Why does God allow sin? A bit of a different take.

This question was submitted by a woman via email in preparation for an apologetics discussion my sister and I held this past weekend at a women’s retreat hosted by Redeemer Modesto, our church home.

why-did-god-allow-the-possibility-of-evil-and-suffering_t51I want to share my answer here, because it is a bit different from the usual answer you encounter when you study apologetics. It does not require taking the Fall narrative in Genesis literally, and allows for (but does not require) theistic evolution. We all agree that things are messed up, even if we don’t take the Fall narrative literally. Unlike what you normally encounter, the answer below doesn’t blame all negative junk on the Fall, nor promise that Heaven will be pain-free.

The question, “Why does God allow sin?”, is part of a bigger problem called the problem of evil — both moral evil, and things like natural disasters. Basically, the objection is that God doesn’t exist, because evil would not exist if there is a God who is good enough to want to stop it, and powerful enough to be able to stop it.

The following answer is not going to help someone who is currently suffering through a seriously hard time in their life. Someone in the middle of suffering needs love and warmth, not dry intellectual arguments.

However, here is the short answer: God allows sin because self-sacrificial love has to be a choice. The reason God allows pain is that people cannot learn the depth of his self-sacrificial love in a world in which there is no possibility of sacrifice.

Pain did not start at the Fall, so we can’t say that if we had never sinned, there would be no pain. God knew what was coming and still chose to say, “Let there be light” (Big Bang or otherwise). So God knew pain before the first sin. [Side issue: Pain is not always punishment. Yes, sometimes God uses pain to get your attention, but it should not be automatically assumed that’s what he is doing. Luke 13:1-5]

Evil is an emotional problem for a suffering skeptic, but it is also an intellectual problem for the atheist, since evil is parasitic on the good and cannot exist on its own apart from messing up something good, just like rust is parasitic on metal and can’t exist on its own apart from the metal it is messing up.

God is the good without which evil cannot mess anything up. Evil is doing anything apart from God’s goodness. Jesus demonstrated this goodness (Golden Rule love) when he came to earth and loved us as himself on the cross before we even knew him–just as the Law and the Prophets (the Old Testament) always said he would (Levit. 19:17-18, 34; Matthew 5:17-20, 43-44, 7:12, 22:39; Luke 10:25-37; John 5:39, 13:34-35; Romans 13:8, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8). [Side issue: Here is a defense of the Golden Rule.]

Atheists do not believe in a perfectly good being, even if they believe in the Golden Rule, so they do not allow for their thoughts about the good to be actually true, in that they do not allow their thoughts about the good to describe anything in reality (like a perfectly good being).

Instead, atheists say that the reason the Golden Rule is found in every major culture in history is because a) every culture naturally evolved, b) following the Golden Rule promotes well-being, so c) following the Golden Rule therefore promotes survival. That may very well be true, but unless the Golden Rule describes anything in reality, the rule itself is not true to anything, and no one is really obligated to follow it.

And yet, all major cultures throughout history have acted as if we are truly obligated to follow it, and are truly bothered when we don’t. We all have the sort of hunger that only Golden Rule love meaningfully fulfills. Does our having evolved a hunger for physical nutrients suggest that nutrients don’t actually exist? Quite the opposite.

So when atheists, or even doubting Christians, say evil is an obstacle blocking them from belief in God (or trust in God), they reflect a hunger for Golden Rule love, they acknowledge the evil in the world is starving that hunger, but they fail to acknowledge the existence of a perfectly good being (God) that has to exist in order for evil to mess anything up–and for their hunger to truly be fulfilled.

In the midst of suffering, our trust in God is tested. But without the possibility of choosing painful alternatives, we will never know the depths of God’s love…a self-sacrificial love that persists despite all circumstances, including our own worst sins…a love he died to demonstrate.

That kind of love-despite-circumstances is worth every circumstance we could endure, like a treasure for which you give up everything so you can possess it instead (Matthew 13:44). That is not to say that God makes us endure some horrible, despicable evil beyond our control for the sake of some future treasure (see follow-up below). It is only to say that his love endures with us despite the most horrendous evil, and that he is faithful to bring good from even that. If he could not bring good from it, he would not have allowed it to happen. But the good may not be realized until we are with him in the “not yet” (1 Cor. 13:12, Hebr. 2:8-9, John 18:36, 1 John 3:2, Romans 8:28).

If in fact Jesus did not demonstrate the Father’s love by suffering for us on the cross and rising from the dead…if there is no treasure…then all suffering we endure would be in vain (1 Corinthians 15:14). He did demonstrate that love. Our suffering is not in vain (Romans 5:3-5, 8:17-18). That is good news.

2 Corinthians 7:4:
“I am filled with comfort. In all our affliction, I am overflowing with joy.”


Follow-up: I want to address the idea that God allows us to go through evil and suffering because he wants us to notice him, turn to him, and reflect his glory.

Many Christians say that God has a purpose and reason for every hard thing we go through. Some examples they use from the Bible include that God intended it for good that Joseph went through his junk, a man was born blind so the works of God might be displayed in him, and God causes all things to work together for good for those who love God. If we lose someone to cancer, they say something like, “God must have something planned for you that would have been impossible unless you went through this.” One of those planned things they often mention is that God wanted to get our attention so that we would turn to him, see his glory, repent, and reflect it. But these passages don’t necessarily say that. The first passage about Joseph can be translated to mean that God took a situation that was all-bad and turned it into a good one. The second passage about the blind man is true about everything in history, good or bad, and is more answering the loaded question, “Whose sin caused this bad consequence?” not “Why does God allow bad things to happen?” He’s saying nobody’s sin caused it. The third passage about God causing all things to work together for good – that doesn’t mean he can’t work good things unless bad things happen first. If that were true, he wouldn’t be perfectly good, because in order to be good he would have to be bad first. None of these passages say that God couldn’t have done something unless something else despicable happened along the way. They only say he can bring good out of the worst situation–and he ultimately will. Therein lies our hope.

To be okay with whatever a divine being could throw at you, because “the end justifies the means,” is to blindly trust what is potentially an evil being. God does not want evil for us. He does not make us go through evil, but he can and does redeem it. Read the rest of James 1 for the difference between the sort of things God will put us through, and the sort of things he won’t. Not *every* bad thing is something God wanted to happen–though there is not a single thing that happens that isn’t something he allowed to happen, being sovereign. If you only read the follow-up at this point, it’s time to start at the beginning ;)

Posted in Apologetics, Golden Rule, Problem of Evil & Hell | Leave a comment

Kindly tilling out obstacles is the work of gospel-rooted apologetics

Apologetics is Kindly Tilling the Ground
Apologetics kindly tills out obstacles against a firmly rooted faith.

The sunset with which God greeted our journey home after the retreat.

My sister (Laura) and I had the privilege of holding an apologetics discussion this weekend with a group of women from Redeemer Modesto (our home church) who were on retreat in Twain Harte. She and I had three prep sessions together leading up to the retreat. I enjoyed those sessions with my sis as much as I enjoyed the actual discussion. Laura is the life of the party, and I could not have done it without her. It is much more interesting to provoke laughter with “The ‘sheep’ need to follow His voice, not just the sheep butt in front of them,” (Laura) than focus solely on the dry reality that it is okay to ask (seek… knock…), even if no one else is asking the important questions.

The following is just the handout that we didn’t actually set out to discuss. We didn’t even hand it out until the end. See our actual discussion notes here (more was said than is written there–like the fact that suffering people aren’t helped by intellectual arguments). We didn’t get to the “d” section of our discussion notes at all, but the discussion did go exactly where God needed it to, which is ironically where this handout goes: kindness, though in different words.

FOCUS VERSE: “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” 1 Peter 3:15

Know vs. Show. Apologetics means “showing” why you believe something is true. Christian apologetics means showing why Christianity is true. We answer objections to the faith and give good reasons to believe in God and Jesus’ resurrection. We may “know” Christianity is true because we have the witness of the Holy Spirit–but we “show” Christianity is true by doing apologetics. Why? Because this love is not meant to be kept to ourselves. Matthew 5:14

Apologia means defense. In the “focus verse” above, the word “answer” in Greek is apologia (ἀπολογία), or defense, as in “legal defense”. The word “reason” is logon (λόγον). Also see 1 Samuel 12:7 (“reason with”), Isaiah 1:18 (“reason together” –Laura’s favorite) & 41:21 (“bring forth your strong reasons”), and Acts 24:25 (“he reasoned of”) for similar word use.

