Apologetics, Faith & Reason¶
We've crafted an unofficial, source-cited, non-commercial index of Dr. R.C. Sproul's publicly available teachings, weighted by how many independent sources corroborate each point. The content is authored by Dr. R.C. Sproul and published by Ligonier Ministries (a few items are third-party YouTube re-uploads); see the Methodology & Rights page for more info. Quotations are brief, linked to their source, and reproduced for study under Ligonier's Copyright Policy (ligonier.org/copyright-policy). This site is humbly offered for personal use only, out of love and respect, and is not affiliated with or endorsed by Ligonier Ministries or St. Andrew's Chapel.
161 positions — 10 corroborated across multiple sources.
Well-attested positions¶
Independently stated in two or more of his messages.
Apologetics involves defending the faith as reasonable and convincing people of the truth of God's Word.
In this encounter, Moses raised the question of apologetics, the question of how the believer is to defend the faith as reasonable. He had to convince the Israelites of the truth of the mandate and that it came from God.
Corroborated across 3 sources: The Most Valuable Aim of Apologetics (Ligonier article) · The Task of Apologetics (Ligonier article) · Since everyone knows God (Rom. 1:18–23), how does that affect our defense of the faith? (Ligonier Q&A)
Sproul distinguishes biblical faith from credulity, noting that credulity is an unreasoned or irrational faith.
Here, faith is confused with credulity. Credulity is an unreasoned faith. Credulity is an irrational faith.
Corroborated across 2 sources: R.C. Sproul @ 16:34 · R.C. Sproul @ 0:00
The double-truth theory is an intellectual error that claims truth can be contradictory, allowing one to hold conflicting ideas from religion and science simultaneously.
The double-truth theory argued that what was true in religion could be false in science, and what was true in science could at the same time be false in religion. To translate that into contemporary categories, it would go something like this: As a Christian, one could believe that the universe came into being through the purposive act of a divine Creator while at the same time believing that the universe emerged gratuitously as a cosmic accident.
Corroborated across 2 sources: All Truth Is God’s Truth (Ligonier article) · The Christian and Science (Ligonier article)
Apparent contradictions in Scripture often do not represent true contradictions but rather reflect different perspectives or details emphasized by multiple eyewitnesses or authors.
most of the contradictions people suggest really do not qualify as contradictions but merely reflect the difference in perspective we get when several eyewitnesses describe the same event but give different details.
Corroborated across 2 sources: Difference or Contradiction? (Ligonier article) · Explaining Anomalies (Ligonier article)
Christianity is not rationalism, but it is nonetheless rational, requiring both the mind and the senses to be engaged in the pursuit of truth.
Christianity is not rationalism, but it is by all means rational. And so, the Bible assumes both the importance of the mind and the importance of the senses as both are engaged in the enterprise.
Corroborated across 2 sources: Faith and Reason (Ligonier article) · R.C. Sproul @ 28:43
The most valuable aim of apologetics is to encourage the saints and strengthen the church.
The third, and what I believe is the most valuable, aim of apologetics is to encourage the saints, to shore up the church—just as the first concern that Moses had was to be able to demonstrate that God had called him to go to the Israelites and lead them out of Egypt.
Corroborated across 2 sources: The Most Valuable Aim of Apologetics (Ligonier article) · The Task of Apologetics (Ligonier article)
The purpose of apologetics is to show the credibility of Christianity so that Christians are not devastated by skepticism.
But if we can answer these questions and show the credibility of Christianity, the folks in the church will not be devastated by the voices of skepticism that surround them.
Corroborated across 2 sources: The Most Valuable Aim of Apologetics (Ligonier article) · The Task of Apologetics (Ligonier article)
All Christians, not just professional apologists, are called to study apologetic issues and recognize the reasons for hope.
And so, not everybody is called to be a professional apologist, but we are all called to study apologetic issues and to see that there are reasons for the hope that is within us.
Corroborated across 2 sources: The Most Valuable Aim of Apologetics (Ligonier article) · The Task of Apologetics (Ligonier article)
Sproul argues that cultural emphasis on pluralism and relativism ignores the exclusive claim to truth found in Christ.
There is only one way to God? Jesus is the only way? How narrow is that? According to our culture, we are to embrace pluralism and relativism. No one has an exclusive claim to truth—that is way too narrow minded.
Corroborated across 2 sources: What Was the Cause of the Protestant Reformation? (Ligonier article) · The Narrow Way (Ligonier)
When dating a book, one must consider both external evidence (references by extra-biblical writers) and internal evidence (statements within the book itself).
Now, anytime we face the question of dating a book in the Bible, we pay attention to two basic sources, or two areas. First of all we talk about the external evidence, and then we're concerned with the internal evidence.
Corroborated across 2 sources: R.C. Sproul @ 5:55 · R.C. Sproul @ 5:38
Further positions¶
Drawn from a single high-trust (official transcript) source.
The argument that all religions ultimately believe in the same God is fundamentally flawed and constitutes nonsense.
To argue that all religions ultimately believe in the same God is the quintessential nonsense statement. Even a cursory examination of the content of different religions reveals this.
Source: A Rose Is a Rose (Ligonier article)
Contemporary relativism, which is reinforced by pragmatism, shares the same foundational assumptions as the ancient Sophists.
We’re seeing it all around us as so many people in our culture are committed to a philosophy of relativism, which foundationally is no different from the assumptions brought to the realm of education by the ancient Sophists.
Source: Against the Sophists (Ligonier article)
All scientific theories rely on underlying philosophical premises that must be understood.
it clearly set forth the importance of understanding that all scientific theories presuppose certain philosophical premises.
Source: All Truth Is God’s Truth (Ligonier article)
Knowledge is not limited to empirical investigation but also includes formal truth, such as mathematics.
Besides material knowledge, we also have to take into account formal truth. In this regard we must consider mathematics as a genuine science, because math in its formal dimension yields real knowledge.
Source: All Truth Is God’s Truth (Ligonier article)
The Pentateuch contains the foundational theological material necessary for a comprehensive understanding of the Christian faith.
From Genesis through Deuteronomy, we have the most important theological foundation to provide the framework for our comprehensive understanding of the Christian faith.
Source: Ancient Promises (Ligonier article)
The most crucial question for evaluating religion and choosing ultimate truth is 'Who are You?'
When it comes to evaluating a religion and choosing ultimate truth, “Who are You?” is the question God most wants to answer. Only after you see Him for who He is can you have an intelligent belief.
Source: Asking the Right Questions (Ligonier article)
Warfield and Kuyper had a minor disagreement regarding the best method for defending Christian truth in apologetics.
He had what seemed at the time to be a minor disagreement with Abraham Kuyper over the best way to defend Christian truth in the science of apologetics.
Source: B.B. Warfield: Defender of the Faith (Ligonier article)
Cornelius Van Til affirmed an apologetic position that differed from B.B. Warfield's.
Cornelius Van Til, a brilliant young theologian who followed in the footsteps of Kuyper and Bavinck, affirmed a position on apologetics different from B.B. Warfield.
Source: B.B. Warfield: Defender of the Faith (Ligonier article)
Students attempting to defend Christian truth claims in academic settings often face vicious attacks because the professor controls the discussion.
I try to communicate to them that, as valiant as their attempts may be, they are in most cases exercises in futility because the professor controls the discussion.
Source: Be Prepared (Ligonier article)
Parents should not assume that the current faculty of a Christian institution is fully persuaded of Christian truth claims.
If you’re looking to send your children to an institution that has a Christian history or a Christian relationship, do not assume that the current faculty is fully persuaded of the truth claims of Christianity.
Source: Be Prepared (Ligonier article)
The modern assumption that faith and reason are incompatible forces people into an intellectual schism.
He must somehow put his faith on one side of the room and his reason and scientific investigation on the other side, because the two are simply incompatible.
Source: The Christian and Science (Ligonier article)
The concept of 'double truth' allows a notion to be true in religion and false in science, which is a contradictory expectation.
The concept of double truth was that a notion could be true in theology or religion and, at the same time, false in philosophy or science.
Source: The Christian and Science (Ligonier article)
The philosophical antecedent of pluralism is relativism, which holds that all truth is relative and therefore no single idea or source can possess supremacy.
What drives pluralism is the philosophical antecedent of relativism. All truth is relative; therefore, no one idea or source can be seen as having any kind of supremacy.
Source: The Christian’s Duty to Hold Firm (Ligonier article)
Pluralism and relativism are dangerous because they undermine logic and the necessity of exclusive claims to truth.
Sadly, with a philosophy of relativism and a philosophy of pluralism, the science of logic doesn’t matter. Logic is escorted to the door and is firmly booted out of the house onto the street. There is no room for logic in any system of pluralism and relativism.
Source: The Christian’s Duty to Hold Firm (Ligonier article)
The Jesus Seminar and similar groups represent a lunatic fringe in theology whose theories do not warrant serious rebuttal.
For example, the Jesus Seminar represents the lunatic fringe of the theological world. The proper response to their views is not patient, critical analysis but scorn and ridicule. Their theories and hypotheses are not worthy of serious rebuttal.
Source: The Da Vinci Conspiracy (Ligonier article)
The Gnostics rejected standard methods of knowledge acquisition, such as empiricism and rationalism, in favor of mystical intuition.
The Gnostics eschewed normal categories of knowledge, such as found universally in human epistemology, namely that we learn what we learn by a combined use of sense perception (empiricism) and rational deduction from the data (rationalism). The Gnostics rejected both and claimed a superior way of knowing through immediate apprehension of truth by mystical intuition.
Source: The Da Vinci Conspiracy (Ligonier article)
Embracing philosophical relativism can lead to a sensational epistemology, opening the door for questionable literature.
Once relativism is embraced, there are no brakes on the roller coaster of sensational epistemology.
Source: The Da Vinci Conspiracy (Ligonier article)
The argument that doubting doubt proves doubt relies on the assumption that the law of non-contradiction is valid.
It assumes the validity of the law of non-contradiction.
Source: Descartes and the Anatomy of Doubt (Ligonier article)
Variation between accounts is not the same as contradiction, as different eyewitnesses can report the same event differently based on their perspectives.
But variation and contradiction aren’t the same thing. We’re familiar with how two eyewitnesses might see the same crime but report it differently. They remember different things about the event because of their different perspectives, but the details of the two accounts don’t conflict.
Source: Difference or Contradiction? (Ligonier article)
The false dilemma fallacy incorrectly forces a choice between two matters when both may be true, leading to a distortion of truth.
The fallacy of the false dilemma takes two important truths and forces one to choose between them. The assumption of the either/or fallacy is that of two particular matters, only one is true while the other is false; therefore, one is required to choose between the true and the false.
Source: Do We Believe the Whole Gospel? (Ligonier article)
Believers are obligated not only to believe the truth but also to actively defend and contend for it.
Context: Quoting John Piper.
John Piper puts it well when he says that we not only have to believe the truth, that it’s not enough even to defend the truth, but we must also contend for the truth.
Source: Escaping the “Cage Stage” (Ligonier article)
Higher critical scholars are unable to support their conclusions about biblical texts with actual, observable evidence.
▷ A view Sproul explains or critiques — not his own position.
In the same way, the higher critical scholars are not able to make actual observations to support their conclusions about the biblical texts.
Source: The Eternal Significance of the Infinitely Insignificant (Ligonier article)
When evaluating alleged contradictions, one should first give others the benefit of a second glance to see if the positions are truly contradictory.
We should strive to figure out how someone can consistently affirm two seemingly contradictory positions. In giving that second glance, we often find that what others are saying is not as contradictory as it first seemed.
Source: Explaining Anomalies (Ligonier article)
Rationalism is not a single philosophy, but rather wears various faces, including Enlightenment rationalism and Hegelian rationalism.
There is no monolithic philosophy of rationalism; rather, rationalism wears various faces. On the one hand, we think of rationalism as distinct from empiricism with respect to how we come to know what we know.
Source: Faith and Reason (Ligonier article)
Biblical faith is not only substantial and evidentiary but is also rational and reasonable.
So we say that biblical faith is not the same as reason, but that faith is rational and reasonable.
Source: Faith and Reason (Ligonier article)
Faith requires the human mind to understand the concepts and terms involved, making it not entirely separate from reason.
Could we say that “Jesus is Lord” without some understanding of what the term Lord means, what the verb is indicates, and who the name Jesus refers to?
Source: Faith Has Its Reasons (Ligonier article)
The true opposites of faith are credulity (naive believism) and superstition, not reason or sense perception.
The real opposites of faith are not reason and sense perception but credulity and superstition. Credulity, or naive believism, believes something that has no basis in reality.
Source: Faith Has Its Reasons (Ligonier article)
The article will approach the question of Reformed theology using the via negativa, which defines things by what they are not.
It is the task of this article to approach the question of Reformed theology from the perspective of what is called in philosophy the via negativa . This method of approaching truth defines things in terms of what they are not; hence, it is called the “way of negation.”
Source: The Fine Points of Calvinism (Ligonier article)
Reformed theology is not anti-catholic, but rather draws from the common articles of faith shared by all orthodox Christians.
Reformed theology is not anti-catholic. This may seem strange since Reformed theology grows directly out of the Protestant movement of the sixteenth century, which movement was called “Protestant” because it involved a “protest” against the teaching and activity of Roman Catholicism. But the term catholic refers to catholic Christianity, the essence of which may be found in the ecumenical creeds of the first thousand years of church history, particularly the early creeds and church councils, such as the council of Nicea in the fourth century and the council of Chalcedon in the fifth century.
Source: The Fine Points of Calvinism (Ligonier article)
When a student states a belief, they are making a cognitive judgment, which is distinct from merely feeling an emotion.
When the student declares, “I feel that Kant made a mistake” he means that he thinks Kant committed an error. The student is making a cognitive judgment. It is not a feeling, it is thinking.
Source: What Is Hedonism? (Ligonier article)
When discussing theological errors, one must recognize that if a person is wrong, it is because they are trying to make the Scriptures agree with their own desires rather than the other way around.
if one of us is wrong, it would be because he came to the Scriptures while wanting it to agree with him, rather than wanting to agree with the Scriptures.
Source: The Holiness of God and the Sinfulness of Man (Ligonier article)
In addition to historical testing, Scripture's truth must be tested for logical consistency and coherence.
Second, we want to test the claims of truth through the test of rationality. Is it logically consistent, or does it speak with a “forked tongue”? We examine the content of Scripture to see if it is coherent.
Source: How Do We Know the Bible Is True? (Ligonier article)
Aristotle defined four causes (material, formal, efficient, and final) and used them to illustrate the concept of the instrumental cause.
Aristotle distinguished four kinds of causes: the formal cause, the efficient cause, the final cause, and the material cause. He did not include the instrumental cause. His four causes, however, formed the basis for the idea of instrumental cause.
Source: The Instrumental Cause of Justification (Ligonier article)
Sinners tend to reserve best-case analysis for their own motives while giving worst-case analysis to the motives of others.
The problem we all have as sinners on this side of glory is that we tend to reserve best-case analysis to our own motives and give worst-case analysis to our brother’s and sister’s motives.
Source: What Is the Judgment of Charity? (Ligonier article)
A true measure of deep understanding is the ability to communicate complex ideas simply without distorting the truth.
A great teacher can simplify without distortion. This is the supreme test of understanding. If I truly understand something, I ought to be able to communicate it to others.
Source: Marks of a Great Teacher: Understanding (Ligonier article)
During seminary, the speaker faced vicious attacks on the doctrines of faith, which required him to seek answers from professors like J. Gresham Machen.
The toughest three years of my life were my seminary years, because I was a zealous Christian studying in a citadel of unbelief. Every day, the precious doctrines of our faith were attacked viciously by my professors.
Source: The Most Valuable Aim of Apologetics (Ligonier article)
Sartre argued that religious faith is irrational because it requires accepting the absurd.
Sartre argued that religious faith is irrational. It involves accepting what is “absurd.”
Source: Pessimistic Existentialism (Ligonier article)
Using contradictions in theology reveals confusion rather than brilliance.
When we use them we are revealing our confusion , not our brilliance.
Source: Pessimistic Existentialism (Ligonier article)
The theologians who combined existentialism and Christianity, while correct on some points, often overreacted against rationality.
Sadly, however, too often they threw out the baby with the bathwater. Their protest against rationality became too severe. Their antisystem perspective began to wallow in contradiction.
Source: Pessimistic Existentialism (Ligonier article)
Sproul asserts that pluralism, as a philosophical idea, is fundamentally opposed to Christianity.
Pluralism, as a philosophical idea, is the very antithesis of Christianity. No church can survive for long in that kind of chaos.
Source: Pluralism and Relativism (Ligonier article)
Relativism and pluralism are flawed because they imply that all views are equally valid, which ultimately destroys the possibility of truth.
Pluralism says not only are all views equally tolerable under the law, but all views are equally valid . If that is the case, then we are saying that every view has as much validity as its contradictory, in which case truth is slain.
Source: Pluralism and Relativism (Ligonier article)
Pluralism and relativism are impossible because they eliminate the possibility of truth itself.
Pluralism and relativism have no possibility of being true because, from the beginning, the very possibility of truth itself is eliminated.. If everything is true, then nothing is true.
Source: Pluralism and Relativism (Ligonier article)
Pragmatism is a philosophy that rejects the possibility of discovering ultimate truth and defines truth merely as what is effective or functional.
Pragmatism eschews any hope of discovering ultimate truth. It is skeptical with respect to objective principles of righteousness and defines truth as “that which works.”
Source: Principle vs. Pragmatism (Ligonier article)
The question of 'why' is fundamentally a question about purpose, suggesting that human beings are inherently committed to finding reasons or goals for events.
When we raise the question of purpose, we are concerned with ends, aims, and goals. All these terms suggest intent. They assume meaning rather than meaninglessness.
Source: The Purposes of God (Ligonier article)
The foundation for knowing what is good and right in Christian ethics is divine revelation, not speculative reason or expediency.
At the heart of Christian ethics is the conviction that our firm basis for knowing the true, the good, and the right is divine revelation. Christianity is not a life system that operates on the basis of speculative reason or pragmatic expediency.
Source: Revelation and Christian Ethics (Ligonier article)
Societies draw their unifying world views from various sources, including philosophy, religion, mythology, and politics.
Yet in all societies we find elements of philosophy, religion, mythology, and politics, all competing for the rank of dominance.
Source: Secularism: Ignoring the Eternal (Ligonier article)
Various secular philosophies, including existentialism, humanism, and positivism, share the common point of denying the transcendent and the eternal.
Although these different philosophies may seem to be on a collision course with each other, they all embrace one common point, namely, the denial of the transcendent and the eternal.
Source: Secularism: Ignoring the Eternal (Ligonier article)
The concept of intelligent design is redundant because if something is designed, it must have been done by something intelligent.
The controversy about intelligent design is about the same thing. “Intelligent design” is redundant; if something is designed, it had to have been by something intelligent.
Source: The Self-Existent God (Ligonier article)
The Greek philosophers initially sought the ultimate, archetypal truth that could explain all other truths.
The Greek philosophers were looking for not just true ideas but the archetypal truth—the arch-truths of ultimate reality, the truths that would explain every subordinate truth that we study in science.
Source: Socrates or Sophism? (Ligonier article)
Sophistry refers to superficial, uninformed, or simplistic reasoning that fails to reach higher principles.
Sophistry is superficial, uninformed, or simplistic reasoning, a reasoning that doesn’t ascend to the higher principles.
Source: Socrates or Sophism? (Ligonier article)
Proof involves solid evidence and cogent reasoning, while persuasion relies on emotional responses.
Proof involves the presentation of solid evidence by cogent reasoning whereby the premises are demonstrated by their logical conclusions, whereas persuasion has to do with an emotional response in which a person may acquiesce to a position without ever really thinking it through.
Source: Socrates or Sophism? (Ligonier article)
Historical theology examines how doctrines have developed in the church's history, particularly at times of crisis.
Historical theologians look at how doctrine has developed in the life of the church historically, primarily at crisis points—when heresies emerged and the church responded.
Source: The Sources of Systematic Theology (Ligonier article)
People will not be persuaded by objective evidence if they are not genuinely open to it.
Human beings are adept at rejecting objective evidence when it does not confirm their prejudice, no matter how clear or compelling the evidence may be.
Source: The Spirit’s Internal Witness (Ligonier article)
The primary reason people reject Christianity is a moral issue, not a lack of evidence.
No, the real issue is a moral one. The person not reconciled to God in Christ and living in disobedience does not want Scripture’s claim that God has a full and final claim on his life to be true.
Source: The Spirit’s Internal Witness (Ligonier article)
The only legitimate motivation for studying theology is to know God, not merely to satisfy intellectual curiosity or acquire knowledge.
The answer is found in St. Augustine’s Confessions , where he says that the only legitimate motivation for the study of theology is not to satisfy intellectual curiosity or to acquire knowledge but to get to know God, not to know about Him.
Source: Striking a Chord in the Heart of the Believer: An Interview with R.C. Sproul (Ligonier article)
Apologetics can be used offensively to point out inconsistencies and errors in other worldviews and faiths.
Here, apologetics operates on the offensive, pointing out the inconsistencies and errors of other faiths and worldviews.
Source: The Task of Apologetics (Ligonier article)
Christians must actively think about their beliefs and be aware of the various philosophical systems influencing culture.
The preacher was not telling us that Christians are people who think. He was summoning us to be Christians who do think. The purpose of this book is to help us think about prevailing viewpoints in our culture.
Source: The Importance of Cultural Awareness (Ligonier article)
Christians face a major challenge in combating the onslaught of various philosophical systems in contemporary culture.
Combating this onslaught is a major challenge facing Christians today.
Source: The Importance of Cultural Awareness (Ligonier article)
The classical understanding views conscience as a link to the transcendent ethics residing in God.
Historically and classically, the conscience was seen to be our link to the transcendent ethic that resides in God.
Source: The Question of Conscience (Ligonier article)
Improving skills in basic principles of logic would make faulty inferences when interpreting Scripture less likely.
It is my firm belief that these faulty inferences would be less likely if biblical interpreters were more skilled in basic principles of logic.
Source: Thinking Like Jesus (Ligonier article)
It is beneficial for Christians to study reasoning principles to overcome the negative effects of sin on their thinking.
So, as a matter of discipline, it is much to our benefit to study and master the elementary principles of reasoning so that we can, by the help of God the Holy Spirit, overcome to a certain degree the ravages of sin upon our thinking.
Source: Thinking Like Jesus (Ligonier article)
Disagreement over theological points, such as the mode of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper, can lead to severe divisions and questioning of another person's faith.
But beyond disagreeing, the saddest thing was when Luther turned to Zwingli and said, "You are an andern Geist "—German for "a different spirit." Luther questioned Zwingli's Christianity altogether.
Source: A Warning Against Division in the Church (Ligonier article)
Mechanistic views fail to provide a meaningful foundation for ethics or explain why life should be valued.
The mechanistic view ofers no understanding of the meaning of life. Attempts have been made to develop a sense of mechanistic ethics. All have failed.
Source: We Are Not Germs: The Case for Human Dignity (Ligonier article)
C.S. Lewis was a Christian intellectual who believed that Christianity was fundamentally rational and defensible through sound argumentation.
He was convinced that Christianity was at heart rational and defensible with sound argumentation.
Source: The Weight of Glory (Ligonier article)
The speaker asserts that theological assertions, such as those in John 1:1, should not be treated as inherent contradictions.
However, if we are to retain theological sanity, we must reject the idea that these assertions are in fact contradictory.
Source: Who Do You Say That I Am? (Ligonier article)
Wise sayings, including proverbs, are generally true insights that must be applied contextually, as they can appear to contradict each other.
In many situations, wisdom dictates that we examine carefully where we should place our steps next so that we are not moving blindly. At the same time, we cannot be so paralyzed in our evaluation of the pros and cons of our next move that we hesitate too long before making a decision and lose opportunities when they present themselves to us.
Source: Wisely Handling the Bible’s Wise Sayings (Ligonier article)
Sometimes it is best to remain silent when dealing with a fool, but other times it is necessary to respond by following their flawed logic to expose its absurdity.
If someone is speaking foolishness, it is generally not wise to try to talk to him. Such a discussion will go nowhere, and the one who tries to carry on the discussion with the fool is in danger of falling into the same foolishness. In other words, there are circumstances when we are better off saying nothing.
Source: Wisely Handling the Bible’s Wise Sayings (Ligonier article)
The technique of reductio ad absurdum is a biblical method used to demonstrate that an opponent's premises lead to an absurd conclusion.
I am referring to the reductio ad absurdum , which reduces the other person's argument to absurdity. By means of this technique, it is possible to show a person the necessary, logical conclusion that flows out of his argument, and so demonstrate that his premises lead ultimately to an absurd conclusion.
Source: Wisely Handling the Bible’s Wise Sayings (Ligonier article)
The speaker is acting as the Devil's advocate, presenting classical arguments against Christianity rather than stating his own beliefs.
these debates are ‘mock debates,’ so-called because the positions that I am expounding in this debate are not my own; but I am trying to act as the Devil’s advocate and set before Dr. Gerstner some of the classical arguments against Christianity that have been set forth through the ages
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 0:09
The speaker advocates for an existential view of truth, defining it as an experience or encounter rather than a rational proposition.
I have an existential view of truth. And for me as an existentialist, see, truth is an experience. It’s an encounter. It’s feeling more than rational propositions.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 9:57
The mere possibility of an event occurring does not constitute irrefutable evidence that it actually happened.
Just because it’s possible, is not irrefutable evidence that it actually happened.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 14:30
The argument presented is circular because it assumes the Bible proves itself, which is a fallacy.
Now, that certainly sounds to me, Dr. Gerstner, like a circular argument, and you know that a circular argument is the – GERSTNER: I agree with you.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 25:01
The opponent's argument commits the fallacy of begging the question.
principia fallacy here. You’re begging to the question, and it would destroy the cogency of your argument.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 22:18
The speaker believes that the only valid basis for theological debate is Scripture, and that tradition or church authority cannot be used.
if you can prove your position to John MacArthur from the pages of sacred Scripture, he'll change it in a heartbeat because I've never met a man in my life who is more sold out to building his theology on the basis of Scripture alone then my brother John.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 0:07
Because both sides of the debate are forced to rely on inferences from Scripture, they must be exceedingly patient and charitable with one another.
Since we are both relying upon inferences, we have to be exceedingly patient and charitable with each other.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 4:26
The legal system requires solemn oaths because the primary goal of court proceedings is to ensure that the testimony given by witnesses is true.
And the reason why we circumscribe the drama of the proceedings of the courtroom, is that we want to do everything humanly possible to ensure that the testimony of the witnesses is true.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 5:21
Real contradiction involves two statements that mutually exclude each other and cannot both be true.
A contradiction, it's not just an irony or a twisted meaning or even a paradox, which is an apparent contradiction that under closer scrutiny yields its resolution. We're talking of real contradiction, you see, where both ends mutually exclude the other one.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 17:32
Biblically, contradiction is not the hallmark of truth; rather, it is the hallmark of a lie.
Biblically, the contradiction is not the hallmark of the truth; it is the hallmark of the lie.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 18:52
Luther's writings demonstrate a tendency to use highly critical and insulting language during theological debates.
He said, "But reading the material that you have written," he said, "is just like watching somebody walking down the street carrying gold and silver plates that are filled with dung."
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 0:07
The study of theology proper focuses specifically on the nature and character of God, rather than other doctrines like sin or justification.
but theology proper refers to a focus on the doctrine of God as distinguished from the doctrine of sin or the doctrine of justification or some other doctrine, but rather our understanding of the nature and character of God Himself.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 5:40
There are different kinds of parallelism, including synthetic, synonymous, and antithetical types, each with its own rules for interpretation.
there are different kinds and different types of parallelisms; there are what we call synthetic parallelisms, synonymous parallelisms, antithetical parallelisms, and other types, and each one has its own rules for interpretation.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 0:08
When decisive action is required, such as in a crisis, the wise person must act immediately without time to examine all the facts.
But on the other hand, there are times in our lives where decisive action is required, where we don't have time to examine all of the facts. It's a crisis situation, a matter of urgency, we must act, and the wise man doesn't have time to hesitate. He must move.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 21:36
Liberal theology concluded that the core of all religions was fundamentally a concern for ethics and values.
▷ A view Sproul explains or critiques — not his own position.
And the conclusion they came to was that at the core of all religions was basically a concern for ethics, for values—that all the trappings of prayer and the symbols of redemption and the liturgy of salvation, and all of those things are really the externals, the negotiable peripheral matters that aren't of the essence.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 14:00
The problem with an atheist is not lack of knowledge, but the dishonest refusal to acknowledge what they know to be true.
You see, the problem with the atheist, according to Paul, is that it's not that the atheist doesn't know God. The problem is he refuses to acknowledge what he knows to be true—and that is dishonest.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 43:34
In public debates, people often rely on short, abbreviated slogans rather than carefully reasoned arguments.
In the public issue, they don't have time in the public arena to go through carefully reasoned arguments to support one side or the other. And so we try to do it through a kind of shorthand where we take our sign and we scribble a little phrase across
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 0:50
An argument can be logically valid (meaning the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises) even if its premises are false.
An argument can be valid and its conclusion can be false. When we say an argument is valid all we mean by that is that the conclusion flows necessarily from the premises. The premises may be false, but if the conclusion falls inevitably from the premises then the argument is what we would say valid.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 9:49
The agnostic is considered a worse kind of atheist because they do not affirm the existence of God and then blame God for their lack of knowledge.
I said, “Well, theism means that you affirm the existence of God or gods. A-theism covers everything outside the category of theism. And the agnostic is outside the category of the theist because he will not affirm the existence of God and then blames God for it.”
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 0:00
The world of theology has been invaded by an irrational approach that suggests religious faith can contain contradictions.
I call that to your attention for this reason, the world of theology, the church has been invaded in the twentieth century with a kind of irrational approach to religion and to faith that says it's okay for religious faith to have contradictions.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 8:54
Some theologians argued that contradictions are not only acceptable but are the defining characteristic of truth.
And so violent was the reaction against a rationalistic type of religion that now the pendulum swung to the other extreme and where the theologians were saying that it's not only alright to have contradictions in your theology, but that it's a good thing because the contradiction is the hallmark of truth.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 10:03
When faced with choosing between competing goods, the best approach is to soberly analyze the situation using as many biblical principles as possible.
And the best thing that we should do, I think, is to make a sober analysis of the situation in terms of applying as many biblical principles as we can to that situation and use the precepts on the prescriptive will of God to determine our decision and let the secret counsel up to eternity.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 6:23
The speaker asserts that being zealous for one's faith is a definition of fanaticism that he would be proud to claim.
