Search This Blog


Monday, May 28, 2012

Texas Tea Party Senate Insurgency: WSJ

Will the tea party deliver another knockout to an establishment Republican on Tuesday? Tea-party groups like FreedomWorks have recently contributed to upsets in Indiana and Nebraska. The next victim of conservative voters' rage against the GOP machine may be Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who is seeking his party's nomination for the U.S. Senate.

A year ago, when Kay Bailey Hutchinson announced she would not run for re-election to the Senate, Mr. Dewhurst—who has managed the Texas Senate with an iron fist for a decade—was all but measuring the curtains for his new office in Washington, D.C. But that was before former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz threw his hat in the ring.

Now, in the final frantic days of the primary race, Mr. Dewhurst has dumped another $6 million of his own money into his effort to ward off Mr. Cruz (after an initial amount of at least $2 million). Mr. Dewhurst is stalled at 40% support among likely Republican voters, according to a University of Texas poll, with Mr. Cruz gaining ground at 31%. Former Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert and former Texas football star Craig James trail further behind. If Mr. Dewhurst fails to win more than 50% on Tuesday, he's headed to a runoff in late June.
"If we can get Dewhurst in a runoff, we win," Mr. Cruz predicts. A former state solicitor general and clerk to Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the 41-year-old Mr. Cruz has become a conservative cause célèbre. "First Class Cruz" was the title of a National Review magazine cover story last year, and columnist George Will calls him "as good as it gets."

Mr. Cruz is a staunch defender of states' rights, or what he calls the "forgotten Ninth and 10th amendments." He was the lead lawyer representing Texas before the Supreme Court in Medellin v. Texas (2008), after the International Court of Justice had tried to override Texas's justice system, and in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) he wrote the amicus brief on behalf of 31 states challenging a gun-control law on Second Amendment grounds.

He favors school choice, personal accounts for Social Security and a "low uniform tax rate—either a flat tax or the FairTax," he says, and his goal in the Senate would be to "cut federal spending as much and as quickly as possible." He's contemptuous of congressional Republicans who suggest that some of the popular features of ObamaCare can be retained. "I will work to repeal every last word of the law," he insists. ...
read full WSJ article HERE
Our God was my shield. His protecting care is an additional cause for gratitude (Stonewall Jackson).

We have no government armed with powers capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice [greed], ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net (John Adams).

Send Donations to:
Christian Tea Party of Texas
3309 E. Chippewa
Granbury, TX 76048
Please pray, share your faith, and vote.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable (George Washington).

Movies with a Christian Message: ST

WEATHERFORD -- A touch of Hollywood is coming to Weatherford.
Filmmaker Randall Maxwell has opened production offices at The Texas Opry Theater and plans to produce two "redemptive" films a year about troubled people who are dramatically redeemed.
The veteran of 25 years in the film industry has issued a casting call for actors and actresses and film crews for Thursday and Friday at the theater.
They'll be trying out for his first films, including Rachel's Grace andSister Surrendered. Both are based on true stories about people struggling with addictions and other difficulties.
"I believe God has called me to do this," said Maxwell, 54, whose company is Maxima Visions Films.
Two types of films are planned. Some will be directed to a religious audience, similar to the Left Behind series. Others will be targeted at the nonreligious.
"I don't want to just preach to the choir," he said.
Faith-based films can often get a message across to people who never attend church, he said.
"In a darkened theater, all your inhibitions come down and you identify with characters in the movie," he said. "What we hope for is that those watching will get a spark or a seed of truth that they will carry away with them."
Maxwell also said he plans to open a film school in Weatherford in September.
"I want to go back to the old system where beginners in film can start as a gofer and work their way up," he said.
Why Weatherford?
His wife, Rebekah, has relatives here. And Maxwell said it's a central location with a large talent pool.
He plans to promote his movies throughout Texas.
The first two, he said, will be filmed at locations in Dallas-Fort Worth.
The goal is to use local talent in both lead and minor roles.
"There's a lot of talk about creating new jobs," he said. "We'll be creating jobs."
His vision to make redemptive films came while he was in graduate school at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va. ...
Hollywood has shaped our culture, he said, and not always for the good.
"I think God revealed to me that it was time to get serious about telling good, redemptive stories that shape our culture positively," he said.
Andrew Quicke, one of Maxwell's professors and advisers at Regent University, noted that films labeledredemptive don't have to be Christian, or even religious.
"They are stories of a man or a woman as the protagonist who has an experience that changes their attitudes," said Quicke, the co-author with Terry Lindvall of Celluloid Sermons: The Emergence of the Christian Film Industry, 1930 to 1986.
"There's a whole series of films like that, including Dead Man Walking and The Green Mile."
Faith-based films take many forms, he said.
Some are successful, such as Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, which made millions in 2004. Quicke also noted that films produced by Bishop T.D. Jakes, pastor of The Potter's House in Dallas, such as Woman Thou Art Loosed and Jumping the Broom, drew big audiences and were profitable.
Another phenomenon, he said, is a highly successful film produced by a church.
Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Ga., for example, released two popular films -- Facing the Giants and Fireproof -- using professional directors and amateur actors. ...
see the Full article HERE

