Break Time

First semester done. Forgot what this feel like to have a 6 week break to relax, make snow angels, ski, sled, and not actually do any of that but work full time. Soo thankful for a job opportunity with the Development Center at The Vail Church, where I interned this summer.

Have been able to spend some time with this chica

and make some yummy treats

and spend some time with this wonderful bday boy

and even got to have a date night with myself. 

it's been a magical break.

Off to Texas tomorrow, see y'all soon.

Scripture and The Authority of God

Authority of God in Scripture

A topic of hot debate within religious circles is in regards to the authority of Scripture. N.T. Wright wrote an insightful book on the topic, and this essay will serve to critically review The Authority of God in Scripture. In the prologue of his book, N.T. states that “taken as a whole, the church clearly can't live without the Bible, but it doesn't seem to have much idea of how to live with it."  I agree with this statement, and believe it alludes to the importance of the study of the application of scripture. This is not an easy task, the Bible "tells a single overarching story which appears to be precisely the kind of thing people today have learned to resist." Culture plays a huge hindrance to the study of the Word. As Christians, we are "to hold in our minds and hearts what the Bible says about who we are, are to do our best to live by that, [but this] clashes head-on with our culture."  We must seriously reflect on the matter of to whom we are granting authority of our lives: culture or scripture? 

On Authority

Many people have questioned the nature of the word authority, and this must initially be discussed before we can proceed. N.T. states that the "'Authority of Scripture' is a shorthand for 'God's Authority exercised through Scripture'."  Therefore, the authority of God himself is the larger context of which scripture is set within. 

The debate continues, however, too much of it "has had the form of people hitting one another with locked suitcases. It is time to unpack our shorthand doctrines, to lay them out and inspect them."  We must remember what we are debating for. The debate on the authority of the book is not where the conversation ends, but rather with the wonderful words which this book contains, taken to be authoritative in our lives. God "remains present and active within that world, and one of the many ways in which this is so is through his living and active word." 

On Jesus and the church

Jesus is a key to understanding scripture, and a study of the early church shows how the early Christians understood in light of Jesus’s teaching. This is where N.T.’s attention turns. 

"Jesus opens the minds of the disciples to understand what the scriptures had been about all along." Jesus explains how the story of Israel is now told as reaching its climax in himself. Certain continuities and discontinuities naturally will happen, as 

"the law must be put aside...not because it was a bad thing but because it was a good thing whose task is now accomplished. But... the people of God renewed through Jesus and the Spirit can never and must never forget the road by which they had traveled." 

N.T. studies the history of the church over the first sixteen centuries and the various ways in which they attempted to interpret the Scriptures. He reflects on these attempts as being failures, because "once you can make scripture stand on its hind legs and dance a jig, it becomes a tame pet rather than a roaring lion."  We must remember that "the backbone of many traditional arguments for the authority of scripture has been those specific sayings of Jesus which stress that he himself regarded scripture as authoritative and criticized his opponents for not doing so." 

Christianity was undermined during the period of the Enlightenment as historical and rational study was used as a weapon against the church. “Much of what has been written about the Bible in the last two hundred years has either been following through the Enlightenment's program or reacting to it, or negotiating some kind of halfway house in between."  The act of God in Jesus Christ has been reduced to mere moral teaching. Or equally disappointing, Jesus’s death is now treated as simply “the mechanism whereby individual sinners can receive forgiveness and hope for an otherworldly future - leaving the politicians and economists... to take over the running, and as it turns out the ruining, of the world." 

"Whenever people today talk about 'authority' within the church, a regular appeal is made on behalf of 'experience'."  However, as Wright states, "'experience' is far too slippery for the concept to stand any chance of providing a stable basis sufficient to serve as an 'authority'." This idea is proved upon simple reflection, because when people's experiences differ, this would lead to a complete absence of authority. However, as Wright stresses, "it is vital that Christians should 'experience' the power and love of God in their own lives." 

To conclude in the wise words of N.T. Wright, We need to 

"highlight the role of the Spirit as the powerful, transformative agent... keep as its central focus the goal of God's Kingdom, inaugurated by Jesus on earth as in heaven and one day to be completed under the same rubric... envisage the church as characterized, at the very heart of its life, by prayerful listening to, strenuous wrestling with, humble obedience before, and powerful proclamation of scripture." 

