Hey, Everyone!!!

This past Friday, January 15, I went over to Knox College and gave a message at the InterVarsity meeting there. The message that I gave was the 'Resurrection in a Secular Age' message, which was largely the same or similar to what I gave at Bradley University in October. After the talk, I had the opportunity to dialogue with some who had one or more questions. One of them told me that "you are clearly called" to what you do ("to what you do" might have been the exact words, but if not, then something like that was said). Another wrote to me afterwards saying, "I cannot get rid of this feeling that it was God that has sent you to speak to me. It was such a great question solving time for me." That type of feedback is an encouragement to me, especially given some of the difficulty in fundraising that I have had. Though I would do what I do with or without such feedback, it is in one sense uplifting to receive such feedback. Thanks to Eric Vogel and Martin Smith for the opportunity to speak. That talk at Knox College is the first of two talks that I will have given this month. On Tuesday, January 26th, I will be delivering much of the same message at the Intervarsity meeting at Augustana College. Pray that unbelievers will come to the Augustana College Intervarsity meeting and that the Lord will work in their hearts through the message.

In the last monthly email, I had indicated that I started into work on a talk that would look at the divinity of Jesus. While I still plan to finish that talk, I was diverted into developing another talk that examines some arguments or claims against the traditional authorship of the four gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and gives reasons why I think those arguments or claims do not succeed. That talk is now largely done, and I have started into reading for some talks on or related to the New Testament canon. When I feel comfortable with the number of educational talks and evangelistic messages prepared, I will spend some time working towards completing some of the book projects that are currently on the backburner.

On the family side, we had our Christmas family gathering on December 24th. My nephew Hosea also had his first indoor soccer game, and I was able to go and be there during his game. He initially did not have shinguards and so the game started with him not in it; Jill fetched shinguards from her car (I think), and Hosea was able to get in the game, but his socks were not long enough, so one or both of his shinguards would repeatedly come out. Dad went to where Amy and Travis' home is and obtained longer socks, and so Hosea was able to finish the game with his shinguards on.

PRAYER REQUESTS
1. Fundraising. Financially, one of the hardest seasons for a ministry is the beginning. Please pray that God would bring monthly supporters alongside Credible Faith. Credible Faith is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization and donations are accordingly tax-deductible in the US as permitted by law.

2. Ministry Opportunities. Pray that doors would be opened for ministry in churches and on campuses and for relationships to be formed that would be mutually beneficial for ministry in those places.

Have a great month!!!

Sincerely,

Paul

Saturday, January 16, 2016 Illinois, USA

Quote of the Month

From Craig Blomberg and Stewart Goetz's article, "The Burden of Proof", in the Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Volume 11: We believe, therefore, that the position which places the burden of proof on the 'believer' in authenticity cannot be sustained via any of the three main ways in which it has been defended. But with which of the other two alternatives are we left? Surely Hooker's approach seems the least extreme. Yet we believe that even her position is too generous. Immanuel Kant offers a helpful argument which we believe convincingly resolves the debate in favour of position (2). In his Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant argues that an individual can only make a promise and have it believed, if it is assumed that people normally tell the truth /50/. Kant uses the example of a person borrowing money and promising that he will repay it, although he knows that he never intends to. Is this a true or proper action? It can not be,argues Kant, because if it were willed as a universal law, it would inevitably destroy itself. If a person could promise whatever he pleased, with the intent of never keeping his promise, promising itself would become impossible since no one would believe the promise. 'Not keeping a promise' can not be willed as a right course of action without it simultaneously destroying the framework within which it is performed and carried out. Lying only works because people assume that the truth is normally told. If everyone always lied, then nobody could ever tell a lie or make a promise that he did not intend to keep, for the listener would never believe what he was hearing. With respect to history-writing the case is no different. If the assumption was that no one ever wrote history for the sake of accuracy, then no fraudulent history could ever be written with the expectation that it would be believed. The success of deception is parasitic on the assumption that people normally write history with the intent of historical accuracy. People must (a) acknowledge the a priori truth that truth-telling is the logical backdrop to lying, and (b) actually assume people tell the truth in order for a lie to be told with the expectation that it will be believed. What, then, of any particular historian? Does the burden of proof rest with the historian who thinks the data before him reliable or with the historian who thinks it is unreliable? Admittedly, both he and his audience must believe that people will usually tell the truth. But what of this particular one? At worst one might argue that the sceptic and the historian who trusts the author's integrity are initially at point zero or neutral ground (Hooker's position above). One does not know whether a particular historical account is reliable or not. But if the Kantian argument is correct, even this position is too generous. The writer of any particular piece of history must be assumed reliable until shown to be otherwise. The reader must make this a priori commitment if the practice of writing history is to be viable. The author cannot be assumed to be unreliable, for such an attitude leads to the situation which Kant described. A priori, the burden of proof must rest on the sceptic.