Sunday, January 22, 2017

Saturday, January 21, 2017

"The Pillars of Unbelief" Series by Peter Kreeft

Recently, philosopher and theologian Kenneth Samples of Reasons to Believe did us all a great service by writing an excellent blog series on 17 of the most influential Christian thinkers from the past.  You can find the entire series here.

In similar fashion, philosopher Peter Kreeft offers a series on some of the most influential unbelievers in a series entitled, "The Pillars of Unbelief."

They are as follows:

Niccolo Machiavelli- inventor of the "new morality"

Immanuel Kant- subjectivizer of Truth

Friedrich Nietzsche- self-proclaimed "Anti-Christ"

Sigmund Freud- founder of the "sexual revolution" 

Karl Marx- false Moses for the masses

Jean-Paul Sartre- apostle of absurdity

In these brief profiles, Kreeft describes the impact these thinkers have had on society and the effect they have had on the Christian mind.

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Related Posts

Essay: On Atheism by Francis Bacon

William Lane Craig on Those Who Don't Come to Christ

The Argument from Efficient Causality

Friday, January 20, 2017

Article: Is Jesus Simply a Retelling of the Horus Myth? by J. Warner Wallace

A common claim skeptics make is that Jesus is a "copycat" savior. One of the claimed dying and rising saviors they claim Christians copied is Horus.

The main problem with these types of claims, as Dr. William Lane Craig recently pointed out in his dialogues with Dr. Lawrence Krauss in Australia, is that they are 100 years out of date!  But they are alive and well on the internet.

In this featured article, Christian case maker J. Warner Wallace demonstrates that Jesus is not a retelling of the Horus myth.  He also offers some excellent resources to explore this topic more in-depth.

You can check it out here.

Ah, but what about Mithras?  See here.

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Thursday, January 19, 2017

Video: Pluralism- A Culture without Truth by Vince Vitale


Video Description:

We live in a post-truth society – that’s what The Economist claimed a few months ago. Truth has so often been abused that society is fleeing from truth and adopting a pluralism that assures us “All truths are equally valid.” Does that include the claim that all truths are not equally valid? That’s how quickly pluralism runs into incoherence. So, why does it persist; why is it growing? 

Vince Vitale talks more about this in his new book Jesus Among Secular Gods co-written with Ravi Zacharias.

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Charles Malik on the Greatest Danger Confronting the Christian Church in America

"I must be frank with you: the greatest danger confronting American evangelical Christianity is the danger of anti-intellectualism.  The mind in its greatest and deepest riches is not cared for enough.  But intellectual nurture cannot take place apart from profound immersion for a period of years in the history of thought and the spirit.  People who are in a hurry to get out of the university and start earning money or serving the church or preaching the gospel have no idea of the infinite value of spending years of leisure conversing with the greatest minds and souls of the past, ripening and sharpening and enlarging their powers of thinking.  The result is that the arena of creative thinking is vacated and abdicated to the enemy.  Who among evangelicals can stand up to the great secular quoted as a normative source by the greatest secular authorities on history or philosophy or psychology or sociology or politics?  Does the evangelical mode of thinking have the slightest chance of becoming the dominant mode in the great universities of Europe and America that stamp our entire civilization with their spirit and ideas?  For the sake of greater effectiveness in witnessing to Jesus Christ, as well as for their own sakes, evangelicals cannot afford to keep on living on the periphery of responsible intellectual existence."1

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Related Posts

5 Theses on Anti-Intellectualism by Justin Taylor

How Does One Develop the Mind?

Video: Loving God with All Your Mind by J.P. Moreland

Footnote:
1. As quoted by J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, p. 1.

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Is the Trinitarian Doctrine of God More Plausible Than the Unitarian Doctrine of God?

In his latest Q and A response, Dr. William Lane Craig responds to a reader who asks:

"Aren't the odds of a triune god beyond astronomical? To accept that there is an omnipotent, eternal being is difficult enough, but three separate beings that possess this nature? The term "mind boggling" doesn't even begin to describe the unlikelihood..."

Craig first responds by pointing out that just because something is "mind boggling," doesn't mean that it is improbable.  He points out that, "Quantum mechanics is mind-boggling, but that doesn’t imply that it is improbable as an account of the physical world. We live in a universe that is so mind-boggling as almost to defy comprehension!"

Most interestingly, he continues by arguing that it is more probable that God would not be just one person.  I had never heard this argument before.  He explains as follows:

"God is by definition the greatest conceivable being. As the greatest conceivable being, God must be perfect. Now a perfect being must be a loving being. For love is a moral perfection; it is better for a person to be loving rather than unloving. God therefore must be a perfectly loving being. Now it is of the very nature of love to give oneself away. Love reaches out to another person rather than centering wholly in oneself. So if God is perfectly loving by His very nature, He must be giving Himself in love to another. But who is that other? It cannot be any created person, since creation is a result of God’s free will, not a result of His nature. It belongs to God's very essence to love, but it does not belong to His essence to create. So we can imagine a possible world in which God is perfectly loving and yet no created persons exist. Moreover, contemporary cosmology makes it plausible that created persons have not always existed. But God is eternally loving. So created persons alone are insufficient to account for God's being perfectly loving. It therefore follows that the other to whom God’s love is necessarily directed must be internal to God Himself."

He continues:

"In other words, God is not a single, isolated person, as unitarian forms of theism like Islam hold; rather God is a plurality of persons, as the Christian doctrine of the Trinity affirms. On the unitarian view God is a person who does not give Himself away essentially in love for another; He is focused essentially only on Himself. Hence, He cannot be the most perfect being. But on the Christian view, God is a triad of persons in eternal, self-giving love relationships. Thus, since God is essentially loving, the doctrine of the Trinity is more plausible than any unitarian doctrine of God."

