Download - WHHWapp for Android

I've decided to add a mobile Android apps to my blogs. There will be at least one app for each blog. So far the main blog has a single app with more to follow. I plan to make them free for now since I am only beginning to begin to write Android programs. Eventually I'd like to branch out and write iPhone/iPad apps too. Please feel free to download the apps and comment. I'd also would like to make them available on the Android market. I'll be making announcements as they come up.

Android Software

WHHWapp version 1 - Free

This app is a simple app that allows a user to view the 10 most recent posts from the blog feed. It gives you just the first 200 characters of the post and title and the link to the post. You load the feed from the press of a button. The app also has another button that opens the blog up in the web browser of their choice. You can close the application by just shaking the phone. I like to use the taskmanager and Advance Task Killer to close apps when I am done with them.

The app was created using the Google App Inventor and the Google App Engine to parse the RSS feed using Python,. I want to extend the app by adding thumbnail images from the post in the feed and live hyperlinks for each post that takes you to the full blog post in the blog. I also would like to give the user the ability to end the app from the interface.

You can either download the program by e-mailing me or asking for it in the comments below  or use a QR reader like BeeTagg to quickly download the app to your phone or tablet.

Thanks!

Does the Universe Have a Purpose? Audio Debate - Apologetics 315

Well here is the closest we will most likely ever get to William Lane Craig debating Richard Dawkins in a one-on-one debate. This one was a 3 on 3 debate. Guess Dawkins knew he needed the help; not that it helped his arguments. It didn't. But at times you take what you can get and this debate is notable because neither side of the debate topic, Does the Universe have a purpose?, are light-weights.
It was William Lane Craig, Douglas Geivett, and Rabbi David Wolpe answering "yes" with Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, and Matt Ridley on the other side. I really thank Brian Auten for posting the video and the audio and following his link I have also linked to comments from another brother-in-Christ I respect.



Does the Universe Have a Purpose? Audio Debate - Apologetics 315
Summary and Review of Does the Universe Have Purpose Debate (Dawkins v. Craig)

Mayor Bloomberg Helps Spider-Man Get a Job in New Free Comic - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Unemployment affects everyone! It's hit New York so hard that local government has teamed up with Marvel Comics to get the world out about current city resource for finding employment. Spider-Man is the perfect fictional character because he always needs a job.

Mayor Bloomberg Helps Spider-Man Get a Job in New Free Comic - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Introduction to Intelligent Design Theory MP3 - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten posted an audio from Dr Peter S. Williams lecture on what Intelligent Design Theory is. I agree with him.

Introduction to Intelligent Design Theory MP3 - Apologetics 315

Related articles

• Do people reject evolution because it unnerves them? (secularnewsdaily.com)
• Quiz a creationist (newhumanist.org.uk)
• Methodological naturalism: does it exclude the supernatural? (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com)
• Pope Benedict XVI's astronomer: the Catholic Church welcomes aliens (telegraph.co.uk)
• In Louisiana Science Textbooks, Could Evolution Win Out Over Creationism? (education.change.org)

The Questions Christians Hope No One Will Ask: by Mark Mittelberg - FREE Kindle Book - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has pointed out a book which lists top 10 questions Christians don't want to be brought up. He brings up that you can get the Kindle version for free until Saturday. I've already got my copy I'd like to do a post that examines if these questions are really that difficult. Check out Brian Auten's post to get the link.

The Questions Christians Hope No One Will Ask: by Mark Mittelberg - FREE Kindle Book - Apologetics 315

Van Til and the Trinity: A Quick Response to PuritanReformed

Colin Smith has written a response to a response on his comments on Van Til and the Trinity. I liked what he said and I think he clarified what he had said even more.Collin wrote:

I used the term "essence of God" to describe the divinity shared between the three Persons of the Trinity. The point is that this "divine essence" is not impersonal, but it is by virtue of this shared divinity that the Persons share attributes of the divine, and these attributes are personal. If I may spell it out, the being of God has divine attributes that are personal, and these attributes are shared between the three Persons of the Trinity. As far as I understand, there is nothing heretical about that. Perhaps this point may be a little obvious for a Westminster Seminary student (and I mean no disrespect by that), but I daresay this is not a thought that has occupied much attention in the thinking of most evangelicals.

I think Collin is right. And explains why the Bible uses personal single pronouns regarding God in the Old Testament and for God - the father, God - the son, and God - the Holy Spirit in the New Testament.
Van Til and the Trinity: A Quick Response to PuritanReformed

Truthbomb Apologetics: Common Objection #14- "If Jesus really performed miracles and rose from the dead, we would have more historical records referring to Him."

On his blog, Chad has summarized some good evidence for why we know we have good historical evidence for today for Jesus' existence and what the Bible says about him. I enjoyed reading the quote he used from Dr. Gary Habermas and Mike Licona in their book The Case for the Resurrection. Give his post a read through!

Truthbomb Apologetics: Common Objection #14- "If Jesus really performed miracles and rose from the dead, we would have more historical records referring to Him."

Related articles

• ten questions with michael licona (jude3project.org)

Biochemist Interview: Michael Behe - Apologetics 315

Michael Behe was interviewed by Brian Auten in his ongoing series of interviews. I love to hear this guy. Some people who support evolution hates this guy with an irrational hatred that can only by fear. Fear that in the final analysis they might be wrong. I enjoyed this interview and I think people should really think carefully about what Dr. Behe is saying about Intelligent design and evolution. It's always interesting to me how people who believe in intelligent design and/or the Bible are accused of starting with a conclusion and then finding evidence to support it instead of going the other way. Why is that? It seems to me that it describes their way of thinking because they refuse to even concede the obvious design right of their faces. It is one thing to say that the universe only appears to be designed and then also argue that if there is a design it is so badly design that it can't be intelligently  driven.  Very silly. . In order to argue that, you are saying that you know what the best design should be. Dumb indeed.

Biochemist Interview: Michael Behe - Apologetics 315

FacePalm of the Day # 28 - Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Infallible Salvation: James White Stumped On Dividing Line

Thegrandverbalizer does not really like James White. Not even a little bit. On the blog written by  thegrandverbalizer, there is post written against last Thursday's Dividing Line. I am really amazed that thegrandverbalizer saw the program so differently. I'm going to focus only on two problems I've had with this post: The first one is as follows:

At the request of a fellow Muslim who wanted me to hear James White not admit that he made a terrible blunder in picking up a low level polemic directed against the Qur'an I tuned it to listen to the dividing line (division and lies). Sure enough James White in his infinite knowledge of Arabic (sarcasm aside)
Now the person who called in to the dividing line (Johnny) -May Allah open his heart if he is not already a Muslim to the obfuscation of James White asked the good 'Dr' a very good question.

thegrandverbalizer makes it sounds like Johnny only asks one question. This isn't true. Dr White spent ten minutes on a precursor question before the one thegrandverbalizer brings up. I urge everyone to listen to the who program toi see see how badly Dr. white was being represented.

He asked James White are you aware of any differences of interpretation by Muslims on this particular passage.
What does James White say in response? "I wouldn't...uh I'm not aware of what Ibn Kathir said versus somebody else in this particular one so....ALREADY MAN WERE OUT OF TIME ....
There you have it folks! I am not aware of what Ibn Kathir said! Who cares! Who cares when he has the 'Assyrian Encyclopedia'. Indeed James!

Dr. White ran out of time on the program. Johnny came on about 50 minutes into an hour long show.  He spent considerable amount of time answering Johnny about Surah 2:37 and if God repents. I think that Dr White answered this very well. Johnny's second question was what Dr. White knew about alternate Muslim interpretations? He said that he didn't know without doing further research. How is this being stumped or dishonest?

So that's the dividing line (the one I am always hounded to call in to get clarification from James about issues). Get real! The dividing line is like 20-30 minutes of James White talking, with some promos about his books, or the latest gadget his people helped him to buy. He goes on and on boring people about his latest bike rides (that's great he likes to be in shape).

