Yes, hot off the press, Josh McDowell has a new book coming out on Nov 22nd. You can pre-order here: amzn.to/3C0nb5c
 
Josh McDowell, the master of Evidentialism, teams up with Thomas Williams for a new type of book that tries to reason with the modern reader that God must exist. Unlike McDowell’s other books, this one isn’t meant to be a handbook for the Christian apologist. It seems more apt to use it in a small “seekers” group, as discussion questions are provided at the end of each chapter (I don’t know if this is a feature in the final version of the book).
 
The introductory chapter is a very lengthy and needless attempt to show the history of how we arrived at our ridiculous postmodern state of godlessness, through the Reformation, Enlightenment, and the Modern era. However, its assessment of today’s conflict between Secularism and Christianity is accurate. It’s apparent that the intended audience for this book are non-Christians faced with the stark reality of the Transcendent but don’t know how to approach it logically. 
 
Part 1 makes a strong argument that truth is not relative. The evidence is that all of humanity has an intrinsic desire for purpose and meaning. Uncharacteristic of “classic McDowell,” he draws the reader into an Absolutist worldview using Presuppositional apologetics. Observable reality shows us that we live in a world bound by various standards that were not subjectively invented by humanity. Even musical standards of harmony and dissonance were not invented by Music Theory, merely discovered and explored. Again, although the nomenclature of “2+2=4” was invented, the mathematical reality existed before man. Our existing reality is so consistent in its adherence to these absolutes, that “subjective truth” will always conflict with the experience of reality. Who or what created these standards which were uninfluenced by humans? In a similar vein, morality is not natural nor can it be a product of nature. Universal morality is proof of the supernatural God. 
 
Part 2 is an attack on Naturalism, from the Big Bang to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Hundreds of books have already been written on this popular Christian Apologetics topic. However, the authors do a good job of summarizing what we know and what we don’t know, casting doubt on what people hold to be settled science. There is not enough empirical evidence in itself to declare either Naturalism or Christianity as proven fact. Both require faith and reason. Faith is blind without reason, but reason has no direction without faith. Thus, faith and reason must necessarily go hand in hand to discover and ascertain truth.
 
I think it is here that the authors have disconnected with the audience. They haven’t proven decisively that postmodernism is futile in its search for real meaning, but their strategy is to move on and attack the vestiges of Naturalism that some postmodernists hold onto. Their mistake is to assume that postmodernists are Naturalists. The only reason some of them hold onto Evolution Theory is because they deny the alternative – Theism. However, a majority of postmodernists are turning to Pantheism or Panentheism. This is not the 20th century.
 
In Part 3, the argument seems like: without God, life has no meaning. Life should have meaning. Therefore God exists. Although this is a disappointingly weak argument, Naturalism offers even less. The only thing Naturalism posits is the dreary pointlessness of anything and everything: there is no purpose; just atoms bouncing around. Beauty and love have meaning only in light of God’s existence, and science can test neither of these.
 
Essentially, this book is a philosophical tirade against postmodernism. The last chapter is a beautiful and logical presentation of the gospel. It proves its purpose as a conversation with the postmodern unbeliever. Unlike classic Evidentialism, it feels like a J.P. Moreland book. It's worth reading. I recommend it.

I would like to thank Tyndale Publishers for an advance copy of this book.

Many people try to live like Christians without Jesus because they see the attractiveness of the religion without the conviction of sin and the need for a savior. They do this without thinking, which is part of the problem. I wanted to see the best logical defense of living this way from someone who actually thought it through (and wrote many books and articles on this Middle Way topic).

​You know there’s a problem when chapter 7’s title is “Christian Agnosticism.” This must be the most liberal book I was given to read, but I wanted to give its logic a chance. Also, it’s apparent from my conversations with many supposed “Christians,” that this is relevant to the real experience and lifestyle of many more people than I would like to admit.
 
He shows what this book is about in the introduction. He states that it is possible to enjoy the benefits of Christianity without being “Christian” in true belief. He also proposes that strong Christian beliefs (deity of Christ, gospel, etc) actually have “no positive effects on the lives of Christians.” A belief in God may in fact have detrimental results. Yet there is meaning in the Christian experience even, or especially, without them.
 
The author is an agnostic who believes only in the possibility of absolute beliefs. He believes that God is real, but we as humans are unable to make an “absolute presupposition that God exists” or that he has sent special revelation in the form of the Bible.
 
