“Love isn’t unique to Christian communities, of course, but this verse suggests there should be something uniquely compelling about the kind of love Jesus’s disciples embody. Our friendship makes the reality of the gospel unignorable to the outside world.” - TGC
“Augustine summarized the argument in two great questions: ‘If there is no God, why is there so much good? If there is a God, why is there so much evil?’ To many, only the second question occurs. But the first is just as important.” - Randy Alcorn
You’ve heard the mantra a dozen times: “Christianity is not a religion; it’s a relationship.” This statement is quite wrong. Firstly, because it’s a false dichotomy (can’t it be both?), but secondly because if we have to choose, Christianity is more fundamentally a religion than it is a relationship.
“Charles Taylor draws attention to the problem of disenchantment and the loss of meaning in the modern era. This phenomenon is historically recent—while most modern people intuitively understand the problem, it would be difficult to explain to those who lived 500 years ago.” - TGC
“Far from making Christianity the state religion, the Edict of Milan legalized all religions, not just Christianity. It is also claimed that Constantine determined the canon of Scripture and key Christian doctrine when he oversaw the Council of Nicaea. Both charges are nonsense.” - Breakpoint
“1. The Need to Cojoin Substance with Accessibility….2. The Power of Explanatory Reasoning….3. The Idea of Mere Christianity” - Reasons to Believe
“The vast majority of supposed “contradictions” in Scripture are relatively easy to reconcile. However, for the sake of honesty, I must acknowledge that there are a handful of problems in Scripture that are exceedingly difficult.” - R.C. Sproul
“This brief presentation of evidence and reasoning contradicts six [naturalist] affirmations while affirming the Christian theist worldview. How many strikes must naturalism be afforded before it is ruled out as a viable worldview?” - Reasons
Read the series.
Since we’ve raised the issue of Messianic prophecies, there are plenty of others worth adding to the pile:
Read the series.
So we’ve seen that Daniel’s specific prophecy of the rise and fall of Alexander the Great was at best very unlikely to have been written after Alexander’s death in 323 BC; and if Daniel describes Antiochus IV in chapter 11, then the skeptic’s position is even less likely. Daniel is accurately predicting future events, not faking it.
What say we go ahead and dispense with the skeptic’s position? How about if we demonstrate that it’s just impossible?
OK, at your insistence.
