This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled
Posted: 24 Jan 2018 01:48 AM PST
If you’re like me, you feel a sense of duty and responsibility
as an ambassador of Jesus to share the Good News with others;
And if they are not like you, you cannot find anything in the NT condemning Christians who don't feel themselves called to be evangelists or apologists or bible teachers.
the Great
Commission calling to make disciples.
The Great Commission actually requires that Jesus' followers not simply teach "the gospel" to new converts, but to require new followers or convert to "obey" all that Jesus had taught the original apostles:
18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matt. 28:18-20 NAU)
And since it was obviously Matthew's author who recorded this, and since it is obvious that the vast majority of Matthew's gospel concerns all that Jesus taught before he died on the Cross, it is clear that Matthew's author understand this part of the Great Commission to require Jesus' disciples to teach future converts to "obey" all those pre-Cross teachings.
That's where you fail, Wallace. You seem to think there's no need to teach Gentile converts about leaving their gift at the altar in the Temple and go be first reconciled with their brother (Matthew 5:23 ff) since, obviously, obeying that teaching of Jesus was rendered impossible by Titus' destruction of the Temple in a.d. 70. That's where you falter, thinking that surely Jesus doesn't require his followers to do the impossible, when in fact you don't have the first clue as to whether such a text requires you to interpret it in light of later events, or whether it implies that Jesus, at that point in his career, had no suspicion that future events would render many of his teachings impossible to obey. You just blindly assume Jesus is God, therefore, any answer that gets God out of trouble, is surely preferable to an answer that would put you out of your attention-whore business. That's right, you fucking hypocrite,
you put yourself at the center of attention by your acts of telling others to focus on Jesus. So when I call you an attention-whore, your history of telling others to focus on Jesus is precisely the justification for such. Especially in light of the fact that your "cold case Christianity, case-maker" bullshit is nothing but a modern-day marketing gimmick that, once again, requires you to put yourself front and center. Yes, I extend that criticism to every Christian who obsessively puts themselves in the media spotlight the way you do, including attention whore apostle Paul.
At the same time, you may not feel like
an accomplished or gifted evangelist.
And that might be because God doesn't want them to do that kind of shit.
Don’t feel bad, it’s a common sentiment.
Peter’s admonition has comforted and guided me over the years in my efforts to
share the Gospel with others:
1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be
prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the
hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear
conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in
Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
Peter is talking to all of us who call ourselves Christians.
If you can find exceptions to Jesus' statement in Matthew 28:20, expect other Christians to see exceptions to 1st Peter 3:15.
We have an explicit and specific responsibility.
Yes, to give an answer
to those who ask. Nothing here about confronting those who don't ask.
While not every Christian may
be a gifted or called evangelist, all of us have a responsibility to become
competent Christian Case Makers.
Translation: all of us have a responsibility
to purchase the Case Maker marketing gimmicks of J. Warner Wallace, and a duty to stop listening to skeptics who accuse him of selectively applying only those facets of American jurisprudence that help him while ignoring those that put him in the toilet.
But, Peter does more than call us to duty; he
also provides us with a strategy.
Peter was talking to first century Christians, and the burden is on you to show that he intended his comments to be read by future generations of Christians, a task I've not seen any Christian scholar or apologist fulfill yet. Since the Mt. of Transfiguration event did not include angels nor Jesus rewarding every man according to his works, it would appear that when Jesus says there are some standing there with him who will not taste death until he returns in glory (Matthew 16:28), Jesus intended for his hearers to believe his second coming would take place in the first century. Because you push bible inerrancy, you are required to read Peter's admonitions through the the assumption that Jesus would return before the end of the first century. Like I said, putting the burden on you to show that Peter intended this epistle to govern the lives and conduct of Christians who would live after Jesus comes back and restores justice to the world.
I think this is the part where you suddenly discover that "god" had lead you miraculously through the criticisms of a skeptic, to the glorious truth of Preterism. You know, something, anything to avoid having to admit the false doctrine of bible inerrancy is false.
Peter asks us to be “responsive” Christians.
He calls us to always be ready to respond to those who have questions about
what we believe.
