My name is Sam. In 2018, I earned a Master of Divinity in Christian Apologetics at Rawlings School of Divinity, Liberty University. An apologist is one who uses multidisciplinary academic tools in a logical approach to DEFEND the Christian faith, answer hard biblical, philosophical, and existential questions. I am currently finishing a PhD in Public/Foreign Policy at Liberty. Since I rarely have time to socialize in my environment, I came to CDFF in the hope of finding The One - hopefully.
Anyways, while here, I would like to entertain any HARD questions you may have. It doesn't matter what - I will provide you with an objective research-based godly response. No topic is off-limits for me. Only serious-minded believers that are honestly seeking solutions are wlecome. This is not an advertisement for personal services but my way of contributing to the enhancement of the quality of the CDFF platform while I am still registered here. I have seen some posts suggesting that this site is "low grade" just because it is "free" for everyone. I dissent with such views.
So, you're ON - shoot your best question. If it's too personal, inbox me and we could discuss on live chat.
Oooh oooh. I have one (and I'm testing you on the answer)! Jesus says that John the Baptist was the Elijah to come, (Matthew 11:14) but John says that he is not (John 1:21). If one thing is not true that a prophet says, he is regarded as a false prophet. (Deuteronomy 18:21–22) How does an apologist resolve this?
Thank you for question. One glance at it demonstrates that it implicates questions of biblical “inspiration,” infallibility, and inerrancy. In fact, at the core, it’s a question of the authority of the Bible itself – i.e., if evidence of inconsistencies, falsehoods, and such like, could be found in the Bible, doesn’t that discredit the Christian claim to its divine authorship and its standing as an authoritative guide to faith? Well, as an unaffiliated Apologist, I would introduce you to the reasoning process we use to respond to these kinds of textual issues. It is the implication of the question that need to be addressed: Given this apparent discrepancy in the narratives or claims, is the claim to the inspiration, infallibility / inerrancy valid? In short, is the Bible an authoritative guide to faith (in the sense of a perfect/Holy Book?)
First, there are many competing theories of inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy that could be summarized as follows:
Liberal: The Bible contains the Word of God
Left Wing - The writers were inspired from time to time when their natural insight and instinct were "deepened and heightened" to discover divine truths in their day.
Right wing - The Illumination View holds that God allowed pious men of old deep religious insight. They recorded as religious lore their insight or inspiration. Revelation can be found from place to place in the Bible.
Neo-orthodox: The Bible becomes the word of God.
Left Wing - The real truth in the Bible can be separated from the mythology in the Bible by the principle of "demythology." This means that the Bible must be stripped of culture in order to get to the real message. They look beyond the historical to the "super-historical."
Right Wing - The Bible, even the autographs, contain many human errors and imperfections. " The Bible becomes the Word of God when He chooses to use this imperfect channel to confront man with His perfect word." God communicates through this "personal encounter" between the Bible and the Word of God.
Conservative: The Bible is the Word of God.
Left Wing - In order to explain the varies grammar, vocabulary and literary techniques seen it the Bible, the Left-Wing Conservative believes that God gave the thoughts or ideas to the writer and they were "free" to record it "in his own words." Sometimes called "dynamic inspiration."
Right Wing - Verbal Dictation View or Mechanical Dictation. Leaves out any human aspects. The author, writer, prophet was only a "typewriter."
More Detailed Summary of the Various Theories
Natural Inspiration/Intuition: The view of Rationalism and Liberalism that the Bible is “inspired” in the same sense as other great works such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Bhagavad-Gita, and the writings of William Shakespeare. The Bible is not considered uniquely inspired. According to this theory, the writers of Scripture had "special insight," but God did not play a part in the creation of these writings or in supervising the authors. The insight of the writers is a natural endowment. The Bible, then, is entirely the work of man (someone who adheres to this view would not place a very strong emphasis on "inerrancy," for even the most enlightened thinkers make mistakes).
Spiritual Illumination: According to this theory, there was an influence of God on the writers of Scripture, but his influence involved only a heightening of their normal abilities, and an increased sensitivity to spiritual matters. The Bible, then, in this view, is still only a human product (which means that this view also allows for the possibility of errors in the Bible).
Partial Inspiration: The Bible is inspired as it relates to faith and practice, but not necessarily in the areas of history or science. This view forgives biblical mistakes in historical narratives and scientific errors.
Conceptual Inspiration: God inspired the concepts that the fallible Biblical authors interpreted and recorded. Only the ideas and religious concepts in the Bible are "inspired," but the individual words are not.
Uneven Inspiration: This is the Neo-Evangelical view that various books of the Bible are more inspired than others (For instance, that the Psalms are more inspired than Ecclesiastes, or the Gospel of John more than Jude). This is the direct opposite of the Verbal-Plenary view of inspiration where all the words are equally inspired ("All Scripture," 2 Tim. 3:16).
Dynamic Inspiration: According to this theory, the combination of both divine and human elements were at work in the process of inspiration and of the writing of the Bible. God gave the writers the thoughts and concepts but allowed for the writer’s own distinctive personality and choice of words and expressions. Thus, the concepts of Scripture are from God, but they are conveyed through a human instrument (Many who say the Bible is only "spiritually" infallible would agree with this theory. In this perspective, the spiritual concepts are from God, but there is no guarantee that the historical or scientific facts given by the writers are accurate.
Verbal/Plenary: According to this theory, God gave not only the concepts and thoughts to the writers, but He also guided the writers in such a personal way that the words and expressions used were precisely what God wanted them to write (Biblical "inerrancy" according to many who adhere to this theory must mean that all the facts, historical, scientific, philosophical, theological, moral, etc., are correct and not in error).
Divine Dictation: According to this theory, God actually dictated the Bible to the writers. The writers, in a sense, are "human typewriters" on whom God "typed out" his message. Thus, there is very little or no human element in the writing of Scripture. The implications of this theory concerning "inerrancy" are the same as those of the Verbal theory as I further elaborated below..
Neo-Orthodox: According to this theory, the Bible words of the bible are not inspired as such, but the bible becomes the word of God to the individual reading it in a moment of spiritual illumination--an existential encounter when h/she meets God in the pages of Scripture.
• Verbal - the words which are written are God-breathed (inspired).
• Plenary - God gave full expression to His thoughts in the words of the biblical record
More on Verbal/Plenary Inspiration, Inerrancy/Infallibility
This theory asserts that verbal inspiration means that the process of inspiration applies to the very words used in the biblical books. It does not mean that God mechanically dictated the words of the Bible, but that those words express the thoughts that God intended, and being correctly interpreted, are free from errors of fact, doctrine, or judgment. The particular words do not need to be the best words to express the thought, but they must be adequate words to express the thought. In addition, God prepared the authors, the circumstances, and all the motivation for the biblical authors. He did not normally dictate the words at the end of the process. Their freedom is maintained, yet the result is the word of God.
And, with regards to biblical infallibility/inerrancy, this theory maintains that since the Bible is the word of God, it must convey his truth. God cannot lie, and his general revelation and his special revelation cannot be false. This proposition in turn implies that the Bible contains no errors; it is true in its statements – whether historical accounts, narratives, predictions, or scientific claims in the 66 Books. This view would probably explain the discrepancy between Matthew and John in the narrative you cited in terms of post-authorial typos or publishing errors – which I deem an unhelpful solution to an apparent inconsistency of narratives.
The Pentecostal Theory
The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct (2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21)” (KJV). Pentecostals therefore understand the Bible to be the very Word of God in that God himself revealed His will and purposes to chosen writers (Amos 3:8) who faithfully and precisely recorded what had been revealed to them for eventual and providential inclusion in the canon of sixty-six books. In this theory, inspiration means that special act of the Holy Spirit by which He guided the writers of the Scriptures. Such superintendence influenced both their thoughts and their actual choice of words, yet also made full allowance for the divergent backgrounds, abilities, and personalities of the writers. God inspired all they wrote as it is found in the canon of Scripture.
Pentecostals explain infallibility to mean that the Scriptures are true and reliable in what they intend to assert. Inerrancy is a near synonym to infallibility and has been used to reinforce that Scripture as recorded in the original manuscripts, the autographs, is without error. Being without error and completely truthful, the Scriptures are absolutely trustworthy (2 Samuel 7:28; Psalm 119:160; John 17:17; Colossians 1:5). In the Pentecostal notion, infallibility and inerrancy likewise apply to all of the Scriptures. Hence, scriptural authority means that everything the Bible affirms and teaches is true and cannot be questioned, challenged, reviewed, or improved upon. As God’s disclosed “will and purpose,” it is determinative for belief and behavior. Therefore, the affirmation that the Bible is the “authoritative rule of faith and conduct” is understood by all Pentecostals to require accepting the Scriptures as the final and unchanging authority for doctrine and ethics.
Arguably, depending on your denominational or theological perspective, each of the foregoing theories can help you resolve the Matthew vs. John narrative anomalies – plus the many inconsistencies found in the Bible. For me, the point is to acknowledge the obvious before struggling to either explain it away or explain it logically and objectively.
Some Key Passages Used for Inspiration Discuss
2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
• All Scripture – Inspiration is plenary – that is, all the words are equally inspired in every book. • Inspired – lit. "God-breathed out." The Scripture is not in-spired by God, but ex-spired by Him.
II Peter 1:20-21 "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."
• Roman Catholicism interprets this verse to mean that no person should interpret Scripture by apart from the guidance of the church. But, given the context of the apostolic message, the passage means that no prophecy originated from the prophet’s own interpretation or understanding, but from God himself.
• "Moved along" can also be translated “carried along” or used to describe a leaf or sail being blown by the wind. This describes the Spirit’s guidance of the original writers.
1 Corinthians 2:12 "not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words."
• The Scripture is not the best of human wisdom, but it is the Word of God Himself.
• The second chapter of 1 Corinthians is about God’s revelation through the Holy Spirit.
You danced around the question but you never answered how to resolve the paradox. :P When you debate against atheists and the like, they will try to get you to admit that the Bible has errors, and then proceed to "move the goalposts" to prove their points. That's why it's important to rely on the Holy Spirit for your answers. There are many who would be argue well that because you admit that there are some who believe that the bible isn't without flaws, it shouldn't be used as a reliable source. And they would persuade people with sophistry.
Now then to the question at hand how do we resolve the two statements that seem to be in conflict? Jesus says that John is Elijah, and John says he is not. The answer lies in Elijah's past, in the one who succeeded him. Elisha was the one who was the last to see Elijah taken up into heaven, after which he asked for a double portion of Elijah's spirit (2Kings 2:9) In other words, who Elijah was, his essence was placed into Elisha foreshadowing when Jesus's "new man" would be placed in us. Was Elisha Elijah? No. Did he act as a doubly strong version of Elijah would? Yes. Now here's a part that is wonderful. We know that when we put on Christ we are considered as one with Christ
"So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." Galatians 3:26-29
If we are considered one because we put on Christ then we can reason that John was one with Elijah because he had his spirit. Therefore he was John and Elijah both. Thus explains the paradox.
You're so wrong in your approach to respond to presumed "atheists" because your counter-response here is alrea fraught with many logical fallacies that will help an etheist to tear your argument apart easily. First, you began with False appeal to authority for using the same Bible being challenged to answer the challenger. This is also a form of bandwagon and begging the question by thumbing more unrelated verses taken out of their contexts. And of course, your slippery slope leads to the obvious fact of A Priori reasoing in which you began with your already preexisting set of dogma to answer an atheists philosophical challenge to your biblical claim. I am showing you a better way - but it's your choice how to proceed.
I answered your question by providing you with many lenses through which you could resolve what you think is an apparent inconsistency. It is your question - not mine. I'm not struggling with such non-essentials because they're elementary to my faith. Good luck!
If a new Christian asked why some Christians seem to suffer a lot while those who admit are members of cults seem to have their lives much easier. How would you answer them. How best would you encourage the new Christian to stay in the faith.
"your counter-response here is alrea fraught with many logical fallacies that will help an etheist to tear your argument apart easily. First, you began with False appeal to authority for using the same Bible being challenged to answer the challenger. This is also a form of bandwagon and begging the question by thumbing more unrelated verses taken out of their contexts."
It's a smokescreen. They denounce the bible because they love sin more than they love God. As C. S. Lewis would say, you keep first things first, you will get both first and second things but if you make second things first, it will become a demon. So lets take a look at your statements. "False appeal to authority" in regards to the bible. Any apologist worth their salt knows how to establish the authority of the bible and the moment you try to compromise on that authority you give nay-sayers of the bible the opportunity to say, "Aha, why would I base my life on something that has errors!" The word and testimony of God is true. So this not a false appeal to authority. Secondly, you failed to demonstrate how the scriptures are taken out of context. Putting on Christ makes it so that we are able to be seen as one with Christ and his righteousness. If we don't have that, we have no hope of being saved. This is a core principle of Christianity! On this point, I find the statement to be a bare assertion (a claim made without any supporting evidence). Once you establish the authority of the bible, (do you know how to do this?) Shall the logic of man justify what God has said? Shall what was made say to it's Maker, "I shall be the arbiter of what is just and true." No, the authority of the Greater is better than the authority of the lesser. "but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness," -1 Corinthians 1:23
What does Jesus say about the word? “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’" -Luke 16:27-31
Therefore if one does not believe the prophets and the scriptures, they will not believe a Christ risen and you will have needlessly compromised on your believe in the authority of the scriptures and allowed unbelievers to defame the gospel. Do not do such a thing.
Hey Sam, that was a nice dance around the question. Why didn’t you just say you don’t know the answer⁉️⁉️🤣😅😁😇
Oh, and Sam, what’s that fallacy called when a person fallaciously accuses another person of logical errors without proving the error before the accusation⁉️⁉️
Sam, all you’ve proven is how you can dance around in a one step and ignore questions when they get too hard for you‼️😅
Sam, come on, let’s face it, you’re just not a good advertisement for Liberty U‼️‼️
But at least you’re good at one thing—hurling accusations at the questioners you’ve invited to your thread. Ahhh seems like there’s a fallacy that explains that action too‼️‼️‼️🤣😁😇
- hopefully.