Read more here:

Friday, May 25, 2012

Vote for a Mormon or Obama: Neither

See the Christian running for President in the Constitutional party of the US in 2012 Here

I will not vote for a publicly professed wicked man (Romney & Obama). Will you??

Friday, May 18, 2012

Man Wills Movement in Robotic Arm: Mind is Distinct from the Brain

A fully paralyzed man and woman have demonstrated the ability to hold a ball or grab a cup of coffee using their brain signals to control a robotic arm, researchers report Wednesday. ...
The study team ... observed ... Cathy Hutchinson, 58, use brain implants to control computer cursors.
In the slowly progressing world of brain implant research, Hutchinson grabbing herself a cup of coffee for the first time in nearly 15 years , stands as the emotional highlight of the latest study, Donoghue says. "This is just a start at restoring independence to paralyzed patients."...
"We asked them to imagine moving their arms and the implant picks up the signal," in brain cells, Donoghue says. Essentially a computer weighed signals from brain cells firing beneath the implant to initiate movement from the patients. But instead of making those movements in discreet directions — up, down, backward, forward and sideways — the updated program allows the robotic arm to move in a smooth curving path to touch targets. Success rates varied from 46% to 62% in grasping foam balls, using a robot arm designed by "Segway" inventor Dean Kamen with Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) support.
Most notably, Hutchinson's implant has worked for six years...
"Encouraging progress is being made on all fronts," says neuroscientist Andrew Jackson of the United Kingdom's Newcastle University, in a commentary accompanying the report that suggests reconnecting patient's brain signals to their muscles using wireless devices should be a final goal of paralysis researchers. ...
read full article HERE
and see fascinating article on The Mind is Distinct From the Brain I & II Here

Monday, May 14, 2012

NY City Holding to Banning Churches from Public Schools

World magazine excerpts by Tiffany Owens
NEW YORK—Sovereign Grace City Church in Brooklyn used to meet for worship every Sunday at P.S. 282, a public school that charged an affordable rent of $1,084 per month for Sunday morning access. But lately Sovereign Grace has changed worship locations nearly every week. The moves were not random: They were a result of a decision by the city to ban religious organizations from renting public school buildings for worship services (see "The battle of New York," Jan. 28).
The ban went into effect on Feb. 12, but an injunction from U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska allowed churches to continue meeting at public schools until June 19. The churches might lose that access again unless New York state House Speaker Sheldon Silver brings a bill to the House floor for a vote before the June 19 deadline. Bill 8800 currently has 74 bipartisan cosponsors out of a possible 146 members.
Despite the nearing deadline and the fact that dozens of congregations could be affected, vocal opposition to the ban has been falling. Bad weather, but also dwindling support, kept an April 22 march to about 150 people, the least-attended event to date. Bill Devlin, pastor of Manhattan Bible Church, said that many churches have been focusing on their congregations and haven't been as involved as they were when the city first announced the ban. Rallies back then drew crowds of several hundred.
Bo Han, a board member for New Frontier Church echoed a similar sentiment. "It's quite disappointing the big churches not being as actively involved ... they've been relatively quiet about this," he said. "It isn't about the churches being affected, it's about right and wrong." ...

