Giving Up on Creation

Several months ago, I wrote an article entitled, “Could God Create (Ex Nihilo) On The First Day?”

It appeared in Warren Christian Apologetics Center’s periodical, Sufficient Evidence (Fall, 2020). I did not know that anyone ever later attempted to respond to my article. But on January 25, 2022, a preacher friend of mine informed me that he had come across an article entitled, “God Was Not ‘Within Time’ When He Began Creation?” by a writer who works with Apologetics Press. The writer’s article was published on October 22, 2021. I am glad to know of the article to which I will now make a response.

Mac Deaver, Vol. 12 No. 1Lyn MillerMarch 18, 2022Vol. 12 No. 1Comment

Could God Create (ex nihilo) On The First Day?

In Genesis 1:1 we find these words, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth.” Now we know that the Hebrew word used for created is bara and can entail ex nihilo creation. According to the Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, it is not always used that way, but the word itself does entail that possible use which, no doubt, it must have in Genesis 1:1. In Genesis 1:27 bara is used for the creation of man whose existence clearly came from already existing dust (Genesis 2:7) and rib (Genesis 2:21-22) and from Holy Spirit (Malachi 2:15; Hebrews 12:9). Now notice that in Genesis 2:3 the same word (bara) is used for something other than, or in addition to, what we face in Genesis 1:1. Consider

Mac Deaver, Vol. 10 No. 2Lyn MillerMarch 18, 2022Vol. 10 No. 2Comment

Apologetics and Preaching

Even a cursory reading of Paul’s epistles to Timothy and Titus makes it clear that their work involved a wide variety of communicative purposes. They were to instruct, teach, rebuke, urge, charge, guard the truth, remind, rightly handle the word, correct opponents, convince, exhort, and so forth. The list is long. It should not be assumed now, any more than then, that all of these activities are restricted to the Sunday sermon. . . .

C. Philip Slate, Sufficient Evidence, Vol. 5 No. 2Lyn MillerJune 4, 2021Vol. 05. No. 2Comment

Review of Plantinga’s Where the Conflict Really Lies (Part Two)

This discussion is the second and concluding article reviewing the book by Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism.1 A brief evaluation of what his book offers to the overall discussion of science and religion will follow. His primary theme, which he mentions several times throughout, is there is superficial conflict, but deep concord, between science and religion, and superficial concord, but deep conflict, between science and naturalism. Consequently, according to Plantinga the real source of the disagreement is between religion and naturalism. To be clear, Plantinga’s point is the atheism of Dawkins, Dennett, and others with their trash talk about theism makes the mistake that must be addressed. It is not that science is opposed to theism, so much as is naturalism. Plantinga argues these “super atheists” have taken science and have tried to argue it supports naturalism, when, in fact, it does not.

PART III

Jim Laws, Sufficient Evidence, Vol. 5 No. 1Lyn MillerMarch 5, 2021Vol. 05 No. 1 Comment

A Review of Plantinga's Where the Conflict Really Lies (Part One)

The assignment for this article is to examine the argument made by Alvin Plantinga regarding where the disagreement really lies in the overall discussion on the question of God and God’s existence with science and naturalism. Plantinga, a theist, wants to clarify where the real controversy is, from the perceived controversy. Reading through his treatment, he discusses the possible conflicts that may or may not exist between science and religion. This review, the first of two installments, considers Plantinga’s position and offers an evaluation.

Certain Preliminary Matters and His Main Theses
Plantinga considers the real source of the problem to be between theism and naturalism.1 However, before serious consideration can be given, one must understand what Plantinga means by theism, science, and naturalism.

Jim Laws, Sufficient Evidence, Vol4No2Lyn MillerFebruary 26, 2021Vol. 04 No. 2Comment

Sufficient Evidence Archive

FROM THE ARCHIVE