Saturday, July 3, 2010

Brennon's Thoughts: Verses All Arminians Should Know Part 1

Brennon has posted a great list of scriptures that support Arminianism. I'm not certain that they support the Arminian position. Rather than try to responding to them all at once, I will break them down into several posts based on how the list is presented. This topic interests me because I really wanna know what the Bible says. about it. Understanding just how much in control God is in everything helps us understand God better. Here is part 1 regarding the idea that Bible teaches that God's election is conditional.


Verses that show election is conditional:
 "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

I just don't get how this how this is saying election is conditional because to say so is saying that it's our choice whether or not we come to Jesus. It is presupposing that we can choose either to learn from Jesus or not learn from Jesus. Whether you are an Arminian or not, you have to agree that the Bible teaches that if you don't learn from Jesus and apply it you will be cast into hell. That's not where the disagreement is. The issue that this passage brings up is can you take up Jesus' yoke and learn from him on your own - of your own will?
I'll give an answer at the end of the post.  
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

When Jesus said this was he saying that He came because we chose Him? No God chose to love the world and the the sone came so that people who believe in Him will not be cut off from God. In addition the passage does not talk about who has the ability to believe and I don't see how it's saying that everyone has the ability to believe.
"God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
To say this verse tells us that election is conditional does not really make sense to me because the most about election you can get is that the elect worship God in spirit and in truth. It does not say that you become elect by worshiping God in spirit and in truth.
"For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

I agree that the elect are those who look to the Son and believes in Him. However, Jesus is not saying that anyone can look to the Son and believe on their own.  More on this at the end of the post.
  • John 6:51 - Must eat of the bread of life to receive benefit.
"I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

I agree that Jesus is saying that the elect eats the bread of life to get eternal life.  However Jesus did not say that everyone has the ability to do so on their own. Again more on this at the end of the post.
Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.

I love this passage because it points to the centrality of faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. However it's describing what the elect does. It's not talking about how we become elect. And it's not saying we elect ourselves because we believe. We believe because we are elect.
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

I don't think that Paul is saying that all the elect become elect because of their own choices however he is describing what it mean to be elected to salvation by faith  through Jesus.
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.

I'm still missing how the fact that it is by faith we are made a part of Christ tells us that our election is conditional on our faith.
What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith;

By what condition was the election of gentiles earned? It wasn't.  Gentiles obtained righteousness the same way the Jews did: by Faith. The passage does not tell us that faith is a condition of election. What we again see is that the elect are characterized by having faith.
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

I find this passage very interesting. Are we trying to say to that people choose to put their faith in Christ and then they no longer have free will because we are then marked and seale with the Holy Spirit? Why should free will stop when you get saved? I realized that many people believe that salvation is conditional and one can loose their salvation but this is one verse that shows that it's not possible if you have believed.  This is because you didn't save you.
  • 1 Timothy 4:10 - Jesus died for all, but there is a specific subset that receives the benefits, namely those who believe.
(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

This passage is used a lot to discredit the idea the Jesus died for only the elect. It might. Nor do I think it tells us election is dependent on faith. IT only tells us that there is not salvation outside of the living God.
  • 1 Peter 1:1-2 - Election is according to God's foreknowing who shall believe.
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
      To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood:
      Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

This passage is not telling us that God chose those who would choose to believe. It gets sticky because how can you tell if you believe a. because you were chosen or b. because you were chosen because you believed.
That is why many Calvinists think that Arminians are pushing a man centered theology if you think that God's election is based on our choices.

As for the question of what our ability is to believe is the Bible answers this thoroughly. I'm amazed that John 6:40 and 51 are used in the list but verse 44 is not on the list. Here is John 6:40-59:

40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
 41At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." 42They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?"
 43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.'[d] Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
 52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
 53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
In the context, neither verses 40 nor 51 tells us that our salvation is contingent on our choices.  Our salvation is contingent on the Father drawing us. Unless one wants to argue that God draws everyone the same amount to the same degree and the final choice for your salvation is your own, I just can't see how we can say that election is conditional. Of course I can't find any Bible passage that says that God draws everyone the same amount and we make the final choice.

Instead lets look at a couple of passages in which the word "election" and "predestination" are actually used.

