World Religions: Introduction

" Don't all religions lead to the same God?" I have heard this statement, as i am sure you have heard it numerous times. Most of the time you will find out that the people making such a claim have not the foggiest idea about the other religions. This label is all about making sure that you the reader are educated when it comes to interacting with other faiths.

Why study World Religions?

Christians should study world religions, because they desire to be relevant in a pluralistic world. Now there are those people who claim that if you know the truth then you don't need all those religions that are false. I would say, yes and no. Yes, in the sense that by knowing the truth you no what is wrong with the other religions. On the other hand I would say no, because willful ignorance is not a virtue. It is my fear that most some people use this as a excuse to be intellectually lazy.
Christians should study other religions so that they might have the ability to effectively communicate the Gospel. A second reason is that to stay ignorant of the world that you live in is to be irresponsible with what God gave you.
One of the other major benefits of studing the world religions is that in doing so the beauty and the rationality of the Christian Faith. In my personal study on this subject, I have come to admire and even stand in awe of the exclusive nature of Christ. I have come to realize as I hope you do, that all the religions that we talk about under this label, can survive even if their founder had not existed. This is complete contray to christianity, because with out christ there is no Christianity.In our study of th ese differant religions i want to show the truth of this.

More on the Argument from Creation

In the Last post we stated the following syllogism:

1. The Universe has a beginning

2. Anything that had a beginning must have been caused by something else.

3. Therefore, the universe was caused by something else, and this cause was God.

I want to now give you five lines of Scientific Evidence that support the argument stated above. The first line of evidence is found in the Second law of thermodynamics.

This law states among other things that the universe is running out of usable energy. So what on earth does this mean? What it means is that with each passing moment, hour, day month, and year, the usable energy that the universe has is getting smaller and smaller. This fact is leading scientists to believe that a some point in the finite future the universe will run out of energy and die. If one is to really think about it this is common sense given the Argument that is stated above. Replace the universe with a Car, if you were to fill a car up with gass and then leave it running in the drive way, any school boy knows that eventually that car will run out of gas.

The Second Law of thermodynamics is also called the law of Entropy. This is a scientific way to state that nature tends to bring things to disorder. It is important to note that is one of many point that shows that evolution is not scientific at all. Evolution would have you believe that out of disorder there randomly came order. This stands completely in the face of the law of entropy.

So we have seen that in light of the Second law of thermodynamics that the universe did have a beginning and that one day the universe will have an end. The next line of evidence is the idea that the universe is Expanding. We will discuss this in the next post.

The Intial Argument from Creation

The most important belief that one can hold, is what they believe about God. If there is no God then there is no basis for morals and there is no meaning. In this next set of post I want to discuss the Existence of God. There are two questions that need to be asked when thinking on the existence of God. The First question is dose God exist? If so then we have to ask the second question which is what is he like? It is in this second question which we will look at the issue of God and his relationship to the meaning in our lives. In first set of post we are going to answer the first question then we will move to the second.

Let us begin by looking at the question does God exist? Historically there have been four arguments for the existence of God. They are, the Cosmological, teleological, axiological, and ontological. I you are not sure what these terms mean its okay. As I discuss each of them I will define the term. The first Argument for consideration is the Cosmological Argument this is the argument from creation.

Argument from Creation

The organizing principle of this argument is based on the law of causality. This law states that everything that is created has to be caused by something. This argument can be broken down into two parts. The first part is that the universe needs a cause. The second part is that the universe needs something to sustain it. Let’s look at the first part of this argument which says that the universe needs a cause.

The Universe was caused at the beginning.

This part of the argument says that the universe is limited in that it had a beginning, thus there must have been an outside source. The argument can be stated this way,

1. The Universe has a beginning
2. Anything that had a beginning must have been caused by something else.
3. Therefore, the universe was caused by something else, and this cause was God.

