Blog

For many years at Cerebral Faith, I’ve pretty much been a Jack Of All Trades. I have written, podcast, and video content on just about every subject in the realm of Christian Apologetics, biblical studies, and theology that one can think of. From the Kalam Cosmological Argument to the Ontological Argument to The Divine Council Worldview, The Problem of Evil, objections to the doctrine of Hell, historical arguments for the resurrection of Jesus, so-called “evil Bible verses” from The Canaanite Conquest to the “Is this verse forcing a woman to marry her rapist?”, defenses of The Trinity from scripture, defenses of The Trinity from philosophy, defenses of the deity of Jesus from scripture, defenses of the incarnation from philosophy, Fine-Tuning Arguments for God’s Existence from physics and astronomy, and on and on and on the list can go. And for the past 13 years of this ministry’s existence, I’ve been knowledgable enough on all of these subjects to speak on and debate them. However, with great learning comes a terrible, terrible lesson….

Isaac Newton’s Bucket – Or an Iceberg

The famous scientist Isaac Newtwon once said, “I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” ^[1]Louis Trenchard More, Isaac Newton: A Biography (New York: Scribner’s, 1934), 664.

The metaphor here conveys a sense that even though Newton was brilliant and knew a lot, there was so much more he had left to learn. I’ve always loved this metaphor as it resonates with me in my own areas of academic studies. The more I learn in any area in which I study, the more I feel like “I really don’t know as much as I would like to.” I don’t feel like I’m unqualified to have an opinion or make an argument, but I feel like I’d be arrogant if I said I was an expert on any of them. An expert on the Kalam? Heck no! Give that medal to William Lane Craig! An expert on the reliability of the gospels? You might want to give that title to one or both of the McGrews.

There have been times when I, like Newton, look up from my bucket of water and sea shells and realize that there’s a vast ocean before me, and this intimidates me. One of those times was when I attended the ETS Conference in 2018. ^[2]I recount my experience in the article “My 2018 ETS Conference Experience” I learned some things from listening to those conference lectures, and as I listened to these PH.D philosophers and bible scholars present their papers, I was like “I’ve learned so much over the years, but clearly there’s much more to learn.” That was not a feeling of defeat or dispair, but one of humility and excitement. I personally think it would be boring if I knew everything and had nothing else to learn. I love learning, and I’m glad that I’ll never achieve omniscience. I can just keep going on amassing knowledge indefinitely! And very recently, I was watching/listening to a podcast episode David Pallmann did on Dan Paterson’s YouTube channel Questioning Christianity. David Pallmann was talking about The Maximal Data Argument for Jesus’ Resurrection (click here if you want to watch it yourself) And as he was talking about this subject that I have done a lot of research on ^[3]It resulted in an in-depth 11 part blog essay which became my book “The Case For The Reliability Of The Gospels: A Cerebral Faith Blog Book.”, I realized that I still have more work to do even in this area. Pallmann was bringing up some objections to the resurrection I hadn’t previously thought of, quoting some people I hadn’t heard of nor read, and although I thoroughly enjoyed the episode, I must be honest in admitting that I was beginning to feel a case of Imposter Syndrome.

That said, every single subject is like this; every single subject is a massive iceberg that I suspect my knowedge base is just the tip. But how much of each individual iceberg can I uncover if I have 50 different icebergs to chip away at? There’s only so much time in one’s day, week, month, year, lifetime.

Specializing Turns Jacks Into Masters

For many years, I heard the phrase “Jack of all trades”, but it was a long time before I heard the second part of this proverb; “Master of none”. I tried to reason “Well, maybe I’ll be a Jack of most trades and a master of some.” But I’m having to come to grips with the fact that I simply cannot compete with people like Dr. William Lane Craig, Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy, and David Pallmann of Faith Because Of Reason. Although Pallmann and I haven’t always got along, I will never not respect and admire him for his amazing skill of reading a crap pot ton of books on multiple, multiple subjects. And that one stack, he will likely get through in a week. I don’t know if the guy can speed read, if he sacrifices sleep to read (he does have a day job), or what, but the man is incredibly intellectually talented. Dr. William Lane Craig is a genius to the point where he can put atheists in their place in three different languages! And Michael Jones, as I have been on record saying, will likely be the Deku to Dr. Craig’s All Might. ^[4]This is a My Hero Academia reference. In the anime and manga, the world’s greatest superhero All Might passes on his power to Deku who is to become the world’s next “Symbol Of … Continue reading I can’t read 50 books in one month. In fact, it seems like I get through books more slowly nowadays than I did 4 years ago, despite still reading for hours at a time.

The thing is; if I truly want to master some apologetic arguments, I’m going to need to pick certain subjects to study, and others to stay away from, or at least take a casual interest in. I’ll never forget going on the Faith Unaltered Podcast and being stumped on an interview question on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It was about a cosmological model that Sean Carroll proposed that aimed to show that the universe didn’t have a cosmic beginning. I hadn’t read about the argument for about 2 years at that point, being preoccupied studying Genesis 1-11 in its Ancient Near Eastern context (consuming the works of John Walton, Michael Heiser, and others). I was unaware of this new development in cosmology, and I was kind of embarrassed. Granted, I came up with a way to deal with any conceivable eternal universe model in my blog post “Eternal Universe Models – Going For The Philosophical Jugular” but the point remains that I was still off guard simply because I wasn’t paying attention.

And as my life changes, I won’t have AS MUCH time to devote to research and study as I did in my late teens and in my 20s. What if I get married some day? What if I have kids? I’ll likely need to get up extremely early to get 2 hours of reading and/or blogging in. I just won’t be able to continue to keep up with all the research being done in all these different scientific, philosophical, and theological areas. I can’t be Bill Craig. I can’t be Mike Jones. I need to be Evan Minton. I’m going to have to pick a small number of topics I’m truly passionate about and become an expert in those.

What I Will Specialize In – Biblical Apologetics

I once remember telling someone “If God commanded me to choose one apologetic argument to use, and forbade me from using any other for the rest of my life; I know which one I would choose. The Argument for the resurrection.” and at that time, I meant The Minimal Facts Argument which I now know was a huge mistake. A while back, I planned on going off to seminary to become a PH.D Bible Scholar. For numerous reasons I won’t get into, I have decided not to do that. But I had already had plans that I would specialize in my apologetic endevours even then. I’ve given it a lot of thought and I have decided that I am going to specialize in biblical apologetics. What is biblical apologetics? Allow me to explain;

Biblical apologetics is making use of The Bible to make a case for Christianity. Now, skeptics may brissle and say “So you’re going to specialize in begging the question? Using The Bible to prove The Bible?” No. I refuse the beg the question. Allow me to explain further. There are two ways you can use The Bible in apologetics: an offensive (or positive) case and a defensive case (i.e responding to internal critiques). Neither of which involves the question begging fallacy.

Biblical Apologetics: Positive Cases

Subject 1: The Maximal Data Argument For Jesus’ Resurrection.

The MDA, championed by scholars like Lydia McGrew, makes its case by arguing for the robust, cumulative reliability of the Gospel biographies and then drawing the most probable historical conclusion from the total body of evidence.

It differs from the Minimal Facts Argument (MFA) by not limiting its evidence to only the few facts (like the empty tomb and post-mortem appearances) that are granted by the majority of skeptical/non-Christian scholars. Instead, the MDA embraces a maximal amount of data by:

1. Establishing General Reliability: It first focuses on demonstrating the Gospels’ historical trustworthiness, arguing that they are eyewitness testimony or documents based on eyewitness accounts (e.g., Mark getting his material from Peter). This is supported by evidence outside the resurrection narrative itself, such as:
   • Undesigned Coincidences: Puzzle-like fits between independent biblical texts (Gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters) that are best explained by the authors knowing the truth of the events.
   • Confirmed Details: Incidental allusions to geographical, cultural, and political facts that are independently corroborated by archaeology or extra-biblical sources.
   • Early Date & Authorship: Arguments supporting the traditional, early authorship of the Gospels, making them closer to the events.

The argument does not begin with “The Bible is the Word of God, therefore it must be true.” Instead, it uses secular standards of historical inquiry to show that the Gospels meet the criteria for being reliable eyewitness-based accounts. The case for reliability is built on historical evidence like undesigned coincidences and archaeological confirmation, which are external tests of the documents’ truthfulness. The argument is not circular because the conclusion (the Resurrection occurred) is being supported by premises (the reliability of the Gospel documents) that are themselves supported by independent lines of historical evidence. Some Christian Apologists don’t like this argument because they think it “takes too long” which is a criticism I devoted an entire talk on when I spoke at the Defend Apologetics Conference in 2024. Click here to access that talk. The charge is bogus.

I have decided that going forward, this will be the positive argument for Christianity’s truth that I will master. After all, a Cosmological Argument can get you to a transcendent Creator, but this argument gets you to the risen Christ.

Subject 2: The Case For The Reliability Of The Old Testament

If you have read my work on the case for the resurrection of Jesus either from a Minimal Facts or Maximal Data approach, you’ll know that pretty much the main reason why I take The Old Testament to be divinely inspired, authoritative, and inerrant is because Jesus did. And I can historically demonstrate that Jesus claimed to be God, and then he died and rose from the dead. If Jesus were not God, then God The Father would not resurrect him from the dead, vindicating a blasphemer and heretic. God would have agreed with the Sanhedrin’s choice to put Jesus to death (though maybe not the underhanded means they used to accomplish it) and Jesus would have just stayed dead. But given the powerful case that He is risen, Yahweh evidently did not think Jesus’ lofty claims were blasphemy, but true! Jesus really is one with the Father (John 10:30)! So who would be in a position to know if The Old Testament were the word of God but the very God who breathed it out?

At the present time, that is the extent of the reasons I can give for believing The Old Testament. Admittedly, the authority of Christ is a good reason, but I’m not equipped to make a case for it apart from “The risen Christ said so.” I would like to change that. And there are several books that make a positive case that have caught my eye; “On The Reliability Of The Old Testament” by Kenneth Kitchen (PH.D Old Testament Scholar, archeologist, and Egyptology), “Unearthing The Bible: 101 Archeological Discoveries That Bring The Bible To Life”, by Titus Kennedy (archeologist), and “The Archaeology of the Old Testament: 115 Discoveries That Support the Reliability of the Bible” by David Graves (Archeologist). These seem like great starting cases for the positive case, at least.

Of course, to some extent, the work of folks like John Walton in his Lost World series and William Lane Craig in “The Quest For The Historical Adam” can make a defensive case for reliability indirectly by showing how modern science isn’t incompatible with the early chapters of Genesis. And I’m already pretty knowledgeable here, but again, like I said, there’s always more to learn.

Subject 3: The Biblical and Philosophical Case For The Trinity

To argue exegetically that The Bible teaches that there is (1) only one God, (2) The Father is God, (3) Jesus is God, (4) The Holy Spirit is God, and (5) The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons. I have done this in my three part response article to a piece of Jehovah’s Witness propaganda in my articles “Why You Should Believe In The Trinity: Responding To The WatchTower (Part 1)”, “Why You Should Believe In The Trinity: Responding To The WatchTower (Part 2)”, and “Why You Should Believe In The Trinity: Responding To The WatchTower (Part 3)” These 5 biblical facts, when put together, give you the doctrine of The Trinity. Of course, I need to not just defend things like the oneness of God and the deity of Christ exegetically, but I also need to show that The Trinity is philosophically coherent, which I have done in the aforementioned articles, using William Lane Craig’s Social Trinitarian model.

Subject 4: The Incarnation

A close correlate of this is the incarnation of Jesus. I need to show that God became man biblically, and philosophically defend its logical coherence as I’ve done in the past.

Biblical Apologetics – Defensive Cases

Subject 1: The Problem Of Evil

I don’t think you can call yourself a Christian Apologist if you don’t have some kind of response to the question “If God is all powerful and all loving, why is there evil and suffering in the world?” This is the number 1 argument for atheism, and you WILL run into it. This is a subject I’ve talked about in the past in articles such as “Why The Problem Of Evil Is A Failed Argument For Atheism” and “Super Hero Theodicies”, but as I’ve been doing deep research on the book of Genesis, Proverbs, and Psalms, and biblical books these books interact with (e.g Job and Ecclesiastes), and as I continue to study The Divine Council Worldview and the “Three Rebellions” embedded in it, I’m becoming more and more aware of the fact that just about every single book of The Bible has something to say directly or indirectly about evil, suffering, and God’s relation to it. And yet, most of the defenses I’ve read and have given have mostly just been philosophical arguments with some Bible verses sprinkled on top for good measure. This isn’t to say that I’m changing my response that much, but my concern is a matter of emphasis. I would like to craft a more biblically reliant theodicy that employs the most robust philosophy that folks like William Lane Craig and Alvin Platinga can offer, but philosophy and scripture work in tandem in the response rather than philosophy doing all the legwork with me pointing to some scriptures to assure my audience that my theodicy isn’t totally unbiblical.

I am sure that older authors have relied heavily on scripture as I would like to do, and I will take Timothy McGrew’s advice to read these dead guys. I hope to one day write my own book making a heavily biblical-philosophical defense against both logical and evidential problems of evil.

But, since The Problem of Evil is an internal critique of Christianity, it is not question begging or “using The Bible to prove The Bible” to respond to these arguments. The Christian worldview is based on what The Bible teaches. If you’re going to internally critique the Christian worldview, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that what The Bible has to say on this subject is relevant. It doesn’t matter that you don’t think God exists. Your argument, Mr. atheist, is “If we posit that reality consists of the God of The Bible, then how do we make sense of X?” Surely you can see how doing a Bible study with you would be relevant.

Subject 2: The Doctrine Of Hell

The doctrine of Hell is a stumbling block for many skeptics in embracing Christianity. This is in large part due to misinterpretations of what The Bible teaches concerning the unrepentant wicked. I have actually already written a book on this titled “Yahweh’s Inferno: Why Scripture’s Teaching On Hell Doesn’t Impugn The Goodness Of God”. In that book, I address the following objections;

How could God torment people for an infinite amount of time for sins of finite consequence? Besides the problem of Hell’s duration and intensity, what about those who have never heard the gospel? What does God do with them? Does God send people in those parts of the world to Hell for not believing in Jesus when they haven’t even so much as heard of Jesus? How could a loving God do that? And what about babies? Where does God send babies when they die? I give answers to these and other related questions, using The Bible. The argument against God’s goodness on the basis of the doctrine of Hell is an internal critique, and thus, it is not illegitimate to use The Bible to respond to these objections.

Areas Of Theology

Finally, I will continue to study and debate areas of theology such as the Arminian/Calvinist/Provisionist debate, Molinism, the age of the earth, and other in-house debates. Partly, because I find many of these interesting, but mainly because things like Calvinism and its often accompanying view of Exhaustive Divine Determinism can actually undermine the rationality of Christianity if accepted or left unchecked. Some secondary issues do not cancel the salvation of Christians who hold them, but they’re not unimportant.

Are You Backing Off On Philosophy?

I’m not backing off on philosophy, but I am backing off on Natural Theology. I just don’t want to get caught with my pants down if I try to defend The Fine-Tuning Argument and some science nerd goes “Well, actually…” But philosophy is definitely important in several of these areas. There have been times when my favorite bible scholar, the late Dr. Michael S. Heiser, has spoken on things like free will VS. predestination, how Jesus didn’t appear omniscient during his earthly tenure, and I thought to myself “Well, I don’t disagree with your conclusion, but I think you could have given some better answers”. Philosophy can help us do that. And things like Bill Craig’s Neo-Apollonarian model of the Incarnation and Social Trinitarian model aren’t necessarily definitive answers to these things, but they are plausible and possible models that help make sense of a lot of things. So I definitely don’t want to back away from thinking about these things philosophically. In fact, it would be impossible to do so in principle. As Thomas Aquinas said, “Philosophy is the handmaid of theology.” ^[5]Not a direct quote, but it is the summation of his thoughts on philosophy’s relationship to theology. Summa Theologiae (I, q. 1, a. 5, ad 2). In this specific article, Aquinas addresses the … Continue reading

Conclusion

In light of everything I’ve said, you can expect the content going forward to be a bit different. This isn’t something I particularly wanted to do, but I don’t live in a world where I can just do nothing but sit around and read books and listen to podcasts all day every day. So what time I do have needs to be focused on a few major issues. I need to focus on those and become an expert. Think of it as like one of those Shonen Protagonists that have a small repertoire of attacks, but can use that one attack really well and in various ways. Dattebayo!