THREE HURDLES

Obstructing the Truth

of the Gospel
INTRODUCTION: Are You Ready to Engage? 2

HURDLE ONE: The Denial of Objectivity 6

HURDLE TWO: The Adoption of ‘Wokeness’ Ideology 16

HURDLE THREE: The Weakening of Biblical Inerrancy 28

ONE MORE THING: Taking You Beyond Online Education 36

CONCLUSION: What Are You Waiting For? 39

Three Hurdles Obstructing the Truth of the Gospel / © Southern Evangelical Seminary & Bible College 2022
www.SES.edu / #WhyDoYouBeleive
AUTHORS/EDITORS: Dr. Thomas Howe, Dr. Doug Potter, Adam Tucker, & Christina Woodside
INTRODUCTION

ARE YOU
READY TO
ENGAGE?
W ith sexual, moral, and theological confusion abounding, how do you evangelize
the lost and equip the saints in a post-Christian society? Christ-followers are
called to combat false ideas that stand in the way of the Gospel. Knowing how to do
that, however, can be very challenging. To effectively engage with these false ideas, you
will need a deeply integrated understanding of philosophy, theology, and apologetics.
This integrated apologetics-focused approach is the core of every program at Southern
Evangelical Seminary and Bible College (SES). Whether you feel God leading you to
pursue some form of professional ministry, or whether you simply want to be more
equipped to teach Sunday School, talk with your coworkers, or train your family, there
are good reasons for you to consider earning a degree or certificate from SES.

We all understand that every culture is built upon ideas. Our modern cultural context
is the consequence of numerous bad ideas playing themselves out, which have resulted
in a society that views Christianity very differently from years past. While ministry
within proper personal relationships is always important, as Barna Research Group has
observed,

“… our research suggests that most of the efforts of Christian ministries fail
to reach much beyond the core of ‘Christianized’ America. It’s much easier
to work with this already-sympathetic audience than to focus on the so-
called ‘nones’. … Christians for whom ‘ministry is about relationships’ may
be disappointed when they find that many skeptics are not as enamored of
relational bonds as are those who are already a part of church life. … New
levels of courage and clarity will be required to connect beyond the Chris-
tianized majority.” 7

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 3

Rather than run from bad ideas, believers are called to courageously be salt and light
wherever they may find themselves (Matthew 5:13; Acts 17; 2 Corinthians 10:5; Titus
1:9; 1 Peter 3:15; Jude 3) and to remain steadfast in the truth (1 Cor. 15:58).

Confusion within the Church

Most church goers, however, are ill-equipped to address the key issues facing our cul-
ture and are often just as confused. As more and more classical Christian thinking is
forgotten, the bad ideas of the culture are being adopted by many modern believers. For
instance, one survey found that 54% of American church goers “agree that religious
belief is a matter of personal opinion rather than objective truth.8

How can we respond? SES co-founder, the late Dr. Norman Geisler, rightly said,

“Apologetics is simply to defend the faith and thereby destroy arguments

and every proud obstacle against the knowledge of God. It is opening the
door, clearing the rubble, and getting rid of the hurdles so that people can
come to Christ.”

Sadly, the rubble and hurdles are many. This short e-book is intended to help you con-
sider three such hurdles standing between someone and the Gospel. While the inerrant
Word of God is our ultimate authority, we must be prepared to meet people where they
are in their spiritual journey. The integrated apologetics-focused training found at SES
will help you form a complete and systematic Christian worldview. Such systematic
thinking aids in both removing obstacles as we share the Gospel and building mature
disciples who remain steadfast in the truth.

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 4

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 5
HURDLE ONE

THE
DENIAL OF
OBJECTIVITY
A ll of us at one time or another have been involved with a Bible study where,
after reading a passage, the leader looks up and asks the group, “What does that
passage mean to you?” On the surface it may sound like a reasonable, amiable question,
but is the purpose of Bible study to bounce around subjective ideas based on changing
times? Would not the serious student of the Bible want to know an objective meaning
that is true for all people and at all times, one that reveals the mind of the Author?

What is objectivity when it comes to studying the Bible? Objectivity in Bible study
means that it is possible to know what the text of the Bible actually means, to have a
correct interpretation of the Bible even if there may be different applications to indi-
vidual situations. However, for many Bible scholars today, objectivity is thought to be
a kind of neutrality, or an approach to the text and to reality that is not determined by
one’s own perspectives.

According to these scholars, objectivity is rejected as a naïve approach that ignores what
they believe is the all-important perspective of the interpreter. Their position is that
Bible study involves interpretation, and interpretation involves everything that we think
and everything we are, what we believe, our point of view, what we think is true and
false, what is important to us, what we think about our world, our training, dispositions,
and opinions—all the factors that come together to form our personal worldview. Our
personal worldview, according to these scholars, determines how we interpret the world.
It is like having a set of glasses through which we look at and interpret our world. Since
no two worldviews are exactly alike and since our worldview determines the way we
look at the world, they say it is not possible to have an objective understanding of the
Bible. Sadly, this is a belief held by almost all Evangelical scholars today.

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 7

For example, Evangelical hermeneutics scholar Grant Osborne says,

“The sociology of knowledge recognizes the influence of societal values on

all perceptions of reality. This is a critical factor in coming to grips with the
place of preunderstanding in the interpretive process. Basically, sociology
of knowledge states that no act of coming to understanding can escape
the formative power of the background and the paradigm community to
which an interpreter belongs.”1

In other words, according to this view everyone approaches the interpretive or under-
standing process, regardless of what is being interpreted, with a certain preunderstand-
ing or worldview that contains certain presuppositions which essentially serve as a filter
or grid by which communication is interpreted or understood. Evangelical theologian
Kevin VanHoozer agrees when he says,

“No reading is objective; all reading is theory-laden. There is no innocent

eye; there is no innocent ‘I.’ … The claim to see texts as they are is illusory.
Every reader sees what one can see from one’s position in society, space,
and time. … Like it or not, what we find in texts is a function of who, and
where, we are.”2

This poor understanding of objectivity is very similar to the standpoint epistemology

found within critical theory studies (including critical race theory). Such thinking is
partly what makes many of the claims from critical theory seem remotely plausible.
Evangelical scholar Nathan Luis Cartagena promotes this view when he says,

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 8

“[Critical race theory] scholars ‘reject the prevailing orthodoxy that schol-
arship should be or could be “neutral” and “objective.”’ … Human beings
are perspectival knowers. We learn about, see, and treat things from tradi-
tion-bound perspectives. Our scholarship, then, never arises from a neutral,
objective view from nowhere.”3

Even the popular apologetics world echoes these ideas, likely without even realizing it.
For instance, Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis says, “In fact, there are only two kinds
of glasses in an ultimate sense. We either wear God’s glasses or man’s glasses … There
are only two starting points for our worldviews: one either starts with God’s Word or
man’s word.”4

Implications
There are two significant implications for Bible study that follow directly from these
beliefs about objectivity. First, if objectivity is a kind of neutrality, then in order to be
neutral, the reader must take off his glasses/worldview. This creates a problem. If your
worldview is what makes understanding possible, then without your worldview you
cannot understand or know anything. When you take off your glasses, you cannot see.

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 9

So then, no one can study the Bible (or anything else for that matter) without looking
through his own glasses/worldview. But, it is this very worldview that unavoidably in-
fluences your interpretation. So, given these ideas, every interpretation will necessarily
be a product, to some degree, of your own worldview, and this fact militates against the
degree of certainty about having the correct interpretation.

The second implication that necessarily follows is that, with the rejection of objectivity,
there would seem to be no grounds upon which to decide whose interpretation is the
correct interpretation. If every interpretation is the product of one’s own worldview,
then there can be no single correct interpretation. James Smart identified how the rejec-
tion of objectivity makes it impossible to know what God says in His Word:

“The danger inherent in this development was that theological interpre-

tations of Scripture would be its meaning for this or that theologian. Thus,
theological exposition, instead of penetrating to the one word of God in
Scripture that brings all Christians into fellowship with one another, would
give each segment of the Christian community the license to read its own
theological convictions out of the text of Scripture.”5

Once we reject the possibility of objectivity, we have lost the very Word of God. By
implication, we have also lost the very foundation of knowing the Gospel.

Connecting Worldviews & Objectivity

Does this mean that it is impossible to know what God says? In fact, objectivity is pos-
sible even though each person has his own worldview. How is it possible? Because there

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 10

are some things in the world that are the same for all people, all the time, no matter
where or when they lived.

By and large, those denying the possibility of objectivity have adopted the philosoph-
ical view that says man cannot know reality in itself. Instead, he only knows his ideas
(i.e., his perspective) about reality. This view holds that there is an epistemological gap
between our minds and the things being known in reality. On such a view we are only
able to know our ideas about a thing, a tree for example, rather than the tree itself.

Contrary to the popular views adopted by most modern thinkers, SES holds the classi-
cal view maintaining that it is possible for us to know directly true things about reality
in itself. This is because things in reality, like a tree or a man, have specific natures that
make them what they are. For example, we are all individual human beings that share a
common human nature. Given our nature as human beings, we are able to experience
sensible reality, and our intellects are able to grasp the natures of the things experi-
enced. Thus, there is no gap between our minds and things being
known. For more details on the knowing process, click here to
read our ebook Why Trust the God of the Bible?

Therefore, because we can know true things about the nature

of reality, we can know what a tree is when the Bible speaks
about trees. We can know what a man is when Jesus is said to
be the God-man. We can know the natures of things which are
the same for all people, in all times, everywhere. And
because we can know directly the real world, we

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 11

are able to discover certain foundational truths that are also true for everyone regardless
of their worldview.

These foundational truths are known as the first principles of thought and being. First
principles are truths that cannot be denied. They form the foundation of knowledge and
make it possible for different people with different worldviews to connect with each
other and communicate with one another. These first principles are grounded in the
reality we all share in common. All truth claims are reducible to first principles, but not
deducible from first principles.

One example of a first principle is the law of non-contradiction. This law means that a
statement cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense. So, if I
make the statement that “God exists,” this statement cannot be both true and false at the
same time and in the same sense. Either God exists, or He does not. You cannot have
it both ways. We know that this is a first principle because it cannot be denied. Anyone
who says that the law of non-contradiction is not true must use the law in order to deny
the law.6 Now, a statement can be both true and false, but not in the same sense. If I
am living in Charlotte, NC, I can say, “I live in Charlotte, North Carolina,” and this is
a true statement. However, if I were to move to another city in another state, then the
statement “I live in Charlotte, North Carolina” is no longer true. The statement can be
both true and false, but not at the same time or in the same sense.

The law of non-contradiction was as true for the biblical authors as it is for us today.
Because of these first principles, like the law of non-contradiction, when the Bible says
that “God is good,” then we know that this statement was as true for the authors of the

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 12

Bible as it is for us today. These first principles, and the nature of reality, are the same
for all people at all times and in every place. Thus, we have a connection with the Bible
that is not affected by our own personal worldview.

Such first principles form the foundation upon which truth rests. They are
true for everyone because that is the way God created the world, and because
the first principles transcend our own worldviews, it is possible to have an
objective interpretation, a correct interpretation, of the Bible.

Let us now apply this solution to the question of objectivity.

1. Doesn’t everyone have his own worldview? We do not deny the fact that
every person has his own worldview. However, we disagree that a person’s worldview
makes objectivity impossible. The fact is, there are first principles that are common to
all humans as part of the nature of humanity as God created it. For someone to say that
there is no such thing as objectivity is to count on the objective meaning of this very
claim. To deny objectivity while counting on objectivity is self-defeating. Indeed, any
claim that denies first principles is ultimately self-defeating and false. Although every-
one has his own worldview, the foundation of any worldview is the same for all people,
at all times, in all cultures, regardless of language, background, training, worldview,
perspective, horizon, etc.

2. Can any worldview be universally valid? It is simply false to claim that no

worldview is universally valid. In fact, this very claim assumes its own universal va-
lidity. It is undeniably the case that there are aspects of every framework that are un-

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 13

avoidable, self-evident, and true. The basic laws of logic and the undeniability of truth
are the same everywhere and at all times. Consequently, any claim that denies these
foundational principles is self-defeating and false.

3. But, isn’t universal validity implied in the notion of objectivity?

Not only is universal validity implied in the notion of objectivity, but it is also the very
essence of objectivity. Anyone who attempts to deny neutrality assumes that his own
claims are universally valid and therefore objective. To claim that there can be no neu-
trality assumes this very neutrality. All such claims are self-defeating and false.

4. Can an interpreter really be objective in interpretation? To claim that

no interpreter can be objective in his interpretation is both self-defeating and false. For
anyone to claim that no interpreter can be objective assumes that the one making the
claim has been objective in his interpretation of the question of objectivity. Regardless
of the fact that interpreters do not always achieve objectivity, the fact is that objectivity
is possible.

5. If objectivity is possible, then isn’t a “correct” interpretation also

possible? Since objectivity is possible, then so is a correct interpretation. To claim
that there is no correct interpretation assumes one’s own interpretation is the correct
one. This too is self-defeating and false.

6. If objectivity is possible, doesn’t that mean that it is also possible to

judge whether an interpretation is correct or not? In spite of their denials
of objectivity, some Evangelicals still think that it is possible to decide between inter-

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 14

pretations. It is not only possible; it is unavoidable. Every act of understanding is, in
one way or another, an act of deciding between interpretations. We hold one thing to be
true and its contradiction to be false. We accept one view and reject its opposite.

It is not necessary for Evangelicals to compromise on the notions of objectivity and

truth in order to accept the undeniable fact that all understanding is mediated through
our own worldview. The fact of self-evident, undeniable first principles constitute a
foundation upon which objectivity is based.7 We believe that the God of the Christian
Scriptures has created us after His image and that we all share a human nature capable
of knowing truths about reality. This insures that the objectivity of truth and a correct
interpretation of His Word (or any other text) are in fact possible. It is both self-defeat-
ing and false to claim otherwise. To ignore this issue, or to think poorly about
objectivity as so many Evangelical scholars are doing, is to give
ground to false ideologies currently undermining
the truth of the Gospel.

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 15

HURDLE TWO

THE
ADOPTION
OF ‘WOKENESS’
IDEOLOGY
A nother non-traditional apologetics issue that is a hurdle to the Gospel is the trendy
“wokeness” ideology that is taking over our society with everyone from churches,
to schools, to giant corporations seeing who can be the most “woke.” Such ideas empha-
size feelings over facts, pretend that individuals determine reality for themselves (i.e.,
your “truth”), put a priority on affirming feelings, ideas, or behaviors rather than willing
someone’s actual good (the real meaning of “love”), and often deny even the ability to
know objective truth. Being “woke” means you have become enlightened to the alleged
systemic oppression of various groups and you vow to fight for “social justice,” which
usually means working for equal economic and social outcomes in a given context.

In reality, the popular understanding of “social justice” that undergirds the “woke”
movement is the opposite of the good all humans should pursue and is anything but just
(i.e., giving someone their due). Historic Christianity, and even things like logic and sci-
ence, are seen as oppressive, racist, bigoted, etc. For example, critical race theory (CRT)
scholars Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic say,

“The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and

scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among
race, racism, and power. … critical race theory questions the very founda-
tions of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlight-
enment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.”1

Today’s “woke” culture is tearing our society apart and erecting barriers to people con-
sidering the true Gospel and the freedom it provides. The Gospel of eternal life is being
transformed into a social gospel. Consider the words of Rev. William J. Barber, II,

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 17

“Biblically speaking, to be evangelical is to be concerned about the poor.
The Greek word Jesus uses in Luke’s Gospel—ptōchos—refers to those who
have been made poor by unjust systems. To be an evangelical is to be com-
mitted to challenging injustice and economic exploitation. It is the very
opposite of the message preached by many so-called evangelicals today.”2

This is essentially another gospel. Too many believers are being taken in by these
ideas, and too many relationships are being destroyed for us to remain silent. We will
ultimately see many believers’ Christian convictions shattered by the end of it all. The
Church should summarily reject the major notions of “wokeness” ideology, critical race
theory, “white guilt,” and “white fragility” for several reasons.

Emotionalism and Platitudes

Undoubtedly, racism still exists in America, and of
course we should do everything we can to combat it
and other forms of injustice. This is the natural out-
working of the true Gospel, while not being the Gospel.
However, the arguments often being used by many
well-meaning Evangelicals in support of “white guilt,”
“white fragility,” other “woke” ideologies, and even
things like mobs tearing down monuments, are the
very same types of emotionally-charged arguments
we have seen other professing Christians use to
support things like homosexual behavior,
transgender lifestyles, and other ideas

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 18

contrary to our good. Rather than taking a step back, understanding terms (ex., “love,”
“good,” or “justice”), investigating evidence (both for and against any particular accu-
sation), and being prudent in our judgments, a vast number of Evangelical leaders have
accepted current narratives without question, rushed to judgments, encouraged their
followers to the do the same, and tripped over themselves with virtue signaling lest they
be accused of being too “unloving” or something worse. In our experience, Christians
who go down this path are one step closer to abandoning historic Christianity for a car-
icature of the real thing. Tragically, many Christians who accept such a caricature soon
enough discard the faith altogether. As philosopher Edward Feser notes,

“[Forsaking a good because one cannot endure the associated difficulties]

is rife among modern churchmen, who seem to fear controversy above all
things, and especially controversy that might earn them the disdain of the
secular liberal intelligentsia. And for most of the last few decades, the worst
they would have faced is some bad press. The way Western culture is turn-
ing now, they will probably face far worse than that in the not too distant
future – and will face it precisely because they did not speak and act boldly
and consistently enough when bad press was all they had to fear. Appease-
ment only ever breeds contempt among those appeased, and spurs them
to greater evil.”3

Unsurprisingly, many conservative Christians doing their best to offer biblical respons-
es to current issues do little more than quote Bible verses and say exactly what one
would expect a conservative Christian to say (at least prior to the days of cancel culture
and mob rule). Needless to say, for most people engaging with these issues, quoting Bi-

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 19

ble verses means little or nothing as they do not accept the Bible as authoritative. More-
over, why does God say the things that He says about morality and human rights? These
biblical appeals, while true, often become Christian platitudes with very little substance
behind them. When Christians have no substance behind their platitudes, they are more
easily persuaded to give way to emotionally charged rhetoric and either buy into the
false ideologies or disengage altogether for fear of having nothing more to say. Both
of these scenarios are due in large part to the adoption of the underlying philosophical
positions driving the denial of objectivity discussed earlier.

Truth and Goodness

It is time to love our neighbors well by boldly standing for truth and goodness. The
Apostle Paul says, “Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but rather
expose them. … ‘Awake, O sleeper! Rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you!’
Therefore, consider carefully how you live—not as unwise but as wise, taking advan-
tage of every opportunity …” (Eph. 5:11-16, NET).

Classical natural law thinking found in scholars such as Thomas Aquinas gives us an
objective basis, common to all human beings and consistent with God’s inerrant Word,
from which we can fight the real evils of racism and bigotry while also shining light
on the unfruitful ideas of the cult-like movement of “wokeness.” The robust natural
law foundation from which SES operates provides common ground that allows anyone
to understand properly what concepts like “good,” “love,” and “justice” actually mean.
Natural law morality is biblical (Rom. 1:20, 2:15) and provides a solid foundation from
which to make moral judgments in the public sphere with both believers and unbeliev-
ers. This is the moral theory upon which much of the civil rights movement was based.

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 20

Our Christian convictions undergirded by this classical natural law reasoning compel
us to fight real racism wherever it is found and to stand for truth, justice, natural rights,
and the freedoms they secure. That is why SES is committed to equipping students with
the philosophical and theological tools necessary to engage these cultural issues head-
on. The current popular understanding of “social justice” is the opposite of the good all
humans should pursue and is anything but just. As Feser ironically observes,

“The currency of the term ‘social justice’ originated in Thomistic natural law
social theory. … It has to do with the just or right ordering of society as de-
fined by strong families … , solidarity and cooperation between economic
classes and other social groups, and … subsidiarity in the state’s relation-
ship to the [families, churches, civic organizations, etc.] of society.”4

Fighting for the true and the good in the public arena of ideas paves the way culturally
for the seeds of the Gospel to have more opportunity to fall upon good ground. Speak-
ing to leaders in the church, Paul says in Titus 1:9-14, “… hold firmly to the faithful
message as it has been taught, so that he will be able to give exhortation in such healthy
teaching and correct those who speak against it. … For this reason rebuke them sharply
that they may be healthy in the faith …” (NET).

Are you equipping your flock (or family) with sound teaching that goes beyond self-help
and biblical platitudes? Are you refuting those who contradict the truth? Are you equip-
ping those you shepherd with the ability to proclaim and defend the Gospel? We cannot
love our neighbors well and lead them to the Gospel if we sacrifice truth and goodness
on the false altar of “wokeness” ideology. Will you remain steadfast in the truth?

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 21

A Natural Law Case Against ‘Wokeness’
1. Neither an individual human being nor a society can become better without some
end/purpose towards which each is directed to pursue. If there is no directed end/
purpose, individuals and societies may change and become different, but they cannot
actually become better. To become better implies that people or societies are becom-
ing more perfect and are therefore more closely approaching what it means to be good.
Hence, without this goal directedness (i.e., teleology) there can be no objective way to
argue that one person or society is good and any other person or society is bad/evil.

2. Something is good to the extent that it is perfect, and something is perfect to the
extent that it fulfills the end/purpose towards which it is directed according to its nature
(i.e., what it is). A simple way to understand this is to consider that a good eye is one
that manifests the perfection of seeing well (sight being the end/purpose towards which
an eye is directed given its nature; see 1 Cor. 12:15-20). This is arguably the only means
by which to have an objective standard of goodness that is discovered (i.e., not invented)
and that is objectively true (i.e., corresponds to reality) for everyone.

3. The good for us as humans is determined by our shared nature as human beings (i.e.,
what we are) rather than any subjective thought, desire, or feeling a particular individual
may have. Human beings have an intellect directed towards pursuing truth (which is the
good for the intellect) and a will directed towards obtaining what the intellect perceives
as good. To deny the claim that your intellect is directed to truth (i.e., to say the claim is
false) is in practice to validate it. Your denial would demonstrate the fact that, by nature,
your intellect is directed towards knowing true things (John 8:32).

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 22

4. From these principles one is able to derive natural law morality (the good we as
humans ought to pursue based on what perfects/fulfills the various ends towards which
our common human nature is directed) that provides an objective basis for human mor-
al actions and human law.5 As Thomas Aquinas notes,

“… this is the first precept of law, that ‘good is to be done and pursued, and
evil is to be avoided.’ All other precepts of the natural law are based upon
this: … whatever the practical reason naturally apprehends as man’s good
(or evil) belongs to the precepts of the natural law as something to be done
or avoided.”6

Much like the law of non-contradiction is discovered to be an indemonstrable first prin-

ciple of reasoning that cannot be avoided, scholar Paul DeHart observes,

“No natural lawyer has ever proposed inferring oughts from oughtless facts.
… Natural lawyers of varying backgrounds begin moral reasoning from
indemonstrable first principles of practical or moral reason that prescribe
and therefore stipulate an ought right at the outset—namely, that good is
to be done and evil avoided.”7

5. A modified form of natural law was the foundational statement of the United States’
Declaration of Independence,

“When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people
to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 23

and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal sta-
tion to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent
respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the
causes which impel them to the separation.”

Martin Luther King Jr. also referenced natural law in his famous Letter from the Bir-
mingham Jail: “I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’…
To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not
rooted in eternal and natural law.”8 We also see this notion referenced throughout the
Bible, perhaps most specifically in Rom. 2:14-15.

6. Furthermore, we human beings are social creatures (but not socialist creatures) who
naturally depend on one another to fulfill some of our various ends/purposes while ex-
pecting others to not interfere with our pursuing of the good (Mark 12:31). Societies are
simply collections of human beings living in proximity, striving for the common good.
The nuclear family is the natural and most fundamental structure from which societies
are built. Given these truths, it follows that all human beings have certain natural rights.
To again quote our Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evi-
dent, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Happiness here is not to be understood as a fleeting emotion dictated by circumstances.
Rather, true happiness lies in the fulfillment of our good as human beings (Prov. 28:12).

7. Natural law is the best foundation upon which to build an objective and robust basis
for human rights, freedom/liberty, and justice. As Feser notes,

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 24

“While the very concept of a right entails a certain measure of liberty, that
liberty cannot be absolute; for since the point of natural rights is to enable
us to realize the ends set for us by nature, there cannot, even in principle,
be a natural right to do what is contrary to the realization of those ends. In
short, there cannot be a natural right to do wrong” (Gal. 5:13).9

True liberty, or freedom, is not the ability to do whatever one desires. It is the ability to
do what one ought, that is, to do what is objectively good. Justice, in turn, is the good of
giving people their due and not withholding what is owed. Without a robust understand-
ing of objective goodness and natural law, we cannot have a proper understanding of
liberty or justice (Prov. 21:15; Is. 1:17; Gal. 5:13). Properly understood, justice is based
on truth, goodness, and equal treatment and/or opportunity. This stands in contrast to
the popular understanding of social justice that is concerned with status and equal out-
comes (Prov. 28:16).

8. From the above, it follows that all forms of racism are morally wrong and should be
condemned and combated. Treating anyone as less than human (or as a lesser human)
is objectively evil. It also follows, however, that homosexual and transgender behavior
are contrary to the good of human sexuality and should not be promoted or affirmed. In
addition, it follows that dismantling the nuclear (i.e., natural) family and intentionally
depriving children of life (i.e., abortion) or a natural family structure are necessarily
evil.10 Something like the natural law reasoning above must be true in order for there to
be an objective basis to say “black lives matter” or that any lives actually matter.

9. Each human being also has a natural right to private property, to engage in com-

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 25

merce, and to not be coerced by the government or fellow citizens to violate his own
natural rights or the rights of others. Hence, free-market capitalism is the best economic
system by which imperfect humans can best work together for the common good (Exod.
20:15; 1 Tim. 5:18).11

10. Government is for the people, not people for the government, and the goal of gov-
ernment is the common good of its citizens. Both totalitarianism and egalitarianism
should be rejected. Even with our sins and imperfections as a nation, this federal consti-
tutional republic has always striven to be better (Rom. 13:4). Without the foundational
principles of natural law, however, we will never be able to form a “more perfect union”
or “establish justice” as promised in the preamble of the United States Constitution.

11. Classically understood, to love others is to will their good. Hence, based on the
above, we truly love others when we graciously point them to truth and help them fulfill
their good according to their nature as human beings. To encourage anyone to pursue
anything contrary to the good is nothing less than hate. First Corinthians 13:4-7 de-
scribes love as follows:

“Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is
not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not
provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice
in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all
things, hopes all things, endures all things.”

12. It is certainly true that all black lives are sacred. It is also true that the Black Lives

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 26

Matter (BLM) organization (that promotes disrupting the nuclear family among other
things) and other “wokeness” ideologies violate the natural law and cannot be classified
as good. Granted that to love is to will the good of another, promoting the BLM agenda
or “wokeness” ideologies cannot be considered loving. Therefore, individuals or soci-
eties that promote things contrary to the good by adopting such ideas cannot become
better or become “more perfect.” While our ultimate good is only found in knowing
God through salvation in Jesus Christ (i.e., the Gospel), we can strive to promote the
common good (i.e., love our neighbors as ourselves) by working with our fellow citizens
to argue for natural law, to defend natural rights, to help the oppressed, and to share the
Gospel as often as possible (2 Cor. 10:3-5; Eph. 4:25-32; Titus 3:1-11; 2 Pet. 1:5-9).

CLICK HERE to read our full statement on racism and social justice.

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 27

HURDLE THREE

THE
WEAKENING
OF BIBLICAL
INERRANCY
T he doctrine of biblical inerrancy has been under attack to various degrees for a
very long time. It is unsurprising that the same underlying philosophical ideas
driving the denial of objectivity are also fueling a new round of voices calling into
question the Bible’s inerrancy. To abandon the correspondence theory of truth and to
redefine truth as “accomplishing an author’s intent,” combined with having a perspec-
tive-based way of knowing examined earlier in this booklet, lead to misunderstandings
of inerrancy.

For example, Evangelical scholar Peter Enns mistakenly says,

“The bottom line here is that the Bible is too diverse and contradictory for
‘inerrancy’ to hold any explanatory power. … A deep problem with iner-
rancy is that it presumes (or works best with) the notion that the Bible
‘properly’ understood will yield one and only one authoritative meaning.
But the Bible is famously fraught with ambiguities, tensions, and contra-
dictions that are part of the character of Scripture … In the Bible, we read
of encounters with God by ancient peoples, in their times and places, ask-
ing their questions, and expressed in language and ideas familiar to them.
Those encounters with God were, I believe, genuine, authentic, and real.
… All of us on a journey of faith encounter God from our point of view …”
[emphasis in original].1

Like Enns, many people have misconceptions about the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.
One popular misconception is they think inerrancy is based on an ancient reading of the
Bible. That is, they think some ancient person or council, after collecting the biblical

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 29

manuscripts, read through them all, and upon not finding any errors or perhaps correct-
ing them if they did, pronounced the books inerrant. Another one is that inerrancy is
true simply because the Bible claims to be inspired by God and God’s word is true, thus
implying the Bible is without error or inerrant. While true, this claim is not the only
basis of inerrancy. If it were, we would be reasoning in a circle by saying this claim is
contained in the very books we are asserting are completely truthful or without error.
Hence, for inerrancy to stand, there must be a better basis. Indeed, these misconcep-
tions about how we reason to an inerrant Bible could not be further from the truth. The
doctrine of biblical inerrancy is not based on any person or group reading through the
Bible looking for errors, and it does not suffer the pain of circular reasoning.

Also, we do not have to understand everything in or about the Bible to assert it is iner-
rant. No doubt, there are things in the Bible not yet fully understood. Some passages are
difficult to interpret, and some interpretations are vigorously debated. However, many
things in the Bible are plain and simple. Indeed, the essential teachings and doctrines
are not difficult to discover. This should include such things as the triune nature of
God, the deity of Jesus Christ, his substitutionary atonement, physical resurrection, the
gospel, second coming, etc. To these we can say, “The main things are the plain things.”

To be sure, if the Bible does have errors, it does not necessarily follow that the resur-
rection of Jesus is false. Nevertheless, an errant Bible provides no firm foundation from
which to accurately know the Gospel and discover the essential doctrines of the Chris-
tian faith. Inerrancy is important because without it we have no certainty that these
essential teachings are true. But how do we get to inerrancy without assuming it? Here
are five important questions that reveal how to think well about biblical inerrancy.

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 30

Where Does Inerrancy Begin: “God” or the “Bible”? Rather than beginning
with the Bible, we begin with what we can know about God apart from the Bible. First,
God exists, and we can come to that conclusion without the Bible. Such natural revela-
tion via physical reality is in line with the special revelation of the Bible:

“Because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God
has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible
attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen,
because they are understood through what has been made. So people are
without excuse” (Rom. 1:19-20, NET).

One’s acceptance of God may be informal as when one sees creation and concludes
God must have created it and sustains it, or formal, as when one gives a valid and sound
argument for the existence of God. It could also be by faith as when one accepts God’s
existence on the authority of another such as a teacher, parent, or pastor. None of these
are mutually exclusive ways to God’s existence.

Second, one should reason from the existence of God, as the quote implies, to the fact
that God is immaterial (not material) and eternal (not finite) having no beginning or
end. That is, God is Pure Act. Such existence must be perfection or goodness itself,
not merely approaching good or maximally good, but identical to absolute Goodness
or Perfection. God, Perfection itself, could never create something imperfect. Such can
only produce what is finitely good. This also stands for what God communicates to His
creatures, which must always be good or true. Again, all this we can reason to apart
from anything in the Bible.

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 31

Why is the Bible the Word of God? The Bible is a collection of 66 books that,
from beginning to end, claims to be the Word of God and proves to be the Word of
God. First, it claims to speak for the one and only true God from Genesis to Revela-
tion. It proves this claim by offering a description of God identical to the one offered
through reasoning about creation to a sustaining Creator. The Bible says God’s divine
nature is pure existence (Exod. 3:14), eternal (Ps. 90:2), immutable (Mal. 3:6), perfect
(Matt. 5:48), and that He cannot lie (Titus 1:2). There can only be one God, one such
being that is Pure Act. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the one true God (Deut. 6:4).
Second, the Bible was written by prophets who offered multiple miracles to the people
they knew to confirm they were speaking for God. Such miracles are clearly in the
category of what God alone can do. They create life from non-life (Exod. 8:19) and raise
the dead (1 Kings 17:17-24). Third, these prophets offered to their future readers hun-
dreds of precise predictions hundreds of years in advance (Dan. 9:25-27). Finally, we
know historically that Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be God incarnate (John 8:58), the
promised Messiah who God raised from the dead. This same Jesus taught that the Bible
is the Word of God from the mouths of the prophets (Luke 11:49-51) and promised the
same prophetic ability for his immediate disciples and apostles (John 14:26). Such signs
are unmistakable from the true God and used to back up the spoken and written word
of the prophets.

God, because He is absolute perfection, would never allow real miracles or prophecy to
be done through a false teacher or false religion. So, the religion that contains multiple
miracles and prophecies that only God can do is the true message from God. These
truths can be discovered by anyone’s reading of the Bible, believer or not.

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 32

How is the Bible the Word of God? The apostles give us the best description of
how the Bible is inspired by God. Peter says, “Above all, you do well if you recognize
this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, for
no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy
Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet. 1:20-21, NET).

Peter teaches that the origin of prophecy is God. It is through a human prophet. It is
verbal or in words. It is the prophet’s original words spoken (or written) from God that
carry the divine authority from God. Written copies and translations of those words are
not technically inspired but can only carry its divine authority to the extent they pre-
serve the meaning of the originals.

Paul says, “Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16, NET). He says it is the
written text (Scripture) that is inspired (breathed out) by God, and this applies to “all”
or “every” Scripture. That is the entirety or whole of the written text. It is not limited to
this part or that part or this topic and that topic in the text. It is all that is written by the
prophet under divine inspiration.

What Does “Cannot Err” Mean and Not Mean? Philosophy tells us that truth
is that which corresponds to reality. Jesus of Nazareth teaches us that the Word of God
is truth (John 17:17), indestructible (Matt. 5:17-18), infallible (John 10:35) and has divine
authority to rebuke even the highest of creatures (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10). Hence, inerrancy
follows from the perfection and power of God.

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 33

Inerrancy guarantees the truth of all the Bible teaches, implies, and entails whether
spiritual (unseen) matters or factual (seen) matters. When the Bible speaks of how the
heavens go, it is so. Likewise, when the Bible speaks of how to get to heaven, it is so.
As Jesus said to Nicodemus, “If I have told you … about earthly things and you don’t
believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?” (John 3:12, NET).

However, inerrancy does not imply that everything recorded in the Bible is true or even
right. There are lies recorded in the Bible (Gen. 3:4) as well as evil acts (Gen. 4:8). Not
everything recorded is approved. What is true is that someone lied or did evil as record-
ed in the Bible, not that the lie is true, or the act is right. Inerrancy does not mean that
everything said must be mathematically precise, or that all quotations must be verbatim,
or that the truth revealed must be exhaustive. It does not mean that we must hold all the
personal or cultural beliefs of the writers. It only entails that we must hold beliefs that
are affirmed or taught in Scripture.

Finally, it does not mean everything in the Bible is literal. There are many figures of
speech used and therefore many ways truth can apply to reality. Indeed, consider the
following grammatical figures of speech used in the Bible that show different ways it
can apply to reality: literally (Mark 1:16), allegorically (Gal. 4:23-24), metaphorically
(Isa. 55:12), similarly (Isa. 7:2), analogically (2 Cor. 5:7), symbolically (Heb. 9:7-9),
hyperbolically (Judg. 7:12), phenomenologically (Joel 2:31), informally (Num. 11:21),
synecdochically (Matt. 6:11), and metonymically (Matt. 8:8; Luke 7:6).

Is There an Argument for Biblical Inerrancy? There is an argument for bibli-

cal inerrancy that is quite simple:

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 34

 1. God cannot err.
2. The Bible is the Word of God.
3. Therefore, the Bible cannot err.
We know from reasoning about creation that God cannot err. We know the Bible claims
to be the Word of God and proves to be the Word of God. Therefore, it cannot err. Log-
ically, there are only two ways to deny this statement: “The Bible, which is the Word
of God, cannot error.” One is to deny that the Bible is the Word of God. The other is
to deny that God must always speak the truth (or be perfect). You likely will not find
a Christian willing to say the Bible is not God’s Word or that God can err. Yet, if you
agree that the Bible is the Word of God and God is perfect, then you must conclude the
Bible cannot err.

In the end, to deny or alter the inerrancy of the Bible is to attack the divine nature of
God and the Son of God who taught it was completely true. Yes, inerrancy is as old as
the Bible, and like all truth, it cannot go away. But it can be forgotten, misunderstood,
poorly reasoned, and attacked. Hopefully, more will see biblical inerrancy properly
understood and reasoned. Given that truth is that which corresponds to reality, that God,
as ultimate reality, is Truth itself, and that the Bible is trustworthy when it claims to be
the Word of God, then we have every reason to believe it is without error.

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 35

ONE MORE THING

TAKING
YOU BEYOND
ONLINE
EDUCATION
Y ou understand the need for integrated training in philosophy, theology, and apol-
ogetics, but your schedule is busy. We get it. Between family, work, ministry,
sports, etc., how can you make time for class? We fully understand the complex de-
mands on our students, so we have created seminary options for busy schedules like
yours that take your learning beyond mere online education.

SES takes a digital-first approach by providing a fully immersive digital campus experi-
ence where every aspect of traditional education is achieved in a virtual environment by
integrating industry-leading technologies for live-streaming, course management, and
student interaction. Hence, every degree and certificate offered by SES can be complet-
ed via our digital campus (the D.Min. program has limited on-campus requirements).
This format enables us to accommodate even the most demanding of schedules and
allows you to get a first-class education without leaving your current ministry context.

Live-Streaming Courses
Our live-streaming format provides the best in distance education, allowing students to
interact in real-time with their professors and peers. The live course lectures and inter-
action are also recorded and posted back to our course management platform for on-de-
mand viewing throughout the semester.

Asynchronous Courses
Each semester, some courses are offered in a pre-recorded asynchronous format. Many
of these courses utilize studio-produced recorded lectures that students may watch at
their convenience while meeting syllabus deadlines. Additional live-streaming compo-
nents and professor/peer interaction supplement the asynchronous format.

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 37

A Truly Digital Campus
Our expansive Digital Theological Library gives our students access to over 650,000
eBooks, thousands of journal titles and peer-reviewed articles, and much more. More-
over, by using our learning management platform Canvas, we are able to create virtual
hangouts, clubs, discussion groups, etc. that allow our students and professors to inter-
act in real-time. Our integrated digital campus experience enables us to foster commu-
nity and connectedness even while we may be physically distant.

This digital-first approach means SES is committed to meeting our students where they
are by not only providing a challenging educational curriculum but also offering ways
for the SES family to connect outside the classroom. Additional resources are currently
being added to our digital campus that will further facilitate the spiritual growth,
community, and educational experience of SES students as we continue to utilize Dr.
Geisler’s integrated approach to Christian thinking and move beyond online education.

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 38

IT’S YOUR TURN

WHAT
ARE YOU
WAITING
FOR?
Y ou may be struggling with valid questions such as “How will I pay for this?” or
“How will I find the time?” Certainly, only by God’s grace and providence will
this happen, and we do not counsel students to go into debt or sacrifice their family for
a seminary education. Even with the challenges of time and money, most who have
studied philosophy, theology, and apologetics in seminary will agree that going to sem-
inary was one of the most important things they ever did, and they would do it again if
needed. Most things in life that are truly helpful, worthwhile, and lifelong take time, ef-
fort, and commitment to have any payoff. A theological education is no different. Hence,
that diploma is a valuable historical record of your learning experience.

Southern Evangelical Seminary and Bible College is not just for pastors. It is for high
schoolers, homeschool parents, Sunday school teachers, lay ministers, lay missionar-
ies, and, of course, the professional Christian schoolteacher, minister, missionary, and
pastor. SES is for anyone wanting to be more equipped to effectively engage today’s
post-Christian culture with the truth of the Gospel.

Here are five reasons to be thankful for

a theological seminary education like you
will find at SES:

1. Be thankful for good philosophy. Philosophy is the fabric

of theology. It is interwoven throughout and holds all truth together. Theology is
possible because philosophy can demonstrate the existence and nature of God without
relying on the Bible. Yet, it gives us the tools needed to explore the existence of God’s
nature, which is in unmistakable agreement with the God of the Bible. Philosophy also

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 40

shows how we can meaningfully use language to speak about God, while recognizing
that finite minds will never exhaust His majesty. The philosophical supporting of theol-
ogy is just one unique and important aspect for which SES is known. True philosophy
will always support the theological endeavor. Without this, one is more likely to support
theology with wrong reasoning or see no reason at all for some theological assertions.

2. Be thankful for Biblical Studies. The Bible is the bedrock

of theology. Many who go off to secular colleges and universities have taken reli-
gion or Bible classes from a liberal professor. However, after hearing SES professors
like Dr. Thomas Howe, you realize your education in the Bible has been a half-inch
high (maybe less) and three miles long (or longer). It simply has no depth. Our profes-
sors provide amazing insights into the structure of the biblical books, explain how to
deal with difficult passages, and demolish critical theories that undermine the inspira-
tion and inerrancy of the Bible.

3. Be thankful for Historical Theology. History is the legacy

of theology. Ignore theology’s history and you might be led into error, or worse.
Many cults and false teachers today are just repackaging errors found in dusty books.
We must know our history and tradition, respect it and learn from it, but also bring it
to the bar of Scripture. Because of the Reformation, we can rest assured the five Solas
(Scripture alone, faith alone, grace alone, Christ alone, and glory to God alone) will
continue to be known if we have the Bible in the language of the people. You will
treasure the Bible more and not complain of so many translations when you realize the
price paid to put it in our tongue. Indeed, because men of God paid with their lives, the
torch of God’s grace has not gone out, and you are able to study your Bible.

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 41

4. Be thankful for Apologetics. Apologetics is the defense
of theology. Many today continue to hold to the inspiration and inerrancy of the
Bible because of Christian apologetics. Apologetics must begin with reality or truth
common to all, not just the Bible. It must dig deeply into philosophy, science, and histo-
ry and pull out demonstrations for the truthfulness of Christianity.
One old but common objection to apologetics heard in church even today says, “The Bi-
ble, the Word of God, does not need to be defended. It is like a lion; all you need to do
is let it loose.” Dr. Geisler insightfully answered this by saying, “The Word of God does
not need a defense, but that statement ‘the Bible is the word of God’ needs a defense.”
Otherwise, we would have no answer to other religions who claim their book to be the
“word of God.” Indeed, we fear a lion only because we already know what a lion can do.

5. Be thankful for Systematic Theology. Systematic theology is the

fullest expression of theology. The problem with some people’s theology before
seminary was that it did not have enough “systematic” in it. Granted, it may lack some
“theology” too, but it is the systematic that makes everything stick together or make
sense. Only systematic theology integrates truth outside the Bible with truth inside the
Bible to give a coherent and full expression of all God’s revelation found in the created
world and in the inspired Word. When we finally see how one doctrine affects another,
then we understand that there is nothing more important for developing a true under-
standing of Christianity and the world.

For example, SES emphasizes the important philosophical and theological truth that
God exists as pure actuality (Pure Act) with no potentiality to change because upon this
truth hangs all the attributes of God. To not make sure all theological reasoning

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 42

adheres to this truth is to steer in the direction that makes God a mere angel or Super-
man. Likewise, we teach the importance of consistently applying the historical-gram-
matical method of interpretation to arrive at a correct understanding of every biblical
doctrine. To not do so is to swerve theology in the direction of spiritualizing the scrip-
tural text. SES consistently teaches that these five vital principles and God’s unshakable
truth that constitutes these subjects are relevant to the study of theology. As one SES
student observed,

“I simply could not be doing what I am doing, the way that I am doing it,
without the training I received at SES. … I learned how to think through
issues in a way that is simply foreign to most Christians, including
graduates of other seminaries.”

It is a heavy order to think you will be involved in providing theological education to

the next generation. Such a responsibility must be taken seriously as teachers will incur
a stricter judgment (James 3:1). We hope you take your theological education seriously
and be thankful it is not deficient or missing from your ministry. One SES grad put it
this way:

“The integrated approach of synthesizing a sound philosophy with classical

apologetics and a cohesive, biblical theology is probably the thing I love
most about SES. The value of such a systematized and integrated approach
for one’s apologetics, ministry, and personal growth is difficult to explain
until you have experienced it for yourself.”

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 43

The integrated approach to Christian thinking you will receive at SES is unlike any-
thing you will find at nearly any other evangelical institution. Specifically, the classical
philosophy that undergirds everything taught at SES provides a solid foundation from
which to do theology (with a deep understanding of the nature and attributes of God),
hermeneutics (sadly, as we have seen, most scholars now deny the possibility of discov-
ering the objective meaning of any text, including the Bible), and apologetics (specifi-
cally classical apologetics). All this, of course, impacts the extent to which believers are
equipped to remove the hurdles standing in the way of someone coming to Christ.

As Alisa Childers, SES student, author, and former CCM recording artist, says,

“I can hardly find words to express how thankful I am for SES. After my
Christianity was deconstructed by a progressive pastor, they literally shep-
herded me, one class at a time, through my faith reconstruction. In the
years that have passed, they continue to equip students to defend objec-
tive truth, the true Gospel, and the inerrancy of Scripture. They are also
holding the line by rejecting cultural trends like wokeness and redefinitions
of gender and sexuality.”

In short, believers are called to courageously be salt and light wherever they may find
themselves. Your personal and professional ministry can have a greater impact with for-
mal, integrated, and apologetics-focused education. SES can give you that training and
equip you to remain steadfast in the truth. So, what are you waiting for? Contact one of
our Admissions Counselors today: [email protected] or call (704) 847-5600 x216.

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 44

Endnotes
INTRODUCTION
1. https://www.barna.com/research/2015-state-of-atheism-in-america/
2. https://thestateoftheology.com/

HURDLE ONE
1. Grant R. Osborne. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers
Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2006), 11528-11531, Kindle.
2. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text?: The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowl-
edge (Landmarks in Christian Scholarship) (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 4008-4016, Kindle.
3. https://faithfullymagazine.com/critical-race-theory-christians/
4. http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/03/16/wearing-biblical-glasses/
5. James D. Smart, The Interpretation of Scripture (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), 46.
6. In other words, by saying the law of non-contradiction does not exist, one is saying things can be true and not true
at the same time in the same sense. If you insist that you are right that the law of non-contradictions does not exist,
then you are saying what you just said does not need to be true. But you are insisting that it is true, so you are agree-
ing with the law of non-contradiction.
7. For a fuller treatment on objectivity, see Thomas Howe’s Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation (CreateSpace Inde-
pendent Publishing Platform, 2015).

HURDLE TWO
1. Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, Critical Race Theory (Third Edition) (NYU Press), 3, https://www.jstor.org/
stable/j.ctt1ggjjn3.6
2. Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove, Reconstructing the Gospel (InterVarsity Press, 2018), 5, Kindle.
3. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2019/11/against-candy-ass-christianity.html
4. https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/10/liberty-equality-fraternity.html
5. It should be noted that natural law provides a common ground for human moral behavior without the need to appeal
to divine commands or the Bible. Natural law is biblical in that it lines up with biblical principles, but one can dis-
cover natural law precepts without appealing to God or the Bible. To be sure, however, humans only exist with the
natures they have because of God’s creation and His sustaining in existence everything that exists at every moment
it exists. As Klubertanz and Holloway note, “A natural being is ordered to its proper end both by its nature [essence]
and by an intellect. Immediately and intrinsically, it is ordered by its nature, but ultimately and extrinsically, it is so
ordered by the divine intellect who has established the end and created the nature” (Being and God, Appleton-Cen-
tury-Crofts, 1963).
6. Thomas Aquinas (2010-06-19). Summa Theologica (Complete & Unabridged) . Coyote Canyon Press. Kindle Edi-
tion. Kindle location 37699.
7. https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/07/64302/
8. http://okra.stanford.edu/transcription/document_images/undecided/630416-019.pdf (p.7)
9. https://lawliberty.org/forum/natural-law-natural-rights-and-private-property/
10. We understand that single-parent families or other circumstances are sometimes the unfortunate result of this fallen
world, and we thank God that He is able to work through our broken circumstances for His good.

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 45

11. “Best” here does not imply perfection. Due to each human’s propensity to be led astray by the passions and not be led
perfectly by reason and prudence, every human system will inevitably have issues.

HURDLE THREE
1. https://peteenns.com/what-is-the-bible/

www.SES.edu / Steadfast in the Truth 46

www.SES.edu | [email protected] | (704) 847-5600 | Charlotte, NC | #WhyDoYouBelieve