Ravi Zacharias - Good & Evil in the World

This short video is an interview that Ravi Zacharias had with the late D. James Kennedy.  It addresses a question that Dr. Zacharias received, "if there is a God, how can He allow evil in the world?"

Technorati Tags: Ravi Zacharias , Apologetics , Good & Evil , Existence of God

 

Emergent Poster #1 - Truth

This goes with my post on Doug Pagitt.  I don't disagree with everything that the Emergent Church does, which I believe needs to be distinguished from the Emergent Village.  These posters I think address the Emergent Village (EV) not the Emerging Church (EC).

HT: Pyro\Maniacs

Technorati Tags: Emergent Village , Emerging Church , Truth , Pyro\Maniacs

Pagitt Confused

Doug Pagitt, pastor of Solomon's Porch, and a leader (or whatever he calls himself) for the Emergent Village was interviewed on the Way of the Master Radio by Todd Friel.

I was embarrassed for Doug Pagitt when he was asked to explain the afterlife or as he likes to call it, "the forevermore." I am not sure why he acted as though he didn't know what Todd Friel was talking about when Friel asked, "does a good Buddhist go to heaven?"

This a great example of trying to pin down jello. He acted as though Friel was loopy by demonstrating a sound systematic theological position on heaven and hell.

Pagitt didn't know what he was talking about, and is quite frankly, a heretic. That's my take why don't you listen and let me know what you think.

You can listen here - click on the podcast icon and download it. The link that says "listen now" doesn't seem to be working. I'm including it though incase it is fixed.

Technorati Tags: Doug Pagitt , Todd Friel , Emergent Village , Solomon's Porch , Theology , Heaven and Hell

JP Moreland: What Did Jesus Believe About Scripture?

Scriptorium Daily is a regular blog read for me, and I just finished reading a great post by J.P. Moreland, who is a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, on "What Did Jesus Believe About Scripture?" Take some time and check it out.

Technorati Tags: JP Moreland, Biblical Inerrancy, Apologetics, Teachings of Jesus

Powered by ScribeFire.

DM Register: Polk Ruling Correct: Law Unconstitutional

Well, it is no surprise that the Des Moines Register came down on the side of Judge Hanson.

If Supreme Court justices are looking for a way to preserve the status quo, Polk County District Judge Robert B. Hanson's decision will make the high court's work difficult. Hanson's 63-page ruling, released Thursday, is carefully crafted and argued, with a thorough analysis of federal and state constitutional law. He concludes that the law violates the equal-protection and due-process provisions of the Iowa and U.S. constitutions.

All laws must be applied to every person in the same way, and no person may be deprived of fundamental rights without due process of law. The courts apply a strict legal test in assessing whether state laws that implicate fundamental rights meet those constitutional standards, and Iowa's same-sex marriage ban fails the test.

First I would argue that the ruling was not carefully crafted and argued, but rather biased and knee-jerk. Reading through the judge's opinion you can clearly see that he had his mind made up before even hearing arguments. Also at the crux of his ruling is a reference to a judicial ruling against a Virginia law that had outlawed inter-racial marriage. No one would argue against the unconstitutionality of that law. It violates the civil rights of inter-racial couples who would like to marry. That law being struck down does not degrade the institution of marriage. A ruling that allows same gender couples to marry does. Race is not fundamental to marriage, sex is. This is simply not a relevant comparison.

Which brings me to my second point... the declaration that homosexuals are being denied their constitutional rights is false. They have the right anywhere in the United States to marry, just not somebody of the same sex. Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason offers an illustration of this in an article written for Townhall.com called "Same Sex Marriage - Challenges & Responses" on 2/11/07.

Let me illustrate. Smith and Jones both qualify to vote in America where they are citizens. Neither is allowed to vote in France. Jones, however, has no interest in U.S. politics; he’s partial to European concerns. Would Jones have a case if he complained, “Smith gets to vote [in California], but I don‚t get to vote [in France]. That‚s unequal protection under the law. He has a right I don’t have.” No, both have the same rights and the same restrictions. There is no legal inequality, only an inequality of desire, but that is not the state’s concern.

The marriage licensing law applies to each citizen in the same way; everyone is treated exactly alike. Homosexuals want the right to do something no one, straight or gay, has the right to do: wed someone of the same sex. Denying them that right is not a violation of the equal protection clause.

The second complaint that is often heard is that homosexual couples do not have the same legal protections as married couples do. This is a more substantial complain which Koukl also addresses:

It’s true that homosexual couples do not have the same legal benefits as married heterosexuals regarding taxation, family leave, health care, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. However, no other non-marital relationships between individuals – non-gay brothers, a pair of spinsters, college roommates, fraternity brothers – share those benefits, either. Why should they?

If homosexual couples face “unequal protection” in this area, so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?

The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many others qualify there. It’s because they involve children. Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny. Tax relief for families eases the financial burden children make on paychecks. Insurance policies reflect the unique relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents (if Mom stays home to care for kids, she ˆ and they ˆ are still covered).

These circumstances, inherent to families, simply are not intrinsic to other relationships, as a rule, including homosexual ones. There is no obligation for government to give every human coupling the same entitlements simply to “stabilize” the relationship. The unique benefits of marriage fit its unique purpose. Marriage is not meant to be a shortcut to group insurance rates or tax relief. It’s meant to build families.

The Register's opinion is also reflective of their bias. Let's remember that they are not an authority on constitutional law as they position themselves to be. This is a flawed ruling, and one I hope is overturned by the Iowa Supreme Court.

Technorati Tags: Apologetics, Same Sex Marriage, Constitutional Law

The Freethinkers' Guide to Debating Christians on the Internet

I just read this today. It was hilarious. It was spot on when I have seen how some of these debates go on discussion boards or in chat rooms.

(HT: Bill Kesatie on The Christian Cadre Blog)


Technorati Tags: Apologetics, Debate Techniques

Powered by ScribeFire.

James MacDonald - All Truth God's Truth

Just read an excellent post tackling that very question on James MacDonald's (the pastor of Harvest Bible Chapel and founder of Walk in the Word Ministries) blog. He shares three ways this saying is a source of error.

1. The problem of erroneous thinking.
2. The problem of overlapping disciplines.
3. The problem of God's Word vs. God's truth

Source: James MacDonald: Blog

Powered by ScribeFire.

The Limitations of Law

Ken Conner, the chair of the Center for a Just Society wrote a great op-ed piece on "There Ought to Be a Law" for the Christian Post. It is very good and worth reading and considering when we think about current bioethics issues that crop up. He writes:

Applications of new technologies can give rise to profound legal and
ethical dilemmas. This is especially true in the field of biotechnology
where the law-morality dichotomy is proving to be an enormous problem.
Many scientists believe that, so long as it is legal, there should be
no limit on what they can do in their laboratories. When it comes to
scientific experimentation, the question, "Can I?" in the technical
sense is often followed by the question, "May I?" in the legal sense.
Sadly, that is often as far as the inquiry goes. The question that all
too often goes unasked is, "Should I?" The assumption that anything
which is legal is morally permissible is not valid, especially in the
area of bioethical decision making. Those who look only to the law for
guidance in making sound bioethical decisions will be poorly served.
The law is seldom an adequate ethical guide in the biomedical field.

The link to the entire article is below. I'd love to hear your comments on this.

There Ought to Be A Law | Christianpost.com

Powered by ScribeFire.

Quote of the Day: Napoleon Bonaparte

I have been reading Jesus Among Other Gods by Ravi Zacharias, and he referenced in chapter 6, "When God was Silent", something that Napoleon, during his exile on the Island of St. Helena, said in response to  Count Montholon's refusal to answer his question, "Can you tell me who Jesus Christ was?"  Zacharias uses this lengthy quote to illustrate how Christ conquers as he begins a contrast of Islam.

"Well then, I will tell you .  Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne and I myself have founded great empires; but upon what did these creations of our genius depend?  Upon force.  Jesus alone founded His empire upon love, and to this very day millions will die for Him.... I think I understand something of human nature; and I tell you, all these were men, and I am a man: none else is like Him; Jesus Christ was more than a man.... I have inspired multitudes with such an enthusiastic devotion that they would have died for me... but to do this it was necessary that I should be visibly present with the electric influence of my looks, my words, of my voice.  When I saw men and spoke to them, I lighted up the flame of self-devotion in their hearts.... Christ alone has succeeded in so raising the mind of man toward the unseen, that it becomes insensible to the barriers of time and space.  Across a chasm of eighteen hundred years, Jesus Christ makes a demand which is beyond all others difficult to satisfy; He asks for that which a philosopher may often seek in vain at the hands of his friends, or a father of his children, or a bride of her spouse, or a man of his brother.  He asks for the human heart; He will have it entirely to Himself.  He demands it unconditionally; and forthwith His demand is granted.  Wonderful!  In defiance of time and space, the soul of man, with all its powers and faculties, becomes an annexation to the empire of Christ.  All who sincerely believe in Him, experience that remarkable, supernatural love toward Him.  This phenomenon is unaccountable; it is altogether beyond the scope of man's creative powers.  Time, the great destroyer, is powerless to extinguish this sacred flame; time can neither exhaust its strength nor put a limit to its range.  This is it, which strikes me most; I have often thought of it.  This it is which proves to me quite convincingly the Divinity of Jesus Christ."

Amen.

Video: Greg Koukl & Deepak Chopra Debate

Excellent video - Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason debates bestselling author Deepak Chopra on Faith Under Fire.

Video: What is Truth?

From the first DVD of The Truth Project:

How would you answer? If you read this post please leave a comment. I would love to hear from you!

Scripture for the Day: Isaiah 44:12-20

I met earlier with the youth at First Baptist Church today because they were kicking off an intergenerational study called the Truth Project from Focus on the Family. I watched part of the first video that addressed "What is Truth?" Good stuff. The video highlighted Isaiah 44:12-20.

The ironsmith takes a cutting tool and works it over the coals. He fashions it with hammers and works it with his strong arm. He becomes hungry, and his strength fails; he drinks no water and is faint. The carpenter stretches a line; he marks it out with a pencil. He shapes it with planes and marks it with a compass. He shapes it into the figure of a man, with the beauty of a man, to dwell in a house. He cuts down cedars, or he chooses a cypress tree or an oak and lets it grow strong among the trees of the forest. He plants a cedar and the rain nourishes it. Then it becomes fuel for a man. He takes a part of it and warms himself; he kindles a fire and bakes bread. Also he makes a god and worships it; he makes it an idol and falls down before it. Half of it he burns in the fire. Over the half he eats meat; he roasts it and is satisfied. Also he warms himself and says, “Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire!” And the rest of it he makes into a god, his idol, and falls down to it and worships it. He prays to it and says, “Deliver me, for you are my god!” They know not, nor do they discern, for he has shut their eyes, so that they cannot see, and their hearts, so that they cannot understand. No one considers, nor is there knowledge or discernment to say, “Half of it I burned in the fire; I also baked bread on its coals; I roasted meat and have eaten. And shall I make the rest of it an abomination? Shall I fall down before a block of wood?” He feeds on ashes; a deluded heart has led him astray, and he cannot deliver himself or say, “Is there not a lie in my right hand?”

I love it when God uses sarcasm. Taking it home - in our society anything we put before God is an idol. Idol = lie. God is the Truth. He is the author of truth, He is the fixed reference for truth. He is the standard for truth. Period. Anything else is a lie. What lies have we held in our hands lately?

Video: Five Reasons God Exists

Found on YouTube.

Quote of the Day

I came to Him because I did not know which way to turn. I have remained with him because there is no other way I wish to turn. I came to Him longing for something I did not have. I remain with Him because I have something I will not trade. I came to Him a stranger. I remain with Him in the most intimate of friendships. I came to Him unsure about the future. I remain with Him certain about my destiny. I came amid the thunderous cries of a culture that has three hundred and thirty million deities. I remain with Him knowing that truth cannot be all-inclusive. Truth by definition excludes.

- Ravi Zacharias in Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message

God Debate: Sam Harris vs. Rick Warren

Newsweek/MSNBC ran a debate between atheist Sam Harris (who wrote God Delusion) and Rick Warren, the senior pastor of Saddleback Community Church and author of Purpose Driven Life. Rick Warren made some very good points, and I liked his closing thoughts. Some questions were not answered adequately, but I believe that is was due more to the editing than what actually happened during the debate.

Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?

The Washington Post asks that question today. I was impressed by who was interviewed in this article, of course John Dominic Crossan has to be interviewed to represent the Jesus Seminar. All in all the majority interviewed supported the orthodox view of a physical resurrection. Below is a segment of Gary Habermas (one of those interviewed) from Liberty University debating famous atheist Anthony Flew on the John Ankerberg Show.

Humanists, 'Atheist Fundamentalists' Clash Over Disbeliefs

Interesting... they are fighting each other. I wouldn't have dreamed of this happening.

BOSTON (AP) - Atheists are under attack these days for being too militant, for not just disbelieving in religious faith but for trying to eradicate it. And who's leveling these accusations? Other atheists, it turns out... read more.

Breakpoint - Arguing with Grace

This is from the Breakpoint Commentary I get in my e-mail during the week. I thought it was worth posting the whole thing.

March 22, 2007
Note: This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley.

Sometimes I think it would be great to live in a world based on pure logic. The best argument would always win the day. People would understand that right and wrong are objective concepts, not just vague notions based on feelings. We could make a rational case for Christianity, and people would automatically accept it. Life would be a lot less complicated.

But for better or for worse, that's not how things work. That's why James Sire wrote his new book, A Little Primer on Humble Apologetics. We have talked about Sire before on this program. His other books, including The Universe Next Door and Why Good Arguments Often Fail, have sold hundreds of thousands of copies. As a former college professor and a frequent speaker on campuses, Sire brings a message especially relevant to intellectuals—both seekers and skeptics.

But even Sire understands that there are drawbacks and limitations to verbal apologetics. As he points out, even Jesus' arguments for faith in Himself failed to persuade many—and we are never going to think up better arguments than Jesus had. The people and the situations we encounter are far too complex to be dealt with by pure logic alone. Christian apologists also have to address the preconceptions and emotions of our listeners.

"The path to belief is mysterious," as Sire puts it. "Sometimes facts and reasons stare us in the face. We can see them, even agree with them. Yet we turn away and don't act as if we knew them at all."

And that means that Christian apologetics has to broaden and adapt itself: to become a discipline that involves the heart and soul as well as the mind, the personal as well as the intellectual. That's why Sire takes his own simple definition of apologetics—"simply the presentation of a case for biblical truth"—and expands it into what he calls "a richer, more relational and more humble definition." This is what he comes up with: "Christian apologetics lays before the watching world such a winsome embodiment of the Christian faith that for any and all who are willing to observe there will be an intellectually and emotionally credible witness to its fundamental truth" (emphasis is mine).

What does that mean in practice? It means not just arguing the truth of the Christian faith, but living that truth every day. It means that instead of lashing out in response to attacks and insults, we bear them patiently and respond with Christ-like grace and love. Instead of going for the jugular in a conversation or debate with a nonbeliever, we listen and answer with respect. Instead of thinking we have all the answers, we are ready to be corrected and to learn.

When have we ever needed such an attitude more than we do right now? In the times in which we live, anger and spite are more and more taking the place of rational discussions. If we hope to convince the world that Christ has truth and hope to offer, this is the way we must do it—as Sire says, with "a reliance not on the cleverness . . . of argument but on the power of God to will and to do his good pleasure."

Get links to further information on today's topic

The Lost Tomb of Jesus

James Cameron's documentary, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" that is airing this Sunday on the Discovery Channel is causing quite a stir in the blogosphere. A lot of great arguments have been made against this documentary, so I won't add to it. Rather I'll point you to a few good posts about this subject.

• Dr. Ben Witherington III is a professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary in Kentucky. He had a few posts dedicated to it on his blog.
• Cadre Comments also had several posts.
• Stand to Reason had a excellent post on its blog.
• The Point had a little humor it its' post, "For Your Convenience" and "Is James Cameron Fulfilling Prophecy?"

The Tomb Is Empty!

A post on Hot Air talks about James Cameron's documentary that "debunks" the empty tomb. The resurrection is the cornerstone of our faith, so much so that the Apostle Paul said:

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. An if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised, (1 Corinithians 15:12-15, ESV - emphasis mine).

This is an old argument which has been debuked many, many times. James Cameron, has not found Jesus' body. He hasn't suddenly discovered his tomb which has eluded enemies of Christ for 2000 years. Why has it eluded them? Because it is empty!

Affirmative Evidence:

1. 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is one of the earliest Christian creeds, which has been proven to be a reliable source of historical information about Jesus. It is implicit in this passage that the tomb was empty.
2. The site of Jesus' tomb was well known at the time of His death. How could a movement begin based on the statement that Jesus' tomb was empty in the very city where He was known to have been buried.
3. The Gospel of Mark's passion narrative comes from an earlier source (language, grammar and style points to this), and there is evidence that it was written before A.D. 37 (4-7 years after His death, burial and resurrection) which is much too early for it to have been corrupted by legend.
4. Mark's account of the story of the empty tomb is simple, there isn't any theological reflection.
5. The unanimous testimony that the empty tomb was found by women - this would have been embarassing to the disciples (due to Jewish culture) and would have been covered up if it were legend.
6. The earliest Jewish argument against the resurrection presupposes the historicity of the empty tomb. Nobody was claiming that the tomb still contained Jesus' body.

(Source: The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel, Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 1998, pgs. 220-221)