tomb

Resources for Easter

Easter is a time to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ and how God’s work in rescuing humanity through the cross and death of Jesus was powerfully and decisively vindicated. No other season in the Christian calender is as important or as crucial to the Gospel message as Easter. With the historical events of the death and resurrection, Christianity stands or falls.

With that in mind, here are a few resources that might be useful in our reflection and proclamation of the fantastic, life-changing truth of these events.

Books:

The Cross

Jesus, Keep Me Near the Cross: Experiencing the Passion and Power of Easter Edited by Nancy Guthrie, Crossway, 2009.

Scandalous: The Cross and Resurrection of Jesus (RE: Lit) by D. A. Carson, Crossway Books, 2010.

Redemption Accomplished and Applied, John Murray, Eerdmans, 1955.

The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, by John Owen, Banner of Truth, 1959.

The Cross of Christ by John R.W. Stott, InterVarsity, 2006

The Truth of the Cross by R. C. Sproul, Reformation Trust Publishing, 2007.

The Resurrection

The Christ of the Empty Tomb by James Montgomery Boice, P & R Publishing,  2010.

The Resurrection of the Son of God by N. T. Wright, Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 2003.

Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann edited by William Lane Craig, Ronald Tacelli, Paul Copan, and Gerd Ludemann InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus by William Lane Craig, Edwin Mellen Press, 1989.

The Resurrection, An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus edited by Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins, Oxford University Press, 1999.

Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection by Stephen T. Davis, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993.

The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus by William L. Craig, Wipf & Stock, 2000.

Raised with Christ: How the Resurrection Changes Everything by Adrian Warnock, Crossway Books (January 31, 2010)

Christopher Price & John Sabatino of CADRE (the Christian Colligation of Apologetics Debate Research & Evangelism) have helpfully posted a review of many of the above books on their site.

Online Articles and E-Books

Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die by John Piper (Free book made available by Desiring God Ministries)

This Joyful Eastertide: A Critical Review of The Empty Tomb by Steve Hays (Free online book by the bloggers at Triablogue)

The Argument from Miracles: A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth by Timothy and Lydia McGrew (75 page pdf article)

Resurrection: God Saves by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshear (Free 24-page chapter from their new book, Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe)

He is Risen Indeed by Ben Witherington III (Reproduced from Witherington III’s New Testament History: A Narrative Account)

Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus by Shandon L. Guthrie

Can the resurrection narratives be harmonized? Articles by J.P. Holding and Glenn Miller

Articles by William Lane Craig:

Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus

The Disciples’ Inspection of the Empty Tomb

The Guard at the Tomb

The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus

Reply to Evan Fales: On the Empty Tomb of Jesus

Articles by Gary Habermas:

Explaining Away Jesus’ Resurrection: The Recent Revival of Hallucination Theories

Jesus’ Resurrection and Contemporay Criticism: An Apologetic: Part 1 and Part 2

The Late Twentieth-Century Resurgence of Naturalistic Responses to Jesus’ Resurrection

Experiences of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection

Audio

The Evidence for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth – William Lane Craig

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Some Historical Considerations Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 –  Gary Habermas

Radical Effects of the Resurrection – John Piper

Christ’s Resurrection – Sinclair Ferguson

Jesus is Alive – Mark Dever

The Good News of the Resurrection – Alistair Begg

The Doctrine of the Resurrection Part 1 and Part 2 – Wayne Grudem (Systematic theology class)

Why Does Jesus’ Resurrection Matter? and Q & A at The Vertias Forum- N T Wright

Debates

William Lane Craig and Robert Cavin: Did Jesus Rise From The Dead? (1995)
William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann: Did Jesus Rise From The Dead? (1997)
William Lane Craig and Robert Price: Did Jesus of Nazareth Rise From The Dead? (1999)
William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann: Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? (2002)
William Lane Craig and Hector Avalos: Did Jesus Rise From The Dead? (2004)
William Lane Craig and John Shelby Spong: Did Jesus Rise From The Dead? (2005)
William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman: Is There Historical Evidence For The Resurrection Of Jesus? (2006) (Transcript also available)
William Lane Craig and James Crossley: Was Jesus Bodily Raised From The Dead? (2007)
William Lane Craig and Roy Hoover: Should We Believe that Jesus’ Resurrection is Historical? (2008)
Bart Ehrman and Michael Licona: Is the Resurrection of Christ Provable? (2008)
Gary R. Habermas and Arif Ahmed: Did Jesus Rise Bodily From the Dead? (2008) PART I PART II PART III PART IV PART V PART VI PART VII PART VIII PART IX
Gary Habermas and Kenneth Humphreys Resurrection – Religious Fiction or Historical Fact? (2008) PART I PART II PART III PART IV PART V PART VI

Brian reviews Craig’s latest book, On Guard

Brian Auten at Apologetics 315:

On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision by William Lane Craig is an introductory-level text from one of the leading apologists today. Written with the layman in mind, Craig has geared his most powerful arguments found in Reasonable Faith into a more approachable, readable book. It is not only easily accessible for the layman, but the book itself contains illustrations, sidebars, argument maps, and summaries that make understanding and retaining the material an easier task…

David C. Cook Publishers produced the book well; everything from the cover and paper stock to the layout and size seem to be just right. The book’s included questions provide a good starting point for personal and group study. In sum, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision is a great contribution as a layman’s apologetics textbook. When the study guide is published, this will be a tremendous resource for small groups. Highly recommended – excellent content, very accessible to the layman, and well-suited for small group use.

On Guard arrived at bookstores early this month. You can pick it up at Amazon now for less than 15 bucks.

Chalcedonian Definition

In 451 A.D. the Council of Chalcedon was convened by Emperor Marcion at the request of Pope Leo the Great. The settlement is considered to be the high-water mark of the early church’s christological speculation. It was formulated against the backdrop of nearly four centuries of controversy regarding the person of Christ. For a statement of the Chalcedonian definition, see below.[1]

I thought I would contribute something that has helped me understand the Chalcedonian definition regarding the Incarnation of the Son of God. Comments made to me of late speak of it being very difficult to understand, and I would beg to dissent. I admit that the antiquated language is difficult. The obscure terms are difficult. Also it is difficult in that it says what it wants to say in a long, drawn-out way – which is often the way of philosophical treatises that desire precision. But the idea itself seems to me be easily grasped.

What it was that helped me was the following. [2]

The settlement is a ringing endorsement of dyophysite [two-nature] Christology. Christ is declared to exist in two natures, whose distinction remains real even in their union with Christ. . . At the same time, however, in agreement with monopysite [one-nature] Christology, the settlement insists on there being only one person, one Son, in Christ. . . . Person and hypostasis are taken as having the same referent, so that the Incarnation becomes a sort of mirror image of the Trinity. Just as in the Trinity there are multiple persons in one nature, so in Christ there are multiple natures in one person. The famous series of the four adjectives asynchytos, atreptos, adiairetos, achoristos (without confusion, without change, without division, without separation) serves as a reminder that the two natures of Christ must be kept distinct and that the the unity of his person must not be compromised. . . . As a result of Chalcedon, it has become an imperative of orthodox Christology that we must “neither confuse the natures nor divide the person” of Christ.

The Chalcedonian formula itself does not tell us how to do this. It does not seek to explain the Incarnation but sets up, as it were, channel markers for legitimate Christological speculation; any theory of Christ’s person must be one in which the distinctness of both natures is preserved and both meet in one person, one Son, in Christ. It admittedly fulfilled the purpose for which it was drawn up; namely, to exclude two possible but unacceptable explanations of the Incarnation and to provide a convenient summary of essential facts that must be borne in mind by all those who attempt to penetrate further into the mystery. [3]

The question that Chalcedon is answering then is not, “How is it that Jesus can be God and human at the same time?” which, I admit, is difficult. Note the illustration of channel markers. In effect this says that there can be a wide variety of how to answer this question, as long as one rows their boat of speculation between the two borders marked out for them. The question that Chalcedon answers then is rather, “What are the boundaries to acceptable speculation regarding the person of Christ?”