Review

N.T. Wright has an insightful way with words, engaging his readers and stressing the importance of the issue of authority in the bible. I agree with his claim that we need to move from scrutinizing the Bible to letting it be more authoritative in our lives. We must engage in a way that will be transforming rather than in a way that will simply set us up to win debates. We must study scripture privately and corporately, as we look to it for counsel, prayer, devotion, example, study, and worship, all the while remaining conscious we do not look at it to justify our own agendas.

I applaud N.T. for stressing the study of Jesus, a point which I think is not stressed enough in our churches today, though His life is at the center of the gospel. The gospels must be in must be read in context, that we might know what is prescriptive and what is simply descriptive of the early Church. We must view it through a lens that grants the inspiration of Holy Spirit, rather than simply another worldly historical/wise document. We must view it more than simply an object of study or a research tool. We must set aside time to reflect in an intimate way with the Lord and the guiding of the Holy Spirit to enlighten us to the significance to our own lives. 

N.T. does not expect his reader to have presupposed the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but rather uses supporting evidence for his argument that this is the case. He used scripture throughout his book appropriately and effectively. Most of the claims in this book can be compared to the main objectives or elements of this course on Biblical Interpretation. The development of skills for the proper interpretation of scripture is a must. If we must initially study the scripture to see what it says before we can apply its authority to our lives, skills to determine a proper understanding is a necessary prerequisite. A properly weighted importance on this history of interpretation found in the book is also similar to that which has been stressed in class. False interpretations in the past have led to the compromise of the church and its message, and of this we should be wary. Context is key in any interpretive attempt, whether that be cultural or literary, that we might apply the text appropriately. We accept the teaching, both from the book and from class, that the importance of proper scripture interpretation is found in the fact that these truths form the foundation for our Faith. 

Studying the scripture will require everything that goes against our culture: humility, discipline, endurance, patience, and a moldable spirit. A willing and humble spirit must embrace the task, recognizing that this task in so small one. Daily prayer must be a theme in any believer’s life, that God would provide strength, clarity of mind, and perseverance. To this N.T. makes clear. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1) Wright, NT. Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today. New York: HarperCollins, 2011.

25 days of Christmas

 As a tight-budgeted grad student, I had to get creative with gifts this year, thanks Pinterest! For the budget conscious gift-giver, check out my compiled list of easy cheap gifts for a creative personalized and complete 25 days of Christmas!

1)Favorite fast food not found in Vail: Chick-fil-a

2)Gift for the inner child: silly string and noise putty

3)Silly coupons: massage, get out of jail free...

  

4)Playing Cards: We always laugh at hipster paraphernalia, and Chris is terrible at Nerts, so I found a mustache shaped deck at Target!

5)Mug: Plain white mugs at IKEA are only $1, and you can decorate with a sharpie and bake for a personally designed treasure!

6)Baileys: Single shot bottles for some adult hot chocolate.

7)Hot chocolate: Or hot drink mix of choice 

8) Bag of favorite Candy

9)Potatoes and parmesan cheese

10)Truffle oil: Anytime we go to dinner we always order truffle fries if they are on the menu. Chris has a deep frier, so we made some of our own. Win. 

11) Book Safe: The library on campus has a great used book sale, so a grabbed a hardback for $4 and hollowed out the middle as a hiding place for treasures!

12)6-pack of favorite beer.

13) Favorite drink not found in Vail: Strawberry limeade

14) Ninja bread cookie cutters: Found on Amazon

15) Sprinkles and icing - cream cheese, duh. 

16) cookie dough: Yes, even the pre-made kind needs flour added to it before baking in the mountains. I thought I had learned this lesson from some would-be yummy blondies. 

Nailed it.

So this is how the cookies turned out. 

But we managed

What a trooper.

Ninja or pretty princess?

17) Touchscreen gloves

18) Favorite homemade dinner: I redeemed myself from the cookies, with homemade chicken cordon blue, thank you very much. 

19) His birthday is actually on the 19th, so I taped 25-$1 bills together and rolling up in a cardboard tube. Ok it was a toilet paper empty roll. He made it rain. 

20)Flannel Shirt

21) Picture Frame: Love simple frames from IKEA, and framed this bad boy.

22)Get creative

23)Get creative

24) Ornament: As the avid talented snowboarder, I started a little tradition for Chris and I with a wooden carved snowboarder ornament.

25) Monogrammed leather journal cover: Etsy is a great source for these! 

What was super fun was incorporating inside jokes, Chris' personal favorites, and having excuses to spend time with him by using the gifts. I also probably had way too much fun reusing bags and wrapping all the gifts to match. 

Some other ideas:

I attempted a scarf, but ran out of yarn. I can crochet one heck of a rectangle though.

Also, simple homemade treats are always a win. Especially when it means you get to spend an evening with a bestie. 

Also this. I love this idea for a simple ottoman if you can find a tire. And if you aren't flying home, doubt this would count as a carry on. 

The Moral Argument for God

The Moral Argument for the Existence God

A topic of hot debate in the intellectual world is that of the existence of a superior being or force. The specific and name and nature of this being are always debated, however the secular world refuses to give the God of the Bible a fair chance in the debate. In light of observations on the matter, Angus Menuge has said that "a sure sign that the West had lost its transcendent moorings is its frenetic search for secular God-substitutes." # It is a bizarre phenomenon that people will lay aside their intellectual integrity to presuppose that God cannot be the answer, all the while spending their time and energy attacking others, for what they see, as having their own biased presuppositions.

It is important to note that Christianity stems from ultimate truth. Though some Christians come to the Faith from a biased environment, this does not necessarily negate the fact that Christian truth claims stem from an unbiased source, God’s specific and general revelation. For the certain truth claim that there is a singular omnipotent being, there are many arguments for a such as the ontological and the cosmological argument. There are various proofs deriving from design, consciousness and anthropological studies. This essay will serve to specifically look in depth at the moral argument, and show that the best explanation for morality is, not only a single superior being, but this being is the God of the Bible. In an effort to retain intellectual integrity, this essay will not build from any suppositions biased towards Christianity.

Morality

Existing in every person and every culture, lies a moral code. Some have ventured to claim these morals are simply relative, but regardless, these morals are inescapable. Though specific applications of moral principles may look different in each scenario, the concept more generally refers to good and bad human behavior.# In light of this, the very concept of moral relativity should be disregarded, because the idea of relativity does not leave room for a measurement of good versus bad, because there is no ultimate standard to which to appeal. "All human beings...believe that there are standards ‘that exist apart from us’ by which we evaluate moral feelings." # The questions that logically follow are in regards to this standard.
The moral relativist, holding fast to their belief in spite of the obvious refutation stated above, could simply suggest that culture should be credited for the existence of morals, and should be the rod of which they are measured. As Russ Shafer-Landau stated, "why require moral truths to best explain our moral views, if we can cite the social, parental and psychological factors that appear to so heavily influence their content?" # Shafer-Landau basically summarizes the dependency thesis which “asserts that morality inherently depends on cultural factors and no other factors...there can be no cross cultural and objective moral truths that apply to all cultures”#

The problem with this view, is that it can so easily flow from cultural relativism to individual relativism, leaving no authority to judge one individual's morals over another. When people pit their morals against each other, each claiming that their own are right, the very foundation of their relativity is knocked out by their allusion to the fact that one is ultimately wrong while the other is ultimately right. They are simply "appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which [they] expects the other man to know about." # Tim Keller eloquently summarizes that

"Though we have been taught that all moral values are relative to individuals and cultures, we can't live like that. In actual practice we inevitably treat some principles as absolute standards by which we judge the behavior of those who don't share our values.What gives us the right to do that, if all moral beliefs are relative? Nothing gives us the right. Yet we can't stop it. People who laugh at the claim that there is a transcendent moral order do not think that racial genocide is just impractical or self-defeating, but that it is wrong. The Nazis who exterminated Jews may have claimed that they didn't feel it was immoral at all. We don't care. We don't care if they sincerely felt they were doing a service to humanity. They ought not to have done it." #

This reveals that this moral relativity is“unlivable and contradictory, and therefore false." # Building on the argued point that a moral standard does exists, the next questions that presents themselves are: Is the standard arbitrary? If not, what is the nature of the standard? Where does this standard come from? These will each be examined in turn.

Is the standard of morals arbitrary?

Shafer-Landau has tried  to argue that there is no outside reality of what is good and bad, to which present day morals ban be examined against. His argument states that:

- If there is no reason to believe p, and some reason to deny p, then there is most reason to deny p.
- There is no reason to believe in moral or divine facts, and some reason to deny their existence.
- Therefore there is most reason to deny the existence of divine and moral facts. #

Even though his first premise can be granted, his second premise has been proven false by the counterexamples listed above which prove that there are reasons to believe in moral facts, and therefore his argument fails.
If morality is found in the tension of good versus evil, the natures of both good and evil must be addressed before the argument can proceed. C.S. Lewis insightfully pointed out that "wickedness, when you examine it, turns out to be the pursuit of some good in the wrong way...badness is only spoiled goodness. And there must be something good first before it can be spoiled.” # For morals to be arbitrary, good and evil would have to each be given an equal weight, but it is obvious upon reflection that good can exist alone whereas bad is only a lack of goodness. Therefore, for morals to run parallel to what is good, it is impossible for them to be arbitrarily decided by "social, parental and psychological factors." # This implies that the nature of goodness necessarily is beyond the individual, and therefore also beyond a specific society or culture.
To summarize: Morals exist and are inescapable. There also exists an ultimate standard, and this standard is not arbitrary. The nature of good goes beyond how it serves the individual. It is "something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men's behavior, and yet quite definitely real - a real law, which none of us made, but which we find pressing on us." #

The nature of the moral standard

Is the nature of this standard that of an a force or of an actual being? I think it best to examine this in light of what I will call our consciousness; we know what is right yet sometimes we feel as if we do not do it. We clearly have choices, and there are choices made which are obviously not ultimately good. If this outside standard were simply a mindless force, we would either always do what is right, or we would not be able to reflect on the fact that what we have done is wrong.

The answer of the standard being a force proves too simple because it does not explain our conscious. If this standard must be a force or a being, and it has been argued that a force is too simple an explanation, it must logically be a being.

This being must necessarily be separate from the world as argued above, and it must also be singular. The argument against the plurality of ultimate beings states that if there is more than one, one must be better than the other. This would regress the conversation because, as we have argued above, for one to be better than the other there would have to be something outside of the two which would determine this fact.
Some find the idea of the Trinity, God existing in three persons, a stumbling block because they feel it is disproved by the argument that only one ultimate being can exist. An in-depth explanation to this is outside the scope of this argument, however, suffice it to say that there is only one mind of the Trinitarian God, and out of His ultimate goodness he reveals Himself in three different forms in order to reach a people whom have gone astray.

Where does this standard for measuring morals come from?

A specific question which cannot be ignored is that in spite of how well we adhere to them, how did we come to possess these morals? One explanation, is that the standard of morals is found in the actual creator of the human beings who possess them. This section will show why this is the best answer to this question.
If morality parallels what is ultimately good, then the being behind morals would also have to be ultimately good. “Objective moral values have their sources in the eternal character, nature and substance of a loving, just and self-sufficient God.” # Evidence of his goodness would be revealed through his creation, and this would then serve as a way to point back to himself through his creation. In his ultimate goodness, he would be a being of ultimate love, and would therefore give choices to his creation in regards to their behavior in light of good and bad choices that present themselves. In his ultimate goodness, he would also be forgiving, and would therefore provide some sort of system to right the wrongs of his created beings.
Here we see the whole story of ultimate reality which lies up with the good news found in the Bible. A singular, good and holy god, created a harmonious world with free will and revealed Himself to his creation. However, the created beings chose ways which opposed His ways, breaking the harmonious relationship and leaving the created beings with a singular hope in the creator to restore it, because the created had been tainted by sin. As Chesterton said, “Christian theology is the best root of energy and sound ethics.” #

Conclusion

Reflections on morality open the conversation to a discussion of the Gospel itself.

Certain thoughts and questions present themselves, usually for the first time. As Keller states,

"Our culture differs from all the others that have gone before. People still have strong moral convictions, but unlike people in other times and places, they don't have any visible basis for why they find some things to be evil and other things good. It's almost like their moral intuitions are free-floating in midair - far off the ground." #

This is clearly a good starting place for arguing the existence of God, because everyone can relate over the sense of having a conscious revealing “both a transcendent goodness and our own violation of this goodness.” # Without God as an explanation, people are caught in a tension of recognizing a problem but not being able to argue for an answer to it. “He has argued himself into a corner, but from that corner he cries out for something he cannot reach, given his Godless presuppositions.” #

The few arguments that do exist against the existence of God should be challenged and debunked by using counterexamples to prove one or more of the premises as false. One of the best counterexamples is the inner turmoil Paul talks about in his letter to the Romans. Without the God of the Bible and the story of His fallen creation, there is no way to explain the tension one experiences of knowing what is right, yet finding themselves repeatedly doing what is wrong.

"I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!" #

The moral argument is a good place to start for the existence of God, because it is logically credible, can be easily understood by any audience, and starts from the point of tension to which people can relate. It can naturally be followed up by additional arguments which point out other logical and scientific details regarding the existence of God, and my hope is that these arguments can be appropriately grouped to build the credibility of and support each other. In addition, I hope that the point is clear that these arguments are additional ways in which He has revealed Himself because of His ultimate goodness in drawing his fallen creation back to Himself.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1) Chesterton, G.K. Orthodoxy. Lexington: Feather Trail Press, 2009.
2) Groothius, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case For Biblical Faith. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2011.
3)   Keller, Timothy. The Reason For God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. New York: Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2008.
4) Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. New York: HarperCollins, 2001.
5) Menuge, Angus. “God on the Brain.” Christian Research Journal, v33 (2004): 18-26.
6) Shafer-Landau, Russ. “Moral and Theological Realism: The Explanatory Argument.” Journal of Moral Philosophy (2007): 311-329.

The Task of Christian Apologetics in a Postmodern World

Apologetics is needed for the Christian task of evangelizing in a postmodern world. In this essay, the nature of truth will be presupposed as being absolute, as is the definition of the word. Truth must not and cannot be used in the irrational sense that multiple truths can exist.

Nature, Purpose, and Justification of Christian Apologetics

Christian apologetics involves establishing logical, historical, and scientific facts that correspond with reality. As believers, we presuppose that all general revelation in our world points back to God. However, this presupposition is not necessary for God to be revealed as single Lord of the universe. With this understanding grasped, apologists are able to proceed confidently because they can know that even from an unbiased perspective, the truth of the Christian Faith is still apparent.

The purpose of Christian apologetics is both offensive and defensive. The defending of the Christian faith is in regards to its rational and compelling Biblical claims, and the presentation of them as absolute. On the offensive front, apologists must become and remain intentional to point out contradictions and inconsistencies of other various arguments which are leading others astray. Compassion for the lost is key. Both defending Christian claims and debunking false truth claims can be done through logical thought, and historical and scientific proofs.

The justification for the task is found in the scriptures, God’s specific revelation to his people. Solomon expresses reality in his statement "This only have I found. God created mankind upright, but they have gone in search of many schemes," # and Paul gives us the exhortation to demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and to take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ. # As believers, we should heed Paul’s words in our own lives, as well as our outward efforts in evangelism.

The Importance of Worldview for Apologetics

Worldview is crucial to apologetics. “A worldview is, first of all, an explanation and interpretation of the world and second, an application of this view to life. In simpler terms, our worldview is a view of the world and a view for the world." # Worldviews are not reserved for formal philosophers, but rather are apparent in the convictions of every person. "Some convictions are conscious, while others are unconscious, but together they form a more or less consistent picture of reality." #

Before I approach the reasons for the importance of worldview, let me stress my belief that regardless of which Faith people prescribe to, they have a worldview which is logically implied. However, "many people fail to bring their worldviews into critical focus." #

But this should not be, faith and worldview should flow back and forth, interpreting and affirming each other.

My question is, what is the point of faith if it does not dictate the worldview? Many moderns, or more accurately postmodernists, would ask that faith be kept to oneself and practiced only inside the home. If all Faith leads to worldview, then by privatizing it, (i.e. taking out the worldview) the Faith loses its essence.

Here lies one importance of worldview for apologetics. If Christianity is the only Faith which offers a true, logical and non-contradicting worldview, then the request to privatize Faith can only be seen as an attack on Christianity. Through apologetics, we must present the fact that any and all actions imply a worldview and therefore a faith, and then challenge that faith until the point of inconsistency is exposed.

As Francis Schaeffer stated, many non-believers cannot live within the logical implications of their beliefs,# and I think one of the major worldviews that needs to be challenged is postmodernism.