4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace 8that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. 9And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
 11In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory.


Romans 9:10-12 said::

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: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger."

2 Peter 1:10-11 said:

 10Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, 11and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

I don't think Peter is saying that unbelievers make their calling or election sure but believers do.  Again it doesn't tell us that election is conditional. I just can't see how we can get conditional election out of the Bible.

Brennon's Thoughts: Verses All Arminians Should Know
Enhanced by Zemanta

Your Guide to the World of Avatar: The Last Airbender - G4tv.com

I admit I wasn't sure which blog to put this this link, but I finally decided to put it on my main blog. It's a primer on the background for The Last Airbinder movie. I've seen most of the animated series on which the movie is based. I like the article from G4TV because it doesn't give any spoilers for the movie or the animated series and yet gives a lot of information I did not know. I've seen almost every episode and it's well done. The only thing is that it does speak from a pantheistic worldview and incorporates many religions. At the same time it does have a lot of good moral and interesting ideas for children. I don't think the show was good for children at all. All the characters grow and change and much character development is done right. There is plenty of humor and action and adventure. If the movie makers stick to the source material this movie will be one of the best movies ever! If they play too fast and loose it is gonna suck. I'd like to do some posts comparing the animated series and the movie and what they have to say about the world as well as comparing the movie with the animated series. I'm not going to believe the critics until I see it for myself.  They probably didn't understand the animated series either. So far the only complaint I think holds weight without seeing the movie is casting the movie with all white actors while in the animated series all the characters are people of color and all the nations are modeled on Hindu, Buddhist, Eskimo, Native American, Chinese, and Japanese cultures.

Your Guide to the World of Avatar: The Last Airbender - G4tv.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

Who made God? Who created God? Who designed the designer? | True Freethinker

Here is another great video from William Lane Craig that I was pointed to by Mariano. Take a look.




Who made God? Who created God? Who designed the designer? | True Freethinker
Enhanced by Zemanta

Greg Koukl and Deepak Chopra | True Freethinker

Here is a great video that Mariano posted on his blog. Greg Koukl did really good encouraging Chopra to put his world view on the line.Kooukl just doesn't talk about how to engage people and share the truth of the Bible, he really does it.




Greg Koukl and Deepak Chopra | True Freethinker

Friday, July 2, 2010

Russian Math Genius Grigory Perelman Can Solve a Riddle but Won't Accept a Prize

I was amazed at this story Grigory Perelman - a Russian mathematician - turned down $1 million prize for solving a complex mathematical problem that has stood for over 100 years.

Perelman's fame is due to his solving a riddle that has had mathematicians scratching their heads since 1904, when the Frenchman Henri Poincare posited that a three-dimensional sphere is the only such space that doesn't have holes.

The Russian attracted attention in 2003 when he posted papers on the Internet that later turned out to be proof of Poincare's theory. But Perelman refuses to take all the credit, saying he had built on the work of a Columbia University professor, Richard Hamilton.


Some people think he's crazy. The article I read about this goes on to say:

According to Interfax, Perelman said, "To put it short, the main reason is my disagreement with the organized mathematical community. I don't like their decisions. I consider them unjust."

The article seems to suggest that this is crazy talk. It doesn't seem crazy to me. Almost every organized community is corrupt. Why would the mathematical community be any different?

Back in 2006, the then president of the International Mathematical Union, John Ball, said he had traveled to St. Petersburg, Russia, where Perelman lives in seclusion with his elderly mother, to try to better understand the Russian's reasons for rejecting awards.

Ball told the BBC he had spoken to Perelman about his differences with the mathematical community.

"However, I am unable to disclose these comments in public," Ball said, adding, "He has a different psychological makeup, which makes him see life differently."

This part intrigued me - "psychological makeup, which make him see life differently" is a polite way of saying that Perelman is nuts. I kind of would like to know what Perelman said to Ball. I bet he had choice words as to how unjust the organizations are that have been trying to give him money.

