Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism: Alvin Plantinga vs Stephen Law - apologetics - blip.tv

Introduction to the debate:

Richard Dawkins has said that "the theory of evolution made it possible to be an intellecually fulfilled atheist". But what if belief in evolution becomes irrational on atheist naturalism? Alvin Plantinga is one of the foremost Christian philosophers in the world and is leading a resurgence of Christian philosophy in North America. He has formulated the "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" which proposes that if evolution is true then it provides a defeater for rational belief on a naturalistic framework. Can we trust our beliefs to be true if they have been produced by minds that are themselves the products of unguided evolution - a process that is geared towards producing beliefs for survival, not necessarily for truth? He explains the force of the argument and debates its implications with Stephen Law, atheist and Senior lecturer in philosophy at Heythrop college, University of London. Stephen is also Provost of the Centre for Inquiry UK. Plantinga also states where he stands on Intelligent Design, the problem of evil and a few other things besides

Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism: Alvin Plantinga vs Stephen Law - apologetics - blip.tv

Iron Sharpens Iron: Sam Shamoun: The Deification of Muhammad: Is Islam Itself Guilty of Shirk?

Sam Shamoun was interviewed on Iron Sharpens Iron. He discussed how some Muslims deify Muhammad. Follow the link to listen to the program.

Iron Sharpens Iron: Sam Shamoun: The Deification of Muhammad: Is Islam Itself Guilty of Shirk?

Related articles

• Islam's Latest Contributions to Peace (dickiebo.wordpress.com)
• Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer to debate Moustafa Zayed (secularnewsdaily.com)

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Tomb of Esther and Mordecai

Dr Mariottini posted a link to a news article that describes plans some people have in Iran to destroy the tomb of Queen Esther and her cousin Mordecai in response to “alleged Israeli plans to damage the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.” Dr Mariottini further quoted:

Iranians believe that Esther and Mordecai were responsible for the massacre of 75 thousand Iranians in a single day, an event which the Jews celebrate at Purim. According to Iranians “the annual Jewish festival of Purim is celebrated by Jews to commemorate this ‘Iranian Holocaust.’”

This is the most interesting part of the post to me because I didn't know that there was even such a viewpoint in Iran existed regarding Purim. According to the book of Esther, those 75,000 citizens of the Persian Empire dided because the Jews defended themselves the day that it was decreed that all Jews were supposed to be killed. This was in the Persian Empire and both the attempted extermination and the Jews' defending themselves were decreed by King Xerxes - emperor of the Persian Empire. Goes to show that people can view the same incident 100% opposite.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Tomb of Esther and Mordecai

FacePalm of the Day #46 - Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Anglican bishops declare that Jesus is not God.

thegrandverbalizer has seized upon the report:

In the British newspaper the "Daily News" 25/6/84
under the heading "Shock survey of Anglican Bishops"

We read

"More than half of England's Anglican Bishops say that Christians are not
obliged to believe that Jesus Christ was God, according to a survey
published today. The pole of 31 of England's 39 bishops shows that many of
them think that Christ's miracles, the virgin birth and the resurrection
might not have happened exactly as described in the Bible. Only 11 of the
bishops insisted that Christians must regard Christ as both God and man,
while 19 said it was sufficient to regard Jesus as 'God's supreme agent'"

He uses the this report to make the argument that learned Christians have been moving away from standard traditional teachings that he attributes to Paul.

And that the stories of the ministry of Jesus in the Bible
have been extensively tampered with by the hands of mankind.

The Church, as Heinz Zahrnt put it "put words into the mouth of Jesus which
he never spoke and attributed actions to him which he never performed." One
of those who has shown that most of what the church says about Jesus is
baseless is Rudolph Augustein in his book "Jesus the Son of Man." Another
very comprehensive study of this matter can be found in the book "The Myth
of God Incarnate" which was written by seven theologian scholars in England
in 1977 and edited by John Hick. Their conclusion in this matter is that
Jesus was "a man approved by God, for a special role within the divine
purpose, and..... the later conception of him as God incarnate ... is a
mythological or poetic way of expressing his significance for us." See also
John Mackinnon Robertson's "Christianity and Mythology" T.W Doane's "The
Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions" (A good summary of these
studies is available in M.F. Ansarei, "Islam and Christianity in the Modern
World").

