You are seriously one of my favorite Christian voices, your personality and approach speak to my heart unlike many others. God bless you brother, stay firm in the faith.
When you mentioned the universe being a “life permitting” one where evolution is even possible I just about cheered. As a theistic evolutionist I’ve never understood the hang ups on evolution that so many Christians and atheists have. I’m so glad someone voiced my thoughts. Thanks Dr Ortlund.
Some people find real issues with there being no historical Adam or eve, as no Adam no original sin/downfall, so death never entered the world, so then why did we need Jesus to die. I’m pretty sure you can get around this a number of ways but that is one of the concerns some people have.
The Christians who have a hangup are the ones who interpret scripture literally. It's not a big mystery why some Christians who believe the Bible is literally true have a problem with evolution. The mystery is why they don't have a problem with the Earth being a globe that revolves around the Sun, because the Bible teaches flat earth and geocentrism. So those Christians who do deny evolution are being wholly inconsistent. One legitimate problem with evolution is that it has the prerequisite of existing life. Evolution does not explain how life started. There is no more idea of how life began than there is knowledge of what caused the big bang. Since it does not explain the genesis of living organisms, evolution fails as an alternative to creationism.
@@tastybeetz1511 I think you can get around the problem of requiring a literal Adam and Eve for original sin by simply ditching the concept of original sin, since original sin, like Purgatory and the infallibility of the Pope, is a doctrine developed by the Catholic Church and does not appear anywhere in scripture.
@Tasty Beetz This is a wildly late replay, kinda feels pointless, but I guess I’ll do it anyway. Your comment just furthers my frustraions with the evolution hang ups, because I believe Adam and Eve to be actual people who lived. I just don’t believe they were the first or only humans ever or of their day. Instead of making a book in the RUclips comments, I’ll just say that InspiringPhilosophy’s Genesis playlist is a good way to represent my beliefs concerning this matter.
Hello, sir! I want to thank you for your videos and your perspective. Doing a lot of good work here. I've subbed to your channel and looking forward to seeing more from you. From a Messianic Jew to you, shalom!
@@adamredwine774 True, we are Christian in that we follow Jesus. However, we are also Jews by way of ethno-religious connotation. Many of us are Jews by blood - my mother's people are Sephardic Crypto-Jews going way back - and the denomination itself is a branch of Judaism, in that it was started primarily by Hebrew Christians who came to affirm Jesus as Messiah, and continued to practice the traditions they were taught and raised. Broadly, Messianic Judaism is a branch of Judaism in that we do not trace our theological heritage back to Christian Protestantism or Christian Orthodoxy. We are in summary, Jews who affirm Jesus as Messiah. It's also a term that shouldn't be necessary, but in our modern world, it helps with the nuances.
@@Talancir " and the denomination itself is a branch of Judaism," I don't agree with this. Religion is a social structure. There is a broad context that defines what a religion is and what sets that religion apart from other religions. A group is a part of a religion only insofar as other members of that religion accept them as such. Modern Judaism does not accept Messianic Judaism as a branch of Judaism. Messianic Judaism is a branch of Christianity. You are welcome to consider yourself as being apart from the orthodox and protestant traditions, but you very much are a part of the Christian religion and you are very much not a part of the Jewish religion.
@@adamredwine774 That's not quite right, is it? Roman Catholicism does not ultimately view Protestantism as Christian, nor does the Orthodoxy ultimately consider the same. Thus, as long as you are not in affirmation of Roman Catholicism and/or the Orthodoxy, you are anathema. Yet we know that these assertions are not true and these institutions are not the fences that define those who are part of the Christian Assembly of Messiah and those who are not. Likewise, we are no less Jewish despite being shunned by the Sanhedrin for our affirmation of Messiah. It is true that we are very much in parallel, rather than branching from, the Christian traditions, and because we affirm Jesus, we are Christian. But we are Jews, not merely because of being Jewish by blood and/or by the heart (via justification) but also because we continue in our traditions as we have been taught, and because we affirm the Law of God by the hand of Moses as the way by which we demonstrate our faith in the God of our fathers.
Thank you so so much Dr Gavin. I don't know if it's our polarizing culture or my natural desire not to offend, but speaking about my faith has always proved difficult for me. So this video, along with all of your content, is enormously helpful. God bless you and your loved ones, and thank you again. Richard.