And God obviously fails in his responsibility to do his part to empower Christians to do such things. You say God gave Adam and Eve freewill, so the creator of the universe allows human freewill to get in his way? Your Calvinist brothers say God is the reason that any authentically born again Christian fails in his or her duty to to teach and preach. So...given that bible inerrancy can't possibly be a false doctrine, did you suddenly discover that Calvinism is biblical? Or are you somehow content to give lip-service to the notion that God has his own responsibility to empower Christians to teach and preach, and rely on your own self-serving speculations absolving God of blame when you look at today's Christianity and see what a fucking mess it is?
When I talk with other Christians about this notion of
becoming a “Responsive Christian”, they sometimes worry that I am suggesting a
fragile and meek form of Christianity that is timid and tentative; a form of
the faith that is patiently waiting to respond, but afraid to make the first
move.
the verse you supplied only talks about responding to those who "ask". Not all unbelievers "ask".
This is not what Peter is advocating. As a boy, I remember watching the
fight between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman.
If you wish to convince the reader that your interpretation of 1st Peter 3:18 is correct, you must resort to Peter's grammar and immediate context. These are valid tools of interpretation. What you remember from watching unChristian boxing matches does not constitute valid hermeneutics. And yet you cite to unChristian boxing in your effort to support the premise that Peter is not teaching that Christians need to wait for the unbeliever to make the first move.
I was a huge boxing fan at the
time, and, like everyone else, I had been watching Foreman come up through the
ranks, including his dismantling of Joe Frazier on his way to the fight with
Ali. Foreman was a scary guy. He was a brutal puncher. He had a bad attitude. I
was worried for Ali. In the first rounds of their fight, Foreman threw
everything he had at Muhammad Ali. Hundreds of punches. Ali did something very
unusual, however; he simply stayed on the ropes and let Foreman throw his
punches. He took everything Foreman could offer for several rounds, until
Foreman was exhausted. Then, Ali became the consummate counter puncher through
the middle of the fight. In the late rounds of the fight, Ali eventually came
off the ropes and became the aggressor, delivering a few concise, targeted
punches that dropped an exhausted George Foreman to the canvas. Ali won one of
the biggest fights of his life and Foreman was never the same. Ali learned the
value of being a “Responsive Boxer”:
Ali was the guy everyone wanted to fight
Ali was willing to enter the ring with Foreman
Ali took Foreman’s best and maneuvered Foreman into position
Ali delivered his best when the time was right
So in your view, if a Christian doesn't feel compelled to become a spiritual "boxer", surely this cannot be God calling them to a different type of approach, this is just their own freewill rebellion against biblical mandate.
As Christians, we could learn something about being “Responsive
Christians” from the king of “Responsive Boxers”, Muhammad Ali.
A true Christian would find biblical examples better suited to Christian learning.
We can be
proactive and reactive at the same time, even though this may seem like a
contradiction. “Responsive Christianity” requires us to rethink how we have
been living as Christians.
It also requires Christians to ask why God wasn't able to do this job you think needs doing, until you came along and decided to use Christianity as an excuse to draw attention to yourself. We have examples of Christians who don't do that, such as most conservative biblical scholars...who do not employ the talk show circuit and turn what might be legitimate book sale activity into obsessive self-promotion the way you do.
And don't feel like I'm picking on just you. Hank Hanegraaff, the fools at TBN and Daystar, James Patrick Holding, most "internet apologists" and all pastors of mega-churches are dishonest charlatans for choosing the one method of teaching Christianity that just happens to require them to put themselves into the spotlight.
The more you use the media to focus people's attention on Jesus, the more you prove what an attention-whore you are, no different than apostle Paul.
It requires us to prompt those in our world to ask
questions and then and be prepared to answer their questions:
A task you are woefully unprepared to handle, given that you made the wise marketing decision, also used by most politicians, to not respond to my criticisms, perhaps knowing you risk losing book sales if you try to defend your shit from informed criticism.
“Responsive Christians” live a life that causes people to
ask questions
Every boxer knew who Muhammad Ali was. Ali placed himself in
the center of the boxing world. As Christians, we need to recognize that all of
us are being watched; all of us are causing others to ask questions. Think
about that for a minute. People are watching us, and they are formulating
silent questions about what they are seeing.