Alternatively, one could say the question was, “How is it not a logical contradiction that Jesus can be fully God and fully human at the same time?” And the Chalcedonian definition avoids any logical contradiction in that two natures are attached in some way (perhaps we may never know exactly how) to one person. Not two people in one person, nor two natures in one nature, which would both be logically contradictory, but two natures in one person. And even if you don’t understand what a nature is or a person is, as Roger E. Olson explains, it is two whats and one who. [4] Thus the doctrine of the Incarnation can be rationally affirmed.

Footnotes

1. From C.R.T.A.: The Centre of Reformed Theology and Apologetics.

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

2. The whole chapter called Christian Doctrines (II): The Incarnation is long, but thoroughly worth reading in my opinion. (see footnote 3).

3. J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, IVP, 2003, p. 601.

4. Roger E. Olson, Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity and Diversity, IVP Apollos, 2002, p. 227.

The Anthropological Argument: Part 2

In my previous post I briefly summarised some anthropological arguments for God’s existence that have been used over the centuries. In this post I shall state and defend a specific anthropological argument, and examine if it is a good and convincing argument. Unlike other anthropological arguments which appear on the surface to be rhetoric, I shall express this one syllogistically.

1) Whatever man needs to exist, exists.

This premise is wholly plausible. For instance, man needs water to exist. Its a sure bet then that water exists. Air is needed to fill my lungs so I can continue to exist and therefore, since man does continue to exist, air exists.

Similarly, man needs relationship to exist. This existential need is no less real for its lack of physicality. Even hermits have pets. There is something about man that is relational. Recall the film Castaway, with Tom Hanks. Whilst alone on his island, he made a ball a friend and called it “Wilson” out of his need for relationship. That relationship was as real as the island about him, and just as essential as food and water for his continued existence, despite the ball being an inanimate object. When we are alone we turn on the TV or radio just for the sound of it to fill the house, for there is a need in us to have relationship, however impersonal it may be. Which leads us to our second premise.

2) Man needs God to exist.

To support this premise one could cite the religious impulse of man, or that for all human beings worship, in some form, is inescapable. Appeals to universal human existential questions, such as; “Is life meaningful or meaningless? Is there a purpose in existence? When gazing at the stars in the night sky the powerful vista evokes the question in all of us, are we are alone in the universe?

One might also appeal to the need of humans to have objective moral values and duties, and for a necessary first-cause to first create and then sustain human contingent existence. But these are utilised in other argument of Natural Theology, and as much as possible we want to let this argument stand on its own legs.

There does seem to be something about ourselves that requires something more than what the earth and all its treasure can provide. In similar fashion to Augustine, the songstress Stacie Orrico observes,

“There’s gotta be more to life,
than chasing down every temporary high to satisfy me
‘Cause the more that I’m
Tripping out thinking there must be more to life,
Well it’s life, but I’m sure, there’s gotta be more
than wanting more.”

We reach for the transcendental. We seek for the sublime. People strive all their lives to fill the hole in their chests, even if they never realise that is what they’re doing. Often the most successful men and woman are empty inside. Some of the deepest lows come after achieving the greatest heights and finding it was not as fulfilling as they hoped it would be.
God seems uniquely capable of fulfilling the existential needs of humans. Especially in regards to meaning and immortality, but also with respect to grace as a solution for guilt, purpose for living, hope for the future, fulfilment as a productive member of society in the present, etc. This leads us to the conclusion.

3) Therefore, God exists.

But is this a good argument?

Excursus: I hold that for an argument to be “good” it must be logically sound, having no formal or informal fallacy, with true premises. However, one need not know if certain premises are true, these premises must only be more plausible than their contradictory. If an argument has all these criteria then one is rationally obliged to accept the conclusion, no matter how painful or annoying it may be. That makes it a good argument. Obligation to be rational aside, one hopes that the simplicity of the argument and plausibility of its premises is convincing to at least some of those who would naturally be opposed to the conclusion. But I do not hold this hope to be a condition for a good argument.

As the conclusion does flow logically from its premises, commits no informal fallacy that I am aware of, the only question that remains is this; are the premises true or at least more plausible than their contradictory. There seems to be nothing wrong with the first premise, so attention diverts to the second premise. Does man need God to exist?

I think so. For all the reasons given above, and those I cannot express. Also, as a Christian theologian I believe it to be so on the basis of Biblical revelation. However, I can see that these reasons would not be convincing to an obstinate atheist, nor someone mired in a naturalistic worldview, where the idea of God merits no more consideration than the toll of a distant bell [1] does a teen who thinks he’s invincible. As long as God remains an unfelt existential requirement the detractor of the argument can simply deny the second premise and be done with it.

This pattern I find to be the weakness of all the anthropological arguments. Though it meets my criteria for being a good argument, it fails to be a convincing argument to anyone significantly detached from Christianised anthropological thought. This is not an indictment of the anthropological argument, it merely reveals a limit of its utility in evangelism and apologetics.

It does however seem to me that this specific anthropological argument (along with other reasons of course) lingers in the background of many people’s story of how they eventually came to accept Jesus Christ as King of their lives. C.S Lewis said “emptiness is at the center of my being.” This emptiness or need could well be the method God uses to draw people to himself, just as salt on the tongue draws a camel to water. So while it is not the argument itself, it is the deep intuition of the subject of this argument which convinces in the end. As Augustine said “We have a God-shaped vacuum in us that can only be filled by Him.” I would only add it might be the case that it is only until Christ enters into our lives that we recognise the vacuum was indeed God-shaped.

1) a knell: the sound of a bell, esp. when rung solemnly for a death or funeral. Figuratively used with reference to an announcement, event, or sound that is regarded as a solemn warning of the end of something.

The Anthropological Argument: Part 1

The Anthropological argument is actually a family of arguments, all of which have human beings as their starting point. An Anthropological Argument for God’s existence is then any argument which begins with man and ends with God as an explanation. In this post I shall briefly summarise examples of popular anthropological arguments and how they have been employed. In my next post I shall state and defend a specific anthropological argument, and examine if it is a good and convincing argument.

Some examples of anthropological arguments are;

(1) The argument from the human body as an exquisite biological machine. (2) The argument from the beauty of a human person in the totality of his being. Both of these however, in my opinion, are best described as a type of the teleological argument. It is understandable that the categories in Natural Theology would have some cross-over.

(3) The argument from mind or consciousness of human beings could be described as anthropological. However this is a large field of enquiry in both breadth and depth, and besides this strictly does not argue for God’s existence – at most I think it proves that God’s existence as an immaterial mind is possible because immaterial minds are exemplified in the human persons. Accordingly this type of argument I think should be placed in a separate category of its own.

(4) Blaise Pascal’s whole apologetic method was anthropological. Unhappy with the traditional arguments for God’s existence efficacy to convince, he decided to start with something people could not ignore – themselves. His first step was to dispel apathy. He would then observe that man is simultaneously noble and wretched. For instance,

“The greatness of man is great in that he knows himself to be wretched. A tree does not know itself to be wretched. So it is wretched to know one’s wretchedness but it is great to know that one is wretched. (218)”

So man is wretched because the universe can easily crush him like a reed. But man is noble because he knows this, while neither the reed nor the universe takes any note. After other examples he goes on to explain how it is only the Christian religion that is able to explain this seemingly contradictory state.

(5) C.S. Lewis included an anthropological type argument in his apologetic. This was captured in a song by New Zealand’s popular singer/songwriter Brooke Fraser.

“If I find in myself desires nothing in this world can satisfy,
I can only conclude that I was not made for here
If the felsh that I fight is at best only light and momentary,
?then of course I’ll feel nude when to where I’m destined, I’m compared.”

(6) Francis Schaeffer used an anthropological type argument in conjunction with his cosmological arguments, arguing a universe that includes personal beings must be a result of a personal cause, for a non-personal universe cannot produce personal beings. This argument by itself seems thin on the ground, but gains its force in the context of the rest of his writings.

Faith and Doubt

“A faith without some doubts is like a human body without any antibodies in it. People who blithely go through life too busy or indifferent to ask hard questions about why they believe as they do will find themselves defenceless against either the experience of tragedy or the probing questions of a smart sceptic. A person’s faith can collapse almost overnight if she has failed over the years to listen patiently to her own doubts, which should only be discarded after long reflection.

Believers should acknowledge and wrestle with doubts – not only their own but their friends’ and neighbours’. It is no longer sufficient to hold beliefs just because you inherited them. Only if you struggle long and hard with objections to your faith will you be able to provide grounds for your beliefs to sceptics, including yourself, that are plausible rather than ridiculous or offensive. And, just as important for our current situation, such a process will lead you, even after you come to a position of strong faith, to respect and understand those who doubt.”

Tim Keller, The Reason for God (Hodder 2008), pages xvi-xvii.

Audio from Our March 11 Forum: Has Science Disproved God?

If you weren’t able to make our first panel event at Auckland University last week, I’ve uploaded the audio:

Has Science Disproved God? (There’s been some problems with downloading the audio so I’ve hosted it on zShare until we fix the problem)

On the panel were Jeff Tallon, Matthew Flannagan, Robert Mann and Neil Broom. Dale Campbell, associate pastor at Northcote Baptist Church and blogger at Fruitful Faith, kindly moderated the exchange for us.

For the first hour, the speakers addressed four issues:

1. Should a working scientist operate as a methodological atheist? Or, in other words, does the scientific project necessarily exclude God? – Jeff Tallon
2. Scientific beliefs are based on measurable, verifiable evidence. Is belief in God any different? – Matthew Flannagan
3. Does evolution threaten belief in God? – Neil Broom
4. Science and free-will. – Robert Mann

The second hour consisted of questions from the audience.

We’ll have video from the panel available soon. Don’t forgot our second panel (“Christianity on Trial”) is tonight, again at 7pm at Auckland University.

In a Million Years

“Christianity asserts that every individual human being is going to live for ever, and this must be either true or false. Now there are a good many things which would not be worth bothering about if I were going to live only seventy years, but which I had better bother about very seriously if I am going to live for ever. Perhaps my bad temper or my jealousy are gradually getting worse – so gradually that the increase in seventy years will not be very noticeable. But it might be absolute hell in a million years: in fact, if Christianity is true, Hell is the precisely correct technical term for what it would be.”

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Granite Publishers, Inc, 2006).

Groothius on Apologetics and Postmodernism

Brent Cunningham has posted three lectures by Douglas Groothius, professor of philosopher at Denver Seminary, that were delivered at the Worldview Conference in Fort Collins earlier this month. Groothius is a seasoned apologist and great teacher. If you’re looking for more from him about postmodernism and truth, check out his book Truth Decay.

Here are the lectures:

1. The Crisis of Truth in the Postmodern World – Download mp3 | Stream
2. A Short Course in Defending Christianity – Download mp3 | Stream
3. The Lordship of Christ in Culture – Download mp3 | Stream

(Source: The Constructive Curmudgeon)

Christianity On Trial

Just a reminder about our second forum event to be held this Tuesday (March 16th) at 7pm. Last night’s panel went well, and we were really pleased with the turn out. This next panel will be focused more on the New Atheist’s arguments against Christianity and we look forward to some good discussion. Please join us!

Christianity On Trial

Time: 7pm, Tuesday March 16
Location: 260 – 098
Owen G Glenn Building, 12 Grafton Road, The University of Auckland

Today, many best-selling atheists argue that belief in God is delusional and a roadblock to political, moral, and scientific progress. In this public Q and A event, several of New Zealand’s top Christian thinkers come together to consider popular arguments against Christianity and whether belief in God is merely a consequence of superstition and credulity.

Speakers:

  • Jeff Tallon (PhD) is Distinguished Scientist at Industrial Research Ltd and a former Professor of Physics at Victoria University. He is internationally known for his research in high-temperature superconductors, is a Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand and in 2002 was awarded the Rutherford Medal, New Zealand’s highest science award.
  • Matthew Flannagan (PhD) lectures in the History of Philosophy at Laidlaw College and specializes in applied ethics and the interface between philosophy and theology. He is a prominent New Zealand Christian thinker, debater and blogger.
  • Michael Drake (DipTeach) is the principal of Carey College in Panmure and a pastor of the Tamaki Reformed Baptist Church. He has been involved in advocacy for Christian schools and in raising issues about race, education, and Christianity before Parliament. He is also a TSCF Associate Chaplain at the Manukau Institute of Technology.
  • Joe Fleener (MDiv) lectures in Old Testament, Church History, Christian Worldview, Apologetics, and Christian Ethics at The Shepherd’s Bible College.

Support this event on Facebook.

The TSCF Catalyst Bookstore Goes Live

The Tertiary Students Christian Fellowship is an evangelical student ministry that works at campuses both internationally and around New Zealand. They also have a dedicated program, called Catalyst, that serves graduates, both in the workplace and in post-graduate study.

Today they launch Catalyst Books, an online store that will provide a range of titles to assist graduates in relating their faith to life, study and work.

One of the great things about the store is that they offer books that seek to relate the Gospel directly to each academic discipline, from architecture to psychology. They also offer free shipping.

Make sure you head over to their site and take a look.

Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values? The McDowell-Corbett Debate

On February 26 at Saddleback College in Mission Viejo, California, Sean McDowell and Jim Corbett squared off to debate the role of God in morality. McDowell is the son of Josh McDowell and a Christian author in his own right, while Corbett is a Capistrano Valley High School instructor.

McDowell defended two contentions on the night:

1. If God does not exist, we do not have a solid foundation for moral values.
2. If God does exist, we do have a solid foundation for moral values.

He also argued that in order for a moral system to be adequate, it must satisfy three criteria:

1. Any adequate moral system must have a transcendent standard beyond human nature.
2. Any adequate moral system must account for free will.
3. Any adequate moral system must account for what makes humans special.

Here is the video from the debate:

Part 1:

[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/9858218[/vimeo]

Part 2:

[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/9859446[/vimeo]

Or if you prefer the audio, Brian at Apologetics315 has posted the mp3.

There’s been several reactions to the debate online. Luke of  Common Sense Atheism says:  “When will atheists stop embarrassing themselves in debate? This shows the problem with atheists believing they are, by default, more rational than believers. Atheists don’t think they need to study the relevant subjects, or pay attention to the logic of the Christian’s position. Instead, they just wander in and spout some irrelevant points about the Crusades and religious disagreement. Meanwhile, the Christian can put forth whatever argument he wants – whether it’s a good argument or not – because the Christian will clearly explain why the atheist’s arguments fail, but the atheist will not clearly explain why the Christian position fails. Thus the audience leaves believing the Christian has won. And basically, he has.”

Here’s a few other links to further commentary:

Wintery Knight: Sean McDowell debates James Corbett on whether morality is grounded by atheism.

Incipit Vita Nova: Morality in the Absence of Religion

Sean McDowell: Reflections on My Recent Debate

(H/T: Apologetic Junkie)