Much like Cain, the [Nashville] shooter was on a hunt for self-expression on her terms rather than God’s. Whereas Cain despised God in his heart and by his outward worship, she despised God in her heart and by her outward “gender identity.” There is no divine approbation for false worship, and there is no divine approbation for self-delusion, especially when it is imposed upon others. Without any sure foundation for her identity, she—like Cain—resorted to murderous terroristic violence.

Tragedy in Nashville
Recent horrors in Nashville, Tennessee have left Christians around the world brokenhearted, grieving with the families of the children, schoolteachers, and staff who were slain. At the same time, media pundits from across the social and political spectrum have sought for an explanation, appealing to various (and predictable) issues: the availability of guns, speculations about the shooter’s childhood experiences, the failure of pharmaceutical medical intervention, the violent anti-Christian register of transgender political rhetoric, and so on down the list.
The truth is that some of these factors—and many more besides—may be part of the eventual explanation for what transpired, serving either as a necessary condition or as a contributing cause. But the root cause is much bigger and goes much deeper than any one of these considerations. At root in this horrific tragedy is sin’s corrupting influence expressing itself in the killers’s three-dimensional hatred: hatred of self, hatred of God, and hatred of neighbor.
By the killer’s own admission to a former classmate immediately before her assault on the Covenant School, she was on a self-loathing suicide mission.1 In relation to God, her self-expression and identification as a man was a rejection of her Creator and how He designed her in her mother’s womb (Ps. 139:13), a hatred of God expressed in her destruction of six of His image-bearers. But most obviously, her massacre of innocent Christian children and adults was indicative of her hatred of neighbor spilling over into what some commentators have labeled an act of “transgender terrorism.”
With her Manifesto and plans currently kept under wraps during the Metro Nashville Police Department (MNPD) investigation, there is little that can be said about the incremental steps she took in the ideation, conception, planning, and execution of Monday’s attack. In the analysis of the killer’s act of heinous sin, her Manifesto may reveal either a clearly expressed motive or a fog of mental derangement impossible to decipher. The eventual release of the shooter’s Manifesto is pending close inspection by experts in criminal profiling at the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Behavioral Analysis Unit.2
Read More
Related Posts:

Consider this: when someone asserts, “You can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible,” they may not realize they’re inadvertently drawing from a Christian perspective. What are they borrowing? The concept of a fundamental unity or single authorship within Scripture. To claim the Bible cannot validate itself implies an underlying assumption of its inspired nature. Without this presumption, there’s no logical basis to treat the biblical canon as a unified whole. Particularly for a non-Christian viewpoint, the Bible should be regarded as sixty-six distinct ancient documents, each standing on its own merit. To argue that they collectively stand or fall together suggests an assumed unified authorship. Thus, the argument becomes paradoxical: the statement “You can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible” inadvertently endorses the unified, inspired nature of the Bible it seeks to dispute.

You Can’t Use the Bible to Evidence the Bible? Introduction
I have heard this statement many times. It can come from Christians or non-Christians, but mainly I hear it from unbelievers: the idea that the Bible is inadmissible as evidence for itself. If I were trying to use the Bible to prove the validity of the Bible (from the perspective of many outsiders), this is considered circular reasoning. This statement is not only incorrect, but it also completely misunderstands its own argument. Ironically, it makes the exact circular assumptions that it accuses believers of.
Three Reasons this is Stupid
1. The Bible is Not One Book
When discussing proving or substantiating the truths of the Gospel message, it’s crucial to approach it as historians, not solely as religious observers. The common argument inaccurately positions Christians as claiming the Bible is true simply because it says so. However, the Bible is not a singular book. The term Bible itself isn’t even found within these texts. Rather, the Bible is a compilation of works created over a thousand years by numerous authors, some connected, others not. The Protestant Bible contains sixty-six books in total.
Focusing on the New Testament, we delve into the core narrative of Christianity, highlighting the incarnation of Christ, his identity, and his deeds. Arguing that one can’t validate the New Testament using its own texts is misinformed and lacks critical reflection. Notably, the term New Testament and its list of books are not mentioned within these texts. The New Testament is a label for a collection of writings that narrate and interpret Jesus Christ’s advent. It comprises twenty-seven books.
From a historian’s perspective, asserting that the Bible cannot be used to validate itself is highly misguided.
Read More
Related Posts:

We cannot help but notice how Paul’s union with Christ radically altered his relationship with every believer who shared this same sacred bond. Personal union with Christ extends into corporate communion with all His people. That is, just as in our natural families we and our siblings share our parents’ DNA, so in the family of God we share the same spiritual DNA, so to speak, with Christ our Elder Brother and Redeemer. For the Apostle, this transformed the way he viewed his relationship not only with the newly converted Onesimus, but also with Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus (who was thought to be a fellow-worker in the church that met in Philemon’s house). 

At face value, Paul’s letter to Philemon seems like a private letter written to address a painful problem that had arisen in a Christian family in the New Testament world. It is indeed just that; but, in God’s wider purpose, He saw fit to include it in the New Testament canon for the benefit of the church through the ages.
At one level, the issue it addresses is plain to see. A slave called Onesimus apparently stole from his master, Philemon, and ran away, likely to Rome. Under Roman law, such an act carried serious consequences for the perpetrator—extending to the right of the slave owner to execute his slave if he so desired. However, in the case of Onesimus, as he tried to run away from his earthly master, he unwittingly ran into the arms of a new and heavenly Master when he encountered Jesus through the preaching of Paul while he was a prisoner in Rome.
Without condoning Onesimus’ theft, the Apostle saw this slave’s life turned around by grace. He was transformed from being seen as a “useless” runaway in the eyes of Philemon to being “useful” not only to Paul, but to his former master as well (Philem. 11). The force of this turnaround is seen in the play on words bound up with his name, Onesimus, which means “useful.” The Apostle wrote to Philemon not merely to ask that he receive Onesimus back but that he welcome him as a brother in Christ. More than this, Paul promised Philemon that he would cover the financial loss he suffered through the theft.
How do we explain this countercultural response to Onesimus’ misconduct on the one hand and Paul’s seemingly incredible request to Philemon on the other? The answer is Christ and what we become in Him when we are joined to Him in salvation.
1. Christ Enables Us to See Our Circumstances through a Different Lens
Paul was in prison yet again, and yet again the Apostle responded to his incarceration not by grumbling and complaining about the situation, but rather by acknowledging God’s providence in it all.
Read More
Related Posts: