Apologetics 315

Book Review: The Passionate Intellect: Christian Faith and the Discipleship of the Mind by Alister McGrath

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Fri, 25 May 2012 23:30:00 PDT

“You had me at ‘Hello’” said Renee Zellweger to Tom Cruise in Jerry Maguire. A reader yearns for that response to a book’s introduction.It was my first thought about McGrath’s essays when I read, “I have always believed that theology is at its best when it generates reflective practices in the life and service of The Church” (8). The opening pages are full of rich nuggets, the benefits of theology extolled. Theology has a “positive role” giving “coherence to the Christian vision of reality” explaining “a distinctive way of looking at things” illuminating “our perceptions, decisions, and actions” making “sense of itself and the world” presenting “something essential to Christian ministry and preaching” enabling “attractiveness of faith” inhabiting “the Christian interpretive community” energizing “The Church to witness in the public square.” Every page in my copy of The Passionate Intellect is marked, highlighted, with additional notes lining the margins.

“Seeing” is McGrath’s key to understanding how The Church must engage culture theologically. Calling upon the words of Iris Murdoch (45, 81-82) McGrath encourages her definition of sight—and the use of poetry— to include imagination, seeing beyond the empirical to deeper truths. The vitality of The Christian Faith (its core, the person and work of Jesus) depends on theology in action, passion through collaboration, honor to tradition, and the necessity of biblical theology. When we study The Bible as a whole rather than with human systematic constructs, we find ourselves living with the difficult and preserving the mystery punctuated by Paul at the end of Romans 11. By looking at Scripture with new eyes, we honor The Story of our Lord, acknowledge the limitation of our reason, remembering our finite, fallen estate. Christian tradition emphasizes a shared memory. If we do not have connection to the past, we have no community. Community creates accountability.

Remembering others who have gone before us is to accept their help in the study of theology with tools, centuries old. McGrath calls this “a theology of retrieval” (38). We find stability in the past. And what a pleasure to read a theologian who directly roots his pursuits “in worship, prayer, and adoration” (40)! If The Christian content becomes detached from Christian communication we are liable to become lifeless in our response to God and lax in our service to God’s world. One cannot “do” theology without ministry. Theology is the window through which we see the world. While many exalt the preeminence of reason as we study Revelation, McGrath reminds us “we must also value the power of the human imagination as the gatekeeper of the human soul” (46). Poetry, then, provides a lens through which The Christian can see the world, whereby the world can see Jesus.

The window to our world, however, is often soiled with suffering. McGrath reflects on harshness and darkness through Luther and Lewis repeating his theme “Christianity made sense in itself, and it made sense of everything else” (57-58). Magnifying earlier concessions of limitation, we “must settle for the best fit, not the perfect fit.” Acknowledging Simon Weil’s apologetic aphorism, Christians should not seek for a remedy for suffering but a use for it (62-63). Wedding reason with emotion allows a fuller Christian view of life’s hard reality. We find great comfort in Lewis’ acknowledgment that sometimes Heaven does not answer the door, even as we pound away. Theology which does not maintain the maddening mystery of suffering is no theology at all. Where McGrath had been helpful in other pages by relaying his personal experiences; unfortunately, we find none here. Existential connections fill theology with life.

It is McGrath’s personal testimony about his love of natural science which does infuse the latter chapters of part one. McGrath first establishes the relevance of Christian theology which animates his engagement with the new atheists in part two. The author asks us to see clearly before we offer the spectacles of Faith to another. Intertwined with his concerns for suffering, McGrath wants us to view everything in creation honestly, even if it means we are left in discomfort. More poetry is deployed to bring our theological lens into sharp focus. But it is connection to mathematics which might cause the reader to wonder. Instead of scratching our heads we ought to acknowledge that God spoke His world into being with numbers. Math is a preeminent apologetic. We need a total engagement of the total person with the total creation. The recent spate of books whose subjects precede the word “intelligence” (i.e., “emotional intelligence,” “spiritual intelligence,” etc.) must all be entwined together, gathering what McGrath calls Christian “consonance.”

Reframing theological-apologetics within a wholistic view of humans and creation necessitates that our rhetoric must now wrap itself in the art and persuasion of aesthetics. Theology is born of mission, dialoguing with those outside The Faith, inviting them to The Faith. The Message of The Gospel must consider each audience it tells. A symphony orchestra needs multiple instruments to create its performance; so Christian theology harmonizes all its musicians to create the melody of The Message.

Christianity’s Message depends upon history. So, as McGrath engages “new atheism” he does so saying that understanding history helps us understand science. We must study history to understand the reception ideas proffered in their day. For instance, scientists were less receptive to Darwin’s theory than was The Church; a crucial moment of clarity for contentious debates today. To utilize science’s own critique surrounding The Origin of Species is to lay claim to historical arguments which would substantiate The Church’s claims. As elsewhere, the reader is struck again with McGrath’s honest honor of serious thought. He sees Darwinian theory not as a bogeyman but as a theory which must be engaged on its face, with its own merits. If we do not practice honesty in scholarship, we run the risk of marginalizing the very ideas which may have most influence on our generation. To be generous, gracious, yet tenacious, is a truer Christian response. May people see our unshakeable Faith while we plainly acknowledge our dependence upon limitation. Ours is a human concern. We defend not our parochial position but our universal situation. In so doing, Christian theology becomes The Message of our earthly Mission.

The lack of historical critique is the essence of “new atheism’s” point of view. “Attack the fringe, forget the center.” Anyone who desires to disparage a movement (e.g. “intelligent design”) needs to make headlines, not examine the lines of history. The task of defending The Faith should not rest on a cursory quote nor pounding the pulpit on one point. McGrath points out painfully obvious contradictions within atheistic attacks. These are simple, to the point, repudiations of a purely humanist perspective as well as questioning why Christian service in the world is overlooked. McGrath calls out the hypocrisy of new atheists who refer to religion as “bloody.” He lacerates, as I have never seen, the problem with atheism soaked in Christian blood. Ignorance is bliss until bliss realizes reality. The evidence of Christian acts of goodness within culture is not to be missed, just as the gulags and death camps of atheist dictators should not be ignored. Dependence on the doctrine of human perfectibility will always lead to the killing fields. Thus, without a view toward human corruption, McGrath says “The Enlightenment” leaves out the light. It would seem “the dark ages” is misapplied to The Church. Perhaps it is time for a new term: “The Endarkenment.”

Eyes Wide Shut, another addition to the Cruise filmography, might rightly identify some who refuse to see all the evidence. Unfortunately, this identifies too many in Christ’s Church as well. Often we are blind to how theology must change us and infiltrate the culture. McGrath’s arguments are powerful, focusing on clear prose which point out the clarity of a person’s thought. His research, clearly articulated in copious footnotes, is easily accessed. One wishes for a conclusion: 6-8 pages which summarize what the editor decided upon as The Passionate Intellect. A person would be benefitted to know a Christian summary of what key attributes identify a believing perspective of proper human thought directed by The Transcendent Personal Creator. But clearly, this book should be ingested by all Christian leaders. Pastors must reengage their congregations with Christian theology. Theology professors must enliven their courses with art, poetry, music, and imagination. Apologists must marry history with story with rhetoric producing persuasion. But most of all, every believer must fall in love again, saying, “He had me at ‘Hello.’”

Apologetics 315 Book Reviewer Dr. Mark Eckel is Dean of Undergraduate Studies and Professor of Old Testament at Crossroads Bible College, Indianapolis, IN. For over twenty five years Mark has served the Christian education community as a high school teacher, college professor, and international speaker. Apologetics 315 interviewed him here. Mark blogs at www.warpandwoof.org.

Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links (05/18 - 05/25)

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Fri, 25 May 2012 09:00:00 PDT

Here are this week's recommended apologetics links. Enjoy.
• The Problem of Good
• Q&A with Lee Strobel
• Can We Trust the Bible?
• The Evidence for God: Consciousness
• Know Your Evangelicals: Alvin Plantinga
• An Intellectual Code of Conduct, Part 3
• What Place Do Miracles Have in Apologetics?
• “Apolo-what?” Misunderstandings about Apologetics
• Dan Wallace on Newly Found Manuscripts (video)
• A Simple Example of Intelligent Design as Science
• Resurrection of Theism by Stuart Hackett Free Ebook
• Tim McGrew on the authorship of the fourth Gospel
• Advice to Christian Philosophers by Alvin Plantinga
• The return of William Lane Craig videos to Youtube
• Stephen Meyer’s 2011 Lecture on Signature in the Cell
• Did the New Testament Authors Endorse Slavery? (Audio)
• Tim McGrew Interviews Brian Auten of Apologetics315
• Lee Strobel interviews Mary Jo Sharp about Women in Apologetics
• Unpacking Atheism Simulcast with Lee Strobel and Mark Mittelberg (video)
• Did the divinity of Jesus emerge slowly after many years of embellishments?
• What’s in a Name? New Evidence for Eyewitness Testimony in the New Testament
• "Correct, Not Politically Correct; How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone"
• 25 untrue things you didn’t know Mormons are supposed to believe
• Faith Under Fire: A DVD Study: Exploring Christianity's Ten Toughest Questions (Great for small groups)

• Would you like to help with interview transcription through volunteering or donation?
If so, contact Ap315 here.

Apologetics 315 is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit. Your support is appreciated.

• Shopping via Amazon? If you use this link, a bit of your purchase goes to fund Apologetics 315. Thanks for those of you using the link, as it helps Ap315.

Get these sorts of links and more by following on Twitter.
Or just add this feed to your RSS reader.
For daily post links, please follow on Facebook.

Read Along: Chapter 9—Is God Just a Human Invention?

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Thu, 24 May 2012 23:30:03 PDT

Today we continue with Chapter Nine in the Read Along with Apologetics 315 project. This is a chapter-by-chapter study through the book Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists by Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow. (Hear an interview about the book here.) Below you will find an audio intro for Chapter Nine, a brief summary of the chapter, a PDF workbook with questions for the chapter, and some notable quotes. You're also encouraged to share your comments and feedback for each chapter in the comment section below. Feel free to interact! Index page here.

[Audio Intro] - Sean McDowell introduces this chapter.
[Chapter 09 Study Questions] (with kindle locations) - PDF study guide.
[Podcast Feed RSS | Podcast in iTunes] - Click to subscribe to the audio.

Summary
Chapter Nine: Is God Just a Human Invention?
(pages 120-131)
Chapter nine looks at the hypothesis that God is just a projection of the human mind. The authors show how this approach begs the question against God, and they reveal reasons why this hypothesis falls short. Other ways of explaining God away include "the God gene", neuroscience, and evolutionary psychology; perhaps Richard Dawkins' memes explain why religion has spread so widely. However, the authors argue against these theories and suggest that the reason people are "hardwired" to believe in God is because God really does exist.

Philosopher Garry DeWeese contributes an essay describing his journey of faith and the importance of having good reasons to believe.

Notable quotes:

Our intention in this chapter is to walk through some of the most common reasons skeptics think God is a human invention and see if they sufficiently show that belief in God has been rendered unreasonable, or if the reason that so many people believe in God is best explained by the fact that he actually does exist. (p. 120)

If it can be argued that humans created God out of a need for security or a father figure, then it can just as easily be argued that atheism is a response to the human desire for the freedom to do whatever one wants without moral constraints or obligations. (p. 123)

If belief in God is indeed an issue of hardwiring, then two possible explanations exist for the design we observe. Either a blind process of natural selection produces religious belief over time as a by-product with some selective advantage, or an Intelligent Mind designed humanity to naturally believe God exists. (p. 112)

Discuss

How does the projection theory beg the question against God?
How does the projection theory "cut both ways"?
What are the implications of humans being "hardwired" to believe?

Recommended Reading

Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life by Alister McGrath
"Belief in God: A Trick of the Brain?" in Contending with Christianity's Critics: Answering New Atheists and Other Objectors, edited by Paul Copan and William Lane Craig

Next Week: Chapter 10—Is Religion Dangerous?

How to Get Apologetics in Your Church 2: Podcast and eBook - Table of Contents

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Thu, 24 May 2012 12:48:56 PDT

Two years ago, Apologetics 315 addressed the question: "How do I get apologetics in my church?" with an essay series, ebook, and podcast. The goal of this project was simple: to share stories, experiences, and advice that will help Christians to start their own local apologetics initiatives.

Now there's a part 2 to the series. This is the index for How to Get Apologetics in Your Church 2. Listen to the podcast via the RSS feed or through iTunes.

Here is the table of contents:
00 - Introduction
01 - Why Apologetics Matters to Every Believer and Every Church
02 - How I Got Apologetics Started in My Church
03 - A Pastor's Perspective
04 - The Road to the Group
05 - How to Start a Church Apologetics Ministry
More to come...

Enjoy.

How to Get Apologetics in Your Church 2: How to Start a Church Apologetics Ministry

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Wed, 23 May 2012 23:30:02 PDT

How to Start a Church Apologetics Ministry

by Steve Schrader, Mt. Airy Bible Church

While a student at Southern Evangelical Seminary in 2001 I had a dream that one day there would be an apologetics conference in the Washington DC area. A couple years later I had a dream that one day a well-known apologist would speak at my home church, Mt. Airy Bible Church (MABC). Today I can report that God has shown me how small my dreams were. As of February 2012, Mt. Airy Bible Church, in the small town of Mt. Airy, MD (pop. 9,000) has hosted the following world class apologists (some multiple times): Norman Geisler (6X); Craig Hazen (3X); Greg Koukl (3X); Frank Turek (2X); Brett Kunkle; Ergun Caner; Gary Habermas; Greg Ganssle; John Mark Reynolds; Joseph Holden; J. P. Moreland; Nabeel Qureshi; Ron Rhodes; Scott Klusendorf and Sean McDowell.

It all began during a couple difficult witnessing encounters in 1997. While working as a vice-president in a telecommunications business I learned the hard way that apologetics and evangelism go hand-inhand. I had simultaneously run into a hard-core, angry, irrational atheist and a very polite, very rational agnostic and learned quickly that I either needed to get some answers or stop sharing my faith. I chose to get some answers.

[MP3 | RSS | iTunes]

In 1999, after completing a three year men’s discipleship course called Men with a Mission taught by my senior pastor, Dr. Wally Webster, I enrolled in the Master of Arts in Apologetics program at Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES). In the fall of 2000, I was permitted to teach my first apologetics class in the MABC Adult Christian Education program (Sunday School). Over the next nine years, I taught on apologetic topics every chance I got.

On June 13, 2009 with the help and support of my ministry partner Pastor Marvin Patrick, I submitted a proposal to the elder board of MABC to start a formal apologetics ministry; on July 7th, 2009 they approved the formation of the Mt. Airy Bible Church Apologetics Ministry. The mission of the ministry is: to train the MABC congregation and surrounding believing community to defend and share their faith in a humble and respectful way; to provide the skeptic/seeker in the MABC community with positive evidence for the truthfulness of the Christian worldview; to increase the faith of believing Christians by training them on the evidence that exists for the Christian worldview, and to be engaged in the marketplace of ideas in the local community. This will be accomplished through research, teaching, writing, and facilitating world class apologetic teachers to speak in Mt. Airy.

Prior to the formal kick off of the apologetics ministry various apologetic activities had taken place at MABC including the planning of our first apologetics conference which took place in October 2009; teaching apologetics topics in Sunday School; and occasionally hosting a simulcast debate or seminar. The reasons for formalizing the ministry in 2009 include 1) to gain elder oversight, 2) to leverage the church’s non-profit status, 3) to provide an approved ministry for members to serve, and 4) to leverage the administrative staff of the church as well as the facilities and all associated resources.

The Results:
Today the apologetics ministry is going strong. We have two seminary trained apologists on our team, a third who has completed the certificate in apologetics program at Biola and a fourth who has begun work on the certificate program at Biola. On February 12, 2012 we kicked off our A Shot in the Mind program which is a monthly apologetic event with speakers (primarily members of the ministry with an occasional outside speaker) presenting on an apologetic related topic followed by a time of Q&A. We are planning our 5th apologetics conference for October 5-6, 2012.

Lessons Learned:
While we attracted top names in the apologetics field and a couple hundred people attended each of our conferences, only 40 or so (about 20%) of the attendees were from our church and half of them were helping out as part of the apologetics ministry team. The fear of apologetics for the average lay person should not be underestimated. In an informal poll taken by a show of hands during a Wednesday night prayer service when asked the question: “how many of you think apologetics is for the intellectual elites among us and is too difficult for you?” approximately 75% of the hands went up. It should be noted that most of the attendees of this meeting comprise the core of the Mt. Airy Bible Church ministry – the committed. We asked them to fill out a card and tell us what topics they would like to have covered at our annual conference, our monthly Shot in the Mind presentations or some other venue. The top questions were related to: 1) Is the Bible reliable?, 2) how to respond to the same-sex marriage issue (note: this was being voted on in the Maryland senate the week of the survey), 3) does the age of the earth matter?, and 4) the abortion issue.

What I would do differently:
Although I am thrilled with where the ministry is and what God has accomplished through it, I believe we would have more of a following from our own church if we would have been more purposeful about targeting our own people sooner. I would have spent more time trying to spread the apologetics bug to our senior pastor who actually caught the bug reading an apologetics book while on a mission trip. He is now not only fully supporting the ministry but actively promoting it – this makes a huge difference!

Advice to someone desiring to start an apologetics ministry:

Set apart Christ as Lord
Get trained. Consider seminaries (SES, Biola, Veritas, Liberty, Columbia)
Be accountable to someone like a local church or existing apologetics ministry
Find a ministry partner to help share the load, bounce ideas off
Get your senior pastor and/or elder board supportive of the ministry; until they are, be faithful to bring apologetics to whatever venue you can
Understand what the major apologetic issues are in your locale and go after those hard
Work with seminaries to put on conferences; some of them will coordinate the whole thing and even split the cost with you
Try to get sponsors for conferences so you can keep the costs low. At $40/head people will come. At $20 or less per head, people will pay for their friends to come too!
Find a way to get apologetics training to the young people; the need is great and they can handle the basic material as early as middle-school
Be a training ministry. Train up apologists within your ministry to help share the load
Team up with other local apologetic ministries as you can
Have a big vision, we have a big God
Do it all with gentleness and respect

May God bless you as you seek to honor him by evangelizing the world and defending the faith.

William Lane Craig vs. Mike Begon: Is God a Delusion?

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Tue, 22 May 2012 23:30:04 PDT

During the 2007 Reasonable Faith Tour, Professor William Lane Craig debated Professor Mike Begon at Liverpool University on the topic "Is God a Delusion?" The video can be found online at bethinking.org here. A 90-minute debate followed by 30 minutes of Q&A.

Full Debate MP3 Audio here.
YouTube video here.

Enjoy.

Hear all of William Lane Craig's audio debates in the debate feed here.

Terminology Tuesday: Determinism

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Mon, 21 May 2012 23:30:00 PDT

Determinism: The view that all natural events, including human choices and actions, are the product of past states of affairs in accordance with causal necessity. Thus the determinist holds that, given the state of the universe at any particular time, plus the causal laws that govern events in the natural world, the state of the universe at every future time is fixed. Various kinds of determinism are possible depending on the nature of the causally determining forces. Most determinists today are scientific determinists who believe the laws of nature are the determining factors, but theological determinism, in which God directly determines every event, is also possible.1

1. C.Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p. 34.

Tim McGrew Interviews Brian Auten of Apologetics315

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Sun, 20 May 2012 23:30:04 PDT

Today's interview is with Brian Auten, founder of Apologetics 315. He is interviewed by Dr. Timothy McGrew on the past, present, and future of Apologetics 315. The goal of the interview is to get to know a bit more about Brian, how Apologetics 315 came to be, the vision of the ministry, future goals and projects, and how others can help support its growth. More about Apologetics 315 here.

Full Interview MP3 Audio here. (27 min)

Enjoy.
Subscribe to the Apologetics 315 Interviews podcast here or in iTunes.

Pascal on the Search for Truth

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Sat, 19 May 2012 23:30:00 PDT

"Before entering into the proofs of the Christian religion, I find it necessary to point out the sinfulness of those men who live in indifference to the search for truth in a matter which is so important to them, and which touches them so nearly.

Of all their errors, this doubtless is the one which most convicts them of foolishness and blindness, and in which it is easiest to confound them by the first glimmerings of common sense, and by natural feelings.

For it is not to be doubted that the duration of this life is but a moment; that the state of death is eternal, whatever may be its nature; and that thus all our actions and thoughts must take such different directions according to the state of that eternity, that it is impossible to take one step with sense and judgment, unless we regulate our course by the truth of that point which ought to be our ultimate end.

There is nothing clearer than this; and thus, according to the principles of reason, the conduct of men is wholly unreasonable, if they do not take another course."

- Blaise Pascal, Pensées (195)

Book Review: Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books by Michael J. Kruger

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Fri, 18 May 2012 23:30:01 PDT

Recent attempts to discuss biblical canon have been reserved to certain types of questions. For apologists, the discussions center around defending these books versus those books. Why Jude and not 1st Enoch? Why Esther and not Ben Sira? Unfortunately, in attempting to defend this position, the discussion quickly centers around sociological and historical issues external to the text itself. Thus, when asked why these books are in the canon, an apologist will often answer that we accept them because they were accepted by the early, orthodox church; because they were the most frequently transmitted books across spectrum of the ancient church; because the early church agreed that they were authentic witnesses of the apostolic teaching, etc. Whereas this may provide a sufficient historical and sociological answer to the question, it appeals to external authority to determine the nature of the canon, whether that authority by a community which received the text or historical criteria.

In the recent book, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, Michael J. Kruger approaches the question of canon through a different method than typically presented in recent evangelical work. He clarifies at the onset that he does not intend to “‘prove’ the truth of the canon to the skeptic,” nor “merely to explore how a Christian...comes to believe that the canon is from God.”1 Instead, he intends to discuss “whether the Christian religion provides sufficient grounds for thinking that Christians can know which books belong in the canon and which do not.”2 Notice the epistemological nature of this question.

Kruger addresses the issue from a Christian worldview, and shows that a neutral objectivity does not exist in addressing such questions, for the questions themselves are theological at their root. He approvingly quotes Kevin Vanhoozer that “history alone cannot answer the question of what the canon finally is; theology alone can do that.”3 Whereas traditional discussions of canon have attempted to relegate theological questions to secondary status, Kruger attempts to ask the traditional questions of canon through a theological lens that he believes will provide a more thorough picture of the grounds for which Christians believe these books to be Scripture.

Kruger addresses the issue in two sections. The first section explains and critiques three models of understanding the canon; the community-determined canon, the historically determined canon and the self-authenticated canon. The second section explains and defends what Kruger sees as the best model; the self-authenticated canon. Within his defense of the latter view, each of the traditional topics are discussed, such as the historical origins of the books, their acceptance within the Christian community, etc.

Kruger’s explanation and discussion of the differing views are fair and the critiques incisive. If one were merely seeking answers to the historical and sociological questions of canon, then this work would be a fine resource. This book does more than present uninterpreted evidence.

Against the community-determined and historically determined models, the book argues that the self-authenticated model best comports with a theological understanding of Scripture. Kruger distinguishes this model against the other models in its grounding. Other models, whether historical or communal, ground themselves in something outside of Scripture, such as community acceptance or the rule of faith. Kruger’s proposed model grounds itself in itself. If we presuppose the ultimate authority of Scripture, grounding the authority and shape of the canon outside of Scripture makes the text subservient to something else. In response to this problem, Kruger asks, “if the canon bears the authority of God, to what other standard could it appeal to justify itself?”4 This perspective is not new, but a restatement of the Reformers’ perspective.5 The New Testament bears evidence in itself of its divine nature, which justifies its internal claims to authority.

This perspective does not reject evidences, but places them within a biblically grounded perspective. The self-authenticated model continues to study the apostolic witness, history of transmission, reception, etc. but does so through a theology of canon that arise from within the text itself.6 Thus, God’s authority in revelation does not find justification in an external authority, but in itself. Does this perspective require circular reasoning? Yes, but not vicious circularity. Since God is the ultimate authority, one must appeal to that authority in order to justify revelation from that authority.7 From within the self-authenticated model, Kruger proposes that Scripture itself speaks to its divine qualities, corporate reception and apostolic origins. All of these aspects of Scripture are revealed to the reader through the work of the Holy Spirit in the reading of the text to authenticate the witness of the text.

The second section of the book defends this model and shows how the traditional evidences for canonical authority make proper sense from within the self-authenticated model. The book refers to and uses the Reformed Epistemology of Alvin Plantinga. Apologists familiar with Plantinga’s Warrant series will see a connection between the insights therein and Kruger’s discussion of canon.8 The second section adequately deals with the de jure objections against the self-authenticated model that, if successful, would serve as undercutting beliefs. Kruger demonstrates that no de jure objections stand, and concludes that believers are warranted in holding to a self-authenticated model of canonical authority.

The greatest criticism against the book would be its sole focus on the New Testament. The Reformers did not limit their arguments on the canon of Scripture to the New Testament, and neither should those of us who learn from Kruger’s work. Although he does allude to other work being done in the Old Testament, and to the difficulties of Old Testament canonical work, he does not flesh out the implications of his arguments on Old Testament canonical studies. For instance, if the recent argument of Seitz concerning a “grammar” of the Law and Prophets that shapes both the canon of the Old Testament and the New Testament are correct, then these insights fit well into the self-authenticated model.9 According to Seitz, it was the prophetic and messianic witness in the Law and the Prophets that shaped both the acceptance of the Writings and provided a standard for the reception of the New Testament. The New Testament gives the fulfillment and continuation of the prophetic and messianic voice in the Old Testament. The New Testament was not accepted due to its adherence to a rule of faith, but the internal grammar of Scripture itself in the Law and Prophets continues in the prophetic witness of the New Testament.

In conclusion, this book immediately deserves a place among the necessary works for any apologist to own. The nature and character of the work are extremely important for modern discussions, and particularly relevant to apologetic discussions of canon. It is highly recommended, and I am thankful to Michael Kruger for his efforts in writing it.

Apologetics 315 Book Reviewer G. Kyle Essary loves studying Scripture, and the Old Testament in particular. He and his family live in Southeast Asia where he strives to live for the One to whom the Old Testament points.

1. Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, Kindle ed. (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2012), loc 377.
2. Ibid., loc 387.
3. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 146.
4. Kruger, loc 2458.
5. Kruger quotes Calvin on this point, “God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word...Scripture is indeed self-authenticated.”
6. For a good discussion of evidences within a Christian perspective, see John Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God. Phillipsburg: P&R, 1994.
7. This review does not allow time to discuss this point, but Kruger does a fine job. Also, in terms of understanding circular reason in presuppositions, see Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith. Phillipsburg: P&R, 2004.
8. This reviewer, as does Plantinga, would make note that these insights come from a Reformed traditions stretching back to Bavinck and Calvin before him, even to Augustine and the early church.
9. See Christopher Seitz, The Goodly Fellowship of the Prophets and The Character of Christian Scripture.

Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links (05/11 - 05/18)

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Fri, 18 May 2012 09:00:08 PDT

Here are this week's recommended apologetics links. Enjoy.
• Defining ‘Fine-Tuner’
• Karamazov’s Theorem
• Codex Sinaiticus Online
• Watchtower Investigated Blog
• Sign up for Dropbox for free
• Free Apologetics E-book Library
• The Evidence for God: Morality
• Discover the Praying Life (video)
• Theology Thursday: Alister McGrath
• Seven Marks of a Good Theologian
• Why bother with Jehovah’s Witnesses
• An Intellectual Code of Conduct, Part 2
• Where Are All the Women Apologists?
• Philosophia Christi Summer 2012 Issue
• R.C. Sproul on "How Old Is the Earth?"
• Unbelievable? The Conference 2012: London
• On Guard Conference: July 27 & 28 - Oklahoma
• Occam’s Razor and the Cosmological Argument
• Should Homosexual Couples Be Allowed to Adopt?
• Unbelievable?: The Conference 2012 (preview) - video
• Debate in Apologetics: Secondary Issues of Primary Importance
• Systematic Theology Class (MP3 CD) by Wayne Grudem for Free
• Book Review: “7 Truths that Changed the World” by Kenneth Samples
• How long are the days of Genesis? Hugh Ross and Jason Lisle debate
• Calum Miller vs. Peter Atkins "Does God Exist?" Debate - Oxford 2012
• The Master’s Seminary Presuppositional Apologetics Lectures (videos)
• Kindle Version: How to Stay Christian in College by J. Budziszewski for $3.99
• Sign up the for Intro to Logic and Critical Thinking Course Online Starting May 21st

• Would you like to help with interview transcription through volunteering or donation?
If so, contact Ap315 here.

Apologetics 315 is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit. Your support is appreciated.

• Shopping via Amazon? If you use this link, a bit of your purchase goes to fund Apologetics 315. Thanks for those of you using the link, as it helps Ap315.

Get these sorts of links and more by following on Twitter.
Or just add this feed to your RSS reader.
For daily post links, please follow on Facebook.

Read Along: Ch8—Has Science Shown There Is No Soul?

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Thu, 17 May 2012 23:30:00 PDT

Today we continue with Chapter Eight in the Read Along with Apologetics 315 project. This is a chapter-by-chapter study through the book Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists by Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow. (Hear an interview about the book here.) Below you will find an audio intro for Chapter Eight, a brief summary of the chapter, a PDF workbook with questions for the chapter, and some notable quotes. You're also encouraged to share your comments and feedback for each chapter in the comment section below. Feel free to interact! Index page here.

[Audio Intro] - Jonathan Morrow introduces this chapter.
[Chapter 08 Study Questions] (with kindle locations) - PDF study guide.
[Podcast Feed RSS | Podcast in iTunes] - Click to subscribe to the audio.

Summary
Chapter Eight: Has Science Shown There Is No Soul?
(pages 108-119)
Chapter eight explores the concept of the human soul. Naturalism asserts that all that exists is a purely materialistic universe. If this is true, then there is no human soul. However, the authors show that our experience of the world strongly points to the existence of the soul. The point to evidence from our personal experience of consciousness, near-death experiences (NDEs), the experience of free will, and the nature of identity, and mental/physical states to make the case that the human soul best accounts for these, while materialism does not adequately explain them.

Dale and Jonalyn Fincher contribute an essay to this chapter which points to the soul as foundational to how we approach our system of human values. They argue that we should beware of any movement or ideology that disinherits us from our souls, for it is the bedrock for the belief that humans are equally valuable.

Notable quotes:

According to the Christian worldview, the material world is not all that exists. God made human beings in his image, and human beings consist of both body and soul. (p. 109)

NDEs provide compelling evidence for the distinction between body and soul as well as for a continued consciousness in the initial moments of the afterlife. (p. 112)

If materialism is true, then a human being is simply a body. If you are solely a material system, then you have no inner self that has the capacity to freely choose between options. You have no center of consciousness to make reasoned decisions. Physical systems operate completely by external programming, not by inner decision making. Thus, if materialism is true, you do not have any genuine ability to choose your actions. (p. 112)

Something nonphysical must account for sameness of identity over time, even with a few unchanging neurons in the brain. The soul is the most reasonable explanation. (p. 114)

Discuss

What evidence for the soul do you find most compelling?
How does the existence of the soul better account for our experience than naturalism?
What's one way you might apply this information to an apologetic conversation?

Recommended Reading

The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul by Mario Beauregard & Denyse O'Leary
The Recalcitrant Imago Dei: Human Persons and the Failure of Naturalism by J.P. Moreland

Next Week: Chapter 9—Is God Just a Human Invention?

How to Get Apologetics in Your Church 2: The Road to the Group

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Wed, 16 May 2012 23:30:02 PDT

The Road to the Group

by Allen Lathrop

“How can I use my passion for apologetics within my own church?” It was a question I had regularly asked myself with growing concern. I had read and studied apologetics material on my own for years. I had experienced the effect apologetics could have, not just in my life, but also in the lives of those who did not yet know Christ. Yet, my deep desire was for those within my own congregation to experience the same effect and together have a greater impact on this world for the glory of God. Of course, all of that sounds wonderful in theory. Putting it into practice is another thing entirely. While it took a good deal of time, patience, and prayer, God has blessed me with an amazing apologetics group in my own church. I'd like to share that journey with you, and offer you some thoughts on starting your own group.

From the outset, I knew an apologetics group wasn't going to develop itself and just conveniently fall into my lap. Understandably, a little legwork on my part was going to be needed. At the time, my family and I were regularly attending our church, but we weren't plugged in to any of the groups or ministries. Since it was my goal to begin a group within our church, it seemed reasonable to get connected with an already established group and see how it operated. So, my wife and I began regularly attending a weekly Sunday School class designed for couples in our age group. After a couple of months, the group leader informed us that she would need a volunteer to teach the class for a short period while she and her family were on vacation. I happily made myself available and was able to gain my first taste of leading a small group.

[MP3 | RSS | iTunes]

Not long after that, the group leader, who wanted to move into other areas of ministry, asked if I'd be willing to take over the group leadership permanently. I was thrilled! I accepted and began teaching the group on a regular basis. Granted, the subject matter had nothing to do with apologetics. Nevertheless, it was a step in the right direction. Plus, I was taking a more active roll in serving God and training Christians (two areas that tied squarely together with my goals in apologetics). So, I did my best to faithfully serve in this area. Occasionally, I was even afforded opportunities to throw in apologetics lessons as well. Needless to say, that really whetted my appetite!

Additionally, I began thinking of ways to connect to various other ministries within my church where I could use my passion for apologetics. Eventually, I was asked to be a part of the leadership group which offers support and direction for the small groups ministry. This opened up even more opportunities for me. Not only did I get more exposure on how small groups function within my church, I was able to work directly with the Small Groups Pastor. After a couple of months, and due to some changes within our church, the attendance of the Sunday School class I taught dropped off. I met with the Pastor, and it was ultimately decided that there was no longer a need for that group. Thus, I took advantage of the opportunity and asked the pastor about starting an apologetics based small group from my home. He asked that I submit a proposal for him to review. I did so, and within a couple of days he informed me that he thought it was a great idea. With a newly ignited drive, I began gathering material and contacting the church staff to advertise the group in the church's newsletter and Sunday morning bulletin. Within six weeks, I found myself beginning the apologetics group I had desired.

It's been about a year since that time, and I'm happy to report that the group is stronger than ever. We've increased our membership and regular attendance into a great group of people who passionately discuss effective methods to defend the faith and reach this world for Christ. The conversations and debates are always gracious and stimulating. Even more pleasing to me, there is a growing interest within our members for the field of apologetics.

Of course, it hasn't been without its share of challenges. For instance, our church likes to engage in DVD-based bible studies. While there are a few apologetics studies out there that meet this criterion, they aren't as plentiful as I had hoped. Naturally, there's always the option of studying one of the many books published on apologetics. Nevertheless, this potentially presents an additional problem. Many churches (mine included) have a structured calendar for rotating between study periods and break periods. The study periods run about eight weeks in length, and the break periods are intended to provide an opportunity for advertising the groups. Yet, trying to find an apologetics book that can be effectively studied in eight weeks can be difficult. Finally, if you're reading this, you likely don't need someone to convince you that apologetics is an important and worthwhile endeavor. Unfortunately, not everyone is as passionate about apologetics as you and I. Thus, trying to build interest in those not especially taken with apologetics can sometimes be difficult.

Challenges and all, it's been very worthwhile. I've certainly learned a few things along the way. If you're reading this because you have the same desire as I do to reach your church with the tools to meet this hostile world head-on, then I hope I can share with you some of these things I've learned. Perhaps they will save you a few headaches later.

1. Get connected with a small group. Whether it's a home group, a Sunday school setting, or a discipleship class, if you're not already plugged in to a small group at your church, get plugged in as soon as possible. It's surprising how much can be gleaned about small groups and small group leadership just by regularly attending a group. Plus, if you're interested in having your church back your group, it doesn't hurt to show the leadership of your church that you can commit to a group for the long haul.

2. Get to know the leadership of your church. Let's face it, apologetics isn't fluff. It's often a hardcore dissection and exhaustive presentation of some of the most core beliefs of the Christian worldview. Leading an apologetics group certainly doesn't require a Ph.D., but a solid understanding of the fundamental Christian beliefs doesn't hurt. Along that vein, it might be a good idea to show the small groups leadership that you're not going to come in with wild ideas like “truth is relative” and “all roads lead to God”. If you are able, get to know the Small Groups Pastor and his supporting leadership team.

3. Results may vary. Your journey to a church-based apologetics group will likely have similarities with mine, and differences as well. You may achieve success faster than I did or it may take you longer. Either way, don't get discouraged. If your desire is to make a difference for God's kingdom with your passion, then it's certainly reasonable that God will bless your efforts.

4. Once you've started your group, remember to be gracious where grace is warranted. Try not to be overly dogmatic about issues that aren't core Christian doctrines. If you're a die-hard Old-Earth Creationist and everyone else in your group is a Young-Earther, be fair and open-minded with your fellow brothers and sisters. A little bit of friendly debate can be a good thing. Most of us have our favorite positions on controversial issues such as these, but don't be overly critical with opposing positions.

5. Pray. Little needs to be said here.

6. Start using your talents now. The light at the end of the tunnel can often feel far away. If your passion is for apologetics, then you've probably spent some time developing your skills in that area. Don't let those skills atrophy while you await a church group. Use what you have where you are. Get engaged in ministries at your church where your skills can be put to good use. Also, intrinsically tied up with apologetics is evangelism. So start talking to people. Talk to your family, friends, neighbors, and coworkers. Get online and discuss your convictions in forums and debate groups. Start a blog. Just do something.

I truly hope and pray that my story and these tips can be of some use to you as you develop your own apologetics group. There's no question that we need more defenders of the faith as we face increasing disdain and criticism from the challengers of Christianity. I applaud your efforts to get involved and am happy to be working along side you in planting seeds in the hearts and minds of non-believers and strengthening the convictions of our fellow believers. May God bless your progress.

Antagonistic Atheism: David Robertson vs Mike Lee

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Sat, 19 May 2012 05:46:44 PDT

Here is a fascinating discussion from a recent Unbelievable? Radio Program between Mike Lee (aka "The Religious Antagonist") and David Robertson, Pastor of St Peter's Free Church, Dundee and director of the Solas Centre for Public Christianity. David and Mike debate whether Mike's antagonistic approach is a helpful one. An interesting look at emotional atheism as well as a critique of those mocking Christianity. Subscribe to the Unbelievable? Podcast here. Don't forget about the Unbelievable? Conference 2012 here.

Full MP3 Audio here.
Enjoy.

Unbelievable Conference 2012: London

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Tue, 15 May 2012 23:00:02 PDT

Premier Christian Radio presents an apologetics day conference on Sat, 26 May 2012 in London aimed at equipping everyday Christians with reasons for the truth of their faith. This year's conference partner is Reasons To Believe. Guest speakers include: Hugh Ross, Ken Samples, John Lennox, Michael Green, and more.
Are you going? See you there!
Sign up here.

Terminology Tuesday: Abrogation

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Tue, 15 May 2012 10:57:33 PDT

Muslims say that a prerogative of the Quran is abrogation, which involves the annulling of a former law by a new law. Sura 16:101 says, "When We substitute one revelation for another, and God knows best what He reveals (in stages), they say, 'Thou art but a forger': but most of them understand not."

What this means is that Allah is not bound to his revelations. If he wants, he is free to bring new revelation that completely contradicts former revelation. If circumstances call for it, Allah is free to rescind earlier revelations and bring about something entirely new and different.

An example of such a change is that, originally, Muhammad ordered his followers to pray toward Jerusalem (Sura 2:150). However, when the Jews rejected him and called him an impostor, he received new revelation to the effect that the correct direction of prayer should be toward Mecca (Sara 2:125). This change is in keeping with what we read in Sura 2:106: "If we abrogate a verse or consign it to oblivion, we offer something better than it or something of equal value."

Islamic scholars do not agree among themselves as to the precise number of verses that have become abrogated by other revelations. But there are at least 20 instances in which a newer revelation has been said to supersede, contradict, or abrogate a previous revelation." All this has given rise to a Quranic science known as Nasikh wa Mansukh, that is, "the Abrogators and the Abrogated."1

1. Excerpt from Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with Muslims (pp. 75-76).

Apologist Interview: Kenneth Samples

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Sun, 13 May 2012 23:30:00 PDT

Today's interview is with philosopher and theologian Ken Samples, senior research professor at Reasons to Believe. (Hear a prior interview here.) He talks about the Straight Thinking Podcast, the Unbelievable? Conference 2012 in London, an abductive approach to apologetics, the explanatory power of Christianity over atheism, morality and the human condition, the problem of evil and suffering, the different kinds of evil in the world, God's purposes in suffering, gratuitous evils, how to address the problem of evil with tact, and some of the key ideas in his newest book 7 Truths that Changed the World: Discovering Christianity's Most Dangerous Ideas. To enter the drawing for a copy of the book, just fill in this the quick entry form here.

Full Interview MP3 Audio here. (49 min)

Enjoy.
Subscribe to the Apologetics 315 Interviews podcast here or in iTunes.

John Lennox and Atheistic Dogma

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Sun, 13 May 2012 04:52:05 PDT

"It is perfectly rational to propose that the universe is indeed without purpose - that what we see is all there is. But to assert that this is so, as Dawkins and Atkins do, is not at all 'rational'. It is merely a piece of dogma. Indeed, atheism—when you boil it down—is little more than dogma: simple denial, a refusal to take seriously the proposition that there could be more to the universe than meets the eye. To use science to justify such dogma, as these professors do, is a gross misuse of their own trade."

—Colin Tudge
(in his review of John Lennox's God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God from here)

Book Review: Defending Inerrancy by Geisler & Roach

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Fri, 11 May 2012 23:30:00 PDT

God cannot err. The Bible is the Word of God. Therefore, the Bible cannot err.

This simple syllogism sums up the argument for the unlimited inerrancy of Scripture. While there have always been those who denied the historicity of some of its parts (Origen, for example), the view of the Bible’s total inerrancy is “rooted in the early fathers of the church, expressed emphatically in Augustine and Aquinas, expressed explicitly by the Reformers and continued into the 19th century without a major challenge from within the church” (12). However, when Darwin came along, attacks on God and Christianity took on new life, with the inerrancy of Scripture becoming one of the most beleaguered doctrines.

Norman Geisler and William Roach present a detailed study of the issue in Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for a New Generation. They begin with a rather dry, but necessary discussion of the history of inerrancy, ending with the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICB I) and that body’s treatise on the subject known as the Chicago Statement. Put forth in 1978, it consists of 19 articles, and was produced along with a Preamble, a Short Statement and an official commentary entitled Explaining Inerrancy by Reformed Theologian R.C. Sproul. Geisler and Roach include the articles in their book. It is imperative that readers familiarize themselves with them because they provide the standard by which all discussions, theories and interpretations of inerrancy are measured by the authors. If anyone deviates from the Chicago Statement, he or she ends up in Geisler and Roach’s doghouse.

The authors assert that the Chicago Statement made inerrancy the standard view of American evangelicals including the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS). They present a tale of two organizations, showing its influence on the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) compared with the Fuller Seminary. The latter dropped inerrancy from its mandate. The former, however, having drifted from it, made a decision to reintroduce the doctrine into the fold. Its leadership recruited delegates who they knew would support inerrancy-believing presidents. They, in turn, appointed persons to crucial positions in the denomination, who, in turn, appointed board members in the seminaries who, in turn, hired inerrantist deans and faculty. Thus, the SBC completely reversed its view of inerrancy from top to bottom (35).

The second section of the book presents 10 theologians who the authors state have threatened inerrancy. They begin with Clark Pinnock who drew attention to himself as a member of the Evangelical Theological Society when he developed a view of inerrancy not in keeping with the Chicago Statement. He came close to being voted out of ETS and Geisler and Roach make a strong case suggesting that he should have been. According to them, among his aberrant views was his belief that only those portions of the Bible that are redemptive in intent are inerrant.

Second on the list is Bart Ehrman. Ehrman is one of the most vocal and well-known opponents to the inerrancy of God’s Word. He asserts, among other things, that the canon of Scripture is only one of many competing Christianities, that the biases of the authors undermine inspiration, and that the transmission of the information was unreliable as many of the scribes were amateurs and incapable of doing a good job. Geisler and Roach present a detailed examination of Ehrman’s philosophical and methodological presuppositions before tackling the issue of the historicity of the New Testament, the reliability of eye witnesses and both internal and external evidences for the trustworthiness of Scripture.

Next up is Peter Enns, who left the Westminster Theological Seminary for Princeton because of his views on inerrancy. His contention is that because Christ, the living Word of God, partook of full humanity with its accompanying limitations and imperfections, then why should God’s written Word be any different? (99). Geisler and Roach find some positive elements in Enns’ incarnational model of Scripture. For example, they concur with him that Genesis does not borrow from Babylonian origin stories, noting that the similarities between them are only conceptual, not textual. However, Enns does call Genesis myth even though he says it contains history. Enns opposes any apologetics that defend the Bible’s perfection, claiming that we accept the Bible by faith, not by reason or evidence (104). In other words, he would dismiss this book in which Geisler and Roach are assessing his views as entirely unnecessary.

The authors then take on Kenton Sparks who doesn’t pull any punches when it comes to his views on inerrancy. He has stated that “inerrantists are naïve fundamentalists equivalent to believing in a flat earth and are not real academics” (113). Those are fighting words indeed! Geisler and Roach discuss the theologian’s antisupernatural bias, his postmodern belief that truth cannot be found, but is created by the individual, and his insistence that genre determines meaning. The authors conclude that, if we are to accept his view on inerrancy, we would have to “believe that God can act contrary to his nature” among other equally unpalatable claims (130).

While all of the previous theologians either suggest a limited inerrancy of Scripture or deny it altogether, Kevin Vanhoozer (Wheaton College) claims to affirm total inerrancy. Why then is he in this book? Geisler and Roach suggest that he adopts philosophical positions that undermine it. For example, he believes that each text has many meanings. This flies in the face of the standard understanding of Scripture, that is, that it has one meaning and many applications. The authors insist that such a stance, while seemingly harmless to some, threatens the doctrine of inerrancy subtly, and makes Vanhoozer’s views questionable in light of the Chicago Statement.

Andrew McGowan argues that the term “inerrancy” should be discarded because it implies scientific precision and is “a violent assumption of fundamentalist thinking” (161). He considers it a new doctrine that arose as an apologetic response to the Englightenment. Such a view is easily refuted with a simple rundown of all the early Church fathers who upheld it. Nevertheless, McGowan favors the word “infallible”, a word that Geisler and Roach say is too easily open to misinterpretation and is effective in describing Scripture only when it is accompanied with the word “inerrant”.

The authors tackle Stanley Grenz and Brian McLaren together in the next chapter. These are the postmodernists who desire to have a “creedless” theology (180) and reject, among other things, absolute truth in favor of relativism. Geisler and Roach denounce McLaren in particular for his liking of the Jesus Seminar.

The last chapter in the second section addresses Robert Webb and Darrell Bock. Readers might be surprised to see the latter included in this book. Bock has declared his belief that the Bible is inerrant and has defended the faith both in the written form (including books denouncing Dan Brown’s DaVinci Code and affirming the reliability of the Gospels) and orally in debate with atheists. However, Geisler and Roach express concern over his and Webb’s preference for redactive criticism over a grammatical-historical approach to Scripture which leads to their late dating of the New Testament books and other questionable conclusions about God’s Word. This, they say, undermines inerrancy in subtle but devastating ways.

