Here’s something I taught the youth in my church recently as we were dealing with various issues related to Christianity. I hope this is helpful to folks who have struggled with this question!
Christians who appeal to the Old Testament in conversations about homosexuality are often (crudely) accused of hypocrisy because the regulations regarding sexuality are part of the Old Testament Law. The “Shellfish Objection” popularly comes up like this:
The Shellfish Objection is often articulated in a version of the following:
The Argument: Since the Bible condemns eating shellfish but Christians don’t obey the laws against eating shellfish, then they’re hypocritical when they quote other laws as binding. In other words, Christians hypocritically pick and choose which rules they follow. Continue reading
Well, it’s been two months of nothing.
I obviously haven’t been blogging, but I also haven’t really been on any other social media at all. I literally have 15-30 minutes of time per day for all web related things, so this post has been in the work for weeks. Still, here’s some thoughts on a topic I’ve left for far too long: apologetics!
If you’ve been around Reformed theological circles for any length of time, I’m guessing you’ve come across that phrase presuppositional apologetics. In this post, it’s not my goal to unpack what presuppositional apologetics is. If you’ve never heard of presuppositional apologetics, a great place to start would be this article. That would direct you to some good print resources and the website would have some decent resources (as would this one…if you’re brave). There’s no shortage of web resources, but they’re not all of equal quality. That’s actually what brings me to this topic.
Not only are all presuppositional apologetics sources of varied quality, but all apologists are of varied skill sets. Apologists tend to gravitate towards studying philosophy or theology but precious few of them tend to study biblical exegesis (at least beyond a surface level – an example of the type of problems arising from the typical apologists’ focus away from exegesis is here). That’s not saying that apologists are biblically ignorant or grossly incompetent with the text of Scripture, but they tend to be enthusiasts rather an experts when it comes to exegesis. What’s worse is that most enthusiasts who think they’re experts fall into enthusiast-level errors; common confusions if you will.
I’d like to offer some exegetical assistance today on a specific text that is probably the most widely known “common confusion” in presuppositional apologetics: Proverbs 26:4-5. Continue reading
In my previous post
, I presented the facts about the resurrection claim of Robby Dawkins. I also presented the counter-claim of Matt Colley’s sister, Rebecca. Now given both sets of competing details, let’s lay out the facts as they lie and attempt to arrive at a conclusion.
So let’s consider the essential facts as recognized by all parties:
In the previous post, I commented on the three types of skeptics and mentioned that the church is in a bad scenario in the current era. The bad scenario comes with the combination of Jesus’ warning against spiritual frauds and the modern distaste for any biblically cautious and critical evaluation. I closed off the article with the statement that “critical evaluation is not just unpopular; it is actively suppressed altogether” and mentioned that I would take a look at a fairly recent example: Robby “Resurrection” Dawkins.
Now, it’s time to explore that example.
Robby Dawkins is a highly sought-after speaker in the Vineyard church who hails from Illinois that has come to recent fame (and fortune) due to his claims of performing a resurrection. Dawkins’ claims are reported by the none other than the wonderfully imaginative Jennifer LeClaire. Leclaire has reported his claims in an article and also a full interview at Charisma magazine. Leclaire is also a busy woman. Not only does she write for Charisma Magazine, but she also runs a “ministry” that has an ironic homepage:
This is her home page, as of June 18th, 2015. She even quotes Matthew 24:24.
Seeing that LeClaire is in the middle of this all, and her website encourages me to exercise discernment, I’m going to take my cue from her. I’m going to apply a little discernment to Robby Dawkins’ resurrection claim that LeClaire is using her global media outlet to promote. In this post, I’ll present the facts as best I can. In the next post, I’ll offer a little biblically cautious and critical discernment.
Don’t blame me.
I’m just taking my cue from Jennifer LeClaire. Continue reading
Ever since the beginning, Christianity has been a religion of the supernatural.
Christianity started with some rather amazing claims regarding healings and resurrections, and those claims continued throughout the New Testament era (and writings). All Christians are open to believe claims made in contemporary times regarding miraculous events, since Christians are, by definition, supernaturalists. The real debate revolves around the legitimacy of modern claims, and what sort of evidence is required to authenticate modern claims of supernatural events (like a miraculous healing).
There are those who claim to be skeptical believers but blindly swallow anything as evidence; all claims made by anyone are equally reputable and true until proven otherwise.
There are those who are skeptical believers and look for some reason to believe the claims; not all evidence is equally compelling, and the Bible should provide a framework for evaluating claims of supernatural events.
Then, there are those who are skeptical unbelievers and unwilling to listen to any evidence whatsoever; there is no such thing as evidence for any supernatural claims.