Dr. James White on Why Muslims Reject the Gospel at RTS

Two days ago I analyzed a frequent Muslim apologist’s argument that the Bible predicted the coming of Muhammad.  I thought it was timely that James White, a Christian apologists who the last few years have spent a lot of time and effort in researching, lecturing and debating on Islam, recently delivered a talk at Reformed Theological Seminary on the topic of why Muslims reject the Gospel.  I am encouraged to see an apologist who has the combination of original language exegetical skills, Presuppositional apologetics and Reformed theology addressing the cults and now Islam.

His book on Islam is coming out sometime this year.

Yesterday, EvangelZ also posted a book review on Piper’s response to the New Perspective on Paul.  James White earlier this month has also debated N.T. Wright, the audio which is made available here.

Read Full Post »

Watchtower REMOVES “Trinity” Booklet—ONLINE!

The last few weeks in the providence of God, I’ve been able to witness to various Jehovah’s Witnesses.  As some of you know, they are big on attacking the Trinity.  Each conversation ended with my inquiry for their famous “Should You believe in the Trinity?” pamphlet since my copy has not been readily available, being in storage at my parent’s place.  Each time the Jehovah’s Witnesses said they didn’t have a copy on them (though they had many of the other resources on them).  Each time they told me they will look for one to pass to me next time followed by a plug to visit the Watchtower society’s website.  I still haven’t gotten a physical copy and when I go online to their website, I could not find it and only get this.

Well I found online on Youtube that apparently I was not the only one who experienced a sudden disappearance of this infamous pamphlet.

As a young baby Christian this was the work that appeared to be the ultimate one stop shop with the summaries of the core arguments against the Trinity but as I grew older I discovered the many mistakes it made biblically, historically and poor use of quoting reference.  As the guy on the Youtube clip pointed out, a great resource that one can ask the JWs to look up to find that the Watchtower has lied to them in terms of their “scholarship” is no longer readily available.

The guy who made the video, ”The Snarky Apologist” has loaded up online and made available the booklet online for the record if you wanted to see, click HERE.

Read Full Post »

Review: Relational Apologetics by Michael C. Sherrard

The author at the beginning of the book made it clear that the book “is about how to share and defend your faith as a non-scholar to a non-scholar” (11). I would have to say it’s probably too basic for those who have spent a significant time reading apologetics. However, the book is not so much about facts in favor of Christianity (although it does mention them from time to time) as it is with how Christians are to engage in apologetics with those whom they are conversing with. What I did appreciate the most about this book is it’s strong call for the Christian to be holy in one’s own personal life. For instance, Sherrard stated “A daily repentance, turning away from sin and toward Jesus, is perhaps the most important apologetic for God you can posses. This is because your life must reflect your message, or your message will appear to be false” (24). After laying the foundation for holiness, the author then showed how Christian living shape how we go about doing apologetics, such as when we do not know an answer, Christian humility dictate that we are honest and then promise to do further research. Having our holiness shape how we deal with others with apologetics is important and there is nothing objectionable with the book in that regards. In terms of apologetics’ methodology, the book is from a broadly Classical perspective, but since the work is not mainly about the evidences for Christianity, the Classical flavor is rather mild. For instance, he does not fleshed out the Cosmological or Teological argument though he mentioned them by name in the footnotes. I believe how Christians address the problem of evil to be quite revealing in terms of the apologist’s theology, since one’s theology proper and doctrine of man does intersect with theodicy. Here the author did mention that the”freewill” debate among Christians is above his “paygrade” (his own term), a smart move on his part.  He also did pretty good addressing the problem of evil in light of an atheistic evolutionary standpoint: “The notion of evil only makes sense in a universe of purpose that contains a standard of purpose and goodness. We call things evil when they violate this standard. But, again, from where did this standard come from? It can’t be a result of evolution. An accident is not binding” (140). There are minor concerns I have here and there in this book and among them is his first footnote that mentioned that Antony Flew had recently moved towards Deism, but Flew has been dead since 2010 and for a book published in 2012, Flew couldn’t have just “recently” became a Deist of sort (I would contend that he’s now a full theist, but that’s another point, another time). Then in the epilogue, Sherrard said, “Though we have talked about evidence and logic and arguments, we must remember that many people will not bow to God because of their heart” (143), which as a stand alone statement is biblical correct. But then he goes on to explain: “Many people do not love themselves. Many people do not like themselves” (143-44). The Biblical assessment of man has never been that they reject God because they don’t love themselves, if anything, the Biblical data suggests otherwise.

Read Full Post »

Apologetics Sermon Illustration # 11: Using Rights to Hand Guns While Critical of Rights to Hand Guns

GO TO PART 10

Point: A distinctive of the school of apologetics known as Presuppositional apologetics as taught by Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen and John Frame is their use of a kind of argument stating that  in order for an unbeliever to hold a certain view, one need to presuppose certain truths of Christianity in the first place in order for it to be intelligible and meaningful.  That concept might be hard to communicate, thus the need and  importance of explaining this line of argumentation and also illustrating it.

Illustration: After the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school last December, the Journal News decided to publish an interactive map placing a dot on the address of every permit holder in Westchester and Rockland counties in New York complete with names and street address. Why?  In their own word, giving “as much information as possible provides our readers with the ability to contribute to the discussion, in any way they wish, on how to make their communities safer.”   There is a general trajectory that the Journal has that is critical of private rights to arm.  Yet ironically, we read of this news story that while they are critical of private rights to bear arm, they hired a private security firm with citizens that exercises that same right to private arms in order to ensure their safety while they continue being critical of it.

Guns are good for the goose but NOT for the gander.

A Clarkstown police report issued on December 28, 2012, confirmed that The Journal News has hired armed security guards from New City-based RGA Investigations and that they are manning the newspaper’s Rockland County headquarters at 1 Crosfield Ave., West Nyack, through at least tomorrow, Wednesday, January 2, 2013.

[Update 1/4/13-the guards will now be present indefinitely]

According to police reports on public record, Journal News Rockland Editor Caryn A. McBride was alarmed by the volume of “negative correspondence,” namely an avalanche of phone calls and emails to the Journal News office, following the newspaper’s publishing of a map of all pistol permit holders in Rockland and Westchester.

Due to apparent safety concerns, the newspaper then decided to hire RGA Investigations to provide armed personnel to man the location.

Private investigator Richard Ayoob is the administrator of RGA. He told the Clarkstown Police on Friday, December 28 that there had been no problems on site at the Journal News headquarters despite the massive influx of phone calls and emails.

McBride had filed at least two reports with the Clarkstown Police Department due to perceived threats. However, the police did not find the communications in question actually threatening. Incident-Report 2012-00033099 describes McBride telling police she was worried because an email writer wondered “what McBride would get in her mail now.”

Police said the email “did not constitute an offense” and did not contain an actual threat.

The Journal News caused an international stir when they released aninteractive map of pistol permit holders names and addresses in Rockland and Westchester counties last Sunday, December 23. The editors have said they believe knowing where guns are is in the public’s interest. The newspaper has also taken a strident editorial position in favor of strict gun control.

(Link)

Irony abounds.  If the purpose of the map was to reveal guns around their readers neighborhood, it’s ironic that they didn’t publish for their readers to know that their office also has private guards who exercise their average citizens right of having hand guns and power of citizen arrests.  It’s unfortunate they didn’t publish this information, failing to live up to their purpose that they stated in their own words of allowing “as much information as possible provides our readers with the ability to contribute to the discussion, in any way they wish, on how to make their communities safer.”  No doubt if the armed guards are local to the county, they would be among those listed in their interactive maps.  More could be said about the hypocrisy of the Journal.  But one must not missed the point I am trying to make here:  That the staff at the journal are critical of the benefit that the law gives concerning hand gun while at the same time they enjoy the very benefits that the laws gives concerning hand guns.  This is analogous to those critical of the Christian worldview that God gave us while enjoying the very benefits of the very Christian worldview they question.

POSSIBLE SCENARIO FOR EMPLOYING THIS ILLUSTRATION DURING APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

CHRISTIAN: Let me explain how I’m trying to make my argument work.  Did you hear about the one newspaper in New York that had an interactive map of those who had hand gun permits?  Do you think they question the benefits of the rights to hand guns?

<Insert information about New Journal’s interactive maps, their editorials, etc>

OPPONENT: I suppose so to some extent they are critical.

CHRISTIAN: Now what are your reaction to this news story?

<Insert the above news article about the Journal hiring guards exercising their rights to hand guns as private citizens>

OPPONENT: Interesting.  I think….<their thoughts>.