The third and final section is a reexamination of inerrancy, looking at it in light of the nature of God, the nature of truth, the nature of language and the nature of hermeneutics. The authors note that the nature of God is crucial to the inerrancy debate (215) and that to question the inerrancy of his Word is to question God himself. The challenge regarding inerrancy is a challenge to God’s sovereignty, immutablility, and omniscience.

The nature of truth is crucial to the inerrancy debate. Geisler and Roach offer the definition of truth as that which corresponds to reality. In turn, “the Bible is completely true in that all its affirmations and denials correspond to reality” (234). The authors embark on a discussion of the correspondence view of truth used by courts, scientists, and ordinary people, and provide arguments for its validity.

In their discussion of language and inerrancy, Geisler and Roach investigate the concern about the adequacy of human language to convey an objectively true propositional revelation from God (254). They quote Article #4 of the Chicago statement which reads, “We affirm that God who made mankind in his image has used language as a means of revelation. We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God’s work of inspiration” (255) They then go on to look at equivocal, univocal and analogous God-Talk as outlined by Plotinus, Duns Scotus and Aquinas as well as the basis for meaning and the challenge of human fallenness.

While inerrancy deals with the nature of Scripture and hermeneutics deals with its interpretation, the two are, in actual practice, closely related (282). The proper hermeneutic approach as outlined in the Chicago statement is grammatical-historical. The authors define that method, then revisit several of the aforementioned theologians (Pinnock, Enns, Vanhoozer) and defend it in light of their work.

Finally, Geisler and Roach study the relationship between God’s written Word (Scripture) and God’s living Word (Christ). Among the topics discussed is Barth’s fallacious view of fallen human nature and its influence on the subject of inerrancy.

The discussions in this third section as well as that of each of the 10 theologians in the second are lengthy and detailed. This review seeks only to present a tidbit from each with the hope that readers will get their hands on the book to explore them in full. Be warned, however. This time it's not an easy read. It would be helpful to have a background in both theology and philosophy, but not absolutely necessary. The authors’ arguments may seem, at times, a matter of severe nitpicking. However, given the importance of maintaining the Bible’s place as a book of absolute truth, their fussiness is both understandable and forgivable.

Unfortunately, the book suffers from verbosity. In some cases, the authors choose to list the problems of a selected theologian’s views one by one, following each point with a response outlining its mistakes. However, in other cases, the authors list all the flaws in a theologian’s opinion and place their rebuttal at the end. This means that, throughout their refutations, they have to repeat what their subject has said to refresh the reader’s memory. This results in a lot of redundancy that could have been avoided with better organization and editing.

Aside from that, this book has much to offer. It is a comprehensive look at inerrancy and achieves the authors’ goal of affirming the accuracy of Scripture for the current generation.

Apologetics 315 Book Reviewer Mary Lou is a Canadian journalist currently working on a Master’s degree in Theological Studies from Tyndale University College and Seminary, Toronto, Ontario. She holds three other degrees, including one in history, and writes poetry and fiction as well as non-fiction.

Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links (05/04 - 05/11)

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Fri, 11 May 2012 09:00:00 PDT

Here are this week's recommended apologetics links. Enjoy.
• What is the unborn?
• Is Pain Inherently Evil?
• On Hummingbird Wings
• Pro-Life Crash Course
• The Anthropic Principle
• Michael Licona Interview
• The Importance of Defining Terms
• The Competing Views of Marriage
• An Intellectual Code of Conduct, Part 1
• New Research Supports Authenticity of Gospels
• Do Historical Scholars Think Jesus Existed?
• Evidence that Can be Used in Design Arguments
• Christianity, Philosophy, and the integrated mind
• Robert Price's "The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems"
• Houston Baptist University Master of Arts in Philosophy
• New study on tidal heating strengthens stellar habitability argument
• Is intelligent design creationism? Dr. Stephen C. Meyer explains
• TrueU: How to Get Apologetics into Your Church: Apologetics 315 & TrueU
• “In the Original Text It Says”: Word-Study Fallacies and How to Avoid Them
• Sign up the for Intro to Logic and Critical Thinking Course Online Starting May 21st
• Michael Kruger: 10 Misconceptions about the NT Canon: # 4: “Books Were Not Regarded as Scripture Until Around 200 AD”

• Would you like to help with interview transcription through volunteering or donation?
If so, contact Ap315 here.

Apologetics 315 is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit. Your support is appreciated.

• Shopping via Amazon? If you use this link, a bit of your purchase goes to fund Apologetics 315. Thanks for those of you using the link, as it helps Ap315.

Get these sorts of links and more by following on Twitter.
Or just add this feed to your RSS reader.
For daily post links, please follow on Facebook.

Read Along: Chapter 7—Why is the Universe Just Right for Life?

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Thu, 10 May 2012 23:30:01 PDT

Today we continue with Chapter Seven in the Read Along with Apologetics 315 project. This is a chapter-by-chapter study through the book Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists by Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow. (Hear an interview about the book here.) Below you will find an audio intro for Chapter Seven, a brief summary of the chapter, a PDF workbook with questions for the chapter, and some notable quotes. You're also encouraged to share your comments and feedback for each chapter in the comment section below. Feel free to interact!

[Audio Intro] - Sean McDowell introduces this chapter.
[Chapter 07 Study Questions] (with kindle locations) - PDF study guide.
[Podcast Feed RSS | Podcast in iTunes] - Click to subscribe to the audio.

Summary
Chapter Seven: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life?
(pages 95-107)
Chapter seven looks at the fine-tuning of the universe for life. From the expansion rate of the universe, to the tuning of the four fundamental forces, to the fine-tuning of the constants, the authors summarize some of the main reasons physicists acknowledge that the universe is delicately balanced for life. They also point out the atheistic objections to pointing to a fine-tuner, such as the weak anthropic principle, "who designed the designer?", and the multiverse hypothesis.

Jay Richards contributes an essay responding to the objection that the fine-tuning argument doesn't "go far enough" to point all the way to the Christian God. However, Richards argues that the argument goes just as far as it is supposed to.

Notable quotes:

What happens when we try to assign a probability to the fine-tuning of all the known constants of nature? Oxford physicist Roger Penrose concluded that such a task would be impossible, since the necessary digits would be greater than the number of elementary particles in the universe.6 This level of precision completely dwarfs human technology and innovation. (p. 97)

Given all the possible variations of the constants, why do we happen to find ourselves in a universe capable of supporting life? Merely claiming that we could not observe ourselves in any other universe offers no explanation for why we are actually in a fine-tuned universe in the first place. (p. 98)

Does this mean that multiple universes, if they were ever discovered, would undermine God? Absolutely not! We would still be left with the question as to what generated our fine-tuned universe, and any system that generates a habitable universe must itself be fine-tuned. The multiverse hypothesis simply moves the fine-tuning problem up one level, asking why multiple universes are able to sustain life. (p. 100)

Discuss

How would you respond to the "who designed the designer" objection?
How would you respond to the weak anthropic principle objection?
Why does the multiverse hypothesis not defeat the design hypothesis to account for fine-tuning?

Recommended Reading

The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery by Guillermo Gonzales and Jay Richards
A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology by Alister McGrath

Next Week: Chapter 8—Has Science Shown There is No Soul?

Read Along: Chapter Index for Is God Just a Human Invention? by Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Thu, 10 May 2012 23:31:00 PDT

Read Along with Apologetics315 is a weekly chapter-by-chapter study through Is God Just a Human Invention? and Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists by Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow. This is a chapter index for the study, so you may want to bookmark it for your own reference.

[Podcast Feed RSS | Podcast in iTunes] - Click to subscribe to the audio.

Series Introduction (includes link to authors interview)
Chapter 1: Is Faith Irrational?
Chapter 2: Are Science and Christianity at Odds?
Chapter 3: Are Miracles Possible?
Chapter 4: Is Darwinian Evolution the Only Game in Town?
Chapter 5: How Did the Universe Begin?
Chapter 6: How Did Life Begin?
Chapter 7: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life?
Chapter 8: Has Science Shown There is No Soul?
Chapter 9: Is God Just a Human Invention?
Chapter 10: Is Religion Dangerous?
Chapter 11: Does God Intend for Us to Keep Slaves?
Chapter 12: Is Hell a Divine Torture Chamber?
Chapter 13: Is God a Genocidal Bully?
Chapter 14: Is Christianity the Cause of Dangerous Sexual Repression?
Chapter 15: Can People Be Good Without God?
Chapter 16: Is Evil Only a Problem for Christians?
Chapter 17: What Good Is Christianity?
Chapter 18: Why Jesus Instead of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Thanks for reading along.

