This document discusses several topics related to defending Christianity through apologetics in an honest and sound way. It begins by defining key terms like integrity, apologetics, worldview and paradigm. It then examines questions around whether we follow evidence objectively or are influenced by assumptions. It also discusses how to reconcile scripture with scientific understandings from nature. There is debate around interpreting Genesis and whether the earth is young or old. While young earth creationism is popular among some, many Christian scholars and leaders believe an old earth view can also be compatible with Christianity.

1. Soundness and Honesty
in Defending the Faith

2. Integrity
Apologetics
Worldview
Paradigm

3. firm adherence to a code of especially moral or
artistic values (incorruptibility)
an unimpaired condition (soundness)
the quality or state of being complete or undivided
(completeness)
Synonyms: See Honesty
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrity

4. Matthew7:24
“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine
and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his
house on the rock. 25
The rain came down, the streams rose,
and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did
not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.
1Corinthians3:12
If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13
their work will be shown
for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be
revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each
person’s work.

5. systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as
of a doctrine)
a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the
divine origin and authority of Christianity
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apologetics

6. “how one sees life and the world at
large.”
“the cluster of beliefs a person holds
about the most significant issues of life
–such as God, the cosmos, knowledge,
values, humanity, and history.
“a conceptual scheme by which we
consciously or unconsciously place or fit
everything we believe and by which we
interpret and judge reality” – Ronald
Nash
“an interpretive framework through
which or by which one makes sense out
of the data of life and the world” –
Norman Geisler and William Watkins
Kenneth R. Samples,Kenneth R. Samples, A World of DifferenceA World of Difference, (Grand, (Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 2007), 20-21Rapids: Baker Books, 2007), 20-21

7. a philosophical and theoretical framework of a
scientific school or discipline within which theories,
laws, and generalizations and the experiments
performed in support of them are formulated
a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paradigm

8. Do we “follow the evidence wherever it leads”?
Does our “worldview” or “paradigm” incorporate
assumptions that inhibit us from considering
potentially valid explanations to questions related
to apologetics?
Is our goal to defend “the faith” or to defend our
“worldview” or “paradigm”?

9. The nature of “special revelation” (scripture)
The nature of “divine inspiration”
Differentiation in the various “genres” of scripture
How should various genres of scripture be
interpreted (literally, metaphorically, etc.)?

10. How do we reconcile apparent differences between
“general revelation” (nature) and “special
revelation” (scripture)?
Has God sent a “powerful delusion”
(2 Thessalonians 2:11) in the form of “general
revelation” to deceive those who resist “special
revelation”?
Is it more reasonable to evaluate the proper
interpretation of “special revelation” through the
“lens” of “general revelation”?

12. Either Genesis is “true” or it is not.
If Genesis is “true”, then God created everything
less than 10,000 years ago, over six consecutive
24-hour days.
If Genesis is “true”, then observations in nature can
be legitimately explained from a “young-earth”
perspective.

13. The “Creation Museum” in Petersburg, Kentucky
Books and DVD’s promoting a “Young Earth”
understanding of nature
Home school curriculum designed to equip
students with a “Biblical” understanding of science
Rebuttals to generally accepted scientific theories

14.  Dismantling the Big Bang reveals the scientific and
philosophical weaknesses at the core of big-bang
thinking and the contradictions to which they lead.
Written on a level that lay-people can understand, it
shows the intellectual superiority of the history of the
universe given in the Bible as a basis for our thinking
about the cosmos. Rediscover how to think about the
universe in the only way that makes sense—from
God’s perspective, in the light of the history given in
His Word.
 John G. Hartnett received both his B.Sc. (hons) and
his Ph.D. with distinction from the Department of
Physics at the University of Western Australia (UWA).

15. The universe is estimated to contain over 100
billion galaxies, each one containing millions
to trillions of stars. Some of these galaxies are
so incredibly far away that it has supposedly
taken many billions of years for their light to
reach Earth. Yet, the Bible indicates a
universe that is only thousands of years old.
How does light from the most distant galaxies
reach Earth within the biblical timescale? In
this DVD, astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle (PhD,
University of Colorado) shows that distant
starlight in a young universe is not a problem
for God.

16. DNA exists in the cells of all living organisms and
contains an incalculable amount of information
necessary for life. Evolutionary interpretations
have led to the incorrect beliefs that mutations
and natural selection are responsible for adding
the information necessary for molecules-to-man
evolution and that "junk" DNA is merely a leftover
from this process. This DVD will explore the
fascinating world of DNA and clearly show that
"junk" DNA isn't junk and that mutations and
natural selection are headed in the wrong
direction, corrupting and decreasing information
in DNA, making evolution impossible.
Dr. Georgia Purdom received her PhD in
molecular genetics from Ohio State University.

17. Sadly, many Christians have come to look at
the creation account in Genesis through the
lens of secular science. They profess a
confidence in the Bible as God’s revealed
truth, but they are willing to allow modern
scientific theories to interpret the biblical
account of origins. Such thinking poses a
conspicuous danger, not only to Genesis 1-3,
but also to the essential doctrines of the
Christian faith.
John MacArthur is the president of The
Master's College and The Master's Seminary,
and he has written hundreds of books and
study guides.

18.  Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in
their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years
 Which of the following comes closest to your views on the origin and
development of human beings?
 What is the most important reason why you don’t believe in evolution?
“I believe in Jesus Christ” (19%)
“I believe in the Almighty God, creator of heaven and earth” (16%)
“Due to my religion and faith” (16%)
“Not enough scientific evidence” (14%)
“I believe in what I read in the Bible” (12%)
“I am a Christian” (9%) (2007 May 21-24) Source: Gallup Poll
2007 Jun 1-3 39% 27 % 16% 15% 3% 66% 31%
Total
True
Total
False
Definitely
T rue
Probably
T rue
Probably
False
Definitely
False
No
Opinion
2007 May 10-13 38% 14% 43% 4%
Man evolved with
God guiding
Man evolved but God
had no part in process
God created man in present
form < 10,000 years ago
Other/No
Opinion

19. Occam's razor is a principle attributed to the 14th
-
century English logician and Franciscan friar William
of Ockham. The principle states that the
explanation of any phenomenon should make as
few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that
make no difference in the observable predictions of
the explanatory hypothesis or theory.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

20. In view of the apparent “tension” between a strict,
literal interpretation of Genesis and commonly held
scientific perceptions from nature, which
assumptions most logically merit reevaluation?
The historical consistency in the speed of light,
cosmic background radiation, implications of galaxy
“redshift”, radiometric dating methods, etc.?
Interpretation of the “six days” of creation in
Genesis?

21. Many Christians who embrace “Special Creation” also
embrace the principle of “Occam’s Razor”, concluding that
an “Old Earth” perspective is more reasonable.
Old Earth creationism is an umbrella term for a number of
types of creationism, including Gap creationism and
Progressive creationism. As hypotheses of origins they are
typically more compatible with mainstream scientific
thought on the issues of geology, cosmology, and the age of
the Earth, in comparison to Young Earth Creationism,
however, they still generally take the accounts of creation in
Genesis more literally than theistic evolution, also known as
evolutionary creationism.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism

22.  The following individuals have affirmed that an ancient universe and Earth
(including big bang cosmology) pose no threat to Christian orthodoxy, but rather
may be considered plausible and valid interpretations, even literal
interpretations, of the biblical text. Not one sees the question of age as a crucial
doctrinal issue.
John Ankerberg
Gleason Archer
John Battle
Michael Behe
William Jennings Bryan
Walter Bradley
Jack Collins
Chuck Colson
Paul Copan
William Lane Craig
Norman Geisler
Robert Godfrey
Guillermo Gonzales
Hank Hannegraff
Jack Hayford
Fred Heeren
Charles Hodge
Walter Kaiser
Greg Koukl
C. S. Lewis
Paul Little
Patricia Mondore
J. P. Moreland
Robert Newman
Greg Neyman
Mark Noll
Nancy Pearcey
Perry Phillips
William Phillips
Mike Poole
Bernard Ramm
Jay Richards
Hugh Ross
Fritz Schaefer
Francis Schaeffer
C. I. Scofield
Chuck Smith Jr.
David Snoke
Lee Strobel
Ken Taylor
B. B. Warfield
SourceSource: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml

23. The length of time represented by the word
"day" sparks a storm of controversy.
Lightning strikes and thunder roars with
questions at the core of the debate:
Does belief in an old Earth equate to belief
in evolution?
Is God's plan a restored
paradise or a whole new creation?
Was
there any kind of death before the Fall?
Does the Bible speak of a "big bang?"
In A Matter of Days, respected astronomer
and author Hugh Ross, Ph.D., addresses
these questions and explores how the
creation-day controversy developed.

24. "Special creation" means that complex living things
did not descend from simpler ones but were
created independently.
Source: Dennis Jensen in the article “Pain, Pleasure and Evolution:
An Analysis of Paul Draper's Critique of Theism” -
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1999/PSCF3-99Jensen.html

25. Was Adam an accident of nature, or a creature
designed with significance and purpose? Did
humans descend from an ape-like ancestor
through lucky happenstance, or were the first
man and woman deliberately created, made in
God's image? Long before Darwin, a man
named David voiced a different view. And,
both men can't be right. In Who Was Adam?
biochemist Fazale Rana and astronomer Hugh
Ross discuss many recent scientific advances
and propose a new scientific model for human
origins, a creation model. Can human
evolution be declared a fact? Or does creation
make more scientific sense?

26. A group of organisms is said to have common
descent if they have a common ancestor. In modern
biology, it is generally accepted that all living
organisms on Earth are descended from a common
ancestor or ancestral gene pool.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent

27. Comparative genomics is the study of relationships
between the genomes of different species or
strains. Comparative genomics is an attempt to
take advantage of the information provided by the
signatures of selection to understand the function
and evolutionary processes that act on genomes.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_genomics

28.  “The study of genomes leads inexorably to the
conclusion that we humans share a common ancestor
with other living things.”
 “While some creationists have argued that similarities
in genomes between different organisms could simply
demonstrate that God used successful design
principles over and over again, the evidence from
"silent" mutations in protein-coding regions, along with
the detailed study of genomes, has rendered that
interpretation virtually untenable-not only about all
other living things, but also about ourselves.”
 “The examples reported from the study of genomes,
plus others that could fill hundreds of books, provide
the kind of molecular support for the theory of
evolution that has convinced virtually all working
biologists that Darwin's framework of variation and
natural selection is unquestionably correct.”
 Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, New York:
Free Press, 2006

29. “In recent years, the Human Genome Project revealed the
most powerful evidence of human evolution ever discovered,
and other genome projects, especially the chimpanzee and
rhesus macaque projects, have substantially augmented that
evidence.”
“Thanks to the Human Genome Project, we now have more
evidence of evolution for humans than for any other species.
Lest anyone think that my purpose in writing this book is to
criticize religion, be assured it is not. Like many of my
scientific colleagues, I hold deep religious convictions.
However, along with them, I strongly believe that attempts to
discredit the powerful evidence of evolution actually harm
faith rather than promote it.”
Daniel J. Fairbanks, Relics of Eden, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2007

30. “Descent is the aspect of Darwin’s multifaceted theory that is
most emphasized… Over the next several sections, I’ll show
some of the newest evidence from studies of DNA that
convinces most scientists, including myself, that one leg of
Darwin’s theory – common descent – is correct.”
“The strong evidence from the pseudogene points well beyond
the ancestry of humans. Despite some remaining puzzles,
there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right,
that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.”
“The bottom line is this. Common Descent is true; yet the
explanation of common descent – even common descent of
humans and chimps – although fascinating, is in a profound
sense, trivial… Something that is nonrandom must account
for common descent in life.”
Michael J. Behe,Michael J. Behe, The Edge of EvolutionThe Edge of Evolution, New York: Free Press, 2007, New York: Free Press, 2007

31.  “The parallels between the opening chapters of Genesis and
Enuma Elish and Atrahasis/Gilgamesh (ancient Near Eastern
creation and flood myths) raise the issue whether there is myth in
the Old Testament. But one might ask, why it is that God can't
use the category we call "myth" to speak to ancient Israelites? We
seem to think of myth as something ancient people thought up
because they didn't want to listen to what God said, and so at the
outset of the discussion, the Bible is already set up in full contrast
to the ancient Near Eastern literature. I don't think this is the
case.”
 “A contemporary evangelical doctrine of Scripture must account
for the Old Testament as an ancient Near Eastern phenomenon
by going beyond the mere observation of that fact to allowing that
fact to affect how we think about Scripture. A doctrine of Scripture
that does not think through this incarnational dimension is
inadequate in light of the evidence we have.”
 Peter E. Enns, Ph.D, Inspiration and Incarnation, Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2005

32.  “We don’t always deal with our children strictly in
accordance with the cold, hard facts. Instead, we
make allowances for their ignorance and immaturity
because there are often greater issues that may be
obscured by laying down the factual account. The
bottom line is that we don’t give them what they can’t
handle, even if it is the truth. And so our Heavenly
Father often deals with us much in the same way.”
 “If God were to directly reveal to us these timeless
theological truths using any other cosmological model
than our own, the central message would get lost in
the technical details. The vehicle of delivery would
completely distract us from the main point of the
narrative rather than enhance it.”
Gordon J. Glover, Beyond The Firmament, Chesapeake, VA: Watertree Press, 2007

33. It is clear from the rest of the Old Testament that
the ancient Near Eastern cosmogony was fully
adopted by the Jews. You can see several
references to the “four corners” (Isaiah 11:12) of
the earth resting on the “pillars of the earth” (1
Samuel 2:8) which were laid upon the “foundations
of the earth” (Psalm 104:5). The sky itself (2
Samuel 22:8) is shown to be “stretched out like a
tent” (Jeremiah 10:12) and rests on the “pillars of
heaven” (Job 26:11). Then, of course, the
“firmament” (Psalm 19:1) from Genesis is
repeated and also the “waters above the heavens”
(Psalm 148:3-4) which are released when God
opens the “windows of heaven” (Genesis 7:11) to
bring rain upon the earth. There are even
references to the “doors of heaven” (Psalm 78:23)
from which the sun enters and exits the sky each
morning and evening. The Psalmist describes the
sun as entering the firmament each day “like a
bridegroom coming out of its chamber (Psalm
19:5-6) before making its “circuit to the other end”.
Illustration:Illustration: Inspiration and Incarnation
Text:Text: Beyond the Firmament
Ancient Near Eastern Worldview

34.  “Whether believers are comfortable with it or
not, biological evolution is an issue that is not
going away anytime soon. As the very strong
case for common descent settles down upon
the church in the coming years, many will be
deeply troubled by it’s implications. To dismiss
the issue as inconsequential ignores the
impact it will have on the faith of many. The
head-in-the-sand approach of many believers
who refuse to study the question, choosing to
hold on to their long-held beliefs strikes me as
dangerous.”
 Source: http://cliff-martin.blogspot.com/
Cliff MartinCliff Martin
Host ofHost of
““Outside the Box”Outside the Box”
BlogBlog

35. Theistic evolution, less commonly known as evolutionary
creationism, is the general opinion that some or all classical
religious teachings about God and creation are compatible
with some or all of the modern scientific understanding
about biological evolution. Theistic evolution is not a theory
in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the
science of evolution relates to some religious
interpretations. In this way, theistic evolution supporters can
be seen as one of the groups who deny the conflict thesis
regarding the relationship between religion and science;
that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and
scientific theories of evolution need not be contradictory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

36.  Kenneth R. Miller, professor of biology at Brown University
 evangelical Christian and geologist Keith B. Miller of Kansas State University
 biologist Denis Lamoureux of St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta, Canada
 biologist Darrel Falk of Point Loma Nazarene University
 biologist Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project
 microbiologist Richard G. Colling of Olivet Nazarene University
 paleobiologist Prof. Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University
 theologian-philosopher John Haught of Georgetown University
 physicist Karl Giberson of Eastern Nazarene College
 physicist and theologian Rev. John Polkinghorne of Cambridge University
 biochemist and theologian Alister McGrath, Professor of Historical Theology at the
University of Oxford
 C. S. Lewis, scholar of medieval studies, novelist, and influential Anglican Christian thinker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution#Contemporary_advocates_of_theistic_evolution

37. “According to Scripture, God created the first human beings in a
special, direct, and personal way. Adam and Eve were not the
product of myth and legend but were actual historical persons
created by God. Those who embrace the position of theistic
evolution raise concern in this regard, for they appear to deny the
historical and factual nature of Adam and Eve’s existence.”
“Many who hold this position (theistic evolution) interpret the early
chapters of Genesis as figurative, archetypal, or mythological in
nature.”
“The problem with this view is that Scripture affirms that God
repeatedly and directly intervened in the creative process to create,
for example, the first members of each kind of living thing (Genesis
1 – 2). This biblical position leads to the clear rejection of
macroevolution.”
Kenneth Richard Samples, A World of Difference, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007

38. Richard Colling, a professor of biology at Olivet Nazarene
University, wanted to express his views about the
compatibility of his religious faith with his scientific
knowledge, and accordingly wrote Random Designer: Created
from Chaos to Connect with the Creator. Anger over his work
had been building for two years. When classes resumed in
late August (2007), things finally came to a head. Colling is
prohibited from teaching the general biology class, a version
of which he had taught since 1991, and college president
John Bowling has banned professors from assigning his book
[which was previously used in "at least one history class, an
advanced biology course and the general biology course"]. At
least one local Nazarene church called for Colling to be fired
and threatened to withhold financial support from the
college.
Source: Newsweek, September 17, 2007 http://www.newsweek.com/id/40907

39. Two of the hottest issues in evangelical theology
right now are the New Testament’s use of the Old
Testament and evangelical textual criticism. Critics
said Enn’s 2005 book, "Inspiration and Incarnation,"
violated the statement of faith. “That for the good of
the Seminary, Professor Peter Enns be suspended
at the close of this school year, that is May 23,
2008, and that the Institutional Personnel
Committee recommend the appropriate process for
the Board to consider whether Professor Enns
should be terminated from his employment at the
Seminary.”
 Source: Christianity Today, March 27, 2008
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/03/westminster_the.html

40.  “The writers try to create the false impression
they are presenting a balanced view of the
issues. This movie is the farthest thing from
an unbiased expose of an important issue. In
the movie, clips of supporters of Darwinism
are interspersed with scenes of Nazi
atrocities and Marxist abuses. This amounts
to gross emotional manipulation. I believe
that science and religion are not natural
enemies. To convey this message, dialogue
and reasoned discussion is called for, not the
throwing of stones. Perhaps we should just
say “That’s Hollywood.” Perhaps that is right.
For myself, however, I would hope for better.”
– John Oakes
http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?
option=com_custom_content&task=view&id=4572

41. Responding Like Job’s Friends?
Had good intentions (desired to defend God’s interest)
Confident in their perspective
Never questioned their paradigm
Their lack of credibility was ultimately exposed

42.  The most important element in Pharisaic teaching was the centrality of
the Mosaic Law. The Law, however, came to be defined as far more
than merely the written words of Moses. It included the interpretations
and applications of those words to changing circumstances. When the
majority of scribes agreed on a new finding, it in turn became part of the
binding tradition that would guide future scribes in generations to come.
The scribes first defined the specific commandments that Moses set
forth. They listed 248 positive commandments and 365 negative ones,
613 in all. Then they started to build a "hedge" around those
commandments by supplementing them in detail so that the pious
person could not break any of Moses' commandments out of ignorance
or by accident. These traditions of the elders became as authoritative
and as binding for the Pharisees as was the original Mosaic Law-in fact,
the Pharisees viewed them as identical.
http://www.historicjesus.com/glossary/pharisees.html

43. Are we defending “the faith” or our “hedge” around the
faith?
Has our “hedge” become so intertwined with our faith that
we do not distinguish between the two?
Are we receptive to a “paradigm shift” if the evidence is
sufficient?
Does damage to our “hedge” result in damage to our
faith?
Does our posture regarding our worldview enhance or
diminish our credibility?
Why are these issues so critical?

44.  Religions are increasingly a geopolitical force
to be reckoned with. Fundamentalist
movements - some violent in the extreme -
are growing. Science and religion are at odds
in the classrooms and courtrooms. And a
return to religious values is widely touted as
an antidote to the alleged decline in public
morality. After two centuries, could this be
twilight for the Enlightenment project and the
beginning of a new age of unreason? Will
faith and dogma trump rational inquiry, or
will it be possible to reconcile religious and
scientific worldviews? Can science help us
create a new rational narrative as poetic and
powerful as those that have traditionally
sustained societies? Can we treat religion as
a natural phenomenon? Can we be good
without God? At the Science Network, we
share Carl Sagan’s vision of science as a
“candle in the dark”.

45. Bart D. Ehrman
Robert M. Price
Hector Avalos
John W. Loftus

46. Religious Background:
Raised in the Episcopal church and served as an altar boy
Had a “born again” experience at age 15
Served as a youth pastor during college at an Evangelical Covenant Church
Studied under the late Bruce Metzger at Princeton, considered by many to
be one of the greatest New Testament scholars of the 20th
Century
Served as pastor of the Princeton Baptist Church for one year after seminary
Education:
Diploma in Bible and Theology - Moody Bible Institute
B.A. - Wheaton College, magna cum laude (1978)
M.Div. - Princeton Theological Seminary (1981)
Ph.D. - Princeton Theological Seminary, magna cum laude (1985)
Current Religious Stance:
Professor of Religious Studies, University of North Carolina (Agnostic)
“I don’t “know if there is a God; but I think that if there is one, he certainly
isn’t the one proclaimed by the Judeo-Christian tradition, the one who is
actively and powerfully involved in this world. …I can’t believe in that God
anymore, because from what I now see around the world, he doesn’t
intervene.” (with regard to evil and suffering)

47. Religious Background:
“Received Christ as Savior” at age ten in a fundamentalist Baptist church
Served as president of his college chapter of “Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship”
Became active at “witnessing” and developed a keen interest in apologetics
Served as pastor of the First Baptist Church of Montclair, 1989–1994
Education:
B.A. in Philosophy and Religion; History, Montclair State College (1976)
M.T.S. in New Testament; Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (1978)
Ph.D. in Systematic Theology; Drew University (1981)
Ph.D. in New Testament; Drew University (1993)
Current Religious Stance:
Fellow of “The Jesus Seminar”
Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies at the Johnnie Coleman
Theological Seminary in Miami Gardens, Florida (Atheist)
Recent book argues…
“not only is there no good reason to think that Jesus ever rose from the dead,
there is no good reason to suppose that he ever lived or died at all”.

48. Religious Background:
Former Pentecostal Preacher and child evangelist
Education:
B.A. in Anthropology, University of Nevada (1982)
M.T.S., Harvard Divinity School (1985)
Ph.D. Hebrew Bible and Near Eastern Studies, Harvard University (1991)
Current Religious Stance:
Professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University (Atheist)
Recent book argues…
“The Bible is largely irrelevant to the needs and concerns of contemporary
human beings. Our world is best served by leaving the Bible as a relic of an
ancient civilization instead of the "living" document most religionist scholars
believe it should be”.

49. Religious Background:
Had a “dramatic conversion” at age 18 following a “rebellious” childhood
Served in various ministry roles between 1977 & 1990 including
Senior Minister of Angola Christian Church, Angola, IN – 1987-1990
Education:
Graduated from Great Lakes Christian College – 1977
M.A. & M. Div. degrees from Lincoln Christian Seminary - 1982
Th.M. degree from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School – 1985
(studied under apologist William Lane Craig)
Began Ph.D. studies at Marquette University (Philosophy & Ethics)
Current Religious Stance:
Host of “Debunking Christianity” blog (Atheist)
“There were just too many individual problems that I had to balance like
spinning plates on sticks in order to keep my faith. At some point they all
came crashing down”.

50. Assumptions about “Biblical Inerrancy” & The Problem
of Evil & Suffering (Ehrman)
Irrationality of “Fundamentalism” & assumed
“mythical” basis for Christianity (Price)
Biblically sanctioned violence, perceived irrelevance of
pre-scientific explanations, etc. (Avalos)
Personal “crisis”, absence of Christian acceptance &
incompatibility of the age of the universe and
“creation” (Loftus)

52.  Matthew13:13
…Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear
or understand. 14
In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: ‘You will be
ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never
perceiving. 15
For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly
hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they
might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their
hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’
 2Timothy4:3
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound
doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them
a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4
They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

53. “In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our
vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be
interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to
the faith we have received. In such cases, we should
not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on
one side that, if further progress in the search for truth
justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.”
St. Augustine
The Literal Meaning of Genesis

58. Titus3:3
At one time we too
were foolish,
disobedient, deceived
and enslaved by all
kinds of passions and
pleasures. We lived in
malice and envy, being
hated and hating one
another.

59. Titus3:4-7
But when the kindness
and love of God our Savior
appeared, 5
he saved us,
not because of righteous
things we had done, but
because of his mercy. He
saved us through the
washing of rebirth and
renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6
whom he poured out on us
generously through Jesus
Christ our Savior, 7
so that,
having been justified by his
grace, we might become
heirs having the hope of
eternal life.

60. “There’s 23,000
different
denominations
within Christianity
alone. And we tried
to get
representatives
from them all. But
we couldn’t fit them
on the stage.”
http://www.veritas.org/
Jew, Muslim or Christian:Jew, Muslim or Christian:
Does it Matter?Does it Matter?
The Veritas Forum – February 2008The Veritas Forum – February 2008
California Polytechnic State UniversityCalifornia Polytechnic State University

61. We should “follow the evidence wherever it leads”.
We should distinguish between defending “the faith”
and “hedges around the faith”.
We should remain open to a “paradigm shift” if we
encounter evidence that exposes fallacies in our
worldview.
We need to connect with others who share a common
quest to defend the faith.
Embracing these principles will enhance our credibility
so that we will be more effective in “providing an
answer for the hope we have”.

62.  The Implications of the Human Genome Project on Modern
Apologetics (an examination of the creation/evolution controversy)
http://www.douglasjacoby.com/view_article.php?ID=5452
 A paper on the interpretation of Genesis in light of natural revelation
http://www.douglasjacoby.com/view_article.php?ID=5453
 Who is My Brother? – A Response to F. LaGard Smith‘s Five-Fold
Fellowship Model (an examination of prominent assumptions among
Churches of Christ with regard to “spiritual boundaries”)
http://www.douglasjacoby.com/view_article.php?ID=1266
 My “Spaces” Page http://john-s-lang.spaces.live.com/