Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Apologetics’ Category

I saw this tweet from Planned Parenthood’s account:

Just in case the tweet disappears here is what it says:

FACT: People seek abortion — even if they are illegal. Here’s one woman’s pre-Roe abortion story. buff.ly/1LpEVEd

If you talk to pro-abortionists, you often hear this argument: People are going to get an abortion anyways, mind as well make it legal.  At least it provide a safe place for those seeking services.

So if someone is going to do something illegal anyways…that is an argument for it to be legalized?

How many crime in the law books are done by criminals anyways?  Should we legalize them all just because people are going to do them anyways?  It’s a terrible argument.  Faulty reasoning.

legalized planned parenthood argument oprah meme

For more rebuttals to Planned Parenthood’s arguments check out our .

Read Full Post »

Cherisse Scott pro abortion argument refuted

The blogger behind Eternity Matters has written a great comment in our previous post that’s worthy of being a post!  One should also check out his blog!  He’s responding to an objection typically used by pro-abortionists such as Cherisse Scott who recently recycled that pro-lifers “are nowhere to be found once our children are born.”

The response:

(more…)

Read Full Post »

mere christianity

CS Lewis. Mere Christianity.  New York, NY: MacMillian Publishing Company, April 16th, 1986. 175 pp.

This is my second reading of Mere Christianity.  I first read it when I was a teenager and I was prompted to read it again since I was curious to see what I would think of Lewis’ famous work now that I’m a bit older.  After all these years I still think the book’s presentation of the moral argument for God is a classic and one of the tope presentation out there.  Of course I would add the caveat that I would utilize the moral argument as a form of the transcendental argument for God’s existence but nevertheless I think Presuppositionalists can profit from reading this book.

What is Good:

There were many instances in the book that I found CS Lewis to be tremendously insightful.  His command of the English language is beautiful in a way that one expect from a Cambridge literary professor (which he was).  I am jealous of his keen ability of making observation and illustrations.  Lewis talked about how only those who resist sin can truly know the power of sin versus those who always give in to temptation; he illustrates this point by raising the question of who knows more the power of the enemy, one who surrenders or one who fight against them.  I also thought his illustration about faith and reason was very helpful in showing how they are not necessarily against each other.  He talks about how someone can intellectually know a medical fact but when one is undergoing a medical procedure sometimes it takes continued faith in the facts despite one’s hesitation and fear and in such an instance it is a virtue.

What is Bad:

CS Lewis aims to defend a “mere Christianity” and not a particular denomination or specific Christian creed but I don’t know if he succeeded in arriving at a minimalistic “mere Christianity.”  He wants to defend and discuss a Christianity which all Christians have in common but there’s instances where that’s not possible.  For example, he talks about the means of accessing God’s grace through faith, baptism and Lord’s supper but this “mere Christianity” is not that of Evangelicals who would say we are saved by God’s grace alone through faith alone apart from works.

Lewis does have a universalistic streak when it comes to salvation.  This is probably due to the influence of George MacDonald, a writer and Christian minister who was instrumental in Lewis’ conversion.  One find in the book that Lewis mentioned at least twice that some who are not professing Christians might be closer to God than they realize or professes.

Purchase: Westminster | Amazon

Read Full Post »

Over the last ten years Doug Wilson has helped popularized Presuppositional apologetics with books, debates and a documentary of his discussions with Christoper Hitchens.

Here’s a video of Doug Wilson speaking on “A Christian Response to Atheism.”  This talk was at The Master’s College sometime in 2013.

Read Full Post »

Pictures are worth a thousand words they say.  These memes and pictures were too good not to share.  I’ve given links to where the original could be found so that you can also further share them on Social Media with the first two Memes being what we made.

I think it is good to speak out against Planned Parenthood even if the politicians don’t defund them.  To raise this issue to the public conscience will convict people that this is a sin and perhaps God may use to spare another abortion.

If there are other good ones you would like to share let us know!

 

oz6py

 

How does she stand with planned parenthood
(more…)

Read Full Post »

An illustration of a rendered rainbow

An illustration of a rendered rainbow

Here’s the round up from our marathon series concerning a Christian response to homosexuality.  We have a few “stragglers” post we might still write and be added on here in the near future.

Writings

Free E-Books

Audios and Videos

Read Full Post »

Matthew vines

This is our third installment in which we look at the problematic precommitments that Matthew Vines has accepted prior to his research for his book God and the Gay Christian in which he argues that “Christians who affirm the full authority of Scripture can also affirm committed, monogamous same-sex relationship” (Page 3).  Here in this post I want to address Vines’ problematic pre-commitment concerning Old Testament laws.

Matthew Vines In His Own Words

On page 11-12 Vines said:

But while I’d once agreed with my parents’ view on homosexuality, I didn’t anymore.  Even before coming to terms with my sexual orientation, I had been studying the Bible’s references to same-sex behavior and discussing the issue with Christian friends.  Some of what I learned seemed to undermine the traditional interpretation of those passages.  For instance, Leviticus prohibits male same-sex relations, but it uses similar language to prohibit the eating of shellfish.  And while Paul did describe same-sex relations as ‘unnatural,’ he also wrote that for men to wear their hair long was contrary to ‘nature.’  Yet Christians no longer regard eating shellfish or men having long hair as sinful.  A more comprehensive exploration of Scripture was in order.”

