THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Responding to AbusiveAnthitheist's, "Questions for theists who advocate TAG"
Thursday, February 3, 2011
THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Responding to AbusiveAnthitheist's, "Questions for theists who advocate TAG"
THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Responding to AbusiveAnthitheist's, "Questions for theists who advocate TAG"
Why are you an atheist? : Pharyngula
The godless raged at me on youtube and twitter, thanks to the recent broadcast of my talk in Montreal. I have a tangent in that talk where I deplore Dictionary Atheists, going so far as to say I hate those guys, because they're so superficial. Apparently some people identify with shallow atheism, because they took it personally and got rather upset.
I had to think about this. Should I back down and apologize, and maybe revise my opinion of this subset of the atheist community? Have I gone too far?
Nah. Obviously what this calls for is an escalation. I think I need to summarize all the things about atheism that bug me, and that I wish people would stop doing. There simply aren't enough atheists angry at me now. So let's get to it and piss everyone off! It'll be fun! Here's a list.
I agree with Meyers that he should not apologize. It is shallow to not be able to articulate why you take a position you hold and criticize others.
In that Montreal talk, I explained that there is more to my atheism than simple denial of one claim; it's actually based on a scientific attitude that values evidence and reason, that rejects claims resting solely on authority, and that encourages deeper exploration of the world. My atheism is not solely a negative claim about gods, but is based on a whole set of positive values that I will emphasize when talking about atheism. That denial of god thing? It's a consequence, not a cause.
Of course I disagree that Meyers has valid and good reasons for his atheism, but at least it amounts to more than "I don't believe God exist." He also wrote:
"I just believe in one less god than you do". OK, I don't hate this one. There is actually a germ of a valid point in there: disbelief in itself is good and normal social practice, and even the most zealous theist actively disbelieves in many things. That's a good point to make in a world where people cite blind faith as a virtue.
And here is an important point that I can't fully agree with. I agree that our culture has watered down "Faith" to be blind. It's thought of as believing in things that one has no evidence to believe at best and contradicts facts at worst. This may be what some people think and teach faith is but it is not how the Bible describes faith or admonishes us to have. Blind faith cannot save you. Wow! Something else we agree on.
But that's the only point that can be made from it, and it has its own perils. It implies many things that are not true. The theist you're arguing with did not go through a process where he analyzed his beliefs logically, and excluded 99% of all gods by reason and their lack of evidence; in fact, he probably never in his life seriously considered any of those other faiths (he is 99% Dictionary Atheist, in other words). He came to his personal faith by way of a series of personal, positive (to him!) predispositions, not by progressive exclusion of other ideas, and he's simply not going to see the relevance of your argument. Would you be swayed if someone pointed out that you disbelieve astrology, homeopathy, tarot, witchcraft, and palmistry, and he has simply gone one step further than you, and also disbelieves in evolution?My Question is how does he know that all theists have never looked at other religions and progressive ly excluded other ideas? How does he know that I have not searched other ideas and found them wanting? Why would he assume that no one has truly searched and knows why they are Christian instead of a Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, Jehovah Witness, Wiccan, Astrologist, Norse, Greco-Roman, Verdun, or Muslim? It can't be just because my Mommy is a Christian. I disagree that naturalism is a better explanation of reality. Lame indeed.
Similarly, you did not go through a list of religions, analysing each one, and ticking them off as unbelievable. I certainly didn't. Instead, you come to the table with an implicit set of criteria, like evidence and plausibility and experimental support, and also a mistrust of unfounded authority or claims that are too good to be true, and they incline you to accept naturalism, for instance, as a better explanation of the world. Turning it into a quantitative debate about how many gods we accept, instead of a substantial debate about the actual philosophical underpinnings of our ideas, is kind of lame, I think.
I admit I also Liked Meyer's conclusion:
I could probably come up with a few more peeves — I am genuinely a world-class expert in finding fault — but let's stop there. My main point is that one general flaw in many atheists is a lack of appreciation for why they find themselves comfortable with that label, and it always lies in a set of sometimes unexamined working metrics for how the world works. You are an atheist — take pride in what you do believe, not what you deny. And also learn to appreciate that the opposition hasn't arrived at their conclusions in a vacuum. There are actually deeper reasons that they so fervently endorse supernatural authorities, and they aren't always accounted for by stupidity.I like this because Meyers inadvertently underscores the problem with atheism: a negative claim is all most atheists have. Both sides also make the mistake of underestimating the reasons why the opposite side holds the views they hold. It's not that they more stupid than you and if they knew as much as you doesn't mean they would change their mind (they may know more than you do).
Why are you an atheist? : Pharyngula
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
5 Greatest Challenges to Christianity that Apologetics Can’t Answer – Part 1 | Athanatos Christian Apologetics Ministry
5 Greatest Challenges to Christianity that Apologetics Can’t Answer – Part 1 | Athanatos Christian Apologetics Ministry
My Common Sense is Tingling - Debunking Christianity: "Don't Spank That Monkey" App Courtesy of XXX Church ;-)
Such a guilt producing message! Okay, Okay, sexual addictions can be very serious, but WTF is this! What's wrong with masturbation? Anyone? Anyone? Will it make you go blind or something? And what's wrong with lust? It's biology baby. Christians will forever have problems with sex. They don't know what to do with it except deny, deny, deny. I've written about this before.
Looking at history, yes, the church has denied sexual fulfillment of people and making it seem that God does not want people to be sexual fulfilled although he gave us those desires. This is not the same thing as "lust". Isn't sex supposed to be more than just fulfilling biology? Although the church has done a disservice on teaching on sex for years - making it seem like sex is dirty and immoral in and of itself, this is not the picture that the Bible gives us for the place sex should be in our lives. God isn't against sex, he just wants us to truly enjoy it in its fullness. Since he gave them to us, wouldn't it make sense that God would know what we should do our feelings so we don't destroy ourselves and each other? All I am calling for is some common sense applied consistently.
Debunking Christianity: "Don't Spank That Monkey" App Courtesy of XXX Church ;-)
The Role of Evangelism in the Church
The Role of Evangelism in the Church
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Dr. White on Janet Parshall's Show: The Forgotten Trinity
The Forgotten Trinity Interview 6/16/99
Click here to order Dr. White's book, The Forgotten Trinity.
Dr. White on Janet Parshall's Show: The Forgotten Trinity
Black History Month & Comics: Two Great Tastes That Go Together [Op-Ed] - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
David Brothers will be blogging all month on Black History concentrating on the the writers and artists who have positively had an impact on portraying African-Americans. I'm excited because he is a great writer and I am a fan of the medium. Brothers wrote:Jack Kirby, the guy who almost every superhero comic owes its visual language to, created, co-created, or used a host of black characters. Black Panther, Vykin the Black, the Black Racer, the Falcon, Princess Zanda, Flippa Dippa, and Shilo Norman are all Kirby creations and cooler than cool. Kirby didn't have to create so many black characters, but he did. He made a point of it, as near as I can tell.
Read More: http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/02/01/black-history-month-and-comics-two-great-tastes-that-go-together/#ixzz1ClmEb5e7
I agree. I've been reading Kirby's work on the Black Panther from the 1970's and I like it a lot. I can't wait to see more of Brother's articles.
Black History Month & Comics: Two Great Tastes That Go Together [Op-Ed] - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
My Common Sense is Tingling - Debunking Christianity: Nine Reasons Why You're a Christian
The video makes a few presumptions that employing common sense must lead to rejecting its premises. The argument that people accept Christianity (or any religion) only because of tradition and upbringing simply dismisses the known fact that people convert from one religion to another. Also it presupposes that every religious person has never really searched out or studied their own religion nor seriously considered the implications if their world view is true. This is also not true. The thought seems to be that if we knew as much as they did we would agree with them. And then the video claims that no one has access to knowledge that others do not. This is definitely not a good argument.
Added to that, I've got to wonder why is the video claims that all religions have equal access to truth and they are fundamentally wrong. It's presented with no evidence that this is the case. This is the point brought up by Mike Gantt in the comments section. He merely points out that the video does not address whether or not Christianity is true or not. If Jesus really is what He says He is then how can that not be reason to be Christian? Many other commenters chastised him for making the comment but his comment points out the only thing that matters. Yes, some people don't examine their lives and worldviews and wonder if they are consistent and true. They should. But that doesn't mean that there are no Christians that have truly searched all over and found no one greater or more worthy of worship than Jesus Christ - Our Lord and Master.
