Frederick Duquette is a Sessional Lecturer in Philosophy at Tyndale University College. He has a B.A. in Philosophy from McMaster University, a B.Ed. from the University of Ottawa, and a Th.M. in Theology from Talbot School of Theology/Tyndale Seminary. Prof. Duquette is a great friend of the Tyndale Philosophy Department. He has taught courses in both Bioethics and Normative Ethical Theories.
This is an invited guest post on Bart Ehrman’s oft-repeated claim that Mark 1:2 contains a “mistake.” We are delighted that Prof. Duquette was willing to lend his expertise to this question.
Many in the Church today spend immense amounts of time and energy ensuring that our churches and ministries are “relevant” to today’s culture. In general, this is good, and we should encourage efforts to make connections and become more relatable.
However, there is one area that does not get enough attention, and if it doesn’t change, people will never take the truth and reality of the gospel seriously — no matter how relevant we may think we are.
Simply put, we need more emphasis on (1) demonstrating that the truth of Christianity is grounded in reality — and not simply our beliefs — and (2) providing compelling responses to those who raise objections to the Christian worldview.
Finish reading this entry at Influence Magazine. ->
According to Notre Dame historian, Mark Noll, the scandal of the evangelical mind “is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.” Nowhere is this more evident than in evangelicalism’s growing fear and discomfort with intellectual disagreement. Contemporary postmodern evangelicalism pronounces against it. Disagreement conjures up the image of factions, divisions, and broken relationships. And this is a ‘bad witness’ to the world. Continue reading
In this series of 7 posts, Professor Richard Davis examines the principle arguments given by Bruxy Cavey against the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.
Paul says to Timothy that “All Scripture is God-breathed…and useful” (2 Tim 3:16). Recently, I’ve noticed some pastors and professors claiming that even if what God breathes out is flatly in error, that shouldn’t deter us from using it. It comes from God and it contains errors. Nevertheless, says Bruxy Cavey, “You should use it, it’s really useful! Try it sometime, really useful book!” (link). Scripture might be false (and no doubt is in many places), but it’s useful all the same. Our question is: Is Bruxy right? Continue reading
In the past few posts (see here, here, and here), we’ve looked at this idea that the Bible isn’t authoritative; only Jesus is. The Bible isn’t perfect and error-free; only our Saviour is. At first glance, these assertions have the ring of piety. Unfortunately, the least bit of probing exposes the painful fact that they are supported by demonstrably invalid arguments. That is, they aren’t supported at all. Continue reading
Some bible critics have claimed that defending the Bible’s inerrancy “discredits Christ.” It does this, we’re told, “by taking qualities of Christ – his sinless perfection – and trying to attribute those to Scripture“ (Bruxy Cavey). Now of course any true Christian will affirm that Christ is sinless and perfect. Inerrantists go one step further; they “take” this property of sinless perfection and “give” it of the Bible. And this, the critic insists, is a problem. Well, how so? Continue reading