Couple of Things

A couple of things to note.

Lifeway and Founders recently had a conference on Building Bridges: Southern Baptists and Calvinism. Of particular interest to me were the two speakers who spoke on the nature and extent of the Atonement. The first was David Nelson, Senior Vice President, Academic Administration; Professor of Theology, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Nelson's presentation of the non-Calvinist position was simply excellent. He truly demonstrated that men of opposing views could actually interact. During his presentation he asked several question that Calvinists need to answer. I appreciated some of his insights that may help Calvinists understand how and what they need to communicate in order to perhaps be more persuasive.

In response and defense of Particular Redemption, Sam Waldron, Academic dean; professor of theology, Midwest Center for Theological Studies, Owensboro, Ky, gave an excellent lecture. His first and primary argument was one that I often give (I am glad to know I am in such great company). He argued that the very nature and definition of Substitutionary Atonement demands Particular Redemption. He also demonstrated that those for whom Christ died, by their actual union with Him, also die with Christ on the cross. His death is their death. Therefore, they must come to faith.

You may go and listen to these lectures at this web page. David Nelson's lecture here and Waldron's here.

The second thing.

I was also listening to Alister McGrath discuss Evolutionism verses Christianity with none other than Richard Dawkins. At one point Dawkins stated something all Christians that compromise on the Biblical account of Creation should hear. (Click here to listen to a short clip)

Basically, Dawkins asks the question that Christian Evolutionists need to answer. Why would God use a method of Creation that makes certain He would never be known as the Creator? That in fact, God isn't even necessary for our being here at all. I loved it. So I sat waiting for McGrath's answer. None came.

Now I must confess I enjoyed much of McGrath's presentation. I commend him for answering a fool according to his folly. Yet when Dawkins asked whether or not Christianity was true, McGrath should have come out blazing with both barrels. Instead McGrath took the road that Christianity is more probable than not. Thereby answering a fool according to his folly and becoming like him.

Dawkins kept asking an interesting question. Just because science may not have the answer, "Why look to religion?" This question was loaded with such devastating presumptions that McGrath should have explained the nature of man-made religion as opposed to God's ability to speak and give revelation of Himself. He could have gone into the language and laws of logic and moral issues that demand the existence of God. He could have explained the Image of God within man. He could have explained his sin and need of repentance. I wonder if in eternity McGrath will wonder if being ashamed of the Gospel should have been a concern in the fleeting moments of this passing and evil age.

In the end I was very disappointed over all. I do believe Christians must often go onto enemy ground and expose the enemy's world view. However, when asked why in return, Christians must bring those that oppose the faith onto our ground. Proving Christianity while assuming Dawkin's world view simply will not work and being shy about your presuppositions won't help either (listen for the "You believe in the Virgin Birth?") Yet listening to the discussion may help you understand where atheism is in the Dawkin's world. If you listen carefully, perhaps you might sharpen your apologetic and be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks with gentleness and reverence.

You may listen to part one here and part 2 here located at this site.