Prudent Musings » Apologetics

Podcast: Please Convince Me

Richard Smolenski — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 02:30:02 +0000

Jim Wallace, who has appeared on the Stand to Reason radio show, has an excellent apologetics podcast, including great information regarding Mormonism. You can subscribe to the RSS feed or download individual episodes here: Please Convince Me Podcast.

One note: There are some “mobile podcasts” where Jim recorded the episode while driving. Although a great use of his time, the background noise can be a bit distracting

There is also a blog here.

Podcast: Defenders

Richard Smolenski — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:10:54 +0000

Dr. William Lane Craig has a podcast concerning Christian apologetics and theology, along many of the topics in his book, Reasonable Faith. Both of these resources are highly recommended. Unlike the more commercially-produced Reasonable Faith podcast, this one includes recordings from his Sunday School class.

Defenders Podcast.

Podcast: Stand to Reason

Richard Smolenski — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 01:33:45 +0000

Stand to Reason hosts a podcast of Greg Koukl’s weekly radio show.

iTunes description:

This podcast rebroadcasts our weekly radio program. Our purpose is to help Christians think more clearly about their faith and to help them make an even-handed, incisive, yet gracious defense for classical Christianity. Released every Monday.

Podcast: Reasonable Faith

Richard Smolenski — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 02:35:45 +0000

Dr. William Lane Craig has a podcast concerning Christian apologetics and many of the topics in his book, Reasonable Faith. Both of these resources are highly recommended.

Reasonable Faith Podcast.

Podcast: Sects and Cults

Richard Smolenski — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 17:57:00 +0000

Podcast Description:

As part of the Center for Global Apologetics (of the Liberty Theological Seminary), Ergun Caner, President of Liberty Theological Seminary and Graduate School, debates representatives of various cults in an informal interview-style format. In front of a live audience, Caner invited leaders of such groups of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Baha’I and other, to speak directly to evangelicals. Instead of lecturing about world religions, this series was designed to speak to them, and to engage various systems with the truth claims of the Gospel. This is an entirely unique approach, and one that has generated more interest than we expected. As a result, these debates are now available online for you.

This is a truly gracious and non-confontational series of interviews with other religious groups. It is not a debate regarding which religion is better, but a unique opportunity to listen to others explain their own religions in a comfortable setting.

Source: erguncaner.com.

Apologetics, Aquinas-style

Richard Smolenski — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 01:57:19 +0000

Thomas Aquinas understands, what so many defenders of orthodoxy will not understand. It is no good to tell an atheist that he is an atheist; or to charge a denier of immortality with the infamy of denying it; or to imagine that one can force an opponent to admit he is wrong, by proving that he is wrong on somebody else’s principles, but not on his own.

(Page 88)

Christopher Hitchens and Crazy Pills

Richard Smolenski — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:23:45 +0000

Doesn’t anybody notice this? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!

That’s how Mugatu, played by Will Ferrell, felt about Derek Zoolander’s looks in the the 2001 movie Zoolander. When I read some of the things that atheists write I feel the same way. The truth looks so obvious, but it is somehow missed in almost every case.

Take, for instance, atheist Christopher Hitchens’ appearance on Hannity and Colmes to discuss Dr. Jerry Falwell’s death:

I saw this on TV live when it aired and, although Hannity did not do the best job himself, it was clear that Hitchens had absolutely no idea what he was talking about regarding the beliefs of Christians and resorted to simply flinging unfounded insults and unschooled misunderstandings. Yet, if you browse around atheist blogs the opinion is that Hitchens won. If people really believe this, either they are taking crazy pills or I am. I must give Hitchens the benefit of the doubt, though, and assume that if he actually tried to understand the views of Christianity, then he would come to an intelligent opinion.

Now, on washingtonpost.com, Hitchens has once again displayed his ignorance by writing the following:

Here is my challenge. Let Gerson name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever. And here is my second challenge. Can any reader of this column think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith? The second question is easy to answer, is it not? The first — I have been asking it for some time — awaits a convincing reply.

I’m not sure what Hitchens means by a “convincing reply,” but I don’t think his questions accomplish what he wants them to. The main Christian argument regarding the nature of morality is not that non-Christians have no ability to be moral, but they have no logical reason to be moral.

To answer the second, yes, some Christians have done terrible things just as some non-Christians have. This proves nothing. But how do we know that these actions are either moral or immoral? We know this because there has to be a source of morality outside of us. Evolution can’t explain it. If the main morality was a “survival of the fittest” attitude, then it should be right for me to rob my neighbors. Yet we all know this is wrong. My question for Hitchens is why? My answer is that morality was given to us by God. What is Hitchens’ reason for the existence of morality? He has obviously judged the late Dr. Falwell by some measuring stick.

Arguments Against Arguments for Atheism: The Views of Sam Harris

Richard Smolenski — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 19:17:53 +0000

An article refuting many of the claims made by Sam Harris in his books The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reasonand Letter to a Christian Nationcan be found in the latest edition of Biola Connections, the alumni magazine of Biola University. The article, with contributions by Christian scholars Douglas Geivett and William Lane Craig, can be found online here. A pdf of the entire issue can be found here.

Qualities of a Great Apologist

Richard Smolenski — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 23:39:29 +0000

“Andrew Fuller’s success as an apologist was as much a product of his temperament as of his abilities. To be successful, an apologist must be humble and gracious. The most skillfully crafted argument is of no effect if the intended audience takes offence and ceases reading. Fuller took great care to try to avoid offending his readers. At the same time, Fuller gave no quarter and thus avoided any appearance of weakness.”

Clint Sheehan, “Great and Sovereign Grace: Fuller’s Defence of the Gospel Against Arminianism,” in At the Pure Fountain of Thy Word: Andrew Fuller as an Apologist, ed. Michael A.G. Haykin, Studies in Baptist History and Thought (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004), 84.

Augustine, Pelagius, and Andrew Fuller

William Lane Craig Defends the Resurrection

Richard Smolenski — Wed, 30 May 2007 02:31:48 +0000

If you read my previous post and did not know who William Lane Craig is, then this video is for you! Watch and hear him do one of the things he does best: defend the resurrection of Jesus!