Equipping University

Non-theists have argued for years for several propositions that Christians have historically denied and have denied propositions that Christians affirm. Now, some Christians are joining them. Some argue that there is a second-chance after death for those who have never heard the gospel. Some argue that salvation can be attained through non-Christian religions like Islam or Buddhism. Beliefs about these subjects fall into three categories: pluralism, inclusivism, and exclusivism. While Christianity has historically been exlcusive, there is a noticeable increase in both pluralism and inclusivism. The Christian cannot agree with the first two categories. Christians should be unashamed to state unequivocally that there is but one God. Furthermore, there is only way to approach God and that is through the person and work of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. As you can imagine, these are "fighting words." Are believers justified in saying these words? Do Christians have ample reason to make such exclusive and restrictive s

There is a wide range of answers to the question "Does God exist?" The spectrum of belief can rest anywhere between "There is no God" to "There probably is no God" to "God probably exists" to "The God of the Bible exists." Tim Keller wisely insists that we look at all the evidence given not as "proofs" but as "clues." A proof is able to stand alone with no room for disagreement. A true proof for the existence of God would end all debate. There is no such proof for the existence of God. The Christian should also realize that God has not revealed Himself in this way. As Dawkins points out, God could end all discussion about his existence very quickly, very visibly, and very loudly. Instead, God has called on people to live by faith. However, this does not mean that God is entirely silent or hidden. There are a multitude of clues all around us that point towards God. The power of the clue is in their cumulative effect. Once this new viewpoint was adopted, the clues for God's existence are seen to provide a very

Our presuppositions determine how we view our world and how we live in that world. We interpret everything according to our worldview or presuppositions. It is wrong to think that facts are neutral (or "brute facts") because facts do not "speak for themselves." People do not evaluate facts apart from their biases or assumptions made beforehand (pre-assumptions, or presuppositions). Presuppositions are not assumptions that we make but a personal commitment to the most basic level of understanding. They have the greatest authority in your life and are therefore the least negotiable (if only non-negotiable) belief that you have. The goal in apologetics is to approach a person on the level of his presuppositions. Therefore, the best way to deal with an atheist or any other non-believer is to discover the antithesis and then push the antithesis between the competing presuppositions or worldviews. To "push the antithesis" is to force the unbeliever to live consistently with his rationalistic and materialistic presu

The Bible declares that the man who hears Christ's words and rejects them for the superior value of his own - or other men's words - is a fool. A fool does not make God and His revelation the starting point of his thinking and will not submit to the Word of God or base his life upon its teachings and principles. The fool must be answered by revealing his foolishness. In an interaction with an atheist or agnostic, there is a method of apologetics that enables the believer to do such a task while also fully obeying the mandate given to all Christians in Peter's first letter. While atheists and even many Christians teach that we must put the Bible on the shelf when debating the atheist, it is foolishness to relinquish the most powerful weapon that we have in an attempt to pander to the unbeliever under the false assumption that he is entering the fray on neutral ground that we sully with our theistic biases. Instead, it must be acknowledged that there is no such thing as neutrality in the thinking of a believer

If you begin your theodicy with the assumption about the centrality of man, you will never answer the problem of evil in a way that lines up with teachings and themes of Scripture. Scripture is not based upon nor does it proceed on this assumption. The Bible is not ultimately about man; it is obsessively concerned with God. Indeed, it is not overstatement to say that the "entire universe exists to display the greatness of the glory of the grace of God." Indeed, it is quite a simple task to see that God often and usually is said to act for the glory of His own name and according to his own pleasure. God's first love is for his glory, honor, reputation, and name. The Bible teaches us that God ordains and allows evil to exist because the temporary presence of evil in this universe will result in the greatest glory to His name. God planned a universe in which evil exists and that is a good thing because all evil will be used by God to bring greater glory to Himself. God allows and ordains evil for the greater

D.A. Carson says that the distance between the biblical writers understanding of the problem of evil and our modern understanding is a good indication that "we have given ourselves to thinking great thoughts about human beings and small thoughts about God." Carson's response is correct and it is important. Our response to the problem of evil as we see it today is a good test of our knowledge and understanding of God and His ways. Are our understanding, faith, and trust sufficient to withstand adversity? For many people, including Christians who should know better, the desire to make perfect sense of the entire issue of the coexistence of evil and an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God has led to entirely deficient solutions. In their attempt to cut the Gordian knot, four common but inadequate solutions have been and continue to be offered. Additional theories to the problem of evil are better than the four above but still are lacking in some vital area. Finally, there are two other defenses (free will, greater go

Whatever the reason, all Christians must come face to face with the difficult question: "Where was/is God in all evil?" The act of providing an answer to that question is called a theodicy. This strange word comes from the Greek: theos (God) and dike (justice). A theodicy, in its attempts to offer the reason God has for allowing evil to exist in the world, defends the righteousness or justice of God in light of accusations of unrighteousness or injustice. The question is famously phrased thusly: "Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence, then is evil?" Most people do not like to ponder such troublesome issues. It is for that reason that we change the channel with certain images appear (the starving child, the politician from the opposing party that "gets under your skin," the images of actual abortions). However, Christians must ponder such issues.