Check out these two pieces from Crossway:
10 Things You Should Know about Christmas
10 Things You Should Know about the Incarnation
Stand firm in Christ,
Chase
Monday, December 26, 2016
10 Things You Should Know about...
Check out these two pieces from Crossway:
10 Things You Should Know about Christmas
10 Things You Should Know about the Incarnation
Stand firm in Christ,
Chase
Sunday, December 25, 2016
Saturday, December 24, 2016
Friday, December 23, 2016
Former Atheist Lee Strobel on Atheism vs. Christianity
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Footnote:
1. As quoted by gotQuestions.org here.
Related Posts
Article: On Miracles and Historiography: Can The Supernatural Ever Be The Best Explanation? by Jonathan McLatchie
Thursday, December 22, 2016
Debate Video: Jeff Lowder vs. Frank Turek- What Better Explains Reality: Naturalism or Theism?
This debate features Dr. Frank Turek of CrossExamined and Jeffery Jay Lowder, founder of Internet Infidels.
Debate Review
I greatly enjoy watching debates and usually get very excited about them. For me, these types of debates are akin to what the Super Bowl is to others. Most often, however, debates do not live up to my expectations.
I remember being very excited that Sam Harris was debating William Lane Craig, but then I was disappointed by Harris' inability to stay on the topic and his insistence on attacking arguments that Craig hadn't even made. More recently I was excited to watch David Wood's debate with Dr. Michael Shermer, but then I was frustrated with Shermer trotting out atheist slogan after atheist slogan while demonstrating, once again, that he does not understand the moral argument for God's existence. This is why I so enjoyed this debate between Frank Turek and Jeffrey Jay Lowder.
For those who are unfamiliar with Jeffrey Jay Lowder, he is a metaphysical naturalist, who, as noted above, is co-founder of Internet Infidels. He also blogs at Secular Outpost. As Dr. Turek pointed out in the debate, Lowder doesn't just attempt to tear down the case for God made by the Christian theist, but he actually presents arguments in favor of his position. Further, Lowder's debate style is very similar to that of William Lane Craig. He begins with the contentions he intends on defending and then supports them with his arguments. This should be modeled by all those who desire to debate successfully.
My thoughts on the debate are as follows:
Substance- Turek and Lowder spent the entire time arguing for their positions and defending their positions. This may not seem all that impressive to some, but for someone like myself, who has watched many debates, this was refreshing. There were very few red herrings introduced.
Organization- Both debaters presented very well-organized cases for their positions and knew their material well. It was obvious, especially in the case of Lowder, that the debaters were familiar with their opponent’s position and written work.
Tone- It was obvious that these gentlemen respect each other and that came through in their interactions. Absent were the common ad hominem attacks that accompany these types of exchanges. Turek and Lowder both went out of their way to compliment each other when appropriate and while neither pulled their punches, they acted as gentlemen throughout. I confess that I wish all theists and atheists would model this behavior.
Humility- Lowder was willing to point out arguments that he believes favor theism, which this listener greatly appreciated. Moreover, when he and Turek were discussing what grounds objective moral values and duties, Lowder conceded that he had not settled on which atheist explanation he finds most satisfying. Furthermore, at one point Lowder even said that he was not going to make an argument that "95% of other atheists make" and that is "the Euthyphro dilemma." He and Turek agreed that it is a false dilemma. It is this type of honesty that initially attracted me to Lowder's work, and we should all learn from it. Drop an argument when it fails. Don't try to continue using it just because it is the "done thing."
Rhetoric- If the debate were judged on rhetoric alone, I believe even Lowder would concede that Turek won. At one point during the debate, he even complimented Turek on his comedy. I appreciated Turek's ability to share stories, illustrations, and jokes to communicate his points.
Arguments- The debaters differed in how they argued. Interestingly, I believe they could learn from one another! While Turek majored on presentation, Lowder majored on content. It was evident that Lowder had over prepared for the debate and, as a consequence, was unable to cover all his material as he would have preferred. Turek, on the other hand, presented some arguments that were not as well developed. Therefore, they sometimes looked like mere assertions. For example, he asserted that the laws of logic must be grounded in the existence of God (which is a position I am sympathetic with); however, he did not present an argument for this position.
So, while Turek could learn from Lowder's depth, Lowder could learn from Turek's presentation.
Conclusion
In most of the debates on the existence of God, I am always impressed with how well the moral argument for God's existence stands. Although the argument was not completely developed by Turek, the naturalist’s difficulty with grounding objective moral truths apart from God was once again on display.
I learned a great deal from this exchange and, like any great debate, it has inspired more study. I want to learn more about Lowder's claim that evolution is more probable on naturalism than theism. And while it is still my conviction that God best grounds objective moral values and duties, I want to explore the atheist positions highlighted by Lowder.
All in all, this debate was pure mind food. I completely agree with Randal Rauser, who wrote, in his own debate review, "Lowder and Turek have provided us a fascinating exchange of ideas and style which explores a range of issues and topics that often get overlooked or underemphasized in the God debates."
Please let us know what you thought of the debate in the comments below!
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
I greatly enjoy watching debates and usually get very excited about them. For me, these types of debates are akin to what the Super Bowl is to others. Most often, however, debates do not live up to my expectations.
I remember being very excited that Sam Harris was debating William Lane Craig, but then I was disappointed by Harris' inability to stay on the topic and his insistence on attacking arguments that Craig hadn't even made. More recently I was excited to watch David Wood's debate with Dr. Michael Shermer, but then I was frustrated with Shermer trotting out atheist slogan after atheist slogan while demonstrating, once again, that he does not understand the moral argument for God's existence. This is why I so enjoyed this debate between Frank Turek and Jeffrey Jay Lowder.
For those who are unfamiliar with Jeffrey Jay Lowder, he is a metaphysical naturalist, who, as noted above, is co-founder of Internet Infidels. He also blogs at Secular Outpost. As Dr. Turek pointed out in the debate, Lowder doesn't just attempt to tear down the case for God made by the Christian theist, but he actually presents arguments in favor of his position. Further, Lowder's debate style is very similar to that of William Lane Craig. He begins with the contentions he intends on defending and then supports them with his arguments. This should be modeled by all those who desire to debate successfully.
My thoughts on the debate are as follows:
Substance- Turek and Lowder spent the entire time arguing for their positions and defending their positions. This may not seem all that impressive to some, but for someone like myself, who has watched many debates, this was refreshing. There were very few red herrings introduced.
Organization- Both debaters presented very well-organized cases for their positions and knew their material well. It was obvious, especially in the case of Lowder, that the debaters were familiar with their opponent’s position and written work.
Tone- It was obvious that these gentlemen respect each other and that came through in their interactions. Absent were the common ad hominem attacks that accompany these types of exchanges. Turek and Lowder both went out of their way to compliment each other when appropriate and while neither pulled their punches, they acted as gentlemen throughout. I confess that I wish all theists and atheists would model this behavior.
Humility- Lowder was willing to point out arguments that he believes favor theism, which this listener greatly appreciated. Moreover, when he and Turek were discussing what grounds objective moral values and duties, Lowder conceded that he had not settled on which atheist explanation he finds most satisfying. Furthermore, at one point Lowder even said that he was not going to make an argument that "95% of other atheists make" and that is "the Euthyphro dilemma." He and Turek agreed that it is a false dilemma. It is this type of honesty that initially attracted me to Lowder's work, and we should all learn from it. Drop an argument when it fails. Don't try to continue using it just because it is the "done thing."
Rhetoric- If the debate were judged on rhetoric alone, I believe even Lowder would concede that Turek won. At one point during the debate, he even complimented Turek on his comedy. I appreciated Turek's ability to share stories, illustrations, and jokes to communicate his points.
Arguments- The debaters differed in how they argued. Interestingly, I believe they could learn from one another! While Turek majored on presentation, Lowder majored on content. It was evident that Lowder had over prepared for the debate and, as a consequence, was unable to cover all his material as he would have preferred. Turek, on the other hand, presented some arguments that were not as well developed. Therefore, they sometimes looked like mere assertions. For example, he asserted that the laws of logic must be grounded in the existence of God (which is a position I am sympathetic with); however, he did not present an argument for this position.
So, while Turek could learn from Lowder's depth, Lowder could learn from Turek's presentation.
Conclusion
In most of the debates on the existence of God, I am always impressed with how well the moral argument for God's existence stands. Although the argument was not completely developed by Turek, the naturalist’s difficulty with grounding objective moral truths apart from God was once again on display.
I learned a great deal from this exchange and, like any great debate, it has inspired more study. I want to learn more about Lowder's claim that evolution is more probable on naturalism than theism. And while it is still my conviction that God best grounds objective moral values and duties, I want to explore the atheist positions highlighted by Lowder.
All in all, this debate was pure mind food. I completely agree with Randal Rauser, who wrote, in his own debate review, "Lowder and Turek have provided us a fascinating exchange of ideas and style which explores a range of issues and topics that often get overlooked or underemphasized in the God debates."
Please let us know what you thought of the debate in the comments below!