Tacit Thoughts About God Make Resisting Temptation Easier: WSJ

WSJ excerpts by Jonah Lehrer
According to research led by Kevin Rounding at Queen's University in Ontario and recently published in Psychological Science, Rabbi Wolpe is right: People are better able to resist their desires when thinking about God. In a series of clever experiments, the Canadian scientists demonstrated that triggering subconscious thoughts of faith increased self-control.

First, the experiment's subjects had to unscramble a series of short sentences, some containing words with religious connotations, such as "divine" or "Bible." The scientists argue that encountering such expressions leads people to think of God, even if they aren't consciously aware of such thoughts.

After completing the unscrambling task, the students took several tests of self-control. In one, they were paid a nickel for every sip of a foul drink of orange juice and vinegar. Interestingly, those students primed to think of God could endure much more discomfort and swilled twice as much sour juice.

In a second study, the scientists tested students' ability to delay gratification, asking them if they wanted $5 tomorrow or $6 in a week. Those on a religious wavelength were far more likely to opt for the more prudent option. Finally, the scientists showed that God-minded subjects persisted for a longer time in trying to solve a frustrating puzzle.
If God is always watching, we better not misbehave—he knows about the pepperoni.

The effect, it turns out, does not require religious belief. More than a third of the students in the studies were atheists or agnostics, yet the scientists found that they were still influenced by subconscious thoughts of God.

Needless to say, we still don't know why inklings of religion increase self-control. The scientists describe thoughts of God as providing the mind with "important psychological nutrients" that "refuel" our inner resources, much like Gatorade replenishes the body after a long run. ...

For Rabbi Wolpe says,...  "Thinking about God makes it easier to do the right thing."
Read full WSJ article HERE
see new the eBook that employs innovative arguments The Sure Existence of Moral Absolutes: The Proof God Exists HERE

Ron Luce's (Texas Minister) Daughter Lone Plane Crash Survivor

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Ron Luce didn't recognize the voice of the woman who phoned Friday to say his daughter Hannah was with her.
Her words made no sense to the Texas minister and founder of a Christian organization for troubled youths. How could Hannah be with this woman when she was on a plane headed to a Christian youth rally in Iowa?
"The way I discovered about my daughter and the plane accident was probably the most unscripted way you could imagine," Luce said Sunday at University of Kansas Hospital, where his 22-year-old daughter was in serious condition with burns over 28 percent of her body. "I asked [the woman], 'Where's the plane?' She said it's off in the distance, and there are flames, there's smoke."
Hannah Luce is the only one of five people who survived when the twin-engine Cessna 401 crashed Friday afternoon northwest of Chanute. Three died at the scene, and a fourth -- a former Marine who helped Hannah Luce get from the wreckage to a nearby road -- died early Saturday. ...
Anderson, who served two tours of duty in Iraq before going to Oral Roberts University, suffered burns over 90 percent of his body.
"I know Austin; he's that kind of guy," Luce said. "He served two tours in Iraq, and he was willing to give his life for his country. He was willing to give his life for a friend. He was always willing to go that extra mile."
see full AP article HERE
devotional ebook Who is Jesus Here

Read more here:

Sunday, May 13, 2012

"Aping Mankind" WSJ Book Review: New Book Critiques Mind Reductionism


From its original base in biology, the collection of positions known as "evolutionary psychology" has crept into the social sciences and even the humanities. Proponents argue that free will does not exist; seemingly free or intentional actions can be explained from materialistic causes. Because these causes affect every organism, there is no difference between "human consciousness" and that of animals, and everything can therefore be explained as either a set of physical responses or the workings of some hidden genetic code.

In his vigorously argued "Aping Mankind," Raymond Tallis takes on what he calls "neuromania" (the belief that we are our physical brains and nothing more) and "Darwinitis" (the insistence that our consciousness can be reduced to evolutionary terms) in a robust defense of the unique nature of human consciousness. Mr. Tallis, a doctor and researcher in clinical neuroscience, believes that most contemporary accounts of human consciousness fail to understand the lived experience of individual minds. Reducing man to simply another animal in a real sense de-humanizes us, with disastrous effects in areas from social policy to the interpretation of art and literature...

... Many contemporary thinkers want to prove that everything about us can be explained through reference to the process of physical evolution. He exposes the just-so teleology of many such arguments: In terms of mere survival, he suggests in one provocative example, there is no biological reason for preferring the consciousness of humans to the unconscious life of, say, a butterfly.

Aping Mankind

By Raymond Tallis
Acumen. 388 pages, $29.95

We are not simply our brains, buffeted by our environment or genes. Such reductionism ignores "the community of minds built up by conscious human beings over hundreds of thousands of years." Experiments that try to isolate specific actions to show that we are only reacting to stimuli, Mr. Tallis says, are misplaced. The mere accumulation of physical, mental and social details is not the cause of human actions because "they have to somehow be brought together." The only way this happens is "through a sustained, forward-looking, explicit intention; in short, not through causes pushing from behind but through reasons pulling from in front."

Such irreducibly complex reasons are indicative not of biological avatars without free will but of something even more mysterious: ourselves.
see full article HERE

Sunday, May 6, 2012

Some Mormons are Ignorant That the LDS Church Professes that God was Once a Man

A nice Mormon lady posted on my FB page in reply to a post on the Mormon concept that God was once a man (Jill Ritchey):
"We beleive that God was once a man? I don't think so. I have NEVER EVER heard this. God was always God."

I responded that the Mormon church professes: "As man is, God once was, as God is, man may become" (Mormon Apostle Lorenzo Snow).

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!.. I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and have supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea..." (Mormon prophet Joseph Smith).

The LDS church says: "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man... if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form..." (Mormon prophet Joseph F. Smith).

"...[O]ur Father in heaven at one time passed through a life and death and is an exalted man... our Father had a father and so on..." (Joseph F. Smith).

see my apologetic E-book that uses interesting innovation as it critiques Mormon theology HERE

Apologetic Book Review - Biblical Apologetics: Advancing and Defending the Gospel of Christ

Clifford McManis’ motivation in Biblical Apologetics: Advancing and Defending the Gospel of Christ is commendable: offer a straightforward summary and how-to guide for Presuppositonal Apologetics (PA). And he would appear to be exceptionally qualified. Besides having a deep knowledge of apologetics, an earned PhD, teaching pastor at a church, he is a professor of apologetics at a seminary. Biblical Apologetics starts well, with an engaging survey of non-presuppositional philosophical and apologetic ideas and methods. When he leaves this setting, however, his attempts to advance his version of PA as the lone construal sanctioned by Scripture are unsatisfactory.

The fabled Cornelius Van Til, who birthed the Presuppositional School of Apologetics in the 20th century, emphasized a need to initiate epistemology upon the ontic truth of the Triune God, a message influenced by Bavinck with traces derived from Kuyper, as well as the truth campaigner Machen. Additionally, a duo of protégés: Greg L. Bahnsen (McManis calls aspects of Bahnsen’s work “masterful,” p. 214)  and John Frame refined (some say Frame distorted important Van Tilian features) Van Til’s epistemic emphasis--starting with the ontological Trinity revealed in Scripture. Features of PA contend that one must have a ground with the ontic capacity to account for logic, ethics, science, knowledge, and human experience. Only God has the attributes to account for changeless universal truths utilized in these pursuits; deny the Triune God and one is devoid of the preconditions required for intelligibility. The author observes: “The intramural debate about apologetics among Christians (which is what this whole book is about) is really a battle over epistemology” (p. 212).

Even in these fascinating primary pages, however, McManis’ argument is marred by an off-putting personal apologetic exclusivity, as when he claims that Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame, and everyone but McManis (and MacArthur) are greatly mistaken in essential facets of their apologetic approach. Only his “healthy fideistic” apologetic is correct (the term fideist is not my designation--he with great ardor designates himself a fideist; pp. 426-456). As he begins to impugn isolated ideas from Van Tilians, McManis’ venture falls off the rails. His descriptions of what these apologists were trying to accomplish biblically or intuitively, become increasingly unfair.

Some of McManis’ critical estimations concerning Van Til and Bahnsen, directly or insentiently, include:
  • “Presuppositionlist, Cornelius Van Til, has many good things to say about Christian apologetics, but frequently got sucked into the metaphysical malaise of esoteric, specialized jargon.”
  • “Cornelius Van Til, made many helpful, unique contributions to the debate on Christian apologetics. But like his traditionalist contemporaries he never made a comprehensive delineation of the gospel a part of his system of apologetics. He majored in the realm of theological prolegomena and sophisticated philosophical ratiocinations rather than in biblical exegesis and theology” (p. 528).
  • On Bahnsen “Here's an example of his fundamental confusion as he conflates Law and gospel: ‘We are compelled to conclude that the old covenant--indeed, the Mosaic law--was a covenant of grace that offered salvation on the basis of grace through faith.’ Contrary to Bahnsen, the Mosaic Law was not covenant of grace! And it did not have the power to impact salvation. The Bible clearly teachers that ‘a man is not justified by the works of the Law’ (Galatians 2:16). For Bahnsen, the gospel was ‘the whole Bible.’ Such a view overgeneralizes and actually smothers the distinctive features of the true, saving gospel” (pp. 529, 530).
  • “His bibliology is rock solid. Nevertheless, Bahnsen, like the rest, does not incorporate an explication of the gospel, it is almost non-existent in his 290 pages.”
The good professor frames his exegesis around the unexceptionable idea, ultimately derived from biblical narratives, that a rational apologetic methodology is inadequate without the unfounded fideistic and spiritual methods derived from his understanding of Scripture (Van Til & Bahnsen contend that there is “certain proof for the existence of God” and offer versions of TAG and other biblically based arguments). Many Van Tilian advocates would dispute McManis' interpretation and application of the scriptural accounts. Since we bring ourselves, our background and our preconceptions to our apologetic approach, there are no non-biblical principles or ideals of defending the faith to which Christians must conform. McManis, as an active mûrir l'étudiant of George Zemek, draws the wrong conclusion from this. He argues that Christianity is faithfully defended through the non-rational (not irrational) principles of his version of fideism. Men, he rightfully says, rely on autonomous reason to attempt to judge the truth revealed in Scripture. This is not only ineffective, but unrighteous. Yet, logically and scripturally his fideism doesn’t follow.

A heartening observation is the author is a type of biblical realist in his approach to truth. He opines: “Truth is that which corresponds to reality as defined and determined by God; notice this proposed definition includes God as the determining referent, unlike Geisler and Craig’s … definition. In simpler terms, truth is what God says it is. YHWH is the ‘God of truth’ (Psalm 31:5). Everything about the truth issues from this reality. The Triune God of the universe defines truth. The Holy Spirit is ‘the Spirit of truth’ (John 16:13). Jesus is the Incarnation of truth. He declared, ‘I am the… truth’ (John 14:6). The statement that prompted Pilate’s famous question, ‘What is truth?’ was Jesus’ proclamation to Pilate: ‘You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice’ (John 18:36). Why was Jesus born? Why did he become human? What was His mission? To save sinners?  Yes. To conquer the devil? Yes. To overcome the world and evil? Yes. And also to bear witness to the truth!”

He presses: “No epistemology is complete that neglects this greatest of all epistemological factors--generically a definition of truth must have God as its referent, and specifically it must be Christological.” As the reader can discern McManis offers a fine amplified definition of truth. His specific definition that “truth is what God says it is” is beneficial. Nonetheless, I favor the Van Tilian definition that truth is “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

The author adds: “The Bible is also truth--ultimate spiritual truth. Jesus said categorically as He prayed to God the Father, ‘Thy word is truth’ (John 17:17). The author of Psalm 119 said Scripture is ‘the word of truth’ (v. 43) and ‘Thy law is truth’ (v. 142) Psalm 119:160 declares autopistically: ‘The sum of Thy word is truth.’” Those precepts from God’s word should be presupposed as one effectively communicates with nonbelievers.

