REPLAY | The Best Argument Against Jesus’ Resurrection — and How to Respond | Guest: Dr. Sean McDowell

And how do we, as Christians, respond to it? Today, I'm talking to Dr. Sean McDowell, he is an associate professor in the Christian apologetics program at Talbot School of Theology at Biology University. We've had him on before.

He is an incredible apologist.

He is the co-author of over 20 books, just a wealth of knowledge. Today, we will be talking about the evidence for the existence of Jesus.

“And for the crucifixion, for the resurrection, what all of this means theologically?”

What does it mean for us? And he will also be answering some basic theological apologetics questions at the end of this episode. You're going to love this very informative. It'll make you think and want to dig into your Bible right away.

I hope that what is told to you here and what is taught to you here from Sean McDowell truly does at a phio. Sean thinks so much for taking the time to join us today and really appreciate it. Oh, you bet. Good to be back.

Yes, okay. We've got a lot to talk about. I thought we would focus on Jesus' death and resurrection. There will be a lot of things we could talk about surrounding that. But, I mean, maybe you could say that this is not a new question or new doubts that people

have, but I still see people asking questions about the validity of the resurrection. And if it's necessary to really believe this, recently you've seen a lot of prominent figures say that they believe in Jesus or they believe in cultural Christianity like Richard Dawkins

or they believe in the example of Christ, but it's the resurrection they could just never

believe. So I'll just start with that and see what you think about it. This is somewhat new in our cultural moment to have people like Dawkins and Jonathan Rauch and other atheists and nonbelievers talk about the importance of Christianity, but the idea of separating the teachings of Jesus and the value of Christianity from the resurrection

and the truth is not a new idea. This is classical liberal theology and it's the difference between the historic Christian faith and liberal theology, which essentially teaches a different gospel.

“I think the main reason why is you go back to 1st Corinthians chapter 15.”

And Paul says I pass on to you, Christians and Corinth, what was 1st pass on to me, what was earlier passed on to me, what is of most importance?

Jesus died, was buried, according to Scriptures, rose in a third day, paid for our sins,

and appeared to the 500 to Paul, to Peter, James, etc. And many says in verses 14 to 17, if Jesus is not risen, our faith is worthless, it's in vain, we are misrepresenting God and we're still in our sins. So Paul ties the value of the teachings of Christ to whether or not he's historically risen from the grave.

And we see the same thing in the life of Jesus when he's asked, give us a sign in John chapter 2, what does he say? Of course, another setting, he says the sign of Jonah. But in John 2, he says, I will destroy this temple, raise it up on the third day. His sign that his identity rests upon is the historical resurrection. So I'm glad for a cultural perspective that people are not rambling against Christianity

like they used to in the past and they see the value of a culturally speaking, but let us not think we can have a Christianity, apart from the life, death and burial of Jesus. Jesus would have had none of that. Yeah, you know, I'm still surprised when I see people say, Jesus wasn't real. Jesus was made up.

I just got to call it on Acts the other day when I said something about Jesus and the response was, but Jesus wasn't real. I thought that we basically all agreed that Jesus at least was a real person, even if someone denied his divinity, denied the resurrection, I thought that everyone understood that there was pretty ample evidence that this person named Jesus really existed.

So what would you say? If someone earnestly wanted to know what is evidence that Jesus was even real, what would you say? Well, the first thing I would say is, I'm an academic, yes, I'm an apologist, so I'm not supposed to overstate things, but the idea that Jesus didn't exist is ridiculous. I mean, even Barterman, one of the leading atheists of our day wrote a whole book about

the idea that Jesus didn't exist.

“I think he said this idea doesn't emerge until like the 17th century and he calls it”

a myth. And the reason is we just have too many sources, whether it's Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John independent books, historical accounts. We have Acts, we have the writings of Paul, we have the writings of Peter, we have the rest

Those who receive the batons, so to speak, from the gospel writers themselves. And we have Josephus in the 90s, like three decades after the deaths of Peter and Paul, talking about the existence and death of Jesus, by the way, we have Roman writer early second century, and even the critics of Christianity when you get into the second century

and the third, like Celsius and others, they never challenge the existence of Jesus.

