Nazarene Caffeine

In my previous post , I addressed the so-called "Problem of Divine Hiddenness," since it appears to be making the rounds again. Another issue that has been making the rounds is related to the concept of hell. The question was put well by one Twitter user, as seen below. This Twitter user appears to believe that Christians just really wish that hell were real. Implied in this claim is that we wish that it were real so that we could see people punished for things that we do not like. But is this actually the case? There are two aspects to this question. First, whether or not Christians teach that there is a hell. Second, whether or not we sincerely desire for it to be true in some malicious way. Let's take each of these claims one at a time. Does Christianity teach that there is a hell? If I were to poll most people who are practicing Christians, we would say yes, we believe there is a hell. This does not mean that we want  people to end up there. So why do we teach that he...

  I recently saw a video of an exvangelical who, in essence, made the claim that, since all we have are "copies of copies of copies" of the books that we read in our bibles, that, therefore, we cannot trust what we read in the Bible. This is not the first time that I have heard this argument. In fact, it has been effectively answered by others more qualified than myself. However, because this misinformation continues to circulate, it is necessary for us to continue to point out the problem with the objection. Let's start with one of the most obvious problems. There are some who make this claim who seem to believe that, since we don't have the original manuscripts (called the "autograph"), that therefore we cannot trust what is written in the copies. It is important to point out that some individuals who make the initial claim that is the subject of this post do not actually make this claim. However, there are some who do and it is a prevalent enough claim th...

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is possibly the most-discussed argument for the existence of God today. Some of you who are reading this may already be familiar with the argument. There are those who are reading this, however, who may not be familiar with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It is for this second group that I am writing this post. If you are looking for an in-depth treatment, I recommend reading about the Kalam Cosmological Argument from William Lane Craig's book by that name. In short, this is a popular-level post rather than an academic treatise. With that being said, let's take a look at the argument. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a simple syllogism that consists of two premises with a conclusion. It can be stated as follows: I. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause for its existence (or, alternatively, whatever begins to exist has a cause for its existence). II. The universe began to exist. III. Therefore, the universe has a cause f...

 In early 2019, I had the opportunity to attend a conference called M19 that was put on by my denomination. The conference was about what you would expect from the largest Wesleyan-holiness denomination out there. There were plenary sessions with some amazing speakers, and, of course, there were breakout sessions. The way that the breakout sessions worked is that several different sessions would be going at the same time, and you would choose one to attend. It was one of these breakout sessions that serves as the inspiration for this post. I entered a medium-sized room where other individuals were already seated, waiting for one of the sessions to start. It was a theologically-oriented panel discussion, although I do not remember what the topic was. I remember expecting some good discussion, however. Near the end of the session, they opened the floor to questions and answers. One pastor stood up and said, "There are some in my congregation who have become involved in apologetics, ...

  Recently, I republished a post introducing apologetics to those who do not know what it is. This post was based on a teaching outline for the Columbus, Indiana chapter of Reasonable Faith, of which I am the Chapter Director. There is one section of that outline that I skipped over in the previous post because I thought it would interrupt the flow of thought in the post. The scope of that post was, after all, narrower than the scope of the meeting. Today, I am going to present the section that I skipped as a separate blog post. So, today I will be posting about 5 qualities of a good apologist. Perhaps this post would best be explained in terms of 5 qualities that apologists should strive to have. That is, these are good qualities for an apologist to have, as well as qualities that will improve his or her apologetic. They are as follows: 1. The Fruit of the Spirit A good apologist will seek to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit in his or her own life. This is incredibly important....

If someone were to come to you and tell you that they saw the waterfall above, and that most of the water were several colors of the rainbow, how would you respond? It may sound extraordinary, right? After all, water is typically blueish. If that person then mentioned that it was because they had colored lights behind that waterfall, would it make sense. I believe it would. A simple explanation is sufficient to explain what seems to be an extraordinary claim. Without realizing it, we take simple explanations as sufficient for explaining what is by most standards extraordinary all the time. Yet, several modern atheists abandon this whenever it comes to matters of faith. If you have watched any theist vs atheist debate, you have likely heard the claim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The idea behind this claim is that, as claims become more extravagant, the evidence required to validate these claims needs to be more extravagant. I have several issues ...

When discussing my faith with non-believers, I find that the average person is oblivious to the explanatory scope of theism. That is, God's existence explains several things that would be difficult to explain in any other way. In this post, I am not presenting any formal arguments, but am just pointing out what these things are. Arguments will be addressed in subsequent posts. 1. The Origin of the Universe Neither atheism, nor alternative views of God can adequately explain the origin of the universe. Modern science has lead us to the conclusion that the space-time universe that we inhabit had a definite beginning some 14 billion years ago (give or take a little). The problem for the atheist comes when we realize that any contingent thing has an explanation for its existence that is not found within itself, and that if something had a beginning or could have failed to exist (which describes the universe), it is by its very nature contingent. Neither do other views of God adequately...