This talk entitled "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ?" was given at a local Calvary Chapel a couple of years ago. The audio link was previously down but should not be in good working order so I am re-posting this blog.
I previously posted the audio to this talk but now also have available a short paper which this talk is based on. I hope these resources will aid you in your witnessing opportunities with your Mormon friends and family members.
Topic: The Book of Mormon - Another Testament of Jesus Christ?
Overview:
Background of Mormonism
Background of the Book of Mormon
Praying about the Book of Mormon
Problems with the Book of Mormon
Witnessing Tips
Full MP3 audio here.
PDF file Mormon Epistemology 101 here.
Enjoy!
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Tread Lightly Young-Earthers
Is the universe billions of years old or thousands? Are the creation days of Genesis to be interpreted as 24-hour periods? How should science inform our interpretation of Scripture, and how should Scripture inform our interpretation of science?
Christians disagree on how to answer these questions and they have been cause of no small debate within the believing community. The two opposing sides are sometimes labeled “young-earth” and “old-earth” or “young-age” and “old-age.” One of the most central and disputed points is whether the creation days in Genesis are literal 24-hour periods.
Recently I read an article published in a young-earth creationist newsletter entitled “It's an Attack on the Son.”[1] The title is quite provocative, though this isn't the first writing of this kind I have come across. As you may have guessed from reading the title, a summary of the article could be as follows:
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Refuting Moral Relativism
This talk entitled "Refuting Moral Relativism" was given at a local Calvary Chapel a couple of years ago. The audio link was previously down but should now be in good working order so I am re-posting this blog.
We had some technical difficulties with both the projector and computer throughout the presentation so there may be slight gaps in the audio. Unfortunately for me, my notes were on the computer. Other than that I think it went alright!
As always, I am deeply indebted to clear thinkers such as Greg Koukl, J.P. Moreland, Francis Beckwith, and Paul Copan (all of whom I steal my material from) regarding their extensive work and interaction with the issue of moral relativism.
Full MP3 audio here.
Enjoy!
We had some technical difficulties with both the projector and computer throughout the presentation so there may be slight gaps in the audio. Unfortunately for me, my notes were on the computer. Other than that I think it went alright!
As always, I am deeply indebted to clear thinkers such as Greg Koukl, J.P. Moreland, Francis Beckwith, and Paul Copan (all of whom I steal my material from) regarding their extensive work and interaction with the issue of moral relativism.
Full MP3 audio here.
Enjoy!
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
A Text Out of Context: 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22
1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 seems to be a passage of Scripture which is prone to all sorts of abuse. The reason I think this is the case is because this passage includes a group of short, pithy statements made by the apostle Paul which can easily be repeated and turned into "stand alone" verses apart from their context. The text reads as follows:
"Don't quench the Spirit!" (v. 19)
"Abstain from all appearances of evil!" (v. 22 KJV)
Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil. (NASB)Probably the two most common phrases I have heard repeated from this passage are the following:
"Don't quench the Spirit!" (v. 19)
"Abstain from all appearances of evil!" (v. 22 KJV)
Monday, July 11, 2011
The Triunity of God
The outline below was made for a small group discussion at church. The college group was tackling the topic of the Trinity. I spent some time putting the outline together but thought it was a shame to put it aside after only an hour of discussion. I thought I would post it here in hopes that others would benefit from it as well.
The outline is by no means exhaustive but rather was meant to serve as a guide on several issues we thought were important to discuss. I appreciate any comments or feedback on the content.
The outline is by no means exhaustive but rather was meant to serve as a guide on several issues we thought were important to discuss. I appreciate any comments or feedback on the content.
I. Quick Facts
a. The word “Trinity” refers to “Tri-unity” (three in one).
b. The term comes from the Latin trinitas.
c. The doctrine of the Trinity is a central doctrine of the Christian faith.
i. “‘Central doctrines’ of the Christian faith are those doctrines that make the Christian faith Christian and not something else.”[1]
ii. No other religion holds to this teaching.
d. The first recorded use of the term “Trinity” is by Theophilus of Antioch (116-181) in the second century.[2]
Sunday, July 10, 2011
(non-) BOOK REVIEW for "Divinity of Doubt: The God Question"
Former LA prosecutor and best-selling author Vincent Bugliosi released his latest book "Divinity of Doubt: The God Question" recently and I decided to buy it. I like to use the investigative method when approaching truth claims and it sounded like Bugliosi was doing the same thing despite reaching a different conclusion. So I had to try it. Bulgliosi describes this work as the culmination of a two-year research project. He's written on the OJ case, JFK assassination, and George W. Bush but now steps out of his field to give his best case for agnosticism in this latest work. Bugliosi says he employs his prosecutorial skills to sift through the evidence for a rational conclusion. In that, I applaud him but the praise stops there.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Guilty but "Not Guilty"
Many were outraged this week when an Orlando jury found Casey Anthony not guilty of her young daughter’s murder. But why? Twelve people just like you and me prescreened by both the prosecution and defense were there for every minute of the trial. They were the only audience the lawyers cared about. Everything was thrown at them; every piece of evidence and every defense. Regardless of what we all saw in the media, they saw more and analyzed it more. At least one juror has spoken out implying that the cause of death was indeterminate so blaming someone for an unknown action leading to the death leaves a logical gap. In other words, it’s certain Caylee died, but not that she was murdered. If “murder” itself is uncertain, assigning blame to it would have been as well. Certainty is what was missing. Was certainty neccessary?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)