They say he was illegitimate, there's contradictions, the Bible, they raise other objections. So the idea that Jesus did exist is just silly and it's ridiculous. What about those that say, okay, yeah, Jesus existed, but there were a lot of revolutionaries in that time who challenged the authority of Rome, or maybe even said that they were in Messiah, and Jesus, he just had an again traction, it's kind of all a coincidence, and

he died, and that was the end of it, and he's really not special, because other people were just like him, what do we say to that? What I would say is, wow, that's an interesting hypothesis.

“What evidence do you have that that hypothesis is actually true?”

I mean, when people say things like that, they're going to have to defend it. And then I'm going to say, all right, let's imagine you're right. Why do we have so many people who believe that Jesus was the Son of God?

Believe that He did miracles, and believe that He rose on the third day?

I mean, the vast majority of scholars, this comes from Gary Habermas's research. He's published recently in his book on the Resurrection Volume 1, he says the vast majority scholars, like 90% plus, believe that the disciples, at least, report that they had experiences of the Resin Jesus that they believed were real, like they're reporting what they think are real experiences.

So if Jesus didn't say and do these things, how do we count for the disciples' beliefs? But then how do we get James, the brother of Jesus, and according to Mark 3 and John 7, the brothers of Jesus were not believers in him during his lifetime, and then James is

“martyred in AD62, the head of the church in Jerusalem, how do you get Paul to believe”

this? And the vast majority of scholars believe that Paul had an experience that he believed was of the Resin Jesus. So, if we only had one account, then maybe we could explain this away. But we have so many different accounts that line up on the big details, and the other

disciples and the apostles and James willing to suffer and die for the belief that they'd seen the Resin Jesus. It's not enough to just say, well, maybe he was like some other Messiah and passed away and the largest religion in the world just took off from that, you're going to need a better explanation.

Hmm. And what about the crucifixion?

“I mean, obviously people know if they agree that Jesus lived, they know that he died.”

But the entire crucifixion thing, him dying on a cross, the mob choosing him to be crucified over Barabas, Pontius Pilate, the two criminals on either side of them, is that not just all kind of the myth that Christians have put together to, you know, kind of finish their narrative that he was the sacrificial lamb. So the claim that Jesus wasn't crucified is about up there as being as really counter what

we know historically speaking. And I would argue ridiculous with the claim that Jesus didn't exist. The evidence for the crucifixion of Jesus is virtually overwhelming. Now why? Well, for one, again, we have multiple early sources.

We have first Corinthians chapter 15, which arguably that creed embedded within Corinthians

could be dated within three to five years at the death of Jesus. We have the other New Testament books. We have the Gospels. We have Acts. Again, we have the early church fathers who the Apostle, some of them knew and they're

right at the end of the first century, into the second century, affirming the crucifixion of Jesus. Again, we also have Josephus, the Jew, and Tassadus, a Roman, early second century, Josephus in the 90s. Not only firm that Jesus lived, but affirm that he was crucified.

Now the other piece that I would add to this is it's also not the kind of thing that early Christians would invent if they're trying to build a movement. So crucifixion was the most shameful, dishonorable, humiliating, painful death imaginable. Deuteronomy says, "If you're a hung on a tree, you're cursed. You were ashamed publicly, brought shame on your faith, brought shame on your country.

It was the ultimate worst death imaginable."

it. crucifixion is the least likely death that they would give, rather than dishonorable. They would invent an honorable death, at least far more likely. So you add that theological point to the historical point.

“I think the only people that really denied the crucifixion of Jesus would be mythicists,”

which are a handful in count on one, maybe two hands who deny the Jesus existed, and Muslims, which in surre four, and of course the Croixot Rintel roughly seven centuries or so after the time of Jesus, surre four denies the crucifixion. Not arguing, less somebody's already committed to that being the word of God or historical, and I don't think there's good independent reason to take it as being so.

You would never reject the crucifixion of Jesus.

It's just too firmly established. What would you say if you were to play Devil's Advocate, which I know you do? Well, I like to do too. I like to understand the other side's argument and respond to that. So what would you say is the best argument against the resurrection of Jesus?

If there is a logical argument out there, and how would you respond to it? Yeah, that's an interesting question, Ali. I would say if you go back to like the 18th and 19th centuries, early into the 20th centuries, kind of the heyday of these naturalistic hypotheses. So people would say Jesus was just a legend, or he went to the wrong tomb, or he didn't

really die in the cross, or there were hallucinations.

“And I think there's significant historical problems with all of those.”

Like if you take hallucinations, you say, okay, maybe the pauses had hallucinations, but you still have to account for James and Paul, and that doesn't explain the empty tomb. Like going to the wrong tomb isn't going to get you appearances, which is what convinces the apostles that is true, not just an empty tomb. But in the 21st century, really the main objection is more methodological than it actually

is against the facts tied to the person of Jesus. So for me, I'd probably just say, we're dealing with an event 2,000 years ago. We have fake news today. How much confidence can we have in a miracle claim from 2,000 years ago?

And especially because it's such an extraordinary claim, it's often said, we're going

to need extraordinary evidence. I think if I was going to challenge it, I would probably take that route.

“But I think we can put the standard too low, and sometimes Christians can just be goble”

and believe anything that supports our faith. We can also put the standard too high, whereas I think extraordinary claims require sufficient evidence. Extraordinary claims require adequate evidence. There's a lot of extraordinary things that have happened in the past and extraordinary things

that have happened today. So I think if we use the means of good historical analysis, and we don't rule out the supernatural from the beginning, and we follow the evidence where it leads, I think we have good solid evidence to conclude that Jesus has risen from the grave. Hmm, okay, what about those who say, now we're moving into the Christian camp, or maybe

I've seen skeptics say this too, that, okay, even just aside from the resurrection, whether you accept it or not, Easter isn't about the resurrection. Easter is this pagan celebration of Ishtar, the fertility goddess, and Christians should just be celebrating Passover. Jesus was a Jew who celebrated Passover, and so why are we even taking part in this pagan

ritual? Some might use that to discount Christianity altogether. Some Christians might do it, just maybe they're well-meaning. But what would you say to that? I would say one thing, I would say, look, if somebody is a Christian, and they think that

there's pagan roots to Christmas, or there's pagan roots to Easter, and your conscience doesn't make you feel comfortable celebrating it in that way, then don't call it Easter, don't do the kind of rappings that we don't find in the Bible like a Christmas tree. I'd say, that's totally fine, but for me, Christianity does not have pagan roots. It has Jewish roots.

We go back, I mean, I've been reading the gospel of John every day for a while, I've just been finding time to read all of it, and this is true for all the gospels. Christianity has Jewish roots. Jesus points towards Old Testament prophecy about Him being the Messiah, about Him being one with God, understood as the God of the Old Testament, about fulfilling prophecies, and

Isaiah 53 in Psalm 22, and Zachariah 9.

at the Christian movement, it was really the early 1900s that people would say it had pagan roots, and they looked for these parallels in like other pagan kind of mystery religions of the time, and then try to say, look, Christianity borrowed from these, but what we've found is that actually the similarities are completely exaggerated, and second, any of the similarities that really map on come after Christianity, so if anything, these pagan mystery religions

borrowed more from Christianity than Christianity did from the pagan mystery religions. Personally, I don't have problems having a Christmas tree and wrappings, even if that's not laid out in the scriptures, because I teach my kids exactly what Christmas is and why.

I don't have a problem with some of the cultural, calling it Easter, but I just always remind

my kids, here's what we're practicing, here's why, here's what the gospel's teach, and here's just stuff we find within our culture, but ultimately I'll leave that up to the conscience of your viewers. What a doubt, I've seen this argument, frequently over the past couple of years, that really Christians should be celebrating all Jewish holidays, and that whether, you know,

they believe in celebrating Christmas Easter or not, but that we should really be following the Jewish calendar following the example of Jesus. Do you think Christians are bound by that? I wouldn't say that we're bound by that, to follow all of the Jewish rituals, because clearly

those are types and foreshadows pointing towards the person of Jesus.

“So I think we can make one of two mistakes, I think one mistake would be to say, to miss”

what Christ did on the cross and how he freed us from the law and has given us a new covenant. The other mistake, and I think the church is probably more guilty of this than still practicing the rituals, is to completely divorce ourselves from our Jewish roots. And this has damage in a lot of ways, number one, I think it alienates a lot of Jews feeling like if I become a Christian, then I have to completely seize who I think my identity is

as a Jew. I think it also got us as Christians from the rich history of the Old Testament that helps kind of formulate and decide who we are. So we have some liberty, our salvation, and relationship with God is not defined by them. But so many of these rituals were given to the nation of Israel, to make them holy and

set apart as reminders of who God was and who God is.

“And I think when we bring those and practice many of those today, and we could talk about”

the particulars like Passover, it's a big one that comes up. But I think when we practice these knowing how they're fulfilled in Christ, they actually help us better understand who Christ is because he fulfills the Old Testament, but also realize we're not bound by this, we're actually set free in terms of who Christ is. Yeah, I agree having a knowledge of them, especially as something like Passover and knowing

that we actually have, as you said, the fulfillment of these things that we are not celebrating these holidays in anticipation for the Messiah to one day come as the Jews are, but that we are celebrating them as realizing that Jesus is the culmination. He is the fulfillment of all of those things. So I think that at the very least, as you said, knowing our Jewish roots and knowing the

Jewish holidays and what's behind them and what is being celebrated and honored could add like a lot of fullness and richness to our faith, specifically about Easter, kind of going back to some questions that people sent in about why Jesus did certain things, said certain things, leading up to the crucifixion, even what he said on the cross. So when Jesus is in the garden and he is praying and he is in pain, I mean, that's

such just a poignant passage that's a different side of Jesus than we have seen before, so vulnerable, so human-like when he's praying that the Father would let this cup of suffering pass from him. Can you kind of like break down that passage? Why do we read that?

“Why do we need to know that and what exactly does this mean?”

This is a great question and the first thing I would say is you're asking this passage

because it raises troubling questions, like why is Jesus asking this cup to be taken away from me when we know that he knows it's coming and he's supposed to fulfill it? So one thing this tells us is these words were not invented. This historically goes back to Jesus because the early church would not have invented.

to be like, "I'm not sure I totally get it."

“So this gets us back to the historical Jesus which tells us he suffered and I think that's”

also another piece of circumstantial evidence for his crucifixion. What we have in Jesus consistently is a few things. Number one, he has submitted himself fully to the Father. I mean, just read the gospel of John, even though the story you're sharing is not in the gospel, John.

He over and over again is saying, "I do with the Father requires. My authority comes from above." So we see the sense that Jesus is one with God in essence and John again makes it clear

that he was God and was with God.

So he's one in purpose with the Father and he's one in essence with the Father. But because he takes on human flesh and is like us in every way, he bruised two and he bruised four points towards, he suffers and he gets tired and he gets hungry and he's tempted. So somehow in this person of Jesus, we had this mystery where he's God and he knows everything, but he also is like pleading out to the Father to take this cup away from him.

“So I think in some ways this passage is just revealing the level of suffering that Jesus”

went through. Now a lot of people don't really realize this, but it's almost like Jesus met his resolve in the garden. It's where he's wrestling with God, he realizes what's at stake. And then once he prays this prayer to God related to the cup his Father, it's like he has

this confident so to speak that takes him all the way through the crucifixion until the end. So I think we just see this human side of Jesus that in one sense his mind knows he needs to do it. He needs to be obedient to the Father and he will. But everything inside of him is like, why do I have to go through this God and he's just

expressing this feeling and desire of his heart. So in some sense we see the human side of Jesus suffering, we can relate to it. But we also if you read the larger passes around it, see the clear divinity of Jesus and both are at play. Hmm, I'm guessing this is a similar principle at play when Jesus is actually on the cross

“and he says, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

I mean, for the same reasons that you're articulating, it can be very hard to understand that. This is fully God, is there a real separation going on there? How do we reconcile that with our knowledge of the Trinity? So what is happening in this moment?

Such a good question and again, as the point before, these words are historical. The early Church did not invent these words, put them on the lips of Jesus as the last words that he speaks in Mark and then raise all these difficult theological questions. So from a purely historical standpoint, we have about as much confidence as you could have that Jesus spoke these words.

Now this is in Mark 1534, but then if you just go to 1539, you have this Roman centurion who's watching this five verses later and what does he say? He says, truly, this man is the son of God. So within five verses, you have Jesus crying out saying, Father, why have you abandoned me and this soldier's watching this and then within a few verses, even the soldier sees.