Debunking Christianity: Nine Reasons Why You're a Christian
Answering Muslims: Robert Spencer vs. Imam Moustafa Zayed: Muhammad, Violence, and Subjugation
Answering Muslims: Robert Spencer vs. Imam Moustafa Zayed: Muhammad, Violence, and Subjugation
Monday, January 31, 2011
Apologist Interview: Alister McGrath - Apologetics 315
Apologist Interview: Alister McGrath - Apologetics 315
FacePalm of the Day #54 - Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day
Given the proliferation of religious delusions that seem to be growing around the globe in an age of weapons of mass destruction, atheists must start breeding like rabbits. ;-)
I'd like to assume he is just making a joke but it is to stupid that it just isn't funny. It made me wonder if he really knows deep down abortion is wrong. If a person claims to be religious and still thinks that abortion is not wrong than they are being inconsistent. However the reason why an atheist has little problem with abortion because according to their world view the unborn child is not a person and therefore not worth the same as a born human being. I admit if life doesn't begin at conception, and if there is no soul or minds that transcend death then maybe they have a point. After all if the mind and brain are the same thing, how can a fetus have a mind if it doesn't yet have a brain? This is one of the reason that, by definition, atheists must discount the unborn as human beings. However there is a point to consider: If atheists do have more children they will be obeying the divine mandate to be fruitful and multiply and giving us more people to share the Gospel with. He also commits the fallacy of thinking that this world would be a better place if everyone agreed with him.
In the comments section, Loftus also wrote:
Eight million Christians killed each other during such wars as the thirty years war, even though your God could've easily settled their disputes since he supposedly had foreknowledge they would do so. Why didn't he communicate through his so-called inspired authors what Christians should believe more clearly?
First, I'd like to know how he came up with the number eight million dying during wars waged by Christians? Second, although he claims to understand history, does Loftus really think the causes of the Thirty and Hundred Years wars all come down to people who disagreed on Biblical Theology? I'm trying really hard not to laugh at such an absurd claim. Third, Why doesn't it occur to Loftus that some of the people who fought in those wars could have ignored God's Word even as he does today?
Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Which Writings of Luther Did Hitler Use?
Image via Wikipedia
Image via WikipediaJames Swan has posted an interesting article responding to the charge that Hitler was inspired to exterminate Jews because of the work of Martin Luther. Yeah, I laughed too, but there are people who really think that is a worthy argument to understand what happened in Nazi Germany and why it happened.
Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Which Writings of Luther Did Hitler Use?
Henry Cavill to Star as The Man of Steel in Zack Snyder's 'Superman' Reboot - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Henry Cavill to Star as The Man of Steel in Zack Snyder's 'Superman' Reboot - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Henry Cavill Is Your New Superman
Henry Cavill Cast as Superman Man of Steel
My Common Sense is Tingling - Debunking Christianity: At What Point Would YOU Walk Out On An Ice Covered Lake?
I'm amazed when Christians argue their faith is more probably true than not, and then try to live as if they're 100% certain of it. So let's grant them a 51% probability that their brand of Christianity is true. Now to put this into perspective, would they walk out on an ice covered lake if there was only a 51% probability the ice would hold them up? ;-)
It is an interesting analogy that depends on the idea that one would not walk out on an ice covered lake unless they were 100% certain they would not fall through the ice. But who is really on thin ice - the Christian or the Atheist? If a person falls into the ice, they either drown or freeze to death. If a Christian is wrong (falls through the ice) there is no repercussions or bad consequences - he/she merely ceases to exist. What if the atheist has over-estimated the thickness of the ice on which he/she stands? They go hell which is equivalent to freezing to death and drowning - except it never ends.
Christians are not alone in standing on the ice. We have many witnesses that the ice on which we stand is thick enough hold our weight.
1 Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3 Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. - Hebrews 12:1-3
Let us try to look at this analogy from a more Biblical perspective. We are already in the water drowning and freezing to death from the start. We were born on thin ice and have been fallen in. Jesus pulls his people out of the freezing water and puts us out solid ground! The unregenerate sinner isn't on thin ice, he/she is drowning and freezing to death and some don't even realize it. It takes a revelation from God to get free.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.- Romans 1:28-32
Debunking Christianity: At What Point Would YOU Walk Out On An Ice Covered Lake?
Saturday, January 29, 2011
FacePalm of the Day #53 - Islam and Christianity A Common Word: 12 Year Old Child Bride In The New Testament
It's quite sad and hurtful to find many of those who have anger issues towards Islam and hatred towards the prophet of Allah (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) will heap up animosity upon him over a practice that was very common in that age. Namely that God has never stipulated an age in the Torah, TNCH, New Testament or the Qur'an that a person can or cannot marry.
And then he quotes one of my favorite scriptures.
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding"
(Proverbs 3:5)
I agree with him that Bible does not tells us at what age a person should be married. But why is he bringing this up? There is an objection raised against the founder of Islam, Muhammad, that when he was in his 50's he married and had sex with a 7 year-old girl. Most Muslims who live in the West try to explain this away by saying that Muhammad never did this. Others, especially some fundamentalist Muslims, actually practice marry prepubescent girls (see this article). But thegrandverbalizer's approach is one that I have never seen before and truly Facepalm worthy: argue that the prophetess Anna was married when she was a Child.
He tries to argue that there is ambiguity among various English Translations of Luke 2:36:
New International Version (©1984)
There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage,
New Living Translation (©2007)
Anna, a prophet, was also there in the Temple. She was the daughter of Phanuel from the tribe of Asher, and she was very old. Her husband died when they had been married only seven years.
English Standard Version (©2001)
And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin,
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
And there was a prophetess, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years and had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage,
International Standard Version (©2008)
Now Anna, a prophetess, was also there. She was a descendant of Phanuel from the tribe of Asher. She was very old, having lived with her husband for seven years after her marriage,
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Anna, a prophet, was also there. She was a descendant of Phanuel from the tribe of Asher. She was now very old. Her husband had died seven years after they were married,
I don't think that the text is ambiguous at all. Anna was a widow. She was a descendant of Phanuel from the Tribe of Asher. She was very old and her husband had died after only 7 years. I see nothing in either translation saying anything different than these facts. Why does thegrandverbalizer want there to be ambiguity in a text that is clear as a Summer's day? It is so that he can make the following argument:
So she lived with her husband for 7 years FROM THE TIME she was a virgin? So when was that? Like when was she a virgin? Or better yet since when was she not a virgin? If you look at the way the text is constructed here you can understand it that she has always been a virgin (and than it is assumed she is no longer after marriage). In otherwords she was married at age 7/8.
What?!? In first century Jewish culture, a woman was supposed to remain a virgin until she was married (men too). I see absolutely nothing in either translation to give the impression that Anna was seven or eight when she married her husband. Look at how thegrandverbalizer tries to continue his arguments.
All these translations ultimately point to the fact that the Christians are either uncertain about the original Koine Greek Text or that someone is trying to shield a fact from the masses.
thegrandverbalizer has failed to show that Luke 2:36 can be construed to show that Anna was 7/8 years of age when she got married. Then he tries to make the suggestion of conspiracy to hide "facts" from people.
I believe in the latter, because from the times of European domination of Muslim lands, many orientalist have tried everything they can to demean the charachter of the Prophet Muhammed (saw).
If marrying pre-pubescent girls is morally defensible why does alleging that Muhammad did it demean his character? As a Christian, I would argue that there is an objective moral standard rooted in the nature of our Creator Himself. I would think Muslims would agree. So the question to ask is this: Is it consistent with God's character for an adult to marry a child and expect the same responsibilities and needs as an from another adult? If marrying a child is good, then why is homosexual marriage wrong, which Islam affirms is wrong? Vice Versa? I'd argue that marrying a child is just as outside the definition of "marriage" as it would be to marry someone of the same-sex.
It is very clear to those who have eyes that can see that Anna was at least 7/8 years of age at the time of her marriage if not no more than 12 years of age can be agreed upon. This is in the New Testament, the Holy Spirit did not inspire to write down "and by the way this practice was wrong or is wrong"
There is nothing in the text that tells us how old Anna was when she got married. I find the argument that something must be okay if scripture does not tell us is wrong to be very problematic. Anyone with some level of maturity knows how bad things work out if you carry out any kind of relationship that way. The "Well, you didn't say I couldn't do it" mentality always lead to problems. It's presumptuous to assume you don't need to ask permission.
There is no disgust and no reprimand any where in this text. You would think if the idea of a girl being 12 or 9 years of age getting married was so morally repugnant to the creator that there would have been some clear law stipulating an appropriate age for marriage.
I would remind thegrandverbalizer that people use arguments like these to say that the Bible and the Qur'an condones slavery because neither text says that Slavery is wrong. Do we really want to go down the road that says that marrying and having sex with children because Muhammad may have done it and God did not tell us not to do it? I don't. Thegrandverbalizer has posted many stories of people claiming to be Christians molesting children. He is right in condemning such evil. But if it's okay to marry and have sex with children, then child molesters are only guilty of rape (bad enough).
Instead the Creator in infinite wisdom allowed this to be dictated by local cultures, customs and practice.
How does thegrandverbalizer know that God has allowed the age at which people get married be dictated by local cultures, custom, and practice? I'd argue that this mindset is what has led to a 50% divorce rate in the West. So the question remains, how does thegrandverbalizer know that God is alright with people marrying children? And would it be okay for an adult woman to marry a 7 or 8 year-old boy? Why would it seem to be only okay for little girls? There is no really good reason to allow for such practices. Would I allow an adult marry my daughter or son while they are still children? Not while I'm still breathing. I reject moral relativism. Somethings are just wrong because they are wrong and no matter who does them and when. Just because God allows something to happen does not mean He condones it or commands us to do it.
I have two examples: Divorce and a statement that puts light to questions such as these.
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” - Matthew 19:7-12
Jesus clearly taught that divorce is not ultimately God's will, but God allows it because of our limitations not God's. We know that God hates divorce.
“The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,” says the LORD Almighty. So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful. - Malachi 2:16
Divorce is not the only thing we do that God used to give us grace about and not bring judgment against us right away. I would lump the way we demean and misdefine marriage to suit us instead of how God defines it as some of those things. Judgment will definitely come.
29Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. - Acts 17:29-31
Islam and Christianity A Common Word: 12 Year Old Child Bride In The New Testament
Two Apologetics Blogs to Follow - Apologetics 315
Faithful Thinkers
Case for Christianity
Two Apologetics Blogs to Follow - Apologetics 315
Friday, January 28, 2011
The Beauty of Mathematics - Inspirational Videos - GodTube
The Beauty of Mathematics - Inspirational Videos - GodTube
Common Sense Is Tingling: Debunking Christianity: My Responses to a Christian Scholar
I have not seen very many posts from John Loftus where he takes something written by a Christian Scholar and respond to portions of it. To be fair, he doesn't say who the scholar is but that doesn't really matter. I'd suggest reading the post to see how Loftus thinks and argues. Your common sense should be going off like fire alarms. He doesn't raise anything new or interesting to object or argue about because his points have already been answered elsewhere. Instead I'd like to comment on something he says at the end. Quoting the scholar, and then making his comments (in bold), Loftus posted:If it was not the remarkable person of Jesus of Nazareth himself, culminating in his death and resurrection, what was it? They shrug and say they don't know. Something happened.This is a gross mischaracterization. Plenty of views have been suggested, as I do. The visionary basis for the view Jesus arose from the dead beginning with either Peter or Mary Magdalene works just fine. But non-believers emphatically do not have to propose an alternative scenario at all. A historian can look at an argument purporting to show what happened at Custer’s Last Stand and say that scenario is improbable without having to suggest a better one. It could well be that there isn’t enough evidence to say one way or another after showing one such scenario is improbable.
Loftus suggests that as long as non-believers can show that Jesus' Resurrection is improbable, they don't need to propose alternate scenarios to explain the historical facts that we do have. We don't have a single account of Peter seeing Jesus when he was alone. And last I checked there is proof of groups of people experiencing the same vision or dream at the same time and most of the accounts we do have of people seeing the risen Christ it was in groups of two or more people simultaneously. The only glaring exceptions are Mary Magdalene and Apostle Paul. I point this out because I wonder if Loftus and other non-believers think that they don't need to offer better plausible explanations for the historical evidences of the Resurrection, why do they keep falling all over themselves offering alternate scenarios other than the one the Bible gives? The other problem is none of the alternate explanations are good explanations! It something is not improbable then it can't be miraculous. Something can really happen and be true yet seem improbable or even seem impossible. If you ever seen what happen to liquid helium in room temperature, you'll have an idea of what I mean. Loftus and other non-believers have failed to offer alternate scenarios to explain what happened the Sunday after Jesus' crucifixion and calling the Resurrection improbable adds nothing to the discussion because all miracles are improbable and tells us nothing about whether or not it happened. That is why such events are called "miracles".Debunking Christianity: My Responses to a Christian Scholar
Ken Samples New Blog: Reflections - Apologetics 315
Ken Samples New Blog: Reflections - Apologetics 315
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Debate: Assurance of Salvation in Islam and Christianity
I think that this is the debate that White never wanted to have with fellow Christian Dan Corner and that is on the subject of OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved) or the believers security.
The doctrine "Once Saved Always Saved" is not the same thing as the Reformed doctrine of "Perseverance of the Saints" or "Eternal security". OSAS carries with it a stigma of "cheap" grace. People start thinking that they can live any kind of way and still go to heaven because they are saved. This is not what the Bible teaches. True a born-again and regenerate human being can't be lost. This is something God does. However he does that in changing an individual on such a fundamental level that he or she does not want to live any kind of way anymore but desire to live a life for Jesus. The assurance comes from the Fact that the one who saved us is more than able to keep us. In my opinion, such a debate can be confusing if there isn't a clear distinction being made. It's my understanding that Dan Corner does not want to make that distinction.
That is really in a nut shell what it boils down to.
The Calvinist has a certain degree of security based only on two presuppositions.
1) That their theology is the correct theology.
2) That their works and outward manifestation of a Christ centered life is really the works of a regenerate person and not someone who has been deceived by God with evanscent grace.
Actually that isn't true. If Arminians are correct then I am just as saved as I am if the Calvinists are correct. They agree that we are saved by grace and God holds all accountable for their sins! What they disagree on is the how of we respond to that grace: is it on our own and does God have to enable us apart from our will? In the final analysis which ever is correct - I'm saved. Here is the difference between a regenerate person and one who isn't is that the works will not stop. The faith will not stop. God deceives no one. According to Arminians, the Prevenient grace (I think that this is what thegrandverbalizer meant by "evanscent") given by God and available to all human beings is not until salvation - no. It's just enough grace for a person to be able to decide to be saved or reject Jesus.
Here is a playlist of the debate
Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Debate: Assurance of Salvation in Islam and Christianity
Clay Jones Interview: The Crusades - part 2 - Apologetics 315
Today's interview is the second of a series of three short podcasts (see part one here) dealing with the general perception of the Crusades, what the Crusades were, motivations behind them, Augustine's concept of "just war," the atrocities of the Crusades, and their overall outcome.
Clay Jones Interview: The Crusades - part 2 - Apologetics 315
THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Responding to Dhorpatan's critique of Christian epistemology
THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Responding to Dhorpatan's critique of Christian epistemology
'Diagram for Delinquents' Doc Focuses on Fredric Wertham, Comics' Most Hated Man - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
'Diagram for Delinquents' Doc Focuses on Fredric Wertham, Comics' Most Hated Man - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
The Dunamis Word: The Nephilim Pt. 1
Rather than look at biblical chronology examining the nephilim, I thought it best to look at some nephilim (tyrannical giants) that have developed in modern times. These men rejected salvation through Jesus and told the public that salvation was only offered through them, and obedience to their words. Some, who have examined their lives, say that they were mentally ill. I can only say that persons can't exalt themselves, blaspheme God and expect to remain sane.
His series of articles will focus on:
Elder Burnett is not shy about naming names. I appreciate that in him. Of course these men have gone on to their....um....reward, but there are still such people today working against God's kingdom. I can't wait for the next part.Rev. Major Jealous Divine aka: "Father Divine"Bishop CM. "Sweet Daddy" GraceRev. Jim JonesRev. Frederick "Ike" Eikerenkoetter
The Dunamis Word: The Nephilim Pt. 1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)