Dr. Lane Tipton - Christ-centered Apologetics

[crackthecorn]

if god in all his wisdom and Omnipotents needs some random guy to explain his words to me ...those are not the words of god

[Purushadasa]

I was under the impression, from my reading of the Gospels, that Lazarus was born back from the dead before Jesus was. Yet, he says that Jesus was the first. Can anyone explain what he means?

Didn't he resurrect Lazarus BEFORE the crucifixion???

[jbrack95]

@Purushadasa Christ resurrected unto Glory. His resurrection includes ascension. Lazarus did not ascend. The Biblical notion of resurrection includes an already not yet aspect. Which is why Paul can say that thoes who believe are presently raised with Christ, yet still await eschatological/bodily and physical glory. If Lazarus was the first fruits then he would still be alive today.

[Purushadasa]

According to the Christians, Jesus made the sacrifice willingly. In fact, this is probably true, from a purely historical standpoint. He was no slouch, and at any time in his trial, he could have prevented the crucifixion by giving in to the lies, and this is a fact even if you may not happen to accept that he is the omnipotent God.

I also find your term, "Jewish hatred" to be blatantly racist and anti-semitic, and I honestly feel that you should be deeply ashamed of yourself.

[Purushadasa]

No biggie, I guess. We all misspeak from time to time.

God bless you!

[cvm03]

I attended junior high and high school with Lane from 1980 to 1986, in fact, played on the same football team in 9th grade, and never imagined that he would be in the teaching position he is now. People really can change. A great guy and a very good man. --S.W.

[fireup777]

Yes, I agree that apologetics must rely on Christ and his Word, the Bible. However, Westminster Seminary by definition does not rely on Christ's Word alone. You have another written authority, another sacred text which is the Westerminster Confession of Faith. Functionally, your seminary violates what you are teaching because your subscription to a confession of faith means that you use more than / something other than Christ's Word, the Bible, to construct your theology.

[jbrack95]

A confession is not a final authority. If your argument is valid then you don't rest on scripture as a final authority either, instead your last comment is your written authority. It would be like arguing : the statement that you wrote "scripture is authoritative" is your other authority. So by 'definition' (as you put it) you are equally guilty of you own critique.

[Purushadasa]

He never said that they don't rely on anything else -- he only said that they rely on Christ's word first and foremost.

You need to draw back your straw-man, because anyone with normal intelligence or higher is embarrassed by being publicly caught in such an obvious logical fallacy, as you have been caught just now.

[AAL]

Why does god's perfect book require 4 years of theology to understand? Why is it so boring? Hell, Jackie Collins can write more of a page turner then god? What's up with that?

[doththisoffendyou]

2000 years from today: "Jackie Who?"

[AAL]

Why? are we only going to read the bible after the rapture?

Talk about your fun summer reading! I love reading about King Agag being hacked to pieces while I lounge at the beach!

[excel958]

Well what do you do if your foundation of this "Christ of scripture" for your apologetic approach is deconstructed to bits?

I think it's a mistake to narrow down the basis to something so unprovable and phenomenological.

[jbrack95]

decontruction? please provide one sentence that any deconstructionist can posit as true. point being...excel958 is what system of philosophy can prove any fact without being self referentially incoherent? Answer...zero. So what do you do with deconstructionist deconstructing themselves to "bits"? Answer ... they ignore it, and continue to assume that truth is seated in human autonomy. Hence that is why the above video refuses to take such a route.

[robbesons]

@excel958 The whole point is that there is no single definition or philosophy of "proof" out there. Prove to me your definition of proof, then prove your method, all without assuming a notion of proof that you haven't proved yet. Incoherent, right? So our notion of proof doesn't come from some common sense collection of definitions, we rely on something more authoritative, and that authority comes to us in the form of God communicating through Scripture. See "Christian Apologetics"by Van Til.