Arminiansim, Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Here is a discussion of the differences between Arminianism, Calvinism, and Hyper-Calvinism. There is even a chart that summarizes this.

Click to play

Arminiansim, Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism

Apologetics 315: J.P.Moreland vs. Clancy Martin Debate MP3 Audio

Here is another great resources from Brian that he placed on his blog. It's interesting that  Martin's atheistic arguments are no different than any other arguements:

1. I have no good reason to believe in the Christian God.
2. Human suffering
3. Problem of evil
4. People will never hear of Jesus - generations past
5. Disagreement with the choices God has made for the nature of reality
6. Faith means "having no truth".
7. Don't need God because the Universe could  be uncaused.

Moreland did extremely well. - way better than I thought even with the refuting the arguments about the problerm of Evil. He pointed out that in no way can the universe be first cause then it would be eternal - having no beginning or ending - we know the universe has an ending and a beginning. I liked how Moreland pointed out how Christianity is spreading in the 3rd World at an unprecedented rate - by special revelation and miracles in some cases. I liked how Moreland corrected Martin on what  "faith" is - trust founded on evidence.

I think Moreland talked about the Problem of Evil in a good way - the only way a person who believe in free will can -   by putting it back on the atheist. I would deal with the problem differently. Because Moreland accepts human free will, I think that kept him from engaging Martin on the point that God cannot be "good" because there is so much evil in the world. We need to tell people that God has set standards for humanity and God is able to do that because He is control and has set them up and can do whatever He wants.

I also liked how Moreland discussed how belief in God is not about the believer wanting to believe is really no different than the atheist who does not believe because he/she desires not to believe because perhaps some of them are trying to reject the ultimate Father figure.

Apologetics 315: J.P.Moreland vs. Clancy Martin Debate MP3 Audio

Apologetics 315: Dan Wallace on Text of Scripture: Interview MP3 Audio

Here is a great resource! This is an interview with Dan Wallace on textual criticism of the New Testament. If you want to hear counter arguments by a renowned scholar who is just as credentialed as Bart Ehrman, this is the interview you need to hear. Dr. Wallace defines what "Textual Criticism" is and how to interpret the data and facts. Wallace and Ehrman actually agree on the facts. There are variants.  More  variants than the words of the New Testament. Only Wallace tells you things that Ehrman won't say publicly - only in his scholarly books. This is a great interview. Thanks, Brian.


Apologetics 315: Dan Wallace on Text of Scripture: Interview MP3 Audio

Atheism is Dead: Richard Dawkins Rules Out Abiogenesis, part 1 of 2

Mariano has written a great post about about Richard Dawkin's latest book. tjhis is from the point of view of seeing that Dawkins has an anti-religious ax to grind in his book the Greatest Show On Earth.

Atheism is Dead: Richard Dawkins Rules Out Abiogenesis, part 1 of 2

Atheism is Dead: Bart Ehrman’s Millions and Millions of Variants, part 1 of 2

Bart Ehrman via last.fm

Ever read something so well-done, so awesome, so organized, so obviously inspired by God that you just marvel? This one of those kinds of posts I'm highlighting with the one read now. Mariano does something that i have never thought about - apply Bart Ehrman's method of analyzing the New Testament to one of Ehrman's own books. In Mariano's case, he picked Misquoting Jesus and documents 16 errors. He then goes on and show because there are at least 100,000 copies in circulation, according to the logic Ehrman uses, there are at least 1,600,000 variants.

The error that he points out that made me roll-on-floor-laughing was that although the book was about analyzing Greek manuscripts, the cover has Hebrew in its background printed upside down! I know some people might point out that we can't say that it's a mistake it may have been purposeful You may have a point. But many of them would also argue against God's existence because of the way nature work does not make sense to them. Their objection is answered the same way: you don't know what the intended purpose was.

Mariano is a very gifted writer and this post especially contains very quotable sections. Here is the main point of the post in Mariano's words:

Now, if you are paying attention—or are you like me and simply cannot afford to pay attention? :o)—you may be thinking 1) that is only 16 errors, 2) they are mostly merely misspellings, 3) they do not affect the contents of the text and certainly do not affect any major point which the book seeks to make.
As for 2) and 3); thank you for noticing as this is precisely, word for word, how many of us feel about Bart Ehrman’s criticisms of the New Testament manuscripts.

