Your browser (Internet Explorer 6) is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites. Learn how to update your browser.
X
Post

SEAL of God Book

One of only 13 from a class of 173 to make it straight through to graduation, Navy SEAL Chad Williams served his country on SEAL Teams One and Seven for five years, completing tours of duty in the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Iraq.

Part memoir, part evangelism piece, SEAL of God follows Chad’s journey through the grueling Naval Ops training and onto the streets of Iraq, where he witnessed the horrors of war up close. Along the way, Chad shares his own radical conversion story and talks about how he draws on his own experiences as a SEAL to help others better understand the depths of Christ’s sacrifice and love.

Get an autographed copy of “SEAL of God” at $4.99 off retail clicking here—->  SPECIAL DEAL!

Makes a great gift and witnessing tool.

Post

The Moral Argument: Addressing Red Herrings

Question:

I know one person I talked to on the subject of the TMA said that how can God be ‘Good’ if He lets His people (in reference to Israel) destroy men, women, and children (citing Deuteronomy 2, particularly vs. 34). Any thing you can lend on this?”

Response:

This is a very common slight of hand the person tried to pull on you. I must point out that they are not engaging with TMA at all by erecting an objection to biblical revelation.

To make this clear in your interaction with them ask, “Can you please tell what specific premise of TMA you are attempting to address right now?”

Let us suppose that in response they try to aim their objection at premise (2). You can then point out that biblical revelation was never appealed to as support for premise (2)! So in this particular case -with regard to TMA- such an objection introduces a straw-man and red-herring to the argument! Nobody has to read the bible to know that objective moral values exist. Let me put it this way; I knew it was objectively wrong to murder long before I read Exodus chapter 20. Make it clear that you have not appealed to biblical revelation in your argument but that premise (2) is affirmed by in light of apprehending such objective moral values through moral experience!

Objectivity Apprehended In Moral Experience

As believers we are aware that this realm of objective moral values is made known to us through a God-given conscience (Rom. 2:15) but, we never had to first read Romans 2 as a sort of precondition to get that God-given conscience functioning. The awareness of objective moral values was already in full operation prior to reading the text. So it is not necessary to appeal to biblical revelation in support of premise (2) because objective moral values are already apprehended through moral experience.

Much like how we apprehend the objective reality of the physical world around us, we can also apprehend the objective reality of moral values. Most people are well aware of objective moral values with exception to morally handicapped folks like the psychotic sociopath serial killer. In the same way that some people are physically handicapped, say like the color-blind are incapable of distinguishing between the colors red and green. There are some people out there that are morally handicapped and incapable of identifying the morally objective difference between nurturing a child and torturing a child. Thus, just as a color-blind person that cannot distinguish between the colors like red and green doesn’t cause us that see color just fine to suddenly start doubting the difference we do see. So the morally handicapped person that can’t apprehend the objective difference between loving their neighbor or torturing their neighbor ought not to cause doubt in those of us that do apprehend an objective moral difference between the two.

Street Apologetics

Atheist:how can God be ‘Good’ if He lets His people destroy men, women, and children in the Old Testament?”

Street Apologist: “I never appealed to biblical revelation in support of premise (2). I pointed out that I know objective moral values exist in probably the same way you know they exist. I apprehend them through moral experience.”

(At this point, it would be good to put them on the spot to agree with you.)

Street Apologist: “You do believe certain moral behaviors like rape or child molestation are objectively wrong don’t you?”

Atheist: “Of course!”

Street Apologist: “Ok then you agree with premise (2)!”

Atheist: “Uh…Right.”

Street Apologist: “Ok then you must disagree with premise (1), otherwise the conclusion: ‘God exists‘ will follow logically and inescapably.”

Atheist: “Ok, well I don’t believe the conclusion so I will disagree with premise (1).”

Street Apologist: “Alright, well if you affirm premise (2) objective moral values do exist yet deny premise (1), I would like to hear how you justify the existence of objective moral values in the absence of God’s existence?”

Let the squirming begin!

“How to Answer” Archive: Click Here

Find this post helpful? Please help me by sharing it through the social media options below :-)

Post

What Is The Moral Argument?

The Moral Argument

 The Moral Argument (TMA) is a tremendously effective tool on the street. The reason TMA has so much force is because it reaches people on a more personal level. The bottom line is that the conclusions one draws from this argument will translate over to how they live their everyday life. In short, this one gets personal!

TMA comes in a handful of different variations and I have selected the most prominent arrangement for our discussion. It comes in the form of a logical syllogism, and therefore the conclusion will follow inescapably according to the rules of logic so long as one affirms premises (1) and (2) as true premises.

The Moral Argument Stated:

1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2) Objective moral values do exist.

3) Therefore, God exists.

Before expanding on this, I think it would be crucial to distinguish between what it means for something to be “objectively” or “subjectively” true.

By “objective” we mean: Something is to be true independent of human opinion.

By “subjective” we mean: Something is to be true dependent on human opinion.

Objective vs. Subjective Illustrated:

If I have a 5 Dollar Bill in my wallet, it will be objectively true that I have a 5 Dollar Bill in my wallet. To make it absolutely clear, it is objectively true that I have a 5 Dollar Bill in my wallet and this truth is wholly independent of what any human might feel or think about that.

With regards to the appearance of my wallet, it is subjectively true that it is a fashionable wallet. It is dependent upon my opinion and the opinion of others whether my wallet really has that voguish elegance.

Premise (1) the claim is that if God does not exist there is no justification or accountability for objective moral values. That is to say, if God does not exist there would be no foundation outside of the shifty subjectivism that human beings impart. Put another way, there would be no objective grounding or anchoring of moral values. In the absence of God, Richard Dawkins drives the point home for us in premise (1):

“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication. Some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good; nothing but pitiless indifference.”

Thus, if someone wants to negate the affirmation of premise (1) the burden of proof will lay squarely on them. It will be their responsible to erect a basis for objective moral values in the absence of God.

Premise (2) objective moral values do exist. You would think that this might be a difficult premise to validate but; almost everyone –when feet are put to the fire- will affirm the existence of some objective moral values. Most of us do experience the reality of objective moral values just as we experience the reality of the physical world. For instance, certain actions like raping to fulfill sexual desires or torturing babies for pure entertainment are not actions of “pitiless indifference” equivalent to love and kindness as Richard Dawkins would have it; rather such actions are objectively wrong regardless and independent of what Dawkins or other human beings might think or have to say on the matter! There may be those that disagree with us on this point but that should not slow down those of us that do apprehend such objective moral values anymore than a color blind or deaf person ought to cause those of us that see color and hear fine to doubt we do. Such a person that does not perceive it to be objectively wrong to rape for pleasure or torture babies for entertainment would simply be morally handicapped in the same way a blind or deaf person is physically handicapped.

Conclusion (3) if a person affirms the first two premises then the logic is airtight and the conclusion will forcefully follow that God exists. God would be the transcendent foundation and anchoring of objective moral values, wholly independent of human opinion or feelings. God would be the very source of moral value as His Nature is the “The Good” and anything contrary to His Good Nature would be Evil.  

Are there common objections to these premises? Certainly, and there are very good responses too! I will be dealing with these common objections on an individual basis in my next handful of posts. As the common objections are dealt with I will provide links to them below:

Common Objections to TMA

“How to Answer” Archive: Click Here

Find this post helpful? Please help me by sharing it through the social media options below :-)

Post

Who Made God?

The most common context in which the old who made God question comes in is after a detractor of the faith concedes that the universe has not always existed but, had a beginning! So picking up the conversation from there the Christian will point out that the universe could not have just popped into existence uncaused out of absolute nothingness! It is cause and effect (science 101), the universe (effect) must have a cause (God) that brought about it’s existence. God (caused) the universe (effect) to exist, cause and effect! In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. It is science 101 meets Genesis 1:1. 

In typical fashion and swagger the detractor will then parrot the infamous “Ok then who made God?”

By just asking the question who made God, the detractor has revealed that they don’t really understand what they are asking, for if they had, they never would have honestly asked the question to begin with. We must illuminate and reiterate the point previously made, for this is where the conversation will be most fruitful. So tell them that by definition your question is malformed. Ask them if they understand why? Then help them!

The question itself is a category mistake. God by definition has always existed! More to the point, God is not an effect that requires a cause! No, He has always existed, uncaused! Break it down some more and show why the question is a category mistake by unveiling what they ask -if they intend to properly represent God- is what caused that which is uncaused? Have more examples ready: Who made that which was never-made/always-existed? It is equivalent to asking: What is the name of the married bachelor? It is a category mistake. Bachelors are single (non-married) men and God is the Infinite uncaused Cause. God by definition has always existed.

Navy SEAL Chad Williams

“How to Answer” Archive: Click Here

Find this post helpful? Please help me by sharing it through the social media options below :-)

Post

Crazy Drunk Heckler

Post

>Atheist Assumption

>

Post

>Atheist Tactic

>

From Ed:

 “First I’d like to thank you, for rich programming that you all offer.  I’ve only recently discovered your You Tube Channel, but enjoy the show every day.  I recently encountered an atheist, who claimed that the story of Jesus Christ is the same story of Hare Krishna.  Further, he claimed that the story of Hare Krishna, occurred several hundred years prior to the birth of Christ.  I later did some research online, and saw some sites supporting this story.  How do I address this claim?  Again, thank you for all the work you do, and God Bless you all.”

Ed I am very pleased this issue has been brought to light as this is a tact I see many atheists using often across the internet and on the street! So lets take a look at this question broken down into the two claims that the atheist has made. I will give a bit of a commentary and time willing I will give an example of how I might engage this on the street.

(1) I recently encountered an atheist, who claimed that the story of Jesus Christ is the same story of Hare Krishna.

Look, take heed to what I am about to share! My beloved readers, I am about to unveil one of the most common tactics that atheists will use in an attempt to throw smoke in the air, evade the Gospel truth and take pop shots at you from a safe position. I was just on an atheist website the other day following a thread in which atheists were schooling each other in how to successfully pull this tactic off with a Christian. So here it is: When the atheist engages with you they will sometimes throw out an old debaters trick in which they will attempt to divert all attention off of themselves, remove all the burden of giving any account for why they believe what they believe! How? At some time in your interaction, the atheist will use a variation of:

“Well, ‘what about Buddha‘ ‘What about Muhammad‘ ‘What about Mormons‘ ‘What about Gandhi’ ‘What about Krishna?!” 

If you even give an inch here by addressing any one of the above you will be going down a rabbit trail that will truly never end! Do you really think the atheist will be satisfied when you defuse Buddha? Do you really think the suppressor of truth is going to just lay down now that you have untangled Krishna? No! They will go on and on boundlessly without any limits! Throwing their smoke up in the air they slide their personal views out of the equation and play peanut gallery as you deal with an endless barrage of phantom worldviews. Beware of this slight of hand as they are no longer representing themselves or even properly representing the pseudo worldviews that they attempt to collide into you! They are very comfortably out of the battle, in a safe place, no dog in this fight, but they certainly can play constant critic now from their non-existent position! So don’t go chasing rabbit trails! You need to call them out, right up front! Are you a Hare Krishna, a Muslim, a Mormon, a Buddhist ect? They are not, they are atheists remember?! So let them know “sir if you aligned yourself with any of these I would be more than happy to dialogue on such issues but you don’t and neither do I so I would like to engage with you and your beliefs rather than talk about a belief system that has no real representation today!”

(2) he claimed that the story of Hare Krishna, occurred several hundred years prior to the birth of Christ.

If for some reason you have taken the bait and stepped into the ring on this one…no sweat! Ultimately there is a ready response that will take down and bring to submission the stronghold of all other works righteousness belief systems. 

The key in dealing with counterfeit beliefs is knowing the original! You don’t need to have your doctorates in comparative religions, you don’t need to be a Walter Martin (a personal hero in the faith), you don’t need to have an exhaustive understanding of the ensemble of false systems of thought out there. You only need to know one thing in order to spot a counterfeit of any kind and that one thing is know the original!  

Speaking of exposing counterfeits, knowing the original is the same tact that U.S. Banks take in training their employees to take on the task of identifying and jettisoning counterfeit notes out of circulation. Above and beyond the man hours spent in learning to identify -the countless and ever changing- counterfeits; they put preeminence on handling and knowing the original so that when they encounter a counterfeit the differences will stick out as the idiom goes: like a sore thumb!

So know the Gospel truth which is the power of God (Rom. 1:16), fall in love with the uniqueness of Christ who is truth incarnate (Jn. 14:6) and know Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16) which is our sword (Heb. 4:12) and weapon that brings down every stronghold captive to Christ (2 Cor. 10:3-5).  There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12). It is the differences that make all the difference between the true Gospel and false gospels (Gal. 1:8,9), and a great launching point in engaging with false systems of thought is to point out that all other religions and false systems of thought put man at the center of the arena as a works righteousness belief system. So be quick to point this out! Whatever it may be, whether Krishna, Buddha, Muhammad or any other: “The major difference is that they are works righteousness belief system and Christianity is not!” They don’t have a coherent basis for Justice, Mercy, Grace, Salvation, Preconditions of intelligibility ect. A good way to to expose this is by affirming the impossibility of the contrary to Christianity. This will turn things around and cause your opponent to be required to give an account as to how whatever false system of thought they bring up could possibly account for such things. 

I should also point out that you ought to at least have the atheist shoulder the burden of representing whatever false belief system it may be that they posit. Let the interrogation begin as you probe and compare against the false solutions for sin, salvation, grace, ect. You have got a real winner on your hands with Christ so let that light so shine (Matt. 5:16), and under that light false systems of thought will be exposed (Jn. 3:20). 

Below is a treat for you folks as I was able to get you a sneak peak at some unseen footage of our upcoming The Way of the Master episode: “Zurich” in which Ray has an encounter with a group of Hare Krishnas! 

*I uploaded a low resolution for the web…The full episode will be available in HD soon here.  


Post

By What Authority?

 

In the previous clip the young Mormon missionary said a handful of startling remarks, one of which I would like to expand on a bit -time permitting- as I am typing out some thoughts just 15 minutes before our show “On The box” starts. So let me give you folks a peek into not just what I would say but why also!

Mormon Missionary: “He doesn’t have the authority to stand up there and call people to repentance.”

Upon hearing this it would be very tempting for me or any other street evangelist to fire back a sort of positive assertion such as this:
 
Street Apologist: “We don’t say these things on our own authority but rather on the Authority of God’s Word!”

Now, there is nothing false about the previous response as it is true that we don’t preach repentance and faith on our own authority but rather on the Authority of Scripture (Lk. 24:47; Heb. 4:12). Sometimes, I just might respond that exact way! However, through some experience I have learned that firing off a positive assertion right out of the gate puts us in a sort of defensive mode where we are set up to either be (1)ignored or (2)interrogated further on the heals of the conversation.

(1)Ignored. When someone says “He doesn’t have the authority to stand up there and call people to repentance.” We pretty well know what is being implied or presumed. It is implied that we are doing things on an authority that is other than God’s Authority. This is a false misrepresentation, it is what the Pharisees accused Jesus of doing as they said He cast out demons by the power of Beelzebub (Matt. 12:24) and it can be quite tempting to put up a quick defense by jumping the gun on them. However, this can cause our jumpy reply to be heard, absorbed, outwardly ignored, and followed up by a totally new contention. What do I mean by that? 

Well, suppose you were to respond as follows: “We don’t say these things on our own authority but rather on the authority of God’s Word!” The Mormon may hear your reply and realize he made a mistake…A false assumption. Will he just lay down now and admit his fault? In my experience no! So what the Mormon or any other detractor faced with a similar scenario might do, is internally realize this is an unsavory hill to fight on, internally change his game plan and pick a totally different contention to probe on. This mental processing all takes place in a matter of just a couple seconds, and next thing you know you are in a situation where you are constantly on your heals deflecting false accusation after false accusation. 

(2)Interrogated. Here is another way jumping the gun on the detractor’s implications can put you on your heals.   You make your positive assertion “We don’t say these things on our own authority but rather on the Authority of God’s Word!” Remember this is a true statement…But the detractor has you set up for interrogation on this matter once you have made that positive assertion. It is almost like a bait and switch as you have been baited in with a false accusation, you give a defense and then your defense is ambushed with interrogation! 

An example of this would be a relentless volley of questions shot gun blasted your way, one after the other: “Prove it!” “Show me!” “Quick name the verse!” “That’s just your interpretation…What makes your interpretation the correct one?” ect. 

There are great responses to all of these pitiful challenges and perhaps you are sharp enough to have them all down but, you see this turns into a battle of attrition where the detractor has nothing on the line, comfortably throwing objections your way while you are the only one with a dog in this fight. You are constantly deflecting and defending yourself on the heals of the dialogue.

So what do we do? This is where I don’t tell you what to think and say but rather how to think about such an encounter. Instead of assuming what the detractor is presuming and then calling it out. We need to make them “out” themselves by challenging not what they assume but rather that they assume things about us. This will put detractors immediately on the heals of their own assumptions where the one who is doing the assuming should rightly be:

Mormon Missionary: “He doesn’t have the authority to stand up there and call people to repentance.”

Street Apologist: “Do people need to repent?”

Mormon Missionary: “Yes, of course!”

Street Apologist: Do you let people know?”

Mormon Missionary: “Yes…But wait…I don’t say it on my own authority!”

Street Apologist: “By what authority do you say it?”

Mormon Missionary: It’s in the Bible homeboy!”

Street Apologist: “Ah, yes…Where in the Bible?”

Mormon Missionary: “I don’t know…Google it!”

Street Apologist: “Hmm…Let me help you, it says “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations” (Lk.24:47). “Is this not what we are doing? Have you not wrongfully assumed we do it on our own authority?”

ect. 
_________________________


You see in the previous scenario the Street Apologist is confident and comfortable where he started. It is the detractor that makes false accusations and if the Street Apologist can aim at those false assumptions by questioning them, the Street Apologist will be in control of the conversation and able to steer the detractor to see their misguided thinking and ultimately bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.(2 Cor. 10:5)

After all…Questioning detractors assumptions is the aim that Jesus took often!(Mk. 11:27-31; Matt. 12:24-30).


Posted By: Chad Williams “StreetApologetics”

Post

>Tomorrow Is Not Promised!

>Over the past few years evangelizing at downtown Huntington Beach, California I have met a lot of folks and made friends with many atheists that you could call “regulars.”

Ken, rides his bike to Pier Plaza (Where Ray, Scotty and I open air) and loves to talk about dinosaurs. While Dallas is typically on his bike as-well, he enjoys a good debate on biological adaptations. Jurgen, would usually keep to himself working on his tan by the stadium seating at the Plaza, only to heckle Ray, Scotty and I every so often.

A few weekends had gone by before I realized I hadn’t seen Jurgen’s familiar face around for a while. Sadly, a week ago I was informed that Jurgen was involved in a tragedy. As he was riding his bike downtown he was knocked down into the street by a truck and then sadly struck to death by a second vehicle that I imagine could not maneuver out of the way in time.

I remember seeing a past time interview that Jurgen had done with Ray in which Ray was pleading with him to get right with God as he never knew when he would die! Jurgen just kind of brushed it off and said he thought he had another “20 years.”

Here James E. Ballidis reports on the tragedy: 

“69-year-old bicyclist Jurgen Ankenbrand died last Wednesday evening after two vehicles struck him in the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Villa Pacific Drive in Huntington Beach. Ankenbrand had been riding along the driver side of a dark colored Toyota 4Runner when the vehicle struck him while turning left onto Brookhurst Street. The driver of the 4Runner fled after knocking him off of his bicycle, leaving him down in the southbound No. 1 lane of Brookhurst, where a white Honda Odyssey van subsequently struck him.”

   Last Friday Ray Comfort came into my office at the      end of the day as we talked a bit and reflected on some of the memories we had of Jurgen. I remembered that I had sitting in the hard drive of my computer an interview with Jurgen done just weeks before his death. I pulled it up on the computer as Ray and I sat still with our eyes locked on the screen. At then end of the clip Ray and I talked a little about how we would have done things differently with Jurgen had we this insight into the future. We would gave grabbed his hands and pleaded with tears in our eyes! I would have thrown all my pride aside and begged him to come to grips with his sin by repenting and crying out to the Lord and Savior of the   world!

It is draining…I know! But shouldn’t we care like this for every stranger today and tomorrow? (Mark 12:30-31).

Post

>Abortion Argument Tactic

>

What I used in the above conversation was a variation of a tactic I learned from Greg Koukl known as “Trotting in the Toddler.”

Trotting in the toddler is a method used to help the proponent of abortion see that whatever arbitrary reason or standard they give to validate or justify abortion… Ultimately fails to be a valid reason to kill a toddler or in this case human beings in a building. Furthermore, what this reveals is that the proponent of abortion assumes that the unborn is not a human being right out of the gate. For if they had started with the proper presupposition they would never attempt to justify murdering an innocent unborn human being because of say, hardship. Hardship is not an excuse for homicide! It is their presupposition and it is a very dangerous one at that, as their failure to acknowledge the unborn as a human being results in murder.

Example:

Christian: What reason do you have to justify taking the life of the unborn?

Detractor: Well I think if a woman is raped she should be aloud to choose for herself!

Christian: What if the woman already had the baby? Would it be alright for the woman to kill her 2 year old toddler because it continuously reminds her of the hardship?

Detractor: Certainly not! Are you kidding with me?

Christian: Bear with me for a moment… So why would that not be acceptable?

Detractor: Because it is a human being!

Christian: Clearly then, you presuppose that the unborn is not a human being right out of the gate! That is a very dangerous presumption friend. Hardship is not justification for homicide! Speculating that the unborn is not a human being and then killing it is like blowing up a building with no certainty that human life is not inside.

Detractor: I have never thought about it this way…You bring up a good point.

Folks you can “Trot in the Toddler” as a test to any standard or reason that one gives as justification for abortion. It reveals the inconsistency, it reveals the double-standard and it reveals the dangerous presumption that pro-abortion folks maintain right out of the gate.

As a U.S. Navy SEAL I can’t imagine going out to one of our demolition ranges on San Clemente Island to blow up a building or an obstacle in the ocean without having absolute certainty that there is no human life present! You would get kicked out of the teams for such a tremendous error!

It is happening right now, this moment as you read! It is a modern day holocaust as the screams of the unborn cannot be heard!

“God will judge the secrets of men” (Rom. 2:16).