Friday, October 5, 2012

The Moral Argument!

   Hey all, I am sorry it has been so long since my last post. Working 40+ hours a week, being enrolled full time in college, and being a father and a husband, it is tough to find time to blog. Since our last blog my wife and I have been blessed with good news that we will be having another baby! We are extremely excited and will be expecting the little boy/girl next June.
This post I wanted to focus more on some apologetic issues. Recently, I have been having an amazing opportunity with being able to share the good news with one of my college professors. Initially, when I began this I was nervous. This guy has a Doctorate Degree in English Studies and specializes in Critical Thinking! So, to say the least I was going up against a very intellectual person. However, something that I have learned is that no matter what the intellect of a person, the good news Jesus came to share with us address people on the conscience not the intellect. For about three weeks he brought up questions in which he had never been able to get answers to. I am going to highlight one of them in this blog post. This argument I used has worked for me; most of them I have pulled from Dr. William Lane Craig and his Defenders Podcasts and Scholarly Articles.

First Argument: The Moral Argument
Before I get into the details of this, it is a very powerful argument using logical syllogism. Logical Syllogism is an argument that draws its conclusion based off 1 or 2 premises. This is very common in philosophy and allows your conversation to not personally attack someone; this gives them a logical flow in the thinking to lead to why you believe what you believe.

 So The Moral Argument [TMA]

·      If God does not exist; Objective Moral Values Do Not Exist
·      Objective Moral Values Do Exist
·      Therefore God Exists

So, to make sense of this I am going to break it down. First off, lets define objective vs. subjective. Objective means that something is true Independent of human opinion. Subjective means that something is true Dependent on human opinion. So an example is: it is objectively true that I have a tattoo on my arm, this is true independent on what you may think or feel; because I do in fact have a permanent tattoo on my arm.

Premise 1: So an objective moral value would be referring to something that is morally wrong, independent on what the person may think or feel. What I typically say to someone who believes each person determines what is right or wrong [someone who does not believe in objective moral values]. Is, based off of what you just said; if I was a serial killer; I feel that murdering people is ok for me. So if there are no objective moral values I can continue doing this. I then ask the person, if I were a serial killer and I knocked on your door and said, “hey sorry, but you fit my profile for people I wish to kill, and I feel good about killing you.” Would you then allow me to do what I felt was right? No! Of course not, so based off you agreeing with me, you do in fact believe in objective moral values. Another example is to say that the Holocaust was objectively evil, even though the Nazi’s [who carried it out] thought it was good. Even if the Nazi’s won WW2 it would still have been evil even if the Nazi’s brainwashed everyone into thinking it was ok. So, to say that the Holocaust is evil regardless of whether anyone agrees with it or not is objectively true. Most atheists and theists agree; that if God does not exist then moral values are not objective.

Premise 2: So from here, the person [usually] admits that yes, they do believe in some form of objective moral values. Then you say, based off you agreeing with me that objective moral values do exist this leads us to premise 3 that God does in fact exist. This is an ethical argument, which is logically sound and ethically applicable.

I have used this many, many times, and has always proven un-arguable from many atheists, agnostics, and other relativists that deny the existence or the possibility of God. This is just one of many arguments I have followed to help me get the conversation to the point where the individual will even think about listening to the Gospel message. This argument helps because, if you are speaking with an atheist; and he or she will not even admit to the possibility of God, how then will you be able to speak to them in which they would listen to the gospel message. But, if you present this first, and then drawing from the conclusion that they admit it is more logically true than false that God exists based off the fact that Objective Moral Values exist, then you can open up into the gospel!!
            This is an amazing tool and argument to use, which does not require an insane amount of philosophical knowledge to master. So my professor started the conversation saying he believes in relativism and then ended by admitting there is most likely a God! Now something I want to say is, while you are doing this be careful not to focus solely on the intellect. You do not want to engage this person in a battle of wits; you want to engage them on their conscience. In Romans 2:15 it says that God has written his law onto the hearts of man. Each person has a conscience; this conscience is our ally when addressing individuals in matters of the faith.
            I hope this helps you and that the Lord allows you an opportunity to practice this! I will be posting more arguments that I have used for the next few posts. If you have any questions you would like me to explain further please ask away!

Thursday, September 13, 2012

"Interrupted" Food for Thought

In continuing with my We're Under Attack series, I wanted to write a real quick blurb on something that my wife and I have been looking into. It is a book written by Jen Hatmaker called Interrupted.  Jen is a mother, Christian, blogger, and author. If you read her book Interrupted [which I am currently reading] she starts out the book with stating that this book is no manifesto, or something that can be interpreted as a devotional. Within the first few pages, her words tickle your ears and your emotions with very colorful language and descriptive terms -- something in which she is using to describe her “journey”. I will give her credit because she does state; “. . . it is not an experts opinion on church trends and postmodernist thought.” (Hatmaker, 2009) So she openly starts the book stating that she is a postmodernist [meaning we cannot know truth, we must question everything] and then Hatmaker stated that she does have some “churchy credentials”. Then, the very next page she again says: “. . . its better to wade through murky waters with a fellow explorer rather than an authority.”
            Within these first few excerpts from her book -- and let me say this was only in the introduction -- I have had nothing but red flags popping up all over. 2 Timothy 2:15 (ESV) says: "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." What Paul wrote was telling Timothy, [and us] how we should be studying Scripture. We shouldn’t be wandering through a swamp of mud, or murky waters with someone else who is as equally lost as I am. Instead, we should follow the words written in Titus 1:9 (ESV) "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." What this means is simple: we need to be solid in our backbone when we search the Scriptures and when we minister and disciple others. So we need authority when it comes to our search for truth. 1 Peter 5:2 (ESV) says ". . .shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain but eagerly."  This was a charge to Church leaders that they need to shepherd the flock so we don’t have a bunch of mindless zombies wandering the world in hopes that they may catch a glimmer of truth. Who should they model their example off of? God!

           Later on in her book and in many interviews as well, she pays tribute to a man who help radically change her view on life, her relationship with Christ, and her view of what it really means to be a Christian. She read a book by Shane Claiborne entitled The Irresistible Revolution.  In Shane's book, he outlines a revolution that needs to take place within the Church. The book also talks about how the Church has it all-wrong and it needs to change. Let's look at what Claiborne believes; Claiborne is a leader of the New Monasticism movement within Protestant Christianity.  Johnathan Wilson coined this term in 1998. Monasticism essentially means to devote one's life to spiritual work [emphasis on works] and is derived from the Greek, monachos. Now there is nothing wrong with devoting your life to doing the Lord's work, and I do believe Jesus has called us to pursue him, similar to David in the Old Testament being a man after God's own heart. But while this is noble and true, people within this movement place too much emphasis on working with the poor and showing them love, they tend to leave of the good news of the Gospel! It's this attitude: "Well, if the opportunity presents itself, then sure, we will share how Jesus loves them." The Gospel to Hatmaker, Claiborne and any other Emergent is too harsh which is why they need too emphasize God's love. This way of thinking is extremely dangerous and misguiding. In Ray Comfort's Book, God Has A Wonderful Plan For Your Life, he talks about what we would call false conversion. "If non-Christians [the people receiving the work that Clairborne and Hatmaker are doing] respond to the Gospel message only to improve their lives they will be di-allusioned when persecution comes and they may fall away from the faith." (Ray Comfort) Excuse this rough analogy, but it's like traveling to a city to visit, only to get off the airplane and stay in the airport because that is what is comfortable to you. You may not want to go outside the airport because there is danger, and stuff that may confront you. By only giving people one-half of the Gospel message we are robbing them. God IS a loving God, but he is also a just God and the perfect judge. If you cannot come to grips with this fact than you could possibly be a false convert.

A reviewer of the book Irresistable Revolution couldn't have said it better:

The fallacy is this: One's economic situation is a NOT a direct correlation to their spiritual condition. If a person dressed in rags and in desperate need of a bath came to our fellowship, would it be wrong for us to assume that his spiritual condition was far worse than our own? Of course it would. The man might be a modern day John the Baptist. But is it not just as fallacious to assume that people with lots of money are less a priority than those who are poor?

Let me make myself clear. I am not saying that we should not care for the poor. I believe we in the modern Church have been horrible stewards of what God has given us. This is true. But I have discussed with many college students who have read Irresistible Revolution and think that they must go and live in the ghetto to properly serve God. This is not true. If you are a young Christian seeking guidance, use this book as a launch pad to consider God's call on your life. Read it, read other books. Talk to dozens of ministers and missionaries. But go where HE sends you, not where Shane does. I would never want to usurp a young person's call by making them feel as though there was only one way to truly minister in God's kingdom.

            In an interview with Hatmaker, she is speaking to the interviewer and is saying that the spirit revealed something to her after hearing a lecture from Claiborne. She was walking and “ . . .heard a mysterious holy spirit whisper.” I left Holy Spirit in lowercase, because frankly, I don’t know what spirit it could have been. Claiborne also has used this terminology saying an eerie presence of the spirit came upon him. That is not the same Holy Spirit the Bible refers to: Judges 3:10-14, Matthew 12:31-33,  Luke 24:45-49, Romans 8:2-6, and Micah 3:8-10 (ESV) "But as for me, I am filled with power, with the Spirit of the Lord, and with justice and might. . .” We do not see the Spirit mysteriously whispering sweet nothing's into peoples ears or fill you with question. The Spirit is part of the Godhead, he is powerful and mighty, when he comes in, he kicks the door open and makes his presence known, as we saw at Pentecost in Acts 2:1-5. The spirit in Acts was described as coming in as a violent wind. With this you have to ask yourself, who are they referring to?
            I apologize, this blurb has gone on longer than I anticipated and I could easily continue to go on dissecting what they believe. This; however, is a perfect example on how if you do not actually take the time to research your author, and search the Scriptures to cross-examine what was written, you could fall into this trap! For those of you who may read my blog and are currently reading this book, look into these facts I have brought up. As you continue to read this book, highlight areas in which seem controversial or that made you stop and re-read the sentence. This book by Hatmaker was put on the same level with Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis. We all know about him and his role within the Emergent church. So stay watchful and one of my new favorite verses 1 Thessalonians 5:21 . . . but test everything, hold fast what is good.

I leave you with one last analogy. The Scritpure is like a laser pointer. If you are trying to hit a target on the wall with the laser, you have to be spot on. Just a few degrees of movement with the laser skews the entire distance from the point to the target. In the same way, we must be prayerful and knowledgeable about how we interpret Scritpure. If we are just a few degrees off, we could lead masses astray.

Hatmaker, J. (2009). Interrupted. Colorado Springs: NavPress.

Monday, September 10, 2012

Were Under Attack Part 2!

    Hey everyone, sorry I have been absent from the blog, I have been extremely busy with work, school, and taking care of a crazy, two-year old son. I hope you all enjoyed last weeks blog interview with Apologist and former Navy SEAL, Chad Williams. This week I am going to continue the “We’re Under Attack” series. In my last post, I briefly went over the idea of the Emergent Church, and the views that are associated. It is incredibly easy for you to find yourself in one of these churches; in fact, you may be in one now! The reason I say this is because I found myself in one about 3 ½ years ago. I was one of the college leaders at this church, and started my own Bible study, which many college students attended. I was going through Grace Walk curriculum by Steve McVey. The group started off great; there was about ten of us and we met once a week. When we were about 3 weeks into the study, I was pulled aside by one of the elders of the church and was told I was too formal and structured in my way of leading this group. He continued to say it needed to be more “conversational”.  What did this change look like? It went from an interactive study of the Scripture and use of the Bible as means of explanation,  to what each person thought and felt. As this Bible study continued on, the rabbit hole got deeper, wider, and way off the topic at hand. We were looking at Ephesians 2:8-9 “For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and not of yourselves it is a gift of God, not of works so no man may boast”. This is pretty cut and dry, wouldn’t you agree? What this says is we are not saved by our own actions or something we can do on our own. We cannot earn salvation and in Isaiah 64:6 this is made very clear. I was hearing stuff like, “Well, I think that if I do enough good works, and help people enough then God will be happy with what I am doing and then I can become a Christian,” or “Well, I don’t think what Paul wrote here applies to us today. It’s too outdated”. As I was hearing this, I wanted to pull my hair out! I finally stood up and said, “Guys, enough! What you are saying is in contradiction to what the Scriptures say.” It was too late, I had already lost the group. They then began to say, “Well Ethan, that’s what you think is true, and that is fine. What’s true for you may not be true for me and it’s left up to each person. It’s ‘relative.’” Does this sound familiar guys? Deconstructonism maybe?

            You are probably wondering why I told you this story; well I want you to see how easy it is to find yourself in a situation in where the “Emergent” way of thinking can trump the believers mind and interpretation of the Scripture. Well, to make a long story short, that was the beginning of my experience within the church. I wont go into more detail about how the pastor would play Semisonic- “Closing Time” before church, or how he referenced certain movies as sermon illustrations, or how I never needed to bring my Bible cause he never used it -- but my eyes were opened. I was in this church for almost four years before I realized what had happened. I then noticed they were endorsing authors and pastors such as Brian Mclaren, Rob Bell, Joel Osteen, and Rick Warren. The church was more concerned with questioning everything; they did not have time for Scripture. Let’s look at Brian Mclaren: he is a Christian pastor within the Emergent movement. He is a post-modernist (truth cannot be known), and endorses progressive Christianity. He was recognized by Time magazine as one of the 25 most influential Evangelicals in 2005! He sounds like a guy who is doing great things in the name of the Lord, right? Mclaren wrote a book called “A New Kind of Christianity.” In this book, he pokes fun at evangelicals and calls to question EVERYTHING they believe. An excerpt from his book says this about what he thinks of the Bible: ”The Bible is a portable library of poems, prophecies, histories, fables, parables, letters, sagely sayings, quarrels, and so on.” 

So if the Bible is a library of poems, prophecies, and fables, what does he base his life off of? What is his source of truth? Romans 14:22-23 sums it up “…whatever is not of faith is sin.” Where is his faith? Think about this statement and what it means. If he does not believe the Bible is from God, written by man through being filled by the Holy Spirit, then you must question your very existence! What then do you have to base your knowledge of right and wrong? What is your source of truth? It cannot be us, we are born into sin (Eph 2:1-3, Psalm 51:5, Romans 3:10-12, Romans 5:19, Romans 3:10-12.) I could share reference after reference where he Bible states we are born into sin, and unless we have a Savior there is no redemption. If you doubt the Bible, then by default you doubt the very basis and core of your belief. And if you don’t believe the Bible is perfect, then you must also doubt the very existence of God! This is a very dangerous path, and where it leads is to destruction. Matthew 7:13 says, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.”

            Here’s some advice I would like to give you. This is a test for you to ask yourself the next time you are at church. (However, I’m sure many of you may go to a great Bible-believing/preaching church and you may not need to ask these questions but it’s always good to re-evaluate from time to time.)

1. Do I use my Bible? Is the message based upon Scripture or is the message based upon a story or experience. Are there multiple supporting verses from Scripture or is there only a single verse used with lots of quotes and stories supporting it? Do you spend a majority of your time in the Bible during your church service or do you spend the majority of your church service listening to stories?
2. Am I hearing a lot of words like: conversation, post-modern, mystery, truth is relative? Is the pastor’s message leading you back to the cross or is his message leaving you further questioning the Bible in the name of “awe” and “wonder”?
3. What authors, or other pastors does my church endorse or support? Do the author’s agree with the church’s doctrinal statement? Do these supported authors or preachers support Biblical truth?

            I know this post was on the long side; however, there are so many people being pulled into the experiential based faith. It is also tough for me to try and sum up the Emergent church in a small blog post. It has been said, trying to describe the Emergent church is like nailing jello to wall. I will be posting more about the Emergent movement, and things to look out for, but hopefully this gets your gears spinning about what to look for. I leave you with a verse from 1 Peter 5:8, “Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”

Resources and further reading:
Further reading on Brian Mclaren, and a review of the book by Scot Mcknight from Christianity Today.' A New Kind of Christianity' review <---Click Link

This is a great message from Bobby Conway on the Emergent Church, Brian Mclaren,Rob Bell, and many other Emergent leaders.

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Analyzing Apologists: Interview with Chad Williams, Former Navy Seal and Author of "Seal of God"

Hey everyone, as I mentioned in a previous post, I want to start interviewing different apologists. We have the opportunity to hear from the author of "Seal of God" for this first installment! If you read my about page you will see that his book was the one that helped spark my desire for apologetics. I'm  grateful to Chad for taking time out of his busy schedule to answer a few of my questions. Read the interview, check out some of his websites and be sure to purchase his book.                                                                                                                        1. When you were on the teams, what was the toughest thing you had to deal with in regards to being a Christian/ SEAL, without one role over-powering the other?

The toughest thing I had to deal with was the friction that occurred between some old buddies and myself after I had died to my old self (2 Corinthians 5:17; Col. 3:3). It has been said that, "the same sun that melts wax, hardens the clay." Any new believer can expect to see such a melting and hardening process occur early on in their spear of influence if you choose to be that sun -- which is to be a light just as Jesus calls us to be in Matthew 5:16, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven." You see, sometimes other men encounter Christian light that ultimately has a melting effect on their heart, as they are convicted of their own sin -- by the work of the Holy Spirit-- and brought into a state where they are bowing the knee before the Creator as-it-were and glorifying God. Other times you let your light shine and it has a different result, a hardening effect. Lets not forget about the flip-side of light. As Jesus puts it in John 3:19-20: "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed." In such a case, you may be a radiant light that makes men living in the darkness of their sin feel uncomfortable around you…It hardens them toward God and toward you! That is the toughest thing I had to deal with while being a Christian in the SEAL teams...being marginalized at times for aligning myself with Jesus as Lord which resulted in some division between myself and comrades stuck in the old ways of living. Misery loves company, and so sometimes they would rather you turn that light off or put it under a basket (Matthew 5:15a).

2. How did/do you deal with these struggles?
I deal with this difficulty by having a "knowing mind" as John MacArthur might put it. James1:2-4 tells us, "My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials,  knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience.  But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing." I knew that God was at work and intimately aware of my situation. I knew He was present in the midst of my struggles and He had a purpose in allowing it. Ultimately, I knew I would become a more mature Christian (that God would get greater use out of me) if I endured. "But He knows the way that I take; when He has tested me, I shall come forth as gold" (Job 23:10).  

3. What advice do you have for current active duty or any other veteran?
Don't just be a soldier for your country but be a soldier for Christ (2 Timothy 2:3-5). Jesus tells us to let our light shine before men, so do the work of an evangelist by being a radiant light that not only shines but communicates the life saving message of the Gospel (Matthew 5:16; Matthew 28:18-20; Romans 1:16; Romans 10:14-17). Charles Studd once wrote, "Only one life, ’twill soon be past, only what’s done for Christ will last. And when I am dying, how happy I’ll be, if the lamp of my life has been burned out for Thee.”

4. Where else can we find you?
Chad Williams Blog:
Twitter: @rationaltruth
Youtube: Rational Responder
Request Chad as Speaker:
Purchase his book: Seal of God

Chad Williams is a former Navy SEAL, having served his country proudly from 2004-2010. Now engaged in full-time ministry work, Chad uses the training and experience he gained as a SEAL to help communicate the Gospel to others. Chad and his wife, Aubrey, live in Huntington Beach, California and they are expecting their first child, a baby girl, and will be naming her Ella. 

Monday, August 27, 2012

Monkey Business

Hey guys! So this particular post is going away from the previous post series I started but this subject I will write on is something that has, for the second day in a row, been coming up in my life. Yesterday after church, a fellow brother in Christ was asking me about how to refute, or argue the evolutionary stance. Then today, in my Religion and Values class we had to briefly write up arguments based off a video between Richard Dawkins and John Mackay. So, this is my “in a nutshell” argument and defense against evolution. You will see I only addressed the main arguments presented in the videos an, but like everything, it leads back to an issue of their heart and what they were pre-supposed to. If you have any additions to this, or have found a specific argument or tactic that would help others out, please post away! I would also love to hear your thoughts.

Below is my response to the question in my class Evolutionary Theory vs. Creationism, from this video:

This is actually really quite remarkable, that we are beginning this class with talking about the Evolutionary theory vs. Creationism as I was just discussing it this week to a friend of mine. The videos you posted were very helpful in seeing the two different sides to the arguments, but one thing I believe we need to take into account, however, is both Dawkins and Mackay's worldview and belief in a "higher power." They are both presupposed to their own beliefs, hence drives what they believe and why they believe it. Because of this, neither one of them are coming into this debate as a "neutral" party. Dawkins is a self-confessed atheist while Mackay is a self-proclaimed, protestant Christian. Both of them are coming into this with their own beliefs that they were raised to believe, and also somewhat of an understanding on what the other believes.

The argument is focused mainly around whether or not evolution is able to be observed. Now with evolution, we have two different formulas that you can look at which is gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Gradualism is the belief that things and beings tend to change or evolve gradually over a period of time in which it should be observable. Punctuated equilibrium basically says that these mutations rely on a specific instance of unique circumstances. A good example is that the world became engulfed underwater and us humans began to evolve into humans with lungs. Now one thing I would have to say on the observation of evolution (and Dawkins admits it as well) is that it is unobservable. Mackay then pins him to that statement which then contradicts evolution as factual, instead of a theory. Dawkins then responds with saying you can't see electrons etc... However, we can run tests and diagnostics in which we can see the atoms, electrons, and other substances un-observable to our eyes. Now let’s look at fossils, which most evolutionists use to support their theory (note that we have not noticed any change in the fossils.) The only thing that fossils could support is the punctuated equilibrium; well, this is a no-brainer. So if we looked at a fossil or a greyhound, and then today we were to mate a greyhound with a Chihuahua, would that dogs fossils not look a lot different than a pure-bred greyhound? So yes, we have seen change in cross-mating species and such, but eventually, if those species were to continue down with mating with each other they would become inbreed, and eventually die out.
   The underlying issue with this argument is that by being in a believer of the Theory of Evolution (which is just that a theory not factual) you ultimately believe in naturalism. Naturalism is the belief that nothing exists outside the means of this universe, or that it does not affect the universe. This belief means that there is no God, that we humans happened by chance, and everything we see is of no consequence to what we do. With this, I would then respond to someone who claims all of the above with three premises using logical syllogism, that argues if naturalism is in fact true than objective moral values do not exist.

1. If objective moral values do not exist, then God does not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore God exists.

 Objective moral values are something that is understandably morally wrong, such as rape, or child molestation. As a naturalist, you are saying that everyone holds their own truth and values within themselves given by nature. If that is indeed true, then that would mean if I were a serial killer and I see no problem with murdering people, according to you that is ok because that is what my inner conscience is saying is correct. However, if you agree that rape, murder, or child molestation is in fact wrong, then you are agreeing with my second premise that objective moral values do exist. And if objective moral values do exist, therefore God exists and is the reason for our nature and our world.

I apologize if I went a little long, however this is a very tough nut to crack in just a few short paragraphs online. Whether you agree or disagree, please comment below and let me know your thoughts.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012



Ok, so were not physically under attack like in the movie Red Dawn where Russians invade the United States by sending in paratroopers. However, what we’re facing is just as dangerous if not more so, with what is infiltrating our church and more specifically, our youth. You are probably wondering what I am referring to, and that is the "love wins" mentality along with experiential books that are corrupting and polluting our minds. What are these books and what are you talking about? There are multitudes of books out there that I am referring to by authors such as Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Dan Kimball, Bill Dahl, and Tony Jones. This list could go on and on, and chances are you may own one of these books by either one of the above authors or by one I didn’t list. The question you need to ask yourself is: what is wrong with these books? While most of the books do promote a form of "godliness" and definitely are self-help, they are NOT rooted in the truths of the Bible. When books focus more on what truth is to us or are hinting that the Bible does not provide a clear cut black and white look on life, warning bells should be ringing! What I am describing to you is deconstructionism, the idea that there is no single meaning of a passage or a line of text. You may be involved with this already in a small group and don’t even realize it is happening. It would look something like this: "Let's read a passage from Scripture: Exodus 20: 1-17, the 10 Commandments." Your small group may read this, and then in a circle “discuss” what this means to you. Some may have the interpretation that murdering in the command, "Thou shalt not murder," literally means killing someone while the other may think something different.  Instead of reading this passage as physical death, someone could say, "I don't believe it's murder if...." which leaves out the Bible as the moral guide. This statement now makes the reader interpret the Scripture to say what he/she wants it to say not what the author intended.  The leader now fails to refer to 1 John 3:15 which states if you hate someone you have committed murder. Why wasn’t this brought up, why are people contextualizing the text to make it say what they want it to say? Well, this deconstructionism leads to the belief that there are no absolute truths, which means things are not black and white but grey. This deconstructionism is different for everyone and their beliefs. Contrary to the writings of the authors above, I am here to tell you that absolute truths do exist and to say otherwise is not Biblical, look at (Deuteronomy 32:4; Isaiah 65:16; John 1:17-18; John 14:6; John 15:26-27; Galatians 2:5).

    I could go on and on pointing out specifics, but instead, let’s look at the correct way to approach Bible studies, small groups, and personal devotion time. The first thing to realize is that the Bible has only one correct interpretation, even though it may apply to several different instances. The deconstructionist would make the passage applicable to the reader, not the author. We need to be aware of the Post-Modern way of thinking (no truth) and consistently return to the Bible. Romans 1:21-22 says, “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” Also, to refute the Post-Modern way of thinking lets also look at 1 Corinthians 3:19, "For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, 'He catches the wise in their craftiness.'” So now that you have an understanding of what deconstructionism is and this “emergent movement” as they like to call it, you should be on guard with your Bible in hand to back up what ever is being said/taught and if it isn’t in the Bible, it is foolishness.

I will continue to go on in this "Under Attack" series. We have an interview lined up with an overseas missionary, apologist, and Bible translator to get some more sound doctrine on what we are facing. Be sure to check back in a few days. God Bless.


Sunday, August 12, 2012

Welcome to Claim Your Brain


Hey everyone, and welcome to my blog! You're probably wondering what this blog is all about and why should you even bother checking it out. Well, I am no popular apologist, speaker, or anyone nationally recognized but I am someone who truly wants to help other Christians learn more about their faith.

What can I expect? 

Through this blog, my aim is to help you learn how to defend your faith, and while doing so I believe you will develop a better understanding of the Bible and how to relay what you have learned to others. My vision for this blog is to post stories and interactions I have had with people, as well as common misconceptions people have about what being a Christian entails. I will also plan on posting video interviews with other apologists, like myself, and asking them questions about how they overcome certain obstacles with defending their faith.

Who are you?
  I am a sold out believer in Jesus Christ, the Savior of all mankind. While I have not yet received formal Apologetics training, I am an aspiring pastor and cannot wait to begin seminary so I can receive the formal training  I need to enhance my skill-set. I have read countless amounts of books on Apologetics, commentaries, and have been studying in Dr. William Lane Craigs' class The Defenders.

   I really hope you enjoy this blog as much as I enjoy writing it. I really look forward to facilitating questions and hearing stories from all of you all on your journey in your Christian life. I can't wait to hear the opportunities you have had to share the gospel and defend the faith!

For more information on the purpose of this blog and answers to common questions, click around the tabs above.