Apologetics for the Modern World @modernworldapologetics - Tumblr Blog

llausf asked:

Do we know if tertullian was indeed the first one to identify and define the word "Trinity"? Or have there been earlier findings of the term "Trinity" to represent the One God?

Those are actually two rather different questions. The word 'trinity' did exist well before Tertullian, and its first recorded usage in a Christian context was by Theophilus of Antioch - but he wasn't describing God's nature with that word in 170. Tertullian has the first recorded use of the term to describe God Himself, and is generally credited as being the first to use it in this way; but we will never know this side of eternity whether or not it also came up in unrecorded conversations or lost letters before this.

However, he wasn't so much developing a term and then defining it, as he was presenting a term that was helpful in describing a preexisting concept. The church had understood God in a trinitarian way ever since Christ walked the Earth, we just didn't have a good, concise way to say that yet.

-Tim

So, let’s be clear here. The Twin Flames concept is a New Age teaching derived partly from a story told by a Greek philosopher regarding the origin of human pain and love. Now, it isn’t clear to me whether this philosopher believed his tale or was simply making a concept clear, but regardless, the teaching has no place in Christianity.

The 144,000 in Revelation are individuals from the twelve tribes if Israel who are set apart by God. The exact nature and purpose of this setting apart has some debate surrounding it, but there is no reason to come to the conclusion you’ve offered. It is more likely that the New Age movement used the number because it appears in Revelation either to lend credibility to the teaching or because the person that suggested it had a vague memory of seeing the number without remembering the details of its context, as that sort of thing happens from time to time.

While we’re on the topic, let’s also clarify that soulmates, the concept that draws people to this teaching to begin with, isn’t even a Biblical concept. It is a sort of folk religion idea that tries to combine the idea of God’s sovereignty, the select few instances in scripture where God appears to have selected a spouse for someone, and the desire to drift away from the practice of arranged marriages without losing that feeling of inevitability. But there is nothing in scripture to suggest that this is a constant, or even common, practice. Perhaps soul mates exist and maybe they don’t. But taking this extrabiblical folk concept and trying to bend it into a shape supposed by a pagan and then using that to interpret scripture is always going to yield poor results.

-Tim

#soul mate #twin flames #twin souls #144000

Anonymous asked:

A lot of Christians say that Christianity is a lifestyle, not a religion. So my question is... what about other religions where believers consider the religion to be a lifestyle, and not a religion, such as Buddhism? Can one be a Buddhist Christian?

No, one cannot. There are two main reasons for this. 1.) Christianity is, in fact, a religion, and 2.) Christianity and Buddhism contradict each other. Which basically means that, in order to be a blending of the two, one would have to not be very good at being at least one of them. This is true, to varying degrees, with every religion being paired with Christianity.

Make no mistake here. Christianity is a lifestyle. And it is a relationship, which is another common 'Christianity is a [x], not a religion' statement. But to a certain extent, both of these attributes of Christianity are rooted in the fact that it is a religion. We hold very specific views on God, mankind, the physical universe, metaphysics, death, and the afterlife. And these views then turn around and color our approach to everything else. Our lifestyles are changed, not because we've been told to change them, but because our decisions and interests and goals are run through a filter shaped entirely by our theology. Our relationship with God is based entirely on our understanding of who God is, and who we are in relation to Him, and what He's done to reach out to us (it was the atoning death and resurrection of Christ. Always like to have that mentioned somewhere). Our relationships to others are based on our relationship with God and our understanding of who we are, individually and collectively.

The problem that comes from trying to blend Christianity with any other religion or pseudoreligion is that they do not have the same core or goal. No matter how similar the pavement on the sidewalks look, they are not the same sidewalk. You can actually go word for word through the Bible, taking every instance in which we are given behavioral commands, and build an entire lifestyle of exactly that - no contradictions, no changes, just straight up what the Bible says to do or not do - and still be teaching something that directly contradicts Christianity. Why? Because what we do isn't the point. Our goal is not peace. It is not kindness, or happiness, or goodwill toward men. It is not right behavior, or even right thought about behavior. The goal of every Christian, the core of who we are, the very power that drives us in everything, has nothing to do with us. Everything is about bringing glory to the One True God, Maker of Heaven and Earth, King of All Creation, Supreme Judge and Ultimate Righteousness, One God in Three Persons, in which the Son came to Earth as the man Jesus Christ to reveal God Himself to us and save us from our own sin because we can't do it ourselves. And if anything in a belief system contradicts that, if anything else is the goal, or the center, or the driving force, then it directly contradicts Christianity and is completely incompatible.