Mariano also quoted Ehrman's interviews - things i have heard or read Ehrman say myself - about Ehrman's own path to agnosticism and how he really had no good reason to leave (if he ever truly was born-again) Christianity. I think Mariano is spot on.

People like Ehrman must be answered because so many people are taking his conclusion as proof that there is no God and that Christianity is a false religion. People are looking for reasons to ignore God and Ehrman is giving it to them. In talking to atheist myself I have had Ehrman's work waved at me as if he mattered. People like Mike Licona, William Lane Craig, James White, and Mariano are literally doing the work of God in showing that Ehrman is not correct in his conclusions and why.

I can't wait to read Mariano's part 2.

Atheism is Dead: Bart Ehrman’s Millions and Millions of Variants, part 1 of 2

Brennon's Thoughts: William Lane Craig on Romans 9

Image via Wikipedia

Brennon has posted the following quote from William Lane Craig summing up the meaning of Romans 9.

Paul's burden, then, in Romans 9 is not to narrow the scope of God's election but to broaden it. He wants to take in all who have faith in Christ Jesus regardless of their ethnicity. Election, then, is first and foremost a corporate notion: God has chosen for Himself a people, a corporate entity, and it is up to us by our response of faith whether or not we choose to be members of that corporate group destined to salvation

.

Read the entire article this comes from here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6675

I admire William Lane Craig a great deal. I believe he loves Jesus and that he is saved. i do have to differ on how he is reading corporate election into Romans 9. I mean is it possible to choose a group of people without also designation who is in that chosen group? Is it really like two empty rooms with an open doors, and God says, I'm saving all those who choose to go in to that door and all those in the other room are going to hell? That is what I understand Dr. Craig to be saying. There are two problems. One: no one has the ability to go into that room for salvation, nor wants to go into that room, unless God enables him/her. (John 6:44). Two: The truth is that hell is the default destination for each and every human being. Often times we make it sound like a person's eternal destiny is up in the air until they make a choice for or against God. The Bible teaches that each one of us chooses to reject God from the get go. How we change unless God "takes out that heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh"? We don't. A better picture is an empty room that God fills with those selected - predestined - from outside the room who are on their way to hell - us.

11In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory. Ephesians 1:11-14

1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. Ephesians 2:1-10

Okay, given what Paul wrote to the Ephesians, I can't see how he intended to give us the idea that the elect was something you joined of your own free-will in Romans 9. It is true that God is telling us that it has nothing to do with who your daddy is but His choice in choosing you. He's not rejecting those who are no chosen, they are doomed before there is any choice is made.

Brennon's Thoughts: William Lane Craig on Romans 9

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Who is Glorious?

Continuing his great series on the Trinity, Mariano considers the question: Which member of the Trinity is Glorious? He goes to answer this question by showing what the Bible says about each one. God is one Being. If God is Glorious than the 3 persons sharing the same being must each be Glorious!   He did another excellent job!!!!!


Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Who is Glorious?

YouTube - Sarah Palin, Barbara Walters: Good Morning America (Part 2 of 2)

Image via Wikipedia

Here is Barbara Walters interviewing Sarah Palin









YouTube - Sarah Palin, Barbara Walters: Good Morning America (Part 2 of 2)

Responses to the Deen Show

Dr. James White promised a playlist of his responses to claims made on the Islamic show - The Deen Show. He posted today on his blog!





Responses to the Deen Show

Table of Nations by Tim Osterholm

My father-in-law found this great article showing how all the languages and races can be shown to have been described in Genesis 10. It's real interesting, contains an exhaustive bibliography and I have seen the material presented elsewhere and this is one of the best concise form.

Table of Nations by Tim Osterholm

Why Many Modern American Evangelicals Don't Like Reformed Baptist Preaching

James White has posted a couple of videos on his blog that answer a question I've been having: Given that when I look at the scriptures I see that membership in the elect is up to God not to us - He chooses us, why do most evangelicals think that we are saved by exercising our free will? I mean both concepts can't be right. However as long a person believes and trusts Jesus for salvation, he/she is saved, does it really matter who started it? God or us?  I think it does matter because the Bible is clear.  "We love Him because He first loved us." (1 John 4:19) All we do is respond, but we can't respond on our own.

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

Why Many Modern American Evangelicals Don't Like Reformed Baptist Preaching

Is there a Connection Between Jesus and Vespatian?

The Roman emperor Vespatian is often offered as some one who who Christians modeled Jesus after. Titus Flavius Vespasianus, known as Vespasian lived November 17, 9AD – June 23, 79AD, reigned from 69 AD until his death in 79 AD. They say this because of one obscure reference in Tacitus' book The Histories:

At Alexandria a commoner, whose eyes were well known to have wasted away ...fell at Vespasian's feet demanding with sobs a cure for his blindness, and imploring that the Emperor would deign to moisten his eyes and eyeballs with the spittle from his mouth.
... Vespasian .... did as the men desired him. Immediately the hand recovered its functions and daylight shone once more in the blind man's eyes. Those who were present still attest both miracles today, when there is nothing to gain by lying.
Tacitus, The Histories, 4.81

Apparently Vespasianus cured a man of blindness by rubbing his spit in the man's eyes. Critics say "see, Chrisitans say Jesus did it because this guy did it." Before I go on, I don't want to downplay Vespatian at all. He is an important figure.

1. He started a new dynasty of Roman emperors
2. It was he that put down the Jewish Revolt and inadvertently insuring that Josephus would write and publish his works.

However, I would not put any stock into Vespatian performing miracles because Tacitus wrote his account about 30 years after the emperor died. Also Christians have been recounting Jesus' miracles before Vespatian ever took power. Remember some scholars date Mark to the 40's AD. There is no evidence of Jesus performing the miracle of healing the blind with his spit as being later than Vespatian. If anything I think the borrowing was from the other way around.

Vespatian
Athiest Watch: Answering Jesus Myth Arguments

Apologetics 315: How Can A God of Love Send Anyone To Hell? MP3 Audio by Albert Mohler

Here is another great resource from Apologetics 315. I really like this sermon by Albert Mohler. Her really puts his finger on the pulse of the issues. No one likes thinking about hell nor accepting the truth that each and everyone of us deserve it. Thank god for Jesus who saves us from the inevitability of Hell. God's justice demands that we go to Hell. His mercy spares us.

Apologetics 315: How Can A God of Love Send Anyone To Hell? MP3 Audio by Albert Mohler

Iron Sharpens Iron: James White: "Muslim-Christian Relations... Plus an Overview of the Recent Dialogue with Imam Syed Z. Sayeed: Jesus in the Qur'an & the Bible"!

The good news is that Iron Sharpens Iron is still on the air! James White was a a recent guest and he talked about his recent debate with Imam Syed Z. Sayeed and Muslm/Christian Apologetics and Relations. It's awesome!

Iron Sharpens Iron: James White: "Muslim-Christian Relations... Plus an Overview of the Recent Dialogue with Imam Syed Z. Sayeed: Jesus in the Qur'an & the Bible"!

YouTube - Poor Apologetics: "First Cause"

"Poor Apologetics" is what the following video exemplifies.






What takes more faith:
A race of beings, of which there is no proof, or a natural phenomena caused all of reality to come into existence.
or
That an omnipotent being brought the universe into existence out of nothing, who has revealed Himself through personal relationship with His creation and left us evidence?

God is way more plausible...especially if you are in relationship with God. Almost all of science agrees that the Universe began to exist. There was a point at which there was no universe and then in some way that science can't explain the universe begins to exist. People who deny God must give an answer: How? Why? Many try to get around this, as is done in the video, by trying to toss it back to theists by asserting that if everything that exists must have a designer then God must have a maker. The video attempts to address this by countering the theistic answer that God does not have a beginning by just calling the point a re-definition to avoid the topic. The thing is we know that the Universe is not eternal. We know it had a beginning and if not changed it will have an end. We know something about God by what is revealed in scripture. We know God is eternal - transcending time and space. God never began to exist because there have never been nor will there ever be a point that God does not exist. This is a part of who God is by definition. This is the God that monotheists have been proclaiming for millenniums. This video unfortuntely is refuting a straw man, not the God of heaven and earth - the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob!

YouTube - Poor Apologetics: "First Cause"

Featured Podcast: Confident Christianity with Mary Jo Sharp - Apologetics 315

Mary Jo Sharp's first webcast is out. I appreciate Brian for posting it on his blog! It is good. i love to see women do apologetics. It's generally my experience that women don't care about the subject. It's sad, and i don't understand why it doesn't appeal to most women. Maybe God can use Mary Jo's ministry to change that. In this first podcast, she defines "apologetics" and then explains why it's important to all Christians including women! This is one pod cast that I will be following.

Her website

Featured Podcast: Confident Christianity with Mary Jo Sharp - Apologetics 315

Atheism is Dead: Five Finger Death Punch the Multiverse

Here is another great post from, Mariano. In this essay he gives 5 really good reasons for rejecting the "Multiple Universe" theory which atheists use to explain why our universe is so finely designed so that if fundamental physical constants were differently even a small amount, we would not exist to discuss it. I like to think of it as God made this amazing masterpiece and put us in the best possible place in that canvas so that we can see what He did! One of the consequences of this fine tuning is that the earth is not just in the best and only possible location in the observable universe for our life to exist, but we are in a place where true scientific inquiry is possible.b We have "court-side" seats to see God's wonders. Can't be coincidence.

Atheism is Dead: Five Finger Death Punch the Multiverse

YouTube - Zakir Naik on the Deen Show: Review and Rebuttal Pt. 3

James White has posted a 3rd part his response to Zakir Naik  on the Deen Show. James White wrote:

Here is my third and final response to Zakir Naik's appearance on The Deen Show. What I did was take my opening statement from my debate with Shabir Ally on this topic from London in November of last year, along with my comments on Deuteronomy 18:18 from the preceding debate, and put that audio under the KeyNote slides I used.

Zakir Naik's Claims on Muhammad in the Bible

Terminology Tuesday: Occam's Razor - Apologetics 315

This is a great post from Occam's Razor. It is an concept in philosophy. It is another great resource from the Apologetics 315 blog. On the face of it, I agree that its silly to make up complicated explanation without a good reason. The simpler explanation is more likely. Unfortunately, as Brian, points out in his post, that many use this idea to reject supernatural explanations for events. An example that comes to my mind is the Multiple universe theory to explain away the fine-tuning of our own as an example of rejecting Occam's argument. I'd also offer the "swoon" theory and the hallucination hypothesis which attempt to explain the fact that the first Christians reported to experiencing the resurrected Christ as examples of ignoring Occam.

Terminology Tuesday: Occam's Razor - Apologetics 315

Hank Hanegraaff - Is The Bible the Words of God or Men?

Image by JL Outdoor Photography via Flickr

On Hank Hanegraaf'a blog he tackled the importance of being able to believe in the revelations God has given us in the Bible because it is from God and not made up by men. Hanegraaf does not give his arguments for proving the Bible is from God because he wants us to buy his materials, but I see his point. As a Christian, the Bible is critical. IF it is made up be men then it has no authority and Christianity offers us nothing! I believe the Bible is from God for several reasons. The best two I have is that the Bible can't shown to be false. It has nothing in it that is wrong. In other words it's infallible and free of error. The other point is that the Bible had over 40 authors, written over 1500 years, on three continents, and in three languages. Most of the authors did not know any of the other authors, yet they are all telling parts of the same story. I don't have enough faith to think that they all coincidentally agree. I challenge anyone to find a place where the Bible disagree with itself and why they think it's wrong.

Wherever you get the information, if you’re a believer make it your passion to reach not repel a Robert Crumb. Don’t say, “What a terrible guy he is, how could he say such things.” Pagans are going to exercise their job description in not believing the truth of God. A Christian’s job description is to be a well informed ambassador for Christ.

Hank Hanegraaff - Is the Bible the Words of God or men?