Should We Critique Mormonism? (Part 2)

Date December 19, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

I will continue my previous post by giving two final reasons for critiquing Mormonism.

 

3) Mormon claims require a response.  Mormonism asserts that our churches are false and that our beliefs (as summarized in our creeds) are an abomination to God.  Why shouldn't we respond to these charges?  The Apostle Peter instructs us: “…and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).  I must defend the historic doctrine of the Trinity against Mormon counterclaims.  I must defend the good news—full salvation (eternal life) is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.  I must defend the inspiration, inerrancy, and sufficiency of the Bible as God's complete and accurate revelation to us.

 

Occasionally, I will hear Mormons suggest: “We do not argue against your beliefs.”  This is simply untrue.  Mormonism is built upon a denial of historic Christianity's fundamental beliefs.  Anytime a Mormon shares their faith, they are also telling others how historic Christianity is wrong (see my first point).

 

Even Joseph Fielding McConkie mistakenly says,

As to how we as Latter-day Saints view those not of our faith and as to how we determine who in this world is “Christian” and who is not, may I suggest that though many in the Christian world are anxious to draw a circle and exclude us. We choose to draw a very large and inclusive circle. We will pray with any man who is willing to do so. Our bookstores do not contain anti-anybody literature, we do not attack those of other faiths in our missionary lesson plan, nor do we do so in our church services or in any class sponsored by the Church. We do not give out warnings against those of other faiths nor do we ever forbid our membership from listening to or talking to anyone they desire.

(By the way, I highly recommend reading McConkie's entire message, “The First Vision and Religious Tolerance,” available in two parts: Part 1 and Part 2)

 

Apparently, McConkie has forgotten about a book he co-authored with Robert Millet, “Sustaining and Defending the Faith.“  This work is a direct attack against the historic Christian faith. Additionally, entire LDS ministries exist to argue against our beliefs. The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (at Brigham Young University, a school run by the LDS church), the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research, and many others write against the beliefs of those who hold to the historic Christian faith.

 

It is clearly incorrect to maintain that the LDS church does not seek to refute historic Christian doctrine.  In light of this reality, I must give an answer in response.

 

4) Love. This reason is the most important of all. If God's truth inherently denies error, if the gospel is the one and only hope for eternal life, and if Mormonism denies God, His truth, and His gospel, then I must show that Mormonism is wrong. I do this out of love, desiring for God and His good news to be understood and believed. I care about humanity and each individual's relationship with God. I also recognize that Mormonism cannot reconcile us with our Creator. Love compels me to proclaim the hope God has given us in Jesus Christ. I pray that we may all trust in Him and in His redemptive work alone for our eternal life.

Category Posted in Main Page, Mormonism Comments 5 Comments »

Should We Critique Mormonism? (Part 1)

Date December 19, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

When critiquing Mormonism, I have found that it is not uncommon for Mormons to ask: “Why do you want to spend your time attacking another religion?  Why don't you just share with others what you believe?”  I hear questions like these so frequently that I have given a lot of thought to my response.  Here are the reasons I usually give:

 

1) Proclaiming the truth inherently includes denying error.  As Ravi Zacharias (who recently gave a series of lectures on truth in Salt Lake City, including a message at the Historic Tabernacle on Temple Square) has said, “If truth does not exclude, then no assertion of a truth claim is being made; it's just an opinion that is being stated. Any time you make a truth claim, you mean something contrary to it is false. Truth excludes its opposite” (Zacharias quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith, 150-151).  Simply put, when a person claims that something is true, he or she is also automatically implying that its opposite is false.  If I argue for monotheism, I am also necessarily arguing against polytheism.  Therefore, it is impossible to just share with others what I believe.  By doing so, I am at the same time sharing with them what I do not believe.  If I believe that historic Christianity is true, then I also must believe that Mormonism is false.  As a result, my faith requires me to demonstrate why this is so.  We cannot separate telling the truth from exposing error.

 

2) The exclusivity of the gospel demands it.  Jesus Christ said, “…I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6).  The Apostle Paul maintained, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.  As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8-9). Elsewhere he warned against following those who preach another Jesus, receiving another spirit, or receiving another gospel (2 Corinthians 11:4).  It is only through God, His redemptive work, and His gospel that we gain eternal life.  Since historic Christians and Mormons believe in different Jesuses and trust in different gospels, I must seek to show the true Christ and the true gospel.

 

My next post will give two final reasons for critiquing Mormonism.

Category Posted in Main Page, Mormonism Comments 1 Comment »

This Week: Mormonism

Date December 19, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

In case you're not keeping up with the pulse on discussions about Mormonism, a
major milestone will be reached this coming Friday in the history of
the religion. On December 23rd, 2005, Mormons will be recognizing the
200th anniversary of the birth of their founding prophet, Joseph Smith,
Jr.

In light of the bicentennial, the A-Team will be posting on Mormonism
this week. We've invited John Divito to be our guest especially for
this occasion, since he's an assistant researcher at Mormon Research Ministry.
The point of our theme this week is not to bash Mormonism, but rather
to thoughtfully discuss the variety of issues that arise when studying the
religion and interacting with its adherents.






Celebrations have been taking place throughout the year. In May, a
conference was held at the Library of Congress for scholars to interact
with the history of Joseph Smith. Audio and Video are available here. More information about Joseph Smith and how the LDS Church is recognizing the occasion is available at their website.



Some past posts on Mormonism:



A Summary of James Beverley's paper at ETS on the new Mormon-Evangelical dialogue.



Book review of Robert Millet's A Different Jesus?

A Summary of my paper on Joseph Smith's First Vision.

Category Posted in Main Page, Mormonism, Roger's Posts Comments 8 Comments »

They Hate Narnia Because They Hate Christ

Date December 17, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

It's remarkable how people are taking their reviews of The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe as an opportunity to express their anger against Christianity. 

 

In an article from The Guardian (a British paper) titled “Narnia represents everything that is most hateful about religion,” Polly Toynbee asserts the following:

 

“Of all the elements of Christianity, the most repugnant is the notion of the Christ who took our sins upon himself and sacrificed his body in agony to save our souls. Did we ask him to?”

 

This statement is unbelievably sad to me.

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Main Page, Religion (General) Comments 4 Comments »

Interview With Glenn Lucke – Part Four: Advice for Aspiring Writers

Date December 17, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

This is the final part of the interview.  If you'd like to hear more about Common Grounds, you can listen to this five-part interview with Glenn on Family Life Today.

 

Thank you for taking on all these questions, Glenn!  Since many bloggers will be reading this, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about the writing process.

 

How did you divide up the work with your co-author?  Did each of you take certain chapters or were you both involved with all of them? 

Ben and I started with the year-long sermon series he had preached on the essential teachings of the Christian faith. We had the transcripts of his sermons and my research briefs for those sermons (I used to work for Ben as his research assistant before I started Docent Group to do research assistance for lots of pastors).  

 

Originally we were going to take those transcripts and briefs and shape them into coherent chapters for a book. He would work on them and pass them to me, and vice versa, was the plan.

 

I proposed the story idea, a Platonic dialogue. Ben agreed but once we turned towards a fictional, narrative approach, only one of us could do the actual writing. Trying to live inside characters' heads and write genuine dialogue was the hardest thing I had ever done, and it seemed impossible for two of us to do it at the same time.

 

Ben and I discussed the teachings a lot and we agree on about 90% or more of doctrinal matters. It is really uncanny how much we think alike about so many things.

 

So I'd write the actual chapter manuscripts and Ben would push back, critiquing, suggesting. Because we do think a lot alike it was fruitful.

 

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the editing help of Toni Richmond, Ben's hard-to-believe executive assistant. She pushed back a lot and saw and fixed a lot of the errors in the book. Having a highly intelligent, well-read woman who understands communicating with young-in-their-faith professionals was exceptionally valuable.

 

Did you both have to agree to everything written?  Was this ever difficult?

 

The only things I remember that we disagreed on were some word choices. Ben is more gifted at communicating to everyday people and I spend much of my time in the library because I'm a grad student. Occasionally words that seemed normal to me would make Ben's eyes roll.  So there were some adjustments.

 

But in terms of the theological content, I think Ben and I agreed on everything.

 

If one of us bloggers were to attempt to write a book with a co-author, what would you advise us in terms of writing logistics, things to avoid, things that seem to work, etc.?

 

I'd probably only seek a co-author if I were writing non-fiction, although writing a Platonic dialogue is do-able (as Ben and I have shown). I'd happily write non-fiction with Ben in the future because we click in so many ways. I would think such a partnership of mind and heart is important for co-authoring.

 

Outlining helps, even if you go back and change things. Ben and I talked about the book outline a lot. That made my long days in various coffeeshops more productive when I did the actual writing.

 

Also, I recommend, if possible, partnering with someone who knows the publishing business. Ben had already published three books with Sam Adams, so Ben knew a ton about the realities of publishing.  That was very, very helpful. He had a fair amount of inside scoop about how to write a winning book proposal for the publishing board of each publisher. 

 

Was the process of writing and getting this book published easier or more difficult than you expected, and was there anything along the way that you wish you would have done differently?

 

It was a lot harder than I ever dreamed. Incredibly harder.

 

The funny thing is, Ben told me almost all of it at the beginning.  From the very first day he said very few publishers would bite on a book about the Christian story. (True)…If we did get published, few young people would want to buy the book because it was about learning the Christian story (True)…What the Christian book buying public wanted was self-help, especially dating, marriage and parenting, with a little scary end times stuff. (True)…The only way it would sell would be if leaders like college and young adult pastors and parachurch staff encouraged their young adults to read Common Grounds in small groups (True)…But in spite of all this we needed to write the book and try to get it published because the Church needed the book even if the Church didn't know it (True).  He also said writing fiction was insane and if we did it the didactic prose way we'd be done in four months (True). 

 

Thanks for the insight, Glenn!  I just have one more “human interest” question for you.  I noticed in your bio that you're working with Caedmon's Call to develop an annual conference to inspire Christians to have a greater impact on culture.  Could you tell us more about these conferences and what you hope to accomplish through them?

 

Cliff Young of Caedmons is an old friend and we have nursed a dream for a few years to hold an annual conference that would be part teaching and part hands-on participation in all manner of creating culture. 

 

Our vision is 1) to think through engaging culture Christianly and 2) to create culture that glorifies Christ. We hope to have 2-3 excellent Christian bands and also speakers who have thought through Christ and Culture issues for the plenary sessions.

 

Secondly, we hope to have seminars in which artists teach on how they conceive of their art for the glory of God.

 

Lastly, we hope to have workshops in which conference attendees get hands on experience in working with various aspects of music, poetry, writing, painting, sculpting, editing, and more.  We have talked with a number of writers, artists and film people who are very interested in the project. We will try to forge a partnership with the amazing Full Sail school in Winter Park, FL–they are the Harvard of digital media training.

 

In subsequent years the attendees would be able to present or exhibit the art they have made for God's glory.

 

Because of Share the Well, Caedmons has not been in a place where they could devote themselves to this conference vision, so the idea has been simmering on the back burner.  And we need the Lord to bring the right people to help us write a detailed plan and execute the plan. If we could find the right administrative gurus to help us execute this vision, I suspect we’d be making this reality sooner rather than later.

 

Glenn, that sounds fantastic–I hope it all comes together soon.  Thanks so much for your time and thoughts!

 

 

[Read the entire interview:  Part I / Part II / Part III / Part IV]

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Interviews, Main Page, Theology Comments No Comments »

Are the Words of the Bible God's Words?

Date December 16, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

I've been having a discussion with Steve Bush from generousorthodoxy.net here on whether or not [the Bible claims for itself that] God spoke through authors to bring about the words of Scripture.  Steve's general argument is that even though there are verses that refer to specific other verses of the Bible as being from the Holy Spirit, one cannot conclude that all of the verses of the Bible came from the Holy Spirit.  To conclude this, we would need to find a verse specifying that all of the Bible–and not just parts–came about by God speaking through the writers.

 

Even though 2 Timothy 3:16 speaks of all the books of Scripture as being “God-breathed,” Steve says that “whatever the entirety of Paul's concept of 'God-breathed' was, we cannot say” beyond the statement that Scripture is useful, as Paul describes.

 

However, I think we can get an idea of Paul's general view of Scripture by asking the question, what was the Jewish view of Scripture in Paul's day–especially that of the writers of the New Testament?  Perhaps Paul didn't feel the need to precisely lay out the origins of Scripture because he assumed it was common knowledge.  I can imagine writing a paper today that would reference the Constitution throughout but would never explain how the document came about or what sort of authority I thought it had over me and our laws.  I wouldn't need to do this because everyone already knows this information.  What if, in this paper, I wrote, “All the principles in the Constitution have formed the basis of all our laws and are useful in understanding our history.”  A thousand years from now, someone might read the paper and think the Constitution was a useful guideline for creating laws, but they would be wrong in assuming that was all it was.  Just because I didn't speak of its ultimate authority (there was no need in my day), that wouldn't mean that I didn't believe it to be the case.

 

But what if, in the paper, I then went on to mention specific laws that had been struck down, saying that a particular principle in the Constitution had more authority than that law, so the law was removed–maybe making two or three or five references to specific laws that had to be rejected because they were in conflict with specific principles of the Constitution?  The good historian would start to get a picture of my general view of the Constitution–that is, that I viewed all of the Constitution as having more authority than all subsequent laws.  He could reasonably infer my view of the whole by considering my view on the specific parts that I happened to mention.  It would be much less reasonable (and in this case, wrong) to infer that I believed only those particular principles in the Constitution that I mentioned to have authority over laws, and none others.

 

In the same way, though the writers of the New Testament never explained exactly what they meant by “God-breathed,” or “holy,” or that “it cannot be broken” when referring to Scripture, we can look at their attitude toward particular verses and reasonably get an idea of how they viewed the whole of Scripture. 

 

1.  Consider Psalm 2:1-2.  There is nothing in this passage saying that this is the Lord speaking.  In fact, later on in this Psalm, the writer (who appears to be David) quotes the Lord.  These two verses appear, then, to be David speaking from his perspective, and not his quotation of God's words.  However, in Acts 4:24-26, Peter, John, and all their companions say, “O Lord, it is You who…by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your servant, said…,” and then they proceed to quote Psalm 2:1-2.

 

2.  Now look at Psalm 95.  The author is calling for us to worship God “for He is our God.”  The writer tells us, “Today, if you would hear His voice, do not harden your hearts.”  Then, turning to Hebrews 3:7-8, we read:  “Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, 'Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts….'”

 

3.  Here are some more verses in Hebrews, Chapter One.  According to the writer, God said Psalm 97:7, Psalm 104:4, and Psalm 102:25-26.  The writer claims this even though all of these verses in Psalms are written in the first person by their authors and are not claimed by these authors to be direct quotes from God.

 

4.  In Acts 13:35, Paul's sermon quotes Psalm 16:10, telling us that “He [God] also says in another Psalm, 'You will not allow Your Holy One to Undergo decay.'”  Again, this Psalm is written as David's words and yet is considered at the same time to be the words of God.

 

5.  Paul says in Romans 1:1-2 that he was “set apart for the gospel of God, which He [God] promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures.”  We know already that Peter wrote in 2 Peter 1:20-21 that “no prophecy of Scripture” was made by an act of human will, but “moved by the Holy Spirit,” they “spoke from God.”  But in this verse from Romans, Paul actually says that God promised something in the holy Scriptures, through the prophets.  This verse does not say He promised it through the prophets as recorded in the Scriptures (a wording which would have suggested God was speaking through the prophets at the time, and then someone wrote about it).  The wording of this verse ties God's speaking to the resulting Scriptures.

 

All of these verses speak to the general attitude held by the Jewish people of Paul's day the writers of the New Testament.  That is, the writers appear to believe that God spoke the Scriptures through His prophets.  It seems unreasonable to think that these people only happened to believe these particular verses were spoken by God through the prophets.  Were there really only certain verses they considered to be God's words?  Maybe only these Psalms that I mentioned?  If so, how did everyone know which ones were God's words such that they were confident enough to refer to the passages as such later in the New Testament?  They clearly thought at least some of the writers' words were the words of God (even when the verses did not claim to be).  Why are there no Jewish writings about which words of Scripture are the words of God and which aren't?  All of Scripture was set apart as holy from other writings (even the other useful ones) by the Jews.  Why would all of Scripture be seen as a whole that “cannot be broken” (as Jesus said) if there was such a significant qualitative difference between the passages?  The difference between our words and God's words is enough of a difference to call for a separation–especially as the Jews were so conscious of separating the holy from the ordinary.

 

It would be valuable to look at other writings by Jewish men of the time to see how they viewed Scripture as well.  (If anyone can direct me to examples of this, please do!)  One ought to understand the cultural view of the day in order to make a reasonable guess as to what Paul meant by “God-breathed.”  Paul may be right or wrong about his assessment, but I think we should at least try to understand his view on his own terms.

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Main Page, Theology Comments 30 Comments »

The Sky is Falling!

Date December 16, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

The big news today is that “Bush Authorized NSA Eavesdropping in U.S.” While the media's going crazy with this piece, Michelle Malkin puts it in proper perspective: “RED ALERT: CHICKEN LITTLES ON THE LOOSE“

What's the fuss? According to FoxNews, “That year
[2002], following the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush
authorized the NSA to monitor the international phone calls and
international e-mails of hundreds — perhaps thousands — of people
inside the United States, the Times reported.” In other words, if
you're communicating with a suspected terrorist outside the United
States, the government may be listening in. Is this really some “liberty” we want to protect, especially in the wake of 9/11?

Category Posted in Main Page, Politics, Roger's Posts Comments No Comments »

Interview With Glenn Lucke – Part Three: The Holy Spirit Changes Hearts

Date December 16, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall

To continue our discussion on apologetics, MacGregor explains that the use of evidence in apologetics was effective in the 60s and 70s, but is no longer valuable for reaching people who aren't Christians.  However, later, his explanation of why it isn't currently effective is this:  “we inhabit communities of stories” that determine how we view everything, and therefore “evidences bounce off” people who aren't Christians.  This explanation entails a fundamental aspect of human nature, so if evidence really is ineffective because of this reason, it seems probable it would have always been ineffective because of this.  Do you think that, rather than this being a fundamental aspect of human nature, something has happened recently to trap people in their stories this way?  If so, is this something we should try to change?  If not, why do you think people were able to overcome this in the 60s and 70s? 

 

I'm not sure MacGregor says that the evidences were “effective” in the 60s and 70s. I'm not trying to be a jerk with sudden insistence for precision, and in fact, it was my lack of precision in writing about this that causes confusion. I very much understand why you ask this question and on the surface it probably seems like a contradiction.

 

 The problematic lines seem to be this section from page 145: “Oh, Brad, I assure you I do. I used all those arguments for years. They were more persuasive to people back in the 1960s and '70s but less so now.”

 

I wish I had not used the word “persuasive” because you (Amy) and others legitimately see that as synonymous with my use of “effective” in the subsequent sentences. I am genuinely sorry for the confusion and wish I had written better.  I should have written something along the lines of, “Speaking about arguments and evidences for the Bible enjoyed greater cultural resonance in the 1960s and 1970s because of the pervasiveness of Enlightenment thinking and the still widely held respect for the Scriptures.”

 

To correct the impression that my poor writing has created, please let me clarify. My understanding of what Scripture teaches about the knowledge of God, the nature of humans and the absolute necessity of the Holy Spirit's regeneration of humans that enables us to believe means that no method of evidences, arguments, presupposition explaining, storytelling, story listening, candle-lit services with meandering 'sermons', alliterative modernist sermons, contemporary music, ancient liturgy, icons, Puritanical spare nothingness, humor, charisma, intellectualism, anti-intellectualism, tracts, nor debt canceling, poverty ending, AIDS healing, Katrina relieving mercy ministries will be “effective” apart from the Spirit's work.

 

This is true now and it was true when Paul believed and Caiaphas did not, and at every moment in between.

 

If by “effective” you mean “ultimately cause them to place their faith in Christ,” then we're in agreement! 

 

Excellent. As Richard Pratt would say, except for those near the extreme ends of the continuum, most evidentialists and presuppositionalist are closer to the middle and basically have differences of opinion about starting points. 

 

Obviously, people change their minds about things every day–even, occasionally, about subjects that are central to their worldview.  What do you think has to happen for a person to change his story, and how would you apply this to Christians who are trying to introduce people to Christ?

 

I want to set apart the knowledge of God as a category unto itself because we were made as images of God, and the Fall ruined our ability to know and love God. While people do change their minds about things every day, and occasionally even change their minds on subjects central to their worldview, the change in a person going from “in Adam” to “in Christ” is the Spirit's work.

 

I'm just going to interrupt your answer here for a moment.  I think that's an important distinction for understanding where you're coming from.  In your book, it was unclear whether or not you believe we are trapped in our stories in every way and can never be convinced of truth in any area. You're saying, then, that in normal areas of life, we're not as trapped in our everyday stories as we are in our spiritual stories?  In my view, I would make the distinction between changing someone's mind (which I think we can do–although, in the context of the type of discussion you've already described) and changing someone's heart (which I think we can't do)–even regarding spiritual subjects.

 

I would want to avoid a blanket statement that people generally are unable to communicate and persuade because of incommensurable discourses, and I would also want to avoid a blanket statement that people are always able to communicate and change their minds on all subjects except the knowledge of God.

 

While a spiritual problem pertains to the knowledge of God question, and while perhaps many (most?) matters in philosophical debate are amenable to persuasion, I think that there can be de facto incommensurable discourses on matters besides the knowledge of God.

 

To re-state this succinctly, in general, most of the time I want to affirm that debaters are probably not afflicted by incommensurable discourses.  But there may be some cases of incommensurable discourses that involve matters other than the knowledge of God.

 

Back to what I was saying before you asked that last question…

 

While nothing we do substitutes for the work of the Holy Spirit in introducing a person to Christ, we can follow Jesus' example and teachings in our efforts to be His ambassadors. That means we love people and we incarnate Jesus to them in serving them.

 

I think when we love God's images as Jesus did we will listen to their stories and tell ours. One, we listen, really listen. Such deep, committed listening may take place over multiple get-togethers.

 

Two, when appropriate to turn this corner, we ask the friend if we may re-visit scenes from his or her story. We ask about the characters in those scenes, the context, the tensions, word and actions.  We explore the consequences in those scenes. You might think of this as helping our friend deconstruct his or her story.

 

Three, when appropriate to turn this corner, we ask if we may tell the Christian story of Creation, Fall, Redemption and Consummation. We tell our own personal story and how it fits into the larger Christian story. We invite our friend to step into the Christian story.

 

Ideally, then, someone coming to faith in Christ thus would understand more than a handful of propositions, and would see his or her life in relation to an all-encompassing story that tells of origins, nature and destiny.

 

I think we're more in agreement than I originally thought.  You seem to lay out an extremely similar approach to mine here, and I definitely agree that ultimately, it's the Holy Spirit who convinces someone.  I think simply knowing and accepting that fact takes away all the pressure and anger that results if we're trying to do what can only be God's work (i.e., if we're trying to make someone become a Christian).  Though, none of this takes away our responsibility to represent Him fairly and well.  After all of this interview is through, I'm going to clarify my position on all this and propose a similar approach that uses evidence within this context of listening and depending on God.  I hope you'll respond with your thoughts on that post!

 

In past discussions with Christians of varying camps on apologetics, my friends and I have found that there is a lot of agreement and only a few differences in starting points. These friends and I are aware of other evidentialists and other presuppostionalists who would both condemn those of us who are closer-to-the-middle.  Maybe the more extreme evidentialists are correct. Maybe the more extreme presuppostionalists are correct. I honestly don't know and I'm open to correction about these things.

 

I just have a few final questions for Glenn about the actual writing process for all you writers out there who read this blog.  You'll see his answers tomorrow on Part Four.

 

 

[Read the entire interview:  Part I / Part II / Part III / Part IV]

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Interviews, Main Page, Theology Comments 2 Comments »

Do We Need Apologetics?

Date December 15, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

Mark Coppenger has written an intruiging article for the Illinois Baptist, “Why the Church Needs Apologetics, Even When the Lost Won't Listen“.  I suggest checking it out!  Here is an excerpt:

Now and then apologetics (argumentation for defense of the faith) has a direct impact on lost people, leading them toward conversion, or at least away from hostility. For instance, perennial skeptic Antony Flew now expresses a form of theism, in part because of the argument from intelligent design in nature. (See the interview at www.biola.edu/antonyflew/.) But it's been my experience that the will is more often the problem than the intellect. Men don't want a Lord, they don't want someone interfering with their agendas. Rather than admit this (to themselves or others), they toss out arguments to lend their indifference or hostility to God an air of sophistication.

Still, apologetics is an important handmaiden of evangelism. It can strip away smugness, loosen up hardened soil, embarrass treasured criticisms and sow disarray in a pagan worldview. Of course, the critic will seldom admit on the spot that you've scored points, but his private reflections may be a different story.

What if they don't listen?  Is apologetics worth the effort anyway?

Category Posted in Apologetics, Main Page Comments 3 Comments »

Richard Bushman Interview

Date December 15, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

Meridian Magazine (an online Mormon web site) has just posted an interview with Richard Bushman.  His latest tome is a biography on Joseph Smith titled Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling.  Because I am currently reading this book, I found the interview fascinating.  Here are some of the questions that Bushman answered:

  • When you are considering the life of someone like Joseph Smith, who millions revere as a prophet and others take as a fraud, what is the historian’s role?
  • As a believer, how can you avoid writing about Joseph Smith with a bias?
  • How do you evaluate material and sources about Joseph Smith from critics whose goal was to destroy him?
  • What makes Joseph Smith’s story so compelling?

You may be intrigued by his responses as well.  Check it out!

Category Posted in Main Page, Mormonism Comments No Comments »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »