Oklahoma!


































































































This was another full day of conference sessions. We could have used some more sleep but were in our seats ready to listen for the morning sessions:
He said that male headship is required in the home. Characteristics of that headship taken from Ephesians include wise not unwise, understanding not foolish, filled with Spirit not drunk, full of song, thankful, and encouraging submission to one another (wives to husband, children to parents, slaves to masters). This is a sacrificial headship. Men should lead by love in their family (Eph 5:25), and he defined love as “an act of the will, accompanied by emotion, that leads to action of behalf of its object.” From verse 26 he said that men should lead in the Word, in righteousness, in selflessness, and in intimacy. He said that the drama of marriage is this - the wife gets to play the bride, the husband gets to play the guy who dies:-)
He pointed out a few arguments used against the idea of male headship. One is that Ephesians teaches “mutual submission” - his response was that this is totally out of context for this passage. Another objection is that male headship is the result of the Fall and is not applicable in the New Testament - his response is that Genesis teaches that there was headship before the Fall. And some object to male headship because the husband is not “worthy” - his response is that God’s command is not conditional on the worthiness of the husband.
His first point was about the Authority of Scripture. He pointed out that many say we shouldn’t judge others, so those who don’t hold with a bodily resurrection or a literal reading of the text should be allowed to hold that position. He refuted that position via Matthew 7:1 which says we ARE to judge, but we should judge ourselves first. Judgment should be on the basis of what Scripture says.
His second point was about the Evidence for the resurrection. There were eyewitnesses to the resurrection, and the New Testament was written during the time of eyewitnesses. There was also personal testimony (such as 1 John 1) of Christ’s resurrection.
His third argument for the resurrection was from Logic (as seen in 1 Corinthians 15). He explained that logically, if there was no resurrection: not even Christ has been raised, our preaching is in vain, we are misrepresenting God (blaspheming liars), we are still in our sins, our faith is futile and meaningless (even if sincere), those who have died have no hope, and we are to be pitied. However, if the resurrection is true: Christ has been raised, our preaching is valuable, we are truth tellers, our sins have been washed, our faith is not in vain, those who have died in Christ will take life up again, and we are not pitiful.


















He illustrated the weakness of most Christians response to challenges of the Bible’s authority. When challenged most Christians resort to external authority (other people) or to personal experience. Neither defense gives any more credibility to Christianity than to any other belief system.
He then used the passage in 2 Peter 1:16+ to present a defense of the Authority, Historicity, and Authenticity of the Bible. His statement (with sub-points) was “The Bible is (1) a reliable collection of historical documents (2) written by eyewitnesses (3) during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses (4) that report supernatural events (5) that fulfill specific prophecies (6) with the claim that the writings are of divine origin rather than of the will of man.” He then discussed each sub-point and defended it from scripture.
One of his key points was that “you don’t use the scientific method to prove a fact of history.” He pointed out the internal consistency of scripture - over 40 authors, 3 languages, 3 continents, 66 volumes, over a period of 1500 years. He discussed a few “conspiracy” theories about scripture and showed how ludicrous it is to assume that someone could “doctor” over 6000 texts (including personal correspondence) in different languages from the time of the early church fathers.
This was a great talk and I’d love to listen to it again.













Here are some notes on the evening sessions:
The first question was “Who Am I?” Secular Humanists answer “I am the result of random evolutionary processes.” Christian Theists answer “I am the crowning glory of the creation of God made by Christ.”
The second question was “Why Am I Here?” Secular Humanists answer “I am here to consume and enjoy.” Christian Theists answer “I am here to bring glory and honor to my Creator.”
The third question was “What’s Wrong with the world?” Secular Humanists answer “people are insufficiently educated or insufficiently governed.” Christian Theists answer “the problem is Sin - I don’t do what I was created to do.”
The fourth question was “Can What’s Wrong with the world be Made Right?” Secular Humanists answer “yes - we just need more education and more government.” Christian Theists answer “yes, but only through the penal, substitutionary, atoning death of Christ.”



After the conference we found a place to eat, went to Walmart to stock our food box, and took naps. Then we ate some sandwiches and got ready to go to the Shepherd of the Hills Outdoor Theater. 



