Upcoming Pamphlet

This is part of a section on a pamphlet I'm working on. Tell me how you guys like this sample.

Does the Quran seek to explain everything that encompasses life? In other words, does it seek to provide the Muslim a "life-view" of all things, like Kuyper would suggest life-views do? In the synopsis on the back of Pigthall's translation, we are told that the Quran gives the Muslim a comprehensive view of all things, namely, sociology, ethics and economics. Philosophical categories have been extrapolated from these three that would suggest all areas of life, viz., metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, and by inference, logic. A spirit of intellectual honesty would render the infidel without recourse of Muslim sentiment an unbeliever. This denial of Islam, under historical scrutiny, will not necessarily lead one to a particular view of faith since by its very nature is a negative critique; that is, it does not set forth to establish a positive view of faith, like Christianity or Judaism. (For more on negative and positive proof, refer to the end of this pamphlet for a more detailed definition.) Such a critique would even render an atheist within his or her rights a harsh denial of all Islamic claims, since by its very nature is a negative critique of Islam.

Islam’s Hypocrisy and Jihad Watch

This post was way too funny. I couldn't believe it when I read it. I took this from Robert Spencer's site, Jihad Watch. I'll post a picture of the book I'm currently reading. Thankfully, my brother and his wife loaned me the book (yes, I'm broke). If there's any book that my readers would like to peruse without reading the entire book, send me a copy and I would love to write a review.

Hypocrisy: Saudi Arabia, the country that won't allow churches or synagogues, calls for boycott of Switzerland over minaret ban That is, it is hypocrisy from a Western point of view. As far as the Saudis are concerned, Islam is the truth, its truth is self-evident, and therefore the Swiss are obligated to accommodate it in a way that the Saudis are not obligated to accommodate non-Muslim religious observance [Read more...]

Great Morning at GPC

This morning was a great Lord's Day service. Ron preached about thinking about God's Law/statutes, turning to them, and doing it hastily. The text was Psalms 119:59-60.

When I think on my ways, I turn my feet to your testimonies; I hasten and do not delay to keep your commandments.

The sermon was mainly about ethics and the Christian, but the more obvious point that I inferred from the sermon was how we go about "doing" ethics. At that point I came to a simple conclusion—journals! I think the best way to "know" how the spiritual life is being lived is through journals. With journals, one can catalogue, inquire/ask, and read the progress, or regress, of one's spiritual maturity. Even in the text one read in the first line, "When I think on my ways…" clearly denotes an inquisitive spirit into one's spiritual well-being. So here's my diagnosis, Dr. House: USE A JOURNAL!

Podcast about Islam

Having been looking at the topic of Islam for the past couple days—I've been preparing for another dialog with Muslims who frequent my home—I came across a tweet by Dr. R. Scott Clark's Heidelblog. I followed the link and it lead me to the WHI, the White Horse Inn radio program, where the show aired recently on the topic of Islam. The story is about a man who converted to Reformed Christianity from Islam. His bio can be found on this link. To listen to the program, click here. Here is a preview of Hussein's book Crack in the Crecent.

Countless books have been written on the subject of Islam, making it a daunting task for the reader to select a good one. The lack of consensus among Islamic scholars also makes Islam a very complex topic. Therefore, it is imperative for one to read a book with a clear, concise, and coherent message in order to gain a proper understanding of Islam.

Rhetoric and Logic Applied to the Apologetic Task

The following are resources provided by
Apologetics315. These are good resources for the application of reason and rhetoric to the apologetic task. Many Evangelicals today don't appreciate the value of this kind of dialog and exhibit a sort of "faith-in-Jesus" simplicity. Now I can divert to other issues, such as a denotative explication of the forms of faith, but this is not my intention, especially since it is not the topic of discussion. For a more detailed justification for profundity in the apologetic task, I would suggest reading Christian philosophers J.P. Moreland and William L. Craig's Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Other works are available. If anyone as any questions, please e-mail at jmartinez.reformed@gmail.com

Rhetoric and Christian Persuasion Resources

Philosopher Peter S. Williams (with Damaris) has had a number of good audios lately touching on the subject of classical rhetoric and how it applies to apologetics. These were happened upon after reading the excellent book How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator by Carter & Coleman, which touches on similar points (The book analyzes Jesus' use of rhetoric; the elements of logos, pathos, & ethos.)

Science and Religion, Pt. 2

"John Locke invented common sense, and only Englishmen have had it ever since."

–Bertrand Russell

As I have been writing on the subject of science, cosmology, and religious sentiment, reading Dr. Dennett (refer to my previous posts) has been very interesting. In page 26, the epigram by Bertrand Russell refers to Locke and his method of empiricism. In a coy way, Russell references Locke's common sense. Of course, in his reference, Dennett refers to Locke's idea of Ex nihilo nihil fit (=nothing can come from nothing). Locke obviously believed in a pre-existent Mind, calling this idea a common notion. Living in Descartes and Locke's epoch, the notion of a Creator, a rational and cognitive Mind, was readily accepted. However, this isn't cause for any scientist or religious person to deny the abilities of philosophers in the realm of empirical science. I'm currently still awaiting Dr. Poythress' book on theology's relation to science. However, I am still going to finish this series on science and religion. I will post a summary of chapters 2-3 and discuss them in detail.

Historical Argument for the Reliability of the NT

If A, then B

B, therefore A

If the Bible is the word of God (A), then the NT is a reliable witness of Jesus(B);

It is the case that NT is a reliable witness of Jesus (B), therefore the Bible is the Word of God (→A).

This is how the debate begins when one argues on the basis of reliability. Sometimes this argument, too, like other deductive arguments can lead to circular reasoning, and some have even adopted a circular kind of reasoning when they argue for God's existence on the basis of empirical data hoping to find God at the end of a syllogism. In this case, the argument is said to be argued from a historical point of view. I don't disagree with this method, since by the strictest sense all data, if interpreted properly—as Cornelius Van Til put it—is God's truth. However, in most cases the data is always misinterpreted or is not recognized by the atheist as reliable. This is the case with atheist philosophers George Smith (author of The Case Against God), Michael Martin (author of The Case Against Christianity), and Dan Barker (author of Godless : How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists). George Smith argues that the case for an omnipotent God is incompatible with reason and the problem of evil. In other cases, such as Dan Barker, he argues for the non-existence of Jesus as a historical figure. The argument I posted above has more to do with Barker's argument in his book than any other atheist writers that I have read. Michael Martin I would have to say is a little more honest than the previous two. He's also written on an academic level, so his level of philosophical profundity is a little more polished than the others.

The basic argument that I postulated above has a lot to do with the New Testament (=NT) as a reliable witness for historical data. Because of the overwhelming concessions in academia, I won't try to prove that the NT is a reliable source. It is common knowledge that the NT has a lot of bearing on the early Roman historiography. Making a holistic approach for the general acceptability for the NT is not an easy task but it is doable. The argument's main concern is with the apparent enthymeme, namely that the truthfulness of the reliable sources, the NT, are both sound and true; and those truth claims are that Jesus is the Son of God, resurrected from the dead, who claims to have come to save his people from their sins. So my paper will deal mostly with historical arguments that would lead anyone to accept the NT not only as a reliable source, but also as a reliable source for truth claims about a man named Jesus Christ and that everything he claims is true. If everything Jesus claims is true, then he is the King of Heaven and demands total obedience to his message, the gospel, and His will, law—the classical Reformed doctrine of Law and Gospel.