Richard, something I find helpful that you might ponder is how the Bible says those who suffer for the sake of Christ are blessed. Now in the time that was written, it was referring to being executed in gruesome fashion, that's true, but it should also apply to suffering ridicule or ostracization as well. If you are concerned about the personal cost of sharing your faith in a secular society, just keep in mind that whatever indignity you suffer from doing so carries the promise of Christ that it will be counted to you as righteousness in the next life. Secondly, if your reluctance is due to not wishing to offend others, you must keep in mind that we are commanded to share the gospel. The commands of God take precedence over the feelings of humans. Sharing Christ with the lost is to save them from damnation and that is a benefit to them which far outweighs any initial bad reaction they might experience to the news. I pray the Holy Spirit will help you to find joy in sharing your faith.
Thank you Patrick for your thoughtful reply to my comment - it means a great deal to me. Along with Gavin's helpful content, I shall take on board your wise words as I engage with others on matters of faith. Thank you again, and God bless you. Richard.
Apathy--sadly yes. I gave a relative a Christian booklet that answered questions about God and objections, and was told he had never asked such questions.
In my discussions with atheists, I find that the metaphysical plausibility of God and Christ is not typically the major issue for them - but rather the age-old question of how can a good & loving God allow suffering? It makes it increasingly difficult for me to propose an appealing idea of God when tragedy has occurred to an atheist. And for logical reasons I think. If God exists, why did he allow my spouse or child to die, especially if their death results in them going to hell? As a Christian I completely understand why that would be a major obstacle to somebody accepting God’s existence. And even if they were convinced, it seems to me that it would still be near impossible for them to also believe in hell and still want to love God. How do we approach these scenarios while being extremely sensitive when witnessing?
Orthodox Christian here. What would you make of the skeptical argument that Christ was not a malicious liar, but that he was simply deluded on the particular issue of his divinity? I've heard it put that perhaps Jesus - while a perfectly rational and stable individual on all other accounts - might have been well meaning, and legitimately did think himself to be God (again - without malicious intent), perhaps he was wrong on this particular account. Is such an idea intellectually conceivable? I'll admit that it definitely gave me pause upon me first hearing it. Albeit it is definitely an incredibly nuanced position. I enjoy your work, Mr. Ortlund. Even when I strongly disagree with some of the conclusions. May God bless you and keep you!
One response to the 'multiverse' view that I haven't heard mentioned is: *If* the multiverse hypothesis proposes that there are an infinite number of universes in which an infinite number of possible worlds are actualized...*then*, wouldn't one (working with the suppositions of the multiversal proponent) entail a universe in which the Second Person of a Tri-Personal God takes on flesh, is crucified, and rises again to gather a people into the life of the God of whom He is the revelation? And if so, how would that universe look different from the one we are, in fact, inhabiting at this moment?
An atheist response: Q1: The world didn't "come from" anywhere. The question incorporates a very normal, but flawed, comprehension of the early state of the universe. Modern models of cosmology are quite good and do have some predictive power. I accept that the concepts of fundamental physics are not easy to understand, but they are a far more intellectually satisfying response than to propose that an invisible, thing that is just like a person but more powerful "created" it. "Contingent things..." - The amazing success of modern physics came about largely precisely because it managed to break out of our intuition. I get that physics is not intuitive, and that the answers of religion feel intuitive, but if we want to actually know the truth about how the real universe actually works, it is not intuition that we should follow, it is facts. "...there is no way to understand reality unless there is some infinite ocean in which we are swimming." Nonsense. Much of what you say seems to me to be nothing more than made up gibberish. I have no doubt that you believe it though or that it "makes sense" to you in some fashion. There are lots of ways to "understand reality." It just so happens that, between the two of us, my understanding grants me the power successfully to predict future events. Q2: This is a strawman argument. Functionally no one says the universe is "by accident." Your position is reminiscent of the creationist strawmen of evolution. "So many of the physical constants have to be set 'just right' to this exact precise value." What is the basis for this claim? What is the basis for the proposition that these values could have been different? You say "we could easily imagine the physical constants being different." Okay... and? The fact that we could *imagine* them being different does not mean that they could, in actual fact, have been different. The universe doesn't care what you are capable of imagining. You seem insanely, incredibly, dismissive of the possibility that there are underlying principles that set the physical constants. Q3: It is very telling that apologists always pick the most extreme moral cases for this argument. It is particularly revealing when you have to add the phrase "for fun" to the action of "harming a child" because even you know that there