In order to avoid this conclusion one of two things must happen. First you will have to argue that the universe had the power to jump start its self. Or that the universe has always existed. Either one of the above objection fall short both philosophically and scientifically. In the next section we will be looking at the philosophical and scientific evidence for the idea that the universe was caused.

Deplomacy or D-Day

In Chapter one Koukl the three major concepts that begin to lay the foundation for all that will be discussed in both the book and The American Institute for Faith and Culture.

The three important in this chapter are as follows. First is that tactics helps us do in our in counter with culture. Second is the role of tactic in the development of our Apologetics, and finally the danger that is involved in this method.

I want to briefly talk about these issues that are raised in this first chapter. As stated above the first issue is how tactic helps us in our interaction with Culture. Often time when I hear christens talking to those of a different persuasion. They tend to be easily guided by the innumerable objections that are being raised against the faith. This is where the Tactic comes in to play. Tactics helps you to stay in control of the conversation, while at the same time allowing meaningful dialogue to take place. Koukl in this chapter gives what I want to call a metaprinciple. This principle will keep you from two terrible pitfalls. The first is digging yourself a whole, and second is not allowing the interlocutor to intimidate you rhetorically. The principle is “never make a frontal assault on a superior force.” It is sad to say that many Christians seem to think that the only way to engage the culture is to do Christian Jihad. I am afraid this is not the way the Master prescribed for us to interact with the disciples. Consider Matthew 10:16, “Look, I’m sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as serpents and as harmless as doves.” In this passage Jesus uses this as a principle, because he wanted his disciple to understand that the message that they bare is going to be irritating enough, and is also going to bring persecution. So there is no need causing more trouble.

One important concept that I have learned while using the tactics that are set out in this wonderful book, is that there are going to be times when your encounter is going to be made up only of asking questions. At first this is a hard concept, but as time goes on you begin to understand that not every encounter that you have is going to “plant a seed” and that is okay.

Logic 1.3

Arguments, Premises, and Conclusion

Arguments, Premises, and conclusion, are the three major building blocks of a major argument. The term inference refers to the process by which one proposition is arrived at and affirmed on the basis of one or more other propositions accepted as the starting point of the process. It is precisely this cluster of propositions that make an argument. So what do we mean by the word Argument. Simply put what we mean is, any group of propositions of which on is claimed to follow from the others, which are regarded as providing support or grounds for the truth of that one. In order for a person to make an argument there as to be a certain structure that is present. This structure consists of two components. First, is premises and the second, is a conclusion.

Lets begin by looking at the conclusion of an argument is the proposition that is affirmed on the sole basis of the other propositions, that are in the argument. These other propositions are the proof of the argument. I want to now begin looking at one of the simplest forms of an argument. This form has one premise and a conclusion. For example;

Every man is fallen, for every man is part of the fall.

In most cases the argument is going to be much more complicated then this. One of the important things to remember is that it takes at two propositions at minimum to make an argument. As an apologist one of the classic mistakes that I hear in peoples argumentation is, the setting forth one proposition and calling it an argument. The classic forms of stating an argument as defined above is what is called a Syllogism.

Syllogism

Now when one is going to use a Syllogism there are two things you need. First, is you need at least two Premise (these are two separate propositions), then you need a conclusion. When one uses a Syllogism he or she is going to engage in what is called inductive logic. What this means is that, it starts with the cause and reasons to the effect. Then on the flipside of this coin there is the inductive argument. This starts with the effect and reasons to the cause. So what is the major difference between these two types of arguments. Well simply put Syllogism (deduction) is more Philosophical in nature. Whereas induction is more scientific. One very important distinction needs to be kept in mind. Deduction’s conclusion is necessary, meaning that the conclusion is inescapable. Where induction’s conclusion stand in the realm of probability.

Logic 1.2

Stances and Propositions

Philosophy can sometimes become laborious because of the many distinctions that are made. In the field of logic one of those hair splitting distinctions is between Sentences and Propositions.

I want to start by looking at what a Proposition is. The definition we will be working with is as follows, A proposition is something that may be asserted or denied. What this definition does is that it sets it apart from questions, commands, and explanations. Non of these can be affirmed of denied. In other words, a question or command can not be said to be true or false. It is only the proposition that asserts that something is or that something is not.

Moreover, it is only propositions that can be given the title truth or falsity. In order for a proposition to be true or false dose not mean that we have to have certainty about it. For example, the proposition that there is life on other planets is a proposition that we can not have certainty about. Yet the fact still remains that there is or there is not, one of theses options state the actual state of affairs. In short and essential feature of a proposition is that they are either true or false. It is at this point that we want to look at the term sentence.

It is customary to distinguish between propositions and the sentences by means of which they are asserted. What I mean is that a sentence asters the same ideas as a proposition with the exception of tenses.

An Improtant Distinction

In the first Chapter of Koukl's book he lays out the first and primary rule of engagement. This rule says, never make a frontal assault on a larger and fortified position. In most apologetic works that I have read teach people how do defensive apologetic. The reason I like koukl is because he understands that it is not enough to always to defensive. It is our job as christians to advance the kingdom of God. In order to accomplish this we need to take the offensive. In Tactics Koukl shows us an effective way to do this.
In this first Chapter he makes a distinction between two very important terms. The first term is Strategy. In the field of Apologetic Strategy has to do with the larger picture. In other words, strategy is the methodology of Apologetics that you hold. Tactics on the other hand deal with the details of each engagement that takes place. It is through the use of the tactics that will be discussed, that we will discover how to maneuver effectively in the midst of disagreement.
It should be made very clear that the tactics that we will look at are not tools for manipulating, or for tricking others into the kingdom. These tactics that will help you engage the Culture that you live in, with greater ease.

Introduction

Every once and a while there come along a book that help to shape the foundation of ones thinking, for me this book was called Tactics by Gregory Koukl. The impact of this book on my thinking has been so great that I have decided to make it a series on this site. As I was reading it I began to try to think about what genre this book fit into. As I thought about it occurred to me that this book is really a Rhetoric book.

In this book there are two major sections of this book. The first section is called the Game Plan. In this section Koukl lays out three major steps in what he calls the Colombo tactic. It is these three steps that I want to focus on first. In Part two which is called Finding the Flaws. Koukl goes through several ways of dealing with the information that you gain through the Colombo tactic. It is when these two parts are combined and used in a conversation that the brilliance of his ideas comes out. It would be my hope that as I discuss this book that it would move you to go and read it your self. If you chose not to buy it I hope that my explanation of this book will revolutionize the way you look at doing apologetics.

As I read and studied this book it dawned on me that this method can be used for any realm of conversation. There are just some conversations that when they are discussed bring more heat then light. Through the Colombo tactic we are given a way to have sensitive conversation in a cool and mild mannered way. I pray that as discuss you will see the major need in our churches for such a method.

Logic 1

Introduction

You have heard it said “think about it logically.” What I have found is that people use the term logical, but few people fully understand what that means. Often times when people say “think about it logically” what they often times mean is to think about subject P the way I think about it. I want to begin a series on logic, in this series will look at how to do formal logic, through the study of syllogisms, fallacies, and dilemmas.

So now the question is why do we need logic? Norman Geisler in his book on logic says, “Without it, there could be no rational discussion of anything; writing would be impossible. How can you put a sentence together without logical order?” Logic in its simplest form is simply putting ones thought in order. One of the biggest reasons why one should study logic is because as Christians we worship a God of order. The very term Theology, is a logos about the theos. In other words, theology is the logic of God. Consider if you will John 1:1, he starts his Gospel out with “In the beginning was the Logos.” The very foundation of logic is based on the simple fact that some things are true and others are false. So why study logic. First is because we worship a God of order. Secondly, the aim of logic according to Irving M. Copi in his Introduction to Logic says,

“The aim of the study of logic is to discover and make available those criteria that can be used to test arguments, and to sort good arguments from bad ones.”

What is Logic?

Now let us tern to the what? As stated before logic in its simplest form is merely the putting of ones ideas in order. We all use logic, for example when you decide to take a shower after you work out instead of before. Yes, you do not put these types of thought in any type of formal structure, but you use logic nonetheless. The type of Logic that we use in our thinking is called Aristotelian logic. This means that our logic is based of the Greek Philosopher Aristotle who gave us what we call the first Principles. Logic in a formal since can be defined this way “Logic is a way to think so that we can come to correct conclusions by understanding implications and the mistakes people often make in thinking”

The Faith of Dawkins

I want to expand a little more on the what I talked about in the last post, and that is the subject of Dawkins faith. One of the major claims against faith is the accusation that faith is a lack of evidence. Dawkins makes it very clear that holding a belief with out evidence (or proof) is irrational. On this point I would agree with him. Yet this accusation does not apply to the Christianity of the Bible. If one would take the time to examine the bible on this issue, one would find that the bible demands evidence. What type of evidence can we offer that would cause them to consider God's exisitance? I am afraid that the new Atheist consider all Christian evidence as unacceptable. One of the major problems of the new Athiest is that it is simply not falsifiable. Christianity on the other hand can be shown to be false. The way to do it is to show that the resurrection never happened. Moreover, since it is the Darwinian generalisation Dawkins relies upon to prove that design ‘cannot underlie the universe.’ Moreover, since it is the Darwinian generalisation Dawkins relies upon to prove that design ‘cannot underlie the universe’ his admission that the Darwinian generalisation is something he believes even though he cannot prove it, shows that Dawkins’ belief that design does not underlie the universe is something he believes even though he cannot prove it. This is as much as to say that metaphysical naturalism is something Dawkins believes even though he cannot prove it.
This is very interesting considering that he as saids that a person can not believe in God because there is no evidence. Yet as stated above, he shows that his own materialism can not be proved, to put it another way, he has no evidence.
So the faith of Dawkins is very clear. My word to Christians is do not let the pseudo- Intellectuals fool you, they are more guilty then we are.

What is Reasonable Faith?

This question is often asked by the atheist, because for them all faith really is what one uses when he or she dose not have evidence. Others have called the faith of a Christian blind faith. Well, as to the charge of blind faith, I would hope that the above exposition of faith would discredit such a charge. Now as to a reasonable faith, I would give a two part answer. I would say first that there are two foundational principles that guide Christian faith. The first principle is the understanding of what truth is. The second is to understand what it is to Know.
I want to discuss in this post the first principle and that is truth. Let us start with a Question, Why do you and I say that Christianity is true? Some in recent years have tried to say the reason is because we wish it to be true. Or that it is a crutch that helps us deal with the harsh realities of the world. I would not contest the fact that Christianity helps us deal with the harshness of the world. It is important to see that Christianity is true because it provides the best explanation for the way the world is, truth as a concept alone can be defined as that which corresponds to reality.
The best way to look at this is through the question of How we know? So the over the next several posts I will be explaining to you the some foundational elements of Epistemology. This is the field of Philosophy that studies how we know things.
Until next time, my the Prince of Peace bless you.

Growing and Knowing Faith

The first kind of faith I want to talk about is growing faith. Paul promtes this type of faith in Colossians 1. Of course it needs to be understood that this type of faith has no implication as far as salvation. It rather is an effect of the conversion experience. This type of faith belongs in the category of living the Christian life. John talks about this in 1 John chapter 2:12-14. If this faith is to even be possible then one mufst also have knowing faith.
For the Christian knowing faith is the most important. For most believers in today’s culture the only thing they need to know is the essentials. Often time in the N.T knowing faith is connoted as “belief”, the reason being seem to be that in order to believe a certain proposition you have to first accept that certain proposition are true. So faith in the word of Winfried Corduan in his book Know Doubt About it says,“ faith refers to the way in which we may come to accept certain intellectual truths without which a trusting faith would be in possible.” So with this definition of faith you can see that the other types of faith that I have talked about are based on this knowing faith. If this is not a reality in your life I must ask the question, how do you expect to fulfill Peters charge in 1 Peter 3:15? It seems rather hard that if you are not engaged with your faith you can not give a reason response to it.
Having looked at the issue of faith at surface level, we now need to enter into a the greater discussion of the relationship between faith and reason. This next discussion is vital to the Christian witness, for there are those who say that we only use faith because we have no evidence. As I hope to show this is terrible thinking. It is vital to understand that you should never believe something with out evidence. So with that said we are ready to discuss this important relationship.