The Christian Worldview

The Christian worldview is a "Christ-centered, Spirit-led, Bible-honoring way of being," # and as the apostle John tells us that it “sets people free.”# It is the logical worldview that follow the Christian Faith. The Christian Faith affirms the supernatural creation through a single god existing in three forms, the fall which placed us “under God’s righteous condemnation and without hope in ourselves,” # redemption through the atonement and defeat of death, and hope in the eschaton that we will see God face to face and be ultimately perfected. Evangelism happens in light of the reality of what has happened and in the hope of what is to come.

The Christian worldview that follows this Christian faith, affects theology, philosophy, ethics, biology, psychology, sociology, law, politics, economics, and history. # What this implies, is that it is not appropriate for any believer to become, nor to remain, a relativist in any of these areas, although sadly, this is where so many remain. (I am not implying that by having differing views in these areas, one is considered a relativist. I am simply stating all of the views cannot be true at the same time.) 

Basic strategy for defending the christian worldview

In a world of so many different beliefs, and different concepts in regards to those beliefs, Christians must not underestimate their apologetic task. When evangelizing, we must always be aware of our we are being interpreted. In light of our postmodern culture, or more accurately our relative culture, we now have to start “the conversation” by taking a step back and discussing the concept of truth as being absolute, before delivering the truth that is Christianity.

It is crucial to understand and to not ignore the perspective of our audience. If we do, we run the risk of our audience misinterpreting our message. We must understand the context into which we are speaking, so we may proceed in an effective way. So many times we let ourselves get in the way, whether that be our arrogance in wanting to appear in a certain way to our audience, not ever stopping to think our audience actually might want to hear what we have to say, or letting our insecurity get the best of us. We need to meditate on the fact that God does not give us a spirit of fear, but a spirit of power and love and self-control. #

We must remain prayerful, begging that the Holy Spirit would give us words that would penetrate the hearts of the lost. That we would be able to “hit home” in a way that stresses the importance of this life giving and life saving message of the cross. Finally, we must commit to do everything in our power to not allow any trace of apathy or indifference to be left in the person. Intellectual sloth can be considered one of the major hindrances to people  receiving the gospel. It must not be taken lightly but rather should keep us on our knees as we remember we, too, were once lost. #

Paul writes in his second letter to Timothy that servants of the Lord “must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness.” # He goes on to say that perhaps God will grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of truth, and my hope is that we are ready and available when this happens.

Conclusion

As Jeff Ventrella of the Alliance Defense Fund once said, we must give enough apologetics to clear the path, then get back to the Gospel. In our modern world full of distractions, agendas, confusions, and contradictions, we must remove any obstacles keeping anyone from humbly coming to Faith in the Lord. As Paul tells, we are Christ’s ambassadors, through which He makes His appeal, to beg others to be be reconciled to God.#

We must continue doing our part through discipleship, and becoming more competent in our witness for Him. If while evangelizing, or simply leading our lives as followers of Christ, we do not insist upon what God has to say about a certain realm as crucial, we will encourage the misimpression that it falls outside the command and will of God, and that Christianity deals with private concerns only. # This will only fuel our current culture of relativism and shallow Christians who are unequipped to face the challenges that present themselves daily.

We must be on our guard to expose what is happening in our world, all the while remaining aware of the end goal. One very important fallacy that the postmodernists evoke is the fallacy of self-refutation. They are making an absolute truth claim that absolute truths do not exist. We must point this out intentionally while remaining gentle. If in the midst of proclaiming the message of Christ we seccum to worldy ways, we have effectively done nothing but to make the evangelistic task harder on ourselves as a whole because we will have perpetuated a culture which is basically void of Christ-likeness. We also need to take very seriously that we are being representatives of Christ, and strive in every means possible to do this with the utmost focus and dedication to the work and drawing people to His kingdom.

Bibliography

1) Groothuis, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case For Biblical Faith. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2011.
2) Henry, Carl F.H. Twilight of a Great Civilization. Westchester: Crossway, 1988.
3) Noebel, David A.  Understanding the Times. Manitou Springs: Summit Press, 2006.
4) Pearcey, Nancy. Total Truth. Westchester: Crossway, 2004.
5) Phillips, Brown, John Stonestreet. Making Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview, 2nd Ed. Salem: Sheffield Publishing, 2008.
6) Schaeffer, Francis A.  The God Who Is There, 2nd ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1982.