The remarkable change in the attitudes and belief systems of the disciples themselves also provides evidence that something amazing had happened. We will look first at two of the least likely to have been converted without having witnessed an extraordinary event: the Apostle Paul and James, the half brother of Jesus.<< MORE >>

Having established a very early date for the proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus, we now ask if we can discern whether the claim had a real referent in time and space. That is, did the disciples, by making this claim, really believe that they had witnessed something extraordinary happen to Jesus. In this article, we address what some might consider “inconsistencies” between the creed recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 and the gospel accounts. We will show that these texts are not only consistent with each other, but that they are mutually corroborative as well.<< MORE >>

Since we may now consider the truth of miracle claims, let us train our investigative tools on the greatest one of them all. Did Jesus Christ literally rise from the dead? The question is critical since upon its answer rests the veracity of all other Christian truth claims. As the apostle Paul asserts, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is a hoax, and to expend any further energy to proclaim it, the efforts of a fool. Therefore, simply blindly believing in the resurrection of Jesus is not enough. We must know that he rose from the dead beyond any reasonable doubt.<< MORE >>

In our last post, we dealt with the objection to miracles presented by naturalism. We learned that naturalism cannot justify itself since it presupposes without reason the absence of anything outside of the material realm. We also learned that the claim that only empirical investigation of the physical world gives us knowledge is self-defeating, since there is no empirical method that yields such a conclusion. Nonetheless, naturalism remains the prevailing worldview of our day. How can this be? Those who assert naturalism frequently call to their aid the argument against miracles proposed by the eighteenth century thinker David Hume in the hope that pointing to this argument will once and for all silence supernaturalism. Therefore, it behooves us to examine Hume's argument for its validity.<< MORE >>

In this series we will be talking about the possibility of miracles in general and the probability of one particular miracle: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If we live in an open universe within which we acknowledge the existence of a personal God and his supernatural intervention, that is, if we accept the worldview called Theism, miracles fit nicely into our understanding of this world. However, we do not live in a world which readily recognizes Theism. In fact, we live in a world that has largely become what I would call "theophobic." << MORE >>

Irreducible complexity seems to have at least equally if not more explanatory power and scope than evolution, particularly at the biochemical level. If science is largely in agreement that the molecular level is the end of the line, then these are at last the ultimate life processes for which Darwinism must account. But the mechanism of natural selection can only work on finished products. It cannot seem to demonstrate how these finished products came to be as they are at the molecular level. The imaginative evolutionary just-so stories that have had such a hypnotic affect over the past century break down under our high-powered microscopes. << MORE >>

One of the most respected advocates of Theistic Evolution within evangelical circles is Howard J. Van Till of Calvin College. Van Till is known for two claims regarding this position. He argues first that the creation was “gifted” by God in the beginning to evolve in a Darwinian fashion. Further, Van Till contends that an order created by God must have “functional integrity.” By this he means a quality of the creation that renders it without “gaps or deficiencies in its economy that need to be bridged either by words of magic or by the Creator’s direct manipulation.” << MORE >>

The Plain-Day Theory holds that the days referenced in Genesis Chapter 1 constitute seven consecutive twenty-four hour days. The argument asserts that what we see in the text is exactly what we would expect if this were the case. But the fact is that what we find is really a highly irregular presentation for a sequence of twenty-four hour days. It is more regular in the OT to see the “day” designation appear at the beginning of a sentence or earlier in a paragraph than at the end (See Numbers 29 and Judges 19:4-8, 20:19-30 for examples). << MORE >>

It is very important to keep in mind the difference between theology and the Bible. The Bible is infallible, but theology is not. Theology emerges from our study of the Bible, and as human interpreters, we must be willing to admit the fallibility of our theology. Theology is subject to correction. Science, as the study of nature, is also fallible, and, therefore, subject to correction. So both science and theology must submit to the Bible as the final if not the only authority. << MORE >>

In conclusion, we have a creator God who has intentionally infused his creation with his values and his design, from the physical to the spiritual. This is truly our Father’s world. As such, we can move within it in the confidence of his providence and common grace. “In him we live and move and have our being.” << MORE >>