Let me get to the point. He writes, “The importance of Jesus in our lives does not depend on…whether he was actually the son of God.” What matters is how we “interpret his advice” and how his story affects our lives. This belief is in stark opposition to traditional Christianity and the revelation of the gospel.
 
Although logical gymnastics is used to redefine words like “faith” and “belief,” the author’s presupposition boils down to this common thinking – The story/beliefs of religion is unimportant insofar as it helps you on your path to enjoyment and self-discovery. That’s what matters, not the actual beliefs.
 
This book highlights the subjective experience. In contrast, absolute beliefs undermine human responsibility. Not only that, he writes that to believe in divine revelation is to disrespect God. Say what? Wow, his version of God (or the God archetype) must be entirely different from yours and mine, because I’d be offended if someone didn’t believe my words.
 
I’ll concede that absolute beliefs have been the cause of many religious wars (e.g. Crusades, Ireland) and splits in the church (e.g. Reformation), and many of these disputes have been ugly. Yes, there’s a problem. However, it does not mediate a pragmatist effort of anti-absolutist, veiled subjectivism.
 
The author’s premise most obviously falls apart when he talks about science, "not as a discovery of truths." He maintains that science cannot give us real knowledge of “supposedly true facts.” Rather, science is more of a social construct, much like religion. More than theologians, I think scientists would be more in disagreement by that remark.
 
It’s ironic that he criticizes the results of the liberal Jesus Seminar for “applying criteria…to ensure results that fit the preferred liberal picture…and confirmation bias.” Yet he does the same thing to Jesus by elevating human experience above absolute claims of divinity (the Bible). By that criterium, the conclusions are already mapped out, and Jesus is just a character in a story, relevant only to our subjective experience and journey. By the end of the book, as predicted, the teachings of Jesus are more important than the person of Jesus. What’s worse is that he insinuates that Jesus was thinking in the same construct.
 
I think it’s fine to disagree with the Gospel. But what is offensive about this book is that he tries to redefine the Gospel. He redefines “atonement, grace, and salvation.” He ridicules the very essence of what it means to be Christian and denigrates it to a mere culture of faith (not belief). He says that Jesus has been misinterpreted by history, that Jesus never meant to take anyone’s place of sin responsibility, and sin “cannot be removed by magic.” He draws from mostly anti-Christian philosophers like Sartre, Nieche, or Kierkegaard. It’s no wonder he ends up with mostly anti-Christian implications.
 
In terms of writing style, like most academics, he takes a long time to get to his point. He feels the need to define every subject word ad infinitum and explain every tangential detail. It’s not necessary; people could easily follow your train of thought. In addition, the dual categorization of the left hemisphere God (i.e. of the brain) and the right hemisphere God was simply ridiculous.
 
You could actually start reading this book with chapter 7 without missing too much; everything is summarized in the first few paragraphs. Interestingly enough, his writing becomes more focused hereon.
 
It’s unfortunate that a book that purports fresh new ideas is riddled with spots of failed logic and rational thinking. But the author reveals why he started with negative bias against Christianity. He writes, “My overwhelming experience of church…left a negative impression so deep that I struggle to engage more positive emotions with Christian worship even today. I think this was because it was primarily about power: the power of a social institution imposed upon participants by appeal to the authority of a supernatural entity.”
 
This actually explains a lot. I could understand fully why he cannot examine this subject with objectivity. In short, this book isn’t worth the read, Christian or not.

However it reveals that for someone to be logically consistent in trying to live as Christian without Christ, you have to disregard the Bible and treat it as nice little moral stories to learn from, not as divine revelation. You have to treat everything in life as subjective to your own experience, including discoveries in science, since there is no absolute truth. This kind of subjectivity will wreak havoc on your sense of morals, observation of facts, and the importance of life after death.

As the author summarizes, religion indeed acts as a power play among political characters. However, to lump the whole of the Christian gospel in that mix fails to see why a person cannot be Christian without Christ.

On the other hand, I now see that in order to counter the failed logic of those who try to be Christian without Christ, I have to emphasize the importance of absolute truths as revealed in science and nature (and life), and that divine revelation is the only way we can know God. And there is nothing subjective about that!