I'm amazed by thegrandverbalizer's characterizations of what goes on during the show. I like tech gadgets and hearing others experience in using them. Might bore some people but not me. I don't care about bike riding but it does help me to remember Dr. James White is just like us...just a person and not a talking head.  I can tell thegrandverbalizer does not really listen. Because not only did White answer Johnny's first question but he also stated why he ignores people like thegrandverbalizer and does not respond to them.  Then the grandverbalizer posted this blog post I'm discussing, proving Dr. White correct.

But wouldn't you expect a program to actually be dedicated to taking calls?

I obviously listen to the Dividing Line more than thegrandverbalizer does. If he did he would know that there are times where the whole program is spent answering questions from the phone and from skype.
My second problem is the grandverbalizer's comments regarding Gerald's (from Australia) call  regarding infant baptism. I agreed with what Dr. White said: it makes no sense to give a child baptism or the Lord's Supper unless they have demonstrated the evidences for having been saved. In my own life, my parents didn't just baptize me until I was olkd enough to make that decision for myself. Thegrandverbalizer wrote regarding John 15: 1-8:

Personally this is very gnostic language and I find it hard to attribute these words to Esau ibn Maryam what the Christians call Jesus the son of Mary. I do not challenge it on textual grounds. I simply challenge the text because anyone who knows anything basic about botany can find lots of problematic issues regarding the analogy that Jesus is supposed to be giving here.

 I come from a long line of farmers and I know that if you want a tree or vine to produce fine crop you must prune it. Thegrandverbalizer offers no proof that the passage has scientific problems only he doesn't like it..

Hence Christians had to backtrack statements like 'good trees bear good fruit and bad trees bear bad fruit' because most people who think deeply about statements like that find them problematic.

In the context here Jesus is not talking about multiple trees. There is only one vine - Himself.  I'm not sure what the point is here or what scripture is being referenced regarding good trees and bad trees.  What is the problem being discussed?

Any way the question would be do I remain in Christ (by my own volition and will) or do I remain in Christ because of Christ? After all if I am able to do all these works because I abide in Christ (and I do not do them of my own accord) why would Christ allow for me to become spoiled?

Here is the disconnect!  We don't remain in Christ by our own will....and it's not against our will. God changes us so that we want to remain and can remain in Christ.  The spoiled branches are apostates. They are not really part in the first place. They are castaways! We are in Christ because of His grace not because of us. No wonder thegrandverbalizer did not understand this point.

That's the Christian relationship with God a very uncertain roller coaster! A ride that could end up in eternal heaven or in an eternal furnace.

 If you think the way thegranverbalizer thinks about what we mean by salvation then of course you would come to this conclusion. Go back and listen to the broadcast. Dr.White was saying that ewe can't be 100% certain about anyone else's salvation because we can;t see their heart. We don't know if another person truly believes aside from what they say and do. We can however be sure and certain about our individual self. I am personally and blessedly assured of my own salvation. The Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God (Romans 8:16). To Thegrandverbalizer: are you sure?

Here is thegrandverbalizer's post:
Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Infallible Salvation: James White Stumped On Dividing Line

Here is the Dividing Line he was referring to:
Today on the Dividing Line: Mark 1:41 and Hebrews 2:9 in the SBLGNT Plus Calls

Van Til and the Trinity: God as a Person

Colin Smith has posted another article in his series on how Cornelius Van Til saw and taught the Trinity. I think that the understanding of the Trinity is important for understanding who and what God is. English is a huge obstacle to expressing these ideas because the way it has evolved we don't make much of a distinction between "person" and "being" anymore. It makes discussing the Trinity difficult because we confuse them and conclude that one being equals one person.

Van Til and the Trinity: God as a Person

Related articles

• Presuppositional Apologetics - 2 (xercised.wordpress.com)
• Presuppositional Apologetics - 3 (xercised.wordpress.com)
• Presuppositional Apologetics - 1 (xercised.wordpress.com)
• Holy beating: Trinity trounces Mount in 'AAA' quarters (nypost.com)

Sunday Quote: Antony Flew on Belief - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted an interesting quote from Anthony Flew: Anthony Flew was one of the foremost atheistic philosophers of the 20th Century. If he can look at the evidence showing that the universe was intelligently designed and that there was a designer. I'm not saying that he became a Christian but at least admitting that there is a God was a great first step.

"I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science."

Sunday Quote: Antony Flew on Belief - Apologetics 315

Pastor James Harleman Discusses Iron Man

Here is a great audio lecture by Pastor James Harleman on the first Iron Man movie. He discussed and contrasts the messages and themes of the Movie with Gospel of Jesus Christ. I think he made some really great observations about the movie and how it ties in and does not tie in with Christian theology. I had fun listening to it.



Film & Theology - Iron Man

Matthias at the wake-a-thon

It is 10 pm and he is still awake.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

High Five fo the Day #4 - Answering Muslims: First Lady Michelle Obama Dons Hijab

David Wood has made some great comments on the fact that the Obama administration seems to be playing down the differences between the Islamic nations and the west. Complete with Michelle Obama wearing a Hijab.

Since the First Lady of the free world is now wearing a hijab so as not to offend Muslims, I'm wondering if she's willing to go even further. Some Muslims will be offended unless Mrs. Obama wears a full burka, so she should probably order one if she doesn't already have one. She'd better make sure she lowers her gaze in the presence of men, and she'd better not object to sex with Barack, since he's now free to beat her if she gets out of line. Of course, she should now be fine with Barack marrying three other women (or three prepubescent girls), since Islam allows this. Someone should probably inform her that she is now officially half as intelligent as a man.

If you disagree with Wood's observations, then I would really like an explanation of how Islamic teachings, practices, traditions have been misrepresented.

Answering Muslims: First Lady Michelle Obama Dons Hijab

FacePalm of the Day #27 - Debunking Christianity: Dr. Matt McCormick on the F - Word

John Loftus posted a link to Dr. Matt McCormick's blog in which McCormick posted his powerpoint he used in a presentation he gave last Tuesday in which he explained how atheists can counter the claims of faith. I don't agree with him at all. He based his whole argument by mischaracterizing and defining faith differently than how the Bible defines it. He makes the standard straw men arguments and then attacks them. I end up blogging on this subject a lot because it really bothers me when people try to reject Christianity on the Basis of a lie. The lie here is that God expects us to believe His word and His existence despite evidence or lack of good quality evidence. No where does the Bible say that. Part of the problem is that Christians have either failed to communicate what faith is or people have ignored what the Bible says about Faith. Either people like McCormick is lying or he's ignorant about what the Bible says what faith is.
At the risk of repeating myself, Faith is not choosing to believe something despite lack of evidence. Faith is trusting God based on the evidence of who God is and your relationship with you. It's a living thing that is supposed to grow and get deeper as you live your life. It is built on living through trials and tribulation and seeing how God has brought you through them. It always amazes me when people say that God doesn't intervene in our lives when God has done so much. He protects and blesses us. Sometimes it is easy to see it and sometimes we can't because He keeps some things away from us. We aren't even aware of those because we miss those. Because Faith is not contrary to truth or evidence of course you can have truth and faith simultaneously.
I do agree with Matt McCormick that atheist faith is absurd - no evidence for it. As for God, I have to go with Paul

¹⁸ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
²¹ For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ²³ and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
²⁴ Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ²⁵ They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Faith in other gods are not equal with faith in the God of the Bible. We have evidence for the Bible and the God who revealed himself in it. As for the other gods...we have nothing. No way are they equivalent.
Here is McCormick's presentation.

Debunking Christianity: Dr. Matt McCormick on the F - Word
The F Word

FacePalm of the Day #26 - Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by D. Newman

John Loftus posted the following quotes from D. Newman:

I and many others are in Christian eyes little lost sheep. I look forward to being found by the good shepherd!!! He has not found me yet though and does not seem all that interested in looking either! (I am sure he is busy, washing his hair or something).

Why is this a FacePalm? Very simple. People who continually and willfully reject Christ are not "little lost sheep". They are goats. Consider John 10:1-21

¹ “Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. ² The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. ³ The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. ⁴ When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. ⁵ But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.” ⁶ Jesus used this figure of speech, but the Pharisees did not understand what he was telling them.
⁷ Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. ⁸ All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them. ⁹ I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture. ¹⁰ The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
¹¹ “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. ¹² The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. ¹³ The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.
¹⁴ “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— ¹⁵ just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. ¹⁶ I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. ¹⁷ The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. ¹⁸ No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
¹⁹ The Jews who heard these words were again divided. ²⁰ Many of them said, “He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?”
²¹ But others said, “These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?”

For those following the text, the response for those who responded in verse 2o represent Goats and those who are in verse 21 are sheep. Don't be a goat.
Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by D. Newman

Are the New Testament Gospels Reliable? - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted a thirty part series about how we know the New Testament is reliable by Pastor Mark Roberts, who has turned the lectures into a book. He makes some great points!

Are the New Testament Gospels Reliable? - Apologetics 315

Related articles

• New Testament Specialists Needed (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
• First impressions of an "independent historian's" account of Jesus (vridar.wordpress.com)
• Who Chose the Gospels? Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy, By CE Hill (independent.co.uk)
• The Role of Faith in Historical Research (vridar.wordpress.com)

Jesus the Jewish Messiah? Debate - Dr. Michael Brown vs Shmuley Boteach

Here is a short debate between Dr. Michael Brown and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. In this debate, Brown defends that Jesus is the Messiah and Boteach denies that. The thing about Botech is really amazing that he is a Rabbi since the scriptures are not his final authority about what is right and what is wrong. Michael Brown's view of scripture is much higher.

FacePalm of the Day #25 - Debunking Christianity: I Know More Than You Do! Na Na Na Na Na NA! Or, You Don't Know Jack ****

In part, John Loftus recently wrote the following:

What if a scientist rejects religion because s/he cannot adequately test supernatural hypotheses? What if a historian rejects the claims of a religion because as a historian s/he must assume a natural explanation for the events in the past? What then? Are they culpable for doing so when this is all they know to do? When can it be said that a person can rationally reject a religion? Surely the theist cannot possibly demand that nonbelievers must know all that can be known before their rejection of religion is warranted.
To put it in terms of the Outsider Test for Faith, how much should someone know in order to reject Mormonism, or Catholicism, or Islam, or Orthodox Judaism, to name a few. How much do YOU know of them?

The FacePalm is due to silly presuppositions that under gird Loftus' ideas in this article: people are capable of rationally rejecting Christianity. Such an idea is nonsensical because by definition no one can understand the Gospel without God opening their minds so that they can do so. We are unable to go to Jesus unless we are drawn by the Father (John 6:44). One does not become a Christian because they are smarter or more spiritual than non-christians. When an atheist says that they are unable to believe, I agree. We are all unable to believe before God regenerates us and replaces our heart of stone with a heart of flesh. Unbelief is not mad impossible by a lack of evidence. And neither is belief made possible by sufficient evidence. We have plenty of evidence. The problem is us. The problem is not God. I believe the Gospel because God chose to give me the amount of grace I needed to be saved. He can do the same for you as he has done for countless others from Adam, Noah, Abraham until today. And because I have been saved by faith I want to do good works which validates and evidences my salvation not procure it. Therefore because you can't rationally reconcile or understand Christianity is no reason to reject it. You can have a personal relationship with God and He can re-image you in Jesus so that you can be one of His. This is the good news of the Gospel. You don't have to be doomed to eternal separation from God...just put your trust in Jesus without reservation. Why? God has set it up this way. If you don't like it, take it up with Him. Good luck with that.
As for what do I know of Mormonism, Islam, Catholicism, or Orthodox Judaism....quite a bit. I've studied them all and have weighed them against Biblical Christianity. When I said above that salvation is not dependent on what you understand, I'm not saying that salvation is based on believing things that are contrary to hard evidence. It's believing what God has revealed even if you don't understand every single nuance. I think that that if you can find and prove that something is not true then you should not believe in it. With regard to mormonism, we know Joseph Smith was not visited by neither God the Father and Jesus and we know he was not visited by Elijah and Elias. How? Simple: No man has seen the Father at any time as stated in John 6:46 and that can't be true if as Joseph Smith said his teaching were right along with the Bible. Second Elijah and Elias were the same man!!! "Elijah" is the English transliteration of the Hebrew and "Elias" is the English transliteration of the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew. Big mistake there.
As for Roman Catholicism...there are too many inconsistencies eith the Bible to bring up here. Anyone interested in that should consult the work of James White, John MacArthur, and others.
As for Islam...we know it contradicts the Bible. They both can't be true. No way. One example is that the Qur'an tells us that Jesus was not crucified and he did not die on the Cross. That throws the whole book into question. We know historically that Jesus really was crucified and that He really did die that day.
As for Orthodox Judaism, the main disagreement is that that we believe that Messiah has come and he brought life. They disagree. They are waiting. This is a major problem But according to their own scriptures (our scriptures which we share) Jesus is the only one who meets the standard of being Messiah. Of course I realize that not everyone looks at the evidence and comes to the same conclusions I have, but I wonder if they have honestly really looked at it. But then I remember, no once is able come to Jesus unless they have been drawn by Father. There are many Jews who do come and find Jesus. There will be more and more in the coming years.

