Logical Fallacy: "Begging the Question" a.k.a. "Circular Reasoning"

Probably one of the most frequent logical fallacies you'll come across in debates or dialogue is referred to as "circular reasoning" or "begging the question." In Latin it is called petitio principii which means "request for the source." This fallacy may take several forms but one of the most common occurs when the arguer assumes the truth of the conclusion he is trying to prove.

For example, some Christians have wrongly argued this way:

Skeptic: How do you know God exists?
Christian: Because the Bible says He does.
Skeptic: How do you know the Bible is true?
Christian: Duh! It's the Word of God!

Notice in this dialogue the Christian is assuming that God exists and wrote the Bible in order to prove that God exists. This commits the logical fallacy known as "begging the question." The arguer cannot assume the truthfulness of the conclusion he is attempting to prove.

However, non-Christians are just as prone to logical fallacies and the following are some common examples.

"Miracles Can't Happen."

Well known Scottish skeptic David Hume stated in On Miracles, "A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined" (My emphasis).

Unfortunately Hume is begging the question. Notice he makes the claim that a firm and unalterable experience counts against the belief in miracles. In other words, testimony and experience count 100 percent against miracles! But how would Hume know this? C.S. Lewis addresses this nicely in his book Miracles:

Now of course we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely "uniform experience" against miracles, if in other words, they have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately, we know the experience against them to be uniform only if we know that all the reports of them are false. And we can know all the reports of them to be false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle.

"Jesus Never Existed."

Another example of circular reasoning can be seen in the claim made by some skeptics that "Jesus never existed." Given the ample amount of historical evidence for the life of Christ, how could anyone ever support the claim that Jesus never existed? The only way you could show that Jesus never existed is to prove that every account of Jesus that exists is false. Of course the only way you could prove that every existing account of Jesus is false is if you knew He never existed in the first place! This begs the question.

Abortion

The entire abortion debate centers around one question: What is the unborn? Many arguments in favor of the pro-abortion choice position beg the question by assuming the unborn is not a human being.

For example, some pro-abortion choice advocates argue that "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body." This begs the question by assuming the woman's body is the only one involved. If the unborn is a human being there are two human beings and two human bodies involved. Furthermore, it is never the woman's body that gets aborted. The woman survives the abortion, the unborn doesn't.

Conclusion: If all else fails, remember this: circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works...

An Objectively Good Night

Success!!! Despite a few hiccups in pre-event planning, last night's McDowell-Corbett debate went incredibly well. Saddleback College was buzzing with students, families, scholars, and local citizens lucky enough to get a seat in an event that sold out weeks in advance over a period of about 10 days. Sadly, we had to turn away over three times the number as our room could hold but the webcast was viewed by over a 1,000 people from around the globe. In fact, Conversant Life told me that so many people logged in at one time that the server crashed three times (sorry about that livestream viewers). I would be remiss not to thank Karla Westphal (Saddleback College Freethinkers Club faculty advisor) for hosting the event and handling lots of logistics. I wouldn't have wanted anyone else in her role.

Both speakers were articulate and dynamic which kept the audience captivated the entire 95 minutes without a break. Craig Hazen set the tone with his trademark wit and cordial demeanor. I witnessed first hand his unbroken contact with the timekeeper and even-handed treatment of speaker time limits. The only exception was when he granted Corbett an additional response in the Q&A portion. He even kept the course on track to about three minutes of our planned end time. Amazing work, Dr. Hazen! My only fear is the backlash I'm going to get from all those unable to attend now that Craig and Sean gave away free books and DVDs to everyone there (again, sorry webcasters).

Sean spoke first, as is customary of the positive debate position, and set the bar high for his opponent. Sean layed out his case in outline form stating two key contentions to frame the debate. 1) If God does not exist, we have no solid foundation for moral values, and 2) If God does exist, we do have a solid foundation for moral values. Sean carefully made the distinction between subjective and objective with Greg Koukl's famous ice cream illustration. He told the story of a terrible teen gang rape to show what it means for something to be objectively wrong. Sean argued that any ethical system must account for three things: 1) Transcendence, 2) Free will, and 3) Human value. Concluding that God makes the most sense of moral values, Sean then challenged Dr. Corbett to offer a better explanation.

