The Effects of Modernism on Christianity

What is Modernism?

Modernism is the philosophy that elevates humans to the apex of authority. Postmodernism, its successor, suggests that objective truth cannot be determined. Modernism (also referred to as the Enlightenment) believed it could rescue civilization from dark superstition and Christianity by stripping away all sources of authority except that of humans.

Modernists hold that reality is limited to the physical world, eliminating all possibility of God intervening in history. There are no miracles, no opening of the Red Sea, healing of the lame, or the resurrection from the dead. As scientist Carl Sagan memorably declared, “The cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be” (4). Modernists suggest that humans were nothing more than especially well evolved animals whose value differs little from that of the other animals sharing the planet. Modernists believe that humans are inherently good, and that human progress is inevitable. Such progress seemed feasible for much of the nineteenth century, when medicines began to control diseases and technology eased lifestyles. The phrase “science says” came to carry the authority once reserved for the words “the Bible says.” Many spoke of humanity becoming more noble and rational, and many attempted to develop utopian communities on Earth.

Stan Mitchell, Vol. 5 No. 1Warren ApologeticsMarch 28, 2022Vol. 05 No. 1Comment

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. 1Warren ApologeticsMarch 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. 2Warren ApologeticsMarch 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. 2Warren ApologeticsJune 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

Sufficient Evidence Archive

FROM THE ARCHIVE