“Does the Triune God of Scripture Exist?” (Chris Bolt vs. Matt Oxley) Debate Audio (MP3 Format) Now Available!

Download it here or click below to stream!

 

Read more

“The Problem of Non-God Objects”

Justin Scheiber recently gave a presentation which may be found here – http://freethoughtblogs.com/reasonabledoubts/2012/08/29/rd-extra-the-problem-of-non-god-objects on a philosophical problem he believes he has developed with respect to God and creation. Let me begin by stating that I did not listen to his presentation in its entirety, though I did jot down the argument itself and the objections he attempted to answer. The argument Justin presented may be stated as follows:

(1)    There is a possible world ‘P’ that is God existing alone and nothing else existing for eternity.

(2)    God is a perfect being.

(3)    Therefore, ‘P’ is the ‘Best Possible World.’

Read more

Passion in Apologetics

In a previous post I asked the question, “What does success in apologetics look like?” We read through the Apostle Paul’s encounter with the Athenians at the Areopagus, took note of the content of his message and the way he presented it, as well as his hearers’ responses, and, keeping in mind that the Apostle sets the example for us as apologists, we concluded that success in apologetics does not depend upon people’s response to our message. Success, therefore, is determined by the content of the message itself and the extent to which we reason in line with Biblical truths …

Read more

A Friendly Chat With An Atheist

Chris:  Are you a believer?

Atheist:  nope

an atheist

Chris:  Ah.

Well it’s nice to have one of those around every now and then.

We have to get Christians from somewhere after all. 😀

So I presume you have heard the Christian Gospel?

Atheist:  yup

Go to mass… et cetera 😉

Chris:  I’m guessing that you’re joking. 🙂

Atheist:  I am

Chris:  So why are you an atheist?

Atheist:  I don’t think that any spirits exist

be they gods, ghosts or anything else

Chris:  That’s the definition of your position then.

Why do you hold it?

Atheist:  I don’t see …

Read more

One Less God?

With the recent controversy over McFormtist’s recent post, I figured this video might be a good reminder that this subject is nothing new, nor does it lack a prior context. Ignoring this context does nothing to advance the discussion, nor does a simple mention of Roman references to Christians as “atheists” get to the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is that the claim being expressed is, at base, an appeal to neutrality which we both do not and cannot accept – an insistence on the equal footing of all “gods” where the atheist is rejecting …

Read more

The New Euthyphro

There are countless angles to take in approaching the somewhat difficult task of teaching covenantal/presuppositional apologetics. What follows may be one of them.

Socrates famously asked, “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” The so-called Euthyphro Dilemma has haunted and warmed the halls of the academy ever since.

The difficulty with answering that the good is willed by God because it is good is that the standard of good in this view exists quite apart from and in superiority to God. God appeals to a …

Read more

“If the existence of God is so obvious, then why do we debate it?”

Atheists sometimes make the rhetorical point that if the existence of God were so obvious as many Christians hold it to be, then we would not have to hold debates about His existence. We don’t go around having debates about the existence of particular people, or certain types of animals, or various aspects of the world that are immediately present to our sensory experience, so why do we have them about something or someone who is supposed to so obviously exist? Is God just incapable of revealing Himself clearly enough that we might believe in Him the way we believe …

Read more

Undying Worms and Unquenchable Fire

It is often asserted that there is a problem (for so-called “traditionalists”) with the use of Mark 9:48 due to it’s relation with Isaiah 66:24. This problem, according to Fudge, is that 1) Jesus quotes it “without amendment” 2) That the body is “already dead” and 3) That the fire “is a consuming, irresistible fire”. He relates “salted with fire” to mean the salting of a field, or of a place in order to make it uninhabitable. He cites Fields for his source, but we aren’t told, by Fudge, why this is supposed to have any connection with the passage …

Read more

Compare and Contrast: Date on Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2:6

(24:33) What the Bible says is the nature of the final punishment: Jude assures his readers that the wicked will be punished, and tells us in verse 7 that Sodom and Gomorrah are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. Of course, what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah? Well, the Bible records only their destruction, and no torment, in a short span of 4 verses, in Genesis 19 after which Abraham awakes the next morning to look out at the smoke rising from its remains. No wonder that 2 Peter 2:6 likewise uses their being destroyed

Read more