CADRE Comments

  Recently on Facebook, someone posted the following argument against the existence of God. He introduced it by saying that it was an argument that he had not seen very often, but he gave it the moniker “The Argument from Errancy.” The posted argument read: Premise 1. If the Christian God exists and wants to preserve His Word in the Bible, it is more probable than not that the Bible would be unambiguously inerrant and clearly of supernatural origin. Premise 2. The Bible is seemingly errant and man-made. Conclusion 1. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Bible is the inspired Word of God Conclusion 2. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Christian God would exist. The author then added these notes about Premise 1 and 2: P1 seems pretty straightforward. Jesus himself clearly saw Scripture as authoritative, and Paul says that all scripture is God-Breathed. Scripture would allow laymen to understand God. P2 requires more evidence on the skeptics’ part, but they can appeal to...

On July 9, 2019, Public Discourse published an insightful article (which was apparently either earlier or later delivered as a speech) by Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput entitled, “ Building A Culture of Religious Freedom .” Early in the article, Archbishop Chaput made three points that deserve to be repeated. This is the second of three blogposts on Archbishop Chaput’s comments ( the first can be found here .) Having made the point that a Christian’s life is a public life, and that it is impossible for a Christian to separate the public aspects of his life from the private aspects and still submit wholly to the Lordship of Jesus, he continues by emphasizing the positive impact religious faith has on society. He writes: Religious faith sincerely believed and humbly lived serves human dignity. It fosters virtue, not conflict. Therefore, it’s vital in building a humane society. This should be too obvious to mention. If I have one concern about Archbishop Chaput’s artic...

At one time Karl Barth drew the distinction between the Bible being the word of God or containing the world of God. Since that time conservatives (Evangelicals/ fundamentalists) have imagined that liberals really use this as some important distinction. One example is  Matt Slick at CARM.  He states: "One of the objections raised by critics of biblical inspiration is that the  Bible  is not the word of God but that it  contains  the word of God." [1]  Of course he goes on to show that the Bible says different, so he thinks. I'll get to that latter. The problem is Liberal theology is so far removed from the concerns of fundamentalism now that even the idea that the Bible contains the word of God would be too  conservative for most of them. I suggest that the concept of "Bible as word of God" is outmoded but for the reasons neither side would imagine. It's not that there's no God, not that God doesn't communicate with us, but simply ...

Helmutt Koester This is my contribution to a book Called Defending the Resurrection edited by J.P. Holiding. I urge the reader to buy it as there are many fine arguments made in it. Not all of this article was used. This is its original form it was changed substantially in several ways, such are the needs of editors. Introduction Skeptical machinations are endless, anytime the tide turns toward the apologist the skeptic will take a further step back and seek to change the ground rules in a fundamental way. So it is with the perennial resurrection debate since the tide was shifted by McDowell and then by Craig, years ago. One of the major tactics used by skeptics to change the ground rules has been to uproot all points of the compass so the apologist can’t get his/her bearings as to what events are actually historical and thus defensible. To accomplish this, the skeptic has partly pulled off a resurrection of his own, by resurrecting old ninetieth centu...

this is from the comment section on  secular outpost  where Bowen responded to the post below that I made on this blog. the previous post on this blog here B radley Bowen    Joe Hinman   •   2 days ago I said: I think that discussions about the "communities" behind the gospels are highly speculative and of little historical value. The author of Mark never discusses "the community" that is allegedly the true author of his gospel. Joe responded: every bible scholar there is even the atheists regard that as a given ============= Comment: What "every bible scholar" assumes to be true is NOT historical evidence. I am asking for historical evidence, not opinion polls of biblical scholars. 1     • Reply • Share ›   Joe Hinman    Bradley Bowen   •   2 days ago I think you have been around academia long enough to know how that plays out. there i...