Truthbomb Apologetics: Resurrection Research Links

Here is a great resource listing books, audio, and video regarding why it is tenable to believe that Jesus Christ really rose from the dead and that tomb was empty Easter morning.

Truthbomb Apologetics: Resurrection Research Links

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Who Forgive Sin?

Here is Mariano's next part of his series on the Trinity just hit the Atheism is Dead blog. This time the question being evaluated is "Who Forgives Sin?" Most people would agree that only God has the right to forgive sin, therefore if someone is in scripture can be shown forgiving sin, He is God. Thereby showing the Trinity. You can see the list of scriptures showing that Father and Son have the right to forgive sin.


Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Who Forgive Sin?

Apologetics 315: Sunday Quote: C. Stephen Evans on the God Question

 Here is another great quote from the Apologetics 315 blog. Thanks, Brian.

"The question about God is not merely a question about another entity but a question about the character of the universe as a whole. The rejection of the cosmological argument implicitly carries with it a commitment to a rival metaphysical view, such as pantheism or naturalism. Ultimately, the question is not, 'Can God's existence be proved?' but 'Which metaphysical view is most plausible?'"

- C. Stephen Evans

Apologetics 315: Sunday Quote: C. Stephen Evans on the God Question

Responding to True Paradigm: Corporate versus individual election

Image by Brent Nelson via Flickr

Now this is what I'm talking about. Brennon posted an exegesis on Romans 9 and I posted a response, and now bethyada has posted a response. bethyada and I have gone back and forth a little bit in comment, but I thought that it would help to respond to his latest response giving it the space and time it deserves. My words are in red. Please read the above links with comments to follow what has been said already. The issues I have been discussing with bethyada and Brennon are important and will affect how one sees God, witness, and live but neither position make one more pleasing to God or  less saved.

Hi Marcus. What we mean by freewill is not complete absolute freedom to do absolutely anything, it means the ability to make choices that are ours.

I agree that free will means that we are able to make choices that ours that we are responsible for. MY argument is that left to ourselves the only choices we can make are disobedient to God.

We are best to make them in line with God's will and God may aid us in this, but we can make decisions, at least some of the time, against what God wills for us. That is we can choose to disobey God even while God wills us to obey him. And that choice is ours, it is not some second will of God's. Essentially freewill says that exhaustive determinism is not true.

I also agree that God holds us accountable for our acts of disobedience and evil because we are responsible we disobey because we want to disobey not because God makes us disobey. The question is - is the opposite true - can we obey God without God helping us and prompting us? Since no one does good and all sin and no one measures up - I have to answer "no". Romans 3:23

This does not mean we act completely without God. For Christians much of what we do is with God's help, he strengthens our spirit to do what we know is right, even while our flesh entices us otherwise. But we still have the choice to align our behaviour with what the Spirit is doing in us, or not.

Where does the Bible say we have the choice to obey or not to obey. The Bible tells us its a choice to obey and we do choose. If there is such thing as free will as Brennon and bethyada have defined it, then we can choose to go to Christ without God doing anything but on our own. John 6:44 disagrees.

Next, the inability to do good does not mean we are determined by God. If we were determined by God then we will be doing good. Rather one is choosing various wrongs. Hebrews 11? Are you referring to verse 6? I don't know how you are reading this. I don't see pleasing God as exactly the same as doing good. And claims about no one doing good I read as doing everything good. Of course people do some good. And all good done by everyone is with God's help. Unbelievers do some good things which we can trace to God's workings in this world.

Not everyone is determined by God to do good. It's a gift. Not everyone gets it. I was referring to Hebrews 11:6...it's impossible to please God without faith.  If an unbeliever does good...it is inadvertent. They aren't trying to please God  and don't even realize that God gets the credit. God even uses the evil that people do to bless His people and carry on his purpose.  Think of Joseph's brothers...what they meant for evil God intended for good!

Acts 17 does say that God does a lot. But freewill does not say God does nothing. God does heaps! But identifying many things God does is not proving we have no will and I am an automaton. Romans 1 shows we make choices.

I surely would not argue that any born-again Christian, as I know Brennon and bethyada are, could be described as an automaton. Romans 1 does say we make choices, Romans 9 shows that aside from the power of God there is no other choice a sinner can make.

God does work on the corporate level and the individual level. But these are categorically distinct.

God doesn't leave man to himself. He works on men's hearts but still lets them make the choice whether or not they wish to join his kingdom.

How can we say that God works on our heart and then say that we can choose to join the kingdom. Jesus told his disciples "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." John 15:16  Do we really think the same is not true for us?  bethyada must be saying that if a person can choose to join the kingdom then we can get choose to leave it if we decide, right? I don't know if that is what bethyada is saying but it seems the  logical conclusion.

You are pushing freewill to far. It seems that you see the 2 options as

1. God controlling absolutely everything including our thoughts and actions (exhaustive determinism)

2. God doing nothing and humans being able to make any decision and do anything.

But a denial of 1 does not entail 2.

I admit being told that I push free will too far is funny to me, given that I am arguing that God has true completely free will and we as humans don't. A synergistic gospel seems to deny Ephesian 2:8-10

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.

We have several scriptural examples of how God sent one nation to judge and punish Israel and then God judge and punished the nations whom God sicced on Israel in the first place. God judged the nations because of their heart. In our churches we don't talk about Habbakuk much be we should because it covers this very issue.

True Paradigm: Corporate versus individual election

YouTube - Debunking William Lane Craig

Image via Wikipedia

Um, where is the "A" material? I was expecting something hardcore that would make me sit up and notice. The video's argument basically is that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroy therefore God could not have created the universe out of nothing. It further asserts that the Quantum Wave function of the universe points to high probability that the universe formed uncaused.

Here are my problems:
1. There is a distinct presupposition that there can be no supernatural explanation and that the laws of matter/energy conservation have always held. He offers no proof.
2. Current science does point to the universe sprang out of nothing, leading to two possible explanations: multiple universes with all possible physical constants and laws being present and actualized in each universe, or one universe in which someone set everything up for life and reality as we know it. Take your pick? Which one is more plausible?
3. The arguments concerning the quantum wave function was too much hand-waving. I took a year of Quantum Mechanic at UC Berkeley and I would have rather have seen some equations showing how he is getting numbers of his probabilities for the universe springing forth uncaused.

William Lane Craig is far from debunked...insulted maybe....but not beaten by any stretch of the imagination.






YouTube - Debunking William Lane Craig

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

Image via Wikipedia

Here is Mariano's second piece in his two-part essay about how Bart Ehrman is guilty of more errors than he  accuses the Greek New Testament of having. Check out the second part!

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

Pharyngula::Berlinski: I can't believe I'm wasting time on this guy.

I've recently began reading some material and interviews of David Berlinski and I am impressed. I like him. I have not yet heard him claim to be a Born-again follower of Jesus Christ, but he is asking the right questions. He obviously has struck a nerve to have so many bitter attackers. I found this following scathing blog post from PZ Meyers, who is an atheist and backs evolution no matter how silly his defense is. This is an old post but I think it might be fund to see if his criticisms have any merit. My comments will be in blue. He quotes Berlinski and then responds.

David Berlinski is babbling against evolution again (an abridged version has been published in the Wichita Eagle), and it's dreadful. This is a guy who is a competent mathematician with a degree from Princeton, and all he can do is whip out creationist lies in a lather of fury against Darwin. I've tried to dissect it as well as I can, while trying to choke back the nausea induced by such putrid arguments.

So your arguments are better?

The defense of Darwin’s theory of evolution has now fallen into the hands of biologists who believe in suppressing criticism when possible and ignoring it when not. It is not a strategy calculated in induce confidence in the scientific method. A paper published recently in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington concluded that the events taking place during the Cambrian era could best be understood in terms of an intelligent design – hardly a position unknown in the history of western science. The paper was, of course, peer-reviewed by three prominent evolutionary biologists. Wise men attend to the publication of every one of the Proceeding’s papers, but in the case of Steven Meyer’s "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," the Board of Editors was at once given to understand that they had done a bad thing. Their indecent capitulation followed at once.
Publication of the paper, they confessed, was a mistake. It would never happen again. It had barely happened at all. And peer review?
The hell with it.
“If scientists do not oppose antievolutionism,” Eugenie Scott, the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, remarked, “it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak.” Scott’s understanding of ‘opposition’ had nothing to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at all. Discussing the issue was out of the question. Her advice to her colleagues was considerably more to the point: "Avoid debates."

There is a serious question of strategy here, and I go back and forth on it myself. Creationism is nothing but nonsense, and it has no legitimacy to debate. So should we debate it or not? Giving them a reasonable forum gives them more credibility than they deserve. Ignoring them allows them to shriek unanswered. I don't know which is worse.
We've been all over the Meyer affair. It was a bad paper snuck into a journal with the collusion of a fellow traveler in the ID game. Every scientist has had papers rejected; you patch up the flaws and resubmit. I think the Discovery Institute knows this particular paper is irreparable, so all they can do is assume a martyr's pose and whine about it.

Interesting. Meyers claims the creationist and Intelligent Design proponents have no proof and no evidence yet all we have is his word for it! If he won't debate and discuss the evidence with people of different ideas how can he be so sure he is right. Conflict is how science moves forward.

Everyone else had better shut up.
In this country, at least, no one is ever going to shut up, the more so since the case against Darwin’s theory retains an almost lunatic vitality.

Don't be humble, David: I'll grant that it is a completely lunatic vitality.
Now Berlinski cranks up the gait and breaks into the traditional Gish Gallop of all creationists, rattling off garbage at a pace that's hard to match, when one is trying to be honest. It really is no fair that creationists do not have the handicap of being accurate or truthful.

Prove that Berlinski and scientists that agree with him are being inaccurate and lying. Alleging garbage without proof is way more audacious than being willing to debate and discuss.

Look – The suggestion that Darwin’s theory of evolution is like theories in the serious sciences – quantum electrodynamics, say – is grotesque. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen unyielding decimal places. Darwin’s theory makes no tight quantitative predictions at all.

We do not measure the validity of a theory by how many decimal places can be calculated for some arbitrary formula within it. Berlinski has a childishly naive view of how science works.

"...arbitrary formula..."? Now who is being "childish" and "naive"? Berlinski's point is that quantum elctrodynamics is precisely quantifiable. What kind of predictions can the theory of evolution make about how human life, or any of the current forms of life, will evolve or what the next mutation is?

One piece of crap we should get out of way immediately is this "Darwin's theory" nonsense. We are not dealing with "Darwin's theory" anymore, but a much greater body of knowledge and concepts that has accumulated in the past century and a half, which includes one huge revision (the incorporation of genetics and population genetics) in the past, and which is being constantly updated right now. It is absolutely idiotic to criticize modern biology on the basis of one's misunderstanding of a preliminary proposal published in 1859. But this is the strategy that the IDiots have taken. It is insane.
This complaint that results in evolution have too few significant digits is also insane. One of the things even (especially?) physicists learn early in their training is to use an appropriate level of accuracy; using more digits than is warranted by the accuracy of one's measurements is unscientific. When you are dealing with a population of 10⁶ individuals, it would be ridiculous to use the Hardy-Weinberg formula to estimate gene frequencies in the next generation to 1 in 10¹³, and it would also require ignoring the noise and statistical properties of what we are measuring.
There's also a serious problem in the logic of his argument. Meteorologists also deal with complex phenomena and can't predict the weather for more than a few days in advance. This does not mean it is not a science, nor does it lend credibility to the idea that lightning is caused by the anger of Thor.

Berlinski is certainly not suggesting that Thor causes lightning. And I know he would agree with the argument about significant figures. That's true about all sciences. The issue with evolution, I've got is how do you use math to make predictions of new mutations that would move people forward.

Look – Field studies attempting to measure natural selection inevitably report weak to non-existent selection effects.

Why shouldn't evolutionists debate creationists? Because creationists say things that are this stupid, that are wrong on multiple levels. If I were standing on a podium with Berlinski, at this point I'd be tempted to pick up a book (something massive, like Gould's Structure of Evolutionary Theory) and throw it at him.
On one level, this is not a damaging observation at all. We do not expect everything to have a strong selection effect, and we expect most phenomena to be selectively neutral. This is like criticizing physicist's understanding of gravity because we weigh less on the moon, and we aren't all crushed into a thin pulpy layer of slime by the force of Earth's gravity.
Another problem is that it is a fucking lie.
Strong selection effects have been measured, for example in bacteria in response to antibiotics, and in insects in response to insectides, for instance in measurements of the frequency of allelic variants of the acetylcholinesterase gene in mosquitos.
So what should I do in a debate with some sleaze like Berlinski, who pulls this kind of dishonest crap? Spend 20 minutes teaching the audience about Hardy-Weinberg, pull up the results of a half dozen studies, and get all technical and detailed? Or walk across the room, beat him unconscious with any one of hundreds of readily available books that demonstrate his dishonesty, and kick him until he pukes? The latter is very tempting.

Dishonest? First you said Belinski is right but it doesn't matter. Then you said he lied.Which is it? Do you expect strong selection effects or not? A violent response from Meyer is only tempting because that is all he has.

Look – Darwin’s theory is open at one end since there are no plausible account for the origins of life.

It's open at the other end, since we don't know where life is going, either. And there are all kinds of gaps in the middle, because we aren't omniscient. So?
Science makes no claim of completeness. This is true of not just biology, but also physics, chemistry, geology, psychology, sociology…you name it.
And once again, in addition to completely missing the point, he's lying again. There are plenty of plausible theories of abiogenesis. The problem is in resolving which is the most likely, working out the details, figuring out how chemical evolution links up with biological evolution, and testing many of the ideas. All of the ideas coming out of the chemistry labs pursuing abiogenesis are far more robust and more productive and more plausible than the silliness hatched out of the Discovery Institute.

"Abiogenesis"? Really? Richard Dawkins disagrees with you. As for life being opened at both ends is wrong. We know if things continue as they everything dies in heat death. Sure there are gaps.Berlinski's point is that evolution does not explain why there is consciousness or life. Dodging the question by saying we don't know how it ends is silly. Most physicists agree that heat death is inevitable.

Look – The astonishing and irreducible complexity of various cellular structures has not yet successfully been described, let alone explained.

Give me a break. Irreducibility has been thoroughly debunked as a property that would invalidate evolution.

Not everyone agrees.  There is such thing as irreducible complexity everyone agrees with that. The question is how does evolution account for that. It's unavoidable that if macro evolution is true that some natural mechanisms could not have evolved slowly in pieces but came as one piece.

Look – A great many species enter the fossil record trailing no obvious ancestors and depart for Valhalla leaving no obvious descendents.

Name one.
It's not surprising that many leave no descendants: we expect that on a branching bush, many will be terminal twigs. But he will not be able to name a single species that has been studied that does not show deep, fundamental relationships to all other species.

Okay which is it. Either there are descendants or there aren't. Why do we only find twigs and no species that we can prove bridge 2 species  alive today. I'd like to see Meyer to name one.

Look – Where attempts to replicate Darwinian evolution on the computer have been successful, they have not used classical Darwinian principles, and where they have used such principles, they have not been successful.

This is precisely backwards. The major complaint biologists have about successful simulations, such as Avida, is that they rely too much on Darwinian selection. Berlinski's complaint here simply does not make sense.

Okay, so can Meyer name other successful simulations that also rely on classical Darwinian principles? Berlinski may have been referring to other principles rather than selection.

Look – Tens of thousands of fruit flies have come and gone in laboratory experiments, and every last one of them has remained a fruit fly to the end, all efforts to see the miracle of speciation unavailing.

For a mathematician who likes to babble about the importance of 13 significant digits, he sure likes to pull bogus numbers out of his butt. In my little genetics class at a small, out-of-the-way university, we rip through 10,000 fruit flies in a single semester, easily.
And, as we have come to expect in this little essay, Berlinski combines both egregious misconceptions and outright lies in his claim. We do not expect fruit flies to become anything other than fruit flies in the mere century of research we have carried out. What does he expect, flies to give birth to cats?
Of course speciation has been observed. Multiple times. In nature and the lab.

"speciation" is a lot different than an amphibian turning into a reptile. Who is being dishonest? It's not Berlinski.Fruit flies still say fruit flies. Evolutionists expect us to believe give enough time one species gives birth to cats and flies. And they call Berlinski crazy.

Look – The remarkable similarity in the genome of a great many organisms suggests that there is at bottom only one living system; but how then to account for the astonishing differences between human beings and their near relatives – differences that remain obvious to anyone who has visited a zoo?

Similarity is not identity.
It really is that simple, Mr Berlinski. Are you that obtuse that this simple concept evades you?
Human and chimpanzee genomes are very similar to one another, but there are significant differences. Human and chimpanzee genomes also have some distant similarities with the Drosophila genome, but the differences are much greater.
Human and chimpanzee morphologies are very similar to one another, but there are significant differences. Human and chimpanzee morphologies also have some distant similarities with Drosophila morphology, but the differences are much greater.

Ooohh...another straw man!

But look again – If the differences between organisms are scientifically more interesting than their genomic similarities, of what use is Darwin’s theory since it’s otherwise mysterious operations take place by genetic variations?

What the hell…?
This doesn't even make sense; all I can imagine is that Berlinski, sitting in his little fantasy bubble, imagining how biology works without ever consulting reality, has drifted off into some bizarre alien plane where he is now warring with his own misconceptions.
The differences are interesting. The similarities are interesting. The differences and similarities are maintained and generated by evolutionary mechanisms (please, not "Darwin", who didn't even have a theory of genetics).
Does anyone understand what Berlinski is chittering about here? Is it possible that clouting him over the head with Gould's mega-book has caused brain damage?

Meyer is  the one who quoted and responded. I don't understand the point that Meyer is trying to make other than to insult another human being.

These are hardly trivial questions. Each suggests a dozen others. These are hardly circumstances that do much to support the view that there are “no valid criticisms of Darwin’s theory,” as so many recent editorials have suggested.
Serious biologists quite understand all this. They rather regard Darwin’s theory as an elderly uncle invited to a family dinner. The old boy has no hair, he has no teeth, he is hard of hearing, and he often drools. Addressing even senior members at table as Sonny, he is inordinately eager to tell the same story over and over again.
But he’s family. What can you do?

Who is Berlinski to speak of "serious biologists"? I know many serious biologists. All take evolutionary biology quite seriously, and understand it quite well as a substantial, powerful tool.
And only gibbering creationists make this foolish mistake of yammering about "Darwin's theory" when they are talking about the whole of modern biology.
Berlinski has convinced me. Eugenie Scott is right and public, formal debates with these cretins should be avoided. I look at the strings of lies he'd be shitting out on the stage, and I don't see why I should subject myself or an audience to that kind of revolting spectacle.
And yes, I am angry. This is what us American biologists have to deal with?

Meyer calls the above pontification an argument. I do not. I know serious biologists who disagree with Darwin. Meyer has said in this post I'm pointing that  It is absolutely idiotic to criticize modern biology on the basis of one's misunderstanding of a preliminary proposal published in 1859. So Meyer does not agree with Darwin either as Darwin proposed his original theory. Wonders of Wonders...agreement. And Meyer is yammering without exsplaining why he is right.

---

Sweet galumphing Jebus. It has just been pointed out to me that Berlinski's latest book, The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky, is a defense of astrology. Now I feel even worse about wasting time on this clown.

Last I checked, Vaulted Sky is fiction.

Pharyngula::Berlinski: I can't believe I'm wasting time on this guy.

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