A Case for Apologetics

Brian Auten at Apologetics 315 has posted an excellent resource entitled A Case for Apologetics:

What is apologetics? Is it Biblical? What is the purpose of apologetics? In this audio, the listener is introduced to the discipline of defending the faith and presenting reasons to believe Christianity is true. A case is made for apologetics from the New Testament and some common objections to apologetics are addressed. A useful introduction to the subject for those new to apologetics.

Full MP3 Audio here. (20 minutes)

PDF Transcript here (non-copyright, suitable for distribution)

Also, Brian has recently posted a number of audio interviews with some top Christian Apologists:

William Lane Craig

Ken Samples

Frank Turek

Check out all his Apologists Interviews here.

"The Bible Was Only Written by Men...and Men Make Mistakes."

(Stand to Reason) by Greg Koukl

Greg Koukl offers a very helpful response to this common objection to biblical accuracy, authority and authenticity:

First, it doesn’t follow that because the Bible’s written by men, that it therefore must be in error. Human error is possible, not necessary. If human error were always necessary in anything man said, this challenge would be self-refuting (“suicide tactic”). If all human claims were necessarily in error, then the claim that the Bible was written by men and men make mistakes would also be in error because it’s a claim made by men who err, defeating itself. It is possible for human beings to produce something without errors. It’s done all the time. What is 2+2? What is the formula for nuclear fission?

Second, this is circular reasoning. If there’s good evidence the Bible can be trusted, then the issue of man’s involvement is moot. A simple question illustrates this: “Are you suggesting with this objection that if God does exist, He’s not capable of writing what He wants through imperfect men?” This is hard to affirm. If the answer is “No,” then the objection vanishes. If the answer is yes, then ask, “Did you ever own a dog? Could you get your dog to sit? If you can get a dumb dog to sit, what makes you think an all-powerful God can’t get a man to write just what He wants him to?” If you first establish that the Biblical record can be trusted, then the second problem—human involvement is irrelevant. If God inspires it then it doesn’t matter if men or monkeys did the writing; they’ll still write exactly what God intends.

Another way of stating it: God can’t err; the Bible is God’s Word; therefore, the Bible can’t err, even if men are involved.

Check out Greg's book Tactics for more great apologetic material.

Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?

This is an excellent article by Ronald Nash which appeared in the Christian Research Journal, Winter 1994. It is just as relevant today with the appearance of such internet movies as Zeitgeist which make the claim that Jesus is simply a copycat Messiah and that the New Testament borrows from pagan mystery religions.

Summary

Many Christian college students have encountered criticisms of Christianity based on claims that early Christianity and the New Testament borrowed important beliefs and practices from a number of pagan mystery religions. Since these claims undermine such central Christian doctrines as Christ's death and resurrection, the charges are serious. But the evidence for such claims, when it even exists, often lies in sources several centuries older than the New Testament. Moreover, the alleged parallels often result from liberal scholars uncritically describing pagan beliefs and practices in Christian language and then marveling at the striking parallels they think they've discovered.

During the first half of the twentieth century, a number of liberal authors and professors claimed that the New Testament teaching about Jesus' death and resurrection, the New Birth, and the Christian practices of baptism and the Lord's Supper were derived from the pagan mystery religions. Of major concern in all this is the charge that the New Testament doctrine of salvation parallels themes commonly found in the mystery religions: a savior-god dies violently for those he will eventually deliver, after which that god is restored to life.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

If you are interested in reading more on this topic, here are a few more resources:

The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel (chapter 4)
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona (chapter 5)
The Gospel and the Greeks by Ronald Nash (chapters 7-11)
Reinventing Jesus by J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel Wallace (chapters 16-18)

Enjoy!

Stand To Reason Launches New Student Website

Stand to Reason launched a new website today designed to help Christian students form a confident Christian worldview and be able to explain it clearly and gracious to others.

STR Place helps students "just think" about Christianity.

STR Place has a variety of resources:

* Videos dealing with timely issues
* Articles providing clear, concise explanations
* A video blog answering questions
* How to schedule in-person training STR offers
* Information about unique mission trips led by STR student impact director, Brett Kunkle
* STR Place's Twitter and Facebook pages
* You Tube videos
* Parent and teacher resources to support Christian students
* Online store with resources specifically for Christian students

Bookmark STR Place (www.STRplace.org) and visit often as they will be adding content regularly. And please email others to let them know about this critical, new training tool - especially students and youth leaders.



