When talking with nonbelievers about your Christian faith (or even when talking with current believers who are experiencing doubts about their faith), one of the most important chapters in all of Scripture to keep at the forefront of your mind is 1 Corinthians 15. In this one chapter, you can find two powerful reasons to believe that Christianity is true.
First, we see Paul’s emphasis on the importance of the Resurrection. He writes, “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:14, ESV). Not only that, but if Christ hasn’t been raised, we Christians are “misrepresenting God” (verse 15) and we “are still in [our] sins” (verse 17). If the Resurrection did not occur, “we are of all people most to be pitied” (verse 19).
Paul is making an important point here that many overlook. According to Paul, the entirety of the Christian worldview hangs on the reality of Jesus’ resurrection. If Christ did not rise in the real world, we’ve all been wasting our time and deserve pity.
According to Paul, we can have all the faith in Christ we want, but if Jesus didn’t actually rise from the dead, that faith is in vain. So, if we don’t have good reasons to believe that Christ rose, we don’t have good reasons to be Christians. Fortunately, we do have such good reasons — very good reasons, in fact.
Given that many in our society are growing increasingly hostile to Christian beliefs, we must be thoughtful about how we go about responding to this trend.
In a previous article, I advocated for the claim that apologetics should play a vital role in helping push back against this hostility. Apologetic thinking may not be all that’s needed, but it should be one of the tools in our shed — and it needs to be a sharp one.
Jesus tells us to make disciples; that will, at minimum, involve making converts. If those far from Christ today are ever going to investigate the truth of the Christian worldview, apologetics can help show them why it is indeed worthy of serious consideration.
Finish reading this entry at Influence Magazine. ->
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.
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