are indeed cases where "harming a child" is morally correct. It is appropriate to cause pain to a child if that pain is from the needle injecting vaccines to deadly diseases. We all know that morality is a complex subject and it is only by picking out the very most extreme cases that you are able to leverage in your argument saying "we all know..." The reason that the most extreme cases seem to work at all is because they are the cases that have been built into us by evolution. A society in which murder is not avoided is a society that does not pass on the genes that say that murder is wrong. "We don't think it's a little wrong when a shark eats a seal..." I strongly disagree with you. As you were describing this scenario I was nodding along thinking "yeah, that's exactly right" and then you say "we don't think that at all!" Clearly what you think is obvious about how humans think is literally the exact opposite of how I, a human, think. Q4: Almost certainly no, it won't matter how we lived a billion years from now. Like many atheists, I find it utterly baffling how so many religious people seem to think that something can only matter if it is absolutely infinite in extent. Like, how do you get to that? Why in the world would something have to be literally infinite to have any meaning? I just don't get it. Q5: I think there probably was a real person that the Biblical character of Jesus was based on. There have been lots of humans who lived and died before I came about. I don't think it is any more plausible to claim that Jesus was a god than to say that Lincoln was a vampire killer. "it's not like oh believing in a naturalistic account of Jesus is really really easy and it takes this wild leap of imagination to consider a divine interpretation of Jesus." What?! What?! Again, I feel literally the EXACT opposite. To believe in a naturalistic account of Jesus seems to me no more difficult than to believe in a naturalistic account of Nefertiti. To believe "a divine interpretation of Jesus" seems to me a wild, vast, gigantic, insane, light-year scale leap, jump, teleportation into coocoo land. Those two different views of a historical character seem to me like the difference between saying that 2+2=4 and saying 2+2=ultraviolet. I literally have difficulty getting my head around how you can make such a statement and have it make anything like any sort of sense to you.
Do you know what resource I can look into to better understand Eastern Orthodoxy’s claims about “apostolic succession” and how they support that claim with evidence? I don’t know if I fully understand how the claim that “inspired traditions” are synergistic with Scripture, and I don’t want to make a caricature of their views. Or perhaps a book on church history within the first 3 centuries?
@@TruthUnites I’m watching the debate you did on “Explain International” discussing whether apostolic succession is “divinely ordained”. Very helpful so far. Just tricky to wrap my head around these church history details when -based on my limited knowledge - I’m still a little lost on the history from 50AD (or so) to the beginning of the 2nd century. Also, the complexity of the “development” of traditions, practices and organizational changes in the church is very new to my understanding of church history. Your thoughts about them being “good” and maybe necessary developments, based on God’s providence, but not necessarily “divinely ordained” have been helpful. Thank you for your hard work and response
Mais ouvrez donc rien que l’Evangile de Saint Marc, … Il leur enseignait beaucoup de choses en paraboles, ou …Il semit à enseigner… on était frappé par son enseignement… c’est par beucoup de paraboles
Voyez donc tout ce qu’on a dit :…Il ne leur parlait pas sans paraboles, mais en privé, Il expliquait tout à Ses disciples ! Marc 4; 34. Où sont toutes Ses explications ? Elles ne sont pas dans les Evangiles ! Alors ? Elles n’ont pas disparu de la mémoire des Apôtres pourtant ! Et c’est ce que l’Eglise a recueilli et appelle la Tradition. C’est simple, comment ne vous l’a-t-on pas appris ? Vous êtes donc des très mal instruits !
11:52 could somebody help me with this. i’ve never understood it. if we “all know” that murder and rape are wrong, then why do some people still murder and rape? even if some of the people who murder and rape end up feeling bad about it, there are definitely some other people who feel absolutely no remorse in doing it.
@TheEmptyChamber Here is my take: all men are enslaved to their sin nature (see Romans 3:23, Ephesians 2:1). All of scripture clearly says, that everyone is dead in sins, and happy to do those things, and the only way to life and freedom from that is through Jesus Christ. Regarding people, who practice severe immorality, without feeling guilt, the Bible provides answers: Some people are given over to reprobate minds (Romans 1), some are seared in their conscience (1. Timothy 4:2). I don't want to make the impression, that all of those, who sin without recognizing it's wrong, belong to the before mentioned categories, since before knowing Christ, all walked like a that. But it is certainly something that can happen. But for anyone reading my comment, consider what the apostle Paul said: "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save SINNERS, of whom I am chief"
You mentioned that God is personal, necessary and simple. Is this considered a common triad that most theologians agree on or is it your own articulation?
At best, I think only the first three questions point to God who is at minimum the source and end of reality: the first concerns the source, the second and third the end (or telos) of reality, cosmologically and ethically. The last two, however, point specifically to Abrahamic and more specially Christian theism: the afterlife and Jesus' identity as God are not necessary to theism per se.
Hi Samuel! Since the Christian God is a God, the last two still count as questions that point to God. In other words, the fact that it’s a more specific example doesn’t mean they stop counting.
@@TruthUnites Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be: the point I wanted to make was just that I think you can make a better case that the first three point to God than the last two - which may point to God but not in as convincing a way.
@@patrickbarnes9874 based on the content, I would say he is some sort of hybrid view. Many reformed apologists are classical such as R.C. Sproul but I don't think Gavin adheres as strictly to van tillian apologetics
Even if the multiverse existed, I don't know that would be incompatible with God. I like to think that God is somehow connected with mathematics, since mathematics seem to explain all material relationships, both those that exist, and all those that might possibly exist but don't. This fits in well with the first mover argument, Goedel's theorem, and the Entscheidungsproblem, if you imagine God to be something like a necessary premise, from which all other arguments can be derived, but which cannot itself be derived from anything. In that case, I might imagine that the infinite, abstract God of possibilities decided to create matter as a reflection of himself. If that is the case, then it might make sense that God would create an infinite universe/multiverse, in order to try to tangibly reflect the infinity of potential within himself. Of course, this isn't exactly compatible with Christian teaching, unless you believe that God decided just not to bother to tell us about anything outside of Earth because it would just confuse and distract us. This line of thought makes you think that maybe God has already incarnated a large number of times for many different sentient beings on different planets and universes.
What if someone applied the "lord, liar, or lunatic" argument to Pharaoh's of ancient Egypt? I'm not sure we could say they were liars, it was their cultural beliefs that Pharohs were gods. They were raised that way. And having a single crazy belief like that doesn't make them wholesale Lunatics correct? So what seperates Jesus grand claims from that of the Pharaoh's? Is it that he made his claims in a culture that was abrasive to such claims? Is that sufficient to ensure only a completely crazy human would claim to be one and the same with God and be honest about it without actually being right?
You spoke a bit about animals so I am wondering if you can shed some light on a big issue I have with Christianity. Humans suffer, and I'm told this is because we have been given free will so that we can do good things on our own accord. Why would god create animals with sentience and the abity to feel pain just as we do when they have no moral agency to do right or wrong? Doesn't this make their suffering meaningless?
What's wrong with suffering? You assume there is something wrong with it. No God, nothing wrong. And second, most animals are fundamentally happy most of the time. They joy of animals means something if suffering does.
@@toomanymarys7355 Sorry why do you need God to recognize suffering? If you were being chased with a knife, wouldn't you would run away regardless of whether or not you've ever picked up a Bible? All animals avoid pain, don't they? For wild animals especially, their lives are often short and full of pain. I don't understand what the purpose of this would be.
Jesus SPECIFICALLY refers to Adam & Eve. Paul SPECIFICALLY tells us that sin came through ONE MAN - Adam. Jesus, Paul, and John all tell us that Jesus' Blood is NECESSARY to save us from sin. Paul tells us to preach any other 'gospel' makes us 'accursed'. There was no death BEFORE sin, thus there was no death BEFORE Adam. To assert anything else we must first call Jesus, Paul, John, and even Peter willful liars (not to mention Moses). This is EXACTLY how Satan works!!! In Christ's Love
You are seriously one of my favorite Christian voices, your personality and approach speak to my heart unlike many others. God bless you brother, stay firm in the faith.
thanks a lot, so glad the videos are helpful!
Who Is God and what is His View of One Thousand Years?( 1 minute and 29 seconds)
ruclips.net/video/Sx60l42Mo5Q/видео.html
When you mentioned the universe being a “life permitting” one where evolution is even possible I just about cheered. As a theistic evolutionist I’ve never understood the hang ups on evolution that so many Christians and atheists have. I’m so glad someone voiced my thoughts. Thanks Dr Ortlund.
Some people find real issues with there being no historical Adam or eve, as no Adam no original sin/downfall, so death never entered the world, so then why did we need Jesus to die. I’m pretty sure you can get around this a number of ways but that is one of the concerns some people have.
The Christians who have a hangup are the ones who interpret scripture literally. It's not a big mystery why some Christians who believe the Bible is literally true have a problem with evolution. The mystery is why they don't have a problem with the Earth being a globe that revolves around the Sun, because the Bible teaches flat earth and geocentrism. So those Christians who do deny evolution are being wholly inconsistent.
One legitimate problem with evolution is that it has the prerequisite of existing life. Evolution does not explain how life started. There is no more idea of how life began than there is knowledge of what caused the big bang. Since it does not explain the genesis of living organisms, evolution fails as an alternative to creationism.
@@tastybeetz1511 I think you can get around the problem of requiring a literal Adam and Eve for original sin by simply ditching the concept of original sin, since original sin, like Purgatory and the infallibility of the Pope, is a doctrine developed by the Catholic Church and does not appear anywhere in scripture.
@Tasty Beetz This is a wildly late replay, kinda feels pointless, but I guess I’ll do it anyway. Your comment just furthers my frustraions with the evolution hang ups, because I believe Adam and Eve to be actual people who lived. I just don’t believe they were the first or only humans ever or of their day. Instead of making a book in the RUclips comments, I’ll just say that InspiringPhilosophy’s Genesis playlist is a good way to represent my beliefs concerning this matter.
@@patrickbarnes9874that’s false… but you can be a theistic evolutionists and hold to a historical Adam
Hello, sir! I want to thank you for your videos and your perspective. Doing a lot of good work here. I've subbed to your channel and looking forward to seeing more from you. From a Messianic Jew to you, shalom!
Thanks a lot! Glad to be connected to you!
Why do Messianic's call themselves "Jews"? I mean... the word "Christian" literally describes exactly the position that you take.
@@adamredwine774 True, we are Christian in that we follow Jesus. However, we are also Jews by way of ethno-religious connotation. Many of us are Jews by blood - my mother's people are Sephardic Crypto-Jews going way back - and the denomination itself is a branch of Judaism, in that it was started primarily by Hebrew Christians who came to affirm Jesus as Messiah, and continued to practice the traditions they were taught and raised.
Broadly, Messianic Judaism is a branch of Judaism in that we do not trace our theological heritage back to Christian Protestantism or Christian Orthodoxy. We are in summary, Jews who affirm Jesus as Messiah.
It's also a term that shouldn't be necessary, but in our modern world, it helps with the nuances.
@@Talancir " and the denomination itself is a branch of Judaism," I don't agree with this. Religion is a social structure. There is a broad context that defines what a religion is and what sets that religion apart from other religions. A group is a part of a religion only insofar as other members of that religion accept them as such. Modern Judaism does not accept Messianic Judaism as a branch of Judaism. Messianic Judaism is a branch of Christianity. You are welcome to consider yourself as being apart from the orthodox and protestant traditions, but you very much are a part of the Christian religion and you are very much not a part of the Jewish religion.
@@adamredwine774 That's not quite right, is it? Roman Catholicism does not ultimately view Protestantism as Christian, nor does the Orthodoxy ultimately consider the same. Thus, as long as you are not in affirmation of Roman Catholicism and/or the Orthodoxy, you are anathema. Yet we know that these assertions are not true and these institutions are not the fences that define those who are part of the Christian Assembly of Messiah and those who are not. Likewise, we are no less Jewish despite being shunned by the Sanhedrin for our affirmation of Messiah.
It is true that we are very much in parallel, rather than branching from, the Christian traditions, and because we affirm Jesus, we are Christian. But we are Jews, not merely because of being Jewish by blood and/or by the heart (via justification) but also because we continue in our traditions as we have been taught, and because we affirm the Law of God by the hand of Moses as the way by which we demonstrate our faith in the God of our fathers.
Thank you! Love from a Orthodox Christian ☦
Thank you so so much Dr Gavin. I don't know if it's our polarizing culture or my natural desire not to offend, but speaking about my faith has always proved difficult for me. So this video, along with all of your content, is enormously helpful. God bless you and your loved ones, and thank you again. Richard.
Who Is God and what is His View of One Thousand Years?( 1 minute and 29 seconds)
ruclips.net/video/Sx60l42Mo5Q/видео.html
Richard, something I find helpful that you might ponder is how the Bible says those who suffer for the sake of Christ are blessed. Now in the time that was written, it was referring to being executed in gruesome fashion, that's true, but it should also apply to suffering ridicule or ostracization as well. If you are concerned about the personal cost of sharing your faith in a secular society, just keep in mind that whatever indignity you suffer from doing so carries the promise of Christ that it will be counted to you as righteousness in the next life.
Secondly, if your reluctance is due to not wishing to offend others, you must keep in mind that we are commanded to share the gospel. The commands of God take precedence over the feelings of humans. Sharing Christ with the lost is to save them from damnation and that is a benefit to them which far outweighs any initial bad reaction they might experience to the news.
I pray the Holy Spirit will help you to find joy in sharing your faith.
