- Papers from prior years
- Contact Us
- Join Us!
- Renew My Membership
Abstract Title: Believer’s Baptism: A Biblical and Theological Defense Abstract: Believer’s Baptism: A Biblical and Theological Defense For the past two millennia, Believer's Baptism has been a crucial aspect of the New Testament church. This divine ordinance represents one of the central tenets of Baptist identity. Jesus Christ commanded His followers to be baptized, so it is incumbent upon Christians to fully understand and adhere to the biblical model set forth in the Word of God. Over the years, the subject of baptism has been fraught with controversy, resulting in sharp disagreements between individuals, churches, and denominations. This paper will examine various ideologies and will seek to define the meaning, method, and mode of baptism that is most closely aligned with Scripture. It will also serve as a defense for Southern Baptist beliefs on baptism as set forth in The Baptist Faith and Message. For the purpose of this research, an exegetical study of Mark 16:16, John 3:5, Acts 2:38 and 22:16, Romans 6:3-4, and 1 Peter 3:21 will be carefully examined. These select verses, coupled with apostolic teachings found within the New Testament, will provide a theological basis for Believer's Baptism. ISCA Membership: Student Conference: 2017 Daniel Howard, Ph.D. student at The Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
The political environment can be (and often is) a difficult environment in which the believer can provide a Christian apologetic. As the church is the “pillar and support of truth,” it is incumbent upon believers to engage the political sphere. Scripture reveals that God ordains all powers, yet, of course, there are rare times when Christians cannot submit to the state. The purpose of this paper is to portray a biblical apologetic toward governing authorities by considering what Scripture reveals with regard to the church’s behavior toward government officials and how to minister to them. Consideration will be given to those uncommon instances when Christians must practice civil disobedience. The paper will also address the historical development of a Christian doctrine asserting the relationship between the church and state (by considering the notion of “two swords,” and various historical examples). The paper will conclude with the specifics for engaging the political environment with a biblical apologetic.
This is a 59-page paper that begins by reconsidering the question of whether or not and to which degree an uncompromising stance on full biblical inerrancy (as opposed to limited or partial inerrancy) may be important for those involved in pre-evangelism and evangelism. It proceeds to consider the concern raised by some that inerrancy may be a catalyst for apostasy from the faith. Other challenges posed to full-inerrantists by limited-inerrantists that are examined. How helpful are the illustrations of concentric circles for showing which docrines are more important than others? Is the reliance on "outdated" Scottish Realism philosophy by paleo-inerrantists a good reason for the neo-inerrantists to dismiss their conclusions? Is there really no overlap between interpretation and inerrancy? There is a particular focus given to the challenges raised by genre (apocalyptic) studies. The problem of "Jewish zombies" in Matthew 27:51-53 is used as a case study.
Over time apologetics has become quite an elaborate affair. The term is now shorthand for almost any intellectual engagement with non-belief. A Scripture passage cited frequently as a justification for apologetics is 1 Peter 3:15. What would Peter have had in mind when he urged Christians to make a defense? Since ἀπολογίᾳ is a legal term, it is instructive to look at this Scripture passage in light of the larger witness motif in the New Testament. I conclude that defense in the New Testament, including the defense Peter had in mind, is incomplete by itself; it is in the service of bearing witness for Christ. Thus, there is no question of whether apologetics and evangelism go together; they are a package deal. I will draw primarily from A. A. Trites’ study, The Concept of Witness in the New Testament, and will conclude with a consideration of how this might color apologetics today.
The idea of the best possible world was made famous by Leibniz. Much has been made of whether or not this is the best possible world, and if not, if God can be held morally responsible for this. In order to assess properly this idea, one must understand what makes one world morally preferable to another. This is called the Axiom of Moral Preferability (AMP). This paper contends there is no best possible world, and even if there were to be one, God would not be constrained to create it. So long as God does not cause evil and the AMP is fulfilled, God has created a good world and is morally justified in doing so.
The purpose of this paper is to address a few of the many theological implications surrounding transhumanism, especially in regard to its consistency with a Christian worldview. Transhumanism is an international movement that seeks to break through human biological limitations to radically redesign humanity. The topic is so broad that it can be best addressed paradigmatically by examining its foundational technologies and philosophies. This presentation will first give a brief summary of the topic and then a broad overview of the technologies involved. As the technologies are discussed a few specific criticisms will be raised and Christian responses offered. Then it will turn to theological matters. First it will analyze the philosophical underpinnings of the movement and then interact specifically with the more visible proponents who attempt to reconcile it theologically with Christianity. The main points offered in defense of the thesis are that promoters of Christian transhumanism are driven by an unbiblical anthropology, a Pelegian view of sin, and a profound misunderstanding of the Christian life characteristic of theological liberalism. The first point of analysis will be anthropology which naturally leads to one’s position on the biblical creation account and original sin. The denial of scriptural authority on the issues of origins and sin results in an embrace of the naturalistic worldview and leads one open to ideas like Christian transhumanism. This will be revealed as initially hubris and potentially grave sin. Finally, some suggestions will be offered as a Christian response. This paper will demonstrate that while there are some who claim to be Christian transhumanists, transhumanism is an anthropocentric worldview based on naturalistic presuppositions that is incompatible with orthodox biblical Christianity. Cris D. Putnam www.LogosApologia.org
How even after sixty-five years does one answer the questions of the Holocaust? How does one seek to explain the death of six million whose only crime was being Jewish? How does one fathom the actions that could result in the death of almost 1.5 million Jewish children? However, these questions are not the most impossible to answer. The most impossible ones of all are simply – How does one show the love of Jesus after two millennia of Christian‘ accusations of deicide? How does one illustrate the compassion of Christianity amid the ashes of innocent Jewish children? How does one share the Gospel of Messiah Jesus after the Holocaust? Therefore, this paper will embark on a journey to examine the Church‘s anti-Semitic past. An expedition that will end with the illustration that true Christianity is diametrically opposed to this irrational hatred. This paper also will attempt to take each of the impossible questions and provide an apologetic answer that defends the Gospel.
The modern secularist, seeing the world through what Charles Taylor calls "the immanent frame", has a particular set of assumptions that form a wall which makes belief difficult. Upon these assumptions are constructed arguments that serve to strengthen the wall. Our engagement with secularists is often characterized by little more than the clash of ideas; our arguments seem to just ricochet off the wall. It would be helpful, I believe, if we could find an approach that brings God's truths to light that the secularist cannot deny, or cannot deny easily. Keeping foremost in our minds the person, rather than the ideas, and the goal of guiding the person to Christ, rather than winning arguments, can lead to a somewhat different way of doing apologetics than we're used to.