Ehrman's error

Bart Ehrman is a New Testament textual critic who used to be a professing Christian but is now an agnostic and writes books that seek to cast doubt on the reliability of Scripture, but his arguments are self-contradictory.

The law of excluded middle

I have noticed over the last wee while that atheists, agnostics and other kinds of unbelievers very often flaunt ignorance as a virtue and they vilify claims of knowledge as arrogance. When evidence of the existence of God is presented they retreat to "I don't know, and it's arrogant for anyone to think they do. We don't know what discoveries might be made that will overturn everything you claim to know." Now the first thing I want to say on this is it is completely disingenuous. They only function that way when the evidence points toward the God of scripture. When anything comes to light that they think supports evolution, undermines scripture or attacks Christianity they jump on it with gusto. Furthermore, when it comes to other theories and conclusions about science and history they are prepared to believe what is well supported evidentially and act accordingly; they don't withhold judgment saying that something could come along and overturn all this - "I don't buy in to this theory, there could be some other explanation..." It shows they aren't guided by reason and evidence at all, despite all their big claims. But, what I want to show here is that when it comes to some of the arguments for Christianity they cannot retreat to some unknown option - there is none. This is where the law of excluded middle comes in.

No substitute for penal substitution

The doctrine of penal substitution states that the Lord Jesus Christ bore the judgment of God in the place of sinners so that they can go free. It means that the Christian Gospel is the only message in the world that maintains that God is a righteous God and a Saviour (see for example Isaiah 45 v 21).

Atheism's blindspot

I have just listened to a pretty poor debate between Peter Hitchens and atheist Alex Gabriel (you can find it here if you're interested).

More on the fire fighters!

I am going to address another issue relating to the subject of annihilation.

Clutching at straws

I just want to address an argument I have recently heard (here - 3rd March) advanced in support of annihilationism (i.e. the view that the unbeliever will not consciously suffer eternally for their sins.)

What's the use?

The "Unbelievable?" radio show on 18th February was on the subject, "Is apologetics a waste of time?"

The argument from outer space!

I was listening to atheist Dr Stephen Law in discussion with a Christian by the name of James Orr a few weeks ago (here). They were talking about why people believe strange things. The conversation then focused on the resurrection of Christ, and this is where Dr Law, in my humble opinion, needed to stop throwing stones or else get out of the glass house he was in, because hearing his reasons for denying God's existence and Christianity leaves him no room or right to talk about other people holding beliefs for inadequate reasons!

It's all Greek to me!

I have just listened to Bart Ehrman in a discussion with Darryl Bock on the Unbelievable? radio show.  Ehrman was arguing that Peter didn't write the letters ascribed to him because he wouldn't have known Greek and even if he did, he couldn't have written a literary document in that language.

Bell's hell

I listened with real dismay to Rob Bell speaking on the Unbelievable? radio show.

Dan Barking up the wrong tree!

I was just listening to atheist, Dan Barker, on the Unbelievable? Radio Show.  He was debating the apologetics of CS Lewis.  It was frustrating, but not surprising, to hear Barker blunder with such bluster.  I offer just a few examples:

Irrelevant relevance

I admit to finding his arrogance irritating, but I was trying to persevere in order to listen to his points - he was a liberal theologian and he was debating a Christian by the name of Adrian Warnock (who did a very good job), on Premier Christian Radio's show, Unbelievable?  The subject being discussed was the resurrection of Christ, with the liberal taking the view that it was spiritual, not physical.  He claimed Luke's account of the Lord saying, "Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have" (Luke 24 v 39), was Luke merely pointing out that the physical body isn't evil (as if that couldn't just be stated instead of making up a story that he claims is real history!)
I will maybe go through some of the other issues and objections he brought up some other time, but the point I want to address here is this - he claimed that if we want to be relevant to society we have to stop insisting on physical resurrection and miracles etc.  The problem is, denying these things may mean that society allows you to speak, but unfortunately you've got nothing to say!  They may think you're relevant because you believe like they do, but you are actually irrelevant because...you believe like they do!  If Christ isn't risen we really have no message for this world.  However, I did think it was a bit strange that he said that the preaching of the physical resurrection of Christ made you irrelevant - it seems to me that in a world filled with burdened souls, broken hearts, suffering, death, and hopelessness, the physical resurrection of Christ is the most relevant message we could possibly present.