Is apologetics Biblical? Yes. Unfortunately, an unbiblical misuse of the word “faith” has become popular that makes it seem like only blind faith is genuine faith. However, the sort of trust in God that we have is not blind trust. We have good reasons to trust God through hard times. Even if we do not have access to the mountain of evidence…or it is too challenging for us to process all of it…the witness of the Holy Spirit is a good reason, in itself, to trust God. God warns against putting blind trust in anything and commands us to examine everything, and only trust the good (1 Thess. 5:21, 1 John 4:1). What we do when we “believe without seeing” (John 20:29) is trust the tested evidence we *do* have in the face of not knowing what will happen in any given situation. We trust that God has it covered and will fulfill his promises as he has in the past–before we see their fulfillment.

[ Other good apologetics verses to start with as you dig deeper: Matthew 22:37; Romans 12:1-3; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 Corinthians 13:11, 14:20, 15:3-7 & 15:14; Colossians 2:2-3; Acts 1:3, 18:27-28, 19:8 & 24:25; & 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 ]

SHOW. The most important part of our focus verse is “do this with gentleness and respect.  Why? Because we should remember Jesus’ gentleness towards the adulterous woman. He stood against those who would have stoned her. When those men left, his gentle words were, “Neither do I condemn you, go, and from now on sin no more.” John 8:11, 1 Cor. 13:1-2. [The event of John 8:11 is not found in the earliest manuscripts, but this sort of love is found throughout the New Testament.]

The best way to “show” what you “know” is to live as loved, especially by “giving an Answer” to those who ask! To withhold answers and instead tell doubters to “just have faith” is to block people from the kingdom (Matthew 23:13).


Use commentaries, lexicons (for word studies), an apologetics search engine, et cetera, if you find yourself scratching your head about a Bible passage or current event, or if someone asks you a “God question” you can’t answer:

Here are two websites with most of those things:
http://biblehub.com & http://www.biblestudytools.com
and you can type in your question here: http://ichthus77.com/c-a-s-e

These  phone apps are also available:

There are great books, websites, Facebook groups, and so on–too many resources to list–that you can use to dig deeper. These are just a few!

Tactics by Greg Koukl
Christian Apologetics by Douglas Groothuis
The Reason for God by Tim Keller
On Guard by William Lane Craig
(In a follow-up email, I recommended Mary Jo Sharp.)

Apologetics 315: http://www.apologetics315.com
Got Questions: http://www.gotquestions.org
Cold Case Christianity: http://coldcasechristianity.com

Facebook groups
Apologetics for Parents: https://www.facebook.com/groups/ApologeticsforParents
Christian Apologetics Alliance: https://www.facebook.com/groups/caalliance

Last but not least: Read as much C.S. Lewis as you can, fiction and nonfiction!

Posted in Apologetics | Leave a comment

Top phone apps for deeper Bible study and apologetics

Download these phone apps for deeper Bible study and apologetics (answers and evidence), listed in no particular order:

1. ColdCaseChristianityApp Cold Case Christianity – J. Warner Wallace

2. EQUIPapp EQUIP (Bible Answer Man)

3. Untitled Doubt Busters

4. Untitled1 Real Truth Real Quick

5. Untitled9 STR (Stand to Reason)

6. Untitled7 RZIM (Ravi Zacharias)

7. Untitled12 Reasonable Faith (William Lane Craig)

8. Untitled13 ThinkChristianly.org

9. Untitled634 RTB (Reasons to Believe)

10. Untitled6433 SES Apologetics (Southern Evangelical Seminary)

11. Untitledu73f CE (Cross Examined)

12. Untitled2 AP (Apologetics Press)

13. Untitled3 NRB Network (several of the programs are apologetics talks)

14. Untitled4 One Minute Apologist

15. Untitled6 STR (Stand to Reason) Quick-Reference App

16. ApologeticsStudyBibleApp Apologetics Study Bible

17. GotQuestions?App Got Questions?

18. YouVersion App YouVersion Bible App apologetics reading plans:

19. 12179635_708609972605553_779954619_n Probe Ministries

20. vv Suggest any missing apps in a comment below! vv

Posted in Apologetics | 1 Comment

#DefundPP ASAP: Urge your senators to vote yes on S.1881

#DefundPP #PPSellsBabyParts

Slavery on demand and without apology!
Genocide on demand and without apology!
Abortion on demand and without apology!
Please read: https://books.google.com/books?id=8InGE7lTy08C&q=%22look+here+now+boys%22#v=snippet&q=%22look%20here%20now%20boys%22&f=false

The Senate is voting at 5:30pm EST to potentially defund Planned Parenthood after the abortion giant was exposed as illegally adapting procedures, sometimes using partial birth abortion, to profit from the sell of organs. Some say this is pointless because Obama will veto, but our senators need to know the rational American voice is strongly opposed to what Planned Parenthood is doing. See my last post for an introduction, and more things you can do. It would be encouraging if you would reply once you take action.

Here’s what I’m up to on this, and I hope you’ll get up to it, too, if you’re not already:

Here are the senators to contact, beyond your own: Susan Collins​, Joe Manchin III​, Joe Donnelly​, Heidi Heitkamp​, Robert P. Casey, Jr.​, Lisa Murkowski​, Mark Kirk​ (here’s why)

Here are their Twitter accounts: @SenatorCollins @Sen_JoeManchin @SenDonnelly @SenatorHeitkamp @SenBobCasey @lisamurkowski @SenatorKirk

Take the challenge! All 100 Senators: @lisamurkowski @SenDanSullivan @SenatorSessions @SenShelby @JohnBoozman @SenTomCotton @JeffFlake @SenJohnMcCain @SenatorBoxer @SenFeinstein @SenBennetCO @sencorygardner @SenBlumenthal @ChrisMurphyCT @SenatorCarper @SenCoonsOffice @SenBillNelson @SenRubioPress @SenatorIsakson @sendavidperdue @maziehirono @SenBrianSchatz @senjoniernst @ChuckGrassley @MikeCrapo @SenatorRisch @SenatorDurbin @SenatorKirk @SenDanCoats @SenDonnelly @JerryMoran @SenPatRoberts @McConnellPress @RandPaul @BillCassidy @DavidVitter @SenMarkey @SenWarren @SenatorCardin @SenatorBarb @SenatorCollins @SenAngusKing @SenGaryPeters @SenStabenow @alfranken @amyklobuchar @RoyBlunt @McCaskillOffice @SenThadCochran @SenatorWicker @stevedaines @SenatorTester @SenatorBurr @senthomtillis @SenatorHeitkamp @SenJohnHoeven @SenatorFischer @SenSasse @KellyAyotte @SenatorShaheen @CoryBooker @SenatorMenendez @MartinHeinrich @SenatorTomUdall @SenDeanHeller @SenatorReid @sengillibrand @ChuckSchumer @SenSherrodBrown @robportman @InhofePress @SenatorLankford @SenJeffMerkley @RonWyden @SenBobCasey @SenToomey @SenJackReed @SenWhitehouse @GrahamBlog @SenatorTimScott @SenatorRounds @SenJohnThune @SenAlexander @SenBobCorker @JohnCornyn @SenTedCruz @SenOrrinHatch @SenMikeLee @SenKaineOffice @MarkWarner @SenatorLeahy @SenSanders @SenatorCantwell @PattyMurray @SenatorBaldwin @SenRonJohnson @Sen_JoeManchin @SenJohnBarrasso @SenCapito @SenatorEnzi

Here are suggested tweets to send to all senators, especially the ones singled out above the list of 100, and your own:

Vote YES on S.1881 to #DefundPP. They change procedures (to partial birth), & sell parts. https://t.co/RY2fptgiM0

When “extremists” do the extreme, we expect “moderates” to speak up, NOT defend it. Where’re the @PPact moderates? #DefundPP

There are better ways to do research: https://t.co/ZVYbrePKAa #DefundPP Yes on S.1881

S.1881 would not reduce access to affordable healthcare, would redirect the funds away from @PPact #DefundPP & vote YES!

The Susan B. Anthony List has good templates you can use to call or email your senators. Check out the left-hand sidebar.

For Facebook: Tag all the senators you want to tag, with this message:

Vote yes on S.1881 to defund Planned Parenthood. They admit to committing these federal offenses in the undercover videos…whether or not the videos were legally filmed:

• they know they are doing the abortion for the purpose of organ donation
• they change procedures to make organ procurement possible
• they use the partial birth procedure
• they profit from selling the organs, as they charge for something that costs them nothing–the woman already paid for it

Posted in Abortion, Ethics & Metaethics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Premeditated organ harvesting via partial birth abortion & what you can do to stop it.

UPDATE 7/21: Second Planned Parenthood Senior Executive Caught On Undercover Video. Dr. Mary Gatter, President of the Planned Parenthood Medical Directors’ Council, who now oversees the Pasadena affiliate (sold to Novogenix through the Los Angeles affiliate before that), haggles over the price, admits “Ian” will change the procedure so it is less “crunchy” — so as to produce an in tact (alive) “specimen”. On to the original post…but how many other undercover videos are there left to release?

