Debate-Dr. Shabir Ally and Dr. Andy Bannister–Shabir challenges Gordon Nickel to a debate

References:
[1] Dr. Gordon Nickel is adjunct professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. He began his study of Islam at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London (M. A. 1987), and wrote his PhD dissertation under Dr. Andrew Rippin at the University of Calgary (2004). Gordon also has an M.A. in Hebrew bible and has completed several years of doctoral research in Indian Islam at Osmania University in Hyderabad, India. In 2011 Brill Academic Publishers published his monograph Narratives of Tampering in the Earliest Commentaries on the Qur’an. Gordon has taught on Islam and the Qur’an at Associated Canadian Theological Schools, the University of British Columbia, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and the University of Calgary.

[2] Gordon Nickel, The Gentle Answer to the Muslim Accusation of Biblical Falsification, Bruton Gate, Calgary, 2015, pgs. 1-4

[3] Dr. Andy Bannister is the Director of the Solas Centre for Public Christianity, based in Scotland. He speaks and teaches regularly throughout Canada, the US, Europe, and the wider world. From churches to universities, business forums to TV and radio, Andy regularly addresses both Christian audiences and those of all faiths and none on issues relating to faith, culture, politics, and society.
Andy holds a PhD in Islamic studies, a topic on which he has taught extensively. He has spoken and taught at universities across Canada, the US, the UK, and farther afield on both Islam and philosophy and is an Adjunct Research Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Islam and Other Faiths at Melbourne School of Theology.
Andy is the author of An Oral-Formulaic Study of the Qur’an, a groundbreaking and innovative study that reveals many of the ways the Qur’an was first composed. His latest book, The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist (or: The Terrible Consequences of Really Bad Arguments), is a humorous engagement with the New Atheism.

[4] Dr. Shabir Ally is the president of the Islamic Information & Dawah Centre International in Toronto, Canada. He is a Muslim academic and public speaker on Islam and comparative religion. He is also a prolific debater engaging in regular debates around the world with noted theologians, Christian apologists and renowned philosophers. Dr. Shabir Ally holds an M.A. and PhD in Islamic studies from the University of Toronto. He completed his B.A. in Religious Studies from Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario, with a specialization in Biblical Literature. He also possesses a B.Sc with a major in Physics. In 2013, he completed his Ph.D and obtained his doctorate with his thesis being on Qur’anic exegesis.
For over 30 years, he has been an active member of the Muslim community in Toronto, as well as an active participant in interfaith dialogues, debates and initiatives. He is a prolific debater and is viewed as a leading Muslim debater in the world on religion and Christianity. He is an internationally sought after speaker, scholar and theologian, and is the author of numerous books on Islam and Christianity. He is also the founder and resident scholar of Let the Quran Speak, a show that promotes the understanding and appreciation of Islam and Muslims globally and is broadcast weekly on Canadian national television.

It has often been stated that the Christian faith stands or falls on history, that of the historical event of the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. William Lane Craig states, “Without the belief in the resurrection the Christian faith could not have come into being.” [1] N. T. Wright explains further the core belief of the early church, “…the life of early Christianity is inexplicable apart from the assumption that virtually all early Christians…did indeed believe that Jesus of Nazareth had been raised bodily from the dead, but with a transformed embodiment, not simply in a resuscitation to an identical body; and that this event was both the proleptic fulfillment of Israel’s great hope and something for which no one at the time had been prepared. This belief is the reason why early Christianity was, to its core, a ‘resurrection’ movement, with this hope standing at the center, not the periphery, of its vision.” [2]

But one may rightly ask, “what is the basis of this belief”? On what evidence are we making the truth claim that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead?

Again, Dr. Craig writes, “The origin of Christianity therefore hinges on the belief of the early disciples that God had raised Jesus from the dead.”[3] John, a disciple and follower of Jesus from the beginning of his ministry, gives testimony of being eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life, death and resurrection:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you…(1 John 1:1-3 ESV)

The writers of the New Testament wrote as eyewitnesses, or from firsthand information, as those who experienced the historical life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Rufus M. Jones, Quaker theologian and philosopher explains the unique perspective and place of an eyewitness—“The apostles were for many reasons pre-eminent in whatever community they found themselves. They spoke with the authority which one who has seen and heard and handled always possesses.” [4]

In the intro of his gospel, Luke clearly states who his sources were:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4 ESV)

Peter and John also affirmed the standard of eyewitness testimony:

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (2 Peter 1:16 ESV)

He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe. (John 19:35 ESV)

Regarding the value of the primary source of eyewitness testimony as found in the New Testament, F. F. Bruce writes:

“The earliest preachers of the gospel knew the value of…first-hand testimony, and appealed to it time and again. “We are witnesses of these things,” was their constant and confident assertion. And it can have been by no means so easy as some writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of His disciples were about, who could remember what had and had not happened. And it was not only friendly eyewitnesses that the early preachers had to reckon with; there were others less well disposed who were also conversant with the main facts of the ministry and death of Jesus. The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, “We are witnesses of these things,” but also, “As you yourselves also know” (Acts 2:22). Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective. [5]

When we consider the context in which the apostles preached and later recorded their eyewitness testimony, we can be assured that their testimony is true, considering the social parameters within which they were working. To repeat what was early stated by F. F. Bruce, “The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so.”

Dynamics of Eyewitness Testimony

Many have highlighted what they see as contradictions or inconsistencies between the New Testament accounts of Jesus’ life, death, and particularly His Resurrection. The motive behind most of these ‘highlights’ and/or accusations is to cast doubt on the character and credibility of the eyewitnesses themselves, and as such, attempt to render their testimony unreliable and untrustworthy. I know of no one who has addressed this issue more comprehensively and convincingly than author, cold-case detective, and adjunct professor of apologetics at Biola University, J. Warner Wallace. (you can visit his web sites, here and here.) In evaluating eyewitness accounts, J. Warner Wallace offers the following instruction:

I already acknowledged two things about witnesses: they seldom agree about every detail and they are sometimes mistaken about some aspect of their testimony. In spite of this, witnesses can be deemed reliable and trusted once we do the hard work of determining why they might see something differently or incorrectly. In fact, judges in the state of California instruct juries that they are not to distrust a witness just because that witness may be wrong about some aspect of his or her testimony:

“Do not automatically reject testimony just because of inconsistencies or conflicts. Consider whether the differences are important or not. People sometimes honestly forget things or make mistakes about what they remember. Also, two people may witness the same event yet see or hear it differently” (Section 105, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, 2006)

Witnesses can be wrong in some aspect of their testimony, yet be considered reliable, over all. Once the jury understands why the witness might be mistaken in a detail, they are encouraged to consider the rest of the testimony reliable.[6]

In his article, How Many Women Visited the Tomb of Jesus, Wallace offers the following criteria in establishing the credibility and trustworthiness of eyewitness testimony:

Identify the Common Details
When interviewing multiple eyewitnesses, I listen carefully for common features in their testimony. In every witness observation, some details are more important than others; some aspects of the event stick out in the mind of the observers more than others. In this case, every author is clear about one thing: women (plural) were the first to find the empty tomb. The women who attended to Jesus during his ministry loved Him enough to attend to his body after the crucifixion. According to Mark, they went to the tomb for a purpose: to anoint Jesus with spices. It’s not surprising the women disciples of Jesus would be thoughtful and caring enough to want to do this. Every gospel author agrees; the women came to the tomb and were the first to discover it empty…

Recognize the Perspective of Each Eyewitness
Every witness offers a view of the event from his or her unique perspective. I’m not just talking about geographic or locational perspectives here, but I am also talking about the personal worldview, history and experience every witness brings to the crime. All witness testimony is colored by the personal interests, biases, aspirations, concerns and idiosyncrasies of the eyewitnesses. In this particular case the most glaring exception in the description of the women is from John’s account. John mentions only Mary Magdalene by name. He does, however, tell us this Mary was not alone. When describing her visit to the tomb, Mary later tells Peter, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” So even John’s account acknowledges the presence of additional women. The issue here is not that each author describes a different number of women, but that each author chooses to identify different women by name. Why is this the case? Once again, it all comes down to the purpose and individuality of each reporter, and as investigators, we may never know precisely why variations of this nature occurred. But John’s Gospel does seem to give us a clue. John appears to be focused on the first male eyewitnesses of the empty tomb. Unlike other authors, John spends much more time and gives much more detail about how he and Peter discovered the empty tomb. As a result, the women are in a secondary role in John’s narrative. Mary Magdalene is mentioned by name simply because she happened to be the woman who first contacted Peter about the tomb. Even though John acknowledges there were other women involved (as seen in Mary’s use of the plural pronoun, “we”), he doesn’t take the time to describe them. John seems to place higher value in his own eyewitness status than in the eyewitness status of the women. He later reinforces his own pedigree by saying “This [John] is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24).

