Faith & Reason Conference – Christians vs Non-Christians

Faith & Reason Conference Gauteng debate took place on Wednesday evening, 12 May 2010 at the University of Pretoria.  

TOPIC:   “How should we understand the narratives about Jesus’ resurrection?”

Participants:

• Prof. William Lane Craig and Prof. Michael Licona  (Christians)
• Prof. Sakkie Spangenberg and Prof. Hansie Wolmarans  (Non-Christians)

We have received this eyewitness account of the debate from GV Swart.

The Americans are learned, and obviously very adept and experienced at this type of debate. They are unphased by inferior arguments, especially when such arguments are completely unsustainable, undefendable and ridiculous. Their knowledge of the Word and the power which it has in Truth, puts them into a different league on the floor, naturally. Praise His Omnipotence.

The single most remarkable feature of the entire evening was the utter disregard for Scripture, God and all things Christian portrayed by the local Profs. Foundational to their entire approach is radical atheism, or as Prof. Craig put it, an a-theism (Spangenberg) and pantheism (Wolmarans). The combination of their arguments, however, did not make for sensible debate, on the contrary, it made no sense in the context of the subject. Based on their denial of the Trinity and their almost total rejection of Biblical writings, it was simply like comparing apples to nuclear technology. A few incomprehensible and extremely deluded points against the simplicity of Gods Word.

The Americans, (Prof. Licona, ironically, degreed at University of Pretoria, so he was at his home base!), picked up on the extreme fallibility of the opposing arguments with immediacy. The audience realised the same and the applause for the Theology Dept Profs very quickly went from light to muted to muffled to inaudible with each passing point they made. The final statements and answers by Spangenberg and Wolmarans, during the Q & A at the end of the program, were greeted by a deafening silence from the obviously overwhelmingly Christian audience. Embarrassing on their behalf, but so is their philosophy. I knew that particularly Spangenberg’s position was off-colour beforehand, but I never realised that it was so unashamedly evil. It stands to absolute reason that our local minor theologians are so very far off the narrow path, they are certainly in grave danger from the outset.

Two points ferociously made by Spangenberg:  the Bible is not the inspired Word of God and the Gospels (Matthew through Luke) are fake writings and fake accounts of the actual events. I will relate a whole plethora of other incredulous one’s later. The Resurrection of Jesus was not a point they cared to address, but rather the fact that He was not a deity, not part of the Godhead and not the Son of God or the Son of Man. Therefore the debate had no particular winner on stage, resulting from the fact that they weren’t interested (or rather denied) the existence or possibility of existence of the subject!

A point by Wolmarans was that the minimal support from the audience for their viewpoint was not indicative of their position not being the truth. A reversal of the “narrow gate with few entering” to support his deceptive, but quietly measured utterances.

The point of highest value during the debate was made by Prof. Licona, when he urged the Christians in the audience to give no heed to the opposing viewpoints, to hold to their Faith and the Truth, because the opposing viewpoints were utterly unsupported by anything other than the speaker’s deluded position. Rapturous applause.

Attendance far exceeded the organisers estimates. The auditorium seated approx 600 and there were probably another 200 – 300 seated out in the cold with a two dimensional representation of the proceedings.

The winners: Jesus Christ and His Christians.

You can place your name on the notification list for the DVD at antwoorde@yahoo.com

—————–

 

 

See Related Posts on this Topic

• The Positive and The Negative of a One World Religion
• Is Ron Martoia, Stephan Joubert and Nelus Niemandt Experts in their Field?
• Guillaume Smit and the "Culture" of Islam?
• False Teachers and Prophets - Methods of Operation
• Which Steps Have You Taken to Aid World Transformation?
• Mike Bickle - Everybody is Called to Live in The Contemplative Lifestyle
• What did YOU think Revival meant?
• Another Gospel
• Eternal Security - Genuinely Saved, Always Saved!

Posted by: DTW News Desk | On this date: May 13th, 2010 | Tags: antiChrist, AntWoord Apologetics Ministry, Apostasy, Apostolic, bible, Christ, Christian, church, contemplative, DiscerningtheWorld, DiscerntheWorld, End Times, error, Faith, False Prophet, False Teaching, Gauteng, God, heresy, Holy Spirit, Jesus, man of Lawlessness, Manifestation, meditation, Pastor, prophetic, Reformation, Religion, Revival, South Africa, Spirituality, Theology, truth, University of Pretoria, Youth - Categories: Atheism, Atheist, Backsliders, Biblical Fundamentals, Blasphemy, Blasphemous, Christology, Conferences, Meetings, Seminars, Gatherings, Crucifixion, Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Dialogue, Discussion, Debate, Discernment, Discerning, Dutch Reform Church DRC, Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk NGK, Education, College, School, University, Seminary, Emerging Church Movement (ECM), New Evangelical, Postmodernism, Eternal Security, Backsliding, Once Saved Always Saved, Spiritual High Treason, Denying Jesus Christ, God, Divinity, Godliness, Godhood, Hansie Wolmarans (Prof), Incarnation, Incarnate, Interpreting Scripture, Jesus Christ Word of God made Flesh, Jesus Seminar, Justification by Faith Alone, Liberal, Liberalism, Theological Modernism, Michael Licona (Prof), New Age, Age of Aquarius, New Dawn, New Atheism, Organisation, Institute, Society, Original Sin, Inherited Sin, Pantheisim, Panentheism, Protestant Church, Protestant Reformers, Repentance of Sin, Repentance of Sin, Forgiveness, Atonement, Salvation, Sakkie Spangenberg, The Divinity of Jesus Christ, The Physical Resurrection and Bodily Return of Christ, The Substitutionary Theory of the Atonement, The Verbal Inerrancy of Scripture, The Virgin Birth, William Lane Craig (Dr), Word of God as Final Authority |

21 comments to Faith & Reason Conference – Christians vs Non-Christians

• Amanda

  13 May, 2010 at 12:21 pm

  Yes! Thank you to the Americans and the AntWoord team for bringing Christians relief in this dry country. What an example they are to us not to be ashamed of our Lord and Savior. It is particularly sweet that this happened at the University of Pretoria. This is one DVD that I am going to watch over and over again. Thank you!

  
• Amanda

  13 May, 2010 at 2:52 pm

  Waaroor dit gaan vir Hansie Wolmarans

  Ons aktiwiteite is daarop gerig om deur die vrye vloei van inligting sinvol mee te werk aan die hervorming van die Christendom. Ons doel is om ruimte te skep vir vrugbare onderlinge interaksie na binne en na buite.

  He sounds just like the emergents! Christians do not have to pay him any heed. We know that Jesus Christ will built His church in spite of His enemies.

  By the way, Rev. Cobus van Wyngaard attended the debate. It will be interesting to see on which side he comes down on. Sorry, no middle ground here. I will pay good money to see Ds. Cobus debate Mike Willenborg!

  
• Elmarie

  13 May, 2010 at 3:54 pm

  Amanda

  I eco your words over and over yes dvd’s are a must have.

  Big Thank you to the whole team to get this post up so quickly.

  Indeed a special team crank we are. lol lol

  Yes! there was one quote that Prof. Sakkie Spangenberg made and that did it for me apart from the other ones he made.

  I quote:Prof. Sakkie Spangenberg

  “Just to say the Bible is the inspired Word of God does not say very much”

  It Horror shocked me into my bones !!! oooi man. And the worst is he held on to the Bible while saying it and lifted the Bible up as he said it! To think he is still in theology stuns me. He should go teach anything else but theology.

  
• Amanda

  15 May, 2010 at 8:28 am

  First ever world-class debate on the resurrection in South Africa?
  Ferdi Mulder asks:

  Will be nice to get some feedback from folks who attended the debate. How many people attended? What were the main arguments? Who did best? Why?

  Johannes writes:

  The debate topic was stated as “How should we understand the narratives about Jesus’ resurrection?” Dr Craig and Mr Licona opened with two claims: 1) That Jesus and the resurrection account is best understood from within a first-century Jewish context (in particular the belief in a bodily resurrection), and 2) that no good reason exists to understand the gospels any other way. They argued their points clearly and eloquently, engaged the audience, cited authoritative references and stayed on the topic – truly world-class debaters.

  The opposition by Wolmarans and Spangenberg, on the other hand, seemed poorly structured, ill-supported and uncoordinated. In his reply, Licona justly remarked that the opposition had not even challenged the main propositions, and he had little to respond to. Spangenberg simply seemed to suggest an alternative method of reading the gospels (as mythical narrative) without reasonably justifying why that’s the proper way to understand it – apart from citing disastrous interpretations and past abuses of the church (emphatically mentioning Apartheid). He said nothing about historicity, except that Evangelical Christianity is a fourth century Augustinian novelty not authentic to Jesus’ teachings, and that Paul built his own theology around the myth of substitutionary sacrifice.

  Licona retorted the topic was how the narratives SHOULD be understood, not how they COULD be understood.

  The opposition seemed poorly prepared and poorly organised, and although they made some interesting assertions, their arguments were either off topic (Licona easily dismissed them as red herrings) or not supported by very persuasive logic or evidence. As a result, the South Africans came across as biased and emotional. This badly damaged their case and left their flanks wide open for the accusation that their thinking was old-fashioned and driven by biased agendas. With some coaching, I think the New Reformers could have presented a much better challenge and made the debate less one-sided.

  Atheists (whatever) prepare to be humiliated

  …Anyway, it was a David vs Goliath situation. Spannenberg and Wolmarans was so outgunned by the eloquent, logical and well prepared Licona/Graig duo that it made me really ashamed to be South African, but at least I could be proud to be a Christian. These two men demonstrated that Christianity is logical and intellectually tenable, they demonstrated that Christians can be logical, solid and, for lack of a better word, COOL. In stark contrast, Spanneberg came over as a paranoid conspiracy theorists with the CIA hot on his trail. I had to really strain to follow is ill prepared and irrelevant points. The best way to describe his opening statements would be that, it’s hard to make sense if you are not making sense. In his second speech, the rebuttal, he caught some steam and seemed to at least make a few points, even though they were not applicable to the debate. He came over very strongly in true PW Botha fashion, finger waving making ungrounded statements. His basic reasoning was that the Gospels were narratives, not biography or history, and therefore fictional. He based this on the assumption that the differences between the Gospels of Mathew, Luke, Mark and John somehow “caught them out” as fictional copy and paste efforts. However, logically speaking, he didn’t really have a solid point. In an effort to build on this, he stated that Paul did not preach the same Gospel as the other disciples, and that even later Augustus wrote his own version of Christianity which is “proven” by his addition of the doctrine of the trinity. His point being that the word trinity does not appear in the gospels, but only in later church history. Jesus talked about His Father, and our Helper, thus Father Son and Holy Ghost, out of Jesus’s mouth, what a silly argument Sakkie. It took Dr Lacona about 3 embarrassing (for Spannenberg) minutes to logically disprove the 1 to 1 conclusions Spannenberg were making. I do however feel that he could have explained a little more, but time was limited.

  It was clear that Wolmarans/Spanneberg, for lack actually engaging in the debate topic, were trying to create a cloud of speculation, trying to get the listener to make the jump from what they said to what they concluded. Mostly this jump seemed too far for the audience which couldn’t help but chuckle at the “kuikenmoord” that was happening.

  I was wondering where Beeld’s liberal theological commentator Neels Jackson was. Jackson is an avid Spanneberg fan and basically the reason Spanneberg got any attention at all. After this massacre I doubt if he would chance writing an article, unless of course he has leaned from spin-doctor Julias Malema and writes a big lie.

  
• Deborah (Discerning the World)

  15 May, 2010 at 9:02 am

  Now, this leads me to the next big question.

  When is the University of Pretoria and others, going to fire these ‘Professors of other faiths’ who are teaching AGAINST orthodox biblical teaching.

  Can you imagine the Maths professor teaching incorrect answers, he would be out, back to Grade 1 to learn the basics.

  
• Deborah (Discerning the World)

  15 May, 2010 at 9:05 am

  In fact, what they can do to help them still earn an income is open a new department called ‘Hogwarts’ they can go teach there.

  
• Amanda

  15 May, 2010 at 12:16 pm

  Lunchtime! Gone are the days where you can pretend to sit on the fence while actually playing for the other side. SA Christians are re-discovering how good it is to eat bread. May they have the sense to stop paying for stones from Hogwarts.

  Look at this: On Guard, By William Lane Craig (Chapter 1)

  Enjoy! Gotta go!

  
• Elmarie

  16 May, 2010 at 1:38 pm

  Amanda

  Yes I eco your words eco eco ……..

  
• Grant

  17 May, 2010 at 11:47 pm

  Deborah

  When is the University of Pretoria and others, going to fire these ‘Professors of other faiths’ who are teaching AGAINST orthodox biblical teaching.

  That was the burning question in my mind after hearing the Theology Dept’s most recent contribution to the New World Religion Interfaith deception. I knew before hand that these so-called Profs (of what, Satanic studies?) had a delusional stance on what they perceive as religion, or theology. I was utterly shocked to see and hear the extent to which Satan had worked with their minds since last I checked.

  To be sure, all people have a freedom to choose whichever false religion they like and stick to it until their chances run out. Strangely, or maybe not so strangely, some would do this without realising that the true God gave them this wonderful thing, freedom to choose, that is.

  But the wierdness or maybe I should more accurately term it deep evil, which issued forth from these two Theology Dept Profs, should shock even the most adamant, ardent and astute scholar of any of the mainstream false religions. The concoction they are attempting to brew and present as modern truth is going to be something which outstrips human understanding. I wonder who they think will eventually listen to and understand it. It was evident from their presented arguments that they themselves had absolutely no clue what they themselves were trying to say. They certainly seemed very confused when they slithered off the stage.

  It is becoming more evident that the University of Pretoria and others do not WANT orthodox Biblical teaching. Financially and politically it would not be viable. They either blatantly oppose it by keeping these *derogatory expletives* on the payroll, or these *derogatory expletives* have bought the Universities. Their rubbish seems to be selling quite well out there…

  
• Amanda

  26 May, 2010 at 9:06 am

  From Ray Ciervo’s South Africa, Cape Town – JoBurg – 2010

  Spangenburg and Wolmarans represent a movement known as the “New Reformation” which basically denies miracles, the inspiration and authority of Scripture, the Trinity, incarnation and anything orthodox. They are hard postmodernists denying that any text has meaning or that we can know any authorʼs intent. These men are among the leading theologians in South Africa, responsible for training new pastors and leaders.
  This was going to be a watershed event.

  Spangenburg began with the ludicrous statement that the text of the NT has no objective meaning and therefor we cannot know what the NT writers intended for us to know. He couched that in the postmodern idea that no text has objective meaning. He then also commented that every narrator has complete control over what he is writing. Through most of the debate the South African professors we befuddled. They had not done their homework, nor did they understand how to debate.

  From where I sat most of what these men said was incoherent and selfdefeating. They repeatedly made truth claims denying truth in the absolute sense existed. Spangenburg claimed Paul to be a misogynist, Apartheid was another result of taking the bible literally, as well as every other injustice he could think of. This was from the man that claimed the text has no meaning!

  And yet, he is still highly respected by his spirit sons and daughters who are now in the pulpit driving Christians out of the church, thinking they are changing the world for the better.

  See also The Died-Again Christian Syndrome – By the University of Pretoria

  ABSTRACT

  Many Old Testament students (and subsequent scholars) come to the subject as eager fundamentalist Christians hoping to one day join the ministry. It is therefore not surprising that an exposure to the findings of biblical criticism and its exposure of the all-too-human, pre-Christian and alien nature of the Hebrew Bible has not infrequently contributes to a crisis of belief and, not uncommonly, a complete loss of faith (be it temporary or permanent). The cognitive dissonance involved in the rethinking of one’s childhood faith, the disorientation of having one’s consciousness transformed and the doubting engendered by insights that contradict the dogmas of one’s own Church traditions can be experienced as a shattering of reality, an inversion of the process of being born-again. This paper aims take a closer look at the etiology of the ‘died-again Christian syndrome’ as it is manifested among Old Testament students in the contemporary South African context.

  
• Deborah (Discerning the World)

  26 May, 2010 at 10:55 am

  Amanda

  Ray Ciervo’s said: ….Spangenburg began with the ludicrous statement that the text of the NT has no objective meaning and therefor we cannot know what the NT writers intended for us to know. He couched that in the postmodern idea that no text has objective meaning….

  Haha that is typical. Remember I had a short conversation with a guy who was emergent on this blog (I think his name was Chris) where he said that truth was relative. He wanted a debate. So I asked him that seeing as though the Bible meant nothing to him, he could not use it to debate with. I requested that he debate using any other text but the Bible while I on the other hand, I would use the bible. I gave him the option to use anything he wanted from any religion to prove his point. Well the conversation was short lived and he has since not returned. If he does I hope he has prepared his sacred texts in advance.

  
• Amanda

  27 May, 2010 at 9:25 am

  A clue, perhaps: Fascism Reborn by Chris Rosebrough at Extreme Theology:

  Today, Fascism has a new name. Even though the name has changed, the exact same irrational philosophies that helped give rise to the 20th Century totalitarian Fascist regimes of Italy, Spain and Germany are alive and well today. The new name that Fascism has taken for itself is Postmodernity.[10]

  From Foucault to Derrida, John Franke to Leonard Sweet, Brian McLaren to Doug Pagitt, Pete Rollins to Tony Jones all of these men are disciples of and dealers in the irrational philosophies of such men as Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche, and Heidegger.

  Just like their 20th Century counterparts these philosophers and theologians are characterized not by their positive ideologies and theologies but by their strident attacks against rational thought, knowable transcendent truth, individual rights, individual salvation, transcendent morals, systematic theology, and the bedrock reasoning upon which all of the societal structures of Western Civilization are built, including Constitutional Republicanism, the free market and the Church.

  Fascism was not defeated on the battlefields of Western Europe. Their armies were defeated. But, Fascism lived on. It lurked in the shadows for decades and was ultimately imported to the United States and the European democracies through universities and institutions of higher education. Fascism took a new shape in the field of literary criticism through the postmodern deconstructionism of Derrida and has now grown like a cancer that has spread from literary criticism to philosophy to politics to economics to religion. Once again the very foundations of thought are under assault. Once again the rights of the individual are being deconstructed and the idea of the primacy of the community (Gemeinschaft) is being exalted. Once again all transcendent truths and morals are being deconstructed and attacked. They are being replaced with an irrational epistemology founded upon subjective feelings (authenticity) with a hatred for so-called meta-narratives. Once again free market capitalism is under assault and being accused of causing the oppression of the poor and creating an unfair system that creates haves and have-nots. Once again there is talk of ‘creating the millennial Kingdom of God’ here on earth by destroying or ‘redeeming’ all the political and economic structures of society.

  
• Amanda

  29 May, 2010 at 1:27 pm

  From the Reasonable Faith website:

  The following is a comment by Sakkie Spangenberg regarding the debate, followed by a response by Pieter Craffert:

  Read it all. Pieter Craffert is the author of “The Life of a Galilean Shaman: Jesus of Nazareth in Anthropological-Historical Perspective” and is also a New Reformer like Sakkie.

  
• Elmarie

  29 May, 2010 at 5:20 pm

  Amanda

  I’m reading on NHN website what Sakkie said about the debate and…huh, Sakkie what are you saying?