I think this is the climax of the book of Mark, even the soldier sees that there's something supernatural and arguably divine about him at the same time. The question is, how do we hold these two intention? Now that verse, Father, Father, why God, God, why have you forsaken me? That's from a Psalm David wrote in Psalm 221, and if you read that Psalm a few things

stand out about it, number one, David's like, "God, why have you abandoned me?" And it's this harrowing sense that David, who's one of the chosen, like, you know, precursors to the Messiah, chosen King, is saying to God, "Why have you abandoned me?" But you also have in that passage, there's another, there's a few other messianic references about how they cast his garment as lots, also in Psalm 22, is the sense of where they pierce

my hands, which is a foreshadowing of the crucifixion.

So I think Jesus cited this in part, because he's saying on the cross basically when it's

finished, I am fulfilling the Old Testament and what it said about me, David suffered. I suffer even more because I'm greater than David. So not only is this a messianic Psalm, it also makes clear that David was going to feel

He said, "I felt like God abandoned me and left me alone, but God has and will triumph

we've seen that in the past." So in some ways, Jesus is doing the same thing. He's saying as David felt abandoned and God was still with him and working towards the good, this is how I feel abandoned and God is going to work it for good. But with that said, it's really important that we don't downplay just the human pain and

agony that Jesus was going through. We typically think about the physical pain on the cross as being the worst, and that was unimaginable.

“But I think the worst part is the greatest injustice that the only person who's ever lived,”

who didn't sin, I mean, Jesus says to the religious leaders in jolly's, "Who of you can convict me of sin?"

The only sinless person who's ever lived, taking on the sin of the world, that way Jesus

is also crying out, expressing that distress and that pain before the Father. Why do you think the crowd chose Jesus to be crucified over bravest? I'm curious what you believe that says about the particular people at that time and what that might tell us about human simple nature in general. That's really hard to know for sure because at least when you read John, you get the impression

that Pilate is trying to get an excuse to get out of this. He sees that Jesus is, he's like, "I find no guilt in this man. I've had him with." He's trying to do everything to please the crowd, and they're not pleased. Now how big the crowd was exactly how many of them wanted Jesus crucified.

That's hard to say. I mean, again, in John, you have the sense of some of the religious leaders at that time believed in Jesus and followed him. But some did not. It starts as early as John 5 when Jesus heals the man at the pool of Bethesda on the Sabbath

claiming the authority of God that they start planning to kill him.

“So I think it probably was certain religious leaders of that time with power who felt threatened”

by Jesus and Jesus makes it clear that they did not know the Father. They thought they did, but they did not know the Father. If they knew the Father, they would listen to Him because the Father and Moses and the Scriptures and the miracles all point towards that. So I think they were spiritually blind.

They felt threatened by the power of Jesus and thought that this would be the end of Jesus. Which of course is the greatest irony in human history about his ironic is when Pilate says to Jesus. He says, "Some of the effect of you won't talk to me. Don't you know I have power to crucify you or not and Jesus is like you have no authority

over me." This crowd and Pilate thought this was going to be the end of it, but ironically it was just the beginning. Yeah. When you said blindness, it reminded me of what I was reading this morning in John 9 when

Jesus healed the blind man and the Pharisees, they are very confused about this. Sometimes you don't know if the Pharisees are really confused or if they're trying to trap Jesus. I guess usually it's the latter, but they're talking to this blind man, trying to figure out, "Okay, who healed you?

What do you think about Him? Do you think that this man is a sinner? He healed you on the Sabbath and it's just clear. They are spiritually hardened and they can't see Jesus for who He is and what He's doing. They can't even say unapologetically, "Wow, this is a great thing that this man has

been healed. They're more concerned with what Jesus is really up to and it seems like that theme is carried through even to the moment that we're talking about as they are delivering Him over to be crucified."

“And it's easy to look at that and say, "How could they do that?”

He never did anything wrong.

I mean truly a sheep led to the slaughter, but it says a lot about the hardness of our hearts. I think we can all see parts of ourselves in those who are deriding Jesus, who are mocking Jesus, who betrayed Jesus that we think we know better and not really understanding the spirit of God's commands even if we do know the letter of the law." And so it's very humbling to see Jesus' interactions with the holiest and most knowledgeable

people at the time, He really does flip over the wisdom of the world and makes it look foolish and it's just a good check for us that, okay, like, are we following the wisdom of God, are we relying on our own smarts, our own knowledge, our own power?

Again, I've just been reading through John, so it's so fresh in my mind.

“Is there so many people who know what Jesus did and know who he is, but they're afraid”

to speak up? So this blind man in John 9, you're talking about, was blind from the moment that he was born. He had never seen. And they come to him and ask him, he's like, "This man, Jesus healed us.

Well, they don't want to accept that." So they go to his parents and his parents and they ask his parents, the Pharisees do, "This, your son, is healed by Jesus." And it says kind of in parentheses, which means it's the author of John, given his commentary, that believe in and following Jesus, you'd be kicked out of the synagogue.

So out of fear, their parents rather than saying, "I mean, they're son who had never

seen." He was 38 years old, I think if I remember, or maybe that was the, maybe that was the invalid in John 5, but his whole life he had not seen. You think his parents would be so thrilled they'd say, "My son was blind, and now he sees."

But out of fear to the religious leaders, they'd just say, "Well, go ask him, he can talk." And I look at that, I'm like, "Wow, am I speaking up on what's true, even if it costs me something?" So you're right, we have to do a check on spiritual blindness.

“But I think we have to ask ourselves, "Who do I fear?”

Do I fear God or do I fear men?" And we see this example of Jesus. He says, "You have no power over me. I've already defeated death. I've already conquered this world.

Are we going to live in that confidence?" Man, that convicts me every day, Ali, because I want to be more and more bold to speak the truth, like that blind man who's like, "Oh, I know, as I was blind, but now I see." You know, it's funny that you talk about his parents because that was the first time that stuck out to me today.

I was actually listening to it in the car. And when I heard that part, I was like, "Hey, literally just threw their kid under the bus." They were like, "We don't want to say you did it. We don't want to say who healed him. We'll let our son who has been disabled his whole life.

We'll let him take the fall for it. If he wants to say it was Jesus, then he can do that. We're not going to." And I love what you said about being convicted about our own boldness.

I would love to think that I would never throw my children under the bus that I would never

be so scared of someone that I'd be afraid to stand up for what is true for the sake of my kids, but whatever it is, it's so easy for us to be intimidated by the opinions of others or what they can do to us that we're just, we won't say what is true. So that's a really good point. Okay, theologically explained to us the significance of Jesus' death and resurrection.

Obviously, we know that this is Christianity 101. This is what it rests on, but a lot of people listening might not know. So we've gone through how we know it actually happened, how we know it's true. But I want to hear you articulate why it matters. So the irony in this question, Ali, is that we call it good Friday.

I mean, how many people just stop and say, why do we call a day good for which our founder that we put faith in was mocked and spit it on and strip naked and humiliated and crucified publicly and shamed? We don't celebrate the day that JFK or Abraham Lincoln or anybody else that we review was put to death.

Well, the difference with Jesus is there was something good about his death and the question is what was it? Well, Jesus understands himself and so did the Gospels as fulfilling the Old Testament. So if you go back to John chapter 1, verse 29, and then it says that again in the 30s,

“when John about this sees Jesus coming, what does he say?”

He says, behold the Lamb of God, meaning he's referring back to the Passover, which we talked about earlier, where a spotless lamb was killed before the tenth plague, where the Israelites are in Egypt, and that its blood was put in the doorstep, and then the angel of God would pass over those houses and spare the life of the Oldest, or yes, spare the life of the Oldest son.

So Jesus sees himself, John the Baptist sees himself in this Old Testament motif that life is spared and saved through death of the Lamb. Now in the Old Testament, these animals were kind of substitutes. There are life, I mean, it says the Leviticus chapter 17, that it's like, you know, through

Now we're not explained why, but somehow through death, we're able to be in right relationship with God. Now animals to that in the Old Testament, Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice, and the reason we don't have to keep sacrificing is because Jesus is truly human, he represents us.

But he's also truly God, he's never sinned, so his sacrifice you might say is infinite

to cover any sin that we do, acts as our substitute for us. So it's good Friday, because Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15, Jesus died for our sins. So in some, Jesus covers first the wrath of God, who because God is just needs a payment for sin, but he also covers our duty to God in his death on the cross. Now the reason the resurrection is important is because it's God stamp saying death doesn't

have the last word. Yes, it's finished. The reason has been paid for. We have been forgiven. Jesus conquers the grave, and it's like it ratifies that death with God's divine approval, and tells us that this is real supernaturally speaking, our sins are forgiven.

And the last thing, Ali that I would say is this is what separates Christianity from

every other faith system. We can't earn God's approval by doing some kind of work. Jesus paid our debt on the cross. We contribute nothing to our own forgiveness and standing before God, except a humble acceptance of what Christ has done. I think when we realize the death that he paid, all that can do is humble us before God,

and then live differently because we have actually been forgiven and can stand in relationship with God. Amen.

“Yes, I remember, I don't remember who originally said this, maybe you know, but I think”

I heard it in high school, and it just clicks so much of what you're saying is encapsulated in this picture that there are so many religions that can tell you how to get to God. And some people will stop there. But a Buddhism can tell you how to get to God Islam, Judaism, all of these religions can tell you the steps that you have to take, the rules that you have to follow to find that

divine, fulfilling life. But the difference in those religions and Christianity, is that Christianity actually doesn't give that message at all.

Christianity is not saying, here's what you can do to get to God.

Here's how you climb the mountain to get to God. It's actually saying, you can't do that. You can't climb up the mountain. You cannot get to God. You are completely powerless to do that.

So God had to come down the mountain to rescue you. And I love what you said that we contribute nothing to our forgiveness.

“That is the distinctive, I think, between Christianity and all the other faiths.”

It's not about rules to follow so that you will gain salvation. Yes, there are commands that we abide by because we have been saved in love, God. But we cannot clean ourselves up for God. That is a free kind of liberating, good news that no other religion has. It's just too much of a generalization and not true to say all these different religions

are basically the same. They're not. Christianity is the one that is distinct because our gospel is different than all the others. Amen.

You remind me of a story, probably 15 or 20 years ago, speaking to an atheist group at Berkeley. And I was making the case that Christianity unique for four reasons. And one of them is God's grace that salvation is a free gift. And these were students, so I kind of thought free would land with them, you know, students paying for their education, you know, a lot of money.

And the student afterwards, on that forget, he actually said it's a way. He goes, Sean, your arguments are so bad. If I didn't know any differently, I'd think you were stoned on crack. Actually said it like that to me, I'm like, okay, you know, in Buddhism, there's a certain kind of gift and grace that is given to people on their journey.

And he goes, so you find grace in other faiths. And interestingly, I was in a doctoral class on Buddhism at that time. And so I knew it. I said, you're right, within Buddhism, certain forms of Buddhism, there are gods that give some grace for somebody on their journey.

“But it's different and saying you have to do certain actions and earn your way to salvation”

and you get little pockets of grace along the way. And the entire thing is a free gift.

And that's unique to Christianity.

“And that's why, you know, Paul says he talks about grace is a free gift.”

This is not from yourselves. It is a gift from God. So no one can boast. All I can tell you, Ali, is the old raget. The more I'm aware of just how profoundly I fall short of this, how much I need God.

And I'm just thankful for his grace. Hmm. You know, I think there is something biblical might have been a little bit crass. But him saying that your theological argument sound like you're high on crack or stoned on crack.

You know, I mean, first Corinthians one makes really clear that like the wisdom of God sounds

like foolishness to the wise of the world and that he turns that on his head. And that is routinely what Jesus did as we were talking about earlier with some of the smartest, most knowledgeable religious leaders. They thought that he sounded like he was crazy. So I would, I would love to know where that student is today.

And if there is a student that was playing with there, okay, I would love to talk about just maybe kind of rapid fire with the little time that we have left. That's some basic theological question. And we got some really good questions in from my listeners, or really maybe apologetics I guess they go hand in hand.

But they reminded me of some questions actually that my five almost six year old has been asking me. And as you know, at this age, kids can become really good theologians. And they ask questions that you're like, that's a really good question. They're grown-ups that are still asking and debating things like this.

So we were reading, for example, which we've done many, many times, but we were reading and her kids Bible, the story of the Garden of Eden, of creation and the fall. And she understands that like sin and sadness and sickness came from all of that. And she's really sad about that. Like she genuinely, really, really sad about that and wishes it did not happen.

And she asked me, why did God make the serpent? Why did God put him there? And I'm like, yeah, that's something that people have been debating for a long time. And I don't know that I have the clear cut answer on that exactly, but what would you say to that really good question?

Well, first off, I'd say to your five or six years, I'd say to my kids, I go, what a great question. I love that you're using your mind, keep the questions coming. Second, I would say, what do you think? I mean, seriously, I ask kids questions all the time.

