Thursday, September 15, 2011

I guess he is just one busy coward

He says he won't debate you if you are not a Bishop.

I guess he won't debate me then because I am no Bishop whatsoever.

Besides he says he is busy.

Could that be it, or he just turned yellow?


LutherRocks said...

You can't make a logical argument against something illogical like faith; especially if God holds the Elect in His right hand and hardens...blinds the heart of the impenitent. I really wish 'christians' would stop doing this.

Hope you are feeling better, Lito.


LPC said...

Hi Joe,

I am better than before but considering my aches and pains in comparison, I should not really complain. There is much to thank the Lord for. The joy of the Lord is our strength. Thanks bro.

I agree with Craig in what he is doing. Dawkins is one blasphemer who needs a kick in the teeth.

Western Science was founded on Christian Philosophy. In the 18th century, there was a well known mathematician and a Lutheran who scared the pants out of atheists - they won't debate him either, his name was Leonhard Euler. You will find his name in calculus books. He had a mathematical formula proving the existence of God.

Now tell me today if there is a Lutheran who scares the daylights out of atheists - zilch.

Proverbs 28:1.

I blame Walther for making Lutheranism impotent today.

There is a time to engage and there is time to be silent and not cast our pearls to swines. At this stage, it is time to speak.

Craig is a pietist Evangelical and is not a creationist. He is Arminian, and I know that.

I will have that adjustment discussion with an atheist he converts to theism,...but not now, instead, later when he gets the job done.


joel in ga said...

Glad to hear you are feeling better. May the Lord continue that trend!

Thanks for introducing me to the existence of William Lane Craig. Somehow I had never heard of him. It would be humorous if it weren't so sad, the irony of how angry atheists are at the God they claim doesn't exist.

LPC said...

Dear Joel.

Well said about their anger. I while back I also watched the recent debate of Craig with Sam Harris at Notre Dame. Harris went into the problem of evil and claimed that God is evil for allowing suffering.

It is rather funny because he comes from the point of view that morality is not dictated by God but an odd phenomenon whose source is not God himself.

Now if good and evil did not come from God, why charge God evil? He should say to the suffering, it is just bad luck, you got nothing to blame but chance, and we could not blame God either because he does not exist.

So they do spend so much energy hating someone who does not (they claim) exist.

Why are these blasphemers afraid of W L Craig? Because the debate happens in Academia and not in popular emotive set ups which Dawkins and Harris dwell in.

This was also what happened during the time of Leonhard Euler, he challenged atheist to debate it in an academic setting and they would pee in their pants when he came around.


Pr Mark Henderson said...

John Warwick Montgomery is no slouch as an apologist. He's getting on in years now but he'd give Dawkins a 'run for his money'. Generally, though, I think Lutherans are less inclined to apologetics because of Luther's amibavelent attitude towards philosophy. Even if we could convince a man (or woman) of God's existence philosophically, or even of Christ's divinity, we have not not yet brought them to saving faith. Only the Gospel can do that. But these debates are set up as intellectual exercizes, not necessarily spiritual exersizes. Lutherans, I think, have always been cool !(i.e. reserved) towards such endeavours than the Reformed.

Pr Mark Henderson said...

That should have been 'ambivalent'.
Darn sticky keyboard!

LPC said...

Thanks for reminding me of Montgomery, we need more people like him, though I am not sure he is into debate and such. Maybe Rosenblatt might be one too but I doubt if they are the people Dawkins will avoid.

I really like the style of Lane Craig, I heard his debate with Sam Harris and he presented a very convincing and academically solid presentation and arguments.

As to not preaching the Gospel, well, before you can preach the Gospel, you need the Law, and the Law won't be there if there is no God in the first place. So since I was once an atheist myself, I am perfectly appreciative of Craig's type of apologetics.

I enjoy it. Just to correct, Craig is not a Calvinist, he is an Arminian - he does not confess any of the Reformed confessions.

Lutherans should stop being reserved, it looks like they are running where there is no one pursuing.


rlschultz said...

A Crypto-Clavinist friend of mine always thinks that he can offer some sort of clever argument that will open the eyes and hearts of unbelievers. On the flip side of the coin, we should always be prepared to give an answer for the hope that we have, but do so with kindness and gentleness. The Reformed approach to apologetics always seems to gravitate to a "technician mode". That is, if we just flip the right switches, set the controls to the proper settings, we will have a good degree of success in our conversion efforts. When challenged by this, the practitioners of this method may pay lip service to the Efficacy of the Word. But, they will invariably fall back on tweaking their own efforts because their egos get bruised by those who spurn them.
One of my co-workers surprisingly asked me, "you go to church?. I would have thought that you would be an atheist". We work in an engineering lab, which is very problem solving intensive. He further commented that Christianity just did not make any sense to him. I agreed with him about that and that was the end of a civilized discussion. The technician mode would be to find some hole in his statements and then shoehorn in some logical argument that would produce an "aha moment" and produce instant conversion. Luther said to preach the Word and it may even take 20 years to produce results.

LPC said...


I agree with you that we should always be ready to give an account of the hope we have with gentleness and respect.

Did not make sense to him to your friend? Christianity explains well the flight of man it makes every sense to me as an ex-atheist. The Christian worldview is the true worldview. It does have some mysteries but Christianity is not absurd, it just operates at level not down here but on the spiritual level. The carnally minded will not understand the things of the Spirit because they are spiritually discerned.

Atheism is self defeating and it does have holes in it. The hole is there, the atheist just plays blind about it. The atheist really believe there is a God he just does not want to recognise him, he just suppresses it and fakes it. Rom 1.