If the definition of a fanatic is somebody who is zealous for their faith, than I would be proud to be called a fanatic.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 0:00
Reformed theology is a belief system centered on God, not merely a way of behaving determined by studying human affairs.
But when I say at the outset that Reformed theology is a theology, not a religion, I mean by that that it is not simply a way of behaving that we can determine by studying the affairs of men, but rather it is a belief system that is indeed an entire life and world view with God at the center.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 9:27
The existence of right and wrong is essential because it is a clue to the very meaning of the universe.
That's what Lewis is saying here when he says right and wrong is a clue to the very meaning of the universe, because if there is no right and there is no wrong there can't possibly be any meaning.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 10:13
The current cultural foundation is based on moral relativism, which the speaker equates to a myth because it lacks correspondence to objective truth.
I mean by that that the basic foundation of our culture today is moral relativism, and I call that a myth because what it has in common with a myth is that myths have no real correspondence ultimately to objective truth.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 13:44
The church previously made errors by drawing inferences from biblical statements and treating them as dogma, rather than basing them on sound biblical exegesis.
the church theologians had drawn inferences from some of the biblical statements about the nature of the relationship between this planet and the sun, and they had put them in concrete and made them matters of dogma and the basis not of sound biblical exegesis, but on the basis of influence from earlier theories of science.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 4:30
A hyperbole is an intentional exaggeration of facts used to make a point, distinguishing it from mere exaggeration or distortion.
What's a hyperbole? A hyperbole is an exaggeration of fact. It's an exaggeration of the truth. And at that point, we could say a hyperbole is a distortion of the truth. Now we recognize that distortions of the truth are falsehoods. They're lies. They're errors, or so whatever else, so how can we tell a hyperbole? Well hyperbole is more than an exaggeration of the truth; the key to the hyperbole is that it is an intentional, intentional exaggeration of the facts to make a point.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 11:54
The vocation of an apologist is to provide intelligible answers to people who are genuinely puzzled by theological matters.
That's part of my vocation is to try to give intelligible answers to people that are genuinely puzzled by things.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 24:31
When addressing complex ethical questions, he intends to consider multiple sources of evidence, including biblical data, natural law, scientific considerations, and legal judgments.
As a Christian theologian, I'm not going to ignore the biblical data on it. I'm going to present it, but I'm not going to rest my case on that, I'm also going to look at natural law considerations, scientific considerations, and finally I'm going consider legal judgments and opinions that have been made.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 26:58
It is necessary and important to use rational deduction to draw reasonable inferences and implications from Scripture.
We must use our rational powers of deduction to draw inferences from the text in order to find the implications of a given passage. Now I want to be careful here because I don't want to be misunderstood at this point as if I were saying that we ought never to draw implications from the Scripture. God forbid, no.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 1:48
The text does not explicitly state who will believe or who is able to believe, and the phrase 'whoever believes' is not a necessary inference that anybody can believe.
Dear friends, that text says nothing explicitly about who will believe or who will not believe, about who can believe or who is not able to believe.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 16:15
Effective epistemology must incorporate both rational thought and sensory experience because relying only on the mind limits access to the external world.
I mean, any epistemology that is going to be effective must include both the rational and the sensory. If we lock ourselves strictly into the mind and say only the mind can give truth then we have no access to the external world.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 23:10
While logic itself provides no content or information, it functions as a governor that prevents us from making false inferences from our experiences.
All that logic does, as the thinker understands, is acts as a governor to prevent us from deriving false inferences from the things we experience.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 27:44
Sproul argues that the philosophy of man promoted by humanism is based merely on emotion and preference, rather than objective truth.
But friends, I honestly believe that that kind of philosophy of man is based on preference, on emotion.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 5:43
Sproul argues that relying on a mindless faith and ignoring criticism is not an honest way to deal with skepticism.
But beloved, I was convinced that that was not an honest way to deal with skepticism.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 5:51
Christians must be aware of epistemology, understanding the relationship between faith and reason.
What I'm trying to say with that simple illustration, ladies and gentlemen, is that as Christians we need to be aware of epistemology. We need to be aware of the relationship between faith, which is real, and reason.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 8:29
A lack of grounding in epistemology is cited as a reason for children leaving the church to experience a crisis of faith.
Why? We haven't grounded them in epistemology.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 5:46
The original quest of philosophy was fundamentally a metaphysical pursuit.
In fact, the original quest of philosophy was a metaphysical pursuit. The ancient philosophers, though they disagreed on various points of philosophy, all were engaged in the quest for what we call "ultimate reality."
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 8:47
Humanism is described as nonsense because it lacks a metaphysical, epistemological, or theological foundation, relying instead on sentimentality.
You see that humanism is based on sentimentality. It has no metaphysical foundation, no epistemological foundation, and certainly no theological foundation. It is an anthropology with no support, based on sentiment.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 22:48
The development of formal creeds was often prompted by doctrinal problems or attacks on the church.
usually those kinds of a solidifications of doctrinal confessions in creeds are provoked by some problem that the church engages. Just as, for example, the canonization of the Scriptures was brought about because the church was under attack by the Gnostics in the second century.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 2:15
The biblical model of faith is not anti-reason or anti-sense perception, but rather rests upon a foundation that includes both reason and sense perception.
I don’t see the model of scriptural faith as being anti-reason or anti-sense perception. But I see – if I can use a paradigm to illustrate this – that it looks something like this. That this is the foundation of knowledge, and it includes both reason (that is, the mind, thinking), and sense perception.
Source: R.C. Sproul @ 11:42
Mere intellectual assent to propositions, such as believing a fact, is insufficient for salvation.
That is not the same thing as trusting your life for eternity to George Washington.
Source: Abraham Justified by Faith (Ligonier)
Paul's ethical injunctions in Romans 12 are presented in a pithy, bullet-point style, contrasting with his usual lengthy doctrinal explanations.
Now, we get some staccato shots from the Apostle, almost like the bullet points in a PowerPoint presentation that we are familiar with today. He sets forth, in pithy style, these ethical injunctions that we are to make manifest in the Christian life.
Source: Behave Like a Christian (Part 1) (Ligonier)
Relying on one's own mind or opinions can lead to error and delusion, necessitating a check against divine truth.
That is why, since we are so prone to error and delusion, we ought never to trust merely in our own views.
Source: Behave Like a Christian (Part 2) (Ligonier)
A person has every right to take offense if they have been given an offense, but they have no just grounds for taking offense if none was given.
If I walk up to somebody and, with malice aforethought, crush their toes under my heel and intentionally seek to hurt them, I have offended them and they have taken offense. They have every right to take offense, because I have given an offense. However, we live in a world where people take offense where there is none.
Source: Behave Like a Christian (Part 2) (Ligonier)
Beyond merely professing or defending the faith, Christians are called to actively contend for the truth of the gospel.
But beyond the responsibility of professing and defending the faith, we are called to contend for the faith.
Source: Faith Triumphs in Trouble (Part 1) (Ligonier)
Liberal theologians rejected supernaturalism and focused on Jesus' ethical insights, viewing miracles as myths or intentional frauds.
The liberal theologians said: “What happened in the New Testament record was that this Jesus, whoever He really was in history, was a man about whom many myths were created to extol His significance. We can’t take this record seriously as history.”
Source: The Feeding of the Five Thousand (Ligonier)
Paul did not teach antinomianism, nor did he ever suggest that the ends justify the means.
▷ A view Sproul explains or critiques — not his own position.
Paul never said, “Let’s do evil that good may come.” The Apostle Paul never entertained the idea that the ends justify the means.
Source: God's Judgment Defended (Ligonier)
The speaker argues that agnosticism is more dangerous than militant atheism because it involves refusing to acknowledge God while simultaneously blaming God for one's lack of knowledge.
You say that you’re an agnostic. You’re attempting to be gentle about your atheism. You think that you’re not as militant and maybe you’re hedging your bets, but don’t you realize that your agnosticism puts you at greater risk and exposure to the wrath of God than if you were a militant atheist?
Source: God’s Wrath (Ligonier)
When teaching opposing viewpoints, one must accurately and scrupulously present the original philosopher's position without creating straw men.
If I dared to give a critique of these philosophers, I had to make sure that I was not setting up straw men to knock over with ease but rather to be, as I said, scrupulously accurate and honest in presenting their position.
Source: Israel's Rejection & God's Justice (Part 1) (Ligonier)
In a debate, one should adopt the perspective of the opponent and articulate their position more clearly than they do.
I said that the first thing you need to do is step into the shoes of your opponent. Try to think the way your opponent thinks. Track with your opponent’s process.
Source: Israel's Rejection & God's Justice (Part 1) (Ligonier)
When teaching philosophy, the speaker felt it was necessary to accurately and scrupulously present the ideas of the philosophers, rather than setting up straw men.
If I dared to give a critique of these philosophers, I had to make sure that I was not setting up straw men to knock over with ease but rather to be, as I said, scrupulously accurate and honest in presenting their position.
Source: Israel's Rejection & God's Justice (Part 1) (Ligonier)
Because a doctrine is biblical, it must be addressed and not ignored or avoided.
Context: Citing Calvin's view, but affirming the principle.
On the one hand, Calvin said that because it is a biblical teaching it ought not to be neglected. It is the Word of God. It is part of the truth of God, and even though we struggle with it, we ought not, therefore, sweep it under the rug and studiously avoid it.
Source: Israel's Rejection & God's Justice (Part 2) (Ligonier)
The Apostle's text regarding Jacob and Esau demonstrates that the doctrine of prescience is wrong and is actively refuted by Paul.
In this text, the doctrine of prescience or the foreknowledge view of predestination is not only denied, dear friends, it is demolished.
Source: Israel's Rejection & God's Purpose (Ligonier)
People who argue that Jesus never drank wine are engaging in a flawed interpretation that is influenced by cultural bias.
They come to the text with a cultural bias, convinced that total abstinence is the only spiritual, Christian way.
Source: The Law of Liberty (Ligonier)
Biblical religion grounds its truth in real space and time, rejecting the context of myth.
But at the very heart of Judaism in the Old Testament is the rejection of myth as the context for divine revelation. Rather, biblical religion finds real space and time as its context for religious truth.
Source: Beginning of Jesus' Public Ministry (Ligonier)
The speaker believes that theological exposition is sometimes necessary to protect believers from errors and heresies.
The second is that there are times when theological exposition is vitally necessary to protect the saints from all sorts of distortions, errors, and even heresies.
Source: The Garden of Gethsemane (Ligonier)
The church should establish a group of experts in biblical ethics to study and rule on specific cases, because every situation is unique.
I’ve always advocated that every church should have a group of experts in biblical ethics who study and give a verdict on each case that comes before it, because I’ve never seen two cases that are the same.
Source: Marriage and Divorce (Ligonier)
The speaker asserts that most theological errors stem from a lack of knowledge of the Scriptures.
I think 100 percent of the theological errors we make are because we do not know the Scriptures, because God has revealed the same things to all of us, and all from the same book.
Source: The Resurrection (Ligonier)
The New Testament requires believers to distinguish between issues that are essential to the faith and those that are not.
The New Testament calls us to discern the difference between essential issues and nonessential issues.
Source: Who Is the Greatest? (Ligonier)
Bultmann argued that because of modern scientific advancements, the mythological elements of the New Testament must be stripped away to find the core truth.
Bultmann was saying: “You can’t live in the twentieth century, in this post-scientific era, in this time of enlightenment, make use of electricity, television, computers, and modern medicine, and still believe in a world inhabited by demons, where there are religious people who die and are raised again from the dead, born of virgins, and so on. Rather, the New Testament content in that regard is mythological.”
Source: The Ministry of John the Baptist (Ligonier)
The Bible is not filled with contradictions, and alleged discrepancies can be resolved through logical examination.
Not simply to my satisfaction, but to his, we were able to resolve every one of these alleged contradictions.
Source: The Nobleman's Son (Ligonier)
It is crucial to defend God's Word from the charge that it is filled with contradictions.
That’s right, so that we could exonerate God’s Word from the slander that it’s filled with contradictions. That’s what we’ve had to do.
Source: The Nobleman's Son (Ligonier)
The lawyer's question was not a genuine inquiry seeking salvation, but rather an attempt to probe Jesus's understanding of theology.
A man seeking salvation would come to Jesus and humbly say, “Lord, tell me how I can get into heaven.” That was not it at all. He was probing Jesus’s understanding of theology.
Source: The Parable of the Good Samaritan (Ligonier)
The speaker critiques the excuses given by the invited guests as being flimsy, lame, and feeble.
How flimsy. How lame. How feeble are all these excuses.
Source: The Parable of the Great Supper (Ligonier)
Archaeological evidence can confirm or corroborate historical details that were previously questioned.
One of the great things about archeology is it seems that every time they turn over a spade, every time a shovel of dirt is moved in the Holy Land, some new detail of history that had been in question is confirmed and corroborated by external evidence.
Source: Paul at Cyprus (Ligonier)
A falsehood is not necessarily a lie; a lie requires intentionality and the knowledge that something is untrue.
All lies are falsehoods, but not all falsehoods are lies. For a falsehood to be a lie, it requires intentionality such that a person knows something is not true, and he falsifies the truth by intentionally distorting it or twisting it or denying it.
Source: Peter's Denial (Ligonier)
Agnosticism is characterized by the claim of ignorance, which is a plea to God for sufficient knowledge or miracles to make a rational judgment.
The agnostic says, ‘The reason I can’t affirm the existence of God is because I am agnōstos , without knowledge.’
Source: Peter's Second Speech (Ligonier)
Peter defended the truth of the gospel by refuting the charge that the apostles were drunk.
When that charge was made, Peter stepped up and defended the truth of the gospel and of what, in fact, had been taking place. Peter began by answering the charge that theirs was simply a display of drunken incoherence, as the mockers said, “They are full of new wine.”
Source: Peter's Sermon - Part 1 (Ligonier)
He was tasked with giving an apologetic defense of sacred Scripture's inspiration, authority, and infallibility in an environment where such teaching had been absent for decades.
Then I was invited to come and lecture for six hours a day for five days on the inspiration, authority, and infallibility of the Bible. There had been nobody remotely close to that position in decades to appear as a professor in this environment. I came when the faculty was as hostile as they possibly could be. As well as the bishops, there were a couple hundred pastors there. It was my task to give an apologetic for the defense of sacred Scripture.
Source: Render Unto Caesar (Ligonier)
Modern culture's philosophy of relativism makes people willing to state their beliefs but unwilling to challenge the antithesis of Christian truth.
We have come to the place where we are willing to say what we believe, but we will not raise our voices against the antithesis of the truth of Christianity.
Source: Saul of Tarsus (Ligonier)
Acts serves as an apologetic work, defending the truth claims of the Christian faith and the apostolic authority of Paul.
The book of Acts is a kind of apology or apologia , a work of apologetics, a defense of the truth claims of the Christian faith. Along with that, Acts is an important defense of the authenticity of the Apostolic authority and office of Paul, because Paul was not one of the original Twelve.
Source: A Second Account (Ligonier)
Liberal theologians denied the miracle of Jesus making wine because they rejected the concept of supernatural events.
They said, “Jesus obviously did not make wine, because if He made real wine, that would’ve been a miracle.” They did not believe in miracles, and so they denied that Jesus made wine because they denied that He had the capacity to do miracles.
Source: The Wedding Feast (Ligonier)
Liberal theology is fundamentally unbelief, which denies core Christian doctrines like the miracles, virgin birth, atoning death, and resurrection of Jesus.
The problem with liberalism is that it is simply unbelief. Those who embrace liberal theology are unbelievers.
Source: Woes to Hypocrites (Ligonier)
It is incorrect to speculate on the reason for an apostolic injunction by only looking at contemporary culture, especially when the Apostle provides a specific reason.
My problem with that is this: If the Apostle gives an injunction and doesn’t give a reason for it, it’s certainly fair game to speculate to some degree, looking at the contemporary culture and saying, “Maybe the reason the Apostle gives this injunction is because of this problem in the contemporary culture.” However, Paul gives a reason.
The argument that biblical texts prohibit interracial marriage is based on weak evidence and is ultimately racist.
In the case of both these arguments, I would say that that is the flimsiest evidence I can think of to support what is ultimately a racist view of the matter.
Source: Does God frown upon interracial marriages? (Ligonier Q&A)
Making sound arguments to support truth claims is not the same as being argumentative, which is described as a hostile spirit.
So, one doesn’t have to be argumentative to make sound arguments, and I would encourage people to make clear and biblical arguments for the truth.
Source: How do we share the truth without being argumentative? (Ligonier Q&A)
Poetic and wisdom literature contains general truths and practical guides, rather than absolute commands or guarantees.
So what you have in proverbial wisdom and poetic wisdom are general truths, not absolute commands or guarantees. They are practical guides of wisdom.
Source: How should we interpret promises in the Psalms that no harm will strike us? (Ligonier Q&A)
Philosophy is valuable because it helps one understand critical analysis, logical fallacies, and the history of theoretical thought, which aids in conveying Christian truth.
The study of philosophy helped me understand critical analysis, how to be alert to logical fallacies, and problems of that sort. It also helped me learn the history of theoretical thought, much of which has been used to help convey the truth of Christianity to the whole world.
Source: Should Christians study philosophy? (Ligonier Q&A)
The historical relationship between theology and philosophy is that theology is the queen of the sciences, and philosophy serves as its handmaiden.
In the medieval university it was said that theology was the queen of the sciences and philosophy was her handmaiden. That has been true in my experience and in my teaching.
Source: Should Christians study philosophy? (Ligonier Q&A)
The defense of the faith serves multiple purposes: restraining unbelievers, preparing for evangelism, and providing intellectual support for Christians.
Second of all, it is preparation for evangelism. We are not called to jump into the darkness in a blind leap of faith and hope that Jesus will catch us. The faith that we propose and the gospel that we preach are not learned by the actions of reason alone or rationalism, but the content of the gospel is reasonable.
Having scholars who can provide a compelling intellectual defense of the Christian faith is valuable because doubt weakens the proclamation of the gospel.
I was grateful to God that we had scholars in the orthodox Christian faith who gave a compelling intellectual defense for the truth claims of the Christian faith. We should be grateful for that because if we are in doubt, and our faith is mixed with doubt, then we’re less confident, less bold, and less aggressive in the proclamation of the gospel.