I do that too. When I look at apologists like you, I ask myself "what's more likely, Wallace's primary motive in putting himself at the center of attention because he thinks doing so is the best way to get people to focus on Jesus? Or his primary motive in putting himself at the center of attention is because of a purely naturalistic desire to make himself the center of attention?"
I’m just hoping that they are not
looking at my life and asking questions like, “Why is he such a hypocrite?”
We are. You lose.
or
“Why is he so arrogant?”; “Why is he so angry?”; “Why is he so unfriendly?”
I don't accuse of those things. You are too smart of a salesman to make the ill-advised choice to show anger. Good salesman always associate their sales pitch with smiles, friendly gestures, and other bells and whistles constituting those marketing gimmicks you apparently think the Holy Spirit finds indispensable.
It’s my desire to live a life that causes a different set of questions.
Questions like, “How is he able to handle hardship so well?”
Fallacy of loaded question, you don't handle hardship well at all, at least not ministry hardship. You are an attention-whore and you appear hard-wired to suddenly go deaf whenever anybody suggests you are making Christianity more like a used case salesman's pitch, than you presenting it in the grave serious solemn way it was done by the early church fathers.
What are you gonna do next?
Create an amusement park with carnival rides for the kids where they cannot avoid viewing Christian propaganda while riding the Jesus roller coaster?
or “Why does he
always seem to be at peace with his situation?”
No need to ask, the answer to that one is obvious: you are happy with your having turned Christianity into a cash-cow that places the spotlight on yourself.
; “How is he able to stay so
committed?”;
The way Paul Crouch stayed so committed. Smart people don't get off the money train after it has proven to bloat their bank accounts. Especially when that money train is enhanced by an egregiously unfair tax-exemption.
“Why is he willing to sacrifice his time and money?”
For the same reason any attention-whore is willing to make the financial sacrifices necessary so they can be put in the spotlight.
When we live
a life that prompts the right kind of questions, God allows us the marvelous
opportunity to answer these questions with the truth of the Gospel.
Your Calvinist brothers disagree, and say that you cannot do anything to thwart the secret will of God, even if you kill children, donate your ministry money to terrorists and commit adultery in the middle of a busy traffic intersection on national tv. You are dishonest to coddle your ignorant followers' ignorant views of "freewill" in a way that makes it appear they can "help" god by acting a certain way and hinder the divine purpose when they act another way.
“Responsive Christians” go where people already have
questions
Ali had to decide to get in the ring with Foreman; he had to
decide to take the risk. As Christians, we sometimes need to decide to take a
similar risk; we need to take advantage of the opportunities to “get in the
ring” and to go where strangers are already waiting with questions.
But all smart people obey the naturalistic drive to stay away from certain death, which fully explains why you never come over to the boxing ring known as turchisrong.blogspot.com. As soon as you dare attempt to take on the "ancient documents rule", you'll have to write a new book explaining why you think only some of the rules of evidence in American courts are good and others are unfairly predjudicial. And since such a book would be foolish, you avoid the nightmare entirely by never stepping in the ring.
For which reason, you are about as credible as Benny Hinn, who himself also creates a lot of popularity while carefully staying away from critics the vast majority of the time.
There are
places where people are already asking the important questions of life.
University campuses, religious centers, libraries, etc. This desire to “get in
the ring” is the motivation behind my own personal efforts to talk to people on
college campuses and in places like Salt Lake City
and University of California at Berkeley.
But being cross-examined live in real time, in-person by an informed skeptic, concerning the merits of your arguments, would also obviously qualify as "stepping in the ring". Now explain to your readers why the form of stepping into a ring that would most closely scrutinize your arguments, is the type of ring-stepping you carefully avoid.
People here are already asking questions related to faith: “Is there a God?”;
“Can naturalism explain our origin?”; “Why do Christians believe what they
believe?”; “Why do Christians act the way they do?”. In these “question rich”
environments, thoughtful Christians can help to provide some answers.
People have been asking those questions for centuries before you were born.
My own
personal desire to reach those with questions is also the motivating force
behind ColdCaseChristianity.com.