Debunking Christianity: I Know More Than You Do! Na Na Na Na Na NA! Or, You Don't Know Jack Shit.

The Essentials of Covenant Theology

Jamin Hubner has posted a great article about what Covenant Theology is. I very well agree that all those who were saved before Jesus were saved the same way we are - by Faith - sola fide - and not by works. .Read Jamin Hubner's article about this subject.

The Essentials of Covenant Theology

Comic Book Software: The Best Picks From the Comics Pros - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Comics Alliance has posted an article detailing the best software for writing books, comic books, movie, and television scripts and for doing comic book art and illustration.

Comic Book Software: The Best Picks From the Comics Pros - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Deity of Christ Debate, Pt. 2

Thanks to Jeff Downs for announcing that the 2nd part of the Jame White and Michael Brown team up to defend the Deity of Christ and the Trinity. A great video!

Deity of Christ Debate, Pt. 2

Answering Muslims: Robert Spencer vs. Peter Kreeft: The Only Good Muslim Is a Bad Muslim

Here is a great debate about Islam, the Qur'an and what it means to be a Muslim.



Answering Muslims: Robert Spencer vs. Peter Kreeft: The Only Good Muslim Is a Bad Muslim

Minneapolis Interview Posted - Reformation Issues

James White was interviewed on sola gratia and other Reformed themes recently. I love to hear Dr. White teach on these matters. I've always been taught that we are saved sola gratia (by Grace alone in English). Definitely worth listening to. Follow the link to James White's blog to get the link to the podcast.


Minneapolis Interview Posted

Fistbump of the Day #10 - Answering Muslims: Obama Teaches Hindus about Islam

I have to give David Wood props.He has the ability to take issues and boil them down to their most simplest terms. I think people who think President Obama is a Muslim are stupid. He is obviously a liberal "Christian" - like most of the politicians we have had and continue to have.  What he has said about Islam is no different than George H. Bush, Bill Clinton, or George W. Bush have said about Islam during their terms in office. I wonder what does Obama think about  Surah 9:29.

For instance, some Muslims have distorted the following passage (which obviously calls for peace, tolerance, and universal love), and they claim that it calls for fighting unbelievers.

Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

How radical Muslims could ever misinterpret such a clear call for a unity of all faiths is beyond me.

Answering Muslims: Obama Teaches Hindus about Islam

Truthbomb Apologetics: Biola Christian Apologetics on YOUTUBE

Chad of Truthbomb Apologetics has posted a great article about Apologetics lectures from Biola University. He lists several good ones. I think this one is very important because it talks about if God really expects "blind" faith from us or not.


Truthbomb Apologetics: Biola Christian Apologetics on YOUTUBE