Jan 10

Podcast: Sam Welbaum & Kile Jones Discuss The Topic “Does Religion Poison Everything?”

Currently listening to Sam Welbaum discuss the question Does Religion Poison Everything? with atheist Kile Jones on the apologetics.com podcast. This show was recorded on January 7th, 2012.

Does Religion Poison Everything?:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

 

To subscribe to the apologetics.com podcast click the following link: http://homepage.mac.com/minervaedwards/Apologetics.comWeeklyRadioShow.xml
Jan 08

Quote: Christian Apologists Defend A Worldview

I am reading through Pushing the Antithesis by Greg L. Bahnsen (really, compiled by his students/friends after his death). The quote below embodies a vital idea to all apologists:

[A] worldview forms a network of presuppositions, an entire system of assumptions. This network is a complex web of numerous beliefs organized in an interlocking, interdependent, self-contained truth system.

Unfortunately, many evangelical Christians generally think in a piecemeal fashion, focusing on stray individual doctrines and facts rather than a full-scale, coordinate3d system of beliefs. They tend to view the Christian faith as a random assortment of free-standing doctrines rather than as a coherent system of interlocking truth claims. In fact, we see this problematic tendency in the more popular “evidentialist” method of apologetics which defends the faith by focusing on this or that doctrine – for instance, on the “resurrection argument” or the “creation argument.” We must recognize that the Christian faith is a complex system of mutually-supported, intertwined beliefs filling out a broader interdependent worldview.

You must defend the Christian faith as a package deal. (p. 43)

Our apologetic method can tend to be lop-sided when we overemphasize certain arguments (which in and of themselves are good arguments) at the expense of others. We must not forget that our apologetic method must reflect our theological beliefs. For evangelical believers we understand our christian worldview to be an all-encompassing worldview, totally different from the unbeliever’s worldview. At conversion we give ourselves, ALL of ourselves to Christ. This includes not only our beliefs about, for instance, the resurrection and creation, but we also the presuppositions which make such doctrines intelligible.

“You must defend the Christian faith as a package deal.” As apologists we are bound to not only stick our necks out for what we consider the “central” or “core” doctrines, but also for the worldview (the network of interlocking beliefs and presuppositions) which makes them possible and actual.

For example, a historical argument regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ might be well constructed and sound for believers who are seeking to think in a way consistent with the worldview presented to us by God in Scripture. This argument, however, will not phase an atheist who questions the reliability of history, the accuracy of the transmission of ancient documents, the purpose and meaning of the resurrection asserted by the apologist, etc. These worldview issues lie underneath our historical argument and must be addressed alongside our argument if we are to have success in convincing our atheist friend that Jesus rose from the dead.

The goal of every apologist is (or should be) to provide a good defense of the Christian faith. The nature of the Christian faith demands that we defend not only the “big” doctrines, but the “little” or “supporting” doctrines, along with the biblical/theological presuppositions which comprise the biblical worldview. As evangelists we market the Christian faith as a “package deal,” a complete and total change, as apologists we must defend this “package deal.” We must defend the entire Christian worldview!

Sep 08

180 Movie – Coming September 26, 2011

If you’ve seen this logo recently then you know someone who is excited about a film which is coming out on Sept. 26. It is produced by Living Waters and below are two of their preview videos:

“180″ Trailer “I would shoot him and tear him apart.”

Pro-Choice to Pro-Life . . . in Seconds!

For more information visit 180movie.com

Aug 01

Listen to The Dividing Line (James White) 24/7

Alpha and Omega Ministries - James WhiteThey have been doing this for a while, but if you haven’t heard this yet you should check it out. Alpha & Omega Ministries is streaming old episodes of The Dividing Line on a continual basis, 24/7. You can access these episodes at the following link:

http://stream.aomin.org:8000/dl.m3u (This should open in iTunes or your default media player)

The pages for their webcast is available here:

http://aomin.org/articles/webcast.html

 

Apr 18

John Calvin on 1 Peter 3:15-16

1 PETER 3:15-16
15. And be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
16. Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evil-doers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

Though this is a new precept, it yet depends on what is gone before, for he requires such constancy in the faithful, as boldly to give a reason for their faith to their adversaries. And this is a part of that sanctification which he had just mentioned; for we then really honor God, when neither fear nor shame hinders us from making a profession of our faith. But Peter does not expressly bid us to assert and proclaim what has been given us by the Lord everywhere, and always and among all indiscriminately, for the Lord gives his people the spirit of discretion, so that they may know when and how far and to whom it is expedient to speak. He bids them only to be ready to give an answer, lest by their sloth and the cowardly fear of the flesh they should expose the doctrine of Christ, by being silent, to the derision of the ungodly. The meaning then is, that we ought to be prompt in avowing our faith, so as to set it forth whenever necessary, lest the unbelieving through our silence should condemn the religion we follow.

But it ought to be noticed, that Peter here does not command us to be prepared to solve any question that may be mooted; for it is not the duty of all to speak on every subject. But it is the general doctrine that is meant, which belongs to the ignorant and the simple. Then Peter had in view no other thing, than that Christians should make it evident to unbelievers that they truly worshipped God, and had a holy and good religion. And in this there is no difficulty, for it would be strange if we could bring nothing to defend our faith when any one made inquiries respecting it. For we ought always to take care that all may know that we fear God, and that we piously and reverently regard his legitimate worship.

This was also required by the state of the times: the Christian name was much hated and deemed infamous; many thought the sect wicked and guilty of many sacrileges. It would have been, therefore, the highest perfidy against God, if, when asked, they had neglected to give a testimony in favor of their religion. And this, as I think, is the meaning of the word apology, which Peter uses, that is, that the Christians were to make it evident to the world that they were far off from every impiety, and did not corrupt true religion, on which account they were suspected by the ignorant.

Hope here is by a metonymy to be taken for faith. Peter, however, as it has been said, does not require them to know how to discuss distinctly and refinedly every article of the faith, but only to shew that their faith in Christ was consistent with genuine piety. And hence we learn how all those abuse the name of Christians, who understand nothing certain respecting their faith, and have nothing to give as an answer for it. But it behoves us again carefully to consider what he says, when he speaks of that hope that is in you; for he intimates that the confession which flows from the heart is alone that which is approved by God; for except faith dwells within, the tongue prattles in vain. It ought then to have its roots within us, so that it may afterwards bring forth the fruit of confession.

16. With meekness. This is a most necessary admonition; for unless our minds are endued with meekness, contentions will immediately break forth. And meekness is set in opposition to pride and vain ostentation, and also to excessive zeal. To this he justly adds fear; for where reverence for God prevails, it tames all the ferocity of our minds, and it will especially cause us to speak calmly of God’s mysteries. For contentious disputes arise from this, because many think less honourably than they ought of the greatness of divine wisdom, and are carried away by profane audacity. If, then, we would render approved of God the confession of our faith, all boasting must be put aside, all contention must be relinquished.

Having a good conscience. What we say without a corresponding life has but little weight; hence he joins to confession a good conscience. For we see that many are sufficiently ready with their tongue, and prate much, very freely, and yet with no fruit, because the life does not correspond. Besides, the integrity of conscience alone is that which gives us confidence in speaking as we ought; for they who prattle much about the gospel, and whose dissolute life is a proof of their impiety, not only make themselves objects of ridicule, but also expose the truth itself to the slanders of the ungodly. For why did he before bid us to be ready to defend the faith, should any one require from us a reason for it, except that it is our duty to vindicate the truth of God against those false suspicions which the ignorant entertain respecting it. But the defense of the tongue will avail but little, except the life corresponds with it.

He therefore says, that they may be ashamed, who blame your good conversation in Christ, and who speak against you as evil-doers; as though he had said, “If your adversaries have nothing to allege against you, except that you follow Christ, they will at length be ashamed of their malicious wickedness, or at least, your innocence will be sufficient to confute them.”

Apr 15

mp3: The Dividing Line, April 5th

Topics include “Harold Camping, atheists and bible thumpers, Abdullah Kunde and a call about sanctification and free will.”

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Apr 09

Hope’s Reason: A Journal of Apologetics

I found this new(er) Journal while googling “apologetics.” It is a journal dedicated to, you guessed it, Christian apologetics! You can download the first two volumes here:

Hope’s Reason, A Journal of Apologetics, Vol. 1, No. 1.pdf

Hope’s Reason, A Journal of Apologetics, Vol. 1, No. 2.pdf

Screenshot of the first page of Hope's Reason

The articles in the first volume (above) are as follows:

“Hope’s Reason”
by Stephen J. Bedard 1

“Did Muhammad Deny the Incarnation
or Paganism?” by K. Dayton Hartman 5

“The Myth of Metaphorical Resurrection”
by Tawa J. Anderson 19

“An Introduction to Presuppositional
Apologetics” by Ian Hugh Clary 51

“Past, Probability, and Teleology”
by J.W. Wartick 71

“Shona Concept of Spirit Possession”
by Francis Machingura 87

“Pentecostal Perspectives on Charismatic Activity
of the Spirit” by Dan Morrison 105

“Are the Gosepls/Acts in Conflict With Paul?”
by Tony Costa 115

“Literary Apologetics in Action”
by Holly Ordway 137

“Exposing the Spirit of the Age”
by Stephen J. Bedard 147

Please visit www.apologeticsjournal.com for more information

Mar 31

VIDEO: William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss, 3/30/11, debating the “Evidence for God”

Below are the videos from the live webcast of yesterday’s debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Lawrence Krauss:

Part 1: Introduction

Part 2: Opening Remarks

Part 3: First Rebuttals

Part 4: Second Rebuttals

Part 5: Concluding Remarks

Part 6: Q&A

I am downloading these video files directly to my hard drive. So if these get taken off YouTube (for reasons I don’t care to speculate on) I will still have them :) Please let me know if you have any trouble viewing these videos.

Download the mp3

Also, Brian Auten has posted the audio on his website:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

(Right click and hit “save target as…” or “save link as…”)

A screenshot from the Craig/Krauss debate

(Update: 3/31) Read Dr. Craig’s Comments the day after the debate

A Brief Post-Mortem, by Dr. William Lane Craig (Facebook)

More links

Wintery Knight: A point by point recap of the Craig/Krauss Debate

Torrent

You can download the files via bittorrent (click to find out how). For those of you familiar with BitTorrent, you can find the torrent file here.

or download it directly, here

Lawrence Krauss’ comments on the debate

Dealing with William Lane Craig