Want quick answers to objections the New Atheists, Bart Ehrman and Open Theists bring against Christianity?

Then Contending with Christianity’s Critics is your book.

Now, William Lane Craig [editor and contributor] says the book is both accessible and apologetically cutting-edge.

While I’ll concede cutting-edge, I have to resist “accessible.”

I’ll show you what I mean in a minute.

Here’s the deal: Contending is made up of 18 essays divided into three categories: The Existence of God, Jesus of History and Coherence of Christian Doctrine.

What follows is a SHORT review of each essay. Nano-reviews, if you will.

Dawkin’s Delusion
In under 3 pages Craig demonstrates that Richard Dawkin’s doesn’t have “a very serious argument against God’s existence.” Instead, he’s got an invalid syllogism.

At Home in the Multi-Verse
All I have to say is that James Daniel Sinclair lost me  at sentence one. Go figure.

Confronting Naturalism: The Argument from Reason
Victor Reppert’s argument in a nutshell: Meaning is ambiguous if naturalism is true. However, meaning is NOT ambiguous. Thus, naturalism is false.

Belief in God: A Trick of Our Brain?
Psychological experiments about a God-sense hardwired in our brain simply demonstrate what we already know: We’ve got an instinct for God.

The Moral Poverty of Evolutionary Naturalism
Mark D. Linville starts his essay like this: “Darwin’s account of the origins of human morality is at once elegant, ingenious and woefully inadequate.” He then defends that thesis in 16 pages of playful, Rob Powellesque language.

Darwin’s Best Argument Against God’s Existence
Gregory Ganssle uses four counter-features to show that Dawkin’s best argument–that features of this life fit a naturalistic explanation better than a theistic one–simply doesn’t deliver.

Criteria for The Gospel’s Authenticity
When positive evidence accumulates…and one affirms a universe open to miracles…the Gospel’s authenticity is strongly attested. That’s Robert Stein’s argument.

Jesus the Seer
Ben Witherington makes an exquisite case for Jesus’ self-understanding as God by exploring his use of the phrase “Son of Man.” Must read.

The Resurrection of Jesus Time Line
Gary Habermas works back from the composition of the Gospels to Paul’s conversion to show that Jesus’ bodily record was taught as early as 30 AD. In other words: It’s always been a creed with the church.

How Scholars Fabricate Jesus
Craig Evans argues that the scholarly track record with respect to the use of extra-canonical gospels is embarrassing. Take note, Crossan.

How Badly Did the Early Scribes Corrupt the New Testament
Dan Wallace takes Misquoting Jesus to task, stating the author [Bart Ehrman] esteems provocative positions over honesty, excitement over boredom.

Who Did Jesus Think He Was?
Michael Wilkins makes a plain-Jane case that Jesus knew he was God. The only innovation appears to be Wilkin’s use of Peter’s messianic proclamation as a test case.

The Coherence of Theism
Taliaferro and Marty look at six specific attributes of God and their seamless interaction to prove God simply makes sense.

Is the Trinity a Logical Blunder?
Paul Copan makes a case for a simple understanding of the Trinity–yet with room for mystery and worship.

Did God Become a Jew?
Copan next argues that it’s NOT absurd to think about God becoming man. One way he does this is by warning us to start with the Scriptures–not Greek philosophy–when we talk about the Incarnation.

Dostoevsky, Woody Allen and the Doctrine of Penal Substitution
Christopher Hitchens complains that Jesus’ death as vicarious atonement makes zero sense. Steve Porter’s essay will fix that.

Hell: Getting What’s Good My Own Way
Very creative case for hell by Stuart Goetz based on libertarian free will, life plans and ultimate-good-seeking decisions. C. S. Lewis would be proud.

What Does God Know? The Problems with Open Theism
David Hunt tells us that open theism doesn’t have a scriptural advantage over classical theism because it fails four truth tests.

As you might’ve noticed, Richard Dawkin’s and Co. and their ideas get a lot of work. That’s intentional.

Thus, if you want answers to this new wave of objections to Christianity, Contending is a good buy. You’ll be happy to foot the $14. I was.

Related posts:

1. The Lost Art of Praying Together [A Review]
2. Dr. Banks Responds to My Review of “Praying Together”
3. David Platt v. the American Dream [Book Review]

I don’t know about you, but I’ve got this idea in my head that people in the past had it easy…

That they wrote, thought and taught in a vacuum–free from distractions, objections and frustrations.

Of course we know that’s not true.

What is true is we often read in a vacuum, without the historical context in which a sermon like “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” or a book like Bondage of the Will is written.

The same is true for Augustine’s City of God, a book that’s part of my morning routine.

