Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Books’

Reblogged from The Domain for Truth:

Click to visit the original post

Saw this going viral on my facebook.  If you did not know about this yet, but R.C. Sproul is making it free the booklets from his Crucial Question series.  You can have them as ebooks format for Apple or Kindle Books! This is great!

To further help Christians know what they believe, why they believe it, how to live it, and how to share it, from today the eBook editions of R.C. 

Read more… 107 more words

Hat Tip to SLIMJIM over at The Domain for Truth for this! Kindle users in the UK will have to go the Amazon UK site but all the titles are available there - for free.

Read Full Post »

Dr James White has a new book on the Qur’an. Dr White has for some years been researching and studying extensively the religion of Islam. His new book has the title ‘What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an (Paperback)’.

There’s an excellent interview with Dr White on The Reformed Forum. From the Reformed Forum website:

Today we welcome Dr. James R. White to the program to speak about his book What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an. In the book, Dr. White presents Islamic beliefs about Christ, salvation, the Trinity, the afterlife, and other important topics. White shows how the sacred text of Islam differs from the teachings of the Bible in order to help Christians engage in open, honest discussions with Muslims.

It’s available in the UK via The Book Depository. This is a book I’ll be ordering very soon!

Download interview via Reformed Forum website link above.

Dr White is the Director of Alpha & Omega Ministries – Christian apologetics.

Read Full Post »

Cover of "Faith and Reason"

Cover of Faith and Reason

Taking a look at the Atheist Rally for Reason website makes one wonder if they really know what they are doing. The reason (there’s that word) I say this is because there are so many Christian books that encourage or use reason, so many in fact, that it might be profitable to list them here. Why Atheists think they have the monopoly on reason is a mystery – apart from them seeking to occupy that ground with the hope that ‘Joe Public’ will be fooled into thinking Christians don’t think. The reality is however, Christians lament that thinking in general about anything at all goes on far less today. The Rally for Reason is a good example.

Here’s a few Book Titles (in no particular order):

The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Scepticism by Tim Keller

Reasonable Faith by William Lame Craig

Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics edited by Paul Copan & William Lane Craig

Reason to Believe: A Response to Common Objections to Christianity by R C Sproul

REASONS OF THE HEART by William Edgar

Faith and Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith by Ronald H. Nash

The point is not necessarily to recommend the above list but merely to note that Christians do not have an aversion to reason. The above titles are only those that have the word reason in them. There are many many more books that employ the God-given gift of reason but do not have the word in the title. Whatever flag (these particular) atheists are rallying around can’t exclusively be around the flag pf reason. Their Rally for Reason is therefore to my mind completely unreasonable.

God Himself exhorts sinners, inviting them to think and to apply reason – not only in dealing with God but with each other:

Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.

Lev 19:17  ”You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him.

Dan 4:34  At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation;

Dan 4:36  At the same time my reason returned to me, and for the glory of my kingdom, my majesty and splendor returned to me. My counselors and my lords sought me, and I was established in my kingdom, and still more greatness was added to me.

Act 17:2  And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

Act 18:19  They came to Ephesus, and he left them there. Now he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews.

Jas 3:17  But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.

1Pe 3:15  but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

Read Full Post »

By Bartholomew Ashwood - First Minister of Axminster

The Audio for this excellent lecture by Stephen Rees is now available.

Either listen here:


Or right-click HERE to download.

Read Full Post »

This evening we heard the second of this years Church History Lectures. And what a lecture it was! What a privilege to be there. And what a challenge to our generation!

The Lecture was given by Steven Rees, minister of Stockport Grace Baptist Church with the title A Church in the Wilderness  - Axminster after 1662′. This is another lecture connected with ‘The Great Ejection of 1662′ only this lecture focused on one particular church rather than a broad sweep as Gary Brady brought us last month.

There were so many things in this lecture that stood out but two initial points right at the start and very powerfully made. First point, God is concerned that we remember the past and Stephen cited several texts to show this, and secondly, the priority given by God  of the local church or congregation. Stephen used The Axminster Ecclesiastica 1600-1698 edited by Ken Howard as the basis for his lecture.

I thought this was one of the best lectures I have heard and it deserves to be heard by as many people as possible. In the wisdom of God it’s ironic that one of the best lectures I have heard was given by a relatively unknown minister at a relatively unknown church to about 30 relatively unknown people. The ways of God are past finding out.

As soon as it becomes available I’ll give links.

* The next lecture will be 7:30pm 23rd April – speaker Jeremy Walker: Latimer – God’s Bulldog.

Read Full Post »

The Problem of Evil has been described as the Achilles Heal of the Christian faith and when discussing Christianity in almost any context this ‘problem’ or difficulty in one form or another is raised as an objection to the Christian faith. I read yesterday morning the best explanation I have read or heard. As  point of interest, the very fact there are several Christian answers to the problem of evil should also indicate to the unbeliever that it’s not the problem they would like to think it is or maybe even hope it is. The reality is there are answers but are not acceptable to the sinner. As Jesus said: they will not come to the light in order that their deeds be exposed - in this case the exposure of their own inescapable bias.

As indicated in a previous comment I am slowly working my way through Greg Bahnsen‘s book (Kindle) Always Ready: Direction for Defending the Faith. The chapter on The Problem of Evil is the longest chapter so far (about halfway) in the book and is so well stated that it’s definitely worth a post. My task now is to try and convey this to you.

The problem is normally stated as follows:

1. God is all-good.
2. God is all-powerful.
3. Evil exists.

If God were both benevolent and Almighty evil would not exist. Evil does exist so Christianity cannot be true. However, Bahnsen adds a fourth premise that God has a purpose – unknown to us –  in the evil we see, feel and hear about.

Here’s Bahnsen from pages 144 & 145:

However the critic here overlooks a perfectly reasonable way to assent to all three of these propositions.

If the Christian presupposes that God is perfectly and completely good—as Scripture requires us to do—then he is committed to evaluating everything within his experience in the light of that presupposition. Accordingly, when the Christian observes evil events or things in the world, he can and should retain consistency with his presupposition about God’s goodness by now inferring that God has a morally good reason for the evil that exists. God certainly must be all-powerful in order to be God; He is not to be thought of as overwhelmed or stymied by evil in the universe. And God is surely good, the Christian will profess—so any evil we find must be compatible with God’s goodness. This is just to say that God has planned evil events for reasons which are morally commendable and good.

 

To put it another way, the apparent paradox created by the above three propositions is readily resolved by adding this fourth premise to them:

4. God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists.

When all four of these premises are maintained, there is no logical contradiction to be found, not even an apparent one. It is precisely part of the Christian’s walk of faith and growth in sanctification to draw proposition 4 as the conclusion of propositions 1-3.

Best to leave it there for now. But in another post I will track back a little and try to show you how and why Bahnsen gets us there.

 

Read Full Post »

Cover of "God Is Not Great: How Religion ...

Cover via Amazon

Now I have a Kindle it’s so easy to download and buy stuff – that’s good and bad. It’s good, for example because amongst other things I bought ‘God is not Great‘ for £0.99p. It’s bad because no matter what the format I still have to find time to read the stuff. A window of opportunity opened and so I began to read. It was also a time to find the drawback of the kindle I have of not being able to type notes fast enough and so it’s really hard work. I need a pen and a notepad with it. May I’ll get faster and improve with use.

I’m assuming he (Hitchens) will lay out his store as it were in the first chapter, so here’s a few points to be going on with from Chapter 1.

1. I like his style writing – he has [had] great skill with words and was obviously very well read.

2. I like his honesty. He tells it how he sees it. He calls a spade a spade as we say. And I like writers that do that. His honesty doesn’t extend however to a correct understanding of Christianity. He continuously (as does Dawkins) misrepresents Christianity (see point 3).

3. Sadly, from what I read he never ever really understood the Gospel. This view may be wrong – I guess his brother might know – but it’s how he writes.

4. He talks a lot about Religion. Yes Christianity is a Religion. And there can be stupid and very bad Christians – but this doesn’t actually invalidate it as truth. It certainly doesn’t help but it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

There’s a big problem with the Title. For such a specific claim you would have thought it important to be specific about the God he is talking about. Is it the Christian God, the God of Islam or the God of his own imagination. Here’s just a couple of quotes.

Many of them never believed, and many of them abandoned faith after a difficult struggle. That might be his experience but it isn’t mine. And in any case even if it were true it still wouldn’t invalidate the truth claims of Christianity. All that proves is the weakness of the human condition. You say, why doesn’t God help them then. In my experience He does – for example my own mother that died of bone cancer and many other I know of.

‘We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry (Really! see paragraph below), open-mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.

God did not create man in his own image. Evidently (There are other explanations for so many religions but it doesn’t suit his case to give any evidence even if he could), it was the other way about, which is the painless explanation for the profusion of gods and religions, and the fratricide both between and among faiths, that we see all about us and that has so retarded the development of civilization.

Imagine that you can perform a feat of which I am incapable. Imagine, in other words, that you can picture an infinitely benign and all-powerful creator, who conceived of you, then made and shaped you, brought you into the world he had made for you, and now supervises and cares for you even while you sleep. Imagine, further, that if you obey the rules and commandments that he has lovingly prescribed, you will qualify for an eternity of bliss and repose. I do not say that I envy you this belief (because to me it seems like the wish for a horrible form of benevolent and unalterable dictatorship), but I do have a sincere question. Why does such a belief not make its adherents happy? It must seem to them that they have come into possession of a marvelous secret, of the sort that they could cling to in moments of even the most extreme adversity. This quotation serves to demonstrate his understanding of the Gospel is 100% wrong. Any decent historian may not believe it but should be able to tell you what it is. Sadly, Hitchens doesn’t have a clue and his readers will just slavishly and uncritically swallow it. His Atheism is poisoning everything!

Just got back from a bright dinner with Richar...

Since reading the first chapter I have listened to a discussion of the book first broadcast back in 2008. This is a series of 8 available at Unchained Radio for $0.98 cents each. (I think they might be available for free) I’ve now listened to them all and I’d say they are worth every penny (I am English). To buy them go HERE. These guys are way more able than I am but demonstrate rather uncomfortably for Atheists that Christian apologists (especially Presuppositional apologists) have good solid scriptural apologetic arguments and the debating skills to take them on. I’m being polite when I say they (Paul Manata in this case) completely destroy Christopher Hitchens arguments, method, worldview and just about everything else besides. Whether he listened to the programs back then, I can’t say, but he was well able to defend himself at the time. The reason for ‘flagging them up’ here (he can no longer defend himself) is because as one of the ‘Four Horsemen’ an awful lot of weight will be given to his words. I have no doubt in the coming days we will be hearing a lot of his writing and of his legacy to the Atheistic cause.

After listening to Paul Manata discuss the book I am left wondering why Hitchens was so popular a writer. A book was mentioned in one of the broadcasts. With a Kindle it’s possible to download sample sections. So I read a sample of the book ‘On Bullshit‘ by philosopher Harry Frankfurt as it was recommended by Paul Manata. By the criteria of the book Dawkins, Hitchens and the other ‘Horsemen’ are probably no more than a bunch of ‘Bullshitters’ and people love it. Frankfurt has a sequel to ‘On Bullshit’ and it’s well worth reading the sample section of ‘On Truth’. Frankfurt thinks they (Bullshitters) are worse than liars. We need to make sure that as Christians we don’t follow their example.

Out of curiosity and a search through YouTube I found a video of an Atheist convention. Hitchens was filmed with an 8 (yes that’s Eight!) year old girl asking him what books she should read. He listed a few books and is amazed to find she had read them. Now here’s the thing: She said she wanted to be a Free Thinker just like him. We (Christians) are accused of indoctrination if we tell children about The Lord of Glory but if 8-year-old little girls are taken to an Atheist convention (her Mother stood proudly looking on) they are free thinkers. And Christians are accused of being closed-minded! That’s the end of this post – I’m speechless!

HT for the broadcasts to my friend Jim over at The Domain for Truth.

Read Full Post »

'Against All Odds' by Paul Connelly

I’ve just finished reading ‘Against All Odds’ by Paul Connolly - Kindle edition. It’s quite a brave book to write, it’s honestly written and pulls no punches (pun intended). The early chapters are quite a harrowing account of life in an institution till he was forced to leave at the age of 17. Paul was abandoned at two weeks old and left out with the rubbish and his book is really an account of his ongoing battle with a sense of worthlessness. If you are offended by very strong language then I don’t recommend you read it. But if you can get past the language and some of the abuse it really is a story of survival ‘Against All The Odds’. We see or meet people and perhaps comment how some individuals have something written on their forehead. For some it’s the word ‘Jail’, for others it’s ‘Abuse Me’ or it might be ‘Thug’ and we all see these labels from time to time. We might also comment on how some kids often through no fault of their own, do not stand a chance – they are marked as it were from birth. Such was Paul Connelly, at least that’s what he was told.

It a story that ultimately triumphs over a horrendous upbringing and the damage that followed him into adulthood and that he still is not entirely free from like the rage within him that he struggles to control ever day. Thankfully he found, in his words, a wonderful woman and he now has two wonderful young boys. It is remarkable indeed that he has defeated the lies of those so-called ‘carers’ by living a normal life.

What’s my response to the book as a Christian? Because of the link that altered me to the book I naively expected there to be some Christian input. It didn’t take long for me to realise this wasn’t going to happen. The only encounter Paul had with Christianity was in the home so understandably there is no mention of God in the book except towards the end when he contemplates killing the ‘carers’. These were individuals that by any standard had really escaped true justice in spite of the best efforts of some police officers. Here’s the passage at the end of Chapter 12 where Paul writes:

“Some of them have paid something for their crimes, but they havent paid nearly enough and I dont believe in a just God who punishes the wicked after death. I wish that I did because, if anyone ever deserved fire and brimstone, it was them.”

It’s a fascinating quote because it shows how Paul has a sense of justice that unfortunately does not extend to some of the victims he battered senseless. Did they all really ‘deserve’ it, or even most of them – I doubt it. I’m reminded of the end of ‘Unforgiven’ with Clint Eastwood. Little Bill is facing death and says ‘not like this, I don’t deserve this’ to which William Munny (Eastwood) replies ‘what’s deserve got to do with it’. Unlike the justice of men, the justice of God is righteous and He knows all the details. The fact is we all, me, Paul, everyone, deserves the judgement of God. But through the free Grace of God in the Gospel of Christ repentant sinners may go free.

There are some great insights into the human condition as he deals honestly with his own inward state and the resultant struggle within. This is something Paul would fail to appreciate but he is articulating what the real problem is: it’s a heart problem. Jesus teaches quite specifically, that it isn’t what comes out of a man or the exterior - how good and righteous we make ourselves out to be, even deluding ourselves – it’s the sinful nature within that is the problem. And only God in Christ can sort that out. His book made me think I should be less judgemental. That drunk that we see staggering down the road: I do not know his story. Maybe he has a similar story to Paul. As a Christian what’s the very best I can do for such people? I can hold out hope and give them words of eternal life. And where possible maybe a hot drink and a non-condemnatory chat and treat them as a human being of worth, people made in the image of God yet ravaged by sin. Though terribly marred by sin they nevertheless have the stamp of God’s image upon them.

The full title is ‘Against All The Odds: The Most Amazing True Life Story You’ll Ever Read’. It isn’t the most amazing true life story I’ve ever read, it is an amazing story, but the Life of Jesus Christ is the most amazing story I’ve ever read and am likely to read. Here’s where I’m left disappointed and sad: and if somehow Paul does read these words I trust he’ll take them as well-meant and full of hope. Although it’s a marvellous outcome for him he’s still without Christ and without hope. I admire him but at the last day when he stands before God to give an account if he is without Christ he’ll be damned. There’s just no easy or nice way to say it. But it’s true. Without a Saviour he’ll end up in the same place as his abusers. I know this is an unpalatable truth, but really it is the great leveler as ‘we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ’. But ‘Christ loves the unlovely that lovely they may be’. This is real hope!

Mez McConnell

All the while reading about Paul I couldn’t but help compare his life – and outcome – with another book I read a little while ago by Mez McConnell ’Is There Anybody Out There‘: A Journey from Despair to Hope. Mez suffered horrific abuse from beatings and drug use that today affect his health and probably always will. Mez turned to Christ and is now the Pastor of a Church. He works with the dregs of society, the druggy, the dropouts and seeks to lead them to Christ. Check out a previous post on Mez and the links there to find out more. Here’s his Blog. And read his book.

As good a story as Paul’s is and as inspiring as it is, it falls short. Why? I’d like to believe that Paul seeks to help those caught in desperate circumstances but his resources are finite and the hope he offers is limited to this life. But the Gospel comes with the Power of God to change us from within, to forgive, to cleanse and to keep. Paul couldn’t help me – I couldn’t afford his services, but the Salvation offered by Christ is free to all that will call on Him. And Christ will never turn anyone away.

It’s turned out well for Paul, and I’m glad it has. But his story is unfinished without a Saviour – and so is yours.

UPDATE: Sincere apologies, I mis-spelt Connolly. Now corrected. I know a Connelly and didn’t notice the difference until it was pointed out to me.

Read Full Post »

Hossein Nasr at the Massachusetts Institute of...

Image via Wikipedia

I seem to have posted rather a lot on Islam of late. This wasn’t really intentional it’s just that circumstances – admittedly an existing interest – seemed to dictate. This was partly due to the programs aired by the BBC and I still have to post on aspects of these. The programs were a little while ago now but their huge significance remains.

It seemed appropriate to find out more from a source other than the TV or Christian apologetic comments and lectures on the subject. I wanted to read what a Muslim has to say. Ken Samples some time ago delivered a series of Academy lectures at Christ Reformed Church, Anaheim, California on the subject of Islam. He used two books as particular reference sources – his own book on Worldviews, A World of Difference and the book I am going to comment on.

The second book recommended by Ken Samples is ‘Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization’ by Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Nasr is a Muslim, not a Christian apologist.

I’m not really sure how far it’s possible to get concerning a review. But for now, any comments will be restricted to the Introduction (p, xi – xxv) and the first chapter ‘Islam and the Islamic World’ (p, 1 – 24). Nasr, the author, originates from Iran but now resides (AFAIK) in the US and is a distinguished Islamic scholar with a definite bias towards Sufism.

The Introduction – Comments

The very first thing that struck me was the seeming amount of angst because there are just so many negatives in the text. There is not one single reference to these negatives and I can only take it he means Christian apologists – or is that being overly sensitive. Presumably he’s reading these critics so is it too much to ask where his information is from! I began to underline and mark the negative words and phrases but there were so many of them that I had to stop underlining as it was getting silly. See what you think, but here’s a list of words from the first few pages and I think you’ll get my drift:

‘so-called experts’ ‘prejudices and ideological biases’ ‘distorted and tainted’ ‘errors and deviations’ (p xii) ‘perpetuated religious opposition to Islam’ ‘disdain’ ‘inferior’ ‘distorted’ ‘hubris’ (p. xiii) and one more ‘disdain’ over the page (xiv). There was much more of the same till about page xviii but by page xiv it was enough!

It’s not till nearly the end of The Introduction that we are told where he is coming from. So on p. xxiii we read ‘The present work …. is written from within the Islamic perspective and from the traditional point of view, from the perspective of the sacred and universal teachings of Islam as they were revealed and later transmitted over the ages.’

Another aspect is the amount of claims made. I’ll confess some of them may be true, but he really does over egg his case by claiming more for Islam than is reasonable (I realised later that he’s able to make these claims based on his understanding of perennial truth – more on this in another post). But he hasn’t claimed any objectivity (yet) so I guess it’s more very biased claims for Islam. One example is a philosophy of music. But Augustine had already written on this in a work entitled On Music, ‘De Musica’ in Latin. It caused me to wonder how many people reading Nasr would know this and uncritically accept his claims. It made me suspicious of his other claims, especially because there are so few footnotes (10 notes for the whole book – I’m one of those people who actually reads the footnotes) and a biased recommended reading list at the end of the book.

He claims to be writing from a Traditional Islamic perspective, but it’s not quite clear what this is. To be fair more may be made clearer as I move further through the book (he does in Ch 1). Also, to be fair, I am reading this book with my Christian Worldview glasses on. But I will try to be fair and give him as much as I can.

Chapter 1 – Comments

The reason why Nasr and indeed Islam are able to make some extraordinary claims is made clear when you understand how it sees itself. It considers Adam (the first man Adam) as the first prophet of Islam and from this perspective reckons itself to be older even than Judaism and Christianity. I thought it was quite a clever bit of misdirection that enabled around 1.4 Billion people to have swallowed this story hook, line and sinker. And that’s tragic!

It’s revealing when Nasr claims Islam makes more of Adam & Abraham than Christianity (p.5). It’s not clear where he gets his Christian references from but it is definitely not a view I recognise in Christianity at all! Adam is vital to an understanding of the work of Christ, of the fall, of special creation and many other Christian doctrines. It’s this sort of deliberate misrepresentation of the Christian faith that is so difficult to counter. People love to believe a lie – and Islam has them in bucket-loads! It’s also a reminder that we (Christians) do not use the weapons of this world;

2Co 10:3-5
3 For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh.
4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds.
5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,

 His traditional perspective covers – if I have understood correctly – the following several points that binds the Islamic community (Ummah). Here listed from p.8 without comment:

  • There is no god but God.
  • Muhammed is the messenger of God.
  • The Quran is the verbatim revelation of God.
  • The main rituals – prayers, fasting etc.
  • The grace (barakah) of the prophet and his deeds (Sunnah).
  • I should also add Jihad to this list – both spiritual and militaristic.

Concluding Thoughts

To conclude this brief review it must be said that despite the previous shortcomings the book is very readable and I’m enjoying reading it. It is revealing and instructive and I’m learning a lot about Islam which was the purpose of reading and one must also assume the aim of the author. One qualification however, is that I have no idea how Nasr is received in the Islamic world and is just one book probably among thousands. I think he has tried to fairly represent his own faith and from what I’ve read so far does a good job. Obviously as a Christian I have profound disagreements with Islam and I’ll try to cover some of these in other posts.

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 69 other followers

%d bloggers like this: