YouTube - Sarah Palin, Barbara Walters: Good Morning America (Part 2 of 2)

Image via Wikipedia

Here is Barbara Walters interviewing Sarah Palin









YouTube - Sarah Palin, Barbara Walters: Good Morning America (Part 2 of 2)

Responses to the Deen Show

Dr. James White promised a playlist of his responses to claims made on the Islamic show - The Deen Show. He posted today on his blog!





Responses to the Deen Show

Table of Nations by Tim Osterholm

My father-in-law found this great article showing how all the languages and races can be shown to have been described in Genesis 10. It's real interesting, contains an exhaustive bibliography and I have seen the material presented elsewhere and this is one of the best concise form.

Table of Nations by Tim Osterholm

Why Many Modern American Evangelicals Don't Like Reformed Baptist Preaching

James White has posted a couple of videos on his blog that answer a question I've been having: Given that when I look at the scriptures I see that membership in the elect is up to God not to us - He chooses us, why do most evangelicals think that we are saved by exercising our free will? I mean both concepts can't be right. However as long a person believes and trusts Jesus for salvation, he/she is saved, does it really matter who started it? God or us?  I think it does matter because the Bible is clear.  "We love Him because He first loved us." (1 John 4:19) All we do is respond, but we can't respond on our own.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. - John 14:6

Why Many Modern American Evangelicals Don't Like Reformed Baptist Preaching

Is there a Connection Between Jesus and Vespatian?

The Roman emperor Vespatian is often offered as some one who who Christians modeled Jesus after. Titus Flavius Vespasianus, known as Vespasian lived November 17, 9AD – June 23, 79AD, reigned from 69 AD until his death in 79 AD. They say this because of one obscure reference in Tacitus' book The Histories:

At Alexandria a commoner, whose eyes were well known to have wasted away ...fell at Vespasian's feet demanding with sobs a cure for his blindness, and imploring that the Emperor would deign to moisten his eyes and eyeballs with the spittle from his mouth.
... Vespasian .... did as the men desired him. Immediately the hand recovered its functions and daylight shone once more in the blind man's eyes. Those who were present still attest both miracles today, when there is nothing to gain by lying.
Tacitus, The Histories, 4.81

Apparently Vespasianus cured a man of blindness by rubbing his spit in the man's eyes. Critics say "see, Chrisitans say Jesus did it because this guy did it." Before I go on, I don't want to downplay Vespatian at all. He is an important figure.

1. He started a new dynasty of Roman emperors
2. It was he that put down the Jewish Revolt and inadvertently insuring that Josephus would write and publish his works.

However, I would not put any stock into Vespatian performing miracles because Tacitus wrote his account about 30 years after the emperor died. Also Christians have been recounting Jesus' miracles before Vespatian ever took power. Remember some scholars date Mark to the 40's AD. There is no evidence of Jesus performing the miracle of healing the blind with his spit as being later than Vespatian. If anything I think the borrowing was from the other way around.

Vespatian
Athiest Watch: Answering Jesus Myth Arguments

Apologetics 315: How Can A God of Love Send Anyone To Hell? MP3 Audio by Albert Mohler

Here is another great resource from Apologetics 315. I really like this sermon by Albert Mohler. Her really puts his finger on the pulse of the issues. No one likes thinking about hell nor accepting the truth that each and everyone of us deserve it. Thank god for Jesus who saves us from the inevitability of Hell. God's justice demands that we go to Hell. His mercy spares us.

Apologetics 315: How Can A God of Love Send Anyone To Hell? MP3 Audio by Albert Mohler

Iron Sharpens Iron: James White: "Muslim-Christian Relations... Plus an Overview of the Recent Dialogue with Imam Syed Z. Sayeed: Jesus in the Qur'an & the Bible"!

The good news is that Iron Sharpens Iron is still on the air! James White was a a recent guest and he talked about his recent debate with Imam Syed Z. Sayeed and Muslm/Christian Apologetics and Relations. It's awesome!

Iron Sharpens Iron: James White: "Muslim-Christian Relations... Plus an Overview of the Recent Dialogue with Imam Syed Z. Sayeed: Jesus in the Qur'an & the Bible"!

YouTube - Poor Apologetics: "First Cause"

"Poor Apologetics" is what the following video exemplifies.






What takes more faith:
A race of beings, of which there is no proof, or a natural phenomena caused all of reality to come into existence.
or
That an omnipotent being brought the universe into existence out of nothing, who has revealed Himself through personal relationship with His creation and left us evidence?

God is way more plausible...especially if you are in relationship with God. Almost all of science agrees that the Universe began to exist. There was a point at which there was no universe and then in some way that science can't explain the universe begins to exist. People who deny God must give an answer: How? Why? Many try to get around this, as is done in the video, by trying to toss it back to theists by asserting that if everything that exists must have a designer then God must have a maker. The video attempts to address this by countering the theistic answer that God does not have a beginning by just calling the point a re-definition to avoid the topic. The thing is we know that the Universe is not eternal. We know it had a beginning and if not changed it will have an end. We know something about God by what is revealed in scripture. We know God is eternal - transcending time and space. God never began to exist because there have never been nor will there ever be a point that God does not exist. This is a part of who God is by definition. This is the God that monotheists have been proclaiming for millenniums. This video unfortuntely is refuting a straw man, not the God of heaven and earth - the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob!

YouTube - Poor Apologetics: "First Cause"

Featured Podcast: Confident Christianity with Mary Jo Sharp - Apologetics 315

Mary Jo Sharp's first webcast is out. I appreciate Brian for posting it on his blog! It is good. i love to see women do apologetics. It's generally my experience that women don't care about the subject. It's sad, and i don't understand why it doesn't appeal to most women. Maybe God can use Mary Jo's ministry to change that. In this first podcast, she defines "apologetics" and then explains why it's important to all Christians including women! This is one pod cast that I will be following.

Her website

Featured Podcast: Confident Christianity with Mary Jo Sharp - Apologetics 315

Atheism is Dead: Five Finger Death Punch the Multiverse

Here is another great post from, Mariano. In this essay he gives 5 really good reasons for rejecting the "Multiple Universe" theory which atheists use to explain why our universe is so finely designed so that if fundamental physical constants were differently even a small amount, we would not exist to discuss it. I like to think of it as God made this amazing masterpiece and put us in the best possible place in that canvas so that we can see what He did! One of the consequences of this fine tuning is that the earth is not just in the best and only possible location in the observable universe for our life to exist, but we are in a place where true scientific inquiry is possible.b We have "court-side" seats to see God's wonders. Can't be coincidence.

Atheism is Dead: Five Finger Death Punch the Multiverse

YouTube - Zakir Naik on the Deen Show: Review and Rebuttal Pt. 3

James White has posted a 3rd part his response to Zakir Naik  on the Deen Show. James White wrote:

Here is my third and final response to Zakir Naik's appearance on The Deen Show. What I did was take my opening statement from my debate with Shabir Ally on this topic from London in November of last year, along with my comments on Deuteronomy 18:18 from the preceding debate, and put that audio under the KeyNote slides I used.

Zakir Naik's Claims on Muhammad in the Bible

Terminology Tuesday: Occam's Razor - Apologetics 315

This is a great post from Occam's Razor. It is an concept in philosophy. It is another great resource from the Apologetics 315 blog. On the face of it, I agree that its silly to make up complicated explanation without a good reason. The simpler explanation is more likely. Unfortunately, as Brian, points out in his post, that many use this idea to reject supernatural explanations for events. An example that comes to my mind is the Multiple universe theory to explain away the fine-tuning of our own as an example of rejecting Occam's argument. I'd also offer the "swoon" theory and the hallucination hypothesis which attempt to explain the fact that the first Christians reported to experiencing the resurrected Christ as examples of ignoring Occam.

Terminology Tuesday: Occam's Razor - Apologetics 315

Hank Hanegraaff - Is The Bible the Words of God or Men?

Image by JL Outdoor Photography via Flickr

On Hank Hanegraaf'a blog he tackled the importance of being able to believe in the revelations God has given us in the Bible because it is from God and not made up by men. Hanegraaf does not give his arguments for proving the Bible is from God because he wants us to buy his materials, but I see his point. As a Christian, the Bible is critical. IF it is made up be men then it has no authority and Christianity offers us nothing! I believe the Bible is from God for several reasons. The best two I have is that the Bible can't shown to be false. It has nothing in it that is wrong. In other words it's infallible and free of error. The other point is that the Bible had over 40 authors, written over 1500 years, on three continents, and in three languages. Most of the authors did not know any of the other authors, yet they are all telling parts of the same story. I don't have enough faith to think that they all coincidentally agree. I challenge anyone to find a place where the Bible disagree with itself and why they think it's wrong.

Wherever you get the information, if you’re a believer make it your passion to reach not repel a Robert Crumb. Don’t say, “What a terrible guy he is, how could he say such things.” Pagans are going to exercise their job description in not believing the truth of God. A Christian’s job description is to be a well informed ambassador for Christ.

Hank Hanegraaff - Is the Bible the Words of God or men?

YouTube - Zakir Naik on the Deen Show: Review and Rebuttal Pt. 2

Image via Wikipedia

Dr James White responds to Muslim claims against the deity of Jesus Christ. He interacts by commenting with Zakir Naik on the Deen Show. If I remember correctly, this Naik will not debate Dr. White in a public debate. Dr. White describes the video thusly:

Dr. Zakir Naik appeared recently on The Deen Show. He demonstrated once again the shallow nature of the most popular Islamic arguments against the deity of Christ. Part 2 of my response.

If you are interested in how Muslims look at Jesus, this is the video to watch!






YouTube - Zakir Naik on the Deen Show: Review and Rebuttal Pt. 2

Brennon's Thoughts: Romans 9: Updating my Exegesis

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Here is a great post! I've been wanting to see a verse-by-verse exegesis of Romans 9 from an Arminian perspective. My brother-in-Christ, Brennon, has done exactly that on his blog. I thought that it would be interesting to discuss his points-by-point in hopes that I can clear up any misconceptions I may have. I've also taken the liberty of reproducing each verse in my post. The Bible verses from Romans 9 are in red, Brannon's comments are in black, and my comments are in blue.

¹I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— ²I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. ³For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race,

1-3: Paul is Jewish and He is writing here about his Jewish brethren. We need to keep this important fact in mind, as it is the most important thing to remember in order to properly understand this passage. One good thing to ask ourselves here is why Paul would be so upset over those who are not accepting Christ if they had been predestined that way? Why, if God is glorified through their reprobation, is Paul so distraught? Even to the point he would give his own salvation so they may be saved! Isn’t Paul's main concern the glory of God? I thought God would be glorified in this!? Why would Paul care so much about those God has chosen to reprobate out of His own sovereign decree?

I agree with Brennon's point that Romans 9 is attempting to address the reasons why Jews are rejecting the message. I would answer Brennon's question as to why Paul would be so grieved  that there were Jews rejecting the message by pointing out that all Christians should feel something at the thought of unrepentent sinners going hell. I know  Brennon does not like it either. However, are they going to hell because of their own choice as Brennon is suggesting..as if they could have chosen otherwise on their own? I think another question that must be asked is does it make sense that God would attempt to save people and they still end up in hell? Is it possible for God to move on a person and they are able to disobey?

⁴the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. ⁵Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

4-5: This is the context of Romans 9. Paul is writing about people groups. Paul has his hypothetical questioner wonder why all these promises to the Jews, especially the promise of the Messiah, were being ignored by the Jews? Has God somehow failed in His choice of the Jewish people? Paul argues throughout Romans that salvation is based on faith and not by works. When he comes to Romans 9-11, Paul is dealing now with the anticipated Jewish contention that God has rejected His people whom He chose, and even through whom Christ came. We don’t think about it much today because we are so far separated from that line of thinking, but this is the context in which Paul wrote.

 I agree with Brennon here too for the most part. Paul is going to prove the the disbelief of the Jews does not mean that God changed His mind or failed to do as He intended. I don't think that he is talking about people groups as a whole, just the Jews in particular.

 ⁶It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

6: Paul addresses the misconception here that the Jews were automatically saved simply because they are Jews, and also the misconception that God somehow failed in choosing them as His people. He states, “But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect (failed in His choice of the Jews). For they are not all Israel who are of Israel.” They are not all Israel (the people of God) simply because they are of Israel (of Jewish descent). It is crucial to see that this is about corporate election! God has predestined that believers as a group (spiritual Israel) would be saved, and non-believers will not. God's election is not about national decent and birthright, as will be shown with the examples of the patriarchs and their children, but about faith in Him.

In the Old Testament, God chose the Jews for a purpose. They were tasked with carrying the Law of God. God was revealing Himself to the world and they were tasked with recording that revelation. They kept the temple sacrifices and the Passover which all pointed to Jesus Christ. They were not saved simply because they were Jews. They were saved the same way as we are, as shown in Genesis 15:6 where Abrahams FAITH was accounted to him as righteousness (Christ’s future sacrifice paid for the salvation of Abraham and all who had faith in God in the Old Testament). Also, people from outside the Jewish nation came to faith in God, and God looked at Christ’s sacrifice instead of their sin.

I think the text is really clear that those who believe are saved and those who try to just keep the laws are not justified. But I think it's a little hasty to bring up "corporate election" because. we should look at the examples Paul gives to illustrate his point.

⁷Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." ⁸In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. ⁹For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."

  

7-9: God chose Isaac to be the heir of Abraham, the heir that would carry on the Jewish race. It wasn’t due to who Isaac was; it was God’s sovereign choice in choosing Isaac to do this, for His own reasons. It wasn’t simply enough to be Abraham’s son, for Ishmael was also his son. Isaac was the child of promise. God supernaturally caused Sarah to give birth to him, and chose him as the specific person to carry on the line of the Jews, even though Ishmael was the firstborn. However, this is not speaking of Isaac being unconditionally elected unto salvation and Ishmael being reprobated. If you remember correctly, God had mercy on Ishmael.

You know, I have never heard a Calvinist argue that Ishmael was reprobated. And again there is no disagreement here concerning the fact that Isaac was chosen over Ismael  to show that it was God's choice not just because Isaac was Abraham's son and that it was God's choice not because of anything Isaac or Ismael did. Interestingly, Paul used the example of how God acted in the lives of two men to prove his point. 

  ¹⁰Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. ¹¹Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand:

10-11: Here it is essential to know a little cultural context here. Rabbis at this time taught that God had chosen Israel because of the righteousness of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and other ancient Jewish fathers). Paul is refuting that! It wasn’t because of the things they did (because they were chosen before birth); it was because of the sovereign choice of God that He chose them as the ones to carry on the lineage of Israel.

 Definitely, Paul is using the lives of Jacob and Esau to further his point that it was God who chose whom were included in the promise and who wasn't.

12-13: Improperly understood, this could have massive repercussions on your interpretation of the rest of the Bible. Is God telling Rebecca while her children were still in the womb that He hates one of them!? God hated a baby!? How does that fit the rest of scripture? First off, Paul is quoting Genesis 25:23. It says, “two NATIONS are in your womb. Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger.’” Remember what I've been saying? This is a prophecy about God choosing a nation to reveal Himself through. This is not about the boys themselves. Esau became the father of the Edomites. Jacob was renamed Israel and the nation of Israel descended from him. This is about Israel being a stronger nation than Edom, not about Esau literally serving Jacob. We see later on that Esau never actually served Jacob, they were reconciled, and I think they are both in heaven today. This is also not about individual election unto salvation. It’s about the sovereign choice of God of a nation to reveal Himself through.

But what about, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”? This is from Malachi 1, which was written 1600 years after the passage from Genesis. Let’s examine it. Notice God is speaking to the nation of Israel.

2 “I have loved you,” says the LORD. “Yet you say, ‘In what way have You loved us?’ Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” Says the LORD. “Yet Jacob I have loved; 3 But Esau I have hated, And laid waste his mountains and his heritage For the jackals of the wilderness.” 4 Even though Edom has said, “We have been impoverished, But we will return and build the desolate places,” Thus says the LORD of hosts: “ They may build, but I will throw down;

This entire passage is also about the nations, not the boys. They would have died over 1400 years prior to this. Paul is using these passages to make his point about corporate election. God chose Israel to bless, not Edom. The boys are simply the figureheads of these nations.

Also, when the words “Love-hate” are used as they are here, hated is being used as an idiom (the Hebrews loved using these). It is used opposite to love to express a lesser degree of love, not literal hatred. You can see a similar usage in Genesis 29:30. Jesus uses the same idiom in Luke 14:26. We’re not actually supposed to hate our parents, but compared to our love for God, the love for our parents is like hate.

So instead of teaching that God hated a baby before he had done anything, this passage actually teaches that God chose specific nations for specific things. That is a huge difference.

Again, I have never heard a Calvinist say that God hated Esau the way He hates sin. And I would interpret "
"Esau I hated" the same way Brennon has done here. However, I disagree that we can jump to corporate election..I think the key is the verse 11 "Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand"  because Paul says why God did it. To illustrate the nature of election - God doing what He wants when He wants and how He wants. Bringing in the point that Esau and Jacob both became nations, Edom and Israel  respectively, I think even more perfectly shows how in control God really is. Think of the number of decisions people had to make - both Edomites and Israelites - over many centuries so that things turned out the way God said it would.

  ¹⁴What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! ¹⁵For he says to Moses,
   "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
      and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." ¹⁶It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

14-16: What about this? Was God unrighteous when He chose Jacob over Esau? The Jews at this time would have thought so. Esau was the eldest and that meant that the birthright of Isaac was naturally his. But God chose Jacob to be the one to carry on the line of Israel. Paul asserts that of course God is not unrighteous in this decision.

In verse 15 Paul is citing Exodus 33:19. Let’s remember that Paul is a Jewish Rabbi. Jews memorized large portions of the Old Testament. He had an amazing command of knowledge of these ancient texts. Would he rip the text out of context in order to prove a point about individual unconditional election? No! The context here is not about who goes to heaven and who does not. In context, Moses has asked God to show him His glory. God says it is because of His mercy that He has decided to show Himself to Moses, not due to anything Moses did. So Paul’s point is God does not owe us mercy based on what we do (will or run). The basis of God’s choice to save people is not on the people’s conduct, but on His compassion. The “IT” in verse 16 is not individual salvation; the “IT” refers to God’s choice of what to predicate His salvation on: Corporate election. Individual unconditional election has not appeared in this section.

I'm not sure why we would assume that if God could do this with nations that he does not do it with individuals? In order for God to do it on a corporate scale means turning and directing the will of many people...so teaching that God does not do anything against human free will goes out the window. I agree that the verses are definitely saying that election is based on God's will and desire and nothing to do with the properties of those being elected. I mean you can't elect yourself to something and still call it "election". "Fair" is whatever God says it is as far as I am concerned. I think that Paul is really pointing out that this is how God is and deals with his creation. It's His reality. We just live in it...on His terms.

¹⁷For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."¹⁸Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 

17-18: Is this speaking of eternal salvation? If it is, it is terrible! Are there people whom God hardened, leaving them nothing they can do about it? Has God chosen them for destruction? Certainly God has the power to do this, but does this sound like the God of the Bible? Ezekiel 33:11 says, “‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.’” 2 Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” And 1 Timothy 2:4 says,“[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” This is what God wants. He wants everyone to be saved because He loves us. But He allows us to reject His call.

I see nothing here about God hating Pharoah - only that God had a purpose to bring forth and He chose to build Pharoah up knowing that He would knock Him down. IT doesn't say that God enjoyed it...only that God did it.

Concerning Pharaoh and Moses and God hardening Pharaoh’s heart, we must remember that Pharaoh was never a believer and had already hardened his heart toward God. God in displaying His grace to Pharaoh was the occasion for Pharaoh to harden his heart. Much like we say prison hardens a criminal, we know it is actually the criminal hardening himself; Pharaoh likewise was hardened because of God’s grace. Also the Hebrew word for “harden” is more often translated “to give strength, to fortify.” So in Exodus 14:17, God may have only strengthened the resolve of what the Egyptians had already chosen to do. God never decided to send Pharaoh to hell based on an arbitrary decree. Pharaoh went to hell because of his sins.

So how does this example apply here? God shows mercy to who He wants to show mercy. By sending Moses to pharaoh, God displayed His mercy. By this act, God was the cause of Pharaoh's heart-hardening. God knew pharaoh would harden His heart, and God used this to display His own glory and power in bringing the Israelites out of Egypt. He chose to harden pharaoh to display His glory, but it was based on what He knew pharaoh would do.

This is an often used interpretation. The thing is that God said that he would harden Pharaoh's heart before Moses ever appeared before Pharaoh. See Exodus 4:12. Also that before regeneration, we all harden our hearts against God. God has to replace our hearts of stone with hearts of flesh.This is an example of one who was destined for reprobation. Need another example? Judas Iscariot.

 ¹⁹One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" ²⁰But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " ²¹Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
 ²²What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? ²³What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—

19-23: The hypothetical questioner asks, "why does God still find fault?" To properly read this, we must understand what is being asked here. The question is not, "why Pharaoh or the Jews cannot come to God in faith?"; the question is, "why is fault being found if they are accomplishing the purpose of God?". The hypothetical questioner asks why God is still angry if God's glory is shown when His grace causes someone to harden their heart, why does He still hold those people culpable for their hard hearts? Paul dismisses this silly question. If God wants to save one vessel according to faith and use those who don't have faith to accomplish His purpose in spite of their unbelief, that is His sovereign prerogative. He alludes to another passage in the Old Testament in Jeremiah 18:3-11. The potter is God and the clay is the nation of Israel. What does this passage say about who God destroys?

