Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

I'm Blogging at Wordpress Now

2007-06-03T21:14:00.000-05:00

I have recently switched over to WordPress for my blogging. I like the templates they offer a little better and the organizational tools are second to none and it actually has a search feature so you find things by typing in a single word! Check out the new BLOG which contains most every post from this BLOG (and you can comment over at wordpress!) at this address: http://rdtwot.wordpress.com/ -- I'm going to keep this open because it has the daily Greek reading which I haven't been able to incorporate over there yet. Update your favorites, and yes I'm arrogant enough to think that my BLOG is on your favorites list =)

God bless!!!

Nick

When Will They Learn?

2007-05-31T00:28:00.000-05:00

Just read a very silly article written by a Roman Catholic which was meant to debunk Sola Scriptura. But the misunderstanding of the author as to what Sola Scriptura is prohibited him from actually being able to argue against the doctrine at all. His understanding was that everything must be written in Scripture in order for a Christian to believe it. This is obviously nonsense and not at all what Sola Scriptura is. Very simply stated, Sola Scriptura is the doctrine which states that Scripture Alone is the ultimate rule of faith for the doctrine and conduct of believers. Sola Scriptura speaks of the sufficiency of Scripture to explain what must be done to receive eternal life--in other words, Scripture contains all that is necessary to enter into salvation. When will Roman Catholics learn to stop caricaturizing the doctrine and argue against it based on its own merits?

And if you read the article I linked to then I'd also like to note the logical leaps the author takes in assuming that if something is transmitted orally that it is not 'Scripture' and therefore must be 'Tradition' -- such is not the case at all. Scripture while being written down was God-Breathed before it ever touched paper (or papyri/vellum). Belief in 'verbal inspiration' is a belief in the God-Breathed nature of the words themselves, not the physical form they took. The argument that there was 'no Scripture' before the canon was established or before it was relegated to a material form fails to take into account what the Word of God actually is.

And just one last comment (as I'd like to make many more but I'm tired and don't have the energy to stay up and compose a lengthy post)--the author made an assertion saying:

There are several events in the New Testament which cannot be traced to the Old Testament and so must have been handed down by TRADITION. Some examples are: Mt 2:23 - Nazarene, 2Tim 3:8 - Jamnes and Jambres, Jude 9 - St.Michael disputing with the devil about the body of Moses.

But this argument only exposes thr author's ignorance of what underlies these examples. Matthew 2:23 is Matthew's Midrashic interpretation of a variety of Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah. I'd recommend Dr. Michael Brown's Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol. 4: New Testament Objections for a fuller treatment of this. 2Timothy 3:8 actually has reference to the Exodus 7 from the Aramaic Targum Jonathan which names Janis and Jamberes. And as many early Church fathers noted, Jude 9 is a reference to the Assumption of Moses. Now if 'Tradition' demands that no text be the basis for certain beliefs, then the author's argument fails.

But again, Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine that says tradition has no place--it's a doctrine that says tradition is not the authority! When will they learn?

I had to go back, I just had to!

2007-05-30T18:39:00.000-05:00

No, this post is not about me returning to Roman Catholicism =) but I had to go back to the new blogger. I need the superior archiving and the widgets are so much more convenient. To any and all who would like to comment on my posts, just send an email... that's the best I can do. God bless!

What is 'Real' Music?

2007-05-29T18:10:00.000-05:00

The title of this post is a little misleading because music is only representative of the bigger issue at hand--culture.

C. Michael Patton wrote a blog post a few days ago on why he doesn't like Christian music (I really recommend reading it and the comments that follow - see here). His basic premise is that Christians shouldn't feel the pressure to leave the culture and create distinctively Christian sub-cultures in order to feel that they are honoring God. He made a few interesting points and I'll leave it to the reader to develop their own opinions on his comments.

But in reading the comments left by others in response to this blog and C. Michael Patton's responses to them I began to see some grave inconsistencies. For example, one commenter said that they liked Christian music because they could play it around their children and not have to worry about hearing profanity in the lyrics. Patton's response was:

Taffy, I don’t think that people should listen to the music with all the profanity either. I f that is the impression that I have given, I am sorry. Most of that type of Rap does not represent the real world but is a sub-culture in its self.

This is a very disappointing response for a number of reasons:

1. He doesn't tell us exactly what the 'real world' is and how he has come to the conclusion of what is 'real' and what is not. From the statement that a sub-culture is not representative of the 'real world' one could infer that he's suggesting some sort of universal culture that really represents the 'real world' but if so, what is this culture? Does it even exist? Can it even exist?

2. Why shouldn't people listen to music with profanity and for that matter, why shouldn't musicians who receive Jesus stop using profanity? A large part of his position is that he doesn't feel people should change the way they look, talk, and act just because they become Christians. He comments a number of times saying that the Church is NOT a sub-culture. OK, but why then would we think that people shouldn't listen to profane music and by extension perform songs with (mild or excessive) profanity in them? Why should they have to change that aspect but not another? Aren't we in danger of creating a sub-culture that excludes profanity which is a very real part of the human experience and even when used gratuitously has meaning and effect?

3. The automatic assumption that Taffy was speaking about Rap music is disheartening and dare I say prejudicial. There are any number of musical genres that are just as profane in their lyrical content yet these were not even considered--it was automatically to a specific type of Rap. Why?

4. Also disappointing because of its inconsistency was the claim that this type of Rap doesn't represent the real world but is a sub-culture in itself. One has to ask then what is 'real music'? What represents the 'real world'? Are we to believe that Mr. Patton's list of 10 Rock groups from the 90's represents the 'real world' because they are on his MP3 player? What makes these bands any less of a sub-culture and any more real than Gangsta Rappers or Death Metal musicians?

If we wanted to press the sub-culture issue then we could classify everything as a sub-culture from ethnicity to occupation, from religion to sexual preference, from political affiliation to music, etc... What makes U2 'real' and not a part of a sub-culture? U2 are part of a socio-political sub-cuture of rock music that certainly not all of his top 10 from the 90's fall into. But that begs the question, does such a socio-political ideology represent the 'real world'? I would say no (at least not generally speaking) and I'm quite sure that a multitude of others would agree.

Mr. Patton's classification system seems rather subjective and arbitray at best. I can appreciate his not liking Christian music because there is some that I'd never listen to, but not because it's Christian music--I'd not listen to it because it's simply not good music. As far as the sub-culture thing is concerned, everything is a sub-culture of sorts. We can all be categorized one way or another and this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Believe it or not the Church IS a sub-culture by virtue of what the Church is. As the ekklēsia we have been 'called out' from amongst a larger group. We are believers in distinction from unbelievers, Christians in distinction from Pagans, saints in distinction from sinners (and I know it is all too common for saints to continue to call themselves sinners but that's another post)--the point being that YES!!! There's a sub-culture of Christianity that is supposed to speak differently, look differently, and act differently! If not then what were we saved from and what were we saved for?

Observation

2007-05-26T13:17:00.000-05:00

I've observed that if you call a Roman Catholic to task (at least the variety that I deal with, you know the chat room 'scholars') then they will never meet their burden of proof. It's very easy to assert things over and over and over (ad nauseum) but not quite so easy to support them. I was just told a few things and when I called this young man to account for them he supported none. The claims were as follows:

1. There is an unbroken line of Popes dating back to Peter.

2. All of the early fathers fully support Catholic doctrine.

3. The Greek New Testament contains the term 'Catholic Church'.

Well, for #1 to be true we'd need to see this proven from the New Testament itself, but since there are no passages that support the assertion it cannot stand. But even if we rely solely on Patristic writings, Irenaeus refutes the above claim in listing Peter and Paul as Apostles (not bishops) who set up the Church at Rome thus asserting their equality, not Peter's preeminence. (See Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3.3.2)

#2 is a misnomer in that supporting 'Catholic' doctrine does not equate to supporting modern Roman Catholic doctrines. The word meant something entirely different in its original use than it does now. And this means nothing in and of itself in the years before orthodoxy was firmly established. Arius believed himself to be fully supporting Catholic doctrine in asserting that the Father alone was unoriginate. But even the most casual reading of Patristic sources show that there was never a time when there was a 'unanimous consent of the fathers' on all points of doctrine.

The claim made for #3 was that the term 'Catholic Church' appears in Scripture in the Greek text. He quoted this as 'kathos ekklesia' -- The problem being that kathōs does not mean 'Catholic' (i.e. universal) it means 'as, just as, even as, how, according to' depending on its context. What's more is that the term kathōs ekklēsia doesn't appear anywhere in the Greek New Testament.

So the moral of the story is don't settle for claims asserted with authority--ask for the authorities which support these claims.

Problem Fixed

2007-05-26T11:44:00.000-05:00

I had to revert to the old blogger but at least now the comments are posted. Sure I had to sacrifice my beautiful picture of the Bible with a sword laid across it and the oh-so-appropriate scripture from Ephesians 6 as well as the far superior archiving of the new blogger, but those are the sacrifices we make. =) At least the daily Greek reading is still working!!! Enjoy!

Sorry Commentators

2007-05-26T10:22:00.000-05:00

I just noticed that I had unmoderated comments on some of my BLOG posts. I attempted to publish them but they did not show up. I then went back to old posts that I knew had been commented on and sadly those comments were not showing up either. So I wasted a whole bunch of time going through all the FAQs in the Help: Comments section of Blogspot only to find out that I cannot enable comments for old posts and also that because I have changed from the old blogger to the new beta blogger that it is possible no comments will post. I apologize to all who have made comments, especially Moses Flores. And what's worse is that I attempted to publish them before reading them! Now I can't even retrieve them to read personally! = (

I would ask that anyone who reads this BLOG and has made comments in the past, if you remember what your comments were and would like me to read them, to please email them to me: prophetnick77@aol.com

I was especially disappointed to not be able to read all of Moses' comments on my post concerning presuppositional apologetics. I caught the first couple of sentences and then published it figuring I'd be able to read it on the BLOG itself. Moses, if you would like to send me some thoughts I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

Again folks, I apologize and will try to find a way that comments can again be featured on this BLOG. God bless!

A Quick Word on Mercy/Love vs. Justice

2007-05-26T02:56:00.000-05:00

Often times, people will squirm in agony over the thought of a God who actually condemns the guilty to hell for eternity. They will make statements like 'a loving God would never do that' or 'a merciful God would never do that' but that only assumes what has yet to be proven.

The fact is that a truly 'loving God' must hate some things, indeed everything that violates his loving nature. Does sin violate love? Absolutely! To love God and your neighbor is to not sin against them. So a truly 'loving God' must hate at the very least 'sin' -- but this begs the question, does God hate sinners? I know the popular bumper sticker Gospecl slogan is 'God hates the sin but loves the sinner' but is this what the Bible tells us? Absolutely NOT!!! Psalm 5:5 states that God hates all evildoers, not simply the evil that they do. Psalm 11:5 tells us that Yahweh hates the wicked and those who love evil.

A quick word on Hebrew thought is appropriate here. Ancient Hebrews had no conception of a man's actions being separate from the man himself. In other words, a man's actions were simply an extension of that man. We see this all throughout Scripture and it is especially clear in the epistle of James with comments such as 'faith without works is dead' and 'I'll show you my faith by my works' etc. Even Peter's command to repent and be baptized shows this concept as it was natural for the physical act of baptism to follow the spirutal act of repentance--obedience to the command is what showed the repentance to be genuine.

So is God somehow unloving for sentencing the wicked to their just punishment in hell? Not at all!!! God forbid!!! If God didn't pusnish the guilty then he would not truly show forth his absolute love.

But now what about mercy? It is often stated (in fact this was just stated to me in the chat room) that a merciful God wouldn't 'torture' (notice the caricature as 'torment' is not 'torture') men in hell for eternity. Well, why not? For God to be merciful he only has to extend his mercy to one individual (and truthfully he doesn't have to extend it to anyone, but if he had not extended it then we wouldn't know of it). But for God to be just he has to punish all of the guilty.

The man I spoke with earlier asserted that justice is accomplished by 'obliterating' (this is the doctrine of annihilationism) the guilty--but as I pointed out, this is NOT justice--it IS mercy (an unjust mercy at that!). There is no justice in not sentencing someone guilty of an eternal offense to an eternal punishment. It is only merciful to annihilate such a person, but then this person would receive mercy unjustly as they never trusted in the merits of Christ to receive it. Christ's sacrifice would then have been in vain. Perish the thought!!! God forbid!!!

Mercy/Love and Justice are not mutually exclusive. God is all of the above but in order for the first two to function the third must function as well. It is absolutely Just for a Holy and Righteous and Loving God to hate everything that violates his Holy and Righteous and Lovong nature. And absolute Justice demands the absolute punishment of the violators.

Does it Matter?

2007-05-24T22:49:00.000-05:00

VS.

I just got off of the phone with my cousin who is in the Nation of Islam. Now most times our conversations are very cordial and I usually just listen to him talk without saying too much in response--He knows where I stand in regard to his beliefs. But every once in a while the conversation gets heated and tonight was a prime example of that. I don't wish to recount everything we discussed but there is one thing that comes up EVERY time he get to arguing and that is what Jesus LOOKED like. The reason? Because if we say we don't know then we are accused of not recognizing him as he came in Elijah Muhammad or Louis Farakhan.

