Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Sean McDowell

This is an excellent Interview! Teacher and apologist Sean McDowell sat down with Brian Auten of Apologetics 315 and gave his testimony and answered some questions about his work and how his Father has influenced him. What I got most out of it was the realization that he is just a couple of years younger than I and he grew up in Church and Apologetics like I, he had the same experience I did and what everyone does: it came time to answer "Who Do I say Jesus Is?" He wondered if what he has been taught his whole life was true or not. And he researched it out. I went through the same thing and I also researched and searched. We came up with the same answers - God is true.  I slo enjoyed the advice he gave about how to bring Apologetics into your church or school when there isn't that much interest already! I also found out which scholars have influenced him most.I actually saw him live once and was impressed....now I got to learn a lot more about him. Follow the link below to learn more!

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Sean McDowell

Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" by Ellery Schempp

Image via Wikipedia

I was in a debate with cherokee_autumn a couple of weeks back about the difference of scientific theory and scientific law. Many times in order to defend the theory of evolution people point to gravity being a theory. She tweeted the article that I have linked to this post and it does say that Universal Gravity is a theory but then it goes on to say that the law of gravity is shady and has holes. Reading it reminds of bad creationist articles against evolution. I'm embarrassed by those because although I reject macro evolution I think that there should be good reason for rejecting any idea - more than I don't like it or don't understand it. First I must point out that Gravity is not a theory, it's a force. Universal Gravitation is a theory based on observation and I see no reasons why it should be rejected. The article makes a  lot of blunders than makes me think the author knows nothing of Physics. I quote the two I find the most offensive here:

Even Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, knew there were problems with the theory. He claims to have invented the idea early in his life, but he knew that no mathematician of his day would approve his theory, so he invented a whole new branch of mathematics, called fluxions, just to “prove” his theory. This became calculus, a deeply flawed branch having to do with so-called “infinitesimals” which have never been observed. Then when Einstein invented a new theory of gravity, he, too, used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors. It seems that every time there is a theory of gravity, it is mixed up with “fringe” mathematics. Newton, by the way, was far from a secular scientist, and the bulk of his writings is actually on theology and Christianity. His dabbling in gravity, alchemy, and calculus was a mere sideline, perhaps an aberration best left forgotten in describing his career and faith in a Creator.

Why is this stupid? Simple. Tensors and Calculus are far from fringe mathematics. This is the basis of what you need to do theoretical Physics. Without them you can't do anything meaningful in Physics.

The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes do not fall. Since anti-gravity is rejected by the scientific establishment, they resort to lots of hand-waving. The theory, if taken seriously, implies that the default position for all airplanes is on the ground. While this is obviously true for Northwest airplanes (relying on “A Wing and a Prayer”), it appears that Jet Blue and Southwest have a superior theory that effectively harnesses forces that overcome so-called gravity.

Those forces are called "lift" and "thrust" combined with gravity and the shape of the wings that keep an airplane in the air. REAL simple Physics I learned in elementary school. I hope that this is a joke article because it really is stupid. Without context and assuming the author is not a moron leads me to the conclusion that the article is attempting to make the point that denying Gravity is like denying evolution. Although I disagree with that conclusion it's either that or the author is completely clueless.

Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" by Ellery Schempp

Opening and Closing Statements: Shabir Ally Debate -

Image via Wikipedia

Here is a written transcript of the opening remarks and conclusion James White gave in his debate against Shabir Ally. White lays out the fact that to most Muslims who believe the Qur'an, Jesus was not crucified. Here is what Dr. James White said:

What we find from every source that has any legitimate claim to coming from the first hundred years after Jesus echoes the words that most scholars, conservative and liberal alike, believe to be some of the earliest in the New Testament:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

This is the core teaching of the Christian faith, and anyone who wishes to suggest otherwise has a very, very tall challenge ahead of them.
But I doubt Shabir Ally will argue that the New Testament as we possess it today teaches anything other than this very truth. So why are we here this evening? I submit to you that the only reason we are here this evening is because of 40 Arabic words written in a book that can be dated no earlier than 625 years after the ministry of Jesus. These 40 words were written in a different culture, 765 miles away from Jerusalem, over half a millennium removed, without any direct or firsthand connection historically, to the events in Jerusalem. Indeed, these 40 words find no literary connection to the first century at all, for they were written by a man who had no firsthand knowledge of the New Testament, for it had not yet been translated into the Arabic language. I refer, of course, to Surah 4:157 of the Qur'an, which reads,

And because of their saying: "We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger (rasool)." They slew him not nor crucified him, but it was made to appear to them, and those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

Shabir Ally has admitted, in a debate in 2004, that this text is, in fact, key to his understanding of the issue of the crucifixion of Jesus. I shall, of course, leave it to Shabir to explicate his own views on this text, but for the moment I wish to make sure my assertion here is fully understood. I realize the Muslims in the audience do not believe these to be the words of Muhammad, but that they are the words of Allah. The Muslims in the audience this evening may even be tempted to be offended when I disagree with these words, and in fact assert that these words are false, erroneous, and that they are based upon ignorance of the Scriptural teaching. It cannot be any secret that a Christian who understands Islamic teaching and yet remains a Christian does not believe Muhammad was a prophet. There is nothing to be accomplished in glossing over our differences. May I point out that if Shabir Ally is right, then those I honor as apostles and prophets are actually false teachers and promoters of idolatry. Shabir has made it plain that he blames the Apostle Paul for in essence hi-jacking Jesus (who, according to Muslims, was himself a Muslim), supplanting the original followers of Jesus, and replacing the simple message of Jesus, found today only in the Qur'an, with the false and blasphemous teaching that Jesus is the Son of God and that He died for the sins of the world. We should not minimize the fact that we are asked by our Muslim friends to believe that the New Testament is hopelessly corrupt, the gospel is false, and the worship of Jesus amounts to the unforgivable sin of shirk. If the Muslim is tempted to be offended at the assertion that Muhammad was ignorant of the biblical record, written in a language he could not understand, and that hence he made errors in his teachings, the Christian has significantly more reason to experience temptation to offense at the necessary results of Islamic teachings. But I, for one, did not come here this evening to feign offense at the Islamic denials of my own faith. I am here to lay these issues out on the table and to shine the bright light of truth upon them, a light available only when both sides come to the table and honestly lay out their differences.

This is a key issue. It's on this that Christianity rests and is this that Islam most especially denies. This make Islam and Christianity antithetical to one another. I think that this can't be ignored or swept under the rug. And I have yet to hear anyone show that both views can be compatible with each other. They both can't be true. Give that as much as anyone can tell, history shows beyond doubt that Jesus was crucified. The Bible agrees with that historical fact. The Qur'an denies it. They both can't be true.

Opening and Closing Statements: Shabir Ally Debate

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Suffering of Job and Divine Justice - Part 1

Dr. Mariottini has posted a great essay outlining and exegeting the Book of Job. He does a wonderful job. The article spotlights the point that Job is a problem for anyone who wants to claim that God does not allow bad things to happen unless you deserve it. Bad things do happen to good people and God knows about it and He does allows it. He has reasons for it. But the story does present a problem for a lot people and it speaks directly to the philosophical "problem of evil". I find it immensely regrettable that folks try to explain this by trying to find some sin or something Job did wrong to deserve what happened to him when as Mariottini points out you can't do that because God said Job was blameless. I mean the story starts out with that information. The rest of the book should be interpreted with that in view. This is a great example of really reading a book for all its worth - and there is still more there...being the Book of Job is sooo deep. Read this great article at the post below. I can't wait for part 2!

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Suffering of Job and Divine Justice - Part 1

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Oprah Winfrey Believes That God is Jealous of Her

Here is a great post from Mariano. This post is on Oprah's Winfrey's "spiritual epithany" that led hear away from Christ and Mariano takes a brilliant different take. He analyzes what does the the Bible really say about God's jealousy. I've reposted the video below so you can hear Oprah's testimony herself.



Here is the most conclusion he develops and proves from Scripure:

This is the very point: the contextual conclusion is that God is not jealous “of” anyone or anything but is jealous “for” us. God is not jealous of Oprah Winfrey rather, God is jealous for her.

Read Mariano' s article below to make it clear what God being "jealous" means Biblically. I love the way he brought out the point! God is not jealous of his people He is jealous for his people! Just brilliant!!!!!

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Oprah Winfrey Believes That God is Jealous of Her

YouTube - McCain And Obama Rematch

Image via CrunchBase

Here is sound byte from an event I didn't get to see all of. I think McCain is still upset he lost the election, but health care is more important than that. I liked how Obama firmly stood his ground in the clip but I hope that they can get this ironed out because we have real people dying because they don't have health insurance or wishing they had died once they get the bill.




YouTube - McCain And Obama Rematch

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Two Ancient Manuscripts

I read a great post Dr. Mariottini's blog. It's exciting the two manuscripts in question are actually from a single scroll dates back about 1,300 years! It's further interesting that it's not that they are newly discovered, only that we now know that they were done by the same scribe on the same scroll!!!

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Two Ancient Manuscripts: "The Associated Press is reporting that two sections of an ancient biblical manuscript that were kept in different continents were reunited for the first time since they were separated centuries ago. These two sections contain the Song of the Sea (Exodus 15:1-21), a passage that celebrates Israel’s exodus from Egypt and the destruction of the Pharaoh’s armies in the Sea.

Read the news release here."

Truthbomb Apologetics: Common Objection: "If you were born in Arkansas and you think Christianity is true and Islam false, knowing full well that you would think..."

Chad over at Truthbomb Apologetics posted an article dealing with the often used objection that the only reason a person holds to a religion is because they are indoctrinated from birth. In effect they try to show that they are all the same and equally wrong. Definitely a failed argument that people should not use. I highly recommend this post! My favorite part is that it the article is kind. This line of argument upsets me because it so silly. It's saying that just because something was taught to me as a child then it's automatically wrong. Why are such people willing to use this for Christianity but not willing to use it for Evolution? And they accuse us Christians of being unfair.

Truthbomb Apologetics: Common Objection: "If you were born in Arkansas and you think Christianity is true and Islam false, knowing full well that you would think..."

YouTube - Mary Jo Sharp vs. Tabasum Hussain: Women in the Bible and the Qur'an, Part Three & Four

This is part 3 & 4 of the debate between Mary Jo Sharp and Tabasum Hussain regarding "Women in the Bible and the Qur'an".This is the 2nd rebuttal.





Both these women are highly intelligent and formidable. They have obviously studied the material more than most people! Here is is the fourth part - their conclusions.




Watching this material is awesome! Both sides force all who are listening to think! That is why a debate is important. I love working through this stuff. I wish only that there was more interaction and more concession when the other made or addressed valid points. I think that Sharp did that very well, but i wanted to hear Hussain rebut Sharp's answers but never did. Sharp's answer as to why Paul wrote about why Women should be silent in churches and the "saved through childbearing" was answered in a way that I don't think I've ever heard before and Hussain did not explain why the answer is irrelevant but instead inserting that it demeans women.

An Open Letter to Dr. Hugh Ross

I came across a great letter to Hugh Ross from a fellow Christian and Scientist named Lambert Dolphin. He agrees with Ross on some points and disagrees on others. I myself find myself agreeing and disagreeing with both of them. What I like about the letter is that respect for Ross is evident although he disagrees with him on some points. I wouild love to see a dialogue between these two (pictured Lambert Dolphin). You can checkout Dr  Lambert Dolphin's website also.

An Open Letter to Dr. Hugh Ross

Stand to Reason Blog: Atheists' Non-belief (Video)

Greg Koukl from the Stand to Reason ministry has answered a ubiquitous challenge from Atheists that attempts to put the burden of proof on theists saying "I'm not claiming there is a god and you are therefore you have to prove it." Koukl answers in response to a question he received:

I've grown frustrated with Atheists saying to me that they don’t have to give any arguments or evidence to support their view, because they are not making any claims. They have a "non-belief". One atheist told me he is not required to provide evidence that there are no fairies living under his house either. This seems so cheap, so lame, yet I'm not sure how to make that obvious to them. What do you suggest?

Here is Greg Koukl's answer!



I find this very useful because I come across this argument a lot when all their other arguments fail. I mean when you can't prove that the Bible is False and you don't want to concede the point that there is good evidence for God's existence...what else are you left with: This sham of an argument. To go from making the claims that there is no God and The Bible is false or that the Bible is immoral and then when the arguments fail under their own weight against scrutiny they retreat behind "I'm not making claims, you are!" Dishonest indeed.

Stand to Reason Blog: Atheists' Non-belief (Video)

Darwin's God: Independent Evolution of Eyes

Brian from Apologetics 315 tweeted a great article the other day about the evolution of the eye. The writer of the post shows that there is no evidence that for a common ancestor explaining how the different eyes of all living things evolved. I've got to to quote the article because I loved how he wrote it.

Here, for example, is the opening paragraph in a journal paper from last year on the evolution of vision:

The evolution of the eye has focused research interest ever since Darwin identified the eye with its ‘‘inimitable contrivances’’ as a vexing problem for evolutionary theory (1859). Gradual evolution seemed implausible because ‘‘intermediate’’ forms of the eye seemed unlikely to be adaptive and selectable. Since Darwin’s original challenge, however, a surprisingly large number of cases of independent evolution of image-forming eyes have been documented.

Translation: Contrary to evolutionary expectations, biology presents us with a wide variety of vision systems. They are too different to have evolved from a common ancestor. The evolutionary spin on this surprise is that vision must have independently evolved many times (after all, the fact that vision must have evolved, somehow, is not in question).

Furthermore, various living species with completely functional forms of eye organization are now known, which could be viewed as ‘‘intermediate’’ between a simple photoreceptive patch and the complex image-forming eye seen in cephalopods and most vertebrates.

On the other hand, they could not be viewed as intermediate. It all depends on whether we are following the evidence. In fact, the biochemistry of even simple, non image forming, eyes is profoundly complex.

Although the fact of repeated evolution of image-forming eyes, as well as the capacity for functional intermediates, is thus firmly established, the mechanism of the evolutionary process is still speculative.

Translation: We may have to contrive just-so stories to explain evolution, but we will continue repeating that it is a fact.

I agree. It doesn't make sense to assume that the human eye and the Octopus eye and eyes of owls and the eyes of eagles or hawks independently evolved. I also found the following video



Evolution Vs. The Miracle Of The Eye - Molecular Animation - The best free videos are right here

Darwin's God: Independent Evolution of Eyes

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: William Lane Craig

Thanks to Apologetics 315, we have a great interview with philospher and theologian, William Lane Craig. Listen to the interview at the following link

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: William Lane Craig

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: My thoughts on the Ergun Caner James White dispute

Image via Wikipedia

The blogger from Islam and Christianity A Common Word has posted a summary response to the Caner/White debate playing out over the Internet. I just want to comment on about half the post. I don't know enough about Ergun Caner to comment on his character or ministry. However I have been reading and watching Dr. James R White for almost 6 years. Although the blogger has no respect for Caner because he believes Caner to be dishonest, the blogger almost seems to go out of his way to show how White can't be trusted. I respectfully disagree. My comments will be italicized.

Now on to James White. James White though not a flat liar and full of deciet like Ergun Caner nonetheless has some serious issues to contend with. For example I couldn't help but notice a theological paradox that James White get's himself involved in when advising Ergun Caner in the following way,

"Dr. Caner, when speaking about the sacrifice of Christ, one can trust the Spirit to make the words alive in the hearts of God's elect. You don't need to make up fake debates just to wow an audience. "

Hmmm this is interesting. If the Spirit is what makes words alive in the hearts of God's elect what theological implications does this hold for James White? For example would it not be impossible for James White to ever admit to a wrong doing? I think anyone who debates James White has to seriously look into this very heavy Calvinist presupposition. Since they are sealed in Christ as many of the hardshells believed to be in pre regeneration is it possible for them to ever err? 

I have to say that I believe the blogger's viewpoint is being shaped by the Islamic view that all prophets are sinless while they are ministering and can't make mistakes. As a Christian, I know what it's like to experience the Holy Spirit at work in my own heart and have seen the work of the Spirit in others. I also realize that this does not make me perfect of sinless. I'm working on myself to get rid of sin although I am justified because of Christ. God sees me and judges me perfect although it is not yet actualized. Can the blogger say the same? Of course it's possible for White or I to error and still be saved. We just aren't supposed to make it a practice to sin on purpose. We are supposed to live holy on purpose!

The reason I say this is because James White high on himself in pointing out Ergun Caner's mistakes doesn't want you to see this video.

I don't get that from White. He's confident in the truth God has given him and is seeking more truth. He is also humble about his own worth. He's a freakin' Calvinist! Anyone remember the "T" in "TULIP" stands for "Total Depravity"? As far as White's concern that he is as worthless as the rest of us without Jesus. Without Jesus we are dead in sin and bound lock, stock, and barrel for hell because that is what we deserve! I've never heard White back down from an accusation. If you really have something why don't you send him the video below and call him on his webcast and give him to respond.

Notice the quote at 2:23 is not from the book he claimed it to come from? Than when we actually find the source it goes back to another source and another.... and... so forth. In fact in this debate James White did a very horrible job of trying to prove why the scriptures were inspired. The Christians felt it was a victory. Allah willing I will post this debate in the near future with commentary on why I felt Shabir Ally devastated James in this debate. The least of which is that James uses circular reasoning namely the sciptures are inspired because they say so. This also doesn't clarify for us which of those scriptures are inspired and which are not.

I'll be waiting for this post. Please be sure to document which debate it is, the date, and the location. 

The point being though is that James made an error here. He has not attempted to rectify this he has simply had some of those who dote on him respond by saying well is the source correct or not? Shabir Ally responded to it in the debate. So James White has still yet to make the correction. Now if the Holy Spirit inspires one what to say and James White is always abiding by the Holy Spirit and has always been pre-regenerated in Christ Jesus this has serious implications for anyone debating him.

I've never heard a Christian use the term "pre-regenerated". I hope that the blogger will provide a link to a post where he will explain what he means. I don't buy Ally's explanation because he didn't really explain why he knew the story was wrong. Also by asserting that White said he quoted a source that he says he did not quote is calling him a liar. I've never heard White respond to it. The blogger seems desperate to discredit James White. If the blogger will not call in to White's webcast, I will.

Obviously the man can never be wrong! James White doesn't believe that 'We' come to the truth on any matters. When he says 'We' this should be understood as 'those of you who don't yet believe as I do'. This is another reason why James White believes he doesn't have to prove the Trinity because it's revealed by the Holy Spirit, he simply has to defend it.

I have heard James White on many occasions admit to being fallible and to not being perfect on all matters! I think the blogger is not being fair to the man at all. I hear most Muslim apologists try to argue that the Bible does not teach the Trinity not that the Trinity can't be proven. Agreed that the Trinity is a revelation but its a revelation based on scripture that Muhammad himself said that you, as Muslim, should believe. If it wasn't in the scripture, White would abandon it. So would I. You have written that Allah is not omnipresent because he completely transcends space-time -  existing completely out of space and time. How would you know such a being without revelation? How do you prove that the God of the Qur'an exist?

He doesn't have to give reasons how the Bible came to be collected in the manner it is today, and what makes it inspired he simply believes. This is all fair and well, and James does come off as looking polished and forceful in debates. Yet, when you look a little closer at his position and arguments he has to be one of the worst Christian apologist of all time.

I totally disagree. Did you read the King James Only Controversy? He has written a whole book on the transmission of th Bible and why we know it is inspired and why we can be sure we know what it says.

Let's look at the facts:

1) James White has never proven the Trinity to be true, that's not his theological position. He simply defends the doctrine of the Trinity.

 How does the blogger prove that Allah wants Muslims to pray 5 times a day facing Mecca?

2) James White has never shown us who chose the New Testament canon and how it came to be regarded as scripture (doing so ventures into Catholic territory) something James wishes to avoid at all cost.

Again, read the King James Only Controversy. I think the blogger does not know much about White. If he did he would know that White has debated many a Catholic theologian/priests/apologists. He wrote a whole book - The Roman Catholic Controversy! What does the blogger mean White does not want to mix it up with Catholics. He just debated Roman Catholic apologist Tim Staples on Purgatory about 4 weeks ago!!!

3) James White never gives reasons why the Bible is inspired (God-breathed) for example scientific miracles, prophecy fufilment or anything that can be falsified proved and disproven. He simply makes the statement that the New Testament gives some vague reference to inspiration and for him that alone is sufficient.

Please go read the KJV Only Controversy and I think the Blogger should read and listen to more of White's work.

4) James White can never honestly look out at an audience and say 'God loves you'. If he did say it he should clarify by asserting that God loves everyone in that audience. His theological position cannot allow him to say this.

Can the blogger look at an audience and say "Allah love you" as in everyone in the audience?  No? Because it's more complicated than that? I'll take that answer but White would have to give the blogger the same answer.

