Dr. Voddie Baucham - Christian Apologetics - Brisbane, Australia.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 май 2014
- Dr. Voddie Baucham visited Brisbane, Australia in April 2014. He was hosted by Hope Reformed Baptist Church in Springwood.
For more information about Dr. Voddie Baucham please see the links below:
Website: www.gracefamilybaptist.net/vod...
Facebook: profile.php?...
For more information about Hope Reformed Baptist Church please see the links below:
For the audio download and more sermons:
www.hopereformedbaptist.org.au
Website: www.hopereformedbaptist.org.au
Facebook: / hopereformedbaptist
Notice how no one speaks a word because truth leaves you speechless and with your jaw on the floor that’s how I am every time I hear Dr. Voddie speak
Excellent talk.
We all serve a master. The only difference is that we Christians acknowledge ours whereas many atheists don't.
This presentation is an excellent introduction to apologetics. I have studied secular humanism extensively in my research for publication of my first book in my series on apologetics, "The Cabana Chronicles," and believe Dr. Baucham is theologically accurate in describing the doctrines of both secular humanism and Christianity. His presentation is organized and stays on point. He speaks to us in layman's language and uses revenant examples from his own experiences to emphasize the point he is making. Oh, and I also love his style of preaching. May God continue to support his ministry.
How did I miss this? Argh! Voddie Baucham is one of my heroes and I live 10 minutes from Hope Church! Noooo!
I know how you feel
I always hear after the fact when he comes to my city.
OH MY THIS IS SO GOOD! Thank God for this word.
"Becoming more sophisticated in the way we sin" he mentions about 2/3 way through this. It's no trick to give an answer that makes me sound right, but merely sounding right does no real good. We have truly become more sophisticated in lying to ourselves so we feel good. But Vodie is right in reminding us that the Gospel is our hope. No matter how sophisticated we might get in our talk, the Gospel is real truth and real hope...regardless of your world view.
AMEN!! DR VODDIE. Welcome to Australia. Amen!
Great sermon, Dr. Voddie. A great introduction to Christian apologetics and I hope more Christians will begin to study this subject.
Great message! It's clear to see how non believers itch from listening to this, proving that the truth is not easy to handle!
The wrath of God that was due to me was poured out on Him who was innocent and He did it willingly in order to reconcile me to Himself !!! What an amazing God !
He is the man, preach on brother, God bless you !
Great message and ministry.
Wonderful Message Pastor !!!
I watch this and think just how shallow the average Church service is.....if it is a teaching job...most pastors are falling way short....
Good video Good insight
Amen brother!
This is good stuff...whew
I'm not going to apologize for being a Christian.
AMEN AMEN AMEN
Voddie is such a blessing to me, but I would never know about him with out another Godly man named R.C. Sproul. Without their ministries I don't know what I would do!
There is very little truth out there; not just in the secular world but, sadly, in the "church"! John MacArthur is another amazing theologian.
Thank you LORD for these Godly men and the greats before them like Martin Luther, John Calvin, St. Augustine, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Thomas Cranmer( without them we would not have a Bible written in English!)
had a few good conversations that could have been better. The next conversations will be better. Thank you VB (not the Aussie Beer)
I appreciated this sermon very much, but his original sin comment confuses me. Does that mean he believes children are guilty of sin even if they don't know right from wrong? So if they die before being in Christ wouldn't that mean they are going to hell? What's his definition of original sin?
+Rebecca Miller Original sin speaks not to the first sin but the consequence of it which is Inherited corruption and Inherited guilt.
We can only be judge ON breakING GOD'S LAW; SO ANYONE DIES BEFORE DOING THAT AUTOMATIC SAVE.
This cat is killin...
Eye B0ss Das a rely gud Strawe men u gote ther. Can i habe 1 logit plz
Ouch
Is this a pentecostal church?
Agnaldo Romualdo Barboza Voddie isn't a pentscostal
He is a Baptist.
John10:29KJV" My Father, which gave them me, is greater than ALL; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." Note please that the God of Jesus is greater than ALL not most. Thus contrary to the confusion being pedaled by Trinitarians the union between Jesus and his God is not a union of equals.
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._*
And here is the evidence as to why I currently hold to such a position.
1. I personally have never observed a god.
2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god.
3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists.
5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises.
6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
9. Every phenomena that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable.
ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god.
I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
Since Christians believe that God is a being that one has a personal relationship with, why don’t you personally search for Him, or ask Him to reveal Himself to you. Nothing to lose. But it needs to be a choice you make.
When a religion lacks love, it needs "apologetics." Love is its own defense. You will know them by their love, not their arguments. Love is always, always ready to give an answer, because love is its own answer. Love does not have to think beforehand what it will say before the authorities.
Daniel Suelo That was just an 'apologetic' you gave right there...
I don't know if you are a Christian or not, but if so then the world's greatest apologist was the apostle Paul - a man who wrote the famous 'love' passage in 1 Corinthians 13. Love and apologetics are not mutually exclusive. Rather we provide a defense because we love.
do you read the Bible? try 1 Peter 3:15 or some of the numerous other passages that place love AND truth in the same preeminence and tell us to "give a reason" or "contend for the faith" or "destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God"...
love "rejoices in the truth" (1 Corinthians 13)
well, this is a struggle , God is love, as we grow in grace we learn to love one another, but let me warn you, most severely, there is so much compromise, in Christianity today, you can sit on your love bench, and not get anything done spiritually! there is a balance here, we must understand and know that there is a devil out there, masquerading, evil, full of deception, and the people of God are literally drinking poison, false preachers, prophets and evangelist, prosperity gospel, disregard for church leadership and strict commandments for qualifications, let me say to you in love Paul warned us, space of three years weeping as the Lord revealed, get out that love bench, speak the truth in love action, exposing the works of darkness, so that men can see, the grey darkness, so that men can see churches as they become country clubs,, even that our God might show us the the fierce anger of the Lord that comes up on a people who have changed his gospel
CaptainAthiest! You are the true example of the problem of this world!
So true friend.Pray for the lost.
Dd S
As long as you are saved. Pray away. Otherwise, praying is futile 😊
Dd S
Hell, then the lake of fire 🔥
Dd S
It’s not “my” mythology. It’s the Word of God 😊
Dd S
What do you mean by that?
Two words spring to mind, straw and man.
Here we go again another Christian apologist with a complete lack of understanding of the things hes criticizing.
Humanism is not the belief we are just accidents of chance..... Everything he said about evolution is wrong. Something tells me this guy isn't a scientist.....
I don't understand why these people don't understand that the universe does not need a god in order for things like morality and value to work. Having moral codes helps us keep society from imploding on itself; it helps society thrive by weeding out behavior that harms its well being. Its not perfect; life isn't perfect. The human experience is a neverending battle of managing our positive and negative capabilities. It doesnt take a genius to realize that civilizations function a whole lot better when people *try* to get along.
Sure, morality being subjective means that nothing is truly right or wrong, but what would you prefer, a world where we just do as we please without consequence, or one where have rules to keep ourselves in check?
This guy is deluded if he thinks that secular humanists have "stole" moral principles from Christianity. The same religion whose holy book promotes slavery, death of gay people, and relegation of women to second class status; he has no basis to say any of what hes saying. Christianity has demonstrated itself to be a religion that is far from the progressiveness its constituents claim.
Sorry sir, but your whole argument only works for people who already believe in this fairly tale. Secular humanists don't need a god figure to justify value, morality and purpose. Understanding that life is finite, and that if its the only one you get, its best to live it in a way that maximizes happiness. And that way is one where we get along to the best of our ability, where we respect our fellow human rather than beat them down. Why do need a god to know that if i live my life recklessly just because theres no (demonstrable) ultimate objectivity, that my life would be unhappy?
The problem is, is that christians aren't satisfied with the idea that death is the final destination. Unless theres something beyond this life, the things we value and love, the purpose we give ourselves, are ultimately meaningless if it all eventually ends.this is the Christian's greatest fear. But what they fail to realize is that life ending *is okay*. We can still create meaning, value and follow moral codes in spite of it all because it matters while we are alive. Everything this guy says is just an argument from emotion. "Hey doesn't it suck that once you die that terrible thing that person did to you will have meant nothing? Doesnt it feel better to think that theres a god that loves you and has a paradise made just for you when you die?