CHRISTIAN: Are you aware that security guards are not peace officers and are exercising the same rights of any private citizens to bear arm, own hand guns and make citizens arrest?

OPPONENT: Yes.

CHRISTIAN: Would you say they enjoy the benefits of the lawful rights to hand guns?

OPPONENT: But they didn’t go out and get hand guns themselves.  They hired guards.

CHRISTIAN: But they directly wanted and directly contacted a security company to provide this services right?  While they didn’t carry a hand gun themselves, wouldn’t you have to agree that they nevertheless practiced and enjoyed the benefit of the lawful rights of private citizen to hand guns for their protection?

OPPONENT: Yes.

CHRISTIAN: That’s analogous to our situation here in this debate.  You might be critical of the Christian worldview, but it’s the same Christian worldview that you enjoyed and benefit from that makes your objection to the Christian worldview be intelligible and meaningful.

 

GO TO PART 12

Read Full Post »

Interview with a Calvinistic Dispensational Presuppositionalist: Fred Butler

After last year’s marathon series on Dispensational Presuppositionalists, I discovered that there were additional items that could be added to that series including interviews.  Here is one of several more interviews I want to have featured here on Veritas Domain.  Today’s interview is with Fred Butler which some of you will know as the blogger behind the blog Hip and Thigh.

 

1.) Describe to us your ministry with Grace To You, the church, etc.

I’ve been given the privilege of overseeing the volunteer ministry of
Grace to You. Every month we offer a free resource to our supporters
and when they respond, it is my job to pull together the material they
requested and prepare it to be mailed.  We have about 125 volunteers
who come twice a week, spread out between Tuesdays and Thursday. They
are mostly retired members of Grace Church who wanted to spend their
new found free time serving the Lord.

Additionally, they allow me to preach at them during our lunch break,
so that keeps me in the Word and my sermon prep. skills sharpened.
Typically, I do a 20-30 minute devotional style message.  A lot of
those sermons/lectures have been recorded and are available for free
download at http://www.fredsbibletalk.com, a website a friend put together
for me. It also hosts a lot of my articles and essays on various
subjects.

At Grace, my wife and I are involved with Doulos, a fellowship group
aimed at young singles and married folks.

2.) How did you first become a Presuppositionalist?

I became a presuppositionalist in an unusual, round-about fashion.
God saved me the last week of my freshman year of college, so going
into the summer as a new believer was really exciting for me.  I read
the NT through for the first time ever, I was introduced to solid
writers like A.W. Pink and John MacArthur, in fact, I was introduced
to John’s preaching ministry via cassette tape by a former member of
Grace Church who was then living in my college town in Arkansas.

When I returned to college in the fall for my sophomore year, I was
“on fire” for the Lord to say the least. I thought I could personally
take on all challengers to my faith.  I was ready to scuffle with
Mormons, the JWs, and any other pseudo-Christian cult and I was cocky
enough to think I had the ability to convince them of their error and
covert them to Christ.

But God has his ways of sanctifying us.  I became friends with a woman
who was a hard-core atheist. She was a non-traditional student, maybe
10 years older than most of her classmates, married and with a kid,
who had returned to school to finish up her degree.  She was also the
first real atheist I had ever encountered. She was a lot like many of
the on-line atheists today, skeptical about everything.  As we talked,
I would challenge her atheism with various Christian “evidences” I had
picked up in my reading or at my college youth group. Somehow I came
across a copy of Josh McDowell’s classic book, “Evidence that Demands
a Verdict.” I loaned it to her thinking she would be unable to refute
his material. She gave it back in a week. She told me she had read the
first three chapters or so and just couldn’t believe it. She then
offered up her spin on why McDowell was wrong and all the mistakes he
made.

The time I knew this woman really shook me. I didn’t have a “crisis of
faith” or anything like that where I doubted Christianity or thought I
had been lied to or whatnot which is often reported these days among
many apostate young people leaving church.  It was more like God
helped me to realize that bringing people to Christ is more than
having the right arguments or the most compelling evidences. Also, as
I matured in my own personal faith and I came to be convinced of the
doctrines of Grace, or Calvinism, I began to see that man’s problem is
not intellectual, but moral. He is blinded in his sin and is
suppressing what truth he has in unrighteousness as Romans 1:18ff
tells us. I began to fit together the “presuppositional” pieces, as it
were, because I started to understand that we engage worldviews, not
just specific lines of evidence.