I would like to thank the publisher for an advance copy of this book.

to his points, but his story-telling is actually enjoyable. You want to sit back and go for the ride.
I actually think he’s hoping this book will be adapted into a movie, because that’s how it’s written – a curious journalist traveling hundreds of miles to interview experts in their field to get at the truth. The “Case” he presents is in the content of those interviews.
 
Maybe after you read this next paragraph, you don’t have to read the book.
 
There are thousands of well documented cases of miracles, medically examined, peer reviewed, and scientifically confirmed. There are millions more that are not documented. But this is not proof that merely a supernatural plane exists beyond scientific explanations. It is specific proof that prayer to the Judeo-Christian God may elicit answer in the form of miracles. Thus, scientific tests using prayers of non-Christians or not-real Christians came up empty. This is not proof that God exists, because it’s possible that a super intelligent alien is actually answering these Christian prayers. However, they are real proof of miracles.
 
If I have any criticism, it’s this: chapter 10 isn’t really a case for miracles. He borrowed from his other book, and it’s really a case for a creator. Then it spills over into the next chapter, which then becomes a case for the resurrection. We know where he’s going with this. He’s trying to point out that miracles prove not just any deity, but it’s the Christian God who created the universe and rose from the dead. However, he doesn’t link these subjects together with logic.
 
I was hoping he would go back to Michael Shermer with these proofs of miracles, to get his response or rebuttal, because that’s how this story started out. But, in the end, he does deliver a strong case for miracles and the reason it matters. I recommend this book, and it’s also a book you could give to your skeptic friend.

There are thousands of Christian books out there, and half of them suck! But there are still hundreds of good Christian books, so where do you start?

Francis Chan and Rob Bell say that hell is not eternal. That shouldn’t matter that much except they are both influential Christian leaders. What they believe matters, since they teach the Bible. It’s a great belief and fits the times well. But it’s a heresy that needs to be addressed.
 
Now, one opinion is no better than the next, and you’ll see lots of opinions (and claims) on the internet. There are even several cases of those waking up from a coma with tales from the other side. There are also religions and cults with visions of what hell looks like.
 
My intention isn’t to disparage those claims, but rather to focus on what the Bible specifically says about hell. Thus, this exercise is only relevant to Bible-believing Christians. (I shouldn’t have to prove that the Bible is authoritative and reliable – that’s covered in my other videos.)
 
Dreams and visions may be truth. I have no way of disproving them, but they have no way of proving their claims. However, the Bible is proven to be historically accurate and divinely inspired. I’ll stick to what the Bible says.
 
Let me start with what the Bible actually says about hell.
 
Hell is a literal place, not just a state of being. It’s a place where the wicked are punished. Deut 32:22, Ps 9:17, 55:15, Prov 15:11, 24 (Sheol)
Historically, Gehenna was a place of mass destruction due to God’s judgment in Jeremiah. Later, it became the city dump, and they would burn the trash there. This ever-burning fire came to symbolize the everlasting punishment of the wicked.

• place of fire is the language of Scripture (Isa 33:14, 66:24, Matt 3:12, 5:22, 13:40, 42, 50, 18:8-9, 25:41, Mark 9:43-48, Luke 3:17, 16:19-31, Jude 7, Rev 14:10, 19:20, 20:10-15, 21:8).
• This fire is unquenchable, devouring forever and ever.
• Passages in Matthew, Mark, and Luke seem to indicate that there’s suffering of body and soul. (Matt 5:22, 5:29, 30, 18:9, and Mark 9:43-47, Matt 10:28, Luke 12:5, Matt 23:15, 33, James 3:6)

• Hades and Gehenna is the same place. Hades refers to souls of the wicked before the judgment day. Gehenna refers to place of the wicked, body and soul, after judgment.

 
I’m not saying Dante was right. In his book Inferno, none of his imagery was Biblical. But he wasn’t wrong to depict a sense of eternal torment and torture, hopelessness. – which is better than a lot of movies today.
 
Let me describe hell by responding to an objection.
There have been some people who say that hell is not eternal, but that people burn up and then cease to exist, because the Bible teaches the “destruction” of the wicked.
 
I personally wish that was true. I like that idea better, but the Bible is clear in saying that it’s eternal.

• “fire unquenchable” – (Matt 3:12, 18:8, Mark 9:43, Luke 3:17)
• the point is not just that there’s always a fire burning in Gehenna but that God burns the wicked with unquenchable fire, which has been prepared for them as well as for the devil and his angels (Matt 3:12, 25:41).
• Their worm never dies (Mark 9:48).
• Their shame is everlasting (Daniel 12:2),
• “punishment of eternal fire (Jude 1:6,7).
• They will be tormented with fire and brimstone…and the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever, so that they have no rest day or night (Rev 14:9-11).
• “day and night, forever and ever” (Rev 20:10, cf. 19:3).

 
The destruction which the Bible speaks is an everlasting destruction (2 Thes 1:9). They are tormented forever.

• Matthew 25:46 uses the same word to describe heaven and hell – heaven is everlasting bliss, and hell is just as long
• Bible emphasizes finality of the wicked – treated as the end of a story.

• Other descriptions of hell:
  • shut out from the presence of the Lord (2 Thes 1:8-9, Matt 7:23, 25:41, Luke 13:27)
  • bottomless pit (Rev 9:1, 2, 11, cf. 11:7, 17:8, 20:1-3)
  • darkness (Matt 8:12, 22:13, 25:30, Jude 6, 13)
  • no love in hell (Isa 14:9-11)

 
Another question people ask is if Satan rules hell. There’s a complete misconception that hell is an alternate universe where there’s constant sinful partying and Satan is the ruler. No, there’s no alternate life, with people walking around, talking with other people.
          No, it’s an eternal jail where not Satan, but God is the ruler of hell. Heaven is heaven because God is present in his love. Hell is hell because God is there in his wrath (Rev 6:16). If you go to hell, Satan is a fellow prisoner. because hell was originally designed to punish satan and his demons. (Matt 25:41, Rev 20:10, 15)
 
Now, some people ask, “How can a God of love send people to hell?”
          click here for the answer.
 
And the worst part about hell is finally knowing that you could’ve had a chance to know God, the chance of finding purpose for your life, the chance of finding the greatest fulfillment of your empty heart, but now you know you will never have that chance again. forever.
 
But for any of you watching this video, it’s not too late. The God who punishes is also the God who is love, and is willing to forgive even the worst sinner, if he repents and turns to him by faith. God loves you, and he offers forgiveness. Will you follow Jesus his Son?
 
I made this video because of false teachings about hell that’s making a comeback – saying that it’s not real or eternal. You know, I don’t like the idea of hell. I don’t like it. But the Bible teaches a real hell. Now, this video doesn’t go into God’s thinking, or his logic. So, I’m asking for your comments. Why do you think God invented hell?

I love books by Os Guinness, but good authors don’t always write good books. Even for those who don’t know of Os Guinness, it’s obvious early on in the book that he is quite intellectual and has researched many books in various fields of philosophy, history, and religion. But the book rambled on so much in the beginning I didn’t want to continue. But first you have to understand that Os Guinness is a classic philosopher, not a classic apologist, so in Aristotelian style, he feels like he has to build up a case first.

The premise of the book is excellent. Too many Christian apologists and apologetics is about bashing people over the head with cool arguments and "defenses" with no thought of really winning over the person. It's all about teaching, and arguing, and debating, and correcting, and defending, and even attacking. But where is the "persuading?" He gives many Biblical examples, most notably Jesus, who did not just go around correcting and rebuking people, but he was gentle. He listened. He met people on their terms. He saw through the arguments and issues to the heart of the matter. He wanted to win the person, not the argument.

It's a great idea for a book, and yes, Christians need to do more persuading and have more clever conversation with people who are closed, instead of just presenting the gospel to those who are open. However, this book doesn't do this topic justice. It presents a strong case for relational and conversational apologetics/evangelism, but there are no concrete advice on how to carry it out. Yes, he's against cold techniques, and that's not what this book is about. However, one who picks up a book of this topic is looking for something useful, for that very purpose, not just a book that defends why it must exist. This book could've been titled, "Christian Persuasion is Good," but there is no "recovering" or teaching of how that is done specifically.
 
The book didn’t get useful until page 75, so you can skip to that page after you’ve read this review. You’re welcome. Well, the meat doesn’t start until page 109. Everything else is appetizer.
 
Yes, I am guilty like the people he talks about in chapter 1, of one looking for techniques, or something, yeah, that’s why I’m reading this book. I’m not doing it for enjoyment or knowledge; I want to get something useful out of it so I can persuasively engage non-Christians who are seemingly closed to the gospel. And yes, that is the very way this book draws you in from its introduction and back cover. It clearly reveals that apologetics has shifted in the 21st century of high speed internet and McDonaldism, and we need to approach face-to-face evangelism more practically. Yes, we all get that – that’s why we’re reading this book, but page after page, it tries to convince you even more.
 
The whole first chapter is about how we shouldn’t be looking for cookie-cutter techniques, and the second chapter covers the changing nature of apologetics. boring. let’s get on with it already! The third chapter is where he starts getting to the useful stuff, but his fireside chats are so long, it may be easy to miss the point. He won’t flat out say it so I’ll say it for him: it’s the Fool-Making Technique. Since the gospel itself is paradox, it can approach the atheist worldview with humor, aware that life itself is filled with many logically opposing complexities that cannot be explained by the one-dimensional approach of the atheist. Faith allows us to see through the “incongruities of life,” and thus, we approach apologetics with humor. Don’t get so offended or flustered. See the comedy in their arguments or worldview and offer a revelation.
 
The next chapter is just bad. In summary: atheists are self-deceived, twist the truth, and worship themselves. I don’t disagree, but to spend a whole chapter to prove that? Yes, I admit this is a gross simplification of the chapter, but also proves the point that all of us stretch the truth or filter the facts. What then of objectivism? These modern-day “scientists” or “seekers of truth” are not really objective or neutral, nor are their research or “findings.”
 
His explanation of the teeter-totter between the “dilemma pole” and the “diversion pole” is interesting, but hardly usable. Well, most people we talk to are at the diversion pole, so clear out the diversion.
 
Chapter 6 is where you should actually start reading the book, having skimmed the first 5 chapters. He explains the “turning the tables” technique. Follow their unbelief systems to their logical conclusions of a life without God. Tempt them to explain meaning and purpose in that life beyond self-satisfaction. Are there absolute moralities? Can you apply your morals on Trump? or Islamic terrorists? In a worldview without God, they will be forced into a dilemma they are uncomfortable with. That’s when you turn the tables. “We should never stop halfway with skepticism, but insist on pressing ideas uncompromisingly to their conclusion. When hearts and minds collide with the wall, they will have reach the limits of their position and may then be open to rethinking.” You have to let them see the bad news before they will be open to the good news.
 
In order to turn the tables, you have to ask questions that raise questions. Stop giving them answers to questions they’re not asking. Questions are light but also subversive. Don’t quote Jesus or the Bible; use their prophets, not ours. Appeal to what they already subscribe to. Questions are so effective because they are indirect yet involving. Although he provides evidence of this method, Guinness doesn’t give any pointers on how to ask them.
 
Chapter 7 explains the technique of “signal triggering.” You make people aware of their God-given human longings and desires. Life itself reveals the “treasures of the heart.” These are signals in their own daily experience that spur people to find answers that need to be true in order for these desires to be satisfied. They let people realize there must be “something more” to this life than what they see right now.
 
Chapter 9 can be summarized in 2 words: Be humble. Now you can move on to the next chapter. (yes, the second half of the chapter is used to defend creative persuasion, but I deemed it unnecessary.)
 
In chapter 10, he addresses the issue of how Christian hypocrisy makes it difficult to share the gospel due to its bad witness. His solution is outlined in 6 steps: 1) Admit we’re all guilty 2) declare hypocrisy to be a violation of honesty and truth, 3) admit the benefits of hypocrisy and why people do it, 4) God hates hypocrisy much more than today’s modern world does, 5) don’t fight back but dare to confess, and 6) submit to Jesus. (yes, I took the liberty in changing his titles)
 
There is nothing useful in chapter 11. It’s only a defense of apologetics.
 
Chapter 12, the last chapter, is actually the best chapter in this book. He probably should’ve started the book with this. He explains how people go through stages before coming to faith. First stage – make the person question his life. Second stage – the mind checks out new answers to replace old belief models. Third stage – verification of new belief system. Fourth stage – commitment.
 
I’ve read hundreds of books in which the best stuff is in the first half, and the second half is just filler material. In this book, the first half is whatevers and the second half is actually good. But I wish he could write another book just focusing on the second half and going deeper and practical, because overall this book is not that good.
 
Thanks for reading my honest review.