Conclusion:

Ergun Caner's bad point (liar , charlatan, and Christian con man)

Ergun Caner's plus point (salesman, entertainer, mic skills, theologically Arminian)

Kind of scary that the blogger considers Caner's arminianism a plus given how Islam has it's own version of predestination.

James White's bad point ( inconsistency , poor exegesis, inability to make the Bible credible, theologically Calvinist)

James White's plus point (his crafty style of debating which doesnt' really involve meaningful exchange, just trying his best to shift the burden of proof on his opponent without having to defend anything himself) , His emphasis is not on winning souls it's upon debates and it can't be do his theological position as a Calvanist.

As much street preaching White has done....all the world-travel...all the books....all the study....to be said that he doesn't care about winning souls seems completely dishonest. I've never seen Dr. White shy away from explaining why the truth is on his side. The blogger not only shows a misunderstanding of the Trinity but of Calvinism also.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: My thoughts on the Ergun Caner James White dispute

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: "Ex Muslim" Ergun Caner Exposed by Christians

I've recently have discovered a great blog called Islam and Christianity A Common Word and although I don't agree with much of Islam, I've got to give the blogger credit on good material that requires good answers and deep thought. In this post I have linked to is a deconstruction of a video by Ergun Caner from a Muslim point of view. It attempts to document the errors and lies that many Muslims believe he is guilty of. It's instructive because the blogger sees Caner's tactics and offensiveness as one-in-the-same as failures in Christianity. This is why James White coming out and saying Caner is wrong is important. Caner is making all Christians look bad and when people loose their respect for you it is really hard for them to hear you declare the Gospel. You can really see that in the blog post, even if you agree with Caner and not with White.

IsIslam and Christianity A Common Word: "Ex Muslim" Ergun Caner Exposed by Christians

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: "Ex Muslim" Dr. Ergun Caner accepts James White's challenge...

Here is another great post from  Islam and Christianity A Common Word. It's again concerning the dispute between James White and Ergun Caner. My remarks will be in red.The blogger seems to spend time criticizing White.

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem
As salamu 'alikum wr wb
(May the Peace,Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you)


"Ex Muslim” Dr. Ergun Caner accepts James White's challenge... Help from Peter Lumpkins

Tom Ascol and James White may have exposed Ergun Caner as an 'ex fake Muslim' but Dr. Caner is not ready to resign from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary yet!

There are several stages to Ergun Caner's response and attack upon James White.

Ergun Caner's personal attack could consist of many things.

Considering the true things that White has been able to bring up against Caner, the only Christian response he could possibly make is to humbly repent for the errors. Doesn't seem he's going to take that option.

These are some of the things Ergun Caner may bring up in retaliation against James White.

The first of which is personal. Many people do not know about James White's troubled past. The fact that his sister has left Calvinism for Catholicism.

Um, how does the decisions his sister makes have anything to do with James White's ministry or salvation or with vindicating Caner? Let me help you. It doesn't

Please see here:http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/11/apologist-james-white-denies-doctrine.html

The fact that James White does not wish to discuss his father's molestation of his sister; and the extremely unloving attitude that James White has shown his sister. Please see here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/11/apologist-james-white-cold-attitude.html

Um, how does the pain in the White family have anything to do with defending Caner. And if James White has not publicly spoken about his sister's accusations, how does that lessen the value of his work or person. You don't know what he has or has not done for his sister. I am not convinced by her letter because when I read the part where she said had she been raised catholic she would have known to call the police I have to wonder about all the child abuse by catholic clergy? Were they taught to call the police if a parent abused them but accept it if a priest does it? I don't think so. The bottom line is that we don't know what happened and it's none of my or anyone outside of their family's business either!

Ergun Caner's personal attack of James White could consist of questioning his academic background.

There could even be a declaration signed by all disputing factions that no person will be taken seriously in the realm or area of debate until their degrees and qualifications can be taken as credible by the U.S department of education. This could see several debators and apologist most notably James White taken out of the debate arena completely!

What would happen in this scenario is that in general Catholics, Baptist, Mormons, and other demoninations and factions would not debate James White anymore until he got his education first.

The part of this post floored me. What proof does the blogger have that James White does not really have a good doctorate? How is his education is not up to snuff? Just because you disagree with me does not make you uneducated. It's a fallicious statement atheists use against theists all the time. The blogger offers no proof that James White is academically challenged.

Ergun Caner's could point out that James White is moving away from the once saved always saved position. Please see here:http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/11/apologist-james-white-denies-doctrine.html

I read the blogger's "proof" and I disagree. Eternal security is one of the 5 main points of Calvinism. And I have never heard a Calvinists deny that people leave the faith and become apostates but this means that they were never part - they were never of the elect. 

Ergun Caner could further point out that James White is slowly moving away from the Biblical Innerancy issue.Please see here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/01/james-white-backs-away-from-biblical.html

The blogger at this point actually points to a previous post that I myself also blogged months ago. However he got a totally different understanding of what White actually said. He makes the error all Muslim apologists make in  assuming that Christians mean the same thing they do when we say a scripture is inerrant. The Muslim view of inerrancy seems to be more akin to the King James Only proponents. Therefore rather than try to correct all the errors here, I suggest the blogger and all who are interested read The King James Only Controversy by James White. It tells how the Bible was transmitted to us today and why we can trust it to be true. 

Personally I think if I were a Christian I would stick with William Lane Craig, Mike Licona, Norman Geisler and the like. If I were a Christian I would be suspicious of both James White and of Ergun Caner!

After reading a few posts, the blogger does not like James White! I can tell. He does not like Calvinism either. I listen to and enjoy William Lane Craig, Mike Licona, and Norman Geisler. However Christians follow Jesus no one else. Suggesting otherwise is like if I accused the blogger of following Muhammad not Allah. I wonder if the blogger ever looked at what Geisler think of Islam? He throws it into much the same categories as Calvinism. http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2009/05/predestination-in-islam-dr-norman.html

It seems that those who are attacking the credentials of Ergun Caner are not looking into James White self proclaimed 'doctorate' and rather or not he should be called 'Dr' White. Also people may refuse to debate James White in the future as apologist should only want to debate people who have the education and academic profile and not just an ability to speak infront of crowds.

Let us be frank: to be able to speak in front of crowds about high level, technical subjects against "experts" and win, means that you have the education and academic profile. I still would like to see proof for why the blogger would call White's doctorate into question because none is provided. But he beats those who do have doctorates. Does that mean we should call his opponents into question too?

So Peter Lumpkins has called out the James Whiteophites on their inconsistencies when attacking Ergun Caner.

As Peter Lumpkins has pointed out see here:

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2010/02/dissing-dr-ergun-caner-the-monotonous-mission-of-tom-ascol-and-james-white.html#more

Stay tuned .... will keep you posted (literally) Allah-willing. 

 I looked that Lumpkin's arguments. I had laugh so I would not cry. They are none arguments. They basically amount to: "So what if Caner misrepresented himself as debating good Muslim apologists? You're a stinkin' Calvinist. I never liked you anyway." Great way to win a debate.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: “Ex Muslim� Dr. Ergun Caner accepts James White's challenge...

A Response to Dr. Ergun Caner, President, Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary

I've done a couple of posts pointing out  Dr. James White's response to the ministry of Ergun Caner (on the right). Caner has attacked Reformed theology and claims to have been a Muslim (although he converted to a Christian as a teenager).  Caner has said that he has debated people that he hasn't debated. White and other Christians have called him on that. because it makes Christians look bad...real bad...like we have to lie to defend the Bible.  White is not wrong to do this. The Bible tells us that we must judge the Church in the Church. We can't allow the name of Christ to be reproach by our actions. Muslims and Atheists are having a field day saying that Christians lie if it furthers are agenda. Christians like James White try to head this off. I wanted to link to his formal response because Dr. White is handling the situation exactly as the Bible tells us we should when Christian brothers disagree. White is often be smudged by being called cruel or unloving but you can't think that when you read his post. Before I end this here are scriptures that show what I'm talking about.

When people were spreading false teaching in Galatia, Paul pulled no punches.

 ⁷You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? ⁸That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. ⁹"A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough." ¹⁰I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. ¹¹Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. ¹²As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
 ¹³You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. ¹⁴The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." ¹⁵If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. - Galatians 5:7-15

¹⁵"If your brother sins against you go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. ¹⁶But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' ¹⁷If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. - Matthew 18:15-17

A Response to Dr. Ergun Caner, President, Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Name of God: Jehovah

Image via Wikipedia

Dr. Mariottini has posted a great post summarizing everything one needs to know about the name of God. I find this very important information. Too often Christians seem to forget that the Bible has two testaments not just one and the Old Testament is full of great knowledge and real nuggets that we can use to deepen our relationships with God and each other. All the people we read about in the Bible has a relationship with God. One thing that this post reminded me of was the fact that the desire to avoid using the divine name goes back to Judaism where many Jews went out of their way to not even write out the Divine Name - let alone speak it out loud. I've heard of cases of accidentally offending Jews by just reading the Name out loud. In some ways this may be good because it helps us to remember to reverence the name. I enjoy thinking about who God is - His Nature and His Character. Here is a great video and song that I think sheds much light on what the Old Testament is saying.




Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Name of God: Jehovah

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Palestinians Oppose Calling the Cave of Machpelah a Heritage Site

Image via Wikipedia

 Dr Mariottini has posted a great article about how the Palestinians are reacting to the recent archaeological evidence for the Jewish claims to the Holy Land. I agree that the reaction comes to no surprise. If it is proof that Genesis is correct that several of the founders of  Israel are buried where the Bible says they are buried it adds credibility to Jewish claims on the land. I wish that there was some way that they could share the land.  I mean because technically the land does belong to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. While the Palestinians are obviously also Abraham's descendants they are not Isaac's or Jacob's. It's like Issac and Ismael are still at each other's throat although the two men buried their differences and buried their father together.

¹ Abraham took  another wife, whose name was Keturah. ² She bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah. ³ Jokshan was the father of Sheba and Dedan; the descendants of Dedan were the Asshurites, the Letushites and the Leummites. ⁴ The sons of Midian were Ephah, Epher, Hanoch, Abida and Eldaah. All these were descendants of Keturah.
 ⁵ Abraham left everything he owned to Isaac. ⁶ But while he was still living, he gave gifts to the sons of his concubines and sent them away from his son Isaac to the land of the east.
 ⁷ Altogether, Abraham lived a hundred and seventy-five years. ⁸ Then Abraham breathed his last and died at a good old age, an old man and full of years; and he was gathered to his people. ⁹ His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah near Mamre, in the field of Ephron son of Zohar the Hittite, ¹⁰ the field Abraham had bought from the Hittites.  There Abraham was buried with his wife Sarah. ¹¹ After Abraham's death, God blessed his son Isaac, who then lived near Beer Lahai Roi. - Genesis 25:1-11

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Palestinians Oppose Calling the Cave of Machpelah a Heritage Site

Dr. Jason Lisle and Dr. Hugh Ross Debate: Special Webcast - Answers in Genesis

Image via Wikipedia

So what happens when two believers who are educated in similar scientific discipline really debate old earth and young earth creationism? I always wondered. Well thanks to Mike from the Apologetic Front I have found one. A radio debate between Jason Lisle who is an AstroPhysicist and Hugh Ross who is an Astronomer. Lisle was arguing that the days of creation were six 24-hour days while Ross sees them as 6 periods of time that scientific observation gives you periods of millions of years. What struck me was how similar Lisle's arguments were to Kent Hovind's. The only difference I could find was that Kent has a thick southern accent living from Florida.

The discussion seemed to center on how the question affect how you view and have confidence in the Bible. I personally agree that the Bible is correct and we should make all effort to understand what the Bible says. In both Lisle's and Hovind's theology I see a few problems

1. They argue that plants are not alive because they don't have consciousness.
2. They ignore that the genealogies in Genesis don't list every single generation.
3. They think that nothing died but plants (but according to them plants are not alive) before Adam sinned.

In addition Ross made a major point. Many times this debate centers on Genesis 1 and 2 but ignore the fact that the Bible does discuss it in other passages: Job 38; Psalms 104; and Proverbs 8. This is an awesome point. And I did not like Lisle's response, I don't think we can say those passages are poetic.

I was real disappointed how Leslie did not try to engage Ross on the Astronomical and Physics that Hovind failed miserably to be able to do. I would have like to see how Lisle would explain how he can see that the earth is only 6000 years old from astronomical information. I find that my attitude towards the subject fits much closer to Hugh Ross' attitude.




Dr. Jason Lisle and Dr. Hugh Ross Debate: Special Webcast - Answers in Genesis

Related articles by Zemanta

• "old-earth" vs. "young-earth" creationism (schansblog.blogspot.com)