Which apparently has to be carefully understood to mean you
don't have a desire to reach well informed skeptics who possess the most potential of causing your book sales to decline. Frank Turek's arguments are no more compelling than yours, but at least he does get in the ring with the skeptics.
Around the world, thousands of Christians are
now “entering the ring” with blogs and websites of their own.
So are well-informed bible critics, like me.
“Responsive Christians” help people ask the right questions
Ali maneuvered Foreman so that Ali had the best chance of
making an impact in the fight. As Christians, we’ve also got to learn to direct
our conversations in such a way as to have the greatest impact. All of us are
constantly involved in daily conversations and interactions with our friends,
coworkers and family. These are great opportunities to share those areas of
your life that may prompt people to ask, “Why?”
That's true. When I look at your Christian ministry and your books, I ask "why doesn't this guy respond directly to those with the most potential to kill his book sales?
We typically engage in
conversations about the mundane aspects of our culture; we often avoid
religious or political conversations. But by simply sharing the activities of our
own lives, our efforts to serve those around us, our struggles that have been
assisted by the hope we have in Christ and in the next life, we will create
opportunities by ‘teasing’ out the questions all of us hold about life, death
and purpose.
there is no biblical support for any such "teasing". Jude 3 characterizes apologetics are needing to be done by "earnest contention".
We need to share honestly but strategically,
Yeah, because if you share via improper strategy, the creator of the universe, who is otherwise able to cause unbelievers to do whatever he wants by tractor beam from outer space (Ezra 1:1) won't be able to do his job as well as he'd like.
and then be patient
to wait for their questions. By doing this, we can actually guide the
conversation into the places where we can have the most eternal impact.
“Responsive Christians” are prepared to answer people’s
questions
When the opportunity presented itself, Ali made the most of
it. As Christians, we will have similar opportunities.
You also have an opportunity to debate me any place, any time, on any subject of your choice, as well as respond to my blog-based criticisms.
This is perhaps the most
challenging aspect of our lives as “Responsive Christians”. We need to be
prepared. It’s seems odd to me that we have no hesitancy about preparing for
school tests, work assignments, or even our next vacation. Why don’t we, then,
understand the importance of preparing for our next contact with a
non-believer?
Maybe because Christianity is a false religion, therefore, the vast majority of people who hold to it, having no basis to exhibit spiritual maturity, thus show no more spiritual maturity than the mental maturity that usually takes place for the purely naturalistic reason of aging?
It’s impossible for us to live as “Responsive Christians” if we
aren’t even prepared with a response. Most of ColdCaseChristianity.com has been
assembled to help you prepare yourself in the one area of Christian evangelism
each and every one of us is called to embrace: Christian Case Making.
What bible version characterizes evangelism as Christian Case Making? The J. Warner Wallace edition?
Peter provided us with a calling and a strategy: “always be
prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you…” Let’s take the time to prepare ourselves, live a life that causes people to ask questions, go where people already have questions, and help people ask the right questions.
Jesus also promised to return within the lifetimes of his original disciples (Matthew 16:28), you cannot cite the Mt. of Transfiguration as any type of fulfillment since the Transfiguration event did not involve Jesus in rewarding every man according to his works (v. 28), and you cannot find any relief in preterism, which says the return of Jesus would be invisible and spiritual, because Acts 1:11 makes perfectly clear that Jesus' second coming would take place in the same manner that the disciples watched him go into heaven.
27 "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS (didn't happen at the Transfiguration).
28 "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matt. 16:27-28 NAU)
Here's the
Play-With-Words-and-Make-God-Say-Anything-You-Want translation of 16:28
28 "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man on the Mt. of Transfiguration."
11 They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven." (Acts 1:11 NAU)
So at best, Peter did not expect his epistle to be read by Christians thousands of years later still waiting for Jesus to come back.
Thanks, Wallace, for your improper analogies to boxing rings and how much Christians should be willing to step in the ring. You know perfectly well that your stuff is not convincing to those who specialize in bible criticism, including credentiled bible scholars and not just hobbyists like me...yet you never "step in the ring" with your greatest opponents. Doesn't the Westminster Confession say that chief end of Man is to promote sales through marketing gimmicks?