Differentiate Between Complimentary and Conflicting Accounts
When comparing two eyewitness accounts, I am more concerned about unresolvable contradictions than complimentary details. In fact, I have come to expect some degree of resolvable variation in true, reliable eyewitness accounts. When examining the number of women present at the tomb of Jesus, the four accounts could all be seen as accurate representations of what really happened if the group of women included the following people: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary the Mother of James (and Joseph), Salome, and Joanna. This group would account for the women mentioned by all four authors. All the authors speak of a group and some authors identify specific members of this group based on their personal perspective, purposes and audience.

Assess the Opportunity for Collusion
Whenever I am called to a crime scene as a detective, the first request I make of the dispatcher is to separate the eyewitnesses before I get there. I request this so the witnesses won’t have the opportunity to talk to one another about what they’ve seen. Witnesses will sometimes try to resolve any variations before I get there. I don’t want them to do this; that’s my job, not theirs…There have been times, however, when witnesses have the opportunity to consult with one another for several hours before I arrive on scene. When this is the case, and their individual accounts still vary from one another, I usually have even more confidence in the reliability of these accounts. When people have the opportunity to align their statements, yet still refuse to do so, I know I am getting the nuanced observations I need to properly investigate the case. The Gospel authors (and the early Church) certainly had the opportunity to change the descriptions of the women to make sure they matched, but they refused to do so. As a result, we can have even more confidence in the reliability of these accounts. They display the level of variation I would expect to see if they were true, reliable eyewitness descriptions.

In my experience as a cold case detective, no two eyewitness accounts ever agree on every detail or every emphasis. This doesn’t shake me as an investigator and it’s never inhibited an investigation. It’s just the nature of eyewitness testimony. Related to the number and identity of the women at the tomb of Jesus, the four gospel accounts demonstrate the same variation I’ve seen in my professional work. How many women were at the tomb? Five, most likely. The Gospels are not contradictory in their description of these five women for the reasons I’ve cited. You can trust the reliability of the New Testament eyewitness Gospels.[7]

Professor of New Testament studies, Craig L. Blomberg, concurs with Wallace:

The vast majority of readers of the Synoptic Gospels in all ages have been struck not by the difference among them but by their remarkable similarities…the apparent discrepancies are just that—apparent and not genuine—and that they do not call into question the reliability of the Gospel witness. If anything, the minor variations that do occur, when coupled with the much greater amount of close agreement in detail, actually strengthen confidence in the Evangelist’ trustworthiness.[8]

Are the Gospels still reliable if they have errors or inconsistencies?-J. Warner Wallace

Contradictions in the Bible accounts of Jesus rising from the dead?-N. T. Wright, Michael Licona, William Lane Craig and others

Is the Bible full of Contradictions?-Tim Barnett

References
[1] William Lane Craig, Knowing the Truth about the Resurrection, Servant Books, 1988, pg. 116-17
[2] N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Fortress Press, 2003, pg. 587
[3] Ibid, William Lane Craig
[4] Rufus M. Jones, Studies in Mystical Religion, Macmillan, 1909, pg. 22
[5] F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, InterVarsity Press, 1964, pgs. 33, 44-46
[6] J. Warner Wallace, A Witness Can be Wrong and Reliable, http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/a-witness-can-be-wrong-and-reliable/
[7] J. Warner Wallace, How Many Women Visited the Tomb of Jesus, http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/how-many-women-visited-the-tomb-of-jesus/
[8] Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, InterVarsity Press, 2007, pgs. 152-53

We believe in a benevolent God, who created the world and every person on it. This God loved the world enough to send his only Son to die for its sake. When natural disasters happen, killing, or causing suffering to countless numbers of these individuals God claims to love, the character and/or existence of God is naturally brought into question.

When faced with natural disasters, enquiring friends and the question of the goodness of God, how – as Christians – can we respond?

Theological greats over centuries have sat with this question and there is yet to be one satisfying answer.

So, instead of telling you what to do, here are some tips on what to avoid when confronted with the reality of human suffering from natural disaster. For complete article, here