"The Need for Christian Intellectual Engagement" Acts 17:22-31

Another good one from Abner Chou:

Fallacies Against Presuppositional Apologetics

Thought this article from Hip and Thigh was pretty good. Basically because it was written in such a way that even I could understand it - even though it was supposed to be "geeky."

The Fallacies with “The Circular Argument” Against Presuppositionalism:

This will be a geeky post, sorry...Occasionally, I like to write on topics pertaining to apologetic methodology. My primary purpose is to sharpen my personal thinking in the matters of how my exegesis and theology shape my overall approach in apologetics and evangelism. My objective has always been two-fold: I want to make sure I am defending the faith accurately as well as engaging unbelief effectively...keep reading

Fred Butler on Internet Atheists

I thought the following was a decent article by Fred Butler of Hip & Thigh:

I wrote the following response a number of years ago on an Internet message board where I regularly frequented. Three atheists began posting disparaging comments against religion in general and Christianity specifically. The main atheistic poster who became my antagonist, was named Rob, but two other nameless friends joined him in befuddling and aggravating the Christians who also participated on this message board.

It is sad to say that none of the believers effectively answered their religious objections, nor offered any answer to their questions, even though the atheists were asking the same, re-treaded questions that all unbelieving, God rejecters have always asked. I was troubled by the inability of the Christians to offer any meaningful apologetic for their faith, as well as challenge the foolish unbelief of the atheists. In order to offer up a needed response to these anti-theists, as well as help the Christians learn to argue persuasively for Christianity, I wrote the following post...keep reading

This excerpt resonates with me:

First, is the typical “swarm your opponent” tactic. I have seen this done by Muslim apologists on other lists. The tactic is simple: The agitating unbeliever runs across a Christian posting board and posts a few smart aleck comments to stir the dander of the Christians. They respond with their comments to the unbeliever’s original post. The next time the Christians check back onto the board, however, they discover that the unbeliever must have gone down to his coffee shop/bookstore hangout and told 2 or 3 of his atheist buddies about this Christian message board and convinced them to post as well. It is assumed that swarming the Christians with several posts rehashing the same, lame questions unbelievers have asked over the centuries will somehow make Christianity appear foolish and establish the unbeliever’s position.

Another "swarming" tactic is to generate a large list of objections so that the subject of the attack needs to spend a considerable amount of time in refuting each point. If the objections aren't refuted then the "swarmer" claims victory.

Christians also use this tactic. A classic example is the 95 Theses Against Dispensationalism. Responding to these sorts of lists takes time and energy. Thankfully, Paul Henebury actually took the time to respond to that one HERE. Note his apologetics articles as well.

I've come across similar lists compiled by preterists and posttribulationists. These lists are invariably copied and pasted from some other source and pop up all over the place. People who generate these lists aren't really interested in a two-way dialogue unless it leads to scoring points at the expense of their victims.

P.S. Thought this was pretty good too:

A Sample List of Self-refuting Statements

The Camel that Broke the Bible's Back

Saw this ARTICLE on Fox News:

Archaeologists from Israel’s top university have used radiocarbon dating to pinpoint the arrival of domestic camels in the Middle East -- and they say the science directly contradicts the Bible’s version of events. 

Apparently it's nothing new, although it was touted as a recent conclusion. Do we still trust Carbon 14 dating? Anyway, the Associates for Biblical Research had already responded to the so-called problem HERE. The Fall 2010 issue of Bible and Spade: "The Domestication of the Camel in the Ancient Near East" also addresses it HERE.

Thanks to Henry B. Smith of A.B.R. for the tip.

This kind of reminds me of that wonderfully imaginative theory Dr. Doron Nof came up with as to how Jesus was able to walk on the Sea of Galilee. He postulated that it was because of rare atmospheric conditions that occur in the area. Essentially, Jesus was able to walk on a thin sheet of ice.

Apparently, the disciples' boat was able to avoid that ice when it set off. Jesus somehow found a "thin" sheet that was able to support His weight and somehow rode that "thin" sheet towards the boat. Presumably, He was able to do some windsurfing using his cloak as a sail. Peter must have momentarily got the gist of it until he lost the plot and fell off. I hear windsurfing is hard to master.

Speaking of thin ice, Nof didn't go into any further details regarding mundane explanations for all the other miracles that Jesus performed. But he might be working on it.

Apologetics from Telos Ministries

Apologetics audio series by Paul Henebury

Click Here

The Will Not To Believe

I first came across Wilbur M. Smith in the Forward he provided for Alva McClain's The Greatness of the Kingdom and the Preface to George N. H. Peters' The Theocratic Kingdom. His comments were thoughtful and so I looked him up. It turns out that he wrote a book (published in 1945) called Therefore Stand - A Plea for a Vigorous Apologetic in the Present Crisis of Evangelical Christianity.

This book may be out of print although second-hand copies are still available. Smith's message to Christians is a valuable one and it is sorely needed, now more than ever. You can read a review HERE.

I found this excerpt from the book very true, even from my own limited experience:

One of the reasons why men do not believe in Christ, and in the Word of God, is that they are determined not to believe. This is the deliberate, determined attitude of their mind. No matter what arguments are presented to them, no matter how accurate they find the work of God to be, how incontrovertible the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is shown to be, they cannot intend to believe. Someone will say, "No one can possibly be as stubborn as that." Yes, it is not only possible, it is continually manifested. Thus for example, the outstanding church historian of the nineteenth century, speaking of the Lord's miracle of the quieting of the waves in a storm on the Sea of Galilee, frankly said regarding a storm being quieted by a word, "We do not believe and we shall never again believe." Harnack does not mean that the evidence is not sufficient for belief, he means that whatever the evidence is, he is not going to believe. Goethe took exactly the same attitude concerning the resurrection, "A voice from heaven would not convince me...that a woman gives birth without knowing man, and that a dead man rises from the grave. I rather regard this as blasphemy against the great God and His revelation in nature." I have a letter from a Professor in a theological seminary in this country regarding the resurrection of Christ (the writer's name cannot be divulged because of a promise made in regard to this correspondence), who frankly told me that he would not judge the miracle of the resurrection by historical evidence, for, from a scientific and psychological point of view, he was prejudiced against it, and no evidence would ever change his mind. William James of Harvard wrote a remarkable book once which he aptly called The Will to Believe: a new book could be written today, even from the same University, with an equally true title, The Will Not to Believe. ~ Therefore Stand (pp 174-175) (bold emphasis my own)