Christian Apologetics – Who Needs It?

Christian Apologetics – Who Needs It?

Mary Jo Participated in the Reasonable Faith Christian Apologetics Conference. Reasonable Faith is the ministry of William Lane Craig.

Listen to their conversation answering the question “Christian Apologetics: Who Needs It?” below.

Dr. Craig speaks on the importance of Christian apologetics and the defense of the faith. We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/

The Merits of Debate – Part Two

The Merits of Debate – Part Two

In the last blog on the merits of debate, we discussed the first three reasons why experienced Christian debater, Dr. Michael Licona, chooses to debate. In this blog, we are going to wrap up Licona’s last three points of his six spiritual benefits of debate. Plus, we’ll take a look at the negative versus positive outcomes of debate. Benefits of debate: 4) Imparts sources
Whenever Licona debates, he tries to video record the event. He can then offer the video as a resource for years to come. One particularly great aspect of debate is that a person watching the video can get the sources the debaters utilize, instead of having to sift through volumes and volumes of material for themselves. Licona referenced Dr. William Lane Craig’s debates as an example. A person attending one of Craig’s debates is going to hear the best arguments for Christianity in a succinct, concise manner. Dr. Craig has researched his arguments for years, searching through the volumes of material. Since Craig has done all the work and organization of the arguments, Christian viewers can then not only receive the best Christian arguments, but also receive: 1) An opportunity to learn how the best skeptics respond to the Christian arguments, 2) An education on the best arguments to answer the skeptics, and 3) An opportunity to further their own education by reading the sources utilized in the debate for themselves. This last point is very exciting to me (MJ) because as Christians, we are told to value the knowledge of God over everything else (Proverbs 4:6, Hosea 4:6) and told to continue to grow in our knowledge (Eph. 4:11-16). However, not everyone will do further investigation, which is why it is vital to put our best foot forward in debates. 5) Inspires to service To relay this next point, Licona used a few examples from interaction with people after his debates. After his (first) debate with Bart Ehrman, two gentlemen came up to Licona who were grinning from ear to ear. They said, “This was just so exciting! We are now committing ourselves to full time ministry in apologetics.” They were so energized because they had realized there were reasonable answers concerning their faith. Referring to the UCLA debate with Richard Carrier, a student told Licona, “We were so excited that evening about what you did, because the professors here really come down hard on us about our beliefs. You just really encouraged us.” In another instance, Licona spoke with a psychology student who decided to go to seminary after hearing a debate because of the evidence presented and how excited he was to learn about the faith. So what I am seeing here is a theme: Dr. Licona’s debates get people excited about their belief in God. It renews their mind and encourages their spirit. The result is that they are inspired to serve in the Kingdom of God. I can see what he means about the spiritual benefits! I have felt exactly the same way when I have attended debates. 6) Impacts society Christians are admonished to take the message of Jesus Christ to the ends of the earth; to have an impact on the world. Debates destroy the stereotypes of anti-intellectualism that can hinder Christians from spreading the message of Jesus. Plus, debates challenge those same stereotypes, directly, by confronting those who propagate the stereotypes with valid arguments for the existence of God. At his most recent debate at Florida State University, Licona’s opponent, Steve Patterson, professor of New Testament, stated that Christians believe in the resurrection of Jesus specifically because they are committed to the correctness of every single word of the Bible. I will not go into a detailed explanation of “inerrancy” here. For this sort of explanation is not needed at this time. Instead, from Dr. Gary Habermas’ work on resurrection, we can know that even if a person does not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, they can know that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. In response to Patterson’s assertion, Licona stated, “I hope you’ve seen that this is not the case.” He proceeded to comment on how he had provided good evidence for the resurrection whether or not you believe the Bible is absolutely inerrant. On a more personal note, when Licona has a debate with someone, he really enjoys getting to know his opponent. He says he usually gets along very well with his opponents. At his last debate, Licona and Patterson had the opportunity to speak informally over dinner before the event. However, not all Christians see this more personal aspect of impact in which the debaters have the opportunity to develop long-term friendships with outspoken atheists, skeptics, and followers of other faiths. As a result of the debates I in which I have moderated or participated, I have developed some friendships with a couple atheist and Muslim debaters that I hope will remain throughout our lives. What motivates Dr. Licona to debate? When I posed this question, Licona concisely answered with: “the spiritual fruit.” This may seem to be an odd statement from a debater; that making arguments can produce spiritual benefits. However, as we have seen, through his experiences with debates, Licona has come to realize that Christians are uplifted and excited when they witness their beliefs standing strong in a debate format against tough opposition. He then explained that his motivation to debate used to relate more so to the integrity of his arguments.
As Licona worked on his philosophical doctorate (PhD), he tried to minimize his own bias. He submitted his research to unsympathetic reviewers, such as experts in the field, Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels (through debates). These experts would find any holes in his arguments. While Licona researched, he prayed, “God if I am wrong, I want to know. These guys can find mistakes that I am not seeing.” He wanted to be open-minded and do the right thing. So he realized he had to work hard to be sure his efforts were not just positive-thinking, but were an honest approach to the material with no tricks. Licona decided he would not use an answer just because it might score him debate points. So for him, doctoral research and a desire for intellectual honesty were the motivators for his debates. Now, as he has debated more frequently and seen the results in the lives of the attendees, he is also moved by the spiritual benefits (the six outlined benefits in this article). How about the positives versus the negatives of debate? After a debate, Dr. Licona receives far more positive feedback than he does negative about the event in general. This is a point that needs driven home: Overall, the debate experience is far more positive than negative for the attendees. Somehow, a stereotype of debates has developed in the church that 1) People shouldn’t “argue” with each other; it’s just not nice or Christlike, and 2) Debates are ineffective because people just “talk past” each other. These are generalized stereotypes and they need to be reconsidered in the light of current theological and philosophical debate. Making arguments to contend for a belief is different from being argumentative. The apostle Paul gave a defense of his beliefs in the form of arguments in Athens (Acts 17) and before King Agrippa (Acts 26). There is nothing intrinsically wrong with Paul’s actions. The problem of arguing arises with intention.
What is a person’s motivation for making an argument? Licona demonstrated through his desire to be intellectually honest that his intention was to find the truth about God. This is a justifiable motivation according to the Biblical texts. Again, I turn to Proverbs 4:6-7 which states, “Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you. Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding.” Also, in Colossians 2:8, Paul tells the church, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” Proper intentions in making the case for Christianity build up and encourage the body of Christ while answering objections to belief. Plus, as Licona has experienced, a strong contention for the Christian faith gets believers excited to serve and renew their commitment to God.
So what are the negatives? Licona stated that sometimes Christians do not know how to assess the debate, because they cannot get past the rhetorical devices utilized. He believes Christians can get their faith shaken if they do not know logic. For example, at one of his debates with Bart Ehrman, some Christians thought the last question posed to Licona in the Q & A time lost him the debate. Why? The question was on reconciling the differences in the synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John. When Licona answered the question with “I don’t know,” some Christians thought he blew the whole debate just because he didn’t answer one objection to the Gospel. Moreover, Licona stated that if the Christian debater doesn’t give a satisfying answer for any particular individual Christian in attendance, then the Christian debater doesn’t win in that person’s eyes. This could cause that Christian to stumble in their faith. Dr. Licona knows of at least one Christian debater who is weary of debate because of this very reason; he doesn’t want the “least of these” to stumble. In response, Licona believes that it is more likely the weaker Christian will stumble if a less knowledgeable person in that specific topic were to engage on the issues. So he figures that if he is not involved in debating the topics in which he is skilled, then someone else will. Some people are just better for some topics (due to area of interest, research, etc.). Why would it be preferable to either pass this responsibility to a less knowledgeable person or to not debate at all? The skeptics are still going to be vocal whether or not Christians choose to address them publicly. The person whose faith is likely to be shaken should be hearing the best people for each topic so they are more likely to have good answers and not fall away.Dr. Michael Licona is the founder of Risen Jesus Ministries and is a New Testament historian, author, and Christian apologist. He has participated in twelve formal, public debates with two more debates set for this month. Check back soon for my wrap-up on the merits of debate and ideas on how the local body of believers can help promote positive debate experiences for their communities. Thanks, MJ
© Confident Christianity, Inc. 2010

The Merits of Debate

The Merits of Debate

de•bate di-ˈbāt, dē- noun
: a contention by words or arguments: as
a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure
b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides

Whether you are an avid fan of public debates or you don’t think they do any good or you’ve just never thought about debates, I propose that it is time for a fresh look at this aspect of communication. Whenever I mention the word, “debate,” I imagine the person talking with me as conjuring up images of two red-faced politicians yelling at each other, but still saying nothing of substance. I brace myself for the “Those kind of things aren’t productive; people just talk past each other,” comment. Unfortunately, I think this stigmatized view is becoming more and more ingrained in people; and it is not usually a conclusion based in experience.

My own experience with Christian debate has been almost entirely contrary to this disparaged view of debate. However, my experience is limited, having only two of my own debates thus far. So I decided to speak with an experienced Christian debater for some insights: Dr. Michael Licona. Licona is the founder of Risen Jesus Ministries and is a New Testament historian, author, Associate Professor at Houston Baptist University and Christian apologist. He has participated in twelve formal, public debates with two more debates set for next month.

What do debates accomplish?
Most people I have spoken with who have an aversion to debates dislike them because they see the primary focus of debate as centered on the debaters’ ability to “win” or on the possibility to “lose.” Some even see debate as an obstacle to spiritual maturity or as having lesser value than other kingdom work. In contrast, Licona believes in debating specifically because of the spiritual benefits. He outlined six of the benefits of debate:

1) Inform seekers
At a debate, people who are seeking to know more about God are able to hear both viewpoints by persons who are studied in each side of the topic. They will get succinct presentations on those views as well as rebuttals to each view. So they will get to explore both sides throughout the debate to further inform themselves on their beliefs.

2) Inoculates saved
I (MJ) have been asked, why would I expose any believer to the opposite viewpoint on belief in God? They might doubt their belief due to hearing a case against God…right?

First, I hope the church understands that doubting God in some way is prevalent in the body of Christ. In fact, Dr. Gary Habermas states that doubt is possibly “the single most common problem among Christians.”[1] Throughout his years of ministry, Dr. Habermas, of Liberty University, has written extensively on treating doubt about God; some of which can be found online at www.garyhabermas.com.

Second, most believers are going to hear, at the very least, some sound-bytes about faith that are not well-conceived, but can still erode their beliefs. Plus, the more secular our society becomes, the more we will face arguments against belief in God (even feasible arguments). The church can provide opportunities to learn about these or let believers encounter the arguments entirely on their own. I choose the church as the setting to introduce these arguments. Churches should also be training up the body of Christ in the history and essentials of Christianity.

Third, belief in God must be based in truth. If a person does not really believe God exists, then she is delusional in acting as though God does exist. The apostle Paul states that if Jesus did not resurrect from the dead then our faith is useless and we are bearing a false testimony about God (1 Corinthians 15:14-15). Belief in God is either based in truth or falsehood: this is an area in which we must be intellectually honest.

Licona gave a couple of examples to illustrate his second point on how his debates have affected others’ belief in God. After his debate with Richard Carrier at Washburn University, a student approached him saying, “I just want to let you know that you have reignited my faith and I want to get involved with Bible study at my school. I had doubted what I believe, but this debate has turned me around.” At Appalachian State University, a student told Mike she was troubled about her faith after attending a class in which the professor assigned a Bart Ehrman book to read. The debate between Licona and Ehrman answered many of her questions and her spiritual life was invigorated by her attendance.

By addressing the issues that are raised concerning the existence of God, we are building up the body of Christ to defend their individual belief in God. We should take Paul’s admonition to the Colossians to heart: “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” (Col. 2:8)

3) Improved substance
“Debates improve the substance of our apologetic.” Licona explained that Christian debaters, to anticipate the counter-arguments, study how non-Christians have responded to the existing Christian arguments. Next, they think through their strategy: what arguments do I use? Are some arguments better than others? He stated that some people are not using convincing arguments for Christianity. Either they haven’t seen the rebuttals to those arguments or they have never used the arguments outside of a group that already agrees with their point-of-view. This makes for poor argumentation.

In debates, the various views are hopefully well-researched and the counter arguments well-prepared. This makes for good argumentation and thoughtful interaction. I (MJ) think it also delineates between a reasonable position and dogmatism. Licona specifically debates certain people who are highly respected in their fields to put his arguments to the test. If his material is not solid, he hopes he will receive useful criticism from the opponent to challenge him. The result of his labor is stronger, more succinct arguments. In turn, his work helps the body of Christ put our best foot forward and do so persuasively.

Let me add a quick note: This is not “just rhetoric.” This is about giving your best in your field (in this case, debate) to the Lord God. Why would anyone go into a debate on the subject of God without giving their absolute best arguments and preparation? That is not glorifying to God. However, a new argument has emerged against the Christian debaters: the Christians are too good at debating (see William Lane Craig’s response to this accusation here). I guess this would be a problem if the Christian debaters were using empty rhetoric in place of arguments. But they are not. So praise God for those who train themselves well in presenting arguments to the public for examination and persuasion!

Check back soon for the last three of Dr. Michael Licona’s points on the merits of debate. Plus, we’ll discuss the negatives and positives of formal debates and share a few more of Licona’s debate experiences.

Thanks,
MJ

© Confident Christianity, Inc. 2010

[i] Gary Habermas, “Dealing With Doubt,” [online-text], http://garyhabermas.com/books/dealing_with_doubt/dealing_with_doubt.htm.

DEBATE VIDEO

DEBATE VIDEO

Many thanks to our friends at Acts17 Apologetics for posting the debate video for us, which can be viewed HERE. Mary Jo and I hope you gain many insights and will consider both sides of the argument no matter where you may stand on the issues. Overall, we believe you will be pleased with the civility and level of knowledge of both of these fine debaters as they looked at Women in the Qur’an and the Bible.

Be sure and link to “Answering Muslims” as you spread the word about the video. This is much appreciated. Also, both debaters would LOVE YOUR FEEDBACK. Please leave civil comments and try not to be too preachy.

Blessings!

Roger

TO SEE THE VIDEO, CLICK HERE. (Posted Feb. 22nd)
TO DONATE (the debate wiped out our ministry funds!) CLICK HERE.

Mary Jo Sharp vs. Ehteshaam Gulam “Did Jesus Die on the Cross?”

Mary Jo Sharp vs. Ehteshaam Gulam “Did Jesus Die on the Cross?”

My debate with Ehteshaam Gulam from www.answering-christian-claims.com has been posted on www.answeringmuslims.com.

Again, thanks to Ehteshaam and to David and Nabeel for making the debate possible.

If you’d like to see a larger version, go to www.answeringmuslims.com.

Thanks,
MJ

*Note: There have been two working titles for this debate, “Was Jesus Crucified?” and “Did Jesus Die on the Cross?” They are the same debate.

Debate Overview #1

Debate Overview #1

This weekend, Acts 17 Apologetics held a series of debates with Osama Abdallah and Farhan Qureshi. I moderated the debates, but was able to take some notes as well. So here are some general comments.

Osama Abdallah vs. Nabeel Qureshi
“Is the Qur’an Miraculous?”

Abdallah’s entire opening argument centered on the scientific accuracy of the Qur’an as evidence of the Qur’an’s miraculous nature. Generally, his argument flowed as such:
1) The Prophet Muhammad was not a scientist
2) The Prophet Muhammad made scientifically accurate statements in the Qur’an
3) The Prophet could not have known these scientific facts well before these facts were confirmed by scientific investigation
4) Therefore, the Qur’an is a miraculous book

He proceeded to give various examples of these scientific facts from the Qur’an: reduction of the earth to dust, the big bang (Surah 21: 30), a coming “cosmic crunch” (Surah 21:104), the moon reflecting the sun’s light (Surah 10:5) and the moon having cracked (Surah 54:1), the earth as spherical (Surah 79:30), and etc.

Qureshi’s opening statement included much background information on the formation of the Qur’an. He utilized a medical diagnosis analogy to “diagnosis” the Qur’an as not a perfect revelation of God. Also, Qureshi argued that the seven ahruf mentioned in Sahih Al-Bukhari amounted to an escape clause for problematic textual variants. His focus here was refuting the claim that the Qur’an had been “perfectly preserved.” He then challenged the Muslim arguments from literary excellence, mathematical marvels, and scientific accuracy. In responding to the argument from scientific accuracy, Qureshi commented that these “facts” found in the Qur’an were either 1) taken out of the context of the Qur’an, or 2) blatantly scientifically inaccurate, or 3) obvious to the average person (not valid as evidence to the miraculous nature of the Qur’an).

Abdallah compared Qureshi’s sources for Islam to a Muslim utilizing the Nag Hammadi or Gnostic sources for Christianity. However, Qureshi’s sources were early and trusted Hadith (such as Sahih Al-Bukhari). Abdallah, though, referenced the Gospel of Judas; in other words, he seems to demand one methodology for approaching Islam and another for approaching Christianity. He then committed the tu quoque fallacy by arguing along the lines of “so what if the Prophet did things that falsify his prophethood, so did the Biblical prophets…are you going to reject them too?” Abdallah’s actual statement was, “how do you know none of the other prophets had a similar experience [to Muhammad]?” This kind of statement does not answer the problem for the prophet Muhammad. Instead, it diverts the same argument to another focal point, the Biblical prophets; thus, the tu quoque fallacy. His Biblical prophet example, however, was King Solomon. He then pointed to an apparent contradiction in 2 Chronicles 22:42 and 2 Kings 8:26 on the age of King Hezekiah when he became ruler (22 years old versus 42 years old), but left out the source and explanation of the problematic variant; which is important for textual criticism.

In Qureshi’s rebuttals, he re-emphasized his earlier refutation of the argument from scientific accuracy, addressing Abdallah’s “facts” one by one. Plus, Qureshi pointed out more evidence that the Prophet Muhammad does not fit the criteria for a prophet. For example, Muhammad used black magic to remove a spell on him. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 54, Num. 490).

Generally, Osama Abdallah’s presentation centered on the argument from scientific accuracy and Nabeel Qureshi answered each of Abdallah’s points, demonstrating that this argument is indeed not strong for the miraculous nature of the Qur’an. Further, Qureshi’s arguments that remained unanswered were 1) Muhammad’s original reaction to this revelation (thoughts of demon possession), 2) the problematic historical transmission of the Qur’an, 3) the apparent mathematical marvels, which can be found anywhere if one is looking for them, and 4) the challenge from literary excellence, which has already been met several times over.

The debate is posted on www.answeringmuslims.com, under “Is the Qur’an Miraculous?”

MJ

Muslim-Christian Debates this Weekend

Muslim-Christian Debates this Weekend

This weekend, Acts 17, the ministry of David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi will be hosting a series of four Muslim-Christian debates in Virginia Beach. David and Nabeel are two friends who debated the validity of Islam for four years while Nabeel looked into the truth of Christianity. Both are well-researched in Islam, having debated and spoken on the religion all over the country. You can find more biographical information here (click the “About Us” tab). They are also enjoyable to watch as they always provide a rigorous debate!

I will be the moderator this weekend at all four debates. If you are in the area, I would love to see you there! Please find the specific information on the debates below:

Debates:

  • Saturday’s Debates Will Take Place on the Glenwood Campus of Coastal Community Church
  • 05.09.09 3:00-5:45 PM Osama Abdallah vs. Nabeel Qureshi: “Is The Qur’an Miraculous?”
  • 05.09.09 7:00-9:00 PM David Wood vs. Osama Abdallah “Was Jesus Crucified?”
  • Sunday’s Debates Will Take Place at Jackson Memorial Baptist Church
  • 05.10.09 3:00-5:45 PM Farhan Qureshi vs. David Wood: “Who Was Muhammad?”
  • 05.10.09 7:00-9:00 PM Nabeel Qureshi vs. Farhan Qureshi: “Who Was Jesus?

For the Acts 17 website, click here.
For more debate information click here.

MJ