Originally posted by Melinda at STR BLOG

Temporal Consequences of Atheism for Christians

www.americanvision.org
by Gary DeMar, Feb 02, 2010

There are temporal consequences for theists as there are eternal consequences for atheists. If as Christopher Hitchens believes Christianity is not good for the world, will laws be passed to outlaw or at least suppress religious expression? This has already been done in public schools. There are signs that such oppositions to religion are spreading:

[A] man talking to two willing strangers in a shopping mall was arrested because the subject of the conversation was God. The case developed several years ago when a youth pastor was arrested at the Galleria Mall in Roseville, Calif., for having a conversation about religion with two other people. Matthew Snatchko, who works with youth at his church, was interrupted in the middle of a conversation by a security guard. A second guard joined the confrontation and told Snatchko he was being placed under citizen’s arrest for “trespassing.” . . . Besides the ban on conversations with strangers about religion or politics, the mall also bans any clothing with religious or political messages.[1]

It’s one thing to have a policy that prohibits proselytizing, standing on a soapbox and preaching, or carrying a sign around that says “Repent!” Malls are private property. We’ll have to see how the courts rule on this one, but the fact that there is such a written policy is frightening. If you live in an area where malls owned by these companies, you might want to consider shopping elsewhere. By all means let the company know why you no longer will do business there: Fear of getting arrested because you might happen to strike up a conversation with a stranger in the food court that leads to a discussion about religion.

Those who believe in God could be marginalized, and if atheists get their way politically, we might find some very bad laws passed. Here’s what prominent atheist Daniel C. Dennett wants to happen:

If you insist on teaching your children falsehoods—that the Earth is flat,[2] that “Man” is not a product of evolution by natural selection—then you must expect, at the very least, that those of us who have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest opportunity. Our future well-being—the well-being of all of us on the planet—depends on the education of our descendants.[3]

If enough of these guys gain political power, will any of our children be safe? Could teaching falsehoods like creation be considered child abuse? It’s not a far-fetched fear. Hitchens broaches the subject in chapter 16 of his book God is Not Great: “Is Religion Child Abuse?” Doug Wilson comments, “Hitchens puts infant baptism, the learning of a catechism, the practice of confirmation, Sunday School lessons, and family worship into the same category that we use to describe the making of child pornography, starvation, locking up in closets, blacking eyes and breaking bones.”[4] Nicholas Humphrey writes something similar, and Richard Dawkins is not far behind:

“So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible or that the planets rule their lives than we should allow parents to knock their children’s teeth out or lock them in a dungeon.”[5]
The American Vision on Facebook

Yikes! Atheists rail against theocracy, but they don’t see that their worldview is oppressively theocratic with no hint of restraint. Man is god, and man’s law must be imposed on every area of life in the name of Darwin through the power of the State using reason and science as the twin authorities. These revelatory pillars of evolution—the old and new testaments of their man-centered worldview—are as infallible in their eyes as the Bible is in ours. There is no question that this is the truth.

Education is used to promote their theocratic worldview. An academic setting is viewed as far less oppressive, a neutral, fact-alone approach to truth, if you will. The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) has issued a report that says British Columbia-based Trinity Western University falls below the standard of proper academic freedom because it requires that its faculty sign a statement of Christian faith before being hired. It has also put the organization “on a list of institutions found to have imposed a requirement of a commitment to a particular ideology or statement as condition of employment.”[6] Just imagine if a Christian who did not believe in evolution applied to a state school. Do you think he would be accepted to teach in the biology department? I don’t think so.

Endnotes:

[1] Bob Unru, “Mall to Christians: God talk banned!” (January 30, 2010).
[2] On the “flat-earth myth,” see Gary DeMar, America’s Christian History: The Untold Story (Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1995), 221–34; Gary DeMar and Fred Douglas Young, To Pledge Allegiance: A New World in View (Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1996), 75–82; Jeffrey Burton Russell, Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians (New York: Praeger, 1991).
[3] Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995), 519.
[4] Douglas Wilson, God Is: How Christianity Explains Everything (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2008).
[5] Quoted in Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2006), 326.
[6] Charles Lewis, “Faith as a guide in higher learning: Can academic freedom exist in overtly religious universities?” (January 30, 2010): http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2501821

Calvinism and Purgatory Debates

James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries was involved in two separate debates this past week, both of which you can listen to for free.

The first was on the topic of Calvinism. James White appeared on Dr. Michael Brown's show Line of Fire to discuss this issue. You can listen or download this debate here.

The second was on the topic of 1 Corinthians 3 and the doctrine of purgatory. Tim Staples of Catholic Answers appeared on James White's show The Dividing Line. You can listen or download this debate here.

Visit Alpha and Omega Ministries for more resources and debates.

Enjoy.

Sean McDowell's First Debate

Apologetic Junkie is proudly coordinating the first debate in the young, though flourishing, career of Christian apologist Sean McDowell. While Sean travels widely as a popular Christian speaker on apologetics, he also heads the Bible department at Capistrano Valley Christian Schools and is working on his PhD in apologetics.

His opponent, Dr. James Corbett, made his fame two years ago in a highly publicized federal case where he was sued for making discriminating comments about Christianity in class. To see a short clip from the Bill O'Reilly show click here.

During the lawsuit (which is still active), I heard that Dr. Corbett said disparaging remarks of Biola University and how he bragged about wanting to debate someone from there. So I asked Sean if he would be interested in debating Corbett, History teacher at Capistrano Valley High School. The McDowell-Corbett debate will match two men with heavy influence in the lives of Orange County youth. Last year, each of them mentored students who debated their worldviews of Freethought (Corbett's students) and Christianity (McDowell's students). Now, the mentors will meet each other on the public stage. They will debate a topic that tries to determine if the ultimate grounding of moral values can only be found in God. The debate: "Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values?" will be held Friday night, Feb 26th at Saddleback College in Mission Viejo, California and will be moderated by Biola's director of apologetics, Craig Hazen.

Saddleback College student clubs Campus Crusade for Christ and the Freethinkers Club are hosting the event which is sponsored by Rock Ministries (Mount of Olives Church - Mission Viejo) and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Non-Saddleback students are $5 and early registration is encouraged. If you don't live nearby, it will be webcast live at http://www.conversantlife.com/ and should be posted online sometime after the event. View the flyer by clicking here.

Let's Kill Our Apathy, Not Our Kids

(Stand to Reason) by Alan Shlemon

Today marks the 37th year since Roe v. Wade gave the Constitution's right to privacy a new meaning. Abortion remains legal in all 50 states, throughout all nine months of pregnancy, and for virtually any reason.

It's strange, though, that as I speak on abortion in churches, I find many church goers uncomfortable about the subject. They would rather talk about social justice: Human trafficking, poverty, homelessness, and most recently the surge to help Haitians after the devastating earthquake. To be sure, these causes are very important. I care about them and have supported them.

But if what we believe about abortion is true (that it kills an innocent human being), then it becomes an important – if not the most important – social justice issue of our day. There are 3,315 unborn children killed each day.

What upsets me even more is that unlike more trendy social justice issues, Christians are not just apathetic about abortion, some are having abortions. Alan Guttmacher reports that 27% of abortions are committed by Catholics and 43% by Protestants. Christians are killing their own children.

The most dangerous place for a baby to be in America today is resting in her mother’s womb.

READ MORE...

37 Years Since Roe v. Wade

2,973 people died on September 11, 2001, as a result of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. That day will forever live on in infamy in the hearts and minds of Americans.

On the other hand, 3,000 babies are aborted in this country every day, including today, and most people think nothing of it. At least most people don't lose any sleep over it at night. Many Americans even wholeheartedly approve of and support the pro-abortion choice position which has resulted in the loss of 50 million lives since 1973.

Today marks the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Please take the time to pray for the following:

1. Pray for those mothers who are considering abortion. Pray that they will be touched by God's grace and will consider alternative options to abortion, such as adoption. Pray their needs will be met.

2. Pray for those mothers who have had abortions. Pray they will find forgiveness and healing in Christ. Pray they may use their tragic experience as a powerful voice in defense of the unborn.

3. Pray for our government. Pray for our leaders that they would come to their senses and put an end to the abortion holocaust occurring within our own country. Pray they would use the power God has given them to bring glory and honor to His name.

4. Pray for those in this country who still support abortion. Pray they would understand the moral implications of abortion, that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being simply because she is in the way and can't defend herself. Pray they would educate themselves regarding the nature of abortion.