Note in the above quote that even before Vines came out of the closet as being a homosexual or even before he began researching to write his book, Vines’ own view of the Old Testament has already led him to question whether the Bible prohibit same sex relations.  Although Vines admit that a “more comprehensive exploration of Scripture was in order,” already what he thinks he knows has “undermine the traditional interpretation of those passages”

Then on page 78 Vines gives us some more details of how he started to question the Old Testament laws found in Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) that prohibits same-sex relationship:

When I was fourteen, I used that verse to ‘prove’ to a friend that gay marriage ws wrong.  Today, I realize I hardly knew anything about what I was saying–the context of that verse in Scripture, for instance, or the place of the Old Testament law for Christians.

It’s no surprise that I was at a loss when my friend responded to me with verses from Leviticus banning the eating of shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics.

Sad to say, though, that’s been the extent of many debates about the BIble and homosexuality in recent years.  One side starts by quoting Leviticus 18:22 (or 20:13, which prescribes the death penalty for males who engage in same-sex relations), and the other side counters with verses about dietary laws and bans on certain combinations of clothing.  We really need to go deeper”

Thus his interaction at the age of 14 with friends on the topic of Old Testament laws has already slanted him towards the view that the Bible does not prohibit same-sex marriage.  We definitely need to go deeper in our refutation of his pre-commitment that slants him towards affirming same-sex relationships.

The Problem with Vines’ view of Old Testament Laws

  • Vines lamented the state of debate between the two sides: “One side starts by quoting Leviticus 18:22 (or 20:13, which prescribes the death penalty for males who engage in same-sex relations), and the other side counters with verses about dietary laws and bans on certain combinations of clothing.”  Ironically this is what Vines himself does when he invokes dietary laws as a defeater to the non-affirming Christians’ interpretation of Leviticus.  He didn’t “go deeper” as he promised in the book but presented the typical gay apologists’ arguments about Old Testament laws.
  • Matthew Vines’ hermeneutics is definitely problematic.  Recall the principle that led him to think same-sex relationship is okay: “Leviticus prohibits male same-sex relations, but it uses similar language to prohibit the eating of shellfish.”  In essence, this is his hermenutical principle:  “Since X  from Leviticus is not applicable for us today, therefore Y should not be either.”
    • But just because Leviticus has laws that prohibit things that later in the New Testament it allows, does that means same-sex relationship fall under the same category of things permissible?
      • Homosexual sins is not in the same category as dietary laws.
      • Also the New Testament did not reverse the teaching of Leviticus against homosexuality, pronouncing that it is now permitted for a man to lie with another man, etc.
    • Matthew Vines’ hermentical principle that “Since X  from Leviticus is not applicable for us today, therefore Y should not be either” is dangerous.
      • Taking Vines’ hermeneutical principle towards Leviticus to its logical conclusion, is it now permitted to see the nudity of family and relatives members?  The same argument Vines use against the prohibition against homosexuality can be used by perverts to argue against Leviticus 18:6-17 (same chapter with the prohibition on male homosexual acts).  Leviticus might prohibit unclothing family members and relatives, but to use Vines’ own words Leviticus also “uses similar language to prohibit the eating of shellfish.”  Thus  shellfishes “undermine the traditional interpretation of those passages” and somehow with Vines leap of logic in the structure of his argument it must mean incestuous uncovering of nakedness is allowed today.
      •  Vines’ form of argument can be used to say it is permissible to commit children sacrifices, bestiality and incest by employing his erroneous hermeneutical principle to dismiss Leviticus 18:21, 18:22, 20:11-12 respectively.  We can go on but readers should get the point with his hermeneutics.
    • Matthew Vines is also inconsistent with his hermeneutical principle that “Since X  from Leviticus is not applicable for us today, therefore Y should not be either.”
      • Again Vines believes in “committed, monogamous same-sex relationship” (Page 3).
      • Part of that commitment means there must not be adultery, which by definition is the violation of a committed monogamous relationship.
      • If Vines is consistent with his interpretative approach it undermines the prohibition of adultery.
      • But Vines won’t go there and probably won’t accept someone who uses his argumentation to allow for adultery.  Thus, he is inconsistent with his own method.
    • Matthew Vines and others might argue that the points above does not apply in light of the New Testament relationship to the Old Testament.  This is our reply:
      • While the New Testament still prohibit adultery, etc., remember the New Testament continue to prohibit homosexual relations as well.  Of course, Vines and company will dispute that, but the Christian response can be found elsewhere in our blog and is beyond the scope of this post.
      • Going to the New Testament does not resolve Vines’ problematic hermeneutics.  That is because he himself applies this kind of argumentation to the New Testament; recall above how Vines was quoted as saying: “And while Paul did describe same-sex relations as ‘unnatural,’ he also wrote that for men to wear their hair long was contrary to ‘nature.'”  Now the problem is further compounded by bringing this interpretative strategy to the New Testament.
  • Ultimately, Vines’ basis of ethics is not the Bible if he can judge which prohibition in Scripture (Old and New Testament) should still stand and which should not.  His standard of ethics needs to be exposed and refuted.  This we have already done in part 1 of this series in which we documented and refuted his humanistic consequentialist’s ethics.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,790 other followers