He finishes up by offering a few additional thoughts about the probability of a hypothesis, which can be read here.

So, what do you think of Dr. Craig argument?  Please feel free to share your thoughts in the comments below!

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Related Posts

Is the Trinity a Problem or a Solution?

My Favorite Analogy of the Trinity

Video: The Trinity Explained (with Reason)

Monday, January 16, 2017

The Year of Hope


In the subject piece, Brian Fisher discusses Human Coalition's declaration that 2017 is the year of hope. He writes:

Hope is not frivolous or ill informed. It is not flippant. True hope is grounded in facts, observations, and assurances. It is grounded in belief—and not “belief” as it is commonly defined today. 

Our culture often defines belief as personal preference or opinion, such as, “I believe abortion is necessary to secure women’s rights,” or “I believe abortion doesn’t kill a person; it just removes a blob of tissue.” 

Both statements are wrong opinions based on fallacies. And yet our culture gives credence to such opinions because we use the catch phrase “I believe.” 

I like Holman’s definition, “Trustful expectation.” We expect hope to be fulfilled because we trust or believe in the reasons for our hope. And those reasons are rock solid.

He goes on to discuss Hebrews 10:23-25. This passage, says Fisher, is about hope, and he applies it to Human Coalition's mission.

Read the full post here.

Stand firm in Christ and stand firm for the preborn,
Chase

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Saturday, January 14, 2017

Bad Argument and Biased Ideology

In National Geographic’s January 2017 issue “Gender Revolution”, Robin Marantz Henig authors an article titled “Rethinking Gender”. 

Andrew T. Walker and Denny Burk of The Witherspoon Institute offer a response to her story stating it is a “bad argument and biased ideology”. They offer four broader philosophical problems inherent within the transgender movement.

First, there is no substantive argument, only testimonies, and testimonies are not sufficient. It is based not on evidence, but on the ideology of expressive individualism which requires no moral argument or empirical justification for its claims.

Second, the fallacy of composition is committed by linking intersex conditions with transgenderism. Intersexuality and transgenderism are apples and oranges. The physiological experience of intersexuality is in a different category from the psychological constructs of gender dysphoria and transgenderism.

Third, “Brain Sex Theory” offers hypotheses which offer no scientific consensus on what actually causes transgenderism. The categories described in the article are based on theory, not fact.


Fourth: The coverage is filled with contradictory, incoherent claims. Henig counsels, “Understand that gender identity and sexual orientation cannot be changed, but the way people identify their gender identity and sexual orientation may change over time as they discover more about themselves.” Is gender identity immutable or can people change over time? The claim that transgender identities are equally as fixed and unchanging as sexual orientation is simply not supported by any kind of scientific consensus. Fact: about 80 percent of children who experience transgender feelings completely resolve their difficulties without any intervention after they reach puberty.

Why does National Geographic choose to “[celebrate] the mutilation of minor children with a full-page picture of a shirtless 17-year old girl who recently underwent a double mastectomy in order to “transition” to being a boy. Why do transgender ideologues consider it harmful to attempt to change such a child’s mind but consider it progress to display her bare, mutilated chest for a cover story? Why is it acceptable to surgically alter a child’s body to match his sense of self but bigoted to try to change his sense of self to match his body? If it is wrong to attempt to change a child’s gender identity (because it is fixed and meddling with it is harmful), then why is it morally acceptable to alter something as fixed as the reproductive anatomy of a minor?

You can also find Walt Heyer's articleA Nine Year Old Boy is Spreading a "Contagion of Mass Delusion", about National Geographic's cover photograph here.

Personally, I am witnessing more and more students in my school dealing with these issues while the truth is degenerated from under their feet. What do you think?

Don’t take my word for it, read the article, don’t wait for the movie.

Have a little hope on me, Roger

Friday, January 13, 2017

Free Resource- Who is Jesus? By Alistair Begg



This week, I came across a sermon series by Alister Begg of Truth for Life Ministries entitled "Who is Jesus?"  Along with the sermons, Pastor Begg also provides a free booklet.  It can be found here.  The booklet is divided into four sections:

Indirect Claims
Direct Claims
What Does It Mean?
What Does it Matter?

Here is an excerpt from the "What Does It Matter" section-

"This is why it matters. If, in this New Age world in which we live, the Christian church does not affirm and reaffirm the centrality, the priority, the necessity, and the fundamental orthodoxy of the incarnation of Jesus Christ, then Christianity in Western culture will dwindle to a legend. We will become totally marginalized, and we will become absolutely irrelevant. 
If you think this is an overstatement, then think of it this way: Doctors for years have told us we can live without our appendix. I still have mine, and I am planning on keeping it. It is very hard to get a Scotsman to give up very much that is as close to him as that, but I believe if you take it away, I’ll still be around. If you take away my heart, I will not still be around. So you had better be sure that what you are planning on taking away is something you can live without. 
Some argue that the incarnation is to Christianity what an appendix is to theologians. In other words, you can take it out and the body of Christianity will go on by itself. How do you answer that? By saying, “Let’s look at the evidence and see whether the incarnation is an appendix or a heart.”1

I believe this is a very good resource for believers to reinforce the importance of the Deity of Christ and for non-believers to see reasons why Christians hold to this doctrine.  

God Bless,

1- Who is Jesus booklet pg. 33