Here are some resources to educate yourself:

Pro-Life Websites:

Abortion Changes You
The Case for Life
Life Training Institute
Stand to Reason Resources

Pro-Life Audio:

Pro-Life Ethics by Scott Klusendorf
A Case for Life by Scott Klusendorf

Pro-Life Books:

The Case for Life by Scott Klusendorf
Defending Life by Francis Beckwith
Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments by Randy Alcorn
Why Pro-Life? by Randy Alcorn

May God have mercy on our nation in spite of the genocide we support.

Virtual March for Life 2010

TOMORROW January 22 2010



* Visit Virtual March for Life’s website.
* Follow the Virtual March for Life on Twitter.
* Go to Virtual March for Life’s Facebook fan page.

Blogs For Life Conference 2010

The 5th annual Blogs for Life Conference will be this Friday from 8:30 to 11:30a EST, hosted online by the Family Research Council.

Bloggers can live stream the conference on their sites. Get the embed code here.

TheLIVE Stream Webcast will be posted here at Apologetic Junkie for you to view throughout the morning.

The Debate Audio is Finally Here!

On December 9, 2009, Freethought Alliance hosted a debate at the Costa Mesa Civic Center titled "Does the God of the Bible Exist?" It was a 3-on-3 panel discussion between Christians and atheists.

The Christian side included Dr. Clay Jones from Biola University, Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, and our own Dan Grossenbach from Apologetic Junkie. The atheist panel included Dr. Bruce Flamm from the Inland Empire Atheists and Agnostics group, Mark Smith, and Alex Uzdavines.

Let me warn you in advance about this debate. The debate was quite lively and unconventional, which is why some would prefer to label it a panel discussion (or even a street fight!). The structure of this "debate" made a real debate nearly impossible. Unfortunately rhetoric often prevailed over reason and prevented genuine dialogue from taking place.

Full MP3 Debate Audio here.

In addition, due to the nature of the debate we thought it would be helpful to sit down with Dr. Clay Jones and Dan Grossenbach for a post-debate interview. Be sure to listen to their thoughts and reflections regarding the debate. It takes a lot more time to answer the difficult questions than it does to ask them. Hopefully this interview will answer the questions that time, format, and interruptions did not allow.

Full MP3 Post-Debate Audio Interview here.

We appreciate comments and feedback. Enjoy!

William Lane Craig on The Flying Spaghetti Monster

It's All About Me!

Is this what your church worship sounds like?



If so, there could be a problem!

When you think of "worship" think of "worth-ship." Worship should ascribe worth to God. A problem that Christians have noticed with  many contemporary worship songs is that they are inherently narcissistic. In other words, "me-centered." The following is just one example of a modern worship song that seems to be more focused on the emotional feelings of the worshiper rather than the God who is to be praised:

Hungry I come to you for I know you satisfy
I am empty but I know your love does not run dry

And so I wait for you, so I wait for you
I’m falling on my knees, offering all of me
Jesus You’re all this heart is living for

Broken I run to you for Your arms are open wide
I am weary but I know Your touch restores my life

This is the song of an empty-self. Notice that the subject in every single sentence above is the worshiper, not the one to whom worship should be ascribed! One of the things I have come to appreciate is the beauty and theological richness contained in older hymns and worship lyrics. Not only are classic hymns more likely to fulfill the purpose of worship, that is, ascribe worth to God, but they are also much more capable of teaching theological truth through their lyrics which is an added benefit for the congregation.

Contrast the above song with this classic hymn:

Holy, holy,holy, Lord God Almighty!
Early in the morning our song shall rise to thee;
Holy, holy, holy! Merciful and mighty!
God in three persons, blessed Trinity!

Holy, holy, holy! Though the darkness hide thee,
Though the eye of sinful man thy glory may not see,
Only thou are holy; there is none besides thee
Perfect in pow'r, in love, and purity.

Wow! Now that's what I call worship!

Same-Sex Marriage

(Stand to Reason) by Greg Koukl

Either there’s a natural teleology to marriage or there’s not

Who are you to say?”  That challenge works both ways.  First, if my disapproval isn’t legitimate, then why is my approval legitimate?  If I don’t have the right to judge something wrong (“Who are you to say?”), I certainly don’t have the right to judge it right (“Who am I to say?”).  Second, why is it that I can’t make a moral judgment here, but apparently you can?

The appeal for a change in marriage laws is an attempt to change the moral consensus about homosexuality.

You invite me to make a moral judgment, then you challenge my right to make a judgment when I don’t give the answer you want.  Who am I to judge? You asked for the peoples’ moral opinion by asking for the people to vote on an initiative giving homosexual unions equal status with heterosexual unions.

Why should homosexuals be allowed to marry?  Because it’s “fair.”  In what sense is the present situation unfair?  Because homosexual relationships don’t get legal/social recognition equal with heterosexual relationships.  You’re right, they don’t, but why is that unfair?  Because those relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships?  But that’s the very thing under dispute.

If there is no natural teleology to marriage and families, then the definition of marriage is simply a matter of convention.  We can define it how we want.  Now, I don’t accept that view, but even if I did, this doesn’t help homosexual marriage.  Society has voted, and they’ve voted it out.  On what grounds do you appeal for a change?  Moral grounds?  You’ve surrendered that opportunity when you claim that there is no right or wrong definition of marriage.  If so, I have no moral obligation to opt for one view over another.   If marriage is merely defined by society, well then, we voted and defined it as one man and one woman.  You asked for a social consensus, you got it. 

Second, if marriage is merely what we define it then what keeps us from expanding the definition of marriage beyond the inclusion of homosexuality to other kinds of relationships?  Can I marry my daughter, or another man and his wife?  Can two men marry the same woman simultaneously?  Believe me, these aren’t outlandish examples.  There are already groups moving for further redefinition if that’s all marriage is.  There is no limit to how marriage might be defined in this view.

The only way a claim of injustice or unfairness can stick is if we have a moral obligation to view all sexual or emotional combinations as equal.  But that depends on an objective standard, and that is a concept already jettisoned when society is asked to define marriage as they wish.  If there’s a moral standard of fairness to appeal to, then there’s a moral standard for marriage to appeal to, as well.

How NOT to Repond to the Disaster in Haiti

The following commentary is offered by Pat Robertson regarding the recent earthquake in Haiti:



Melinda Penner of Stand to Reason gave the following reaction:

It's unfortunate that Pat Robertson thinks he has insight into God's hidden actions to claim that the Haiti earthquake is a consequence of a pact with the Devil Hatians made two centuries ago. He may be right in some respects, like the evil nature of voodoo, but drawing a cause and effect requires insight into God's intentions that we have no reason to believe Robertson has. God has judged nations, we know from His revelation, but that provides no grounds at all to interpret any specific disaster as judgment. Earthquakes may be a natural phenomenon God could use, but it doesn't follow at all that any particular earthquake is a judgment of God's unless He tells us. Jeremiah 29:23 expresses God's offense at an instance of falsely speaking on His behalf. This shows us that it's a serious thing to claim to speak for God, and we should only do so on the proper authority of His revelation. Robertson provides us claim or reason to think he has that knowledge. This is his own speculation. Despite the compassion Robertson also expressed in his claim, which is no doubt sincere and he is praying for these suffering people, he was out of line in any attempt to speak for God in this instance.

Apologetic Junkie would like to encourage you to please donate to help Haiti through Samaritan's Purse, World Vision, or another charitable organization.

Apologetics: Why Your Church Needs It

(Rzim.org) by J.M. Njoroge

The ambiguity of the word apologetics provides the apologist with a natural icebreaker in public or private conversations on the topic: the apologist does not exist to “apologize” for being a Christian, or indeed for anything else. The assumption behind the pun is that the listeners would have a fair understanding of what apologetics is even if they cannot attach a formal definition to the concept. Unfortunately, this assumption is not always accurate.

During a conversation at a major apologetics event recently held in a large church, an attendee asked me what “apologetics” meant. I explained to her that apologetics is the branch of Christian theology that seeks to address the intellectual obstacles that keep people from taking the Gospel of Jesus Christ seriously. I gave her some examples of questions that are important in the context of apologetics. For example, why does evil exist if the world was created by an all-good, all-powerful God? How do we know Christianity is true in light of the numerous religions that exist in the world? 

I finished my answer to her by quoting 1 Peter 3:15, which instructs us to be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks for the reason for the hope that is within us. Her reaction was surprising. 

READ MORE...

DEBATE Is Psychological Confidence Enough? Greg Koukl and Deepak Chopra

it gets cut off at the end