Conversations Concerning Us

When you think of apologetics the main thing that most likely comes to mind is providing arguments in the defense of something you hold dear or important. With that picture in mind, anyone can be an apologist for just about anything: Muslim apologist, abortion apologist, Hindu apologist, etc. What I specifically want to deal with here is the Christian apologist. The verse that should be at the forefront of your mind regarding apologetics for Christianity is 1 Peter 3:15, be prepared always to give a reason for the hope that is in you and do so with gentleness and respect. As may be evident from the title of this discourse the focus is on the latter portion of this verse (gentleness and respect). When you picture in your mind that presenting arguments is what we are challenged to do it may seem quite difficult to argue gently and respectfully. However, I believe there may be a slight misstep here and it is thinking that we must "argue" for the faith. Arguing in the sense

Introduction             There is a common objection that I hear about God and it is how can God’s justice and grace be unified since these two things together seem to cause a contradiction. The essential position that I want to defend here is that God’s justice and his grace are two aspects that are perfectly unified in the cross of Christ. Also, tossed into the mix here is God’s mercy and how this relates to justice and grace. Dr. Frank Turek has said that justice is getting what we deserve, mercy is not getting what we deserve, and grace is getting what we do not deserve. [1] This statement speak volumes to the truth that is in God. Realistically, this is going to be a summation from the beginning (creation/ fall), leading all the way to the redeeming work of Christ at the cross. It is only at the cross of Christ that we can as a fallen people receive that grace. Grace, Mercy, and Justice             Going against the arranged title of this article I am going to start

Introduction Amidst all the excitement and disgust at the newly passed abortion laws in New York state, it seemed like a rather pressing idea to find a way to make a point. I have seen a few articles that articulate well the idea that an unborn fetus is still a holder of the image of God (a point I quite agree with) and those comparing the current state of where our culture is moving to the Canaanites (another point I agree with). However, my goal was to tackle this issue without using God as my primary arguing point (although my argument does presuppose there is an immaterial aspect to the world).             There has been a highly contentious place within philosophy about personhood. Essentially, I will be presenting my criteria for determining personhood and that unborn babies fall under this qualification. The overall point is to show that this is not religiously bad, scientifically bad, but philosophically bad. I guess you could say I am looking to round out the trifecta