Even evolutionists admit that no one has ever directly (immediately) observed the evolution of any human being from some lower (non- human) form of life. Such an admission involves the further admission that in order for the theory to be scientifically believable someone had (1) to both gather and to interpret the evidence and (2) to formulate a theory that man actually evolved from some lower (non-human) form of life. The same composite of facts is available to anyone who wishes to study the question. But the composite of facts does not constitute the whole story. There is also the very important matter of how to handle—how to interpret—these facts. Just a little later I shall have more to say about this very important point...
Read MoreFROM THE ARCHIVE
Rosenberg makes clear that the God that he has in mind is the traditional God of theism—omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (all-present), and benevolent (all- loving). It is this traditional view of God, the Judeo-Christian concept of God, that he claims is inconsistent with the existence of suffering. Rosenberg says that suffering is unpleasant and nobody wants it; he then gives examples of suffering, such as the Holocaust, starving children, natural disasters, and other terrible diseases. Not only do humans suffer, but there is great animal suffering as well—Rosenberg references examples from the size of mass extinction events down to the stepping on a dog’s tail. The core of Rosenberg’s argument is essentially the classical argument from evil.
Read More“Good” is a value term. Its uses are many and only some of those uses are limited to the moral arena. There are several senses in which words like good, right, wrong, and bad are used that are not morally oriented. For example, a room’s lighting can be bad for reading. Or, one might choose the wrong wrench for a particular job. Goods and bads do not always reflect moral value.
Read MoreThis article represents an attempt to: (1) define presuppositional apologetics; and (2) show why such a method is ultimately defective.
Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984) was one of the better known presuppositionalists. His method of approach consisted of assuming a worldview, drawing the implications inherent within that particular worldview, and then testing those implications for truth.
Read MoreFor the Christian, any discussion of the integrity of the text of the New Testament begins with God’s choice to reveal Himself to humanity as a demonstration of His lovingkindness and grace. The inspired writers of the New Testament believed they were writing the Word of God (1 Corinthians 2:12-13; Galatians 1:11-12; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Peter 1:20-21; 3:15-16; Revelation 1:1). By faith God’s people affirm that God by His own initiative revealed Himself to humanity by means of the God-breathed Word. Yet with these affirmations concerning inspiration and canonization in mind, one must admit that when it comes to the transmission of the Word not as many scholars willingly affirm the integrity of the New Testament text. But why would anyone question the integrity of the text of the New Testament?
Read More