A Christian Worldview Response to Current Bioethical Issues: Part One

My first memorable encounter with bioethics came when I was barely eighteen. As a student visiting a display area at a Christian college lectureship, I met a preacher who had developed a slide presentation for a sermon on abortion. He was circulating among the churches preaching this lesson trying to rally Christians to react to what he believed to be societal degradation associated with an increasing number of abortions and the ease with which abortions could be pursued. The presentation was an emotional appeal illustrated with traumatizing pictures of fetal remains— babies torn apart in abortion procedures. Such choices are emotional, and any illustrations one might use for such a lesson would be unavoidably so.

Even though I was young and immature, it still seemed obvious to me that only those who already agreed with this preacher would be convinced by his presentation. Those considering abortion seemed unlikely to be dissuaded, and those who previously had abortions might be driven into guilt and despair. Struggling women would probably find him unsympathetic and unpersuasive. The real issues involved in abortion would not be addressed with provocative slides and emotive language. Those inclined to think of abortion as a woman’s personal choice, a right that ought not be denied, might think this preacher’s approach was uninformed and judgmental. Those who disagreed with him would likely have other objections if they even bothered to listen to his presentation.

The approach this preacher proposed was more emotional and political than biblical. I found it to be poorly thought out and unlikely to reach people who really needed to consider the matter seriously. I was convinced that his presentation of the Christian position on abortion failed to adequately represent the Christian heart or a Christian worldview. It seemed to me that his approach would be ineffective with abortion proponents and any who needed compassionate guidance.

Sufficient Evidence, Rolland W. Pack, Vol4No1Paolo DiLucaJanuary 23, 2020Vol. 04 No. 1Comment

The Incomparable Teaching of Jesus as Evidence of His Deity

Bart Warren, Sufficient Evidence, Vol3No2Paolo DiLucaNovember 21, 2019Vol. 03 No. 2Comment

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEITY OF CHRIST FROM GOLGOTHA

The International Dictionary of the Bible gives the following derivation of Golgotha:

(From the Greek golgotha, from Aramaic, gulgalta’, skull). From the Hebrew gulgoleth, which implies a bald, round, skull-like mound of hillock. The Latin name, Calvarius (“bald skull”) has been retained in the form of Calvary (Luke 23:33). . . . Two explanations of the name are found (1) It was a place of execution and therefore abounded in skulls; (2) the place had the appearance of a skull when viewed from a short distance. (395)

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre and Gordan’s Calvary are suggested sites of Golgotha, but we cannot be sure of its location. The only certain information we have is that it was outside Jerusalem (John 19:17) and near the city (John 19:20; Hebrews 13:12-13).

Curse of the Cross

Crucifixion was considered one of the most cruel and shameful deaths that could be administered to a person. “The Romans reserved crucifixion, however, for slaves, robbers, assassins, and the like or for rebellious provincials. Only rarely were Roman citizens subjected to this kind of treatment (Cicero, In Ver. 1. 5. 66)” (Hawthorne 1038). Based on Deuteronomy 21:22-23, the Jews considered those accursed who were hanged on a stake. Jesus, the pure lamb of God, endured the shame of the cross (Hebrews 12:2) and became a curse for us (Galatians 3:13).

Forgiveness Only Through Deity

Golgotha is central to Christianity (1 Corinthians 2:1-2), for there Jesus’ crucifixion made forgiveness of sins available for all mankind, including all who lived before (Romans 3:24-26; Hebrews 9:15) and after the cross (1 Timothy 1:16, KJV). The only antidote for sin throughout the history of the world is not the blood of animals (Hebrews 10:4) or human accomplishment (Ephesians 2:8-9), but Jesus’ blood (Matthew 26:28; Hebrews 9:22; Revelation 1:5). One man would be able to bear the sins of only one other person, but the divine Son of God, who is more valuable and whose blood is more precious (1 Peter 1:18-19) than all humanity, through His one sacrifice can forgive the sins of the whole world (John 1:29; Hebrews 10:15-19).

Owen D. Olbricht, Sufficient Evidence, Vol3No1Paolo DiLucaOctober 3, 2019Vol. 03 No. 1Comment

The Basic Argument for the Deity of Christ

There are as many different viewpoints about Jesus Christ as there are people. Some see Jesus as a great teacher. Some view Him as a moral leader. To some, Jesus is a revolutionary. To others, He is a great rabbi. To the Muslim world, Jesus is a prophet, even though, according to Islam, He is an inferior prophet to Mohammed. All of these viewpoints avoid the central question: Is Jesus Christ the Son of God? The question of Jesus’ deity is of the utmost importance. Either He is the Son of God, or He is not. When we use the phrase “Son of God,” we are not using it in the sense that every man is a son of God by virtue of creation. Rather, when we affirm that Jesus is the Son of God, we are declaring that Jesus Christ is in fact deity, the second person of the one triune Godhead, and that He shares that particular nature or quality only with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Is Jesus deity? We answer that question in the affirmative and propose to set out the basic argument for such. We insist that people have the right to examine the evidence thoroughly and that, having done so, will conclude that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Even though there have been many variations on the basic argument, we are using the one first set forth by Thomas B. Warren in The Spiritual Sword (April 1970). The basic argument will be set out in the form of a three-line syllogism. The argument form is modus ponens and is therefore valid. If the premises are true, then the argument is sound. If the premises are true, then it necessitates the truthfulness of the conclusion (cf. Ruby 272-74).

David O'Connell, Sufficient Evidence, Vol3No1Paolo DiLucaJuly 18, 2019Vol. 03 No. 1Comment

The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53

One of the most perplexing questions pertaining to Old Testament studies is the question concerning what has been called the “greatest of all prophetic utterances” (Baron vi) — Isaiah 53. The question is, “Who is the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53?” Although this question directs attention to the chapter mentioned, this study will include the last three verses of Isaiah 52, since they form an integral part of the passage.

A study of the above question is most significant for various reasons: (1) scholars are greatly divided as to the identification of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53, (2) the New Testament writers make numerous reflections upon this prophecy, and (3) the issue remains as to whether or not Isaiah’s prophecy is one of true prediction.

Scholars have advanced various theories as solutions to the problem. Some have suggested the collective theory which states that the Servant is a group, the nation of Israel, or some ideal portion of it. Others have advanced the individual theory which says that the Servant is an individual of the past, present or future. Still others contend that the Servant is not to be identified with any chosen single group or individual but that the conception of the Servant is a fluid and shifting one (cf. Hyatt 79). Such a concept is suggested by Torrey when he says that the Servant is “the personified nation Israel, or Israel’s personal representative” (135). I am convinced that the Servant in Isaiah 53 is an individual, and Jesus Christ is the only one who could have fulfilled it.

David Lipe, Sufficient Evidence, Vol3No1Paolo DiLucaMay 16, 2019Vol. 03 No. 1Comment

Sufficient Evidence Archive

FROM THE ARCHIVE