Month: March 2010

New Q&A: Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus

Dr. Fernandes discusses some of the compelling reasons for believing the Resurrection of Jesus was an actual, historical event. Quoting such Christian researcher Gary Habermas and apologist William Lane Craig, Dr. Fernandes highlights his case using the changed lives of the Apostles and early church leaders.

More Q&A: The existence of God?

Evidence for the existence of God?

Dr. Fernandes gives a quick series of evidences for the existence of God. He does a great job of summarizing up several well known arguments (cosmological, teleological, etc) and looks at their implementations.

The Nature of Reality #1: Reality

I know many of  you have been waiting for this series to finally begin online. Here, we proudly present, is the first in the “Nature of Reality” series by IBD Vice President, Matthew Coombe. This first lecture is entitled, simply enough: Reality.

New Q&A from Dr. Fernandes

Could Jesus have chosen to sin?

In this latest Q&A video, Dr. Fernandes looks at the divine and human nature of Jesus. Could Jesus sin? What if He had sinned?

Refuting Moral Relativism

This is an excerpt from Dr. Fernandes’ book, “God, Government and the Road to Tyranny“.

Moral relativists deny the absolute moral law. Still, they, like all people, recognize the evil actions of others when they are wronged. When they are wronged, they appeal to an objective and universal law that stands above man. Moral relativists deny the absolute moral law in the lecture hall, but they live by it in their everyday lives. Moral relativists reserve the right for themselves to call the actions of Hitler wrong, but, if there is no such thing as right and wrong (as the moral relativists say), they cannot really call any action wrong.

God Government and the Road to Tyranny coverThe moral law does not ultimately come from within each individual, for then no one could call the actions of another, such as Hitler, evil. The moral law does not ultimately come from each society, for then one society could not call the actions of another society (such as Nazi Germany) wrong. Finally, the moral law does not ultimately come from world consensus, for world consensus is often wrong. World consensus once thought the world was flat and that slavery was morally permissible.

Appealing to world or societal consensus as the ultimate source of the moral law is actually just an extension of the view that the individual is the ultimate source. The difference is only quantitative (the number of people increases). However, for there to be a moral law above all men (in order to judge all men), this moral law must be qualitatively above all men. If there is an absolute moral law qualitatively above all men, all societies, and the world consensus, then there must be an absolute moral law Giver that stands qualitatively above all men, all societies, and world consensus.

The absolute moral law is eternal and unchanging, for we use it to condemn the actions of past generations. Since the moral law is eternal and unchanging, the moral law Giver must also be eternal and unchanging. The moral law is not descriptive of what is; it is prescriptive of what should be. Prescriptive laws need a Prescriber.

Since the absolute moral law leads directly to the existence of the theistic God (the absolute moral law Giver), many atheists and pantheists may feel compelled to reject it’s existence. On the other hand, people who wish to live promiscuous lives often choose to reject God’s existence. The apostle John appears to be talking about these people:

“And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed” (John 3:19-20).