J.W. Wartick

J.W. Wartick has an MA in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. His interests include theology, philosophy of religion--particularly the existence of God--astronomy, biology, archaeology, and sci-fi and fantasy novels.
J.W. Wartick has written 668 posts for J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason"

Microview: “The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation” by Alister McGrath

ioer-mcgrathIt’s Reformation Month and I unfortunately haven’t been able to write as much as I’ve been able to in the past years on the Reformation, but I’d like to focus here on one of the several books on the topic I read this month. Check out the links for more of my writing on the Reformation.

Alister McGrath’s The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation is a brief introduction to various strands of thought which led to the Reformation. Although brief (the main text is less than 200 pages), it is utterly filled with insights and information for those interested in the period. McGrath skillfully demonstrates that the Reformation was not an all-at-once, sui generis event. Instead, there were a number of developments throughout the Medieval period that led to the success and generation of the Reformation.

Among the insights provided by McGrath, his analysis of humanism and its relationship with Reformation thought was particularly helpful. He showed that the Reformation did not rely as much upon humanism as is often alleged, while also describing the various ways in which humanist and Reformation thought interacted.

Overall, the book is a much-needed work on the background to the Reformation. Anyone who is interested in studying the development of thought in this period or in Reformation theology should read this excellent book.

Links

I discuss the origins of the European Reformations and how many of its debates carry on into our own day. The debates that took place during the Reformation continue on into today’s theological discussions.

The Church Universal: Reformation Review-  What makes a church part of the Church Universal? What makes a church part of the true church? I write on these topics (and more!) and their origins in the Reformation.

Who Interprets Scripture? Sola Scriptura, the Reformation, and the modern era: Reformation Review- I investigate the notion of “sola scriptura” and its different applications in interpreting Scripture. I particularly emphasize the problem of doctrinal unity and the various ways church bodies have dealt with these difficulties from the Reformation into today.

The Continuing Influence of the Reformation: Our lives, our thoughts, our theology- Reformation review- I examine how the issues which came up during the Reformation continue to influence almost every aspect of our lives today. Theology matters.

Women in the Reformation: Hope, Silence, and Circumstance- I explore the role of women throughout the Reformation period from different angles.

Source

Alister E. McGrath b, The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2003).

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

About these ads

“The Railway Man”: Forgiveness is more powerful than hate

The-Railway-Man-2013-movie-posterForgiveness is Stronger than Hate

“Railway Man” is a film based on a true story about WW2 prisoners of war held and tortured by the Japanese. There are SPOILERS in what follows.

Colin Firth plays Eric Lomaz, one of the prisoners. He struggles with PTSD and his wife tries to help him through it. Ultimately, he finds that Takashi Nagase, one of the Japanese soldiers who tortured him, is still alive. He goes back to confront Nagase with malignant intent, but cannot bring himself to kill him. Instead, he goes back to the United Kingdom after the confrontation. Nagase writes to Lomaz in apology and of how he is working towards reconciliation. In the final scene, Lomaz returns with his wife to speak to Nagase, thank him for his work on reconciliation, and offer forgiveness.

The way this film plays out therefore offers a powerful apologetic for the Christian worldview, which values forgiveness very highly. Nagase turned to Buddhism to try to make penance for his sins and work towards reconciliation, but only in the act of forgiveness is any comfort found. True reconciliation is found in the act of forgiveness and the realization that only by acknowledging the incapacity of humanity to work off their sins might one come to the free gift of grace. Nagase is redeemed, but he is redeemed through the free, unmerited forgiveness offered by Lomaz.

Here we have a powerful message which, though never explicit, speaks of the Christian worldview and power of forgiveness.

Conclusion

I was greatly moved by this film. Christians can reflect much on the power of forgiveness and the need for reconciliation from the film. There are a number of themes running throughout “The Railway Man” which have not been discussed here, so feel free to bring more up in the comments. It is a film with great power, and I recommend you watch it.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Movies- Read other posts on this site about movies written from a worldview perspective. (Scroll down for more.)

SDG.