8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

So, the point seems to be if the nation turns from it's evil, God will spare it. But if it doesn't, God will destroy it. This example shows again that Paul is speaking of corporate election of believers. God has chosen to mold from the same lump (Israel) vessels for common use and those for honorable. Those who have turned from their evil ways in faith to Jesus are the "vessles of mercy", those who have not are the "vessels of wrath".

I'm not sure why Brennon brings up faith because faith had nothing to do with God choosing Isaac over Ismael, or Jacob over Esau, or Pharaoh for destruction. How much say does the pot have to the Potter of what it will be used for? Nothing. There is nothing about the pot itself that makes it honorable or common aside from the purpose of the Potter who made it. This is why I don't really agree with the thought that "vessels of mercy" obtain mercy based on their own choice..IT is a gift from God. If Paul only meant to talk about Nations why did he use Pharaoh and not Egypt as his example of reprobation and destruction?

So as God chose the people of Israel as His people, He now chooses believers (spiritual Israel) as His people that He will save. On the other hand, God prepares those who reject Him for an eternal punishment. The translation of the words, “What if,” is a little misleading. Paul is not asking a hypothetical question. He is making an assertion. Notice that God does not display His wrath hurriedly. He endures the vessels of wrath with much patience. The fact is we were all vessels of wrath at one time, until we came to Jesus by faith.

How can God choose "spirtual Israel" without decreeing who is in that number. By default if God does nothing, none of us is in that number - all reject God - all vessel of wrath until God applies His mercy.

²⁴even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

24: God calls people to be a part of His spiritual kingdom not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles. In the early church many were excluding gentiles because they weren’t Jews. The apostles had to deal with this, among many other issues they dealt with.

Yes, God calls people. They don't join the kingdom until God calls them.

25As he says in Hosea:
   "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
      and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," ²⁶and,
   "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
      'You are not my people,'
   they will be called 'sons of the living God.' "

 ²⁷Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
   "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
      only the remnant will be saved.
 ²⁸For the Lord will carry out
      his sentence on earth with speed and finality."

 ²⁹It is just as Isaiah said previously:
   "Unless the Lord Almighty
      had left us descendants,
   we would have become like Sodom,
      we would have been like Gomorrah."

25-29: Paul quotes the Old Testament to support this point (that He elects those who believe) and to tell what the ramifications of Israel’s rejection of God are.

How do they believe? Paul in no way says that it is possible to choose to believe without God. He only writes that those who believe will be saved.

³⁰What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; ³¹but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. ³²Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." ³³As it is written:
   "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
      and a rock that makes them fall,
   and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

30-33: This is the real kicker. Verse 30 is Paul’s summary of all He had just said. Paul starts by saying, "What shall we say then?" which signals he is about to summarize his whole point. Paul's ultimate point, therefore, is gentiles who have not pursued righteousness, as the Jews had, attained righteousness by FAITH. Whatever else Romans 9 means; there is certainly no reason to read a double predestenarian viewpoint into it, especially in light of verses 30-33.

I agree that  double predestination makes not since because we are all destined for hell by default. Believers are saved out of damnation so there is only on predestination not two. In addition, There was a comment on this post that made it seem like that Calvinism rises and falls on this chapter, but it doesn't. This passage is great for understanding the nature of election but there are several other scriptures that convince me that the elect are chosen by God. Examples:

John 6:44

Romans 8:28-30

Ephesians 1:3-14

Acts 13:48

I posted this video earlier, but I think that James White did a great job on the exegeses of Romans 9.

Brennon's Thoughts: Romans 9: Updating my Exegesis

DOES GOD EXIST? William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins

This is the 1998 debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Peter W. Atkins in high quality. .....................................THE DEBATE..................................... WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE FOR/AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD?

I must admit that at times  Atkins seemed bewildered as if he nevedr ever thought of any ideas besides his own. not to mention he seemed smug and condescending saying that people believe in God because they are weak. My biggest problem with what he said is the science can explain everything. Any one wh o has studied science really knows that the more questions you answer the more questions comes up! . Fortunately, William Lane Craig made an excellent showing and more than made Atkins look foolish.

Matthias on Computer

Here is a video of my son, Matthias, on a toy computer. He is six months old. Don't ask me how he knows how to use a mouse.

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : “Let us reason together”

 Mariano, has written a great article as whether a person can be a Jew and a Christian at the same time. I'm forced to point out that all the early Christians were Jews. Jesus is Jewish! By definition Judaism and Christianity cannot be mutually exclusive. Mariano also gave us a link to a resource that I never knew existed: a video containing the testimonies of  Jewish survivals of the Nazi Holocaust who later became Christians. They talk about why the know Jesus is the Messiah that humanity is waiting for!  Check out his article!

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : “Let us reason together”

Makayla & Matthias -> August - November 2009

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Biblical Feminism

I have always found this subject interesting and it's never going to go away. What does God really think about how Women should be treated by men and in society? Many people think that the history of the Church is the accurate portrait of how the Bible tells us God wants men to relate to women. Can't be any more wrong.

Benjamin Ledford, a student at the University of Idaho discusses the theme of Biblical feminism in this video, which is a companion to his article, “Is God a Chauvinist?” which was published in the Argonaut, the university’s school paper.

Here is a link to another post by Mariottini quoting the paper referenced above:
Is God A Chauvinist

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Biblical Feminism

I have spoken to many an atheist who uses the track record for the church on the treatment of women as a pretext for rejecting God. I responded to a post called An "Evil" of Christianity in response to a tweet exchange where the woman challenged the validity of the Bible.

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Which Member of the Trinity is Omniscient?

Continuing his great series on the Trinity, Mariano considers the question: Which member of the Trinity is Omniscient? He goes to answer this question by showing what the Bible says about each one. God is one Being. If God is Omniscient than the 3 persons sharing the same being must each be Omniscient! He did an excellent job!!!!!

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Which Member of the Trinity is Omniscient?

YouTube - Zakir Naik on the Deen Show: Review and Rebuttal Pt. 1

Image via Wikipedia

Dr James White responds to Muslim claims against the deity of Jesus Christ. He interacts by commenting with Zakir Naik on the Deen Show. If I remember correctly, this Naik will not debate Dr. White in a public debate. Dr. White describes the video thusly:

Dr. Zakir Naik appeared recently on The Deen Show. He demonstrated once again the shallow nature of the most popular Islamic arguments against the deity of Christ. Part 1 of my response.

If you are interested in how Muslims look at Jesus, this is the video to watch!






YouTube - Zakir Naik on the Deen Show: Review and Rebuttal Pt. 1

Human, All Too Human : Nietzsche (1999)

Here is a great documentary on the life of Nietzsche. I've never really studied him or his life but I have heard him quoted a lot! He wasn't the first to propose the idea of a "godless" Universe, but I think he was the first to popularize it. A lot of Christian philosophy appropriates the work of Nietzsche to show that he understood the emptiness of human life without God. The problem is that I think atheists don't view his work this way. The people who made this documentary look at Nietzsche as a "liberator" so that people no longer had to be under religion - we can live without God. What I am amazed by is the idea that people are saying that he used his philosophy to cope with the issues of his own sufferings and the suffering of humanity when it was that philosophy that drove him insane.

I think the documentary also shows that psychologist Paul Vitz was right about how the lack of a father can lead to atheism. Nietzsche's father did not intentionally abandon him but instead got extremely sick, suffered for a while and then died. Young Nietzsche obviously wondered why God was punishing his father who was deeply religious. This was important in formalizing his rejection of God.

He understood what his philosophy logically led to and tried to find something replace to Christianity and give his life meaning. In the process of that search ...he went insane. Why would anyone want to follow him down that path? I think that his life would make a good biopic.




Human, All Too Human : Nietzsche (1999)

Recent Objections to Miracles MP3 Audio by Gary Habermas - Apologetics 315

Image by Vasile Tomoiagă via Flickr

This is a great lecture by Gary Habermas. He discussed what he thought about the philosophical claims for and against miracles. It's extremely interesting how important it is to defend why miracles can't be automatically discounted and ignored. This is another great resource from Apologetics 315.

Recent Objections to Miracles MP3 Audio by Gary Habermas - Apologetics 315

Hank Hanegraaff - Exposing Richard Dawkins

Hanegraaf shared his views on Richard Dawkins latest book The Greatest Show on Earth. Really worth reading!

Hank Hanegraaff