Logical Fallacies or Fallacies in Argumentation

1. Ad hominim - Attacking the individual instead of the argument.
1. Example: You are so stupid you argument couldn't possibly be true.
2. Example: I figured that you couldn't possibly get it right, so I ignored your comment.
2. Appeal to force - The hearer is told that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument.
1. Example: If you don't want to get beat up, you will agree with what I say.
2. Example: Convert or die.
3. Appeal to pity - The hearer is urged to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy, etc.
1. Example: You owe me big time because I really stuck my neck out for you.
2. Example: Oh come on, I've been sick. That's why I missed the deadline.
4. Appeal to the popular - the hearer is urged to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.
1. Example: The majority of people like soda. Therefore, soda is good.
2. Example: Everyone else is doing it. Why shouldn't you?
5. Appeal to tradition - trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time.
1. Example: This is the way we've always done it. Therefore, it is the right way.
2. Example: The Catholic church's tradition demonstrates that this doctrine is true.
6. Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular.
1. Example: God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is inspired. Therefore, we know that God exists.
2. Example: I am a good worker because Frank says so. How can we trust Frank? Simple. I will vouch for him.
7. Cause and Effect - assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events occur together.
1. Example: When the rooster crows, the sun rises. Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to rise.
2. Example: When the fuel light goes on in my car, I soon run out of gas. Therefore, the fuel light causes my car to run out of gas.
8. Circular Argument - see Begging the Question
9. Division - assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts.
1. Example: That car is blue. Therefore, its engine is blue.
2. Example: Your family is weird. That means that you are weird too.
10. Equivocation - The same term is used in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings.
1. Example: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Therefore, a bird is worth more than President Bush.
2. Example: Evolution states that one species can change into another. We see that cars have evolved into different styles. Therefore, since evolution is a fact in cars, it is true in species.
11. False Dilemma - Two choices are given when in actuality there could be more choices possible.
1. Example: You either did knock the glass over or you did not. Which is it?
2. Example: Do you still beat your wife?
12. Genetic Fallacy - The attempt to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim
1. Example: The Nazi regime developed the Volkswagen Beetle. Therefore, you should not by a VW Beetle because of who started it.
2. Example: Frank's just got out of jail last year and since it was his idea to start the hardware store, I can't trust him.
13. Guilt by Association - Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone is disliked by another.
1. Example: Hitler liked dogs. Therefore dogs are bad.
2. Example: Your friend is a thief. Therefore, I cannot trust you.
14. Non Sequitur - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.
1. Example: We know why it rained today, because I washed my car.
2. Example: I don't care what you say. We don't need any more bookshelves. As long as the carpet is clean, we are fine.
15. Poisoning the well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument.
1. Example: Frank is pompous, arrogant, and thinks he knows everything. So, let's hear what Frank has to say about the subject.
2. Example: Don't listen to him because he is a loser.
16. Red Herring - The introduction of a topic not related to the subject at hand.
1. Example: I know your car isn't working right. But, if you had gone to the store one day earlier, you'd not be having problems.
2. Example: I know I forgot to deposit the check into the bank yesterday. But, nothing I do pleases you.
17. Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a different standard to another that is applied to oneself.
1. Example: You can't possibly understand menopause because you are a man.
2. Example: Those rules don't apply to me since since I am older than you.
18. Straw Man Argument - Producing an argument to attack that is a weaker representation of the truth.
1. Example: The government doesn't take care of the poor because it doesn't have a tax specifically to support the poor.
2. Example: We know that evolution is false because we did not evolve from monkeys.
19. Category Mistake - Attributing a property to something that could not possibly have that property.
1. Example: Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday.
2. Example: Saying logic is transcendental is like saying cars would exist if matter didn't.

"A Deeply Religious Non-Believer" Chapter 1

The way these chapter analysis are going to work is that each post will cover a specific section in each chapter. As for the first Chapter we will cover the section called "Deserved Respect." I find it funny that starting on pg 12 Dawkins tries to deny that his materialism is a religion. His whole premise of his book is to show that religion is not to be accepted by rational people. Of course Dawkins thinks that Darwinism has more evidence and thus is more rational then Christianity. We will come back to that idea as we explore Dawkins book. One of the many assumptions that Dawkins makes is that the process of evolution can account for all design on earth, but he seems in interviews and other books to not be able to explain all design in the universe.Phillip E. Johnson make notes in his book Reason in the Balance says this, "A theory of biological origins that is in a general way like Darwinism follows fairly straightforwardly from the proposition that God is an illusion and nature is therefore all that exists..." In other words, Dawkins comes to his conclusions because of a presupposition. The statement that God does not exist, or that God is highly unlikely is simply a statement of Faith. Thus, it seems that Dawkins and the Christian are on the same ground. Please take notice that I did use the word "seems" because i believe that the evidence for God is much greater.
In this section Richard Dawkins make the claim on Page 14 " Human thoughts and emotions emerged from exceedingly complex interconnection of physical entities with in the brain." It is this quote that starts a trend in The God Delusion, the trend is making statements without any warrant. As far as the quote on page 14, that I quoted above, there is a fundamental problem. The problem is that if all thoughts and emotions are simply only products of "complex interconnection of physical entities" then by what criteria can we trust these things? Do not misunderstand what I am saying, it is certainly true these "interconnection" exist. What I am arguing is that the physical is not all there is. (this claim will be shown true as we continue conversation of this book.) The implications of such a thought is absolutely wicked.

Introduction

Introduction

This post is the start of a new project that I think is very important. This project involves doing a critical reading through the books of the four major Atheist. I have chosen to start with Richard Dawkins, because he is the most popular of the bunch. As a young Apologist, it is important that I take time and respond to those who attack the faith that I defend. This project will be a along one but I think a very important one. Because I think it very important, I want to do it well and thoroughly. My objective in this project is to show a few things, One overall bad scholarship, and two the obvious tendency to think badly.

I want to start by giving you a brief introduction to the man Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins was educated at Oxford University and has taught zoology at the universities of California and Oxford. He is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. His books about evolution and science include The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable, and most recently, Unweaving the Rainbow.

What is Faith?

One of the foundations of Apologetics is the definition of faith and reason and then their distinction. In the next three posts I want to look at three types of faith that I see in the Scriptures. The three types of faith are: saving faith, growing faith, and finally knowing faith. Let’s look at saving faith first. In Act 16:31 Paul tells the Philippians jailer "believe in the lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household." Please note, That the NKJV use the word faith, and the NASB uses the word Believe. I will spend time in the post concerning knowing faith on this distinction. However, the principle is the same. The only way a man comes to faith is through Christ and not by his own works or merit. Paul makes this point very clear in Galatians 2:16. The Word Faith or belief in Galatians 2:16 and also in Act 16:31 give the idea of trust or reliance.
So what is saving faith? It is a just or reliance on Christ death on the cross to reconcile you to God. Hebrews 9:22 talks about “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Our Lord in Matthew 26: 28 said "For this my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." In other words, Saving faith as you will see is the foundation for the next two types of faith. There is a logical connection between saving, growing, and knowing faith.

