The high point of the first half of day 2 of Unshakable Faith was Dr. William Lane Craig’s presentation of Leibniz’s argument for the existence of God.  It goes like this:

1. Everything that exists must have a cause, either as an intrinsic necessity or from some external source.
2. If the universe has a cause, it must be God.
3. The universe exists.
4. The universe must have a cause.
5. Therefore, God is the cause of the universe.

The solidity of this logic, Craig argues, is very powerful.  It is impossible to deny it starting at point 3, so points 4 and 5 flow necessarily and are therefore irrefutable.  The atheist must deny points 1 or 2 in order to shake this argument, but they will have much difficulty in doing so.  In a future post, I hope to elaborate on the difficulty of denying points 1 and 2, and therefore begin to build a more cohesive case for the existence of God.

The first presentation of the day has convinced me by evident reason that the foundation of any Biblical worldview must reject the evolutionary idea of millions of years.  Dr. Terry Mortensen of the Creation Museum presented a case against millions of years, followed with a breakout session on Flood Geology.  All-in-all, he presented a convincing exegetical case for a 6,000 year old earth.  Time permitting, I hope to elaborate somewhat on that point, standing on the shoulders of the giants of creation science who work at Answers in Genesis, the Creation Museum, and Creation Ministries International.

For now, suffice to say that I have renewed my position that a 6,000 year old earth with no death or destruction prior to the Fall is exegetically necessary for a Christian worldview.  I am a Young Earth Creationist, no longer am I a Young Earth Agnostic as I have stated in a previous post.  I have taken it on faith that God will show me the truth or falsity of that position in His time.

So far, this convention has been an amazing experience for me.  I look forward to more after lunch.

It is day one of the Unshakable Faith Conference put on at Landmark Cincinnati.  The pastors hope that this will become an annual event, but they don’t think that they can top this first year.  I’m inclined to agree.

First on the menu this evening was Dr. Norman Geisler presenting a talk that the program title “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.”  However, it should have been titled “Atheism is Dead.”  Geisler effectively deconstructed many of the arguments in favor of philosophical unbelief, instead concluding that atheists are atheists not for philosophical reasons but for personal reasons.  Those reasons inevitably point back to the fact that a holy God rejects human sin.  We, as fallen beings, love our sins and wish to remain in them.  Therefore, we reject God.

Two breakaway sessions ran simultaneously.  The first was on the concept of millions of years in regard to the age of the earth and where it came from.  I, however, opted to attend the primer on cults with Dr. Alex McFarland.  Dr. McFarland presented three questions to ask any cultist, after earning their trust and friendship:

1. Can we agree that orthodox Christianity and your church teach different things?
2. Can we agree that your beliefs originated from a definite person?
3. What do you think of that in light of Galatians 1:6-10?

Then, we finished the evening off with a talk from one of my personal heroes, Dr. William Lane Craig.  Dr. Craig spoke not only on the reasonableness of faith in God and on Jesus being the Son of God, but he also spoke of his own personal conversion experience in a powerful and moving speech.  He then asked for anyone so moved to give their lives to the Lord, which I can only pray that some folks did just that.

I got to shake hands with Norman Geisler and sit in the front row of a William Lane Craig lecture.  This is how normal people get around sports stars!  I’ll have more to report tomorrow as the conference closes.  I thank the Lord for blessing me with the time and the ability to attend this amazing event, and I pray that my report touches the life of someone reading it.

As a father and a Christian, I would never leave my daughter’s health up to fate.  Look at that sweet face, beautiful eyes, and that smile that can melt your heart!  She is one gorgeous baby, that is certain.  I couldn’t look into the face of this child who trusts me implicitly with her very life and give her anything less than the finest medical treatment that my insurance can pay for when she is sick.

Yet that is exactly what the parents of Madeline Neumann did.  They left their daughter’s health to the power of prayer.  I believe that prayer is powerful when used correctly–as a tool of communication between the created and the Creator.  Prayer is not a gumball machine.  We can’t just pop in a quarter and get everything that our hearts desire.

Rightly, the parents of Madeline Neumann, nicknamed Kara, stand before a judge, answering to charges of murder.

I had expected the charges to be negligent homicide, but the authorities went one better than that: the charge against Kara’s parents is reckless homicide.

Powerful as prayer is, the law doesn’t recognize it as a substitute for medicine.

I haven’t been blogging much lately because I’ve been going through a lot in my personal life.  My grandmother, Virginia Tucholski, passed away last week.  She went quickly and painlessly, which is an answer to prayer.  It isn’t like I’m never going to see her again; we will meet again in the resurrection, but that is still no consolation for the present.  Between the showing, the funeral, and just plain dealing with this tragedy, I haven’t had much time to blog.

Fortunately, now all is over and done with, and I will be able to return to my regular blogging schedule.  So stay with me and more updates will come soon.  I’m still looking to answer Rook Hawkins’s reply to me, but I still need to do some more research.  Look for that reply sometime next week.

Rook Hawkins makes this claim right off the bat:

Cory has written a very interesting blog article in response to my positions.  He has written to his reader’s satisfaction, and although he makes grandiose claims, he should be applauded by known apologists such as Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel for the erudite quality of his response.  But did he really answer the problems or represent my position accurately?  I do not think he did, but that can only be shown after examining the article he has written.   (source, emphasis added)

It is the boldfaced portion that I will address first.  Before I do that, I would like to publicly thank Rook for his compliments and critique on my work.  I consider my writing my craft first, and take it very seriously.  He has also put me in company with men that I admire and thinks that they would appreciate my work.

I would also like to point out that Rook does the old manager’s trick of softening the blow with a compliment before the criticism.

Rook has taken some criticism as a writer from my fellow apologists (such as Frank Walton).  Rook, however, is the best of the RRS writers.  He sticks to his subject matter and he knows his history inside and out.  I can usually tell when people are faking it–a skill everyone who has been in management learns lest they receive an ugly demotion.  I don’t get the faking-it vibe when I read Rook’s writings.  He is someone as passionate about his beliefs as I am about mine.

As for the boldfaced portion of Rook’s opening paragraph, he is absolutely correct.  I will explain why.

When I first started doing apologetics, I had a “save the world” complex.  I believed with all of my heart that I would succeed where others had miserably failed–I would convert people like Rook Hawkins to Christianity with the power of my unflappable argumentation and my passion for the Lord.  Rook would see that and have no choice but to convert, even despite his doubts.

I could only ever see myself winning arguments with atheists, since I had truth and the Lord on my side.

Well, after a while that “save the world” complex faded and I realized a few important things.  First, mankind is truly dead in sin and wants nothing to do with God.  God has chosen the elect and will draw them to Himself–I can only pray that He will see my ministry fit to use for that purpose.  The point isn’t fatalism; the point is that, like the Bible clearly states, God will have mercy and whom He will and harden whom He will, and I can’t change that.  But I can be a part of His plan to draw the elect through this ministry and prayer.

What does any of this have to do with Rook Hawkins?  Well, the reason I write for my audience is that I’m probably not going to convert a hardened skeptic like Rook.  However,Rook’s writings may have planted a seed of doubt in an honest Christian or in someone considering the conversion to Christianity.  It is those hypothetical people that I plan to reach by dialog with Rook, not Rook himself.

Mind you, it isn’t that I don’t want to see Rook pledge his life to Christ.  I think that would be an amazing testament to the drawing power of God the Father, and we could use someone like Rook on the winning team.  It’s just that I think Rook is too firmly entrenched in his beliefs to ever convert.  At best, converting Rook is my “C” priority here.  It’s on the map, but I won’t be disappointed if it doesn’t happen.

I think that both Rook and I are guilty of writing only for our respective audiences, and I think that we have similar motivations–to sway the honest seeker who is still on the fence.  Rook and I both believe that one of our essays may just swing that person onto our side for good.  We’re not really writing for each other–which is unfortunately why we have, so far, talked past each other.

I admit to being out of my element with the historical aspects of the early church and with Hellenistic Greece.  I could use a Christian writer with Rook’s knowledge to help me out here.  But I’ve got a few online articles bookmarked on Hellenistic literature from Christian Think-Tank, and a book by a scholar that I believe Rook will respect (but not agree with) that I’m working through.  A full reply is forthcoming but will take a while.

Praise God for blessing my new blog, God is NOT Imaginary with success! In less than a month, we are coming on 1000 page views already, with a record day yesterday that tops anything this blog has ever seen!

Keep praying out there! I can see the results!

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!

To all of my readers, from Cory, Jody, and Ashleigh.

This is the best picture I have of my wife, my daughter, and I:

I love this picture.

In my last post, I announced that I will no longer be pursuing full-time Christian ministry as my career.  Instead, I plan to return to school in January to begin work on my RN license, and from there finish pre-med and go on to med school.  I think that I’m most likely going to end up being an oncologist.

Now, those who know me know full well that career paths with me change quite a bit.  One day, I’m going to be a doctor, another day I’m going to be a fireman.  I truly have no idea what I’m going to be when I grow up.  That’s why writing was such a great path for me: most writers don’t know what they’re going to be when they grow up, either.  The bottom line is that medicine is my path now, but that may change depending on what happens.

It makes me feel good that Mike from Geocreationism has expressed some concern that this new path means that my blog might be abandoned.  Everyone can rest assured that this is not the case.  In fact, I fully intend to continue this blog indefinitely, even once I’m a world-famous oncologist.  (joke)

I love doing this blog, and I can’t see a life without Christian apologetics.  God has placed this burden in my heart for a reason, and I intend to keep this blog regardless of any other career path that I follow.

In the next couple of days, I will post my final response to Dave Armstrong about the Vicar of Christ fiasco.  I don’t care if he responds to it.  He was already less than thrilled with my side piece on how “vicar” does not mean “disciple.”  Though I suspect that it has less to do with my actual argument and more to do with venting that his writing style lacks professional polish.

For what it’s worth, Dave, I’m reading a book for review right now that has me longing for your writing.  You may be long winded and full of too much fluff, but you’re at least organized and present the topic.  This other guy, well, he’s not organized and doesn’t know how to present the topic–at all.  I’ve never read a nonfiction book that begins in media res.  That’s enough to make a person shudder.

After my long-awaited response to the Vicar of Christ “paper,” I will continue to pick apart Jeff Haws’s errors on homosexuality.  In between, I’ll also respond to the beautiful but misguided Elizabeth Schmitz’s ridiculous position that Ruth and Naomi were lesbian lovers.  By that time, I should have the aforementioned review completed.  I might make book reviews a new staple of the website.

So, despite my total change in career direction, and my new family responsibilities, I still have a full plate planned for this website.   I hope that everyone will stay along for the ride.

I haven’t updated in a long time.  I intend to correct that travesty and step up the pace shortly.  First, I will post the final reply to DA’s assertion that the Vicar of Christ is not a blasphemous title.  I don’t necessarily agree with the typical Protestant position, espoused by James White and others, that the Vicar of Christ refers to the Holy Spirit.  But I think I have amply proved my case that this title is, in fact, blasphemy.  It puts the Pope on equal footing with Christ.

My Internet connection has been down for several weeks.  This is very annoying.  I actually have to call the phone company and find out what I can do prevent this from happening, or else figure out if the problem is on their end.  I somehow doubt that they will own up to the problem, and based on past experience, I don’t think that they will be extremely helpful in preventing future catastrophes.

I have decided not to pursue Christian ministry as my vocation in life.  I will, instead, return to what I had planned to do in high school but I was talked out of.  I am going to go be a doctor, probably either an anesthesiologist or an oncologist.  I may do the latter just so that my mom will mispronounce my career to people she meets.  That will amuse me to no end.  First, I’m going to get my RN license, and then I will go to med school.  On a humorous note, I should specialize in geriatrics so I can treat myself once I get done with med school.

I will keep this blog, and continue to study theology as a hobby.  I will no longer seek to get paid for this work, I will simply do this as a ministry and a testament to my love for God.  I will not turn down getting paid for this, mind you, I just won’t seek to get paid for this.

Last, the most important and joyous distraction from everything is the birth of my daughter, Ashleigh Nichole Tucholski, on Saturday.  She was 18 3/4 inches long, and weighed in at 7 pounds, 3 ounces.  I will post plenty more pictures and lots of updates.  I love this little girl so much; I can’t even begin to describe it.  Of course the parents reading this will completely understand.