-Tim

Anonymous asked:

My question is regarding feminism. While I am not a feminist, I have many friends who are… and lately I’ve been struggling with the concept of feminism, particularly gender identity and social constructions.

I try to always ask God to filter what I hear and learn; however, it does get confusing. So basically… what do I make of social constructions? A lot of feminists/people in general believe that in society, gender is constructed and males and females are told what they need to do. To a certain degree, this is true. But, I mean, I get confused between what is “made up” and what isn’t. In the bible, God also states things that men and women should or shouldn’t do, and I agree that there are certain things that God created men for and certain things that God created women for (as in, each has things they are better at doing, etc.)

And overall, what kind of advice would you give for people when they are dealing with concepts such as feminism? I’m just wondering if it could potentially hinder my walk with God, which is something I obviously don’t want, haha.

Thanks :D

Feminism, in its truest form, is perfectly in line with the Bible. The foundations of feminism are a desire to see women valued as equals with men in inherent worth, social influence, rights, and intellect. The fact is that the roles stated for men and women in the Bible aren't degrading to one over the other. Neither is presented as having greater worth or skill, just different foci. And there's a fair bit of overlap. I would encourage you to take a look at the way ideal women are presented in Proverbs 31. The sample woman there isn't quiet and uneducated. She isn't barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. She's overseeing the duties of others, she's examining the worth of land and negotiating its purchase and use based on her knowledge of it, she's being praised by the men in her life. I doubt anyone in our culture would look at this woman and view her as being held back or treated unfairly. She is what basic feminism wants women to be free to be - and the Bible is here making the case that she ought to be given the power and opportunity to do so.

The problem comes in the much smaller (but sometimes louder) subsects of feminism that seek to tear down men as an attempt to lift up women. Or those that seek to eliminate the concept of gender altogether and make everyone a homogeneous mass of humanity. The Bible is clear that each gender should be respected and honored for both the things they share (inherent worth, intellect, skill), and the things that make them different. Men and women are meant to complement one another, not to tear each other down or fight for cultural dominance. Groups driven by such warlike desires, regardless of target, are working against God's design. But a feminism that seeks to honor women and treat all people with equal respect and opportunity? This will not hinder your walk with God.

-Tim

apologeticsnstuff-deactivated20

By Tom Gilson

joshuadylan reblogged your post: Recently, as I’ve been reading the first two books...

The Scriptures say...God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Romans 9), gave men over to their own...

#joshuadylan

I'm an irreligious person who has lately been reading the bible because I'm curious about it in an intellectual fashion (I'm not looking to convert, just to learn). I've sort of hit a snag, and I was hoping you could help me understand. Throughout the new testament, Jesus is referred to as both the "Son of God" (Matthew 26:63), and the "Son of Man" (Luke 22:48). What, if anything, is the difference between these ideas? Are they the same? Thanks!

Jesus is Both A Man and God. He is God in the flesh. It's not really historical part of the book but its a faith part that we believe he was God in the flesh and was man as well.

~Kevin

Recently, as I've been reading the first two books of the Bible in an effort to understand Christianity more, I can't help getting the feeling that the God of the Bible has set humanity up for failure. For example, the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden being within reach of Adam and Eve, and yet being out of bounds (and the Snake around, no less). Or the constant hardening of Pharaoh's heart in Exodus even when God was working to get the Israelites out of Egypt.

On second thought, maybe the Exodus example isn't as related as I thought. That said, it's another thing I don't quite get. Anyway, knowing that God is omniscient, all-knowing (which would have to include knowing all possible events in our universe, and the ones that become reality), he saw the Fall coming, and yet not only did He let it happen, he engineered it as part of Creation in Genesis, to the best of my understanding. It's just not making sense to me. (Sorry, forgot about the submit link

I believe that he foresaw the fall of man coming but wanted it to be our choice. Bible states that well he can see all and everything that he cant change a mans heart. Its the reason why we are all not walking around worshiping God because he can not change a mans heart. So he saw the fall of man coming yes but wanted us to make that choice.

~Kevin

justtakeitforgranted asked:

Heads up: the following is just stuff I've been thinking about lately and is not a fully developed opinion. It's also way too long for an ask; sorry about that.

Oftentimes, sex reassignment surgery and/or hormones are a prescribed treatment for gender dysphoria. A lot of transgender people resent the suggestion that they're mentally ill, but gender identity disorder is still considered a mental health condition. As such, why wouldn't you recommend seeking treatment?

My friend is diabetic; she takes insulin. She was born with this condition, but "God doesn't make mistakes" has never been suggested as a reason not to seek treatment. I have depression caused by a chemical imbalance in my brain, and not triggered by any events. I know that God doesn't make mistakes, and I've already seen Him use my depression in many ways, but seeing a therapist isn't enough for me - unless I take medication, I could die. Sex reassignment surgery isn't a statement that God has made a mistake that needs to be fixed; it's a treatment for a condition that some people have because we live in a fallen world, but that God can and will use for good.

Is it possible for God to make a man in a female body, or vice versa? Well, what makes someone male or female? If it's strictly about their bodies, then no, but if maleness and femaleness are in our minds rather than our bodies, then of course it's possible. Thoughts?

Let's assume, for the moment, that your listing of transgenderism as a mental illness is correct (I'll not argue for or against it at this time). If that is the case, why would gender reassignment surgery be the treatment? Consider, for a moment, the nature of treatments. They do not exist to bring the person in line with the person's view of themselves. Looking at the examples you gave above: are people with depression given treatment designed to make them as isolated and worthless as they perceive themselves? Are diabetics given treatment that makes their body acclimate to the flaw in their genome? In every instance in which there is an illness and a treatment is devised for it, the treatment is designed to emphasize the true physical nature of the person by subduing or eliminating the illness. Therefore, if transgenderism is an illness, then the treatment for it wouldn't be to adjust one's body to line up with the transgender self-image, but to subdue the transgender self-image. You entire argument presented here goes against gender reassignment surgery, so the fact that you used it to support such a method is astonishing.

Gender is not strictly in the mind. It's a happy thought to act like it is, but it doesn't hold water. The outward physical differences aside, there are differences in the way the brain operates in specific circumstances between men and women. These have been poorly used in the past to suggest an inherent superiority, and we should avoid such a conclusion, but that doesn't mean that the differences don't exist at all. Men and women are different; physically, mentally, emotionally, and from a Christian standpoint, we are different in terms of obligations and responsibilities. These settings are not arbitrary. If you were born as one gender, then it is because God has every intention on you living life as that gender and carrying out the role of that gender. Our discomfort is not a bargaining tool that can be used against God to change what is expected of us. Will He still be able to use us if we change our sex? Yes. But that doesn't mean that what we're doing is what we were supposed to be doing in the first place.

-Tim

Anonymous asked:

What does the Bible really teach us about the age of accountability? Do babies go to heaven or hell? What about the mentally handicapped? On one hand, there is the idea of all being born with sin, so sinful from birth requires salvation, on the other hand, there is the argument that babies, children, and mentally handicapped people are "innocent." and need not accept Christ to receive salvation. Thoughts?

Well, unfortunately, it doesn't. The Bible gives no minimum age for needing a savior, and in all instances where it addresses mankind collectively, it allows for no exceptions. Blake, one of the other editors here, has recently done a good job of challenging the concept that any are born innocent. The inclination from this would be to suspect that infants are not saved. However, this raises some concerns itself. If one holds to Calvinist election, the issue is easy enough to skirt around: God likely simply elects all who die in infancy (or before) and all those who never reach the mental maturity needed to understand salvation, and therefore, they are saved. Case closed. I must admit a certain envy that they have such a simple answer.

The Bible, while not usually directly stating it, does seem to suggest that there is a certain amount of sway in terms of how much of the Law is held against individuals, based on how much of it they have available to them. Proverbs 24:12 (NASB) says:

If you say, "See, we did not know this," Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts? And does He not know it who keeps your soul? And will He not render to man according to his work?

So God apparently takes what we know and what we don't know about Him into consideration, though Romans 1:19-20 (NASB again) suggests that there's only so much we can get away with not knowing:

because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Which basically states that there are truths about God that all mankind has available to us simply because it is written into creation itself, and we are held accountable for that knowledge. But then, if one is not capable of understanding the world around them, is this information truly available to them?

The fact is, that's about as direct as we can actually get. I hold out hope that this means that those unborn or those who die before reaching the maturity level necessary to understand the gospel are welcomed into the Kingdom, if not as innocents, at least as having had no opportunity to know otherwise. I have family, both a sibling and a child, and a number of cousins, I would like to meet someday on this clause. But I cannot know for certain on this side of eternity, and must simply trust that God has chosen to handle the situation in a manner that highlights both His love and justice.

-Tim

Anonymous asked: nonono people change their SEX, not their GENDER. Sex is what body you have, Gender is what you feel on the inside. xD terminology, man! haha. Also, transgender is an umbrella term. Someone who is born in the wrong body is transsexual. Transgender is an umbrella term for transsexual, transvestite, transgenderist, and transition. ^-^

I don't know if you're talking to me or Tim, but I wasn't referring necessarily to people changing their sex via surgery - I was thinking more about people identifying inwardly as an alternate gender. Also, I know transgender is an umbrella term, and that's why I used it.

~ Madden

Yes, basically, the original question used an umbrella term, and we responded in like. It may be noted that my response specifically stated that it was addressing the broadest possible definition and did not include specific circumstances that may arise on a more individual basis.

-Tim

yrova asked:

Do you support the theory of evolution? If not, why do you not support it?

And also:

Intelligent design? Do you support it? If so, why?

I don't really know how much more clear we can possibly make this without font effects. Should we put it in bold letters at the top of our 'ask' page? Would that help all of you out there?

We don't find evolution to be a convincing theory. If one removes the bulk of evidence that has been discredited and the evidence that doesn't actually prove evolution as superior to anything else (you know, like the whole 'well, things are similar enough that they must have a common ancestor' argument and how the exact same evidence can be used to say that there was one creator instead of many because there are sufficient commonalities to show a characteristic of the creator, which therefore means that it doesn't actually prove evolution unless you already believe in evolution), it just doesn't carry nearly as much weight as people seem so convinced it does. Add to this that those who argue for Intelligent Design aren't exactly sitting on their hands and bringing nothing to the table, and really, evolution just doesn't deal this amazing blow that it's portrayed as doing.

We believe the Bible. We believe that God created all things for His glory, that it was designed perfect until sin entered through the choices of humans, and that we now live in a broken and fallen world that will be redeemed in the last days and restored to its former glory, to a new Earth where those who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ shall live in eternal communion with Him.

Now, please. Will you all stop asking us the same question over and over again? If you want to have a discussion about it, do that. If you honestly think nothing else could possibly be more important than this, then you should probably at least be willing to spend the time to read our archives and see the ways we've already answered you.

-Tim

Anonymous asked:

You lose legitimacy when you deny evolution. The evidence is overwhelming. Over 95% biologists certify the theory evolution as fact. There is no controversy.

I'll not take advice on legitimacy from a grey face that brings no evidence to the table.

-Tim

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument. If you want to discuss why evolution is right or wrong, you must come up with a better reason than that. ~ Madden

proofofexistence asked:

Can one be Transgender (and or on the verge of changing genders) and Christian?

Unfortunately, the original post of this was lost, and I could only find one remaining reblogged version of it which cut the ending off, so I can only really use this piece to readdress this topic. If it does a poor job of representing the original intent of the question, please feel free to resubmit it.

It is important to get at what the core that being transgender is really built on. With many such concerns, simply getting at the heart of the matter will present a solution. I cannot speak from experience, as I've never confronted this particular self-image from a first-hand basis, so I'll have to try to be as general as possible and may, in the process, lose sight of some particular aspects that may arise in select individuals.

The world is broken and fallen, according to scripture. Mankind was not made for this, and to an extent, we all still feel that separation from our intended home and our intended focus of worship. Different people sense that separation in different ways. Some see it manifested as a universal imbalance, a distinct injustice that seems to run rampant across mankind. Others turn their attention inward, sensing that they are somehow wrong, somehow not what they were really meant to be. And they're right, in a sense. Mankind is just as fallen as the world around us, and in fact the root cause of the corruption of creation. And as long as this revelation of something being wrong within ourselves brings us to the place where we come to God seeking a new nature, it has served its purpose.

The core defining characteristic of transgenders, and in fact the only one I can address from my external perspective, is the sense that they are not born into the right gender. This is an example of perceiving the fallen state of the world and of mankind by sensing something wrong internally. From a Christian standpoint, I have to suggest that the direct manifestation is not correct - God does not make mistakes, about gender or otherwise. I cannot urge one to attempt to change their gender. This sense likely won't simply go away, however, and one should not expect to make such an amazing argument on the matter that that would be the result of it. This self-image has a very good chance of staying with the individual for the rest, or at least majority, of their earthly life. This is not, itself, a sin (near as I can tell, as it isn't directly addressed by scripture), any more than any other self-image is. The problem arises when it takes precedent over your identity in Christ.

If you are a Christian, your identity is no longer based on your membership in the fallen world, or your self-image, or even your lineage. It is in Christ alone. You have been made new. And this needs to be your foundation, your center. It often takes time for us to reach the point where we fully grasp this, but we must keep pushing on, reminding ourselves of this fact and working out our share of the task of sanctification. Romans is an excellent resource for understanding our new nature and the process by which we are changed from our previous life to walk anew with Christ.

While this sense that one's gender was incorrect will persist, at least for a time, I urge you to remind yourself that, yes, there was, in fact, something very wrong with your core nature - and that it has been addressed and made new upon your acceptance into God's family. The fact that that self-image remains does not mean that you are not saved, just that you are not perfected, a point which no one reaches while bearing this mortal flesh. Whatever you do, battle the urge to let this sense of self become an idol or your foundation of identity. It won't be easy, and you can't do it alone. But that is one of the primary purposes of the church - to walk with one another, love one another, help one another, and hold one another accountable. We all need that in our walk with God.

-Tim

I think Tim's response was excellent, and I'd just like to add that I know that God can work through the struggles of gender confusion because I've seen it happen. The Bible does not make exceptions to the terms of salvation for those who have changed their gender or who want to. A longing to be something you are physically not does not determine whether or not you can be saved, or even if you can serve God effectively. Making your gender identity into an idol is, of course, wrong, but then so is making anything an idol. The key is to realize that if you are a Christian, you are a child of the King of the Universe, and to let that be the most important thing in your life and your main focus when it comes to answering the question "Who am I?" When it is, everything else pales in comparison. In Christ, you can have a whole new identity that does not include gender, race, social status, or anything else, and that is the most freeing thing one could ever experience.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

~ Madden

Anon asked: What are your thoughts on anonymous Christianity?

Hey there. I actually wrote quite a long response to this and my computer lost it, so I'm just going to sum things up simply here. The Bible says that by no under name besides Jesus' are we saved, and that if you confess with your mouth the Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that He was raised from the dead, you will be saved. Jesus also claimed to be the way, the truth and the life, and said no one gets to the Father except through Him. Anonymous Christianity says that even those who reject Christ can be saved through Christ. That would mean that you could worship others and still be saved, you could not confess and believe and still be saved, and there are other ways to get to the Father besides through trusting on and abiding in Jesus. Anonymous Christianity doesn't make a lot of logical sense when you read the Bible, and I reject it as valid. ~ Madden

Just a heads-up to everyone.

This week has seen some significant issues with the ability of the site's editors to contribute as strongly as usual. While I don't know what's happening in everyone's lives, I do know that I have been rather busy offline and at least one of the others has had trouble with the inbox function on their account. As a result, it has been abnormally quiet this week. However, we have begun picking up some of that slack. There are now three posts queued up, which I must admit will probably end up posting tomorrow. Last I checked there was also one draft waiting to be looked over by other editors and a small handful of questions to be addressed this weekend.

We apologize for any of you that have been waiting for your questions to be addressed and assure you that we are not ignoring them. We also welcome more questions, as this blog is designed to operate primarily in a model of discourse. Things are expected to return to normal very soon. In the meantime, we'd like to thank you for your patience and welcome all the new followers that have dropped by despite the relative silence. Thank you.

-Tim

modernworldapologetics

mulattoalbinomosquitolibido asked: How do you explain the vast number of fossils that are completely different to any living organisms? If we look specifically at hominids there are many species that are clearly different to any modern ape. For instance, australopithecus afarensis is similar in size and brain capacity to chimpanzees but could walk upright.

We don’t claim that nothing has ever gone extinct. Fossils that are different from any living organism aren’t an issue.

But you’re talking about transitional fossils specifically. The vast majority of transitional fossils have either been found to not be transitional at all, or to have been probably on a branch that apparently didn’t go anywhere - we have yet to build a worthwhile chain of fossils leading to anything. Except homids. Which are a bit more confusing, because in the homid chain, we end up with links that are based entirely on one skull. Entire species, represented only by one skull? I’m supposed to take it, on faith mind you, that this one skull was actually representative of an entire species of beings and that they were our ancestors, rather than the more likely possibility of genetic deformation? The example you gave, admittedly, is probably the most supportable, but even then we make a lot of assumptions about lifestyle and what it really is. “It looks like a chimp, but not quite, so it must be a transitional homid” rather than, say, an extinct chimp. The evidence is interesting, but it requires as much faith to believe that it points to evolution as to believe that it doesn’t.

-Tim

theladygoogle

Aahahaha what is a “transitional fossil”? All fossils are transitional. Modern Homo sapiens sapiens is a “transitional” organism, and evolution occurs at a rate so slow that it is occurring as we speak. I want to know where this person is getting their information from, and which single skull he is referencing. And yes, one skull will never be representative of an entire species that were evolutionary ancestors to Homo sapiens sapiens, and consideration for variation is always a factor. Inferences and guessing is less prevalent in palaeoanthropological research than it was when Louis and Mary Leakey scoured the Olduvai Gorge, so much as the vast amount of lab work that goes into analysing hominid remains. It looks to me like someone is rather stuck on the “I’m not a monkey” defence. There are remains of Pan (chimpanzee) ancestors have been found, but the main point is that humans and other great apes share a traceable ancestry to a point. Humans did not come from other great apes or vice versa. I know a lot of televised documentaries focus on the “missing link” in palaeoanthropology, but there is no difference between what you call “transitional” and supposedly “non-transitional”. Everything is in a state of transition, evolutionarily speaking.

#oh my god f*** you #evolution is apart of science #it is not a weak concept #it is a well maintained well exampled thing #that is more deeply ebedded in science than people imagine #also what the f*** is a ~~homid~~ #please inform yourself with more than one discovery channel half hour special if you want to speak as an informed person of religious belief #you’re making other christians with opinions feel ridiculous #i can’t even begin to cover where all of this is exorbitantly misinformed

enunciate

modernworldapologetics

Transitional fossils are fossils primarily discussed in terms of their evolutionary chain. I'm aware that evolutionary terminology technically includes all fossils - however, the original question was part of a discussion on a particular series of events, and I was separating that discussion from fossils that are not generally discussed in that context.

I never discussed being descended from monkeys. If you're going to claim that I'm not paying attention to evidence, it would help your image to at least pay attention to what I'm saying and what I'm not. I'm aware that evolution doesn't claim that we're descended from great apes. Do not assume that just because I disagree with you that I don't understand anything and that you have open opportunity to mock me on words I never spoke.

Are you calling me out on misspelling 'hominid' in a series of tags with no less than four blatant grammatical errors and absolutely no capitalization or punctuation?

I didn't get my information from a half-hour Discovery Channel special. I barely watch tv at all, let alone rely on it as my only source of information on anything. Am I to take your arrogant assumptions as a logical argument? Do you honestly expect to show your stance as superior by reducing your argument to such things?

If you want to have an actual discussion, point out evidence rather than this nonsense. I'll gladly discuss any evidence you feel I overlooked.

-Tim

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Apologetics for the Modern World