In this fat book Augustine is doing two things: One, confronting the accusation that the Christian religion is responsible for the destruction of Rome. And two, defining the city of God.

In Book II-1 [a chapter called The limit to be imposed on discussion of objections] you sense Augustine’s frustration with those who “are too blind to see what is put before their face, or they are too perversely obstinate to admit what they see.”

Here’s the whole chapter [it's short and worth reading carefully]:

If the feeble mind of man did not presume to resist the clear evidence of truth, but yielded its infirmity to wholesome doctrines, as to a health-giving medicine, until it obtained from God, by its faith and piety, the grace needed to heal it, they who have just ideas, and express them in suitable language, would need to use no long discourse to refute the errors of empty conjecture. But this mental infirmity is now more prevalent and hurtful than ever, to such an extent that even after the truth has been as fully demonstrated as man can prove it to man, they hold for the very truth their own unreasonable fancies, either on account of their great blindness, which prevents them from seeing what is plainly set before them, or on account of their opinionated obstinacy, which prevents them from acknowledging the force of what they do see.

There therefore frequently arises a necessity of speaking more fully on those points which are already clear, that we may, as it were, present them not to the eye, but even to the touch, so that they may be felt even by those who close their eyes against them.

And yet to what end shall we ever bring our discussions, or what bounds can be set to our discourse, if we proceed on the principle that we must always reply to those who reply to us? For those who are either unable to understand our arguments, or are so hardened by the habit of contradiction, that though they understand they cannot yield to them, reply to us, and, as it is written, speak hard things, and are incorrigibly vain. Now, if we were to propose to confute their objections as often as they with brazen face chose to disregard our arguments, and so often as they could by any means contradict our statements, you see how endless, and fruitless, and painful a task we should be undertaking.

And therefore I do not wish my writings to be judged even by you, my son Marcellinus, nor by any of those others at whose service this work of mine is freely and in all Christian charity put, if at least you intend always to require a reply to every exception which you hear taken to what you read in it; for so you would become like those silly women of whom the apostle says that they are always learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Frankly, this reminds me of my own frustration I defined in An Open Letter to Skeptics and Dead: Our Spiritual Condition Apart from the New Birth.

More importantly it highlights the binding obligation we have of giving a simple, but repeated articulation of the Gospel–to Christian and pagan alike–regardless of our frustration.

Bottom line: The truth of God will be resisted in our world. Jesus said as much–and condemned as much those who resisted it–when he said:

For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them. Matthew 13:15

And there is no apology needed on our part for articulating this “foolish and weak” Gospel of Jesus Christ because in the same breath we warn pagan and Christian alike of the coming judgment and offer eternal life to whoever hears our words and believes on Christ.

It’s the greatest act of love.

And so despite our frustration, we continue in our Christian work. Just like our friend Augustine did.

Related posts:

1. Anthony Horvath: Director of Apologetics Ministry Talks
2. The Enemy [It's Not Who You Think]
3. The Blind Men and a Queer Animal

Dear Skeptic,

I apologize for not writing sooner, but I wanted this to be a meaningful response. Not one kicked out in an hour.

See, you level–like many others before you–a serious accusation at Christians that’s worth a deliberate, thoughtful reply.

A reply that evaluates every inch of your accusation…addresses the perception behind this accusation…and then corrects it.

Why Am I Doing This?

I think it may help you understand us a little better, because we’re all here to understand each other, right?

Well, let’s see how I do.

First, the Accusation

What is the accusation I’m talking about? Nothing more than we Christians like to change the subject on you.

Now, I confess: We do. At least I do. And I’ll tell you why in a minute. But right now I want to explore something else…

I want to unpack your perception of why you believe we change the subject. Tell me if I get it right.

See, you accuse Christians of changing the subject and suggest the reason why is that we can’t answer your objections.

Perhaps this is true in some circumstances. But let me suggest another option:

We change subjects because it’s pointless.

At some point in our discussion–and I’ve seen these struggles between believers and skeptics long enough to  know when it’s happening–we have to draw the line and say this person isn’t open to an earnest conversation.

He isn’t interested in my beliefs…he’s looking for a fight.

Or he’s looking to get his kicks from making Christians stumble. Or maybe he’s simply looking for a platform to display his arrangement of arguments and sophisticated intelligence. In the end, he’s just looking to snub and ridicule another person’s beliefs.

How Do I Know Your Motivation?

It’s easy to see. So often you’re asking the right questions. Questions like, “Is there eternal life? Did Jesus rise from the dead? What do I need to do to be saved?”

But unfortunately, you’re not looking to understand our position. You’re looking for a soft spot. And when you think you find that soft spot–you punch it…

You demand we give you a systematic explanation that satisfies you. We explain, you find another soft spot–and punch that one. Ad infinitum.

The sad thing is you’ve already answered those questions for yourself–in the negative, which is fine–but now you demand Christians intellectually gratify you.

Sorry. But we’re not obligated to do that.

This Is All We’re Obligated to Do

All we’re obligated to do is deliver a clear, graceful articulation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. To warn you of the consequences of rejecting that gospel. And to alert you to the danger of bowing down to men like Einstein, Aristotle or Plato.

Men who scientifically, logically and philosophically can walk circles around most Christians like me. But men who are morally inferior to the conquering Messiah.

The conquering Messiah who existed before time. Who walked on the earth. Who died. And who rose from the dead [Warning: PDF].

Indeed, I wish I had the stamina and intellectual resources to answer your every objection. But thank God, I’m not obligated to do that.

I do try to evaluate each discussion. Answer honest objections. Discern the the sincerity of each question: Are they seeking? Or are they looking for a fight?

If it’s the latter, then it’s pointless to argue. It’s pointless because you are dead to the truth. Blind to reason. And doomed to stumble in intellectual darkness.

And it’s only the gospel that will pry your eyes open.

If you accuse me of being insane, irrational or simply naive, so be it. I glory in that accusation…in that association with the risen Christ.

Why I Change Subjects on You

Furthermore, when I change the subject on you, it doesn’t mean I can’t answer the question. More than likely it just means the subject you want to fight over is peripheral. And I won’t squander emotional equity on peripheral arguments.

Yet the subject I want to shift the conversation to–the wrath of God appeased on the cross of Christ–is the real issue.

And the issue I’m willing to die for.

It’s like fighting over the color of the seats while the plane is going down in flames. Let’s land this wreckage first then squabble over what remains. [Forgive me. I'm terribly pragmatic.]

I Won’t Neglect This to Satisfy You

Listen: I do have a biblical obligation to give a defense of my faith. To explain why I believe what I believe. Especially to those who come in a posture of humility–whether fans or opponents of the faith.

But I’m not obligated to gratify antagonistic, self-righteous opponents of the Cross. Christ didn’t. And I won’t.

Neither am I required to appease your moral shock or intellectual grievance over my beliefs. This is simply part of the territory. The Bible plainly states:

Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense [1]…but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles [2].

If I do try to fight…if I do try to answer your every objection…we will go around in circles. And I’ll neglect the most precious, joyful privilege I’ll ever have: Confessing Christ and explaining the law of the cross.

Understand, I’m horribly self-conscious about this letter. That I missed an angle. Or flubbed a point. But I hope at least I’ve edged our understanding of each other an inch in the right direction.

If not more.

I’m confident you’ll let me know if I did. Or didn’t. That being the nature of this type of communication. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Demian Farnworth

P.S. Please, share your thoughts. Brutal and all.

Related posts:

1. The Puddle: An Elegant but Not-Perfect Analogy
2. A. N. Wilson: An Atheist’s Slow Return to Religion
3. Who Is the Number One Atheist? [Does It Even Matter?]

In his 1923 book, Christianity and Liberalism, J. Gresham Machen describes four common objections liberal Christians trotted out to demonstrate their disgust for the doctrine of salvation through the cross of Christ. 

1. Historical. Liberals bristled at the idea that Christians responded to an obscure event in Palestine long ago. Christians could attend to what Christ did for them today–in the here and now. 

2. Narrow. Liberals criticized salvation bound to the name of Jesus only, because there are many  men in the world who have never in any effective way heard of the name of Jesus. We really need an all-inclusive religion that will save all men everywhere. 

3. Absurd. Liberals balked at the idea that another man could die for your guilt. Impossible, they say, since all guilt is personal. 

4. Degrading. Finally, liberals objected to atonement by crucifixion because it degraded the character of God by making Him out to be bitter, irascible and uptight. He’d never lurk idly while he waited for a ransom. 

Remember: These were objections common around the turn of 20th Century. That’s 100 years ago. Recognize any of these objections in our own time?  I bet you do.  

In case you’re curious, here’s the answer to those 4 objections:

1. The Gospel is the good news of an event that occurred in history. It’s what God did for us. Without this historical context, Christianity amounts to nothing more than mysticism.

2. The Christian way of salvation is narrow only so long as the church allows it to remain narrow. It’s our fault–not the way of salvation–if we don’t reach all men.

3. Jesus was no mere man. But the son of God. The doctrine of atonement is rooted in the doctrine of Christ’s deity.

4. The rejection of the wrath of God is rooted in a low view of sin and is at odds with the New Testament teaching of Jesus. 

Related posts:

1. Fear and Loathing in a Liberal Bible Class