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Related Posts
Video: The Case for the Existence of the Soul by J.P. Moreland
Book Review: Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case by Frank Turek
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
Article: What is the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God? by gotQuestions.org
Originally published here:
The transcendental argument for the existence of God is the argument which attempts to prove God’s existence by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately presuppose the Christian worldview and that God’s transcendent character is the source of logic and morals. The transcendental argument for the existence of God argues that without the existence of God it is impossible to prove anything because, in the atheistic world, you cannot justify or account for universal laws.
Deductive reason presupposes the laws of logic. But why do the laws of logic hold? For the Christian, there is a transcendent standard for reasoning. As the laws of logic are reduced to being materialistic entities, they cease to possess their law-like character. But the laws of logic are not comprised of matter; they apply universally and at all times. The laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature and are necessary for deductive reasoning. The invariability, sovereignty, transcendence, and immateriality of God are the foundation for the laws of logic. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.
The atheist might respond “Well, I can use the laws of logic and I am an atheist.” But this argument is illogical. Logical reasoning requires the existence of a transcendent and immaterial God, not a profession of belief in Him. The atheist can reason, but within his own worldview his reasoning cannot rationally be accounted for.
If the laws of logic are merely man-made contentions, then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic. In that case, the laws of logic would not be universal laws. Rational debate would be impossible if the laws of logic were conventional, because the two parties could simply adopt different laws of logic. Each would be correct according to his own arbitrary standard.
If the atheist argues that the laws of logic are simply the product of electro-chemical impulses in the brain, then the laws of logic cannot be regarded as universal. What happens inside your brain cannot be regarded as a law for it does not necessarily correspond to what happens in another person’s brain. In other words, we could not argue that logical contradictions cannot occur in a distant galaxy, distinct from conscious observers.
One common response is “We can use the laws of logic because they have been observed to work.” However, this is to miss the point. All are agreed that the laws of logic work, but they work because they are true. The real issue is, how can the atheist account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic? Why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws? Moreover, the appeal to the past to make such deductions concerning the way matter will behave in the future—from the materialistic point of view—is circular. Indeed, in the past, matter has conformed to uniformity. But how can one know that uniformity will persist in the future unless one has already assumed that the future reflects the past (i.e. uniformity)? To use one’s past experience as a premise upon which to build one’s expectations for the future is to presuppose uniformity and logic. Thus, when the atheist claims to believe that there will be uniformity in the future since there has been uniformity in the past, he is trying to simply justify uniformity by presupposing uniformity, which is to argue in a circle.
To conclude, the transcendental argument for the existence of God argues that atheism is self-refuting because the atheist must presuppose the opposite of what he is attempting to prove in order to prove anything. It argues that rationality and logic make sense only within a Christian theistic framework. Atheists have access to the laws of logic, but they have no foundation upon which to base their deductive reason within their own paradigm.
Common Objection #24- "There is no evidence for God."
Common Objection #27- "Intelligent People Don't Believe in God!"
The transcendental argument for the existence of God is the argument which attempts to prove God’s existence by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately presuppose the Christian worldview and that God’s transcendent character is the source of logic and morals. The transcendental argument for the existence of God argues that without the existence of God it is impossible to prove anything because, in the atheistic world, you cannot justify or account for universal laws.
Deductive reason presupposes the laws of logic. But why do the laws of logic hold? For the Christian, there is a transcendent standard for reasoning. As the laws of logic are reduced to being materialistic entities, they cease to possess their law-like character. But the laws of logic are not comprised of matter; they apply universally and at all times. The laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature and are necessary for deductive reasoning. The invariability, sovereignty, transcendence, and immateriality of God are the foundation for the laws of logic. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.
The atheist might respond “Well, I can use the laws of logic and I am an atheist.” But this argument is illogical. Logical reasoning requires the existence of a transcendent and immaterial God, not a profession of belief in Him. The atheist can reason, but within his own worldview his reasoning cannot rationally be accounted for.
If the laws of logic are merely man-made contentions, then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic. In that case, the laws of logic would not be universal laws. Rational debate would be impossible if the laws of logic were conventional, because the two parties could simply adopt different laws of logic. Each would be correct according to his own arbitrary standard.
If the atheist argues that the laws of logic are simply the product of electro-chemical impulses in the brain, then the laws of logic cannot be regarded as universal. What happens inside your brain cannot be regarded as a law for it does not necessarily correspond to what happens in another person’s brain. In other words, we could not argue that logical contradictions cannot occur in a distant galaxy, distinct from conscious observers.
One common response is “We can use the laws of logic because they have been observed to work.” However, this is to miss the point. All are agreed that the laws of logic work, but they work because they are true. The real issue is, how can the atheist account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic? Why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws? Moreover, the appeal to the past to make such deductions concerning the way matter will behave in the future—from the materialistic point of view—is circular. Indeed, in the past, matter has conformed to uniformity. But how can one know that uniformity will persist in the future unless one has already assumed that the future reflects the past (i.e. uniformity)? To use one’s past experience as a premise upon which to build one’s expectations for the future is to presuppose uniformity and logic. Thus, when the atheist claims to believe that there will be uniformity in the future since there has been uniformity in the past, he is trying to simply justify uniformity by presupposing uniformity, which is to argue in a circle.
To conclude, the transcendental argument for the existence of God argues that atheism is self-refuting because the atheist must presuppose the opposite of what he is attempting to prove in order to prove anything. It argues that rationality and logic make sense only within a Christian theistic framework. Atheists have access to the laws of logic, but they have no foundation upon which to base their deductive reason within their own paradigm.
For more helpful answers about Christianity and other world views, I highly recommend gotQuestions?.
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Common Objection #24- "There is no evidence for God."
Common Objection #27- "Intelligent People Don't Believe in God!"
Monday, December 19, 2016
What Do We Mean When We Use the Term, "Virgin Conception"?
The post can be found here.
Stand firm in Christ,
Chase
Sunday, December 18, 2016
Saturday, December 17, 2016
I Still Believe in Santa, and God Too
I am thirty-five years old, and I still believe in Santa.
I remember well that dark day when my friends told me that
Santa didn’t exist. I was devastated. I felt this heaviness in my gut, and the
colors of Christmas seemed to fade. I was made to feel like I was a baby for
believing in Santa, and so I quickly gave up the belief. I didn’t want to be
the odd one out. I didn’t want to be a fool.
But in the privacy of my own mind I began to think it
through. If Santa didn’t exist, where did all of those great gifts under the
tree come from year after year? If Santa didn’t exist, how did my letters
always disappear from the fireplace? Plus, I had been in Santa’s presence
plenty of times! I had frequently bumped into him in the mall and on the
streets of New York City, and I had pictures to prove it. One time Santa even
showed up at my house on Christmas.
How irrational it would have been for me to conclude that
Santa simply didn’t exist! To affirm that Santa was merely a legend that had
evolved over many generations, or to accept that the multiple and multiply
attested appearances of Santa were cases of me and everyone else
hallucinating—only a willful neglect of the evidence could lead to such
conclusions.
It turned out that my friends had not been very precise with
their thinking or with their words. It wasn’t that Santa didn’t exist; it was
that Santa wasn’t who I thought he was.
It turns out he is far greater than I had thought. He is
indeed capable of providing gifts and picking up letters, and he is, as
suspected, responsible for the disappearance of the mountain of cookies that we
would leave out for him on Christmas Eve.
But, thankfully, he doesn’t live as far away as the North
Pole. He isn’t someone whom I could only hope to catch a momentary glimpse of
once a year. He isn’t someone who likes me only if I am not naughty but nice.
The good news is that Santa is with me all year, and he loves and is there for
me no matter what. Santa exists; it’s just that when he is fully revealed, he
is also Mom and Dad.
Many of us can remember a time when someone told us God
doesn’t exist, and perhaps they made us feel foolish for believing such a
thing. Did we give up that belief because we had really thought it through, or
simply because we didn’t want to be seen as a baby?
If God doesn’t exist, how did the universe begin? Why is it
designed for life with such precision and intricacy? Why is its material
content subject to moral laws? Why is it orderly and comprehensible? Why is it
beautiful? Why is a baby being born a miracle that so clearly transcends the
sum of its chemical reactions? Why do so many people consult the constellations
above and the conscience within and know that there is something more? Why did
hundreds of people claim to see and spend time with Jesus after he had been
killed, even when it meant they might be killed? Why are millions of people in
every corner of the globe so convinced that they daily spend time in his
presence—that they speak to him, personally, and that he hears them and he
answers them. In neglecting God, have we actually neglected the evidence?
What if it isn’t that God doesn’t exist? What if God just
isn’t who we thought God was? What if it turns out that God is far greater?
Yes, God is powerful enough to create the universe, and to
design it with order and precision. But God is not the distant God of the
deists. God is not someone whom, at best, we can hope to catch a glimpse of.
God is not someone whose love is conditional on our nice deeds outweighing our
naughty ones. When fully revealed, God is indeed Creator and Designer, but—even
better—God is our loving friend. For us, God was willing to be seen as a fool,
and as a baby.
It’s not that Santa doesn’t exist; it’s just that Santa is
Mom and Dad. And that’s good news! What if, likewise, the God that so many have
stopped believing in exists after all? And what if God does not live high in
the sky, to be seen only when we die? What if he dwelled among us, and lives
within us? What if God is Abba—Dad?
This Christmas, would you consider joining me in believing
in the real Santa, and would you consider believing in God too?
Vince Vitale is director of the Zacharias Institute at Ravi
Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia.
Published on December
15, 2016 in A Slice of Infinity. “Our gift
and invitation to you, that you might further examine your beliefs, your
culture, and the unique message of Jesus Christ.”
To learn more about Ravi
Zacharias International Ministries, go here. http://www.rzim.org/
To receive A Slice of Infinity in your daily email,
go here. http://www.rzim.org/a-slice-of-infinity/
Friday, December 16, 2016
A Christmas Testimony
It’s been one year since Star Wars: The Force Awakens was
revealed in theaters after much anticipation about how the saga from a galaxy
far, far away would carry on. Historic
characters were brought back and new characters were introduced. Fans speculated as new trailers and
information was released or “leaked” throughout 2015 prior to the movie’s
release.
There has always been one moment that has stuck out to me
from the movie. It was actually
introduced during one of the trailers.
Han Solo is discussing with Finn and Rey the status of Luke Skywalker
and speculating why he disappeared-
Finn:
Do you know what happened to him?
Han
Solo: A lot of rumors. Stories. People that knew him best think he went
looking for the first Jedi temple.
Rey:
The Jedi were real?
Han
Solo: I used to wonder about that myself. Thought it was a bunch of
mumbo-jumbo. A magical power holding together good and evil, the dark side and
the light. Crazy thing is... it's true. The Force. The Jedi... All of it...
It's all true. 1
Han’s response to Rey’s question about whether or not the
Jedi were real has always stuck with me.
It reminds me of my own personal journey as a Christian and the
significance of celebrating Christmas.
Now I can’t say that I ever considered the account of Jesus’ birth a
bunch of “mumbo-jumbo,” but for much of my life, it was not the centerpiece of
why I celebrated Christmas. It was more
like a tradition that was remembered and simply went along with the other
things I would do every year such as listening to Christmas music, watching
Christmas movies, buying and receiving presents, and visiting with family
members in hot, crammed spaces. It didn’t
really rank any higher to me than these things.
My perspective began to change on Christmas Day of
2003. What made this Christmas very
different from years past was my mom being in a nursing home on her 48th
birthday. The cancer that she had
bravely fought for the past year had come back and the doctors had told her and
my dad that there was really nothing more they could do. It was only a matter of time before she would
leave this earth. My family decided that
day that we would spend the morning at home together and then spend the rest of
the day with my mom. When we arrived at
the nursing home in the afternoon, we walked into her room and immediately
noticed something was terribly wrong. An
emergency 911 call was made and mom was rushed to the hospital. Within hours, she would be gone. I was in shock, to say the least. While I knew that barring a miraculous
healing, mom was going to die, the reality of it hit me hard. And the fact that it happened on Christmas,
the day we celebrate Jesus’ birth, just didn’t seem fair. Now it was also the day that I would always
remember as when my mom was born and when she died.
For several years, Christmas became more like any other
holiday. I was more excited about being
off work for an extended period and having a good time rather than reflecting
on the importance of this observance.
So what changed? In
late 2006, I met Kimberly, whom I’ve now been married to for almost 9
years. She helped me with
re-establishing my relationship with God.
We found a church that was exactly what we were looking for and
more. This is where I met Chad Gross and
was introduced to the world of apologetics, something I desperately
needed. I had many questions about my
faith and didn’t really think that I should ask them or I assumed they couldn’t
be answered. Man, was I wrong! And I am so thankful for that! What I slowly began to realize was
Christianity is much more than a tradition.
It’s true, all of it! In Star
Wars Episode VII, Han’s statement I quoted earlier was the result of his “eyewitness
accounts” of Jedi, Sith Lords, etc. The
New Testament, particularly the Gospels, are eyewitness testimonies of those
who witness the historical events surrounding the life of Jesus Christ. Their accounts and the sacrifices they made
to share it with as many people as possible, is one of the many pieces of
evidence that gives me reasonable confidence in what I believe.
My life as a Christ follower is not based on tradition, but
is instead grounded in truth!
May the Lord be with you!
The Other Chad
May the Lord be with you!
The Other Chad
Thursday, December 15, 2016
5 Theses on Anti-Intellectualism by Justin Taylor
Originally published here at The Gospel Coalition.
“Anti-intellectualism is a disposition to discount the importance of truth and the life of the mind.”
—Os Guinness
2. Anti-Intellectualism is a problem in the Western world.
“We live in what may be the most anti-intellectual period in the history of Western civilization.”
—R. C. Sproul
“. . . Americans are the best entertained and quite likely the least well-informed people in the Western world.”
—Neil Postman
3. Anti-Intellectualism is a problem within evangelicalism.
“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 reaches is not cared for enough.”
—Charles Malik
“The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.”
—Mark Noll
“. . . the Christian Mind has succumbed to the secular drift with a degree of weakness unmatched in Christian History.”
—Harry Blamires
“The contemporary Christian mind is starved, and as a result we have small, impoverished souls.”
—J. P. Moreland
“Our churches are filled with Christians who are idling in intellectual neutral. As Christians, their minds are going to waste. One result of this is an immature, superficial faith. People who simply ride the roller coaster of emotional experience are cheating themselves out of a deeper and richer Christian faith by neglecting the intellectual side of that faith.”
—William Lane Craig
4. Anti-Intellectualism is not virtuous.
“God is no fonder of intellectual slackers than of any other slackers.”
—C. S. Lewis
“Intellectual slothfulness is but a quack remedy for unbelief. . . .”
—J. Gresham Machen
“At root, evangelical anti-intellectualism is both a scandal and a sin. It is a scandal in the sense of being an offense and a stumbling block that needlessly hinders serious people from considering the Christian faith and coming to Christ. It is a sin because it is a refusal, contrary to Jesus’ two great commandments, to love the Lord our God with our minds. Anti-intellectualism is quite simply a sin. Evangelicals must address it as such, beyond all excuses, evasions, or rationalizations of false piety.”
—Os Guinness
5. Anti-Intellectualism should be resisted with Godward passion and intellectual consecration to the Lord.
“We must have passion—indeed hearts on fire for the things of God. But that passion must resist with intensity the anti-intellectual spirit of the world.”
—R. C. Sproul
“The Christian religion flourishes not in the darkness but in the light. . . . [T]he true remedy [of unbelief] is consecration of intellectual power to the service of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
—J. Gresham Machen
“What is today a matter of academic speculation begins tomorrow to move armies and pull down empires. In that second stage, it has gone too far to be combated; the time to stop it was when it was still a matter of impassioned debate. So as Christians we should try to mold the thought of the world in such a way as to make the acceptance of Christianity something more than a logical absurdity. . . . What more pressing duty than for those who have received the mighty experience of regeneration, who, therefore, do not, like the world, neglect that whole series of vitally relevant facts which is embraced in Christian experience — what more pressing duty than for these men to make themselves masters of the thought of the world in order to make it an instrument of truth instead of error?”
—J. Gresham Machen
Some Books to Consider Reading:
- J. P. Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul
- John Piper, Think: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God
- James W. Sire, Habits of the Mind: Intellectual Life as a Christian Calling
- Mark Noll, Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind
- Gene Edward Veith Jr., Loving God with All Your Mind: Thinking as a Christian in the Postmodern World
- John Stott, Your Mind Matters: The Place of the Mind in the Christian Life
- Harry Blamires, The Christian Mind: How Should a Christian Think?
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Related Posts
J.P. Moreland on Culture
Video: Loving God with All Your Mind by J.P. Moreland
Wednesday, December 14, 2016
Video: The Columbo Tactic- Diplomacy Rather than D-Day by Greg Koukl
David Wood of Acts17 Apologetics has shared this excellent video of Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason explaining "The Columbo Tactic." I can tell you from experience that this is one of the most effective conversation strategies I have ever learned. Furthermore, Koukl's book Tactics transformed how I share my faith with others. I highly recommend both the video and the book!
Stand to Reason describes "The Columbo Tactic" as follows:
'Columbo' is most powerful if you have a game plan for the conversation. Generally when I ask a question I have a goal in mind. I’m alerted to some weakness, flaw, or contradiction in another’s view that I want to expose in a disarming way.
Other times the question is an open-ended 'What do you mean by that?' delivered in a mild, genuinely inquisitive fashion. The general topic can be anything broadly related to spiritual things. Then begin to probe with questions, gently guiding the conversation in a more spiritually productive direction.
The follow-up question, 'How did you come to that conclusion?,' graciously assumes the non-Christian has reasons for her view and is not just emoting. It gives her a chance to express her rationale (if she has one), giving you more material to work with.
Occasionally someone will quip, 'I don’t have any reasons; I just believe it,' to which I ask, 'Why would you believe something when you have no reason to think it’s true?' This is a genuine—and very appropriate—question. And it’s simple.
You may not always have an answer, but you can always ask a question, especially a well-placed one.
That’s the value of the Columbo tactic."
Enjoy!
