Open Forum on Faith...

God’s Omniscience & Foreknowledge

2011-05-21T10:40:00.003-07:00

Below is an unedited comment that was posted in another thread by an anonymous writer. I moved it here because it is such a good post (& topic) that it deserved its own space.

She or he asked some very good questions about the Western church’s traditional teaching on God’s omniscience. I ask readers to hear what this person is saying and feel the real tension between the biblical concept of legitimate free-will and the idea that there is only one possible future, from which there is (allegedly) no deviation. The anonymous author of this post has a great point, and we would do well to consider its implications. It is my hope that this post will lend itself to healthy (and helpful) dialogue on the subject. Read on! This post is so relevant that I also posted it on my other, more user-friendly blog: God's Omniscience & Foreknowledge

-Corbin Lambeth

“There are many arguments I struggle to comprehend, particularly with a God who knows everything. This is known as omniscience. If God knows everything then He knows the answer to all of our questions and the choices we make. In this respect, we are living a senseless life simply because everything is predetermined. From my understanding, God does not want obedient robots to worship and love him. In reality, we are preprogrammed. From God’s perspective, He has all the necessary knowledge of who we are. God knows exactly what we will think and do. His creation is the universal map. Do we have the freedom to choose?

If God is omniscience we may conclude the following: 1) Everything is predetermined, 2) There is no purpose attached to our life; perhaps we are here for God’s entertainment, 3) God allows us to make choices, regardless of Him knowing the outcome(s) 4) God is not testing us because He already knows the outcome. 5) There is no judgment at the end of life; why judge someone if you already know the outcome. The outcome of any judgment is for our understanding and purpose only.

Hopefully, my analogy will not lead anyone to assume we should act without thought or moral code. What I meant by “senseless life” is that there is no relevance in life from a God that knows everything (past, present, and future). I question what relevance are we to God if he knows everything? Perhaps, we only have relevance to each other.

Note: I really want to stress the point about so called “tests” from God. The only reason to test something is to understand or acknowledge an UNKNOWN outcome. Simply put, there are no tests for God; If we are being tested then from what perspective or purpose?”

[-Anonymous]

Start a Discussion!

2010-10-28T08:51:00.000-07:00

This is an open forum for any new topics to be discussed. When a new comment is written by visitors, I'll tailor the post heading to match.
Start something good!

Political FiliBlustering

2010-10-27T14:06:00.001-07:00

I recently received a forwarded email that constituted little more than propaganda against President Obama. In that email (which I have included in the first “comment” on this thread), our President is accused of canceling a long-standing National Day of Prayer event as well as praying with Muslims and declaring that our nation is “no longer a Christian nation.” In a moment of unfortunate (?) indignation, I dared to hit “reply all” to point out this ill-conceived email’s fallacies. I could have predicted it, but this was apparently the invitation that one person, Jeff Stoker of Michigan, was looking for to initiate an emotionally laden diatribe in support of his Conservative political agenda. Our conversation started as a Facebook thread among the original recipients of the Anti-Obama propaganda, but I know how annoying unsolicited “reply-all” arguments can be, so I moved my objections to Jeff’s position to a private message format. However, Jeff apparently couldn’t tolerate the idea of keeping a private conversation private, so he re-posted all of my messages to him in the original forum even though I told him previously that he did not have my permission to do so.

Normally, I do my best to honor people who send me private messages by keeping them private or at least asking them for permission (if I can) before I post their writings in a public format. I consider this common courtesy. However, if they expressly tell me NOT to post things they have written, THEN it becomes an issue of integrity. Apparently such integrity is foreign to Jeff Stoker. Nevertheless, in this case I actually don’t mind that he re-printed my words in a more public setting against my wishes, for contrary to my expectations, Jeff actually posted my words to him verbatim, and I remain confident in my criticisms of the political propaganda he has come to believe in so strongly.

Not that anyone is particularly interested in reading yet another political argument, but to accord Jeffry the same courtesy he extended to me, I have also decided to post our conversation in a more public format. Except for protecting the name of the friend who first sent me the propaganda, all posts are unedited and in their original sequence. I leave it to anyone bored enough to read through them to decide who has made the better case regarding the accusations made against our Commander in Chief.

As always, thank you for reading.
-Corbin Lambeth

Atheist, Sam Harris' Wheelbarrow

2010-09-08T04:48:00.002-07:00

Recently I read a comment originating with the atheist popularizer, Sam Harris, deriding Christians for believing accounts of Christ that come from the Bible:

“The Bible, it seems certain, was the work of sand-strewn men and women who thought the earth was flat and for whom the wheelbarrow would have been a breathtaking example of emerging technology.”

This can be found on page 45 of his book, "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the future of Reason."

I understand that for some people (apparently Sam Harris), this might appear to be an appropriate criticism, but the logic is more than a little muddled. Harris’ argument seems to hinge on the idea that people whom WE consider to be technologically primitive are incapable of perceiving events as they actually occurred and equally unable to report them with fidelity to anyone else. Mr. Harris is welcome to place his faith in such dubious conclusions, but there are a few things the rest of us should consider before converting to his beliefs. Read on in the comments attached.

-CL

Stephen Hawking's Premature Proclamation

2010-09-05T10:14:00.005-07:00

In his latest book, renowned astronomer Stephen Hawking has boldly proclaimed that God did not create the universe. An introductory article can be found at the Wall Street Journal on-line at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond.

To be fair, I have not read Hawking’s book yet. Indeed, it isn't scheduled to go on sale until Tuesday, September 7, 2010. While I am interested in astronomy and science, I would be remiss if I pretended that I could critique Hawking’s math or his astrophysics. What I can criticize however, is the fallacy and the faith that he has let befoul his science.

Hawking seems to have invested heavily in the idea that science and the God of the Bible are at odds. This has also worked its way into the now-defunct “God of the Gaps” theory, which held that whatever could not be explained by science was accomplished by God. The problem this idea would seem to pose for Christianity is that the more science tells us, the less God is left to do (or be necessary for). This is exactly what Hawking’s new book capitalizes upon. His latest theory (and it may be accurate on this point) offers that the number of universes in alternate dimensions may well be infinite. He follows this up by saying that since the possibilities for finely tuned life-giving solar systems is unlimited in an infinite multiverse, that we happen to exist isn’t particularly unique. I disagree with the statement concerning uniqueness, but this is also where Hawking stealthily (or perhaps unwittingly) inserts his own faith commitment and tries to pass it off as science.

What Hawking has in his crosshairs is the anthropic principle, which basically argues for design (or intelligent design if you are a Christian). The argument goes something like this: Since there are so many (literally hundreds or thousands) of finely-tuned facets necessary for life to exist (much less evolve), it is likely that a designer of some sort had their hand in it. Stated another way, the sheer improbability of all those categories coalescing perfectly to give rise to intelligent life is so extremely unlikely that it would essentially take more faith to believe that there is no designer than to believe otherwise. Hawking attempts to pull the rug out from this line of thinking by suggesting that life is not particularly unique in the universe(s) and that we just happen to be “lucky” enough to be in one corner of it where life has come together on its own.

Back to the God of the Gaps fallacy. The problem with the fallacy that Hawking has incorporated is that he presupposes science and Christian faith to be at odds. The argument rests on the notion that if science can show how something happened, then it means that God had nothing to do with it. I must be quick to point out that while Hawking has not proven his theory here, he may be right about an infinite universe or universes. Nevertheless, what he fails to consider is that God may have ordered all of creation (or multiverses) to operate according to what we call “scientific principles and laws.” In that sense, we might well consider science a window into the mind of God rather than his competitor. Put another way, theology can offer why God created and what our relationship with that entity might be, but science can offer how God created. This is fascinating, and it leads me to think that good science is one of the most amazing and important enterprises for humanity to explore.

For his part however, Hawking seems to believe that God’s creation can be used to demonstrate that God does not exist. This is akin to a person suggesting that the scientific method can be used to prove that the scientific method doesn't work. While I have little doubt that Hawking is a brilliant scientist, I hope that his readers (and mine) can perceive the problem with that kind of thinking. Like any other atheist, Hawking is welcome to believe that God did not create the universe, but that is little more than a faith commitment, and it stretches beyond the reach of his scientific research. I suspect that his new book makes no such admission, but I hope that I am pleasantly surprised to discover otherwise. Time will tell.

Thanks for reading me,
-C. Lambeth

How Long?

2010-03-07T21:12:00.006-08:00

We are so precious and unique in the cosmos; why do we spend ourselves destroying each other?
May we never be lulled into thinking that all is well in the world.
John 10:10

Make sure your speakers are on, but be patient; the audio doesn't begin until about 2:30 into the video.

I created this video montage for a George Fox Seminary project.
My video can be seen in a larger format on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fwik90jhQM0

Steven Hawking's Premature Proclamation

2010-01-30T18:22:00.003-08:00

In his latest book, renowned astronomer Stephen Hawking has boldly proclaimed that God did not create the universe. An introductory article can be found at the Wall Street Journal on-line at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond.

To be fair, I have not read Hawking’s book yet. Indeed, it isn't scheduled to go on sale until Tuesday, September 7, 2010. While I am interested in astronomy and science, I would be remiss if I pretended that I could critique Hawking’s math or his astrophysics. What I can criticize however, is the fallacy and the faith that he has let befoul his science.

Hawking seems to have invested heavily in the idea that science and the God of the Bible are at odds. This has also worked its way into the now-defunct “God of the Gaps” theory, which held that whatever could not be explained by science was accomplished by God. The problem this idea would seem to pose for Christianity is that the more science tells us, the less God is left to do (or be necessary for). This is exactly what Hawking’s new book capitalizes upon. His latest theory (and it may be accurate on this point) offers that the number of universes in alternate dimensions may well be infinite. He follows this up by saying that since the possibilities for finely tuned life-giving solar systems is unlimited in an infinite multiverse, that we happen to exist isn’t particularly unique. I disagree with the statement concerning uniqueness, but this is also where Hawking stealthily (or perhaps unwittingly) inserts his own faith commitment and tries to pass it off as science.

What Hawking has in his crosshairs is the anthropic principle, which basically argues for design (or intelligent design if you are a Christian). The argument goes something like this: Since there are so many (literally hundreds or thousands) of finely-tuned facets necessary for life to exist (much less evolve), it is likely that a designer of some sort had their hand in it. Stated another way, the sheer improbability of all those categories coalescing perfectly to give rise to intelligent life is so extremely unlikely that it would essentially take more faith to believe that there is no designer than to believe otherwise. Hawking attempts to pull the rug out from this line of thinking by suggesting that life is not particularly unique in the universe(s) and that we just happen to be “lucky” enough to be in one corner of it where life has come together on its own.

Back to the God of the Gaps fallacy: The problem with this fallacy that Hawking has incorporated is that he presupposes science and Christian faith to be at odds. The argument rests on the notion that if science can show how something happened, then it means that God had nothing to do with it. I must be quick to point out that while Hawking has not proven his theory here, he may be right about an infinite universe or universes. Nevertheless, what he fails to consider is that God may have ordered all of creation (or multiverses) to operate according to what we call “scientific principles and laws.” In that sense, we might well consider science a window into the mind of God rather than his competitor. Put another way, theology can offer why God created and what our relationship with that entity might be, but science can offer how God created. This is fascinating, and it leads me to think that good science is one of the most amazing and important enterprises for humanity to explore.

For his part however, Hawking seems to believe that God’s creation can be used to demonstrate that God does not exist. This is akin to a person suggesting that the scientific method can be used to prove that the scientific method doesn't work. While I have little doubt that Hawking is a brilliant scientist, I hope that his readers (and mine) can perceive the problem with that kind of thinking. Like any other atheist, Hawking is welcome to believe that God did not create the universe, but that is little more than a faith commitment, and it stretches beyond the reach of his scientific research. I suspect that his new book makes no such admission, but I hope that I am pleasantly surprised to discover otherwise. Time will tell.

Thanks for reading me,
-C. Lambeth

Issues of Biblical Perfection

2010-01-30T18:19:00.002-08:00

Traditionally this is called the issue of "inerrancy." Offer an opinion, ask a question, but please join in the discussion.
-CL

The Age of the Earth/ Universe

2009-12-29T10:10:00.002-08:00

All readers, posters, philosophers and theologians are welcome! Join the discussion!
-CL

Timothy Paul Jones' "Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus'"

2009-09-02T10:40:00.003-07:00

A book review. Please feel free to engage in the conversation.

-CL

Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

2009-07-31T15:45:00.004-07:00

A review. Please feel free to comment and share.
-CL

Book Review: Invitation to a Journey: A Map for Spiritual Formation

2009-05-20T12:00:00.003-07:00

I read this book by M. Robert Mulholland Jr. because a friend suggested it to me. I'd give it 3 out of 5 stars. This review is from one I posted on another site awhile back.
-CL

The Church and Homosexuality

2009-02-24T20:25:00.002-08:00

This entry has been a long time in coming. The issue of homosexuality and the church is an extremely complicated and sensitive one, and it isn't going away. I am committed to honoring the biblical worldview, not the least of which is Jesus' commandment that we are to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. What follows is a sincere effort to explore what this means in the context of questions regarding homosexuality. Please join in this discussion. ALL are welcome.
-CL

Alternative tags: Homosexual, church, Jesus, Christian, Bible

The Shroud of Turin

2009-02-24T09:12:00.006-08:00

The Shroud seems to be more compelling than originally thought. Check out the audio file and related link, and see what you think. -CL

Conversing with Postmodernism

2009-01-31T15:52:00.003-08:00

Is there any insight out there into how we might approach unbelievers of a postmodern persuasion? Most apologists tread the ground of "modern" modes of thought. These are often irrelevant for postmodernism because its adherents (even if they don't know it by that name) don't necessarily care if something is true or not. They want to know how it helps them LIVE, and in that sense, they may even adopt a "useful fiction" knowingly, as long as it helps them live better. It seems like much of the debate between the newest crop of atheist authors and Christian apologists are aimed at the "modern," rational, Enlightenment thought life, and thus, people who don't think that way find the whole wide-ranging debate completely irrelevant. I'm trying to find some Christian authors who speak to and from postmodernity without trying to beat it into submission (as is the usual Xian tactic). Stanley Grenz's "Primer on Postmodernism" was fairly helpful, but I am looking for more. Any thoughts on this?

-CL

The Weakness of "Weak" Atheism

2009-01-31T15:48:00.008-08:00

Is atheism faith in the absence of God or the absence of faith in God? Either way, my thesis is that faith is requisite in something (or someone). I choose Jesus, but I understand that others don't. What follows is an expose' of the faith that atheists include in their worldview. One atheist, Danny Ledonne (and several other "anonymous" voices he recruited), has taken up my challenge and tried to debate me on the issue. Danny posted an ad for those who might believe similarly to him to participate in this discussion on a website that glorifies the 1999 Columbine high school massacre. This alone tells me something about his worldview. Perhaps that is another issue, but interested parties should read on and see how our conversation unfolds.

This topic has also spilled over into another post on this blog, one where an oppositional voice has demonstrated greater dexterity and longevity than that of Danny Ledonne. Interested parties can find this dialog at: http://thepeakcommunity.blogspot.com/2010/09/stephen-hawkings-premature-proclamation.html

Thank you for participating.
-Corbin Lambeth

Challenging Thesis #1: Christianity and Other Faith Systems

2009-01-31T10:27:00.001-08:00

Challenging Thesis #2: Angels & Demons

2009-01-31T10:12:00.001-08:00

Challenging Thesis #3: Christianity & Science

2009-01-21T07:16:00.004-08:00

After several invitations, my brother Eric decided that he would discuss our differing worldviews (Christianity and atheism). This engendered some lengthy back and forth dialogs which can be found on this blog under various headings and theses. Unfortunately, he has ceased responding to these public threads. While he later reinitiated a separate debate with me on other issues, he has demanded that I keep those discussions in a private context, and I have honored that request. I hope that he will return to the unanswered objections I have offered on my public blog, but that remains up to him.

Because of the topical nature and my desire to allow others to take side discussions as they like, I felt that the relationship between science and Christianity merited its own space. So, the discussion on the present post was birthed from the following (public) blog entry and comments from December 2008: (http://thepeakcommunity.blogspot.com/2008/12/discussion-with-atheist-friend.html#comments)

To summarize that thread, like most atheists, Eric believes that Christianity has some inherent weakness because of its reliance on a degree of faith. I responded that “all belief systems, philosophies and religions incorporate some faith (even if they think that they do not). For example, science itself requires faith that observers’ senses are reliable. This is taken for granted, but it IS faith.”

As part of the present discussion, I would like to offer a further assessment on the relationship between science and Christianity, and it hinges on the question of whether or not the two enterprises are at odds with one another. It seems many atheists and Christians alike would answer this in the affirmative, but I disagree with such an assessment. Both science and Christianity are built on faith, unprovable and unfalsifiable beliefs, but they also make use of the same human perceptive faculties. Science, like the very first Christian witnesses, depends on sensory input or the accurate perception of phenomena in order to operate. The difference of course is that science attempts to formulate rules and laws that, at least in theory, are repeatable and have an explanatory and predictive qualities whereas events contingent upon God’s actions may be explanatory, but are not repeatable or even observable unless he chooses to make them so. So if science only works with the testable, repeatable, predictable and observable, and God does not fall neatly into these categories, then it would seem that, officially, science has nothing to say about God.

But I am dissatisfied with that idea as well, for it sounds as if the two spheres could never overlap, and this is not the case. To be more specific, Christians believe that God created the physical universe and hence all the scientific laws that humans have been able to discern, study and test. It makes no sense, therefore, to suggest that God’s creation could be used to prove that God doesn’t exist. Put another way, it would be like suggesting that we could use the scientific method to prove that the scientific method doesn’t work.

When we consider the poorly understood early moments of our universe and the equally darkened understanding of where life first came from, we can see: A) how humble we should be in proposing theories of creation, and B) that far too much speculation and various faith commitments are mistaken for (or purported as) unassailable fact. Either way, the bottom line is that Christianity is not against science and science does not lead to atheism on its own. It’s only when certain philosophical faith commitments are snuck in the door and projected onto science that it is dressed up to support atheism. We might say the same about religious believers who force the Bible to advocate for their own myopic understanding of Genesis’ early chapters and thus paint legitimate scientific discoveries as an evil ruse.

Back to my original thought, I believe it is more helpful to suggest that God has provided two revelations that we can study, test and explore: the biblical text and the text of creation. I also suggest that when they are followed with an open mind they will lead their students to the same God/ Creator. Profoundly spiritual people are asking the same types of questions as our most brilliant and reflective philosophers and scientists: Who are we? Where did we come from? Why are we here and where might we go? Of course I suggest that Jesus Christ is the one who can best help us navigate these questions. That too is a faith commitment, and it is one that I do not shy away from.

Read on.
-C. Lambeth

Faith Discussion/ Commentary

2009-01-20T10:02:00.004-08:00

This thread was initiated by EL as a commentary on our various discussions.
-CL

The Moral Argument

2009-01-19T21:48:00.005-08:00

This is an ongoing discussion over morality and its usefulness (or lack thereof) in pointing people to the God we find in the biblical text. We didn't set out to discuss the moral argument per se, but it quickly got steered in that direction. The discussion partners are myself (C. Lambeth), and a close personal friend (EL).

Thanks for reading.
-CL

Christian Motivation: Responding to Grace

2009-01-17T09:40:00.004-08:00

This section of posting has been culled from the larger discussion on the Moral Argument. That original context can be located above this post or at:
http://thepeakcommunity.blogspot.com/2009/01/moral-argument.html

The section of dialogue attached here is essentially about why Christians seek to live out their faith. It is part of an ongoing conversation that I have had the honor of participating in as a friend of an atheist.

Thank you for participating.
-CL

Discussion with an atheist friend...

2008-12-12T15:09:00.004-08:00

In an ongoing effort to be in dialog with those who think and believe differently than I do, the following conversation has been initiated between a friend and I over the nature and beliefs of Christianity and atheism. It started out as an email dialog, but he has graciously given me permission to post our conversations on the blog. The original documents that we typed in became fairly unwieldy due to interleaving of comments whose threads were often difficult to track, so I have tried to tidy up the conversation by compartmentalizing it topically. The first sections of correspondence will be listed chronologically, but as the thread gets more cumbersome, I will likely have to break it down with new, thematic postings (listed above this one) and their related entries. Other than these categorizations, none of my interlocutor's words will be edited or altered in any way unless it is for clarification and flow. Any of those amendments will be clearly demarcated by brackets [such as this]. This will not change the meaning of anything and indeed is the literary standard for clarification purposes. Even so, these will be kept to an absolute minimum.

Thanks for reading. May the journey continue.
-CL

Advent Conspiracy

2008-11-19T16:32:00.003-08:00

Let's do this thing.
www.adventconspiracy.org

Political Frustrations and the "Bail-Out."

2008-09-27T11:12:00.003-07:00

I know that this is a blog that claims to be devoted to faith issues, so I apologize for this thoroughly political and economic posting. This is the only place (other than Facebook) where I can rant and rave and at least imagine that somebody else might take a gander. Thanks for reading.

Is this Jesus/ Holy Spirit and Father character for real?

2008-09-24T16:04:00.002-07:00

How do we know that our "experience" as Christians is not our own personal delusion or mental projection of how we think it is supposed to look? Could it be that we are deceived? How do we know it's for real?

What the candidates think and have acted on.

2008-09-15T09:11:00.002-07:00

Looking for some info on the presidential candidates? Here's a place to start. Most of the data here is from CNN.com
-CL

How do we pick a president? / How Pro-Life Are We Really?

2008-09-07T17:45:00.004-07:00

Most well intentioned and zealous, conservative Christians get their claws out when I say I am for Obama. They just assume that I am pro-death and that I cackle in glee each time I cruise around in my hybrid-VW upholstered in baby flesh.

Barf.

So let me offer a proufound and deeply sincere "thank you" to you and all my fellow bloggers and friends who have not tread this path. Contrary to the conclusions of some, I am not just "pro-life." I am extremely pro-life. But I tend to interpret "life" in ways that not only incorporate the yet-to-be-born, but also as the already-born and the non-human life that we happen to share this planet with. I just don't understand how anyone can be "pro-life" without being pro-human, pro-peace and pro-environment too. Abortion is terrible, and I hate it, but I also hate unjust war, disregard for human rights and this environmental suicide-machine that we continue to feed in ignorant bliss.

Unfortunately, in our system, picking a president seems to be more about choosing the lesser of 2 evils than electing a man or woman who we can truly support with 100%. For me, for this election, the lesser of the evils happens to be the Democratic candidates.

Tell me how you pick your president and what "pro-life" means to you.

in peace,
-CL

(most of these posts were originally imported from my Facebook note: "How Pro-Life are we really?" No user posts have been edited except for this initial description.)

Discussion on the Emergent Church Movement(s)

2008-08-28T13:30:00.001-07:00

Join me in this discussion as we explore what this so-called "movement" is about. All are welcome to post and comment.

Healing of a Blind Man (Mark 8:22-25)

2008-06-13T10:31:00.000-07:00

Inclusivism & the Fate of the Unevangelized

2008-05-27T09:19:00.000-07:00

Women in Ministry

2008-05-26T19:20:00.005-07:00

I have recently been involved in a fairly intense study of 1 Timothy 2:8-15, and it has brought me to a place of intellectual and spiritual affirmation that gender is not sufficient to prevent God's call from being issued to anyone. This goes against some conservative, traditional Christian teaching on the issue of women in leadership. I make no apologies for this. It is not my intent to rebel for the sake of rebellion, but rather to honor God above all, including merely human teachings and (in this case), human misunderstandings. This idea desperately needs to be revisited for the sake of our sisters and for the sake of the church herself. Please dialogue with me on this issue.

1Tim. 2:11-15 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But womend will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (Today's New International Version)

Interesting Quotes

2008-03-19T15:23:00.003-07:00

Add your interesting, favorite, fun or challenging quotes here. Comments are welcome too!

-CL

"If God would just show up, then I'd believe" & the Moral Argument

2007-12-11T14:09:00.004-08:00

Why doesn't God just reveal himself to us plainly?

And why does the God of the Old Testament seem so different than that of the New?

-CL

Is the New Testament reliable?

2007-12-11T09:11:00.000-08:00

How do I respond to Mormons? (LDS Religion)

2007-12-10T09:53:00.001-08:00

Alternative tags: Christianity, Joseph Smith, false prophet, Mormonism, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Foolish and Stupid Arguments...

2007-12-09T19:54:00.000-08:00

Is there any scientific evidence for the flood?

2007-11-28T07:48:00.000-08:00

Is Science built on faith or objective reality?

2007-11-26T19:45:00.000-08:00

The Error of Inerrancy?

2007-11-26T19:28:00.001-08:00

Are the biblical scriptures reliable? If there are errors, are they significant? Does one error in the Bible mean that the entire volume is unreliable? Does the idea of inerrancy apply to translations or just the original documents? How do Christians respond to alleged errors in the text?

Questions about the Resurrection

2007-04-08T09:38:00.000-07:00

You might be asking: There are lots of wierdos and cults who make fantastic claims, how do you know that the disciples weren’t lying about the resurrection?

2 Corinthians 10:4 & 5 Demolishing arguments...

2007-03-28T05:14:00.006-07:00

This blog is devoted to tough issues surrounding the Christian faith. So my invitation is this: Bring your questions, comments and problems and praises, no holds barred, and we'll explore them. I don't know it all, but I'll do my best to answer or at least point in the right direction. All I ask is that we keep it civil. If you'd like to reach me by phone, you can do so here: (619) 696-6966
-C. Lambeth