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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: