Apologetics Archives - Page 2 of 7

Consider the Cost

On April 29, 2009

In Apologetics, Culture, Theology, Video

“Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.” – 2 Timothy 3:12

I recently watched four video lectures I have been meaning to get to for a while from Dallas Theological Seminary in which Dr. Albert Mohler spoke on the topic of the rise of the New Atheism. One of the main things I gleaned from these lectures is that since the late Medieval times, there have been three main thrusts of thought in the realm of atheism. 1) It was initially impossible not to believe in theism. 2) After the Enlightenment, it was then possible not to believe. Atheism began to grow in various ways. 3) And now in our current situation, it is, at least with the elites for the moment, impossible to believe, which is one of the reasons some are calling this new movement Enlightenment 2.0. In the West, there has been a gradual decay of belief in God that now brings us to a rather dangerous point in history. If during the period where it was possible not to believe, such awful events occurred like the Holocaust, the starvation of millions of Russians at the hands of Stalin, all resulting from or rooted in atheistic presuppositions during World War I and II, what is possible if a culture adopts the idea that it is impossible to believe in theism and that those, particularly Christians who hold the historic faith, are dangerous to humanity?

Yes, Even Matt Lauer Sees the Flaws in this Argument

By David Westerfield

On April 24, 2009

In Apologetics, Christian Culture, Culture, Politics, Theology

Faith Implies Certainty – Calvin

By David Westerfield

On April 18, 2009

In Apologetics, Christian Culture, Culture, Theology

This is a “prophetic” word from Calvin out of the Institutes related to the postmodern sensibilities of Western Christianity. I’m not implying Calvin was speaking directly against postmodernism itself as a formal philosophy, as it had not yet been articulated, but this certainly does speak against its core tenets asserted today, to be sure. And I would say that ultimately, postmodernism, within the setting of Christianity, leaves a person without certainty that they will be accepted before God, which is exactly what Calvin explains in this section. The reason for this is because if you have no certainty and a house built on solid rock, ultimately, you will try and pick up the slack of uncertainty through your own deeds, works and effort in order to please God, which oddly enough, is what we see happening with many (though not all) postmoderns in the focus of various ministry focal points (i.e. deeds versus creeds).

Colbert Takes Ehrman to Task

By David Westerfield

On April 13, 2009

In Apologetics, Funny, Theology, Video

Just a warning: being the equal opportunity offender he is, there are a couple of parts in these videos where it sounds like Colbert is mocking the claims of inerrancy and in addition makes some off-the-wall comments (it is Colbert after all). But nevertheless, he surprisingly makes some good (hilariously glaring) points and even pushes Ehrman a bit on his claims. Seems like maybe Ehrman is getting frustrated in portions of the videos? Not positive on that, but you’ll just have to watch and see for yourself.

Colbert “vs.” Ehrman (2006)

A Position Based Purely on Emotions

By David Westerfield

On April 12, 2009

In Apologetics, Culture, Theology

Quoting anonymously from the The Shack Facebook group, discussing my post found here, someone said in response to the person who posted my article as a discussion point: “____, I read a portion of your link and after about 7 paragraphs of beating around the bush and Paul-bashing, I quit. Why? Because I loved the book and I’m not going to let anybody’s negative comments ruin my experience in reading it. Why don’t you just stop busting our chops and give up? Most people love it; some don’t. We agree to disagree. End of debate.”

Ahh, pure intellectual integrity. Haha, Paul bashing? (Paul Young of course) Right. You decide. Instead of working through the difficulty of beliefs (or rather denials) that can lead people to hell when accepted, it seems some are content to just shut you out of the conversation altogether instead of seriously and honestly engaging any kind of debate because of what the book has done for them, at least emotionally speaking. Since when did the individual become the standard-bearer and authority on what’s truth or not? They just don’t want to talk about any criticism of it, even if it’s a legitimately serious issue concerned with none other than the very Gospel itself by which one is saved.

The Shack is a Fictional Portrayal of God?

By David Westerfield

On March 17, 2009

In Apologetics, Christian Culture, Culture, Theology

I want to quote people anonymously from The Shack Facebook group and add some commentary to each to show that this book is not viewed as a mere work of fiction. I believe these quotes are very instructive as to what the book is actually doing in culture and how it is indeed changing people’s understanding of who God is and how He relates to us. It seems many people’s understanding is actually changing based on Young’s understanding and portrayal of God.

Emotional responses aside to the story itself (not critiquing that at all), if it is an unbiblical portrayal of God and His work to save us in Christ, is that really and truly a good thing? Is that true spiritual progress in terms the Bible prescribes? If people become more religious and emotionally struck as a result, is that necessarily conversion by the Gospel work of Christ, or is it merely becoming religious and “dead in trespasses and sins?” I’m not talking in any way about the story’s plot line being good or not and loving the story in itself and/or identifying with it to some degree. I’m asking, is an unbiblical picture of God a positive thing? What do you think?

Christian/Mormon Debate – James White vs. Gilbert Scharffs

By David Westerfield

On March 15, 2009

In Apologetics, Theology, Video

Cursed is Everyone Who is Hanged on a Tree

By David Westerfield

On March 13, 2009

In Apologetics, Audio, Theology

“And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God.” – Deuteronomy 21:22-23

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.'” – Galatians 3:13

I came across this passage in reading Deuteronomy today (and thought about its fulfillment in Galatians 3:13) and it got me to thinking in light of the saddening and disheartening revelation concerning The Shack author William P. Young’s denial of substitutionary atonement: Did Jesus commit any crime punishable by death at all? No, we all say together, He was sinless. Yet He willingly gave Himself over to a criminals death based upon this passage in Deuteronomy, right? Right. So if He was sinless, why was He condemned to this awful punishment? It must be that it was for someone other than Himself, for there is no other explanation, other than those that fall infinitely short of a satisfactorily Biblical answer. For whose crime was He willingly entering into and suffering then? The undeniable answer of the Bible is He suffered for sinners who admit their guilt and believe in the only name of the Son of God, resting in His work alone on their behalf to save them. Romans 3:21-26 is the best place to see this great news.

A Question Proposed by Scot McKnight

By David Westerfield

On January 22, 2009

In Apologetics, Christian Culture, Church History, Culture, Theology

Today, Scot McKnight wrote a post on his blog in which he raised a question which I believe exposes the heart of much of the emerging/emergent/missional/post____/(fill in the next emerging title) church’s theology, perspective and modus operandi when approaching the Scriptures. In this particular entry, McKnight writes of a person named F.W. Newman in times past who was “disenchanted” with evangelicalism. The truth of the matter is that the guy couldn’t stand the doctrines of the Gospel, its truth claims, over a long process of entertaining personal doubts about their very truthfulness.

In a rant against doctrine itself (that is, propositional truth claims-such as, Jesus is Lord, He died in our place, He literally rose from the dead-something our culture abhors), Newman said, “Oh Dogma! Oh Dogma! How dost thy trample under foot love, truth, conscience, justice!” He couldn’t stand the justice of God as explained by Scripture (probably unlovingly by evangelicals, I grant that … though that doesn’t negate the truthfulness of the doctrines), substitutionary atonement, original sin, which inevitably renders the historic Gospel of Christ null and void. For the good news of the Gospel assumes there is a “bad news” backdrop that makes the good news, well, really good.