Atheism is Dead: Atheism, EvilBible.com and Jesus Lied

Mariano has posted a great article refuting an article from EvilBible.com that attempts to find places in the Bible where Jesus lied. Mariano points out just how stupid the idea is!

Atheism is Dead: Atheism, EvilBible.com and Jesus Lied

The Truth About Angels and Demons - Apologetics 315

Here is a great post from Apologetics 315 that we can use to learn about how to field questions about the new movie based on Dan Brown's novel Angel's and Demons.

The Truth About Angels and Demons - Apologetics 315

Islam Rising

I have recently heard about a couple of videos that Benny Hinn is telling his students in his school of ministry to share with family and friends. They are interesting but at the same time they will draw criticism because people will think that it paints Islam as an evil empire bent on world congress.





This particular video presents information that I was already aware of. Christianity is not just a religion its ingrained in Western Culture. This means that Islamic nations are going to be in conflict. There is no other way around it. The video presents the coming challenges from the fact that Islamic immigrants are over-running the Christian populations of the west as a war but I prefer to see it as an opportunity for evangelism. Muhammad (us) will not or cannot go to the mountain (Muslims) so God is bringing the mountain to Muhammad - to butcher an aphormism.





I'm tempted to say that subtitled video is an overstatement, however there really are people in this world who think this way. Historically, Muslims are inclusive and tolerant when they are the minority. But when they are the powerful majority they take over and force their viewpoints on other people. Historical fact. It's what people do, but not what God tells us in the Bible to do. However it is what the Koran tells them to do. We have a grace period in America...I think Europe may be too far down the rabbit hole to come back. In America, we can still reason with the Muslims among us and dialogue. We can still talk. I think most Western Muslims do not see themselves as needing to destroy us. There is that powerful minority that define themselves by hating us and Christianity. I thank God that we can still witness and talk to the reasonable Muslims.

Muslim Art?

Who says Muslims don't use political cartoons to express themselves about American influence and power in the Middle East.

A Ransom For ALL?

Yesterday, I received an e-mail from BibleToday.com and it read as follows:

Dear Bible Student,

We are pleased to send you a copy (attached to this email) of the slide presentation entitled "A Ransom for All" that answers the questions: Why did Jesus die for us? and How does the death of Jesus save us? We hope you enjoy it and that you will share it with others.

May our Lord continue to bless your studies.

Your friends at BibleToday.com

Okay, I was impressed at first. I mean a powerpoint presenting the gospel? What could go wrong I thought? I should have known that there was something wrong because of the title: "A Ransom for All". I have used my AuthorStream account to post the power point below. Take a look.



Uploaded on authorSTREAM by mmcelhaney


I had huge problems with this. i mean the first half of the presentation is great. It explains how messed us we are without Jesus. It used scripture very effectively to drive the gospel home. then it goes Carlton Pierson of us and turns into a failed apologetic for rejecting the reality of hell. My mouth was hanging open because it's a pretty presentation. I'm left wondering that they obviously sent this to people who read the Bible and it doesn't take much study to know the Bible teaches that some people are going to go to heaven and some are going to hell. This could turn into a Calvinist/Arminian or discussion of free will but let's save that for a different time and let's look at some of the assertions the presentation makes:

1. Did Jesus die merely to save a comparatively few Christians? And then answers no, citing 1 John 2:2 which says:

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

This verse does not say that Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for all, but not that everyone is saved

2. Jesus dies for all we were still in our sins. Then John 3:16, Romans 5:8, and 1 Peter 3:18 are cited.

"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."
- John 3:16

Notice that only those believes in the son don't perish but get everlasting life.

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. Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. ⁵And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.

You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. - Romans 5: 1-10

Look! Romans 5:8 was taken out of context. All people are ungodly until they are justified by the blood of Jesus.

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, - 1 Peter 3:18

Again, the passage is taken out of context. Peter is not talking about unbelievers and believers...he is only talking to believers.

3. The Presentation asserts that Romans 5 verses 12 and 18 show that Jesus sacrifice justifies all men, just as Adam's disobedience damned us all but I think that the verses are taken out of context, I mean why was verse 19 not included. It says:

For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

I'm getting at that the passage does not teach that ever human being was made righteous just those who believe.

4. There are two resurrections: the just and unjust. The presentation really breaks here...I can't tell if it's saying that the unjust are going to "mercifully judged and punished according to their past guilt" or that they experience the second death described in Revelations 2:11. The author of the presentation did not make it clear. Fortunately, Jesus did make it clear. He said that he is the only way to God.

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

By definition a true Christian is a person who puts their trust and faith in Jesus for the justification from our sins. Bottom line. No other religion teaches this. This means that as unsavory as it sounds, everyone who does not believe will not be going to have eternal life with Jesus and there is no passdage in the bible that can be used to describe the "second" death as non-existence or oblivion. This how Jesus described it:

They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. -Matthew 13:42 and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. - Matthew 13:50 "There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. - Luke 13:28

Atheism is Dead: From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 11 of 13

This post is the eleventh in Mariano's series of articles discussing Hitler's relationship to Christianity and Atheism. Check it out!

Atheism is Dead: From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 11 of 13

Does the Temple Need To Be Rebuilt To Fulfill Bible Prophecy

I came across the following article on the internet. It's interesting.

ANALYSIS: Rebuild the Temple
By Lawrence J. Joyce
www.LighthousePrayerLine.org


A common belief among Evangelical Christians is that the Jews have to rebuild their temple in order for Bible prophecy to be fulfilled. But a closer examination of the Scriptures suggests that perhaps this is not necessarily the case.

The prophecies in question are: 1.) The Antichrist or his False Prophet setting up the Antichrist's image in the temple; 2.) The Abomination of Desolation taking place; and 3.) The Antichrist setting himself up as God in the "temple" of God.

As to the first prophecy, it is a myth. The Bible simply does not say that the image of the Beast is set up in the temple, or indeed in any other specific location. (Rev. 13:15). (Nor does the Bible say that there were three wise men, for that matter. It simply says that there were wise men with three gifts. See, Matt 2:1-16.)

As to the Abomination of Desolation, the only thing needed for that prophecy to be fulfilled is the existence of the Holy of Holies. (Matt. 24: 15-22; Dan. 9:27 and 12:11). But the Holy of Holies can exist as it did prior to the construction of the first temple: in the Tabernacle. Many Orthodox Jews today believe that only Messiah can rebuild the temple. Perhaps they are right after all. And many Christians who follow Bible prophecy have noted that the progression of events in the Middle East right now seems out of sync with the idea of rebuilding the temple, which could take many years to finish. Also, rebuilding the temple could be violently explosive in the Middle East right now, whereas erecting a temporary structure, the Tabernacle, would not be nearly so. And erecting the Tabernacle on the site of the ancient temples could be a convenient compromise among Orthodox Jews who wish to rebuild the temple and those who insist that they do not do so.

The third prophecy---found in II Thess. 2:4, concerning the "son of perdition" setting himself up as God in the "temple" of God---seems to be the major obstacle to a Tabernacle theory of end-times prophecy. Yet looks, especially first looks, can be deceiving.

The New Testament uses two Greek words for "temple": hieron, which refers to the temple grounds and building, and naos, which refers to the sanctuary. Hieron is used 71 times in the New Testament. Naos is used 44 times therein. II Thess. 2:4 uses the word naos. (All uses of the word "temple" in Revelation use the word naos.)

The uses of these two words illustrates their different meanings. For instance, when the Word says that Satan brought Jesus up to the roof of the temple, it uses hieron. (Luke 4:9). Likewise, when it says Jesus taught in the temple (Luke 20:1), or states that He was on Solomon's porch (John 10:23), it uses hieron. The same holds true when it says Peter and John went to the temple to pray. (Acts 3:1). But when it quotes Jesus as saying that upon the religious rulers who opposed Him would come the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, "... whom ye slew between the temple and the altar," it uses the word naos for "temple", denoting the sanctuary itself. (Matt. 23:35). Indeed, it would not make sense to use hieron, the word for the temple building, in that context, for the altar itself was actually inside the temple building.

Likewise, when Jesus told his opponents that if they destroyed "this temple" he would raise it back up in three days (John 2:19), the word naos is used. The same applies to the references to the veil in the temple being torn when Jesus died. (Matt.27:51, Mark 15:38, and Luke 23:45). Similarly, when Paul tells the Corinthians that they are the temple of the Holy Spirit, the word naos is used. (I Cor. 3:16-17; II Cor. 6:16). The same is true when he tells the Ephesians that we are being built as a holy temple unto the Lord. (Eph. 2:21). Thus, the word naos can refer to things either physical or spiritual in nature; but it always refers, in any case, to some form of sanctuary, and is not the word used to specify the temple building and grounds generally. The word hieron is reserved for that.

Particularly noteworthy in this context is the wording of the travails mentioned in Daniel in and around the time of the Abomination of Desolation. There the prophet speaks of desecration and resanctification taking place in the "sanctuary", using two Hebrew words for sanctuary (miqdash and qodesh), but not one of the Hebrew words for "temple"---bavith or heykal. (Dan. 8:11, 8:13-14, 9:17, 9:26, and 11:31). Significantly, Daniel himself uses a Chaldean version of heykal when relating the story of how Belshazzar took the golden and silver vessels from Solomon's temple to drink from at his feast for his pagan gods. (Dan. 5: 2-3). So it is not as if Daniel would not have used a specific word for the temple building itself when the time came to do so.

Given the usage of hieron and naos in the Scripture, then, we must recognize that the statement in II Thess. 2:4 need not mean the temple building. The word naos consistently refers to the sanctuary itself---the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies---either in a physical or a spiritual context. The writings in Daniel likewise resonate with this meaning of the word naos. And the sanctuary, we must remember, can be present in the Tabernacle every bit as much as in the temple building.

................................

**More on this topic can be found at these sites:

http://www.herealittletherealittle.net/index.cfm?page_name=Antichrist

http://www.nobodyleftbehind.net/issues.html

http://ezinearticles.com/?Pre-Tribulation,-Mid-Tribulation,-Or-Post-Tribulation---Why-I-Am-Mid-Trib&id=1892370

http://ezinearticles.com/?Whoever-Shuts-His-Ears-to-the-Cry-of-the-Poor-Will-One-Day-Suffer-Also!-Proverbs-21:13&id=2076813

http://www.talkjesus.com/evidence-bible-prophecy/24842-what-church-fathers-said-about-rapture.html

................................

Great Book! Check this out:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0931608066?ie=UTF8&tag=lighprayline-20

This article is good and all. There is only one scripture I would like to raise to the author to see if they can explain why Jesus said that there will be an "abomination that causes desolation" in the Holy of Holies. If this has not happened yet, then how will it unless the temple is rebuilt? Matthew 24:15-17 says:

"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house."

"ex nihilo" vs "ex materia"

I have recently written a post in which there has been dialog discussing differences in Mormon and Christian theologies. On my post called

More Dialog on Mormonism Part 1 - Responses

I was pointed to the following article by Blake T. Ostler. The article is supposed to be a refutation to a work by Paul Copan and William Lane Craig in which they argue that Mormons are wrong and that God created the universe out of nothing. It turns out that many Mormons believe that God made the universe out of pre-existing chaos. Who knew? What amazed me at the article was the professional polish and detail displayed in it. Craig and Copan argue that the Bible and Physics teach that all of the universe was created out of nothing - "creatio ex nihilo" in latin. Ostler takes offense. He argued that the Bible teaches "creatio ex materia"- latin for creation out of material. I think Ostler fails to prove his case for five reasons:
1. He asserts that "creates" in Genesis 1:1 does not mean "out of nothing" but never explains why. Instead he spend his time in the New Testament trying to show that the earth was created out something. Genesis 1:1 says

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2. Craig and Copan, and for that matter myself, do not argue that the earth was created out of nothing -- no all of matter, time, and space was created out of nothing. Using scripture pointing out that those things were organized into the configurations we see today is moot
3. He seems to confuse "make" with "create". There is a difference. You "make" something out of what's available. You create something that is new.
4. There was no refutation of the "ex nihilo" argument from the ground of Physics as William Lane Craig always uses when he defends the truth of God's existence against atheists and skeptics.
5. Ostler never explained where the "chaos" out of which the Heavens and earth were made came from.

From what I understand "ex nihilo" undermines Mormon Theology because it automatically points to a transcendent and timeless God...while Joseph Smith had taught that God was once a man who had a god but became a god himself - infinitely regressed backward.

LDS Prophet Joseph Smith taught that God was once a mortal man:

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. ...I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil,...

It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, ...and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; ...you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another,... from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings. and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power" (History of the Church, Vol. 6, Ch. 14, p. 305-6).

Here is the article

Open publication - Free publishing - More theology

Another Transformers 2 Trailer!

2009 White House Correspondents' Dinner President Obama Speech

I'm amazed how events such as the White House Correspondents' Dinner takes on some significance with the Obama Administration more than any previous President. Here is some video from Obama's speech. He made fun of some of his critics.





Here is comedian Wanda Sykes' comments. She was the first African-American woman to speak at the venue. And the first open lesbian. She drew fire because of the jokes she mad about some conservative, who's name I will not mention right now, hoping that he will get sick and die. I think, from a Christian point of view, it was over the line. However she is not professing to be a Christian.

Atheism is Dead: From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 10 of 13

This post is the tenth in Mariano's series of articles discussing Hitler's relationship to Christianity and Atheism. Check it out!

Atheism is Dead: From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 10 of 13

Old Earth Young Earth Debate MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

There is a debate among Christians concerning how old the earth really is. "Young Earth" Creationists believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis in which the "Six Days of Creation" is interpreted as six 24-hour days. Many of these people also use the information contained in Genesis to calculate the age of the earth to be somewhere between 4000 to 6 thousand years. "Old Earth" Creationists interpret the "Six Days of Creation" think of "Day" as being several thousands to millions of years each. It seems that many of them accept the evidences of geology and science as to the age of the earth. I don't think the Bible gives us enough information to calculate the age of the earth. It's not that God could not make all there is in six 24-hour days. He is all-powerful. He could have done it in 6 seconds had he chosen. Even if you grant that the "day" of creation is 24 hours, we can't be certain of the geneologies because in Hebrew geneologies not every one is guaranteed to be mentioned - just the important people. Therefore we can't really use Genesis to calculate the age of the earth. So I'm gonna say that when it comes to this issue I have no idea. But checkout this debate to see what you come up with.

Old Earth Young Earth Debate MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

Jay Richards Vs Christopher Hitchens - Intelligent Design

I am so excited that I have finally found the full video for this debate. I've been waiting for more than a year! It's Christopher Hitchens (right) debating Jay Richards (left) on Intelligent Design. The debate took place Sunday, January 27th at 4pm PST, Stanford University.



Watch Christopher Hitchens vs Jay Richards Debate in Educational & How-To  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com


The debate was really good. Unfortunately, Christopher Hitchens have not changed. I think he completely understands what the Bible says about what and who God is and Hitchens rejects that. He believes that the Bible says that God is in control of everything and Hitchens does not want to be controlled or be accountable to anyone or anything other than himself and what he thinks is right. He wants to call God "to the carpet" and call his design and purposes into question. The fact that in the Bible says "I am boss and you are not." This is what Hitchens is not.

I am also very amazed about Hitchens interpretation of what the Gospel is. He says its that about God stacking all the odds against people and then demand that we behave in a certain way when it's impossible. He does not understand what Jesus did for us. Because of His love and kindness, God regenerates us so that we can obey Him and follow Him - have a real relationship with God. The trick is that God does it himself through us. We can't do it without him. Something else Hitchens hates.

One point that I think Richards did loose on is on the question of free-will. He's right if someone gives you free will it is not libertarian free will. I think Richards skunked Hitchens on the matter about "infinite regression." If I ever am challenged with the proposition to refute the point that a designer must himself have a designer, I want to use his argument. Hitchens misses the point that Theists do not argue that God ever came into existence...He always was. Always is. Always will be. This is why Richards and William Lane Craig use words so carefully: "that which begins to exist must have a cause."

Another point I think is worth mentioning is the argument for design called "Fine-tuning". It says that the all the natural constants, force, physical laws and properties are set just right so that life exists on earth. Jay Richards and his partners pushes the point farther by saying that the universe is set up just right so that we can perform scientific inquiry. God not only designed the universe to support life on earth but put us in the perfect place so we can measure and observe what He did. I reject Hitchens' and other's attempt to criticize that design because they are assuming to know what God's purposes are are for why things are like they are. If you don't know what the intent was, assuming that there is a design, how did you know there was a failure? Reminds me of the Justice League cartoons when Batman throws a batarang at an opponent and we think he missed until a second later we see see that he was actually aiming for something else entirely - winning the confrontation. What Batman says in those circumstances is what I believe God is saying to us when we don't know what He's doing and why: "Wait for it."

The Gospel According to Star Trek

I saw the new Star Trek Film this last weekend and I was blown away. I don't want to give away the movie in case you have not seen it, but there is one major idea from the film that I must bring up. The movie is action-packed but it does have great philosophical implications concerning Free-Will and Destiny. Are you who you are just because of the culmination of your choices, genetics, and the circumstances you live through? Or are you who you are because you were meant to be who you are and where you are? Let me explain how the movie bring this up.

The main plot of the Movie is that Spock and the Romulans accidentally go back-in-time (from the time of the Next Generation, DS9, and Voyager series) to the time that Captain Kirk was born and many things changed creating a parallel Universe. However in this universe Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, Sulu, Scottie, and Checkov still became the people we remember in the Original Series although they took different paths to the roles they end up in. Even their personalities and who they are as people did not change. What does this mean?

In the universe depicted in Star Trek, there is still the idea of destiny. Kirk and crew of the Enterprise have a destiny to greatness. I doubt that the film makers are making a claim of God's soveriegnty, but the question does come up: Who dictated that Captain Kirk would be captain of the Enterprise? For that matter who determines your destiny. The Bible has an answer in Acts 17:22-31 -

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

Some great reviews for the Movie:
What NOW For "Star Trek" Warning Full-Of-Spoilers


A Movie Review

Predestination in Islam: Dr. Norman Geisler's Critique

Colin Smith has written a very great article about Norman Geisler's critique of the ideas of Predestination in Islam. It's important not just because it helps to understand how to witness to Muslims but it sheds a lot of light in discussing the Calvinism vs Arminianism debate. I have comments following Colin Smiths in red.

In the previous blog, we looked at what the Qur'an and the Hadith teach with regard to the doctrine of Predestination (Qadar), and we saw that the notion of God's absolute sovereignty is, indeed, supported there. Further, we saw that Islam teaches that God's decree extends to all creation and all that happens, even down to the final destination of each human soul; and God will so direct the paths of each man's life so that he will earn the destiny to which he has been ordained.
In his book Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross, co-written with Abdul Saleeb, Dr. Norman Geisler provides a critique of this teaching (pp. 140-145 of the first edition). Norman Geisler is well-known to listeners of The Dividing Line and those who have followed this website over the years, since it was his criticism of Sproul's book Chosen by God, entitled Chosen But Free, that provoked Dr. White to write The Potter's Freedom. Geisler is solidly Arminian in his theology, and has attacked Reformed doctrine, particularly Calvin's Five Points, in various fora, always with the same misunderstandings and misrepresentations as detailed in Dr. White's book. As with most Arminians, Geisler holds to the idea that God has chosen an undefined group of people that will be saved, but, even though He loves all men equally and desires each one to be saved, He has given each man the ability to choose whether or not he will belong to that number. God provides His Church, His Word, and many evidences of His existence to all creation, and extends the offer of salvation to all of fallen mankind through the shed blood of His final and greatest gift: His Son, who sacrificed Himself on the cross for every person who has and ever will live. However, it is up to each sinful man to accept God's offer in order to be saved. If man does not accept, then he will have consigned himself to eternal punishment, despite God's loving efforts to save him. If he does accept, that man is welcomed into Heaven when he dies.
After seeing what Islam teaches with regard to Predestination, it comes as no surprise to learn that Dr. Geisler takes issue with the Muslim view. In this blog, I want to take a few moments to see how Geisler goes about critiquing the doctrine of Qadar, and to provide a counter-critique. My counter-critique is by no means in defense of the Muslim position, but to illustrate how Geisler's own theological position has weakened his apologetic response.


Critiquing Qadar: The Geisler Approach
Dr. Geisler breaks his critique of the doctrine of Qadar into four categories: the logical problem, the moral problem, the theological problem, and the metaphysical problem. The logical problem he sees with Qadar is the fact that the Qur'an depicts God acting in contradictory ways, and describing Him in contradictory terms. "For example, God is 'the One Who leads astray,' as well as 'the One Who guides.' He is 'the One Who brings damage,' as also does Satan" (p. 141). He finds the Muslim response that these contradictions are not part of God's essence but expressions of His will to be "inadequate." As Geisler points out, one's actions flow from one's essence. In other words, a rational person acts in a way that is in character with who he is. That being the case, the God of Islam would be a God of contradictory essence.
The moral problem, according to Dr. Geisler, is simply that Islam's "extreme determinism" robs man of moral responsibility for his actions. Since God ordains a man's path, and causes him to act in ways that lead to either Heaven or Hell, God is unjust to condemn man for sin over which man has no power. He claims that the attempts by Muslims to deny this only work if they are willing to distort what the Qur'an plainly teaches.
Geisler's theological problem with Qadar is that, since in Islam God wills both the faith of the believer and the unbelief of the unbeliever, God is thus made to be the author of evil.
Finally, the metaphysical problem Geisler sees is in the fact that this concept of absolute sovereignty has led to the idea that since God's will is the only will, then God is the only one who actually acts: the rest of creation is passive, waiting for God to move. Further, some have suggested that if no-one but God has the ability to act, then nothing else has true being but God. This has led some mystical Islamic sects to seek the annihilation of one's individuality.



Problems with Geisler's Critique
Logical: I had the mixed blessing of studying Hebrew under a professor who was clearly very adept in Semitic languages, but was also quite virulently anti-Christian. As a result, he was able to give an accurate presentation of the structure and rules of Hebrew grammar, and yet present us with passages to translate that were, at least as far as I could see, chosen because of their "problematic" nature with regard to Christian theology. One such passage was Isaiah 45. Indeed, well I remember verse 7, [r_' arEAbW ~Alv' hf,[o , and how my professor gave a little half smile as he reminded us that the Hebrew literally means "making peace and creating evil." He was quite correct, though. There is no getting around the fact that the Hebrew text is attributing to God the ability to form all that is good and all that is bad, and if we believe the Bible to be God's Word, we have to accept this fact, and not try to avoid it. The first half of the verse also attributes to God the creation of both light and darkness. What the prophet is communicating here is precisely what Dr. Geisler is objecting to: the all-encompassing and all-pervasiveness of God's sovereignty. If God did not bring about both good and bad, if He is only responsible for all that is good, then where did the other come from? Is there a creator other than God? The Bible firmly insists that there is not. I will deal with this passage more fully in the next blog installment, but suffice it to say that the Muslim could easily counter Geisler's logical objection by citing this and other passages in the Old Testament that show God's sovereign control extending to opposite extremes, and asking him to explain the contradictory nature of his God. If God only leads people to do good things, then why did He cause Joseph's brothers to sell Joseph into slavery (Genesis 50:20), and harden Pharaoh's heart (Exodus 7:3)? Can Dr. Geisler offer a more satisfactory explanation than the Muslim?
Moral: Again, the Muslim could object to this criticism by pointing Dr. Geisler to passages where God claims that sinful men have acted according to His plan (Genesis 50:20; Exodus 7:3; Isaiah 10:5-14; John 19:11; Acts 4:27-28). While Geisler loves to give man the ability to exercise free will outside of God's direct influence, he does so contrary to the testimony of Scripture. Man does not, and indeed cannot act outside of God's purposes. When discussing the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled as proof of His divinity, Geisler makes the following statement:


But what are we to say about the prophecies involving miracles? He just happened to make the blind man see? He just happened to be resurrected from the dead? These hardly seem like chance events. If there is a God who is in control of the universe, as we have said, then chance is ruled out... But it is not just a logical improbability that rules out this theory; it is the moral implausibility of an all-powerful and all-knowing God letting things get out of control so that all his plans for prophetic fulfillment are ruined by someone who just happened to be in the right place at the right time. (pp. 249-250)


I wonder if Dr. Geisler really grasps the level of control that God has to have over the universe to be sure that prophecy is fulfilled precisely as He intends? Imagine a chess game, and you have worked out a strategy for moving one of your pawns to your opponent's end in order that it might become a queen. Your strategy may be first-class, but you cannot guarantee your opponent has not discerned your intentions and has devised a number of measures to hinder and possibly thwart your progress. How can you be sure that you won't be distracted by something and forget the strategy, or perhaps a sudden need for the bathroom might take you away from the game and give your unscrupulous opponent opportunity to rig the game? No, to be infallibly certain that your pawn will reach its intended destination, you must have complete control over all factors, including your opponent's strategy and all of his pieces (not to mention your bladder, too!). R. C. Sproul has well said that there is no such thing as a maverick molecule in the universe. If there was, there would be a chance that a prophecy may fail to come to pass, or a decree of God might not stand. It seems, therefore, that Dr. Geisler does not grasp how important it is for God to have complete control even over the seemingly free-will actions of men, otherwise Moses might not have gone to Egypt, Judas might not have betrayed Jesus, or Pilate may have decided not to have Jesus crucified.
Theological: The idea that if God ordains evil He becomes the author of evil has already been addressed to some extent. For now, it is enough to re-state that the Bible plainly teaches that God is behind all of the actions of men, whether good or bad. The question is not, therefore, "does the Bible gives God the ability to ordain evil?" but rather, how do you deal with the fact that God does ordain both good and evil actions. Again, I don't believe Geisler has any better response to this than the Muslims.
Metaphysical: While it may be true that mystical Islamic groups have taken this doctrine to an extreme and formed outrageous belief systems as a result, that is hardly an argument against the doctrine itself. The existence of Gnosticism does not make the doctrine of Christ's deity suspect, nor does the existence of Arianism invalidate the doctrine of Christ's humanity. While this might be a danger of the doctrine, it is by no means a refutation of it.


Having briefly surveyed Dr. Geisler's critique of Qadar and pointed out the failings of his critique, in the final installment of this series I will point out the fundamental flaws in the Islamic understanding of God's sovereignty, and show how only a Reformed view of God can properly address the problems raised, and offer real hope and comfort.

Atheism is Dead: From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 9 of 13

This post is the nineth in Mariano's series of articles discussing Hitler's relationship to Christianity and Atheism. Check it out!

Atheism is Dead: From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 9 of 13

Bernie Mac's Funeral

I know it has been a while since this happened, but I just found out the some of Bernie Mac's funeral is on YouTube. I wasn't able to go. I enjoyed the man's work and it would have been nice to have attended but this is the next best thing. There may be more clips on YouTube but these are the one's I'm most interested in.

GI Joe Movie Widget

Makayla and Mathias Pictures

Atheism is Dead: From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 8 of 13

This post is the eighth in Mariano's series of articles discussing Hitler's relationship to Christianity and Atheism. Check it out!

Atheism is Dead: From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 8 of 13