Thank you Patrick for your thoughtful reply to my comment - it means a great deal to me. Along with Gavin's helpful content, I shall take on board your wise words as I engage with others on matters of faith. Thank you again, and God bless you. Richard.
Apathy--sadly yes. I gave a relative a Christian booklet that answered questions about God and objections, and was told he had never asked such questions.
Bless you brother. Really appreciate your teachings and the spirit in how you approach people and topics
Genius in simplicity
Thank you for this video, it is so helpful
I really enjoyed this video! Great stuff as always! Love your approach to discussions to keep it cordial. I agree, it can get very nasty
Great video Gavin. Here's another simple question. Who has more to lose if they're wrong?
Super helpful.
Who Is God and what is His View of One Thousand Years?( 1 minute and 29 seconds)
ruclips.net/video/Sx60l42Mo5Q/видео.html
Good job.
In my discussions with atheists, I find that the metaphysical plausibility of God and Christ is not typically the major issue for them - but rather the age-old question of how can a good & loving God allow suffering?
It makes it increasingly difficult for me to propose an appealing idea of God when tragedy has occurred to an atheist. And for logical reasons I think. If God exists, why did he allow my spouse or child to die, especially if their death results in them going to hell?
As a Christian I completely understand why that would be a major obstacle to somebody accepting God’s existence. And even if they were convinced, it seems to me that it would still be near impossible for them to also believe in hell and still want to love God.
How do we approach these scenarios while being extremely sensitive when witnessing?
Orthodox Christian here.
What would you make of the skeptical argument that Christ was not a malicious liar, but that he was simply deluded on the particular issue of his divinity? I've heard it put that perhaps Jesus - while a perfectly rational and stable individual on all other accounts - might have been well meaning, and legitimately did think himself to be God (again - without malicious intent), perhaps he was wrong on this particular account. Is such an idea intellectually conceivable? I'll admit that it definitely gave me pause upon me first hearing it. Albeit it is definitely an incredibly nuanced position.
I enjoy your work, Mr. Ortlund. Even when I strongly disagree with some of the conclusions. May God bless you and keep you!
One response to the 'multiverse' view that I haven't heard mentioned is: *If* the multiverse hypothesis proposes that there are an infinite number of universes in which an infinite number of possible worlds are actualized...*then*, wouldn't one (working with the suppositions of the multiversal proponent) entail a universe in which the Second Person of a Tri-Personal God takes on flesh, is crucified, and rises again to gather a people into the life of the God of whom He is the revelation? And if so, how would that universe look different from the one we are, in fact, inhabiting at this moment?
An atheist response:
Q1: The world didn't "come from" anywhere. The question incorporates a very normal, but flawed, comprehension of the early state of the universe. Modern models of cosmology are quite good and do have some predictive power. I accept that the concepts of fundamental physics are not easy to understand, but they are a far more intellectually satisfying response than to propose that an invisible, thing that is just like a person but more powerful "created" it.
"Contingent things..." - The amazing success of modern physics came about largely precisely because it managed to break out of our intuition. I get that physics is not intuitive, and that the answers of religion feel intuitive, but if we want to actually know the truth about how the real universe actually works, it is not intuition that we should follow, it is facts.
"...there is no way to understand reality unless there is some infinite ocean in which we are swimming." Nonsense. Much of what you say seems to me to be nothing more than made up gibberish. I have no doubt that you believe it though or that it "makes sense" to you in some fashion. There are lots of ways to "understand reality." It just so happens that, between the two of us, my understanding grants me the power successfully to predict future events.
Q2: This is a strawman argument. Functionally no one says the universe is "by accident." Your position is reminiscent of the creationist strawmen of evolution.
"So many of the physical constants have to be set 'just right' to this exact precise value." What is the basis for this claim? What is the basis for the proposition that these values could have been different?
You say "we could easily imagine the physical constants being different." Okay... and? The fact that we could *imagine* them being different does not mean that they could, in actual fact, have been different. The universe doesn't care what you are capable of imagining. You seem insanely, incredibly, dismissive of the possibility that there are underlying principles that set the physical constants.
Q3: It is very telling that apologists always pick the most extreme moral cases for this argument. It is particularly revealing when you have to add the phrase "for fun" to the action of "harming a child" because even you know that there are indeed cases where "harming a child" is morally correct. It is appropriate to cause pain to a child if that pain is from the needle injecting vaccines to deadly diseases. We all know that morality is a complex subject and it is only by picking out the very most extreme cases that you are able to leverage in your argument saying "we all know..." The reason that the most extreme cases seem to work at all is because they are the cases that have been built into us by evolution. A society in which murder is not avoided is a society that does not pass on the genes that say that murder is wrong.
"We don't think it's a little wrong when a shark eats a seal..." I strongly disagree with you. As you were describing this scenario I was nodding along thinking "yeah, that's exactly right" and then you say "we don't think that at all!" Clearly what you think is obvious about how humans think is literally the exact opposite of how I, a human, think.
Q4: Almost certainly no, it won't matter how we lived a billion years from now. Like many atheists, I find it utterly baffling how so many religious people seem to think that something can only matter if it is absolutely infinite in extent. Like, how do you get to that? Why in the world would something have to be literally infinite to have any meaning? I just don't get it.
Q5: I think there probably was a real person that the Biblical character of Jesus was based on. There have been lots of humans who lived and died before I came about. I don't think it is any more plausible to claim that Jesus was a god than to say that Lincoln was a vampire killer.
"it's not like oh believing in a naturalistic account of Jesus is really really easy and it takes this wild leap of imagination to consider a divine interpretation of Jesus." What?! What?! Again, I feel literally the EXACT opposite. To believe in a naturalistic account of Jesus seems to me no more difficult than to believe in a naturalistic account of Nefertiti. To believe "a divine interpretation of Jesus" seems to me a wild, vast, gigantic, insane, light-year scale leap, jump, teleportation into coocoo land. Those two different views of a historical character seem to me like the difference between saying that 2+2=4 and saying 2+2=ultraviolet. I literally have difficulty getting my head around how you can make such a statement and have it make anything like any sort of sense to you.
Hi Dr. Ortlund! Helpful video, thank you. How do you reconcile divine simplicity with God existing in 3 persons?
Do you know what resource I can look into to better understand Eastern Orthodoxy’s claims about “apostolic succession” and how they support that claim with evidence?
I don’t know if I fully understand how the claim that “inspired traditions” are synergistic with Scripture, and I don’t want to make a caricature of their views.
Or perhaps a book on church history within the first 3 centuries?
have you watched my video on apostolic succession? I'll think on it and let you know if a good book comes to mind...
@@TruthUnites
I’m watching the debate you did on “Explain International” discussing whether apostolic succession is “divinely ordained”.
Very helpful so far. Just tricky to wrap my head around these church history details when -based on my limited knowledge - I’m still a little lost on the history from 50AD (or so) to the beginning of the 2nd century.
Also, the complexity of the “development” of traditions, practices and organizational changes in the church is very new to my understanding of church history.
Your thoughts about them being “good” and maybe necessary developments, based on God’s providence, but not necessarily “divinely ordained” have been helpful.
Thank you for your hard work and response
@@shizlegizmgar awesome, glad it's of use! The Lord bless you in your study.
Mais ouvrez donc rien que l’Evangile de Saint Marc, … Il leur enseignait beaucoup de choses en paraboles, ou …Il semit à enseigner… on était frappé par son enseignement… c’est par beucoup de paraboles
Voyez donc tout ce qu’on a dit :…Il ne leur parlait pas sans paraboles, mais en privé, Il expliquait tout à Ses disciples ! Marc 4; 34. Où sont toutes Ses explications ? Elles ne sont pas dans les Evangiles ! Alors ? Elles n’ont pas disparu de la mémoire des Apôtres pourtant ! Et c’est ce que l’Eglise a recueilli et appelle la Tradition. C’est simple, comment ne vous l’a-t-on pas appris ? Vous êtes donc des très mal instruits !
11:52 could somebody help me with this. i’ve never understood it. if we “all know” that murder and rape are wrong, then why do some people still murder and rape? even if some of the people who murder and rape end up feeling bad about it, there are definitely some other people who feel absolutely no remorse in doing it.
@TheEmptyChamber Here is my take: all men are enslaved to their sin nature (see Romans 3:23, Ephesians 2:1). All of scripture clearly says, that everyone is dead in sins, and happy to do those things, and the only way to life and freedom from that is through Jesus Christ. Regarding people, who practice severe immorality, without feeling guilt, the Bible provides answers: Some people are given over to reprobate minds (Romans 1), some are seared in their conscience (1. Timothy 4:2). I don't want to make the impression, that all of those, who sin without recognizing it's wrong, belong to the before mentioned categories, since before knowing Christ, all walked like a that. But it is certainly something that can happen.
But for anyone reading my comment, consider what the apostle Paul said: "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save SINNERS, of whom I am chief"
You mentioned that God is personal, necessary and simple. Is this considered a common triad that most theologians agree on or is it your own articulation?
I don't think you can abandon any of those and still claim to hold to historic, creedal Christianity.