McManis offers the following apologetic notions to consider:
  • Christians need to have an accurate appraisal for every unbeliever as diagnosed by God in the Bible.
  • Christians need to remember that unbelievers have darkened minds and cannot understand spiritual truth apart from God's Spirit and His Word.
  • Christians always need to be cognizant of the blinding work of Satan on unbelievers.
  • Christians need to employ God's methods when doing the work of apologetics, not commonly accepted counterfeits modeled after worldly wisdom, philosophy, and science.
  • Christians need to realize there is no neutral ground with unbelievers in epistemology.
  • Christians need to appeal to unbelievers based on their ontological common ground of internal and external general revelation.
  • Christians need to trust God for the results of their work in apologetics, for only God can change a hardened unbelieving heart.
  • Christians need to bathe all of their apologetics work in prayer, asking God for protection against Satan, supernatural courage, heavenly wisdom, and the conviction of sinners (pp. 294, 295).
The author then aims his cannon on Christian philosophy using sometimes inordinate exaggeration: “Philosophy has hijacked apologetics. The biblical and theological task of defending the faith has been co-opted and commandeered by the professional metaphysicists. The New Testament practice of all Christians aggressively and confidently defending their faith with Scripture on a personal level has been abdicated. It has been supplanted by the subtle takeover of elitist scholars with their knack for obfuscation and purported profundity with all things ontological and theoretical. The evidence is ubiquitous. I own countless books on Christian apologetics. Not one was authored by a non-philosopher. The understood pre-requisite for having a worthy say about anything related to apologetics in today's Christian world is a PhD in philosophy. We noted earlier that all the authors chosen to represent the various Christian approaches to apologetics in the Five Views book were selected because of their expertise in philosophy and logic, not because of their role as church men or acumen to exegete the Scriptures” (pp. 296 and 297).
In some disagreement I would note: Obviously, there has been abuse and misuse of human reason and philosophical pursuits; yet the Greek word “philosophy” merely means “love of wisdom.” Thus in some ways, all men who pursue truth and wisdom are engaged in philosophical endeavors.  There is some fine as well as wayward work going on in Philosophical Theology today. The outworking and extension of biblical truth in fields of ontology, epistemology, and ethics are errant only when they are conceited assertions that move away from the Word of God. The beginning of wisdom is to fear the Lord; moreover, in Christ is found all wisdom and knowledge (Col. 2:3). So let one strive to discuss difficult notions within the constraints of the truth found in Scripture and the general equity of its principles and guidelines. Furthermore, I own numerous apologetic books authored by non-PhDs.

The author in Biblical Apologetics professes:
  1. I believe in God's existence because of the evidence of internal general revelation.
  2. I believe in God's existence because of the evidence of external general revelation.
  3. I believe Christianity is true because of the evidence of the person ministry of the Holy Spirit.
  4. I believe Christianity is true because of the evidence that Jesus saved me and changed my life.
  5. I believe Christianity is true because of the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.
  6. I believe Christianity is true because of the evidence of and from the Scripture (p. 436).
The author offers considerable help to the PA apprentice including his drawing out the proper antithesis vis-à-vis:
  • TA (Traditional Apologetics) = the Bible is God's Word because it can be proven by evidence; vs.
  • BA (Biblical Apologetics) = there are evidences because the Bible is God's Word.

  • TA = the Bible is God's Word because it is logical; vs.
  • BA = the Bible is logical because it is God's Word.

  • TA = the Bible is God's Word because of the impossibility of the contrary; vs.
  • BA = all contrarian views are impossible because the Bible is God's Word.

  • TA = the cosmological argument makes sense, therefore God probably exists;
  • BA = God absolutely exists; therefore the cosmological argument makes sense.

  • TA = there is universal morality, therefore God exists; vs.
  • BA = the God of the Bible certainly exists, therefore there is universal morality (pp. 452 and 453).
The only way that we can avoid falling into absurdity is to follow the Word of God and apply its truth to reason and experience. Life's meaning is derived from a single source: God. Christian Apologetics is not merely, or even importantly, a work based on human reason, fashioned merely by autonomous minds on the lookout for a nonbeliever to debate. We contend for the Truth as we inform the disbeliever that God must exist, he already knows it, and human experience fails to make sense without God; so repent and trust in Jesus Christ.

McManis’ rich book demonstrates, ultimately, that there is no proper non-biblical apologetic; all the methodologies entirely based upon human reason fail. What we do have is a potent and effective defense of the faith found in the outworking of biblical truth, knowing and implementing such, that, in doing so, we will not divest ourselves of a God-glorifying endeavor.

Review by Mike Robinson