The Existence of God

The most important belief that one can hold, is what they believe about God. If there is no God then there are no morals and there is no meaning. In this next set of post I want to discuss the Existence of God. There are two questions that need to be asked when thinking on the existence of God. The First question is dose God exist? If so then we have to ask the second question which is what is he like? It is in this second question which we will look at the issue of God and his relationship to the meaning in our lives. In first set of post we are going to answer the first question then we will move to the second.

Let us begin by looking at the question does God exist? Historically there have been four arguments for the existence of God. They are, the Cosmological, teleological, axiological, and ontological. I you are not sure what these terms mean its okay. As I discuss each of them I will define the term. The first Argument for consideration will be the Cosmological Argument this is the argument from creation.

God Commands It

This point is more important than all the others. Simply because of the fact that God has said it. There are several scriptures that we could look at but for the scope of this post we will consider only a couple. The first set of verses that I want to look at is 2 Corinthians 10:5. In this passage of Paul's letter to the Corinthians he exhorts them to attack all ideas that are opposed to Christ. This passage makes it clear that those who believe on the Lord, should confront those ideas that keep people from a knowledge of God. The second passage is Titus 1:9. In this passage Paul tells Titus what a leader in the Church looks like. There are three things that a leader in the church should have. First, is he must hold firmly to the faith that he has been taught. The second is, that he needs to be able to teach it. Why dose a leader need to teach it? Paul says in order to encourage the brothers in sound doctrine. It seems to me that if we held to these first two criteria there would be a more unified front. The final characteristic is that he must be able to defend it against those who may be opposed.
It is this final point that really bring the whole issue home. If we hold firm this truth, and if we teach others the same sound doctrine. Then it seems to me that defending what you know to be true is a natural outworking. so could it be that since we are not defending it, we may not actually firmly believe it? To tell you the truth this thought haunts me. It is for this reason why I do what I do.

We have Answers

All the above questions are good questions, and they are worthy of answers. Some may ask why? The answer is simple, as Christians we know the God that made reality, and since this is the case we have been given the answers to the world questions. If God made this reality (and there is good evidence that he did) then the only way to know what is truly real is by knowing God. Later on we will deal with which god made this reality. So what am I implying by this? What I am am saying is that those who do not believe in God, are partakers of a reality that they do not understand. So by implication it is not outlandish to say that they are irrational.

So how this plays into answering the worlds questions? The interaction of what I have just stated is quite obvious. It is the Apologists task to introduce the world to God and thereby showing them true reality.

The World has Question

This post under Answering the Skeptic is a place where you can go to find discussion on the top Apologetic issues.In the this post I want to look at one of the basic reasons why should be engaged in Apologetics. This first reason is that the unbelieving world has good questions. Often times I see believers acting as though the unbelievers questions are below them. It has been my experience that the question that Christians are faced with in this culture are foundational to the faith that we hold. For example, the most prominate question that I face today is the question, " why did God commit moral atrocities in the Old Testament." Now as for the man on the street he is asking why does God allow evil? What is the worth of man?
One of the most disturbing thing that I see Christians doing is making fun of Atheists and down playing their system. As Christians we expect the other side to let us keep our presupposition, because they make sense given the world view that we have. We need to understand that the naturalistic world view when argued intelligently makes sense given the noetic structure that they have developed. The job of the Apologist is to show the naturalist that these presuppositions that they hold can not be lived out consistently.
So, in conclusion what I want to suggest is that when you run into a apologetic situation, make it a priority to first, listen and then ask questions. When you ask question two thing are being accomplished. First, is that you are opening the one being question up in his/her own assumptions.The second task that is being accomplished is finding the entrance point into the conversation. It is these two tasks, that I find to be the better way.

Welcome

Welcome to my personal apologetics site. I am Byron M. Gillory and I am the President and founder of The American Institute for Faith and Culture. The purpose of this site is to talk about everything that involves my field of Apologetics. I have named this site Cross Examined, because I hold the belief that in the market place of idea Christianity is on trail. Like any other trail each side takes turns asking and examining the other side. This site is me examining the other side. It is my hope that this personal site of mine will challenge you at the very core of you thinking