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Related Posts
Video: God of the Gaps? by Greg Koukl
"Taking the Roof Off" with Homer Simpson
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
Book Preview- Abortion: The Ultimate Exploitation Of Women by Brian Fisher
Author, speaker, and business leader Brian Fisher co-founded Human Coalition after years serving in executive management in the for-profit and non-profit arenas.
He started his career in Christian talk radio, and then served as Executive Vice President of a start-up financial firm. That firm grew to over $1.1B in assets before it was sold to an international banking organization.
Brian then served as president of a $38M dollar media non-profit before moving to Texas to become the COO of a large marketing agency. Brian moved back into the non-profit world as President of Human Coalition in early 2012 when it blossomed into the national effort it is today.
Originally piloted in 2007, Human Coalition is a transparent, metric-oriented, compassion-driven organization dedicated to employing best practices in order to rescue babies and families from abortion through technology and grace. Human Coalition has five major divisions: marketing outreach, contact center, women's care clinics, church outreach, and legal.
Brian is a Certified Financial Planner® and the author of four books (including the new release, Deliver Us From Abortion: Awakening the Church to End the Killing of America’s Children) and numerous articles. His columns have appeared in publications such as FoxNews.com, the Washington Post, Crosswalk, and CBN.com. Brian and his wife, Jessica, have two sons.
About the Book
After over forty years of protest and debate, we all know one thing for certain about abortion: it’s a women’s issue, right?
Wrong, says Brian Fisher in his groundbreaking, updated and expanded book Abortion: The Ultimate Exploitation of Women. This second edition of Brian Fisher’s internationally-acclaimed treatise on men and abortion reveals long-forgotten or never-known facts to show that abortion is very much a man’s concern.
Fisher shows that a select group of compassionate men led the way in the nineteenth century to pass laws strengthening the criminalization of abortion—and worked with feminists of that era to do so. But it was men, not women, who drove the campaign that led to the 1973 Supreme Court ruling giving women an unqualified right to end the lives of their unborn children.
So what’s in it for men? As feminist legal scholar Catharine MacKinnon observes, abortion “does not liberate women; it frees male sexual aggression.” Abortion is the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card for men with non-committal sex lives. Another agenda is at work as well. Men use abortion to advance their racist, eugenic, and population control dreams and schemes, as Fisher shows, citing their own words.
Supported by over one hundred new sources, augmenting hundreds from the first edition, Fisher argues that men have not only a right but also an intrinsic duty to end the abortion holocaust they started -- and they are.
Fisher outlines why and how, and he urges men to take up the task with courageous women. He lays out a five-point plan for men to “with humility, faithfulness, and relentless perseverance, commit our time, resources, energy, heart, and testimony to ending abortion in America for the sake of children, women, men, and the family.”
You can pre-order your copy here.
Learn more about the Human Coalition here.
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Related Posts
Brian Fisher on the Federal Government and Abortion
When Pro-Abortion Choice Rhetoric Hurts
Monday, December 12, 2016
12 Days of Apologetics
Southern Evangelical Seminary developed the subject series for the Christmas season. This is a great resource to go through with your family. It will provide you with conversation starters among family and friends this Christmas season. The series will also equip you to answer questions they may have.
You can listen to all 12 days here.
Stand firm in Christ,
Chase
Sunday, December 11, 2016
Saturday, December 10, 2016
Video: If God, Why Evil? by Tim Barnett
Many agree that the problem of evil is the most potent argument against the existence of God. The logical problem of evil can be summed up as follows:
1. If God is all-good, He would want to eliminate all the evil in the world.
2. If God is all-powerful, He could eliminate all the evil in the world.
3. There is evil in the world.
4. God is either not all-good, or all not all-powerful, or both
5. Therefore, God does not exist.
In this featured video, Tim Barnett of Stand to Reason demonstrates why the logical problem of evil fails.
1. If God is all-good, He would want to eliminate all the evil in the world.
2. If God is all-powerful, He could eliminate all the evil in the world.
3. There is evil in the world.
4. God is either not all-good, or all not all-powerful, or both
5. Therefore, God does not exist.
In this featured video, Tim Barnett of Stand to Reason demonstrates why the logical problem of evil fails.
Enjoy!
Courage and Godspeed,
Friday, December 09, 2016
Quote: Liberal Professor Thomas Boslooper on the Claim that "the Virgin Birth of Christ was Derived from Pagan Myths"
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Footnote:
1. As quoted by Lee Strobel in The Case for Christianity, p. 95. It is worth noting that Boslooper wrote a book entitled The Virgin Birth.
Wednesday, December 07, 2016
Book Preview: Signposts to God- How Modern Physics and Astronomy Point the Way to Belief by Peter Bussey
Peter Bussey (PhD, ScD, Cambridge) is a particle physicist and an honorary research fellow in the school of physics and astronomy at the University of Glasgow. He is a fellow of the Institute of Physics and previously served at Cambridge University, CERN, and Sheffield University. Bussey is involved in research with several international particle physics collaborations, including the ZEUS Experiment at DESY in Hamburg, Germany, the CDF Experiment at Fermilab in Chicago, and the ATLAS Experiment at CERN, Geneva, Switzerland. He is widely published in journals such as Science and Christian Belief.
About the Book
The heavens declare the glory of God" (Ps 19:1). Can we still sing the words of the Psalmist in an age where scientists talk about an expanding cosmos, the Higgs boson, and the multiverse?
In Signposts to God particle physicist Peter Bussey introduces readers to the mysteries of modern physics and astronomy. Written in clear, accessible prose, Bussey provides a primer on topics such as the laws of nature, quantum physics, fine-tuning, and current cosmological models. He shows that despite the remarkable achievements of science, the latest research in these fields does not lead to simple physicalism in which physical processes are able to explain everything that exists.
Bussey argues that, far from ruling out a divine Creator, modern physics and astronomy present us with compelling signposts to God. The more we know about the cosmos and our presence in it, the more plausible belief in God becomes. We can be intellectually satisfied in both science and the Christian faith. Written by someone who has worked for years in scientific research, Signposts to God is a timely and winsome response to a cultural stalemate.
Recommendation
—J. P. Moreland, distinguished professor of philosophy, Biola University
You can learn more about the book here.
Order your copy here.
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Related Posts
Alvin Plantinga on Science and Christianity
Video: Science and Religion...Conflict, Myth
Monday, December 05, 2016
Sunday, December 04, 2016
Saturday, December 03, 2016
How Does the Holy Spirit Relate to Evidence for Christianity? by Gary R. Habermas
It is often assumed that the Holy Spirit's witness to a believer is not very helpful in a study of apologetics. After all, this testimony is given only to Christians and it is not verified or falsified by evidences. So does it follow that this witness is no more than a subjective conviction?
In the few NT passages that address this subject, we are told that, at a minimum, the witness of the Holy Spirit is a personal word to believers that they are children of God (Rom 8:15-17). The Holy Spirit testifies to believers as family members (Gl 4:6-7). So the believer will experience the presence of the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:16-17). This is one way to know that we are truly believers (1 Jn 3:24; 4:13).
Since the unbeliever cannot understand things pertaining to salvation (Jn 14:17; 1 Cor 2:14), one might questions the value of the Holy Spirit's witness in an apologetic context. But this seems to assume that dealing with unbelievers is the only purpose for defending the faith. Apologetics may have even more value in strengthening the faith of believers through a variety of avenues.
Since the chief purpose of the Holy Spirit's witness is to provide personal assurance of the believer's salvation, the resulting confidence can play a valuable role in convincing believers of their own relationship with the Lord. This might provide assistance, for example, in dealing with religious doubt.
Moreover, the witness of the Holy Spirit provides indirect confirmation of the truth of the Christian gospel. After all, if we are the children of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ as we suffer and are glorified with Him (Rm 8:17), then it would follow that God's gospel path--the basis of this assurance--is likewise true.
So when people become Christians and experience the Holy Spirit's presence, it ought not surprise them, since this is precisely what Scripture teaches! It should be normal fare for the believer. Briefly stated, the study of apologetics indicates that Christianity is true; the witness of the Holy Spirit performs the related function of identifying those who are members of the faith.
Thursday, December 01, 2016
Article: 5 Ways to Help Keep Your Kids From Becoming Secularized Worshipers by Alisa Childers
She writes:
"As a worship leader and as a parent, I have a deep desire to help equip my kids to approach God with genuine worship that is insulated from the secular influence of the culture they are growing up in. This is no easy task."
Further, she shares that "Christian worship seeks to glorify God, while secularized worship seeks to glorify our experience of worshiping God."
However, as she rightly asks, "How can we get our kids to understand this?" She offers 5 tips:
1. Live a life of God-centered worship in front of them.
2. Teach your kids theology, and focus in the attributes of God.
3. Stress admiration over experience.
4. Teach your kids apologetics.
5. Encourage your kids to be critical thinkers in worship, without becoming critical people.
I encourage you to checkout the article here.
Finally, this post was a guest feature on Natasha Crain's excellent blog which can be found here. This blog is "must reading" for Christian parents.
Enjoy!
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Related Posts
Video: How Can Parents Help In Their Kids' Apologetic Development?
Raising Your Kids for Christ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)