  
• Alan

  31 May, 2010 at 2:15 pm

  Hi Everyone,

  I want to state first off, that I have a great deal of respect for scholars, who have the tenacity to study and earn a degree. It is a mark of self discipline that is admirable.
  However, I have always had a mistrust of Theological schools, Seminaries, Bible Colleges, University Theology Departments, etc, and here’s why.
  The Bible tells us we are to test everything we hear, read, see, or otherwise experience, by reading what the Bible has to say on the subject.
  Most people go to Bible College, etc, to learn about the Bible. The trouble is, that in the vast majority of cases, they are taught the likes of things that we read above. They don’t test what they are taught, because the professors or teachers tell them that they have to learn the ‘right’ way to understand the Bible. ‘Interpret the scripture’, is the phrase most often used in my experience.
  Now my problem is that if the Word of God tells us that we are to test everything against the Bible, that MUST include the teaching of these professors/teachers. So, they actually CAN”T teach us the ‘correct’ way to read the Bible, because if that was necessary, or even possible, we wouldn’t be capable of obeying the directive from the Lord to test everything against the Bible.
  How can you use a measuring device if you don’t know how to use it?
  I have a friend who is doing a Theology Degree, who is now convinced that most of the Bible is just ‘stories’. I can’t talk to him about it, because he has been deceived. I can only pray. I don’t say that in the sense of it being a last resort, but to say that the Lord can miraculously work a change in my friend’s heart, whereas I can only talk with him on the intellectual level, which isn’t going to get past all the rubbish he’s being taught. When I talk with him I have to be very patient and as gracious as possible. If I ever meet one of his wolfish teachers, though, I will have to work hard to speak the truth in love, they make me angry. I believe these people are the same as the ones in 2nd John v.10-11, that we are not to even wish ‘Godspeed’. They will be the ones who Jesus said would betray brothers to be martyred (Matt. 24:9-12).
  As for Theological studies, I believe we should learn as much as we can, taking care always to subject everything to the light of the Word, loving the truth, so that we will be spared the ‘strong delusion’, trusting in the promise of Jesus that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth.
  God bless,
  Alan.

  
• Amanda

  3 June, 2010 at 8:24 am

  Debate with Spangenberg and Wolmarans by William Lane Craig

  In my rebuttal I explained why this view of Christian origins has been eclipsed among New Testament scholars and then reviewed some of the evidence for the historicity of the events of Easter. A very angry Spangenberg then came to the podium and began to rail against apartheid and Christianity’s connection to it. It was unbelievable. Mike then explained that all the points raised by Prof. Spangenberg, though important and interesting in and of themselves, were just one red herring after another in the context of the debate that night. Then he closed with a very personal appeal to the Christians of South Africa not to be fooled by the false claims and superficial arguments (what arguments?) of those in the New Reformation movement. Wolmarans closed out the debate by telling a rambling and sentimental story about a baker and the parents of a little boy killed in a car accident. (I know–nobody else understood its relevance either.)

  Do read it all. And there is more:
  Debate with Yusuf Ismail by William Lane Craig

  Just arriving at the wording of the debate topic was laborious: Ismail wanted to debate “Jesus: God or Man?”, which perpetuates Muslim misunderstanding of Christianity by posing a false dilemma, since Christians believe that Jesus was both God and man. To carry his case, Ismail had to prove, not that Jesus was man, but that he was merely a man; while I had to give some good reason for thinking that Jesus was not merely human but also divine.

  
• Elmarie

  3 June, 2010 at 3:59 pm

  Amanda

  Thank you!

  
• Amanda

  21 July, 2010 at 7:40 pm

  Spread the news! The DVD’s are now available. Do your early Christmas shopping there and greatly encourage your Christian friends and those disillusioned by the bankruptcy of the emerged church and the New Reformation.

  
• Amanda

  30 July, 2010 at 2:11 pm

  Dr. Craig talks about the historical New Reformation Debate:
  http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/R?i=GxnKKM7jaBiK56a0k37hUA..
  28 MB MP3

  
• Elmarie

  30 July, 2010 at 5:24 pm

  Amanda
  Yes I just read the news letter and my eye fell on that tooo :-)
  Should be interesting. Will download on the 1st .
   
   

  
• Elmarie

  1 August, 2010 at 7:57 pm

  This is a must listen Podcast from Prof Wiliam Lane Craig 2010/07/28 The New Reformation Debate

  If you can please listen to this. Prof Craig is speaking about this Historical Debate that took place 12 May 2010 at the University of Pretoria.Prof. William Lane Craig and Prof. Michael Licona (Christians) and Prof. Sakkie Spangenberg and Prof. Hansie Wolmarans (Non-Christians)

  Listen to the podcast here The New Reformation Debate

  

52 queries. 0.893 seconds.