Update 8/3: Obviously, there have been more vids. Watch all of them. Contact your senators and urge them to defund Planned Parenthood.


I teach my boys (age 14 and 17) Christian apologetics, especially during summer break. Yesterday we read Tim Keller’s chapter from The Reason for God on knowing God exists through knowing right and wrong, and today we started Douglas Groothuis’ chapter from Christian Apologetics on the moral argument, which was written before the Supreme Court ruling on marriage, referred to Nazi experimentation on children (segued into current event of Planned Parenthood harvesting baby organs using partial birth abortion), and obliterated the idea that cultures create rights. We watched the first undercover video that caught the Senior Director of Medical Services of Planned Parenthood, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, admitting three ways Planned Parenthood and affiliates she oversees are violating the law as a matter of policy–the “reasonable people” among them, anyway:


1. Premeditation in performing abortions for the purpose of harvesting organs, seen in their “huddles” that determine which procedures they will use on each “case” that day, depending on what organs have been ordered, and what can most-likely be harvested from each “case”. Federal law prohibits abortions performed for the purpose of donating tissue, and the procedure to be changed in order to collect tissue. See Public Law 103-43; 6-10-93, NIOH Revitalization Act Of 1993, Title I – Gen Provisions RE: Title IV Of Public Health Service Act, Pt G, Sec. 498A.
11759423_671489502984267_1496413569_n2. They change their abortion procedures to make it possible to harvest certain organs (see 1). See Public Law 103-43; 6-10-93, NIOH Revitalization Act Of 1993, Title I – Gen Provisions RE: Title IV Of Public Health Service Act, Pt G, Sec. 498A. The really frustrating thing is they get the mother’s consent *after* the abortion is complete, so *on paper* it looks legal
11748827_671489499650934_1956589060_n-13. They use partial birth abortion to harvest the head in tact. Partial birth abortions are banned–that “breech” procedure the doctor references. This is a federal felony punishable up to 2 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $250,000. (18 U.S. Code 1531). The crushing she refers to is how abortion doctors kill the baby. So if they are avoiding crushing vital organs, they are basically dealing with a born-alive infant, and any further action taken to kill him or her is homicide (1 U.S. Code 8). Future generations will look back on our partial birth abortion ban as an idiotic delusion (I pray)…thinking that abortion is murder outside the womb, but totally fine inside the womb. But who is going to go into abortion clinics and make sure the babies are murdered INSIDE rather than OUTSIDE, much less make sure they aren’t just being harvested for their organs? How can this even be stopped? The partial birth abortion ban is also an idiotic delusion because NO ONE ENFORCES IT.

My sons and I talked about the delusion of the partial birth abortion ban (still murder before baby changes location, and not enforced) and had a long discussion about what determines a person’s worth. Painfully good discussion that needed to happen, aided by Defenders classes we’d been watching on divine omniscience and foreknowledge. Would you (should God) kill Hitler as a baby? Apparently it’s been on Ethan’s mind, and ties all of this together. Grace and love being a free choice was at the center of the answer.

Continue reading

Posted in Abortion, Ethics & Metaethics | Leave a comment

The Gospel in the Marketplace of Ideas

indexThe CAA read The Gospel in the Marketplace of Ideas: Paul’s Mars Hill Experience for Our Pluralistic World by Paul Copan and Kenneth D. Litwak, as part of Apologetics 315’s weekly Read Along program. This took place August through October. Each week, an audio introduction from Paul Copan was provided for that week’s chapter, along with a brief synopsis and study questions. We were also able to connect with other readers in the comments on Apologetics 315, or on the Christian Apologetics Alliance Facebook page/group.

After having given it some time to blend flavors, I am now prepared to give my thoughts on the book. These were my initial thoughts before starting the Read Along. Note that this review does not go through the book by walking through it from beginning to end, due to its reuse of or expansion on the same material at different parts of the text, rather than keeping similar topics together. We will let the reader decide if that is a format they prefer to read. For me, it felt kind of scattered.

Read Along Index: The Gospel in the Marketplace of Ideas

Copan and Litwak begin with a nice sketch of our current cultural landscape as being multicultural, relativistic, secularized, and post-Christian. They define a worldview as a philosophy of life that reflects a deeper heart commitment and answers questions like Why am I here? Why does anything exist at all? What am I to do or think? How can my life have any meaning? Later they define worldview as “an articulation of the basic beliefs embedded in a shared grand story that are rooted in a faith commitment and that give shape and direction to the whole of our individual and corporate lives.” They lay out the problem: Most people today, even those calling themselves Christians, only know a caricature of Christianity, so that if ever they come into conversation with a knowledgeable Christian, a lot of what the Christian communicates is filtered through a faulty worldview and so is lost in translation. The first hurdle to overcome is to make sure we know what their worldview is, including their view of Christianity, so that we speak their language and nothing is lost in translation. We are the ones with a message to deliver, and so we are the ones who need to learn how to speak their language—not the other way around. Continue reading

Posted in Apologetics, Reviews and Interviews, The Gospel | 2 Comments

Discussing with my sons the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage

We just had a really great discussion (Ethan is 17, David 14) on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage. I started writing on this topic mid-May, but it was just never in a shareable condition until after this discussion with my sons. I hope it will help you as you talk to your kids (and even your friends and co-workers, should the topic ever come up). We started out with a review of easy arguments (from their “toolbox“) that reach these conclusions:

Contradictory statements cannot both be true.

Moral truth (like human rights) cannot be made up, but has to be true to God’s goodness.

There can be no evil (like human rights violations–the charge of those who support the Supreme Court ruling) if there is no being (God) that grounds moral truth.

We then talked about how, before the ruling, same sex couples were not forced to violate their beliefs, but after the ruling, Christians will be punished by the law unless they violate their beliefs. David said it reminded him of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The boys both asked questions and contributed their own thoughts throughout the discussion, but what follows are the basics on which we agree.

I explained why I oppose homosexuality in general:

Continue reading

Posted in Golden Rule, Homosexuality | Leave a comment

Ethics & Morality

Pontius Pilate's "What is Truth?" - stylized inscription at entrance to Antoni Gaudi's Sagrada Família (Barcelona).

Pontius Pilate’s “What is Truth?” – stylized inscription at entrance to Antoni Gaudi’s Sagrada Família (Barcelona).

Below is a collection of my thinking on the grounding and justification of moral truth. I am warming up for something.

Divine Essentialism

God wills it (right) because He is good — essentialism. 1/4/08 (Not mine. Precursor.)

The Sword and the Sacrifice Philosophy (c. 2008) (In progress.)

Are you an essentialist or a voluntarist? 5/26/09

Poll: What grounds objective moral truth? 12/31/12

The Euthyphro Dilemma

Good 101: Is there a solution to the Euthyphro dilemma? 12/24/09 Continue reading

Posted in Apologetics, Divine Essentialism, Euthyphro Dilemma, Gettier Problem, Golden Rule, Groothuis' 'Christian Apologetics', Is-Ought Fallacy, Justified True Belief, Keller's Reason for God, Moral Argument, Natural Law and Divine Command, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, William Lane Craig | 3 Comments

6 blogposts you won’t find on Ichthus77

CAA_BannerSometimes I do stuff somewhere else. Here are 6 of those times, over at The Christian Apologetics Alliance:

Does The Moral Argument Reify Subjective Morality? 10/7/14

Matthew Lawrence wrote in this question and gave permission to blog it and my answer below:

Hello Christian Apologetics Alliance. I would like to first off say thank you for the resources that you’ve given to me. This has helped me boost my faith up greatly. (cont. at link above)

Initial Thoughts: Copan & Litwak’s “The Gospel in the Marketplace of Ideas” 8/12/14

The CAA is participating in Apologetics 315’s weekly Read Along program. We are reading “The Gospel in the Marketplace of Ideas: Paul’s Mars Hill Experience for Our Pluralistic World” by Paul Copan and Kenneth D. Litwak. (cont. at link above)

Continue reading

Posted in Apologetics, Moral Argument, Poetry, Poetry and Fiction, Problem of Evil & Hell, Youth Apologetics | Leave a comment

Reliability of the Gospels (Lecture Series) | Tim McGrew

McGrewTim McGrew from the Library of Historical Apologetics has a famous series that I wanted to make available on my blog. Dr. McGrew is Professor of Philosophy at Western Michigan University, where he has taught since 1995. His areas of specialization include Epistemology, History and Philosophy of Science, Probability Theory, Formal Logic, and Philosophy of Religion. His work in apologetics focuses on the Gospels, miracles, the Resurrection of Jesus, and the history of apologetics. You can make a full Friday and Saturday morning of the following lecture series. In fact, I have suggested a schedule, for fun. Continue reading

Posted in Apologetics, Undesigned Coincidences | Leave a comment