Russian Math Genius Grigory Perelman Can Solve a Riddle but Won't Accept a Prize
Enhanced by Zemanta

iTheism | True Freethinker

Mariano wrote another brilliant essay about the nature of atheism. I think it really bears reading. Mariano wrote:

What is the problem with the self made man? That he worships his creator (man here meaning non-gender specific personage).
I have often noted that atheism, or many atheists, do not seek to be rid of God but merely replace a supernatural God with a natural one.
Indeed, two of atheism’s consoling delusions are the delusion of absolute autonomy and lack of ultimate accountability.
God states, “You shall have no other gods before me.”
The atheist states, “I shall have no other gods before me” or “I shall have no other gods besides me.”
Let us consider the concept of iTheism, then the history of iTheism and then specific examples of iTheists.

It is most definitely worth considering it with him.


iTheism | True Freethinker
Enhanced by Zemanta

What Michael Shermer Wants, and Does Not Want, to Believe—on Pseudo-Skepticism and the Multiverse, part 1 | True Freethinker

Mariano recently posted an essay (part 1) discussing Michael Shermer's worldview and its inconsistency.

What Michael Shermer Wants, and Does Not Want, to Believe—on Pseudo-Skepticism and the Multiverse, part 1 | True Freethinker
Enhanced by Zemanta

Does atheism undermine science? | True Freethinker

free commercial image of Bill CraigImage via Wikipedia
Here is another great video that Mariano pointed out on his blog.




Does atheism undermine science? | True Freethinker
Enhanced by Zemanta

Gary Habermas vs. Tim Callahan on the Pagan Jesus Myth of the Resurrection | True Freethinker

Thanks to Mariano for posting this!


Gary Habermas vs. Tim Callahan on the Pagan Jesus Myth of the Resurrection | True Freethinker
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, July 1, 2010

The Argument for Atheism from Immaturity | True Freethinker

Here is another great essay from Mariano examining who is really being immature when rejectiong or accepting the existence of God. This is a great post!

The Argument for Atheism from Immaturity | True Freethinker
Enhanced by Zemanta

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Phillipians 2:5-7 The Kenosis and the alleged deity of Christ Jesus

Often thegrandverbalizer posts really interesting articles on his blog from a Muslim perspective. Many times these articles seek to explain why Christians are wrong about the Trinity and Jesus' deity. He wrote:


The theological rift between Christians and Muslims exist because of thirty six Greek words in a New Testament epistle entitled Phillipians. I ask you sisters and brothers is it worth it? Do you want this seperation between us to continue because of thirty six Greek works in an epistle not written or approved of by Christ Jesus? An epistle that has ambiguous language that Christians themselves are in much dispute over? The Holy Qur'an has come to call the Christians back to pure monotheism. It is time to come back home.
He says that the words in question are from


Philippians 2:5-7 (New American Standard Bible)

5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,7but [a] emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
Footnotes:
  1. Philippians 2:7 I.e. laid aside His privileges
Then he writes something that really baffles me.



So what does it mean when we say that Christ Jesus 'emptied himself' ? Emptied himself of what? The term or word kenosis means 'emptying' or 'to empty'. If he emptied himself of his attributes than he is no longer God because God is not God without his attributes.

That would be like Clark Kent going into the crystal chamber and giving up his Super-man powers. Superman is not superman without his powers he is just Clark Kent.





I'm baffled because I'm not sure he read the footnote. Paul was not saying that Jesus laid aside that which makes Jesus God. What Jesus laid aside was those privileges that comes with that. He humbled himself to the point of death.


Further, thegrandverbalizer wrote:



"Do you have an instance of Jesus healing or forgiving people BEFORE he recieved the Holy Spirit?"
None of the Christians so far have attempted to interact with that question. You can see it here:


Christians don't interact with that question because we don't think that there was evedr a time where Jesus did not have the Holy Spirit, nor any time when He was not God. Paul wrote in Colossians 1:15-20

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.




Paul obviously believed that Jesus was God. And so did the Apostle John in John 1:1-18



1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.


So did Isaiah...Read Isaiah 9:6


For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.


I think the disconnect is that thegrandverbalizer does not understand what the Trinity is. I can't fault him for that because i don't think anyone fully understand it. Thegrandverbalizer wrote





This brings us to the argument from Rene Descartes (Cogito ergo Sum) I think, therefore I am)

Rene Descartes speaks of person as the subject of self-awareness and freedom-in brief, person as a conscious and autonomous self.

Is God aware of his own existence?
Does 'God the Father' think?
Does 'God the Son' think?
Does 'God the Holy Spirit' think?
If there is only one mind and one self existence than God is absolutely one and not tri-unity. IF there are three minds and three self existences than without doubt Christians have slipped into Tri-theism and worship three gods.

IS the Trinitarian God one in mind, will, and action? If so, how can this be so? If the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in mind, will and action, in what sense can they be three persons If the three act as one and so are one in nature, what room is left to distinguish three persons?


Again the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding on what we are talking about when we talk of the Trinity. Descartes proof for self awareness does not work for God.  God's existence is not causal. Rather everything that exists does so because of God. God exists...period. God's sustains God with God. "I think therefore I am" works for humans but not for God. The closest God can can truthfully say about His own existence is "I AM". (In Hebrew it's closer to say "I IS". The Trinity is not about three distinct beings. God is one being and three distinct persons. The Bible says that the Father is God. The Son is God.  The Holy Spirit is God.  And there is one God. God is self-existent. The divine name contains all of this and more.

Thegrandverbalizer insinuated that Jesus would never had agreed to the high place and standard that we give to Jesus. If that were the case then why did the Jews of His time understand that Jesus was claiming equality with God? Why did Jesus not refuse worship?

What did Jesus mean in the following passage: John 8:52-59


 52At this the Jews exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death. 53Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"
 54Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. 56Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."
 57"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
 58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

Jesus seemed pretty clear about who He is. Why do we doubt the things that He says?


Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Phillipians 2:5-7 The Kenosis and the alleged deity of Christ Jesus
Enhanced by Zemanta

Relationship Ninja: I’m A 23-Year-Old Virgin. How Do I Get My V-Card Revoked? « Crushable

Here is a blog post where a young woman asks for advice on loosing her virginity because she doesn't want it any more. I don't like the advice given. It's not the advice I'd want my children to have. I'd want know why does she want to give up her virginity. What's wrong with it? I know what it's like to have urges and what we would consider needs, but is it a real necessity. I measn people don't die because they don't have sex but they can die because of it. I mean with all the sexually transmitted diseases, it's a risk. Unwanted pregnancy is a concern. Even with protection there is no guarantee that she won't catch something or get something that she had not planned on. Then what about the emotional and psychological ramifications. Should she just find a guy and use him for her own sexual ramification? What does it say about her if she knowingly allows herself to be used even if she is using him that way? Two things that the advice giver wrote that really bugged me we were:


First things first: if there’s one pervasive myth about sex that I’d like to completely eradicate from the face of the earth, it’s that your virginity is SUCH A BIG DEAL that if you lose it to the WRONG PERSON it will RUIN YOU FOREVER.
It isn’t, and it won’t.
I mean she's right that it doesn't have to ruin your life and we should not let it. But can you really argue that if you never had sex with the wrong person that living without that regret would not make your life better? I think it would.

Sex is something you’ll do over and over again. You’ve got plenty of time to practice. And since you’re interested in having sex – and, presumably, not planning on marrying the first dude you sleep with – you can afford to be a little more cavalier.

Can anyone be really cavalier about what they do with their body and who they let into their body? I don't think so.

But while you can certainly hope to find a Prince Charming with a magic peen who’ll make your inaugural romp a thrilling night of whimsy and wonder, just be aware that you’re much more likely to get a variation on the same theme that pretty much everyone experiences during first-time sex: a fair amount of confusion, a bit of pain, and, eventually, a wet spot.

Not a very rosey picture. While that is a theme the advice giver may be used to, it's not what anyone has to settle for. God promises much better for us if we just obey him and treat sex as a sacred gift only for your spouse whom you love and who loves you. No confusion. No guilt. No psychological pain.

Relationship Ninja: I’m A 23-Year-Old Virgin. How Do I Get My V-Card Revoked? « Crushable
Enhanced by Zemanta

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Guest Blogger: Aren't Black Women Worth Fighting For? [By MsLadyDeborah]

I just read a blog article about the Scott sisters - Gladys and Jamie - who are serving life sentences in Mississippi for stealing $11.00! They have already spent 16 years in prison (that is half my life!). The article make the point that had the sisters been black men their story would have been more published and black "leaders" would have been up in arms. I think she has a point. Often black men and black women get into arguments by whom America screws over worse and I think that's pointless. It goes back to slavery where men and women, light-skinned and dark-skinned, were set against the other to keep them from working together. There is no need to keep that going. The truth is I think if given the chance the same thing would be done to any economic disadvantaged man or woman no matter their race. It just so happens to be more likely that such people would be black. This isn't justice. I would like to see justice in this matter. Please read the article and maybe we can get Justice for them. You might need justice next.

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Guest Blogger: Aren't Black Women Worth Fighting For? [By MsLadyDeborah]
Enhanced by Zemanta

Debates: Greg Bahnsen vs RC Sproul - Apologetics Methodology

In a recent video, James White discussed what Biblical Apologetics is and why he uses the methodologies he uses. During the course of the video, he mentions a debate between Greg Bahnsen and RC Sproul in which they debate the differences between apologetic methods. I was confused as to who was arguing for what position so I went and found the original debate online.


Apologetics-ApologeticsMethodologyBahnsenVsSproul13183.mp3


Apologetics-ApologeticsMethodologyBahnsenVsSproul23248.mp3


Apologetics-ApologeticsMethodologyBahnsenVsSproul33945.mp3


After listening to the debates I found that I agree with both Dr. Bahnsen and Dr. Sproul.  Dr. Sproul was arguing for Evidential Apologetics and Dr. Bahnsen argued for Presuppositional Apologetics. It turns out that Dr. James White is on the side of Bahnsen's. I was surprised that White and Sproul disagree on the value of Evidential Apologetics though they both agree and respect one another on many things. Bahnsen brought up a great deal of important points. I think he has a point that we can't answer people according to their folly in that using their logic is counter-productive because without God you can't reason correctly. Nothing makes sense without God. At the same time I think Sproul is right that it's difficult to reach people who do not take the Bible as a literal authority if you can't show that God exists and has the right to hold us accountable without using the Bible. I have been accused of "circular reasoning" more often than I'd care to count. I think both men agree in more ways than they disagree.

I find the weakness of the Evidential approach is that it seems only good to really explain that there has to be a god and not necessarily the God of the Bible. It takes a lot  to make that connection and not everyone is adept to it. And if you are not careful atheist will eat your lunch on that. For example, Christopher Hitchens tripped up Frank Turek a little bit on this in their first debate. The other problem I see is that it does not seem that neither Jesus nor the Apostles used this method.  But I have to admit that it does work to help some understand and believe God's word so I don't think we should throw it away. I think that one of its strengths is that you can appeal to facts and objective truths outside of the Bible to point back to the Bible. However, I think it poorly addresses the "Problem of Evil" and the reality of suffering.

As for Prepositional Apologetics, I think it has the full strength of the Bible behind it. I often find myself leaning on this especially when people are attacking the Bible's validity and veracity. The only problem is that I think Sproul is right it opens one up to the charge of circular reasoning and although people like Bahnsen, Douglas Wilson,  and James White can answer and deflect that charge, I don't think that most people are ready to answer that really well. One of the things it does very well is answer the Problem of  Evil.

At the end of the day I think that both methods are needed in my tool box. I tend to find myself following Sproul's example of using objective evidence to show that the Bible should be believed and yet when the Problem of Evil using the same arguments that Bahnsen uses. Sproul does the same. I heard him do it live last year when he gave a lecture in the Bay Area in answering the question "Why bad things happen to good people?" I don't think either man won this because they weren't really disagreeing on a fundamental level. I think we need to listen to the people we are witnessing to and then based on where they are use the methodology that works best to truthfully give them the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

apologetics links
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Christopher Hitchens Undergoing Chemotherapy for Esophogeal Cancer

I was really looking forward to the debate between James White and Christopher Hitchens on August 30, 201. Today, Hitchens announce that he is undergoing chemotherapy to fight a deadly cancer he is suffering from. How does James White respond?


I just learned that Christopher Hitchens has announced he is undergoing chemotherapy for esophogeal cancer. Here is his announcement. I fully expect this to lead to the cancellation of our August 30th debate, though I do not yet have that official word.

I have listened to many, many hours of Christopher Hitchens speaking. I've read his attacks upon my faith, listened to him blaspheme in public, etc. And yet I cannot help but like the man personally, who has such a quick sense of humor and a streak of honesty that I know comes straight from common grace. He has surprised me many times, showing an insight into the errors of his evidentialist Christian opponents that many others lack. Let's pray for Mr. Hitchens that God will use this providence to bring to his mind the many, many times he has heard the truth. His detestation of the Christian faith runs very deep, but as we all know, God is glorified when God-haters are turned into God-lovers. Should God mercifully extend his life, I hope we will get a chance to meet. May God be pleased to reveal to him the Lord of Glory, and turn his heart from rebellion to realize that the one thing he rails against most, that of submission to one's Creator, is the greatest freedom the creature can know.

What???? Could this be gentleness? Humility? Respect??!! Loving? Yup. It is. I'm confused by all the people who condemn Dr. White. I mean this is how I see he always acts. It's the way we should all act even when a person disagrees with us. I will be joining Dr. White in prayer for Mr. Hitchens. It is the right thing to do and I hope God will be giving him mercy.

Christopher Hitchens Undergoing Chemotherapy for Esophogeal Cancer
Enhanced by Zemanta

Who programmed the program? DNA, information and evolution | True Freethinker

I appreciate Mariano for pointing out these videos!












Who programmed the program? DNA, information and evolution | True Freethinker
Enhanced by Zemanta

Must atheists be soft because a negative cannot be proved? | True Freethinker

This photo was taken by my wife during a cruis...Image via Wikipedia
Here is William Lane Craig's answer to the canard that atheism doesn't need proof because "a negative cannot be proved".Thanks to Mariano for posting this.





Must atheists be soft because a negative cannot be proved? | True Freethinker
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tawapologetics: Caught in the Matrix: The Power of Worldview

This was an interesting sermon from June 27, 2010. I think that this is an interesting sermon because it uses the Matrix Trilogy to discuss worldview and how the Christian worldview should affect how Christians should live their lives.

Tawapologetics: Caught in the Matrix: The Power of Worldview
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Apologetics 315: Terminology Tuesday: Irenics

Irenics is defined by Brian Auten on his blog. I knew that there was a difference between discussing Christian doctrine and theology who disagree with on finer parts  but not on essentials and debating with people who don't believe at all. I just didn't know that there was a name for it. Brian's website is awesome! 

Apologetics 315: Terminology Tuesday: Irenics

Answering Muslims: Coptic Girl Escapes Abduction and Forced Conversion

I was appalled at this story.  In Egypt, young Christian women are kidnapped and forced to marry Muslim men and convert to Islam against their will. It been happening since the 1970s in Pakistan and Egypt. I'm glad not all Muslims would condone or agree with such horrible acts. It's a terrible thing that I am certain that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob does not approve of. I'm glad Zeenahom (Suzan) Nady Adly got away and right now she is "safe". I think that every one should  be safe and if you are a young woman in Pakistan or Egypt, it doesn't seem like you are safe if you are a Christian.

Answering Muslims: Coptic Girl Escapes Abduction and Forced Conversion
Enhanced by Zemanta

Does the Bible and its God Condone Slavery? | True Freethinker

I've been meaning to write an article regarding slavery and why it's not condoned or commanded in the Bible. I've been meaning to write it for a while. Fortunately, Mariano Grinbank, has written a great article. This article covers everything I intended to say. If you think the Bible is immoral because it condones slavery, you need to read this article. I'll give you the gist in one sentence: The Bible does not condone slavery nor was slavery that was practiced in ancient Israel was anything like the slavery perpetrated against Native Americans and Africans and their descendants. Mariano does an an awesome job explaining why!

Does the Bible and its God Condone Slavery? | True Freethinker
Enhanced by Zemanta

William Lane Craig and Austin Dacey – debate | True Freethinker

free commercial image of Bill CraigImage via Wikipedia
Thanks, Mariano, for posting this clip from the debate between William Lane Craig and Austin Dacey.




William Lane Craig and Austin Dacey – debate | True Freethinker
Enhanced by Zemanta