The image used in this post was a movie poster and used under fair use. I make no claims to the rights for the image.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Exegetical Fallacies- Who determines when it’s a fallacy?

question-week2I recently read through Exegetical Fallacies by D.A. Carson. I think that he did an excellent job introducing a number of common errors regarding exegesis which may be avoided. However, I would have liked there to be more appeals for caution in the application of these fallacies. I worry about the possibility for someone to read through a book like this and then just willy-nilly apply the ‘exegetical fallacy’ hammer to all sorts of solid exegesis.

My concern is based upon two primary issues. First, the concept of “fallacy” within Carson’s usage. Second, the rather obscure nature of some of the specific “fallacies” he outlines.

The first concern is perhaps one that should be heavily qualified on its own. That is, I think that Carson’s choice of the term “fallacy” will imply, for many readers [the book is intended for an introductory level] a hard-and-fast rule for determining when something is blatantly false. Now, of course Carson cannot be faulted for using a technical term and having people misunderstand it. I simply wish that he had done more to clarify his usage of the term, because he clearly means it more broadly than “logical fallacy” but more narrowly than anything which appears to be wrong.

The second concern may help highlight the first. I am a bit worried about the application of these fallacies in practice. One can’t just say “Ha, [x fallacy] was committed, your interpretation fails!” I’m not at all suggesting that this is what Carson did (and I would be mistaken if I were to suggest that), but I am rather expressing a concern that some may attempt to use “exegetical fallacies” in this manner. For example, on page 37, Carson introduced the fallacy he termed “Appeal to unknown or unlikely meanings…” Now this, of course, is not a logical fallacy. And, in practice, it can be useful. But the question is: to what or whom are we referencing when we say “unknown” or “unlikely”? I fear that the application of this terminology could lead to people subjectively calling those things with which they disagree “unknown” or “unlikely” and then dismissing the other side as “fallacious.” Again, I’m not saying Carson does that himself, but I still think one must have a certain sense of caution in the application of this and other “fallacies.”

Another example may be found in the “root fallacy,” wherein one appeals to etymology to determine the meaning of a word. There are certainly fallacious usages of etymology in order to try to sort out the meaning of words, but as Carson himself noted, etymology can be quite useful for determining the meaning, and its usage is sometimes correct. Yet, tied into my first concern, calling this the “root fallacy” seems to denote a definitively fallacious sense to using roots to determine the meaning of words. But although Carson himself urges caution in this, he doesn’t really help to clarify when something would be fallacious as opposed to valid. Of course, that may just be the nature of the beast regarding some of these fallacies: they are highly difficult to pin down. But then I wonder what the usefulness is of making it seem as though there is some “rule” of “fallacy” regarding interpretation in this area.

I’d certainly like to be corrected and perhaps have my cautions dispelled, so feel free to drop a comment on your thoughts regarding this work.

On final analysis, I do think Carson’s book is useful in many ways. I just wish he had given more space to urging some caution and defining terms.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Source

D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996).

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Sunday Quote!- Ancient Apologetics and the Disinterest of the Modern Age

apologetics-romanEvery Sunday, I will share a quote from something I’ve been reading. The hope is for you, dear reader, to share your thoughts on the quote and related issues and perhaps pick up some reading material along the way!

Ancient Apologetics and the Disinterest of the Modern Age

After getting a recommendation from… I don’t remember whom/which book, I picked up Apologetics in the Roman Empire to explore some of the early controversies with apologetics from the perspectives of Pagans, Jews, and Christians. The book is a collection of essays centered around these apologetic controversies. I was struck however, by the editors’ note on the disinterest of the modern age in these works as actual apologetics. After tracing the use of ancient apologetics from the earliest period through the Reformation and into our times, the editors note that these ancient works have fallen out of most people’s interest:

[T]he style of the ancient apologists has estranged them further from practical apologetic than their contents did in any previous century… The only modern scholars, therefore, to whom the [ancient] apologists [like Justin Martyr, Josephus, Tatian, and the like] mean anything are those who take a sympathetic interest in the culture and the interplay of religious traditions in the Roman Empire… (13, cited below)

Thus, according to the editors of this volume, the “only” reason that anyone would be interested in these works in the modern era is because they wish to explore the cultural understanding of the religious traditions in Ancient Rome.

That makes me quite sad, to be honest! As one who is deeply interested in the study of historical apologetics, it seems clear that much of what is discussed in this volume is actually of interest to modern apologists, those interested in church history, and many others. Of course the editors are perhaps merely speaking only of the interest which they have found for their subject, which speaks of the sorry state of how we modern apologists have abandoned our historic roots. Perhaps these words can serve as a rallying cry to raise us from our stupor of historical ignorance and realize the vast, untapped wealth of historical apologetics.

I have written to that end in a post in which I discuss the lost defenses of Christianity. Explore, take, and read!

The book itself has much appeal for those interested in historical apologetics. I’m about halfway through right now and have found it to be quite excellent.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Sunday Quote- If you want to read more Sunday Quotes and join the discussion, check them out! (Scroll down for more)

On the Shoulders of Giants: Rediscovering the lost defenses of Christianity- I have written on how we may discover these enormous resources historical apologists have left behind for us. Take and read!

Source

Mark Edwards, Martin Goodman, and Simon Price, eds., Apologetics in the Roman Empire (New York: Oxford, 1999).

SDG.

Really Recommended Posts 10/24/14- Reconciling in Christ, Walking Dead, and more!

postHello friends! I have another set of links for you to peruse. As always, let me know what you think of the links and if you enjoyed them, leave a comment on those blogs! Thanks for stopping in and reading!

Ambassadors for Reconciliation- There has been much ire flying around over the director of the theistic evolutionist group Biologos’ invitation to creationists like Ken Ham to have dinner and talk over the issues. Here, Hugh Ross reflects upon the extreme reactions of some and the ways we can work towards reconciliation. One quote in particular is helpful:

Enough is enough. There are mission fields still to be reached. How can we ask nonbelievers to dialogue with us if we cannot graciously dialogue with one another, if we treat one another as enemies? Unless we make some progress in reconciling our differences, how can we expect to help reconcile a skeptical world to Christ? We are commissioned by God to be His ambassadors. It’s time for us to start behaving as ambassadors.

I think this is spot on. I have personally been accused by a number of those who disagree with me of being a vile compromiser, someone who is actively leading people away from Christ, etc. If this is how we treat fellow believers, why should those who do not yet believe think that we will be capable of honest dialogue with them? Let’s stop the insults and start genuine dialogue. Let us show one another charity.

When Humans Lose their Humanity: “No Sanctuary” and the real Horror of Terminus- What happens when humans are dehumanized? Here’s an interesting look at ‘The Walking Dead’ which explores this question in deeply insightful ways.

Do we really need to teach our kids apologetics when God is in control anyway?- Here’s an excellent post on the need to educate our children in the Christian faith. Unfortunately, some think that we shouldn’t bother because God is in control. How might we answer this?

Is the Shroud Evidence for God’s Existence?- I have a number of friends in apologetics who are convinced that the Shroud of Turin is genuinely the image of Christ. I am personally unconvinced, but I found this article on it interesting for analyzing what we should make of the Shroud, were it to prove genuine.

Intersections: Summit on Origins- I’m going to be at this conference hosted by Bethel University. It’s on the origins debate, a topic of great interest to me. If you’re able to make it, I’d love to see you there! Let me know!

Microview: “Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament” by John Walton

ane-waltonJohn Walton’s Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament is an introductory look comparing the thought and worldview of ancient near eastern societies (Egyptians, Mesopotamian, etc.) to the worldview of the Bible. Walton does an incredible job relating the two together in such a way as to neither trivialize nor lionize ANE thought and its use in interpreting the Bible.

The book is chock full of quotations from various documents from the ANE set alongside each other with comparative insight from Walton. It is organized in such a way that ANE thought is analyzed in regards to religion, cosmos, and people, with subdivisions of each. Throughout the text there are sidebars comparing what is being studied to the Old Testament, thus revealing many insights into the meaning of key OT texts. Walton’s approach is even-handed and fair.

I’d honestly say this might be the most interesting scholarly book I’ve read. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Source

John Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006).

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Do Young Earth Creationists Advocate Appearance of Age?

3vce-mr

Young Earth Creationists (hereafter YEC or YECs) sometimes make the claim that the reason the universe is found to be so ancient by modern science is because it merely appears to be that old. I myself actually held to this view for a while when I was holding young earth creationism in tension with the evidence I observed.

I have been challenged in the past (for example, in the comments here) to provide evidence to show that this a claim made by anyone other than the “YEC in the street,” so to speak. That is, some YECs have told me that no serious YECs (that is, those who are publishing or working with the larger creationist think-tanks) make this argument.

Published Claim

In the past I appealed to various online sources to show that, for example, the Institute for Creation Research makes this claim. I recently finished reading Three Views on Creation and Evolution and found that the YECs in this book–Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds–do indeed defend the position of the “appearance of age.” Here’s a quote:

Some suggest God could have created starlight in transit to the earth. Perhaps most of cosmic history is apparent rather than actual. (52, cited below)

Initially this may not seem like a claim of “appearance of age,” but the authors go on to defend the plausibility of this “apparent” cosmic history and age of the universe:

…[Perhaps] God needed such a[n ancient appearing] creation to sustain life on earth. It might be necessary to have the universe the size and shape that it is in order for life on this planet to survive… God would have no real motive to ‘actualize’ most of cosmic history… ‘Apparent’ history in the mind of God could not be any different than ‘actual’ history… He would gain a fully functioning universe, but without the ‘waste of time’ needed to actualize the less interesting parts. (52-53)

From these quotes, it is obvious that Nelson and Reynolds are defending the notion of apparent age.

Problems for Young Earth Creationists

The notion of apparent age raises a number of issues for YECs. First is the common charge that this turns God into a deceiver. Nelson and Reynolds anticipated this objection and answered by using an analogy of someone’s mother refinishing an antique chair which would make it appear new. The only deception in this case, the authors argue, would occur if the mother failed to correct someone if they commented on the brand new chair. Similarly, God has provided a “label” to show the universe is not ancient: the Bible.

There are a number of problem with explanations like this one: first, in the case of the chair, further investigation would demonstrate it is not brand new. After all, antique dealers know the value of chairs which have not been tampered with by refinishing! We are able to discover whether additional layers of paint or finishing have been applied over the surface of a chair; similarly, we are able to discover whether things which initially appear young may indeed be quite old. The analogy itself breaks down. Second, the argument begs the question. After all, apart from YECs, those Christians who are asserting the universe is really billions of years old also claim that the Bible does not limit the age to only a few thousand years. This is the reason the challenge of “apparent age” comes up to begin with! So to turn around and say, no, it’s not deception because the Bible says it is young is to merely assert that which is being challenged.

Briefly, one might also wonder why Nelson and Reynolds think God “wasted time” in taking 7 days creating. Their dismissal of, say, star formation as something “less interesting” is frankly astonishing. Would that I could go back in time to see these “less interesting” events!

Another difficulty for the YEC comes in the form of a dilemma: Do you advocate a scientific understanding of young earth (and thus read science into the text) or argue for appearance of age (and thus grant that the Earth appears ancient)?

Think about that line for a moment. If YECs wish to affirm their position, they must either come up with a rival scientific understanding of the age of the universe and therefore read that scientific understanding back into the text (after all, where does Flood geology come from?–certainly not the text of the Bible!) or they must acknowledge the evidence that the universe is indeed quite ancient and merely assert that the evidence is trumped by their understanding of the Bible. The “appearance of age” argument grants that the universe indeed does provide evidence for being quite ancient.

Conclusion

Appearance of age is indeed part of the YEC quiver of arguments, as I have demonstrated. The question is, can this actually save YECs from an inconsistent view? I have argued that it does not. But even if YECs drop the “appearance of age” argument, they must still do that which they often attack others for doing: reading science back into the text of Genesis 1. If you’re a YEC, I hope you will think seriously before using the argument from “appearance of age.” But I also hope you’ll think seriously about whatever your alternative theory for the history of the universe might be. How much of it is actually derived from the pages of Scripture? How does your theory fit the Genesis account? Remember, there are other possibilities out there.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Origins Debate- Check out all my posts on the discussion within Christianity over the duration and means of creation.

Source

Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds, “Young Earth Creationism” in Three Views on Creation and Evolution edited by J.P. Moreland & John Mark Reynolds (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999).

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Sunday Quote!- Forgiveness in Islam and Christianity

wecq-whiteEvery Sunday, I will share a quote from something I’ve been reading. The hope is for you, dear reader, to share your thoughts on the quote and related issues and perhaps pick up some reading material along the way!

Forgiveness in Islam and Christianity

James White’s book, What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an is a work of scholarship and insight which provides much to think about in regards to Christianity and Islam. One passage I found particularly interesting was the contrast between the Christian view of forgiveness and that of Islam. White relates a story from the hadith (Sahih Al-Bukhari, 4:676) in which a man who has murdered many seeks forgiveness. Ultimately, Allah changes the very geography of the earth in order to forgive the man. But what this story (and some other instances White relates) teaches about forgiveness is what makes it interesting:

Here Allah not only forgives the man of horrendous sin but also does so without the slightest reference to the fulfillment of the divine law against murder. The key issue is not God’s mercy or even God’s desire to forgive. The issue is how forgiveness can be obtained without violating His holiness and justice. From the perspective of this hadith, forgiveness flows not from God’s actions in providing a basis for salvation, but from His power alone. (158, cited below)

The distinction White discusses here is crucial. The basis for forgiveness in Christianity flows along with God’s holiness and justice: God provides for justice through the atonement provided by Christ. In Islam, however, Allah may choose to forgive whomever, whenever, merely because Allah is all-powerful–and this in the radical sense that Allah may do whatever Allah wishes, even violate divine law against murder and the like without any intercession and mediation.

It seems to me that this provides another reason to think of the reasonableness of Christianity: it provides a basis for God’s forgiveness apart from mere divine fiat.

What do you think? How important is this distinction? Does James White accurately portray this difference?

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Sunday Quote- If you want to read more Sunday Quotes and join the discussion, check them out! (Scroll down for more)

Source

James White, What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2013).

SDG.

Question of the Week: Favorite Non-Bible Book on Jesus

question-week2Each Week on Saturday, I’ll be asking a “Question of the Week.” I’d love your input and discussion! Ask a good question in the comments and it may show up as the next week’s question! I may answer the questions in the comments myself.

Jesus the Christ

I try to make sure I’m reading one book on Jesus in my rotation of books all the time. That said, I’m starting to run low on books on Jesus. Thus, why not ask you, dear readers, for some more reading materials?

What’s your favorite non-biblical book on Jesus?

Is it an apologetics book? A work on Christology? What topic is your favorite? Let me know in the comments.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more.

Question of the Week- Check out other questions and give me some answers!

SDG.

Really Recommended Posts 10/17/14- the Flood, Acts, and Compromise?

postThere is much to read on the internet (understatement of the century). Here, I’ve tracked down a number of posts that are now linked for your reading pleasure. There’s an amazing post on the historical reliability of the book of Acts, a few posts on creationism and the Flood, and a post on the way we should be doing apologetics.

The Reliability of the Book of Acts- A massive set of 84 points of evidence for the historical accuracy of the biblical book of Acts. I highly recommend you read through this and bookmark it.

The Genesis Flood- Was the biblical flood global? What does the text mean? Here is a biblical and scientific perspective on Noah’s Flood.

A Response to “Refuting Compromise”- A number of creationists continue to put Jonathan Safarti’s book Refuting Compromise forward as a must-read for those who would disagree with a young earth paradigm. Unfortunately, the book is largely a series of ad hominem attacks on Hugh Ross and anyone who would not step firmly into line of the young earth view. Here, Hugh Ross responds to the book.

Apologetics as Loving One’s Neighbor- How might we best do apologetics? Here, Pastor Matt argues that apologetics is a way of loving neighbor. We should operate in such a way that our apologetic reflects the gentleness and respect for others that we are to show.

No Room for a Dry Dead Sea in the Young Earth Timeline- The evidence for the Dead Sea having dried up in the past is discussed in this post alongside the question of whether a young earth creationist perspective can account for it.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,471 other followers

Archives

Like me on Facebook: Always Have a Reason
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,471 other followers