Musings of a Snickerdoodle

Fool's Talk:   Recovering the Art of Christian Persuasion by Os Guinness is quite a convicting book, a book that really makes you   think about how serious we really are about evangelism/apologetics.   It provokes the question:   how much thought do we really put in our conversations (or even our small-talk) with unbelievers?   Do we hold back on saying anything related to the Gospel because we are ashamed of being considered foolish because of our belief in God's Word?   Or if we do evangelize, are we just sticking with simple pre-contrived evangelization questions like, "If you were to die today and stood before God and He asked you why He should let you into Heaven, what would you say?"   Are we willing to truly put thought into persuading someone of the truth of Christianity, giving answers to their questions, and asking thought-provoking questions ourselves, rather than merely turning to someone else's pre-designed method of evangelism.   D...

Sadly this book was not what I thought it would be, I was expecting an exclusive defense of a literal 24 hour day week of creation; but that is my own fault, if I had looked at the back cover more closely I would have seen that the book is not claiming to defend only one view of creation.   There are four views presented, two are defended, those being the literal-24 hour day view and the Day-Age theory.   In the very first chapter/question the suggestion is made that 'young-earth creationists' come "perilously" close to 'blind faith', but as I understand it, old earth creationists believe(as do YECs) that God ultimately created out of nothing, so why is taking God at His Word in the case of Creation out of nothing less 'blind faith' than believing that God created out of nothing in six literal days?   Why is one more plausible than the other or less hard to believe?   Aren't both ultimately above our reason?    J. I. Packer is quoted in the book, ...

Daniel Wallace on the integrity of Scripture: