Has anyone here read any of his books or heard his weekly radio broadcast? I try to catch his weekly broadcast and I am currently reading his book "Can Man Live Without God?". Mr. Zacharius has many other books, but this one caught my interest and so far it is quite good.

His ministry giving compelling answers to questions by skeptical atheists and agnostics in defense of the faith is something I admire. I have discussed my faith with numerous atheists and agnostics online, doing my best to answer their questions and criticisms regarding Christianity. Our culture in the United States is now decidedly non-Christian with secular thinkers daily continuing their efforts to undermine the truth of the Bible and the message of Christ. Examples of this can be found in any secular university you care to name as they seek to stamp out "religious thought" in favor of programming young adults that truth does not exist.

The culture war in America is very real and the defense of the faith through apologetics is one of the most critical disciplines we as Christians must acquire, in my humble opinion. 1 Peter 3:15-16 are the verses I strive to live by in my discussions. "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed."

I would like to offer a word of warning on men like Zacharias, Strobel, Geisler, Sproule, & etc. These men tend to lean more to the philosophical/evidential side of apologetics. That is not a bad thing by itself, but the result of their teachings often lead to the supposition that faish is minimized to philosophy and man's reason. This Thomas Aquinas effect of reaching God through intellect is subtly present in their arguments. While they offer good arguments (my favorite is Descartes' "I think therefore I am" leading to theism) ultimately we come to God through the channel of faith not reason (though our faith is a reasonable faith). We must give an answer, but that answer should not ignore faith. Balance is the key.

Don't get me wrong, Nate. These men are smarter than I will ever dream of being in this lifetime. They have a lot of good info. Their arguments are good and useful. I just want to make aware that this kind of evidentiary apologetics suppresses faith to man's intellect when it is taken to its extreme.

Excellent points, Greektim. Balance most certainly is the key. One must be careful to keep faith first as it would be very easy to begin to rely on one's own understanding as Proverbs 3 warns us against and place intellectual answers above faith. As I discuss my faith with atheists online, the Lord has reminded me regularly that the "perfect" intellectual argument will never bring them to Himself. However, I do feel their questions deserve answers from a Christian worldview, along with Scripture.

Having listened to countless messages by Zacharius, I'm thoroughly convinced that the supposition that faith is minimized to philosophy is not at all his view. He, Strobel, etc serve a vital function in the defense of the faith by combating atheist philosophy and revealing its flaws. Taking on an arrogant atheist such as Richard Dawkins in public debate and exposing the flaws in his argument against the existence of God is something that qualified Christians should undertake. Richard Dawkins states, "Atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind." We most certainly do have a "reasonable faith" and we should not shrink from taking on defending it using philosophy from a Christian world view.

This post was last modified: Fri Apr 25, 2008 06:14 PM by Nate.

I appreciate GreekTim's observations. The Scriptures tell us that it is the preaching (proclaiming) of the Word of God that will change hearts. Ravi is difficult for me to listen to because of his intellectual approach with not a strong text basis. He is extremely intelligent, and is no doubt a believer, but I am not sure of the spiritual (as opposed to mental/emotional) effects that his message has on unbelievers.

I am reminded of a story I heard about the evangelist Bob Harrington(sp?) known as the Chaplain of Bourbon Street who began touring with famous atheist Madaline Murray O'Hare. While he was preaching and carrying the Gospel to those involved in the wickedness of Bourbon Street, he was greatly effective. During that time, he preached at one of the graduation programs at the seminary I attended. At the invitation more than a dozen came forward for salvation. At a seminary graduation! After he began touring and debating Christianity vs atheism, his ministry disappeared. Later I heard that his family had collapsed.

Brother Tim, I was under the impression (apparently wrong now) that you never recieved any formal training from a seminary. Which one did you attend?

Luther Rice Seminary (when it was in Jacksonville) 1972-1974 about a year and a half. My father, Dr. R.B. Keyes, was OT prof there for more than 10 yrs. You won't like the reason, but we left without my finishing because they altered the statement of faith re Bible inspiration by adding "in the original manuscripts". (Blame the Pres and the Greek prof for that). Never did take the Greek class. Failed Homiletics because I couldn't write out my sermon. (I was only a children's preacher/"storyteller" back then - outlines and alliteration didn't work that well).

While I think the seminary made the right decision in changing the doctrinal statement, I am glad to hear that you left for doctrinal reasons. I will not attend/teach at a school where I disagree w/ the theological teachings of the school. I respect your choice in leaving.

On the topic of formal training, I got the "Timothy" kind of training. I sat under the preaching and teaching of a great theologian from birth through age 52, and served side-by-side with him for 32 years. Once when I was helping him carry his materials to his classroom, another student stopped me. He asked, "Is Dr. Keyes your father?" When I answered, he grabbed my arm and said, "I would give anything to be his son!" That was not an unusual feeling among the students. His class was so large that it had to be held in the chapel. Other profs were jealous at times, and dreaded having a class at the same time as his, because the attendance would be so small.

I am working to get what tapes that we have "translated" over to digital.

So yes I did have training, but it was better than formal.

Incidentally, I did "play" student at the University of Florida (aerospace engineering / Air Force ROTC scholarship) for 2 yrs before God called me.

We do chase rabbits on these threads, don't we? Sorry Nate.

By the way you talk about your father (not just in the last post) he sounds like a great man of God. I wish I could have met him or heard him. Let me know when you get those tapes "translated" over to digital. That will be a literal translation right? I dont do that paraphrase thing.

We do chase rabbits on these threads, don't we? Sorry Nate.

No worries.

Check with y'all later. The govt gave me some of my money back yesterday, so I'm taking my wife out to eat. GreekTim, "y'all" is the exact English translation for the Hebrew or Greek second person plural nominative or objective case pronoun translated as "you" in the KJB.

I want to stress that I am not advocating using philosophy in place of the Word of God. Rather, I am suggesting the questions and views of atheist philosophers should be answered in return with a Christian philosophical defense based on the Word when dealing with philosophers or students thereof. When Richard Dawkins states that God does not exist "The Bible says ...", though true, is not a reasoned response. There is no reason we cannot refute his statement with evidence AND the Bible.

This post was last modified: Fri Apr 25, 2008 07:21 PM by Nate.

Nate, I am trying to be careful with this, but you must understand. Any time you step away from the Word of God as your only defense, you step into the realm of worldly wisdom, which is at enmity with God. When God says that we must believe that "He is", there is no other evidence that can enhance that belief. The Word does not need to be reasoned. It has the power of the Spirit behind it. Please don't misunderstand what I am saying. Using the Scriptures and the principles set forth by them does involve reason, but it is on a different level of debate. This is where I have trouble with Ravi. He stays so much on the intellectual basis and just briefly alludes to Scripture verses to support his argument. I have listened to him for many years, although the messages on BBN are generally recycled often.

To follow up w/ Brother Tim, if we were to follow the Bible in our apologetics method, then we would begin w/ the presupposition "in the beginning God". The Bible never sets out to prove God's existence. The Bible makes it clear that His glory is seen in nature (Psalm 19) and all around us (Rom. 1). That makes me wonder if out method in reasoning should begin the same place it did in the BIble - presupposing God's existence.

Nate, I know where you are coming from. Like I said, there is a lot of good stuff there. Reading their material has given me more assurance of my faith. I have always been a big fan of Geisler. But even his Systematic Theology approaches the issues froma philosophical perspective. Again, balance is important. I know you understand that though.

This is actually a hot topic in evangelical/apologetics circles. Which method should be used - Evidential vs. Biblical/Presuppositional? When I took my apologetics class in Grad school, we used the presuppositional method. The best apologetic you have is your testimony for God. That can never be refuted by a skeptic or athiest. When you show the love of Christ, then you show them Christ. They see the truth lived out in your life. You can't beat that.