Outer Rim Territories

Thesis on apologetics

Thesis: While the defense of the Christian faith may serve to remove common objections, it cannot create faith, properly the work of the Spirit through the Word. Any objection to faith is overcome by the Spirit through his chosen instruments, Word and water. Therefore Christian apologetics seeks to destroy objections to the faith firstly for the Christian, to bring reason in conformity with faith. The scandal of faith is that Christians believe something so contrary to reason. Christian apologetics demonstrates that it's not entirely unreasonable but is the only faith grounded in history and makes precise truth claims. Incomplete Thoughts for the day. What think ye?

Foolish Contradictions

At the request of Seminarian Dock, I trudged my way through a debate with William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman on the resurrection of Jesus. It was painful at times on both sides. Ehrman refused to see his methodological atheism which is both poor science and historical method. "Bill" Craig missed the wide hole left by Ehrman to discuss the ancient document evidence relative to others of antiquity. I was disappointed he tried to push the seven years after the event argument. If Ehrman will acknowledge the Gospels as even 30 years after the resurrection, the issue is only whether the authors were eyewitnesses. You can read the transcript here or watch most of the debate on YouTube. This isn't the strongest apologetic argumentation but it gives you a feel for what the Academy in Strasbourg was all about. Pr. Cwirla posted a short post about unreasonable or foolish skeptics. Perhaps Dr. Ehrman might be classified as one. Watch the video and be the judge. Rev. Cwirlas Blogosphere - Foolish Contradictions

When someone says to me, "The Bible is full of contradictions," I like to say back, "Name three." Nine times out of ten, they can't because they haven't read the Bible well enough, or at all, to know a contradiction when they see one. Usually so-called "contradictions" run in one of three categories: 1) Law and Gospel, which are certainly contradictory when you see them in stark contrast side by side. 2) Point of view or perspective, such as the various descriptions of the tomb at Jesus' resurrection. 3) Apparent contradictions due to lack of information. I like to point out that the guys who wrote and edited the Scriptures were certainly smart enough to figure out they had a contradiction on their hands. Matthew, Mark and Luke, who obviously copied from each other or from something, should at least have gotten their notes straight. And John, who wrote well after the others, should have made his story fit theirs like a glove. But then, the skeptics wouldn't trust them because their stories fit too cleanly, like rehearsed witnesses. Either way, you can't please a skeptic. I sometimes offer this biblical couplet for free: Prov. 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Prov. 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. So what are you supposed to do? Answer a fool according to his folly or not? This leads us to a fourth kind of contradiction - Intentional. Here you need to get into the Hebraic mindset, where one learns by contrast and contradiction. The point? When dealing with a fool, it's always a lose/lose situation. Either you will join the fool in his foolishness, or you will make him think he's wise in his own eyes. The only way to avoid the dilemma is not to deal with a fool at all.

For a stronger approach than William Lane Craig, watch these clips from Apologetics Academy founder and instrutor Dr. John Warwick Montgomery: [quicktime]http://www.jwm.christendom.co.uk/film_clips/Criticising_Bible_criticism.mov[/quicktime] [quicktime]http://www.jwm.christendom.co.uk/film_clips/Bananas_in_Tanganyika.mov[/quicktime] [quicktime]http://www.jwm.christendom.co.uk/film_clips/The_missing_body.mov[/quicktime] [quicktime]http://www.jwm.christendom.co.uk/film_clips/Fish-eating_ghost.mov[/quicktime]

Did the Resurrection Happen?

Touchstone Magazine - Mere Comments: Did the Resurrection Happen? recommends this new book of dialogue between Habermas and Flew. Habermas is a leading Christian apologist and Flew a poster-boy for philosophical atheism. By the defense given by Habermas, Flew now considers himself a theist. While far from Christianity, this represents a significant step forward in dialogue. The methodology used by Habermas is consistent with the apologetic principles set forward by Dr. Montgomery for the last forty years. Both believe that the strongest case can be made for Christianity by dealing directly with Christ's death and resurrection. Too many apologists begin with "you just have to have faith," consequently ignoring the historical data, the testimony of the eyewitnesses, and the claims Jesus made of himself. In a discussion with a fine Baptist leaving on a missionary trip to Peru at the airport in Atlanta, I had to repeatedly reiterate this point. She wanted to return to "just believe" and even worse, "look at how good my life is and yours could be." Its utterly frustrating for the tough-minded intellectual to abandon his reason and sense (thanks Luther!) and trust in subjectivity. While he only comes to the Gospel by faith, the Gospels themselves are compelling documents historically. Unlike every other world religion which is guided by subjective experience without historical foundation, the Gospels and especially the death and resurrection offer testimony that is both substantial legally and according the standards of ancient document authenticity. Don't be deceived, Christians have the intellectual high-ground. From the Touchstone blog:

If you want to be a witness for Jesus Christ, then I strongly, STRONGLY recommend you obtain a copy of Did the Resurrection Happen? from Intervarsity Press. There are many things that could be said for this book, but I don't want to distract from the central issue. Our Christian faith is built on the resurrection of Christ, not on the age of the earth, not on a particular eschatology, not even on inerrancy. THE CHRISTIAN FAITH IS BUILT ON THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. This book, Did the Resurrection Happen? says something I have felt for years now, but needed to hear someone else say it in order to announce it, myself: Even if we take the New Testament as simply an ancient text with excellent credentials, which it surely is at a minimum, there is enough historical evidence to make a very strong case for the resurrection of Christ. The point I'm trying to make which is made in the book is that the resurrection of Christ is the foundation of our faith. Don't waste your time battling with skeptics over ancillary issues. Take them directly to the resurrection of Christ. There is room for a very good discussion there and you will be standing on high ground. That conversation ends in one of three places:

The person decides he has an almost invincible unbelief. The person develops substantially more thoughtfulness about Christianity than he ever had before and continues to reflect on the matter. The person comes to a saving faith in Jesus Christ.