How to Get Apologetics in Your Church 2: A Pastor's Perspective

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Wed, 09 May 2012 23:30:02 PDT

Apologetics in the Church—A Pastor's Perspective

by Stephen J. Bedard

You have just read an inspiring book on apologetics. You have just returned from an exciting apologetics conference with some brilliant and engaging scholars. You just had a productive conversation with a skeptic and saw some real movement in their faith journey. You know that apologetics is vital for the local church. You make an appointment with your pastor to propose an apologetics ministry for the church, confident that the pastor will share your excitement for apologetics. You share your passion, you bare your soul to your pastor, pleading that he both approve the ministry and allow church resources to support it. Your pastor looks at you like you just suggested they start a Star Trek fan club at the church. What happened?

Many people have caught a vision for apologetics, have seen the potential impact on an unbelieving world, and have been deeply disappointed when their pastor and leadership have either rejected the notion or have given only half-hearted permission for you do something on your own. Why is this? Are pastors unspiritual? Unintellectual? Unevangelistic?

[MP3 | RSS | iTunes]

I come to this issue with a foot on both sides. I have been active in apologetics since I became a Christian. I have debated skeptics on the Internet and have had faith discussions with friends and family. At the same time, I am a pastor of a local church and have some idea of the pressures and limitations within that context. In this essay, I will examine some of the apparent apathy and provide some suggestions on how to bring your pastor on side with a proposed apologetics ministry.

So why are many pastors lacking in excitement when someone in their congregation suggests becoming involved in apologetics? You may live and breathe apologetics. You may immerse yourself in the books and conferences and podcasts. You are completely convinced of the power of apologetics to change lives. Your pastor is not coming at apologetics with such a focus. In addition to your plea for apologetics, there have been other people presenting worship ministry, men’s ministry, women’s ministry, children’s ministry, youth ministry, senior’s ministry, ministry to the poor, international missions and many more as the key to successful church ministry. The areas of ministry calling out to the pastor can be overwhelming, why should the pastor look at apologetics over any other area? Pastors are bombarded with “silver bullet” ideas that are going to transform everything and we sometimes seem apathetic when someone presents an exciting new idea.

There is another reason that pastors may be skeptical of apologetics in particular. Many pastors do not have much background in apologetics and are not completely sure what you are talking about. Most seminaries do not require a course in apologetics and few have them available even as electives. The pastor’s understanding of apologetics may be based only on witnessing a heated online exchange between a Christian and an atheist that seemed to be a waste of everyone’s time. It is obvious how helping the poor and visiting the sick fits with the church’s mandate. It is much less clear for some pastors with regard to apologetics.

Does that mean that you should keep your passion for apologetics to yourself and resign yourself to a church that refuses to engage the mind? Not at all. These things are shared to help you see the obstacles and to encourage you to find ways to overcome those obstacles. It could be argued that the charge of 1 Peter 3:15 is for all Christians and not just for those who self-describe as apologists. There is a very real need for apologetics in the local church. But you have some work to do to make that happen.

The first thing that you need to do is check your motives. Why is it that you want to see an apologetics ministry in the church? Is it because you absolutely love apologetics and you want your church to validate your hobby? Or do you see a real benefit to the church and to the people being ministered to by the church? Take time to work these things through.

Secondly, how practical is the apologetics idea that you have? For example, you may feel deeply offended by the theological errors of Islam or Mormonism and may feel strongly that the church should put its’ resources into exposing those errors. As a pastor, I would not be sure how that would fit with the purpose of the church, even if there is a place for Christians to participate in such activity. If you can tie your apologetic idea to your church’s vision statement, you will have softened your pastor’s heart.

Thirdly, be very clear as to what you are asking. If you just say that you think the church should start an apologetics ministry, you probably will not get very far. Be very specific. Is your goal to equip Christians to be able to articulate their faith and answer objections? Or are you planning on offering some events for skeptics, providing answers to their questions? You may want to do it all, but start with a very specific goal. You should be able to say in one sentence what you want to accomplish with your proposal. By the way, do not feel the pressure to include the word ‘apologetics’ in your request. If you want to work with Christians, describe it as discipleship. If you want to work with non-Christians, call it outreach or evangelism. It is not that you need to hide an apologetic motive but the word ‘apologetics’ will not add value to your proposal unless your pastor already has an interest in that area.

Fourthly, start small. Do not approach your pastor with the goal of closing every Kingdom Hall in your city by the end of the year. Make a proposal for one short-term small group, workshop, or outreach event. This is important on a number of levels. It is not just your pastor that you need to win over, it is the rest of the congregation as well. If your congregation refuses to participate, it does not matter how much support you get from the pastor. Let people get a taste for apologetics slowly, and do not assume that they are as immersed in the apologetics culture as you are. Also, by achieving something small, you build the confidence for the bigger projects.

Fifthly, encourage your pastor to preach apologetically. But don’t say it that way! Some pastors are open to requests for messages and others are not. It may not be natural for the pastor to preach a five part series on the ontological argument. However, a pastor may be very open to a request to preach a number of sermons on the problem of suffering, without realizing the connection to apologetics. There are many sermons that can be preached that are apologetics related but are far from a lecture on apologetics. Request a sermon on Paul’s ministry in Athens from Acts 17 or on Peter’s challenge in 1 Peter 3:15. While you are not free to plan out the pastor’s entire preaching year, many pastors would be open to the occasional request.

Finally, if you want to foster an apologetic culture in your church, tell stories. You might get excited about a nice clear syllogism, but most people won’t. Tell stories of conversations you have had with skeptics. Tell your testimony of how you became a follower of Jesus and how thinking through the hard questions played a role. Help people to see that apologetics is not about abstract theory, that it is not just a mental exercise for philosophers and theologians. Tell your stories so that people will know that apologetics is about helping real people understand the Jesus story by removing the obstacles to their faith.

As a pastor, I cannot promise that if you do all of these things, that your pastor will drop every other congregational priority and dive into apologetics. But if you take the time to understand where the pastor is coming from and if you express yourself clearly and present a concise and practical idea, you will have more success in getting pastoral support for an apologetics ministry in your church. As apologists, our job is not to be a distraction to other areas of ministry, but to encourage others in their called areas by increasing their confidence in the Gospel. The church is the front lines when it comes to the expansion of the Kingdom of God and apologists and pastors must work together for this cause.

Navy SEAL: Chad Williams Interview

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Tue, 08 May 2012 23:30:03 PDT

Today's interview is with Chad Williams, evangelist, former Navy SEAL, and author of the book SEAL of God. He talks about his training in the SEALS, his mentor Scott Helvenston, his radical conversion to Christianity, persecution, communicating the Gospel, street preaching, evangelism, the use of testimonies, encouragement in doing evangelism and using apologetics, and more. Get Chad's book on Kindle or paperback—a fascinating read. Chad's website here: StreetApologetics. Book video promo here, and chapter 1 here.

Full Interview MP3 Audio here (50 min)

Enjoy.
Subscribe to the Apologetics 315 Interviews podcast here or in iTunes.

Terminology Tuesday: Reader-Response Theory of Hermeneutics

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Auten) — Mon, 07 May 2012 23:30:03 PDT

Reader-Response Theory of Hermeneutics: A postmodern form of literary criticism that explores the capacity of the biblical texts to shape, revise or confirm the expectations readers bring to their reading of the text. This approach challenges the assumption of much of modern hermeneutics that the main task of exegesis is to approach the text as a disinterested exegete and to determine, through the use of scientific strategies of interpretation, the intent of the original author of the text. Reader-response theorists, in contrast, maintain that the reader and the text are interdependent. What is important then is not so much the intent of the original author of the text but the "conversation" between reader and text that emerges in the reading of the text.1

1. Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki & Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), p. 99.