When I came to The Master Seminary, I was formally introduced to
presuppositionalism, along with the other various kinds of apologetic
theologies and that is when the light came on for me.  What I was
learning about presuppositional apologetics was what I was already
formulating in my heart and now I had some anchors I could use to
shore up my thinking.

3.) Knowing that you work with Grace To You, do you know what is John
MacArthur’s perspective on apologetics?

Those who know John know he shuns the idea of labels. Primarily
because labels will often come with baggage.  For instance, John
probably would hesitate calling himself a “Calvinist,” but I know he
holds to Calvinism because he has preached messages on the Doctrines
of Grace.  He would point out that the title “Calvinism” comes with
superfluous baggage like infant baptism and Covenant Theology that
only gets in the way of any meaningful discussion about what the Bible
tells us regarding God’s grace and election, so he just avoids the
label.

That said, John would certainly consider himself a
presuppositoinalist, because the methodology reflects solid exegesis
and theology.  He hasn’t, at least to my knowledge, preached
specifically on the subject of presuppositionalism, but he does model
the methodology in his preaching and various media interviews when he
is asked to give his opinion concerning some cultural issue.

For example, after 9/11 throughout the 2000s, John appeared
occasionally as a panelist on Larry King’s old CNN show. (You can
watch some of those interviews at GTY’s website here,
http://www.gty.org/video/Category/Interviews) From what I understand,
there were a few guys on King’s immediate personal staff who were
Christians and loved John. So when the opportunity came about back in
the fall of 2001 to address “Where was God on September 11th” those
guys suggested asking John to be a panelist.  He agreed, and he was on
King’s show with some liberal Muslim guy, a Catholic priest, a Jewish
guy, Deep-pockets Chopra, and Kid Rock (I’m just kidding about the Kid
Rock part. LK always had oddball choices for these kinds of
discussions).  Anyhow, during that show, John consistently brought his
convictions back to the Word of God. He challenged the other men who
claimed to speak for God yet misquoted the Bible and flat out spoke
lies.

In all of those interviews, John consistently brought everyone back to
the true foundation of our living Sovereign Creator and His written
Word.  Surprisingly, Larry King liked John for it and got to where it
was he who wanted John to come back for these kind of “philosophical”
programs.  That was because he knew what he would say and realized
John was the real deal, not some smarmy, wishy-washy celebrity
preacher who bounces around hard and difficult issues because he wants
to please a broad audience.  Deep-pockets Chopra hated John for his
rock solid convictions and where as John would chat with the other
guys at the table during commercial breaks, Chopra refused to speak
with him, because John was a narrow-minded Bible thumper.

4.) Some see Presuppositional apologetics as being the apologetics
method of Covenantal theology only.  Do you think Presuppositional
apologetics is compatible with Calvinistic Dispensationalism, and if
so, explain.

Before I answer, it may be helpful to provide other readers with a bit
of background to your question. There is a group of on-line bloggers
who are attempting to rename presuppositional apologetics as
“covenant” apologetics.  They get this from  K. Scott Oliphint who is
the professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster
Theological Seminary.  He has argued that presuppositionalism is too
broad a description for the overall apologetic system and so there is
a need to change the terminology for the purpose of bringing our
apologetics into line with fundamentals of Reformed theology.

He has a book coming called “Covenant Apologetics” that will explain
in more detail for his redefinition, but in short, he builds his case
for the name change upon the 7th chapter of the Westminister
Confession that goes into describing God’s covenants with men,
particularly the “covenant of works.” The covenant of works, argues
Oliphint, establishes a relationship between God and all men, and the
obligations of obedience do not cease even after man fell. So, when we
engage unbelievers with “apologetics” we are confronting the fact they
are covenant breakers who need to come into a right covenant
relationship with God through what Jesus Christ did on the cross to
reconcile covenant breakers with their Covenant Creator.

As much as I have benefited from Dr. Oliphint’s other material in the
past, I think his novel redefinition is problematic.  Primarily
because he has to “presupposes” that Covenant Theology truly reflects
biblical Christianity and systematic theology. Even more problematic
is the whole notion of all men being “covenant breakers” and building
his premise upon the concept of a  “covenant of works.”  That is
because the idea of a “covenant of works” is contrived, being read
into the Scripture.  I realize reformed guys point to Genesis 1 and 2
when God commanded Adam not to eat from the tree in the garden, but
there is no covenant language noted in God’s command there. This is
especially clear in light of certain passages where covenant language
is used, like in Genesis 9 with Noah and Genesis 12, 15, 17 with
Abraham and his descendants. Thus, any attempts to sharpen our
apologetic theology must be done along biblical grounds utilizing
clear, biblical terminology.

Now, some may be asking, “But isn’t it true men are obligated to obey
God, their Creator?” Why of course; but not because of some covenant
of works.  Our obligation has to do with the fact we are God’s
creatures and what He, our sovereign, has demanded from us in return.
All men are obligated to worship and glorify Him in righteousness. But
of course, no man desires to obey God because all men are sinners.
The Gospel is the message of good news that God has dealt with sin and
made a way for men to obey God and be in a relationship with Him on
account of Jesus Christ.

As one who understands that God’s purposes in Redemption unfold
through a series of eras, or Dispensations throughout Scripture, that
are defined through various covenants that build upon themselves
culminating in the New Covenant, I am entirely aware of God’s
Sovereignty overall the earth as well as Christ’s Lordship. I am also
fully aware that humanity is in rebellion against God’s authority as
sovereign. It is that truth of God’s Sovereignty all men know and
suppress in unrighteousness that I use as a weapon when engaging in
the warfare against the strongholds men have created with their
arguments and exalted philosophy lifted up against their Creator (2
Cor.10:1-5).

5.) What would you caution and exhort to a young man interested in apologetics?

I think the primary thing I would remind folks is that our goal with
apologetics is not to merely win arguments, but to win souls. I see a
lot of young guys, bloggers in particular, in both classic
evidentialist camps, as well as presuppositional camps, approach
apologetics as a means to shut-up atheists and other skeptics.
Granted, there are times when such individuals need to have their
mouths stopped, but we must not lose our true focus, and that is
presenting the Gospel of salvation to a lost and dying world. When we
argue with cranks on the internet, we need to remember they are human
souls.  I can be equally guilty with forgetting that objective, so it
is a mind-set I always wish to cultivate.

6.) Would there be any other Dispensationalists who are
Presuppositional that you recommend us to interview in the future?

I’d recommend Dan Phillips of Team Pyro fame as well as pastor of
Copperfield Bible Church in Houston, TX. Also Don Green who is
currently the pastor of Truth Community Fellowship Church.  Michael
Vlach of TMS is a prof who teaches both Dispensationalism and
Apologetics at Master’s.  I understand Dr. Jonathan Sarfati of
Creation Ministries is a presuppositionalist with Dispensational
leanings.

And since you originally asked me to supply any other questions that
may be useful, I’ll throw out one extra,

7) What are some good introductory resources to the subject of
presuppositional apologetics?

I’m glad you asked! There are a number of good works available, but
right now, the best book anyone can get that will provide a tremendous
overview of apologetic theology is Clifford McManis’s “Biblical
Apologetics: Advancing and Defending the Gospel of Christ.”  I
reviewed the book here if anyone is interested,
http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/book-review-9/.  Cliff’s
book has been getting panned among a few Reformed reviewers because
they are annoyed he is a non-Covenant Reformed, Dispensational
oriented Calvinists. They also don’t care for his occasional
criticisms of Van Til and Bahnsen. It is almost like those two are
untouchable and any mention of them must be uncritical reverence. If
folks can ignore those reviews and get the book anyways, they will
have a work that I believe will provide them with a solid theological
foundation in apologetics.  If you start with any book, I’d start with
it.

I would also suggest Greg Bahnsen’s collection of articles under the
title “Always Ready.” It too is a solid read and one that will serve a
student well.

A third one I would recommend is John Byl’s “The Divine Challenge.” It
isn’t so much a “how to” apologetic book as it is an overview of
worldviews and how the top three worldviews in the world line-up with
telling us the truth to reality, particularly with how they explain
mind, math, matter, and meaning.  It is a great philosophical read and
it’s lay friendly as well. That is always welcome in my book.

Lastly, both Bahnsen’s and John Frame’s biographies and analyses of
Van Til. Both men were students of Van Til and both men evaluate his
work from a slightly different perspective.  Bahnsen’s analysis is
suppose to be the closest one that fairly represents Van Til’s life
work, and Frame’s as I understand it, deviates from what Van Til truly
taught, but I benefited from both of them greatly.

Then, seeing that I have this opportunity to plug my own work. Not
that I am a big shot like Bahnsen, Van Til, and even Oliphint, but I
have written on various facets of apologetic methodology and theology.
You can find past articles here:
http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2010/06/11/articles-on-apologetics-and-evangelism/

Read Full Post »

Carl Trueman’s 2012 Debate

Carl Trueman’s debate was recorded and is now up on Vimeo.  It’s subtitled, “”A Lively Conversation About the Things that Matter Most.”

Thank you Westminster Theological Seminary for having this up!

 

 

Read Full Post »

Refuting Zakir Naik on Jihad and Terrorism by David Wood

David Wood and Sam Shamoun are two Christian apologists who have been active in dealing with the issues of Islam.  Here is one of their recent clips:

Over at David Wood’s website, they recently have conducted a poll on which Muslim Apologists the readers want them to address and the pick is Shabir Ally, and they are calling for clips of Shabir Ally’s teaching that readers want to have refuted.

Pray for these guys’ walk with the LORD, their family, their safety and wisdom in their apologetics.

Read Full Post »

Two BackPack Radio Podcasts on Presuppositional Apologetics

I’ve recently heard about BackPack Radio which seems like a promising show on apologetics and good theology.  They have at least two podcasts on Presuppositional apologetics, and I hope they will have more!

Presuppositionalism and Beauty: An interview with apologist Lindsay Brooks of Apologetics.com

Epistemology & Apologetics: An interview with apologist Chris Bolt of ChoosingHats.com

Read Full Post »

Late December 2012 Presuppositional Apologetics Links

Here are some Presuppositional apologetics’ links wrapping up from this year around the world wide web:

1.) Defending the Content of the Faith We Are Defending– Review of Cornelius Van Til’s classic, The Defense of the Faith.

2.) Humanism and human worth– Steve Hays on a quote by Dawkins that undermine human worth according to “Humanists.”

3.) Atheism, Subjectivism, and Meaning– Chris Bolt takes on an atheist.

4.) Baxter vs Hume– Holloway’s take on the debate between David Hume and Andrew Baxter.

5.) A Review of Erring: A Post Modern A/Theology–A book review by Forrest W. Schultz of an anti-theistic book that confirms Van Til’s motif that man’s rebellion against God has implications against man.

6.) A Friendly Question about God and Logic–By James Anderson.

7.) Book Review: How Do We Know the Bible is True?–A book review that’s really grateful for the book’s Presuppositional approach.

8.) How Man Finds Himself: Rationalism vs. Revelation– Mark Rushdoony’s take on the question, “What is Man?” in light of the battle between rationalists and God’s revelation.

Read Full Post »

Doctoral Dissertation online: Postmodern Epistemology and the Christian Apologetics of C S Lewis

There is a doctoral dissertation for a PhD. in Dogmatics and Christian Ethics over at University of Pretoria (located at South Africa) by Donald Neil Wilson, whose topic deals with C.S. Lewis and Postmodern Epistemology.  The title is “Postmodern Epistemology and the Christian Apologetics of C S Lewis.”  It was completed in 2006.

Here is the abstract:

Epistemology in its contemporary post-modern ethos is generally believed to be inseparably hinged upon language. This of course ensures a major paradigm shift in the disciplined human conceptions of reality. It has been stated and is widely acknowledged that the Kantian Noumenal barrierhas, in this recent shift, been proved to be looming far closer than it was ever previously considered. This new barrier to the world of ‘objective absolutes’ comprises a barrier of semantics and syntax, and calls for a radical restructuring of all the human sciences. There is surely no discipline in the humanities that can claim immunity to this colossal shift in epistemology, and theology (particularly of the Evangelical variety) is no exception to the rule.