This post by thegrandverbalizer throws out all kinds of assumptions and thoughts and offers nothing but the opinions of some who don't represent the viewpoints of all scholars. Some of the people he quotes make some rather strange statements. Take this one for instance:

A University of Richmond professor, Dr. Robert Alley, after considerable
research into newly found ancient documents concludes that

"....The (Biblical) passages where Jesus talks about the Son of God are
later additions.... what the church said about him. Such a claim of deity
for himself would not have been consistent with his entire lifestyle as we
can reconstruct. For the first three decades after Jesus' death Christianity
continued as a sect within Judaism. The first three decades of the existence
of the church were within the synagogue. That would have been beyond belief
if they (the followers) had boldly proclaimed the deity of Jesus."

We know for a fact that there were many gentile Christians within the first 30 years of the crucifixion. There is no way it makes since that all Christians were within the synagogues given that gentiles could not go into the synagogues or Temple. Yes, all of the first Christians were Jews, but it didn't stay that way. Traditionally, it's been accepted by Christians that at least two of the books of the New Testament was written by a Gentile - Luke. Look at what thegrandverbalizer wrote:

Notice what the Bible itself says here:

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3

¹Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, ²That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

³Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Now clearly the Bible mentions that there will be a great apostasy-a falling away. However, you
the discerning Christian will have to ask yourself. Is that process going on now? It is an ongoing
process? Or was it something that happened in the early Christian community? Why is that the more learned Christians are moving away from the doctrine of the Trinity?

Maybe indeed these people are all reprobates and apostates. However, maybe they have just woken up as they become privy to the facts. I mean Paul writes the majority of the New Testament yet not so much a peep from Jesus about this guy? Paul is not mentioned any where in the Old Testament yet he is so crucial to the development, shape and destiny of Christianity? Maybe some folks got to scratching their heads trying to make heads or tails of it all.

Notice how thegrandverbalizer tries to discount and discredit Paul, yet is more than happy to use 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 to suggest that the Trinity is an example of people falling away from the true faith Jesus taught. Why is this such a FacePalm? Wait for it.....Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians. I realize that there are some scholars might try to argue Paul did not write it but I'd like to see them prove it.

As for thegrandverbalizer's exegetical skills let the way he presents John 17:3 speak for itself.

This is exactly what Jesus himself testified to in the Bible:

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and
Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

John 17:3

What did Jesus say? Far from denying his deity, Jesus affirms it. He is saying that eternal life comes from knowing God and knowing himself - equating himself with God. Far from denying the Trinitarian doctrine because the doctrine does not say that Jesus and God is the same person. The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit share the same being.

As for the condition of the Anglican church, it has had problems from the beginning. Don't forget that it started because King Henry VIII wanted to be able divorce his wives until he found the one to deliver him a male heir (and he wasn't above murdering them to get what he wanted). That's not saying that there aren't Anglicans who are just as saved and born-again as any real Christian. Given today that much of the Anglican church today is so inclusive of homosexuality as being a viable lifestyle, I'd say that the Anglican denominations now adopting such views as throwing out Biblical inerrancy and Jesus' deity is not really a big surprise. When you let Biblical inerrancy go, of course you go off the rails - and quickly. Anything will do and anything goes.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Anglican bishops declare that Jesus is not God.

God, the Universe & Stephen Hawking by John Lennox - Apologetics 315

I really enjoy John Lennox's work. His lectures and knowledge has always impressed me. It's interesting to hear him respond to Stephen Hawkings latest arguments. I'm really glad to hear that Dr. Lennox will be responding with an upcoming book.  Thanks again to Brian Auten for posting this. Follow the link below to to his blog to listen to it.

