Archive

Posts Tagged ‘apologetic’

An apologetical argument against abortion

Argument for the Silent: A Biblical Case against Abortion

by Robert M. Bowman, Jr

 

Nowhere in the Bible is abortion mentioned specifically. That silence may seem to leave room for Christians to hold different opinions as to the morality of abortion while remaining faithful to the teachings of Scripture. Yet within Christianity an interesting alignment has developed on this issue. Nearly all churches and groups that view the Bible as the unerring Word of God also view abortion in all or nearly all instances as immoral. By contrast, nearly all churches and groups that view the Bible as a fallible human witness to God view abortion as a matter of personal choice rather than of objective morality.1 It seems reasonable to conclude that biblical values (at least some of which are shared by some non-Christians) inform the position that abortion is immoral, while the opposing view is in some respects out of keeping with biblical ethics. This article supports this conclusion by setting forth a biblical case against abortion.2

First, a brief comment about terminology is in order. Those who say that abortion is immoral label their position pro-life, indicating that for them the issue is not women’s rights but the life of the unborn. Those who argue that abortion is not generally immoral label their view pro-choice, emphasizing their belief that the issue is the right of women to choose whether to continue their pregnancy or end it by abortion. These terms will be used, since they are the labels each side prefers to use for themselves.

 

Read the rest here.

Advertisements

I did not write to make a defense, but only that you hear our cause

March 20, 2013 1 comment

calvin.jpg_7MA21605611-0015Sire, That you may not lend too credulous an ear to the accusations of our enemies, their virulent injustice has been set before you at sufficient length; I fear even more than sufficient, since this preface has grown almost to the bulk of a full apology. My object, however, was not to frame a defense, but only with a view to the hearing of our cause, to mollify your mind, now indeed turned away and estranged from us — I add, even inflamed against us — but whose good will, we are confident, we should regain, would you but once, with calmness and composure, read this our Confession, which we desire your Majesty to accept instead of a defense. But if the whispers of the malevolent so possess your ear, that the accused are to have no opportunity of pleading their cause; if those vindictive furies, with your connivance, are always to rage with bonds, scourgings, tortures, maimings, and burnings, we, indeed, like sheep doomed to slaughter, shall be reduced to every extremity; yet so that in our patience, we will possess our souls, and wait for the strong hand of the Lord, which, doubtless, will appear in its own time, and show itself armed, both to rescue the poor from affliction, and also take vengeance on the despisers, who are now exulting so securely.

John Calvin-Prefatory Address to Francis King of the French-Institutes of the Christian Religion

Do Atheist have Common Sense?

March 29, 2012 7 comments

I ran across a blog over the weekend called ‘Common Sense Atheism’ that gives atheist pointers on how to debate William Lane Craig. In this post the writer argues that the reason that William Lane Craig wins his debates, isn’t because his arguments are sound, but because William Lane Craig is a skilled debater. Yet after that statement he goes into listing Craig’s credentials and tells his readers, Oh yea, by the way, Craig is also a “Ph.D. philosopher and encyclopedic historian: an expert on the two subjects he debates, the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus.”

All I really wanted to point out was the inconsistent statement of the one who wrote this post. He first states that Craig’s arguments are not sound and he wins because he is a skilled debater, but then states that Craig is an expert on the two subjects he debates. Well it seems to me if one is an expert on the subject they are speaking on, then certainly their arguments would have to be sound or they wouldn’t be an expert on the subject of which they are debating.

Anyway to the credit of the one who wrote the post, he does go on to state that there is no one in the atheistic world that is able to debate Craig and win. This writer even names, names of those who are not capable.

 

How to Debate William Lane Craig by Luke Muehlhauser

Andrew at Evaluating Christianity has put up some excellent posts of advice on how to debate William Lane Craig (one, two, three, four, five). The reason Craig wins all his debates with atheists is not because his arguments are sound, but because he is a masterful debater. Craig has been honing his debate skills literally since high school. Not only that, but he is a Ph.D. philosopher and encyclopedic historian: an expert on the two subjects he debates, the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus.

Let me repeat. Craig has done 20+ years of Ph.D+ level research in the two fields he debates, has published hundreds of academic books and papers on both subjects, and has been debating since high school.

Read more here.

We are to Protect wherever the Truth is being Attacked

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.

Martin Luther (1483-1546)

Can a Person be Saved Without Hearing the Gospel

September 8, 2010 Leave a comment

Though all men have the light of nature or general revelation and therefore know that God exist, yet they supress this truth; therefore by the light of nature alone they cannot be saved.

It takes special revelation [the written word] to bring men the knowledge of salvation and in this written word God declares his method of salvation. This method of salvation is not dependent upon man, but is dependent upon what Christ Jesus done for his elect. Therefore one must not only hear the message of the gospel, but also must have faith in Christ in order to be saved. The Bible declares that: There is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved. God sent his Son into a guilty world and the only way to be saved from the judgment of God is through God’s Son.

The gospel or good news that one must hear is not that you must have Jesus in your heart. This is not the gospel. The gospel is centered in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. It is the good news that Christ took our punishment for us and finished the work of that redemption by rising from the dead. He became our surety for sin. The gospel is centered in Christ and therefore one must have him in order to be saved.