The impact of post-modern epistemological assumption upon contemporary Evangelicalism presents to those who adhere to this school’s position, a profound challenge. Conservative Christians, who hold to the propositional universality and the objectivity of biblical truth, find in the post-modern ethos little sympathy and no rational justification granted for their ‘metaphysical objectivity’. A major challenge therefore to Evangelical Christianity at the present time is this: Is there, in the light of the challenge of post-modern epistemology, any reasonable justification for continuing to adhere to the evangelical claim that God has spoken in unchanging propositional terms that are universally valid and binding? It would seem that in this regard many evangelicals are feeling pressured. Evidence of the pressure of this challenge can readily be found either in the growing contemporary evangelical tendency towards advocating a more cooperative attitude to the post-modern ethos, or in the reactionary theology of schools of thought like the Spiritual Warfare Movement.

The writings of Clive Staples Lewis (1898 – 1963) have been proven effective in the countering of negative challenges to Christian faith for the past sixty years. Lewis, as an apologist, in the opinion of many intellectual searchers, positively and convincingly countered modernistic objections to faith in his own time. Modernistic assumptions prevailed in the Western world in Lewis’ day that tended to discredit a rational belief in the supernatural. Lewis was widely held to be an effective apostle to counter this modernistic scepticism.

It is the conviction of the present writer that C. S. Lewis apologetics can be just as effectively utilised today in addressing post-modern challenges, as it was fifty years ago used to answer the questions raised by modernism. Lewis in all of his Christian writings, reveals an underlying epistemology that I believe (because it is based firmly upon Christian orthodoxy), has stood the test of time. The apologetics of C. S. Lewis may serve to answer post-modern challenges just as rationally as it did modernism.

In this thesis, Lewis’ underlying epistemology will be examined. This will comprise the first part of my work. The second part of the thesis deals with the post-modern epistemological challenge to Evangelicalism as a world-view. The final part of this thesis consists of a dialogue between the most common post-modern challenges to evangelical thinking, and rationally compelling answers thereto that are found in Lewis’ writings.

Here it is in five parts:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Read Full Post »

Apologist’s Devotional Notes from Luke’s Infancy Narrative Part I: History Matters

There’s always more truths and application from a passage of Scripture than what time allows to be actually preached on Sunday.  Sometimes there’s more “minor” point from the text that are good devotional observation for my own life as I think about apologetics and evangelism, that won’t fit into the main point of my sermon.  As we approach the Christmas season, I wanted to share some of these observation from Luke chapter 1-2 which is often called the Infancy Narrative, that has implications for the Christian who is conscious about evangelism, apologetics and worldview.  This series will be tagged under the category “Devotional for the apologist.”

We will look today at Luke 1:1-4, which is the prologue not just for the infancy narrative but for the entire gospel of Luke:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,² just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, ³ it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; ⁴ so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

(NASB)

Here Luke desire to pursue careful and accurate historical investigations.  It’s evident with his choice in use of certain Greek terms.

Words used showing Luke’s care for truth and historical investigation and it’s accurate presentation of it:

• “account” (v.1)– Where we get our modern English word “Digest.”  Often used in classical and Hellenistic Greek to refer to historical writing (Fitzmyer, 292).
• “accomplished” (v.1) –Literally is “to bring to full,” that is to fulfill or accomplish in full.  Is there an allusion to Biblical prophecies being “fulfilled” here as well?
• “eyewitnesses” (v.2)– The Greek being αυτοπται, the root word is where we get the English word “Autotopsy.”  There is an emphasis of this word, with it being nuance since it appears before the verb though it’s the object.
• “those who from the beginning“–Luke’s emphasis from the beginning can be seen in that the first two chapters of Luke has 132 verses concerning the beginning that is new information not covered as detailed in other Gospels (Hendriksen, 17).
• “having investigated” (v.3)–Has the meaning of investigating and following up as used by Josephus (Fitzmyer, 297).  The use of the perfect tense for this participle indicates that the action of Luke’s investigation was all done and completed prior to him every writing.  That is, he did his homework before writing!
• “everything” (v.3)–Shows completeness of what Luke into.
• “carefully” (v.3)– Adverb that suggests the quality of Luke’s investigation.
• “consecutive order” (v.3)–A word that describes what happens next is what is being said next (Hendriksen, 56).  Luke wants to write history here.

What do these notes means for the Christian apologist?  I realize that Luke was divinely inspired when he wrote his gospel but nevertheless, in light of the fact that Scripture has a human aspect to it, I see some implications for the one who wishes to develop and live out a Christian worldview:

1.) First off, Christians can go to the Gospel of Luke (and the rest of Scripture) “so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught” (v.4).  Test all things you heard about Jesus to the Word of God.  A Christian must not forsake the authority of the Word of God just because he’s doing apologetics.

2.) Secondly, if Luke, being guided by God, is interested and concern with history, so should we as Christians.  History is not just another boring subject, something trivial, useless or something we pretend to be interested in it so that our boring senseless teacher will give us an A in school.  There is a place for Church history, historical theology, historical apologetics and studying the historical background that is the milieu in which Scripture was written through disciplines such as archaeology, Ancient Near East studies, etc.

3.) Thirdly, Christians ought to acknowledge and synthesize other data correctly.  Note that Luke acknowledges others have written on Christ in verse 1.  There is an absence here of him saying that these accounts were wrong.  This sort of confirm that there is such thing as “Perspectivalism” or Symphonic theology as expressed in John Frame’s and Vern Poythress’ work, provided they are not truly contradictory or against Scripture.  We can emulate Luke’s acknowledgement of other sources before he writes by also starting with what God’s Word has to say about any given subject and it’s implication first whenever we study any particular issues in-depth.

4.) Fourthly, the Christian ought to study things with care and sharpness if we want to emulate Luke.  Can you say with a clear conscience, that your studies have reasonably “investigated everything carefully“?  This glorifies God when we do this, knowing that He’s a God of truth.

5.) Fifthly, the Christian ought to present the things he studied with equal care and sharpness (like the way he ought to study) if we want to emulate Luke.

6.) Last but not least, Christians engaged in historical apologetics, who are students of history or pursuing studies and teaching in general are doing it to serve other believers and nonbelievers, just as Luke also can give a purpose clause for why he was doing what he was doing in verse 4.  So choose your specialization carefully.  Think of how you can bless and be a benefit to others with what you learned, rather than just to puff up one’s ego.

Are there also other implications you can see from Luke 1:1-4?

PART II

Read Full Post »

Thanksgiving and Apologetics 2012

This verse comes into mind concerning the duties of thanksgiving:

²¹ For even though they knew God, they did not ^[n]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. ²² Professing to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and^[o]crawling creatures.

No doubt this verse shows a relationship between thanksgiving, idolatrous religion, and apologetics.

Here are two quick links to two short articles that I thought should lead the apologist to have a more deeper thanksgiving this time of the year.

1.) An Atheist Explanation of Thanksgiving by Chris Bolt.

2.) All Dressed Up and No One to Thank by John MacArthur.

Read Full Post »

Review: 5 Reasons to Believe in Recent Creation by Henry Morris

Short book that summarizes five reasons why the Christian ought to believe in recent creationism as opposed to theistic evolution. I read this book as a reminder of the summary of what reasons for Young Earth Creationism and to that end I think this booklet does it’s job though those who want to explore for details ought to pursue other works for their studies. One interesting note is that the author is a kin of the famous Henry Morris who was involved with the launch of the modern Creationism movement. There is also an appendix that explains the Gospel, which I think is a win. Again this book is to be understood as a summary rather than a fully fleshed out presentation for Young Earth Creationism. I think sometimes it’s good to have a summary booklet like this.

Read Full Post »

Was Jesus Crucified? The (Zaatari – White) 2012 Public Debate

Earlier this fall the Christian apologist James White had a tour in London engaging in a lot of debates and teaching concerning Christian apologetics concerning Islam.  One of the debates was on the topic of whether Jesus was crucified, which video done by the Muslim Debate Initiative is featured here.

Don’t forget to check out James White’s other debate on whether the Bible prophecied about Muhammed here.  For those interested in our blog’s small feeble attempt at providing resources on Christian apologetics addressing Islam with this summer’s marathon series on Islam, click here.

 

Read Full Post »

Additional October 2012 Links from Presuppositional apologetics perspective

Some additional links from this month around the web on Presuppositional apologetics.

1.) Self-refuting Statements: Agile and Deft Defenses by Relativists

2.) The Character of Miracle Witness.

3.) Truth and Models of Composition.

4.) New & Innovative Apologetics eBook: Defeating Relativism, Subjectivism, and Self-Refuting Statements.

5.) Introduction to Worldviews.

6.) American Vision Apologetics Promo.

7.) A Problem of Logic for Joe Biden and the Pro-Abortion Religious Left.

Read Full Post »