@@SotS1689 I agree but could you still add a fourth? I’m wondering if those 3 are considered core?
@@leepretorius4869 There are certainly other things essential to historic, creedal Christianity, but those are three very central concepts.
The last two are required. The first is the best explanation for consciousness and agent causation.
Who Is God and what is His View of One Thousand Years?( 1 minute and 29 seconds)
ruclips.net/video/Sx60l42Mo5Q/видео.html
At best, I think only the first three questions point to God who is at minimum the source and end of reality: the first concerns the source, the second and third the end (or telos) of reality, cosmologically and ethically. The last two, however, point specifically to Abrahamic and more specially Christian theism: the afterlife and Jesus' identity as God are not necessary to theism per se.
Hi Samuel! Since the Christian God is a God, the last two still count as questions that point to God. In other words, the fact that it’s a more specific example doesn’t mean they stop counting.
@@TruthUnites Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be: the point I wanted to make was just that I think you can make a better case that the first three point to God than the last two - which may point to God but not in as convincing a way.
@@samuelwatkinson interesting, thanks for clarifying. Personally I see (5) as forceful but to some extent these are person relative, perhaps.
What do you mean by the ethical end of reality? I've never heard of such a concept, but it sounds interesting.
Dr. Gavin are you a Pressup or Classical apologist ?
He's reformed. Presup is the standard position of reformed apologists in my experience.
@@patrickbarnes9874 based on the content, I would say he is some sort of hybrid view. Many reformed apologists are classical such as R.C. Sproul but I don't think Gavin adheres as strictly to van tillian apologetics
I think Greg Koukl is pronounced “coke-el” not “kook-el” just fyi.
Even if the multiverse existed, I don't know that would be incompatible with God. I like to think that God is somehow connected with mathematics, since mathematics seem to explain all material relationships, both those that exist, and all those that might possibly exist but don't. This fits in well with the first mover argument, Goedel's theorem, and the Entscheidungsproblem, if you imagine God to be something like a necessary premise, from which all other arguments can be derived, but which cannot itself be derived from anything. In that case, I might imagine that the infinite, abstract God of possibilities decided to create matter as a reflection of himself. If that is the case, then it might make sense that God would create an infinite universe/multiverse, in order to try to tangibly reflect the infinity of potential within himself. Of course, this isn't exactly compatible with Christian teaching, unless you believe that God decided just not to bother to tell us about anything outside of Earth because it would just confuse and distract us. This line of thought makes you think that maybe God has already incarnated a large number of times for many different sentient beings on different planets and universes.
What if someone applied the "lord, liar, or lunatic" argument to Pharaoh's of ancient Egypt?
I'm not sure we could say they were liars, it was their cultural beliefs that Pharohs were gods. They were raised that way. And having a single crazy belief like that doesn't make them wholesale Lunatics correct?
So what seperates Jesus grand claims from that of the Pharaoh's? Is it that he made his claims in a culture that was abrasive to such claims? Is that sufficient to ensure only a completely crazy human would claim to be one and the same with God and be honest about it without actually being right?
You spoke a bit about animals so I am wondering if you can shed some light on a big issue I have with Christianity. Humans suffer, and I'm told this is because we have been given free will so that we can do good things on our own accord. Why would god create animals with sentience and the abity to feel pain just as we do when they have no moral agency to do right or wrong? Doesn't this make their suffering meaningless?
What's wrong with suffering? You assume there is something wrong with it. No God, nothing wrong.
And second, most animals are fundamentally happy most of the time. They joy of animals means something if suffering does.
@@toomanymarys7355 Sorry why do you need God to recognize suffering? If you were being chased with a knife, wouldn't you would run away regardless of whether or not you've ever picked up a Bible? All animals avoid pain, don't they? For wild animals especially, their lives are often short and full of pain. I don't understand what the purpose of this would be.
It seems Jesus likes to answer skeptics with questions at times too.
I like using the image of a new lion taking over the tribe and killing the cubs vs child murder.
Jesus SPECIFICALLY refers to Adam & Eve.
Paul SPECIFICALLY tells us that sin came through ONE MAN - Adam.
Jesus, Paul, and John all tell us that Jesus' Blood is NECESSARY to save us from sin.
Paul tells us to preach any other 'gospel' makes us 'accursed'.
There was no death BEFORE sin, thus there was no death BEFORE Adam.
To assert anything else we must first call Jesus, Paul, John, and even Peter willful liars (not to mention Moses).
This is EXACTLY how Satan works!!!
In Christ's Love