I want to teach them how to think. I want to teach them how to relate and discuss these topics, rather than just giving them an answer. Third, I would say, you know, the Bible doesn't directly tell us. This serpent just shows up.

We don't know where the serpent comes from. Maybe later in Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14, we possibly get an explanation, but we really don't know. Can we trust God when we don't know?

But here's what we do know.

Somehow God was able to use this serpent that seemed to have free will and choose to rebel from God, just like we have free will, and we rebel from God. Just as God can still use our lives, even though we don't always choose good, and so

“must consistently choose bad, I think God can still use the serpent in and to bring his ultimate”

good. To a five-year-old, that's probably where I would leave it and put it. Yeah, I think that's really good. We have some other questions from our listeners. One question, I'm struggling with assurance of salvation.

How can I know for sure that I'm saved? Well, the first thing I would say is, tell me what you mean by sure. I think we can have assurance or confidence in salvation, but that doesn't require certain certainty. Doubt is not the opposite of belief, which is why Jude says have mercy on those who doubt.

So I see a lot of people deconstruct, I know this is a topic you've talked about, Aliens, times people think, if I don't have one hundred percent certainty, then I don't have belief. I want to say belief is 51% in favor of something, but then how do I grow?

And the bottom line in Romans 109 is talk about if you confess with your lips and with your

mouth that Jesus is Lord, you will be saved. So do you believe that Jesus is God? Do you believe he's the one that the Father sent?

“Do you believe that he's forgiven you for your sins if you believe that?”

You're safe. Now somebody who says this often times in my experience, Ali, there's sometimes just deeper hurt and questions that are going on underneath the surface. So I would encourage this person, I'd say look, it's natural to have questions, it's natural

I would sit down with a pastor and try to get to the root of where some of those doubts come from. Are they emotional, are they spiritual, are they moral, and then when we can kind of address those, it's a proverb that says the purbuses in a man's heart are deep and a person of wisdom draws it out.

Oftentimes doubt of salvation comes from questions we have, and if it's intellectual, study apologetics, if it's moral, repent, if it's relational, maybe you've got to heal that

“relationship, that's how we grow in our confidence in the Lord.”

If someone is just starting out and just exploring Christianity, what should they do first?

Where should they start? In the Bible, how do they find a local church? I know that those are kind of big separate questions, but where would you tell someone to start? I would definitely get plugged into church right away, and I would look for an evangelical

church. Obviously that's the tradition you and I are part of that's going to teach that the Bible is true and preach the scriptures from the stage.

So go to a church, get involved in a small group as quickly as you can.

“That's how we grow, and that's how you learn, and that's how there's accountability.”

In terms of the scriptures, I just set out a tweet earlier today, and I ask people, I said, if you were stranded on an island and you had one Old Testament book and one New Testament book, what would you pick? And I said, I'd take Genesis, and I'd take John. So I'd encourage this person to read Genesis, and then read the gospel of John, start there.

And for a new believer, if I could throw one more in there, if I had a copy, I'd give it to you.

I'd really encourage you to read the book more than a carpenter.

My dad wrote this as a skeptic trying to disprove Christianity, came to the faith, and it lays out who Jesus is and the most simple case that Jesus God, the Bible's true. He rose to the grave. We just updated it. It's so important to start one's journey in a church, in a small group, in the scriptures, but also with the confidence that this is really true.

Yes, absolutely. Well, thank you so much, and Sean, if people want to read you, follow you, support to you. How can they best do that? Like you, I'm on YouTube, I really love this platform, I love having long-form conversations.

So all the stuff we talked about today, evidence for the resurrection, death of Jesus, intelligent design, moral and social issues, many of the ones that you covered. I talk about in YouTube. My website, Sean MacDot.org, links to Instagram.

“I think that's where you told me last time you first saw some of my stuff.”

I do a lot of short videos, just a polygetics that's there, I've got a blog. We have a separate audio podcast out of bio that I co-host, and if anybody really loves this stuff, Alley, I'd say, come study with me at Talbot. We have a master's program in a polygetics. It's totally online.

We would love to equip you to just become an apologist in your church to serve the body of your Christ. Dr. Sean MacDot, thank you so much for taking the time and happy Easter. Thanks, Alley. Happy resurrection day and happy Easter.

I like it. [BLANK_AUDIO]