Evolution is not a "survival of the fittest" mechanism; every time apologists focus on that like its the main point of evolution, it shows their ignorance. "Stronger and more aggressive" doesnt guarantee survival; theres a myriad of factors that influence a species to survive and develop certain traits. For example, the "fittest" animal could be the one that hides from predator's best....do you think humans are the fittest animal because we were strongest? No, we had the best brains which helped us figure out ways to survive that other animals could.
It’s you who doesn’t have the underlying understanding in anyway about Christianity and evolution.
Evolution is bunkem, a complete lie, there’s micro evolution in many things but no changes of kind ever evidenced. It’s a massive lie. To assert as evolutionary theory does that humanity formed by chance over a vast period or short period in a cave somewhere at the right temperature and right environment for no reason with the astonishing ability at the same time to procreate with the opposite gender who happened to just have the ability to conceive and survive ? and then somewhere along the way accumulated a God consciousness, guilty nature, ability to cognitivily reason have pride, prejudice, resentment, love, joy, lust, anger, sentimentality for no reason and for no end result is just an absolutely preposterous notion.
That’s why Evolution has a problem with its arrangement of fossil records, arrangement of mutations as a mechanism to explain genetic variations, ie; new species. There's no explanation for origin of initial parent material, no explanation for the inherent complexity of structure (proton, neutron and electron) and the operating principles of simplest matter, no explanation for emergence of life through random repetition and conversion of inorganic material into bio-organics, no explanation for human personality and mans ability for propositional reasoning or moral concepts.
Science indeed does great little things but it’s limited when one looks at abiogenesis, primordial soup, homochirality, carbohydrates, building blocks, peptides, nucleotides, lipids, chiral induced spin selectivity, cell construction and the assembly program. A primordial soup theory of man that came together over some theory of time by various precise intricacies is really just absurd. All to often the public hears science is the only source of objective truth but this is a philosophical claim which cannot be tested by science.
They can’t even create a living cell in the lab, those who think scientists understand the issues of prebiotic chemistry are wholly misinformed. Nobody understands them.
Actually scientists have shown that the requisite molecules (lipids, proteins, nucleic acids and carbohydrates) are so unlikely to have occurred in the states and quantities needed, that we could never have gotten to the point of figuring out the genesis of the requisite code or information, origin of first life is the ‘nail holding the coffin closed’ on the emergence of biological evolution. Without that first life, or simple cell, which requires the four molecule types plus information, all proposals regarding biological evolution are without the base of life. And it is difficult to discuss biology without life.
The scientific fact is even if one were given all the molecules needed in complete stereochemical purity, and the information code a cell could not be constructed using the chemical and biochemical tools that we have today, it would be impossible, using today’s expertise, to even construct the lipid bilayer, namely the exterior packaging that holds the cell’s nanomachinery in place.
Just the lipid bilayer, which itself surrounds thousands of nanosystems is beyond our ability to synthesize. The only conclusion is that through these scientific experiment is that life based upon amino acids, nucleotides, saccharides and lipids is an anomaly. Life should not exist anywhere in our universe. Life should not even exist on the surface of the earth. Yet we are led to believe that 3.8 billion years ago the requisite compounds could be found in some cave, or undersea vent, and somehow or other they assembled themselves into the first cell ) the dissent to Darwin’s theories is rapidly growing as it just can’t be proven scientifically. Pretty scary to know our schools are full of lies doled out to children as truths.
And the Christian worldview is based on two foundational axioms: 1) God exists, and 2) God has spoken to us in the Bible. If these two presuppositions aren’t the starting point in a Christian worldview, then we’re just like everyone else, trying to find objectivity in a sea of subjectivity.
According to the Bible, man was created in God’s image. Part of that image makes man a moral being. We are moral agents who make moral choices and are able to differentiate between right and wrong. The basis upon which we differentiate between right and wrong is our knowledge of God’s law, and that knowledge comes from two sources-revelation and conscience. Revelation is self-explanatory. God gave a commandment to Adam and Eve in the Garden. He gave Ten Commandments to the Israelites after the exodus in Sinai, and Jesus boiled those Ten Commandments down to two essential commandments-love God and love your neighbor. All of these represent God’s revelation of His law, which is simply a reflection of His moral character to His people.
The Bible also says that God wrote His law on our hearts (Romans 2:15). This is conscience. In other words, even without God’s revelation in the commandments, we intuitively know God’s law based on the fact that we were created in His image. However, due to the fall (Genesis 3), that image is marred and disfigured, including our conscience. So even though we know God’s law through our conscience, we tend to distort it to our advantage. That is why we need revelation.
The Bible, which contains God’s revealed moral will in His law and commandments, is His revelation to His people. As such, the Bible becomes our source of morality because the Bible is the very Word of God in written form (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21). If the Christian wants to know God’s will, he turns to the Bible. If the Christian wants to discern right from wrong, he turns to the Bible.
What happens if the Christian doesn’t turn to the Bible as his or her source for morality? There are many ways to answer this question, but the bottom line is we all tend to trust our conscience, whether implicitly or explicitly. The human conscience can be likened to an alarm system; it warns us when we transgress our moral standard. The catch is our conscience is only as good as the moral standard that informs it. If it’s not the Bible, then we inevitably inform our conscience by various other means.
The current reigning “competitor” to biblical morality in our society is social consensus. In other words, our morality is shaped and changed by the culture around us. It should be easy to see that if social consensus is our moral compass, then we have built our morality on a foundation of shifting sand. Social consensus is just that-a consensus. It’s a picture of the general social mores of the day. A generation or two ago, homosexuality, divorce, and adultery were still not accepted, even considered sinful. Nowadays, both homosexuality and divorce are normal and adultery isn’t as stigmatized as it once was. Basically, what we have with social consensus is what happened to the Israelites a couple generations after conquering the Promised Land: “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6). The people abandoned God, and within two generations they were doing what was evil in the sight of God.
So why should the Bible be our source for morality? Because without it, we are like ships adrift at sea. At the end of the Sermon on the Mount, our Lord said these words: “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built His house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock” (Matthew 7:24-25). The Word of God, the Bible, is the only rock upon which to build morality.
Cultural relativism is the view that all beliefs, customs, and ethics are relative to the individual within his own social context. In other words, “right” and “wrong” are culture-specific; what is considered moral in one society may be considered immoral in another, and, since no universal standard of morality exists, no one has the right to judge another society’s customs.
Cultural relativism is widely accepted in modern anthropology. Cultural relativists believe that all cultures are worthy in their own right and are of equal value. Diversity of cultures, even those with conflicting moral beliefs, is not to be considered in terms of right and wrong or good and bad. Today’s anthropologist considers all cultures to be equally legitimate expressions of human existence, to be studied from a purely neutral perspective.
Cultural relativism is closely related to ethical relativism, which views truth as variable and not absolute. What constitutes right and wrong is determined solely by the individual or by society. Since truth is not objective, there can be no objective standard which applies to all cultures. No one can say if someone else is right or wrong; it is a matter of personal opinion, and no society can pass judgment on another society.
Cultural relativism sees nothing inherently wrong (and nothing inherently good) with any cultural expression. So, the ancient Mayan practices of self-mutilation and human sacrifice are neither good nor bad; they are simply cultural distinctives, akin to the American custom of shooting fireworks on the Fourth of July. Human sacrifice and fireworks-both are simply different products of separate socialization.
In January 2002, when President Bush referred to terrorist nations as an “axis of evil,” the cultural relativists were mortified. That any society would call another society “evil” is anathema to the relativist. The current movement to “understand” radical Islam-rather than to fight it-is a sign that relativism is making gains. The cultural relativist believes Westerners should not impose their ideas on terrorists, including the idea that the suicide bombing of civilians is evil. Islamic belief in the necessity of jihad is just as valid as any belief in Western civilization, the relativists assert, and America is as much to blame for the attacks of 9/11 as are the terrorists.
Cultural relativists are generally opposed to missionary work. When the Gospel penetrates hearts and changes lives, some cultural change always follows. For example, when Don and Carol Richardson evangelized the Sawi tribe of the Netherlands New Guinea in 1962, the Sawi changed: specifically, they gave up their long-held customs of cannibalism and immolating widows on their husbands’ funeral pyres. The cultural relativists may accuse the Richardsons of cultural imperialism, but most of the world would agree that ending cannibalism is a good thing. (For the complete story of the Sawis’ conversion as well as an exposition of cultural reform as it relates to missions, see Don Richardson’s book Peace Child.)
As Christians, we value all people, regardless of culture, because we recognize that all people are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). We also recognize that diversity of culture is a beautiful thing and differences in food, clothing, language, etc., should be preserved and appreciated. At the same time, we know that because of sin, not all beliefs and practices within a culture are godly or culturally beneficial. Truth is not subjective (John 17:17); truth is absolute, and there does exist a moral standard to which all people of every culture will be held accountable (Revelation 20:11-12).
Our goal as missionaries is not to westernize the world. Rather, it is to bring the good news of salvation in Christ to the world. The Gospel message will kindle social reform to the extent that any society whose practices are out of step with God’s moral standard will change-idolatry, polygamy, and slavery, for example, will come to an end as the Word of God prevails (see Acts 19). In amoral issues, missionaries seek to preserve and honor the culture of the people they serve.
And also Moral relativism is more easily understood in comparison to moral absolutism. Absolutism claims that morality relies on universal principles (natural law, conscience). Christian absolutists believe that God is the ultimate source of our common morality, and that it is, therefore, as unchanging as He is. Moral relativism asserts that morality is not based on any absolute standard. Rather, ethical “truths” depend on variables such as the situation, culture, one’s feelings, etc.
Several things can be said of the arguments for moral relativism which demonstrate their dubious nature. First, while many of the arguments used in the attempt to support relativism might sound good at first, there is a logical contradiction inherent in all of them because they all propose the “right” moral scheme-the one we all ought to follow. But this itself is absolutism. Second, even so-called relativists reject relativism in most cases. They would not say that a murderer or rapist is free from guilt so long as he did not violate his own standards.
Relativists may argue that different values among different cultures show that morals are relative to different people. But this argument confuses the actions of individuals (what they do) with absolute standards (whether they should do it). If culture determines right and wrong, how could we have judged the Nazis? After all, they were only following their culture’s morality. Only if murder is universally wrong were the Nazis wrong. The fact that they had “their morality” does not change that. Further, although many people have different practices of morality, they still share a common morality. For instance, abortionists and anti-abortionists agree that murder is wrong, but they disagree on whether abortion is murder. So, even here, absolute universal morality is shown to be true.
Some claim that changing situations make for changing morality-in different situations different acts are called for that might not be right in other situations. But there are three things by which we must judge an act: the situation, the act, and the intention. For example, we can convict someone of attempted murder (intent) even if they fail (act). So situations are part of the moral decision, for they set the context for choosing the specific moral act (the application of universal principles).
The main argument relativists appeal to is that of tolerance. They claim that telling someone their morality is wrong is intolerant, and relativism tolerates all views. But this is misleading. First of all, evil should never be tolerated. Should we tolerate a rapist’s view that women are objects of gratification to be abused? Second, it is self-defeating because relativists do not tolerate intolerance or absolutism. Third, relativism cannot explain why anyone should be tolerant in the first place. The very fact that we should tolerate people (even when we disagree) is based on the absolute moral rule that we should always treat people fairly-but that is absolutism again! In fact, without universal moral principles there can be no goodness.
The fact is that all people are born with a conscience, and we all instinctively know when we have been wronged or when we have wronged others. We act as though we expect others to recognize this as well. Even as children we knew the difference between “fair” and “unfair.” It takes bad philosophy to convince us that we are wrong and that moral relativism is true.
It’s hard to follow along and give your thought a chance when you contradict yourself at every turn. “The universe doesn’t need a god for moral codes to work” and yet, the next thing you say is that its necessary so we don’t implode on ourselves. Sooo....the universe does need it then.
There was an infinite wrong about what you said. Women as second class? That’s an far off statement and it’s more to the point of structure and having a lead rather than two leads. Men and women ultimately serve Christ anyways. The Bible specifically states how men should treat women as well. Certainly not as second class.
I can go on but I would like you to use your life as the prime and only example of the need of god. I will bet my life you are not happy, that you are alone, and are lacking the infinite love and purpose only god can give men.
Deny God and God will deny you.
Yet another apologetic unable to argue himself out of a paper bag...
GOD NEVER SAID FOR ANYONE TO BE ANY DENOMINATION. YOULL BE IN HELL. IF YOU THINK YOUR A BAPTIST OR CATHOLIC ETC. JESUS NEVER SAID FOR ANY MAN TO CREATE HIS OWN RELIGIONS!
HE DIDNT SAY BE A BAPTIST!
JESUS OUR LORD SAID, "REPENT & BE BAPTISED" IN THE NAME OF JESUS.