God, the Universe & Stephen Hawking by John Lennox - Apologetics 315

Iron Sharpens Iron: David Wood: The Islamic Dilemma

David Wood was recently interviewed on Iron Sharpens Iron. He discussed Islam. It's always great to hear David Wood. Follow the link below to hear the interview.

Iron Sharpens Iron: David Wood: The Islamic Dilemma

The Holiness of God from the Go, Stand, Speak Conference, August, 2010

The Holiness of God from pat necerato on Vimeo.


The Holiness of God from the Go, Stand, Speak Conference, August, 2010

Official Android App

Image via Wikipedia
It's taken several weeks but I finally figured out how to make the first image on each blog post to show up in the Android App that I put together to compliment this blog. The other features I had on the earlier drafts are still here:

1. Single post viewed one at a time.
2. Link to the full blog.
3. Link to each post on the blog.
4. Reads the post out loud through that phone speakers.
5. Shaking the phone closes the app.

The app should work on  any android powered device. Further, I've placed the apk file on the media fire site for free download. I've also generated at a QR code for download. If you have an Android phone/tablet please download the BeeTagg app from the Android Market for free to download and install my app directly to you phone. Just scan the QR code below. You can find out more about BeeTagg by going to my post about it on my gadget blog.

Here is a short video showing the app in action. If you try it out, please leave some comments about it. Please note that your web browser will pop up allowing you to download the app and then you can use your preferred method of installing apk's on your device. I suggest Rhythm Software's Installer.

FacePalm of the Day #45 - Debunking Christianity: "If I Am Wrong...I Want to Know"

John Loftus recently quoted Articulett whom evidently he agrees with. I think it would be instructive to look at the argument and see why it leads to multiple facepalms. 

Now there's a statement I endorse. What's more likely, that a believer or a skeptic wrote it?

When it comes to supernatural beliefs, there is just no error correcting mechanism-- you have no way to tell if you are wrong-- you just keep making excuses or trying to have more faith or writing it off to mystery. If I am wrong about something I think is true, I want to know--- and I trust reality to correct my errors. But what is there to correct the error of someone who has a wrong supernatural belief?

I'd like to know why Articulett thinks people who believe the Bible don't want to know if what we believe is true. The reason why we are Christians is because we know the Bible is true. I think its just as important  to be able to tell if you are right as it is to be able to tell if are wrong. Again we see the misconception of contrasting "faith" and "reason" as if they are in conflict. Who said that "faith" does not and cannot correspond with reality? Just believing something doesn't make it true. External evidence can and should be used to correct any errors in what we believe. Unfortunately, external evidence is not enough to get all information about reality. How can you completely trust you own reason and thought processes? Why should you? In all honesty, everyone knows what it's like to think something is true and then come to find out that it's not. To apply the kind of skepticism that people like Articulett and John Loftus claim we should level against Christianity, makes me question why aren't they skeptical of their own conclusions?

Believers are not even able to imagine what the world would look like or how it would be different if all gods were an illusion, but the non believer can ask themselves what would they expect if there was a real god-- and they could answer-- For example, a real god should have left some scientifically prescient information for it's favorite creatures. Or a benevolent god would stop suffering or refuse to allow it to exist and so forth. Praying to a real god (who wanted to be believed in) should bring different results than wishing on a star or praying to a jug of milk. Praying to the right god should bring different results than praying to the wrong god if there was a real "jealous god" who didn't want there to be "other gods before him". Why would a good being need to be worshiped anyhow? If there were a real heaven/hell test then how could a god be so cruel as not to give a clear rubric and equal access to "passing"? What would be the point of punishing anyone forever? Wouldn't it be better never to have existed? Why wouldn't he clear up conflicting beliefs and cruelties in the various texts people imagine he inspired? If souls were real, then we should be able to get real and ready information about any afterlife or where missing bodies are and so forth. People should be eager to die if they really believed they were going to "happily ever after", right? Why shouldn't NDE's produce data where we could learn more and devise better tests? How would a soul interact with a brain-- as it must-- since we know the brain is intimately involved with consciousness-- feelings, memory, thought, wants, urges, perception, belief, etc. We should have some evidence-- something so that souls were distinguishable from an illusion of the brain. Why aren't true believers devising such tests? Are they afraid they will fail? Think of how rich and famous they'd be if they'd succeed? And the evidence should help us gain more knowledge... our tests should work every time the way X-rays work every time-- it shouldn't need excuses-- if souls are real. How can people claim to know about such things when science cannot even substantiate their existence? At what point do serious humans stop believing in illusions because they want them to be true? When you are on the right track, more information is discovered (see DNA)-- but when you are on the wrong track, you get mired in semantic games like Kalam.

I think the whole discussion on the nature of the soul is indeed interesting. Even more interesting is that Articulett seems to have forgotten that at the beginning and in the midst of the 20th Century, DNA was discussed much the same way as Articulett has discussed the soul. There were serious scientists who laughed at the concept of DNA and proposed structure. Just like more evidence surfaced and validated and solidified what we know of DNA, I am sure we will learn more about the human soul. There is already evidence that the mind and brain are not the same thing and we are only beginning to understand that. On top of that we are only beginning to coin the language we need to discuss such concepts. We are still trying to understand ourselves.

Sometimes it takes a long time to find out if a perception is mistaken. I find it amazing that Articulett does not seem to know that everyone starts out as an unbeliever.We know what it is like to not know there is a God. Becoming a believer means having a change in mind. This mean you thought one thing and now you think something else. There must be a difference. Do you really think that people just wake up one day and say, "I think I'll believe that Jesus rose from the dead"? Nope. Most believers I know have reason why they believe God. Just because they are not scientific or something someone else will accept it was good enough for the believer to accept. All of this - the prayers and trust in God - comes from having a relationship with God himself. I think everyone agrees that "we know the brain is intimately involved with consciousness-- feelings, memory, thought, wants, urges, perception, belief" - it's not the complete picture. The brain might be just as much involved in what makes you you as computer hardware is in making a PC Windows-based or Linux-based. More study is definitely needed.

If I'm wrong about something, then the evidence should correct my misperception. Science has built in error correcting mechanisms. With supernatural beliefs, all you have is word games and the mental manipulations of believers-- the same sorts of arguments cults use-- known logical fallacies.... confirmation bias. There is no means of correcting any errors-- you are told that it's good to believe without or despite evidence-- or that it's a "mystery" and science can't test the "supernatural" or that it's "arrogant" to think you can know the mind of god. A complete lack of evidence can mean god is testing your faith-- ha! So many mind games.

Just because something is beyond natural perception does not mean it can't be real. As far as we can tell there is no reason at all to think that there is not more than what we can scientifically examine. Take the sense of sight for example. Ever stop to think that we know live in a 3D (in Spatial) reality and most people even think we see in 3D? We know (from science) we don't. You can't project a 3D image on 2D surface (our retinas). Our minds fills in the missing information using information from both eyes. Also given that current theories in Physics points to even more dimensions than that, I'd say that our abilities to perceive all there is of reality is very much lacking. I think Articulett is special pleading - a more accurate statement would be:  "There is a lack of evidence of the God that I am willing to accept." It's not right to say that there is a complete lack of evidence (but of course what atheism is truly asserting is that there is no evidence). It pays to remember what Jesus said regarding this at the end of His parable of Lazarus and the rich man

    ²⁹ “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
   ³⁰ “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

   ³¹ “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”  - Luke 16:29-31

If one wants to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible, then I'd suggest rejecting the supernatural-- I trust that if something is real and can be understood, the evidence will accumulate. All humans have a vested interest in what is real. The skeptic is always right whenever we are able to test these claims. Just like the skeptic will be right on 12-21-2012 when some believers in the supernatural think the world will end. The skeptic has always been right when it comes to Jesus returning or the world ending or anything else we can test (see James Randi's million dollar challenge). The skeptic is always right when we subject prayer or psychics or souls to scientific testing.

If you can't prove something is false then it is much more honest to say that you don't accept evidence in its favor. The truth is that God must reveal Himself in order to know Him. The skeptic may be right until it becomes obvious that they are wrong. The skeptic cannot know if he/she is right about Jesus returning until either they die or He does return. Too late then. The comment raised in the comments is important to think about. Jesus' return is too late to find out you was wrong. There is nothing wrong with scientific testing. The thing is that the stakes are too high if you reject Christ. It's far worse to be wrong about Jesus than it is to be wrong about psychics and souls. The good news is that God wants us all to know Him.

¹ Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. ² This is what the ancients were commended for.
 ³ By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
 ⁴ By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.
 ⁵ By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.” For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. ⁶ And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.- Hebrews 11:1-6

Debunking Christianity: "If I Am Wrong...I Want to Know"

Calvinistic Cartoons: Read and Heed

This is so very applicable to our lives. We know what poison is because God told us in his word.  Thanks to Eddie Eddings for posting this!

Calvinistic Cartoons: Read and Heed

FacePalm of the Day #44 - Debunking Christianity: My Goal is to Drive a Wedge Between the Brain of the Believer and The Bible

Here is a quote from John Loftus.

I just wanted to throw this out there in a post all its own. I aim to show there is nothing divinely inspired inside the pages of the canonized set of texts that were written by some ancient agency detecting barbaric superstitious people. If I succeed then what could the believer still believe? In any case, this is my niche. I'm arguing a negative case against Christianity because I know it best. Along with it I'm offering a good rational tool in the Outsider Test for Faith to examine all religions by the same standard.

He can't succeed.Christianity is more than a "canonized set of texts that were written by some ancient agency detecting barbaric superstitious people". He hasn't proven that and in fact no one has. I find it profoundly arrogant to refer to the writers of the Bible as "barbaric" or "superstitious" - inferring that people are better today somehow. More power to him. The more he speaks against the truth the easier it is to proclaim Christ,

⁷ Now we pray to God that you will not do anything wrong—not so that people will see that we have stood the test but so that you will do what is right even though we may seem to have failed. ⁸ For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth. ⁹ We are glad whenever we are weak but you are strong; and our prayer is that you may be fully restored.- 2 Corinthians 13:7-9

Thank you, Mr. Loftus.

Debunking Christianity: My Goal is to Drive a Wedge Between the Brain of the Believer and The Bible

Is God a Moral Monster? Theology Unplugged Interview - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted an interview with Dr. Paul Copan from Michael Patton's Theology Unplugged podcast. Follow the link to Brian's blog to get a hold of the podcast.

Is God a Moral Monster? Theology Unplugged Interview - Apologetics 315

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: The Virgin Mary, Hijab and the Muslim Woman.

thegrandverbalizer posted an article defending the tradition of women covering their heads.  He refers to 1 Corinthians 11:4-16 but only quotes vs 4-6. Let's look at the whole passage:

⁴ Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. ⁵ But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. ⁶ For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

 ⁷ A man ought not to cover his head,^[a] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. ⁸ For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; ⁹ neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. ¹⁰ It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own^[b] head, because of the angels. ¹¹ Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. ¹² For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

 ¹³ Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? ¹⁴ Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, ¹⁵ but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. ¹⁶ If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God. 

The Bible is clear - there is no Biblical mandate for women to cover their heads! Of course there is nothing wrong with a woman covering her head, but the Bible says that it's up to us to decide. Let your culture be your guide as to what women wear when they pray.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: The Virgin Mary, Hijab and the Muslim Woman.

God Questions: An Atheist & Christian Dialogue - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten posted links to a dialogue between

an American Atheist Professor Carl Stecher and English Philosopher Peter S. Williams in 2001-2002. 

They discuss the question that always comes up about God. Follow the link below so that you can read exchanges on:

• Introduction
• Morality and the Biblical God
• The Problem of Evil
• Cosmological and Design Arguments
• Some Questions about Jesus
• Desire & Religious Experience
• Heaven and Hell


God Questions: An Atheist & Christian Dialogue - Apologetics 315

Arrogant Christianity? MP3 Audio by Tom Gilson - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten posted another gem recently. Here is a lecture by Tom Gilson discussing Christian arrogance. Brian wrote the following in his introduction:

Are Christians arrogant when we say we know the truth? Is it morally acceptable for us to say we have access to truth that applies to every person? Or are we being offensive and rude, trying to impose our version of truth on everyone else?

This addresses one of popular objections to Christianity. I've heard it a lot from comedian Bill Maher. This is definitely a lecture worth listening to. It intrigues me because the objection presupposes that morality and truth are relative. If they are relative how can you condemn anyone for being arrogant? Calling someone "arrogant" is making a negative claim about a person and they know it.

Arrogant Christianity? MP3 Audio by Tom Gilson - Apologetics 315

Blind Faith is not Christian Faith | Athanatos Christian Apologetics Ministry

Recently, Anthony Horvath posted a great article detailing how blind faith is not the same kind of Faith God expects from us. I think it's a shame that so many confuse the two!

Blind Faith is not Christian Faith | Athanatos Christian Apologetics Ministry

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Biblical & Quranic approach to Peace & Violence Shabir Ally & John Gilchrist

Thegrandverbalizer has posted a debate between Shabir Ally and John Gilchrist on the different approaches to Peach and Violence from Muslim and Christian perspectives. I think debates are useful because people who don't share the same point of view can put their ideas on the table for public examination making things clear to each debater and those who watch and listen to the debate - or at least that is how it should work.







Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Biblical & Quranic approach to Peace & Violence Shabir Ally & John Gilchrist

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Atheist Michael Shermer discusses creation with AIG biologist Georgia Purdom

Mike FelkerMike Felker has posted a video in which Michael Shermer interviewed biologist Georgia Purdom who works for Answers in Genesis> I agree with Michael that it is a very interesting discussion about creaton - no name calling or insults. It is most definitely how all discussions should go. We should be able to disagree without being disagreeable. I'm shocked at Shermer's behavior because I've never thought of him as being able to carry on such a conversation in such a manner. Glad I was wrong about that. I still don't think the Biblical and scientific evidence supports a young earth but I definitely agree that God created all of it.At the same time it could have taken 6 seconds, 6 days, or 4.5 billion years - whatever God wanted to do.





THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Atheist Michael Shermer discusses creation with AIG biologist Georgia Purdom

Refutation of Zeitgeist MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted a podcast in which the host does a great of explaining why the Zeitgeist movie is wrong. I liked the way he explained it and i agree with him. I felt the same way when I watched it.Follow the link to Apologetics 315.


Refutation of Zeitgeist MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

Man's Free Will

Here is a video of Pastor John Henderson explaining that men have free will. Here is the introduction posted with the video.

Calvinists and Hard Shells do not Agree with this Video. If you are either, please do not post any hateful or harmful comments. Thank you.
-We firmly take the position that Man indeed does have Free Will and is NOT predestined to go To Hell or Heaven Before They are even Born. Does God Have Foreknowledge of What Choices each individual is going to make before they are even Created? Absolutely, He is Sovereign and Praise God He had a Redemption Plan for all of man to Reconcile with Him in His Son Jesus Christ!!!

I want to first point out that I agree with the statement "Does God Have Foreknowledge of What Choices each individual is going to make before they are even Created? Absolutely, He is Sovereign and Praise God He had a Redemption Plan for all of man to Reconcile with Him in His Son Jesus Christ!!!" Unfortunately, the Bible does not support the definition of Free Will that Henderson is using. And it does say that we are all deserving of hell before we are even born. Look at the video and then lets unpack the statements to see if we can agree that there is no predestination to heaven.





I found the arguments unconvincing. I'm not a five-point Calvinist because I have problems reconciling "l" - "limited atonement" with a couple of scriptures Henderson does bring up. The other doctrines of grace - "Total depravity", "Unconditional Election", "Irresistible grace", and "Perseverance of the saints" have strong Biblical backing.

Here are the points to consider:
1. Pastor Henderson said that Election is unto salvation several times. He makes a difference between election and selection. I don't understand how they can be separated. If you elect someone for something you are making a selection.

Consider Romans 8:32-34 as an example:

32He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
33Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
34Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. - KJV

32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. - NIV

The word "ejklektovß" which was translated "elect" or "chosen" refers to who? The ones who believe. Who are they chosen by? God. The word was used in the KJV 23 times and always translated "chosen" or "elect". Reference

2. Pastor Henderson says that scripture teaches that man has a choice. He refers to John 5:40.

   ³⁶ “I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to finish—the very works that I am doing—testify that the Father has sent me. ³⁷ And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, ³⁸ nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. ³⁹ You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, ⁴⁰ yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
   ⁴¹ “I do not accept glory from human beings, ⁴² but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. ⁴³ I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. ⁴⁴ How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?
   ⁴⁵ “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. ⁴⁶ If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. ⁴⁷ But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?” - John 5:36-46

Jesus is directly talking to the unbelieving Jewish leaders and says that they refuse to come to Him because  they don;t love God in their hearts, He doesn't deal with their ability to come to him. A person who does not love God is unable to believe and come to Jesus but can't love God if they are not drawn by God (John 6:44)

3. Pastor Henderson refers to John 6:35-37 to explain that no one who comes Jesus will be refused

³⁵ Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. ³⁶ But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. ³⁷ All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

Given that Jesus says that all that the father gives to Him comes it makes sense that he will never drive them off. Further, if you don't come, then the Father didn't give you. Let us not forget John 6:43-44

 ⁴³ “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. ⁴⁴ “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.

We cannot come with the the Father drawing us. More than that, we don't even want to come unless the father draws us.

4. If you were elected from eternty past, why would you need to believe in Christ

 You need to believe in Jesus Christ because that is how God set up salvation.

³⁹ And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. ⁴⁰ For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.” - John 6:39-40

5. Pastor Henderson then references 1 Timothy 2:4 - pointing out that God wills all men to be saved

 ¹ I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— ² for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. ³ This is good, and pleases God our Savior, ⁴ who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. - 1 Timothy 1-4

I admit it. I haven't really heard a good response justifying limited atonement and reconciling this passage. The way I understand the passage is that God desires that all people to be saved. However we know form other passages that not everyone will be saved or who will be saved.. More study is definitely needed on my part.

6. God so loved the world not just the elect.
Pastor Henderson is correct John3:16 does not say god only loves the elect or that Jesus came for only the elect. then whole world John 3:16 is one of these verses that everyone knows but do you kknow what the succeeding verses say? They offer clarification and context..

¹⁴ Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, ¹⁵ that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”
 ¹⁶ 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. ¹⁷ For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. ¹⁸ Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. ¹⁹ This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. ²⁰ Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.- John 3:14-20

Check it out. Jesus is far from alleging that the whole world is saved. He tells us that only those who believe are saved. Further saved or not - God loves the world. Jesus even tells us what holds us back from belief - loving darkness instead of the gift God has given us - Jesus.
 
7. Pastor Henderson said that Calvinism denys men's responsibility to God for our sins. He seems to think that if our decision to believe has its source in God it takes away the accountability. I disagree. Remember the "T" in"TULIP"? "T" is "Total Depravity" which mean that man is hopelessly  helpless without God -indebted and enslaved to sin and hostile to God. We hate God because of what we are and who He is. I think the KJV translation makes it really clear:

 ⁵For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
 ⁶For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
 ⁷Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
 ⁸So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
 ⁹But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
 ¹⁰And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
 ¹¹But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.- Romans 8:5-11

8. Jesus gave himself as a ransom for all

 ⁵For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
 ⁶Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
 ⁷Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. - 1 Timothy 2:5-7

Amen. Again, I'm not going up against that. One way to begin looking at it is that I don't think there is any Christian who would deny that Jesus is the savior of all because the is no one else by which we can be saved. Dr. James White bring up the question does Jesus mediate on the behalf of those who are in hell or for those who deny Him, given that hew knows who's saved? I've never heard an anti-Calvinist give a good answer to this one. The truth is that God does sometime bless people who constantly and consistently deny Him and hate Him - knowing that they are going to go hell.  And maybe his blood sacrifice covered them too but because they don't believe they will never get the gift applied to them..We may never know.

9. Pastor Henderson referred to 2 Peter 3:9 to appeal to the idea that God do0esn't want anyone to go hell so no one can ca be predestined,

⁹The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 

I think people like Dr James White bring up  an important point.  Who is it that the verse says is not desired to perish?  Given that God's patience is described to be directed towards us - believers - it must be saying that God doses not want believers - to perish. That's not saying he wants non-believers to perish, only that the passage cannot be applied to all humanity. I've heard Dr. James White apply this logic to understand 1 Timothy 2:4 in a much similar way. I think it works for 2 Peter 3:9 but not very well for 1 Timothy 2:4

10. Pastor Henderson said that he opposes Calvinism because it  makes salvation depended on God..What is wrong with salvation being depended on God? Who better to trust your eternal soul with?

11.Pastor Henderson quoted 1 John 2:2 to explain that Jesus is the propitiation for the whole world.

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Here is the problem. I think that Pastor Henderson would agree with Substitutionary Atonement  - the doctrine that Jesus took our place and received the wrath of god we deserved in our place. That is why scripture says Jesus is our propitiation - satisfying the wrath - doing for us what we could not do for ourselves. Was that for the whole world or just the elect? It is through that atonement, we have peace with God. The unrepentant sinner does not have true peace with God or anyone else - not even themselves. There is a lot more going on this passage. than mot people think. More study and prayer is definitely required..
 
12. Pastor Henderson said  that God has elected to save those who choose to believe in Christ. He said that it's up to that individual's will. My question is given the fallen nature of human beings, how do you even begin to do that withoout God? Scripture says, you can't.

14. Pastor Henderson said that God has chosen to save those who choose Him, If ?I would sum up the message he is making. I don't think that is what the Gospel is.  It puts the emphasis on man and not where it belongs. We love God because he first loved us. When Jesus told his disciples " I have chosen you," (John 6:70) I believe that it's just a true for every believer as it was for the disciples - even Judas Iscariot (but I'll leave that one alone (John 17)

15.Pastor Henderson said that if man is not responsible or accountable to God by his will or choices that he makes, then God is unfair to punish a man for something he can't prevent. I kind of like to know who was it that said the we are not accountable or responsible. God said we are.  End of story.  The objection reminds me of the objection Paul raised in his letter to the Romans.

 ¹⁹ One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” ²⁰ But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” ²¹ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
 ²² What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? ²³ What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— ²⁴ even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?- Romans 9:19-24

Dr James White might have a point: if you are raising the same objection raised against an apostle in scripture, you might wanna check your theology. Aslo to be fair, Pastor Henderson does not refer to himself as an Arminian which is why I used the term anti-Calvinist. The underlying object I'm hearing here is that Henderson seems to think that Calvinists are saying that a person can want to be saved but won't be because they are not one of the elect. That's impossible. You don't wanna be saved unless you are one of the elect. Another problem seems to be the thought that if you are predestined for heaven then others must be predestined for hell. I don't think so because hell is default. That's where you are going just by definition without Christ - no one is morally neutral or clean (I'm not going there on babies or the mentally challenged -that is for another post).I don't think it is a conclusion we should draw from scripture. We should preach the Gospel like we have been told to do it and let God handle after-life travel itineraries.

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, - 1 Peter 3:15