You see, for the member of the Nation of Islam (which is a Black supremacist group contrary to their denial of such a description), Jesus could not have been white. In fact Jesus must have been the original Asiatic Black man. All artwork that depicts Jesus as a Caucasian is meant to deceive and is rooted in White supremacy. Let us suppose that this is the case and all Caucasian depictions of Jesus are founded upon a notion of White supremacy (although I don't see anyone taking issue with Hispanic, Indian, or Asian representations of Jesus) does this somehow necessitate that Jesus was a Black man? And if Jesus being Black is the only viable option, does it really matter? These are important questions to say the least.

Let's start by pointing out that Jesus was a first century Palestinian Jew which means that he was neither White nor Black. He more than likely had an olive complexion, but again, does this matter? It is easy to ascertain why certain depictions of Jesus appear as they do--artwork tends to reflect the artist more than the subject. Michelangelo painted a White Jesus because he put himself into his work. Danny Simmons painted a Black Jesus because he put himself in his work. So on and so forth for all inconic images of the Son of God. But does any of this matter?

Does Jesus' skin color affect the Gospel? Would Jesus' blood have still been red if he were White, Black, Purple, or Green? Was it race that caused Jesus to live a sinless life, perform miracles by the very finger of God, and rise from the dead three days after being crucified? The answer to all of these questions is an emphatic NO!!!

Concern for Jesus' skin color reflects a deep carnality in the person concerned as the more spirutually minded person is concerned with Jesus' redemptive work. Skin color didn't save anyone, a divine person did! In the case of the Nation of Islam member, they need a black Jesus because they need to claim that Elijah Muhammad was Jesus and that Louis Farakhan is also some aspect of Jesus. The not-so-holy Trinity of the Nation of Islam is W. Fard Muhammad, Elijah Muhammad, Louis Farakhan--and although you will find different views from different members (as the Nation of Islam has no unified interpretation concerning much of anything), you will find that they believe all three of these men to be God/Jesus in some way, shape, or form.

If we are to believe that Elijah Muhammad or Louis Farakhan is Jesus then Jesus must be Black. To deny that Jesus is Black means that we have some deep-seeded White supremacy in us. To affirm it is to admit that these men are Jesus. This is the reasoning of the NOI member (at least the one I speak to regularly). But again I have to point out that the skin color of Jesus of Nazereth is completely irrelevant to anything that matters!!! I thought of taking the pet scripture (Rev. 1:14-15) of those who claim a Black Jesus and showing the flaws in their interpretation but what's the point? It still wouldn't do anything to affect what Jesus did. So here is the Gospel.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, (1Cor. 15:3-4)

No mention of skin tone, race, or any other frivolous nonsense. Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and on the third day rose! If his color were a necessary bit of information it would have been stated in Scripture. So whether you believe in a Black Jesus or a White Jesus or the historically accurate Palestinian Jewish Jesus--my question is do you believe the Gospel? If not than the color of Jesus' skin is the least of your concerns.

Judaism, Incarnation, and Original Sin

2007-05-23T19:05:00.000-05:00

Just had an interesting discussion with a woman who claimed that Christian translations of the Bible were altered to insert all kinds of ideas into the Hebrew Scriptures that are foreign to Judaism. I asked for specific examples and rather than actual passages I was told that God incarnating himself is foreign to Judaism and original sin is foreign to Judaism. Rather than recount the whole conversation I'd just like to offer the following citations from Jewish translations of the Hebrew Scriptures for consideration. You be the judge.

Incarnation

Now the Lord [Heb. Yahweh] appeared to him in the plains of Mamre and he was sitting at the entrance of the tent when the day was hot And he lifted his eyes and saw, and behold, three men were standing beside him, and he saw and he ran toward them from the entrance of the tent, and he prostrated himself to the ground. And he said, "My lords, if only I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass on from beside your servant. Please let a little water be taken and bathe your feet and recline under the tree. And I will take a morsel of bread, and sustain your hearts; after[wards]you shall pass on, because you have passed by your servant." And they said, "So shall you do, as you have spoken." And Abraham hastened to the tent to Sarah, and he said, "Hasten three seah of meal[and]fine flour; knead and make cakes." And to the cattle did Abraham run, and he took a calf, tender and good, and he gave it to the youth, and he hastened to prepare it. And he took cream and milk and the calf that he had prepared, and he placed [them]before them, and he was standing over them under the tree, and they ate. (Gen. 18:1-8, JPCT)

Note that Yahweh appeared to Abraham and when Abraham lifted his eyes he saw three MEN (of whom two were angels, Gen. 19:1) standing beside him. He washed their FEET and offered them food which they ATE. The rest of the chapter records Yahweh's conversation with Abraham.

And the Lord [Heb. Yahweh] caused to rain down upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire, from the Lord [Heb. Yahweh], from heaven. (Gen. 19:24, JPCT)

Again we have Yahweh, who just spoke with Abraham (on the earth) raining down fire and brimstone from Yahweh who is in heaven.

Original Sin

Behold, in iniquity was I fashioned, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Ps. 51:7, SET)

The wicked are estranged from the womb, the speakers of falsehood went astray from birth. (Ps. 58:4, SET)

These passages seem to agree with the concept of original sin. And let me note one other thing... I was accused of not understanding Jewish thought, but if this person truly understood Jewish thought and culture then they would know that the ANE was a collectivist society. The concept of many suffering for the actions of one is thoroughly keeping with Jewish thought.

*JPCT = Judaica Press Complete Tanach
*SET = Stone Edition Tanach

Relics of Faith: The Bible and Prayer Cloths

2007-05-22T23:00:00.000-05:00

This afternoon I spoke with a woman who made a comment about televangelists being 'charlatans' for offering prayer cloths to people. Now don't get me wrong, I certainly would agree that there's something wrong with anyone who offers a 'free' prayer cloth or miracle spring water for a 'love gift' of $20, but aside from that I don't see any problem with prayer cloths per se. I personally sent my aunt one a couple of years ago when she was in the hospital along with a letter explaining the necessity of faith in Christ and his infinite atoning work for salvation. I explained that there is nothing inherent within the handkerchief that could heal her nor was there anything in and of myself that could produce a healing in her body. But it is God alone who can heal and faith is what is needed to appropriate such a thing.

But this woman referenced 2Kings 13:21 which says: "And as a man was being buried, behold, a marauding band was seen and the man was thrown into the grave of Elisha, and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood on his feet" and Acts 19:11-12 which says: "And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick, and their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them" as the two main passages that these men stand on for their belief in prayer cloths. I would add to these the story of the woman with the issue of blood (Mk. 5:14-24) where she was healed by touching the hem of Jesus' garment.

So this got me thinking... are prayer cloths really that much different than the Bible? I asked the question and the chatters immediately chimed in and said 'of course!' But there wasn't much explanation as to why. One man told me that the Bible is alive to which I replied that it is the Word of God (Gk. ho logos tou theou) recorded in the Bible that is living and active (Heb. 4:12) but the Bible itself is a relic just like a prayer cloth.

What do I mean? Well, the Bible in and of itself has no power to heal or save... it's just a book. My particular favorite Bible is my UBS4 but it is just a little burgundy book with 918 pages of text and index and a 203 page lexicon with a gold ribbon marker. There is nothing about the book itself that can do anything for me. Rather the message contained in the book is what can save and what can heal. It is through faith in these reports that I am able to appropriate the benefits of what they say. The words contained in this beautiful little Greek New Testament are just as powerful when spoken as they are when read and the fact of the matter is that the Gospel was preached before it was ever written.

When we speak of the Bible as 'inspired' we need to be careful to define exactly what we mean by that statement. The Bible itself as a book is not inspired, but the very words contained within are theopneustos (God-Breathed). Were they any less God-Breathed in the minds of the writers before they were religated to paper? Of course not! Was no one born again before Scripture was recorded on pieces of papyri or vellum? Of course they were!

The Bible is a 'point of contact' as the prayer cloth perveyors say, in much the same way that a prayer cloth is. Jesus and Paul was working miracles by the power of God and the people witnessed these events. They mustered up the faith (and if you will recall from a previous post, faith is not some blind leap of logic) to appropriate their healing by simply touching the garments that these men wore (Jesus' hem, Paul's aprons). Likewise, we read the accounts of Jesus' death, burial, resurrection, and all of the miracles that he performed and we are able to muster up the faith to be born again or healed.

It's not the physical materials (Bible or Cloth) that save... It's the message and power that these materials relate to mankind that does this. So again, I'm not defending those who would wish to sell miracles under the guise of free items that will only cost a 'love gift' but I will defend the right of any and everyone to place their faith in a material object that represents something far greater... The miraculous power of God!

Fideism Hard at Work

2007-05-21T17:34:00.000-05:00

I just finished dialoguing with a KJV Only advocate. He asked me if I could help him get a web site set up so I obliged and did what I could do. He sent me a paper that he planned to put on the site and after reading it I was amazed that there was someone else out there who held the belief that there would be another rapture mid-way through the tribulation. So I sent him a paper I wrote that addressed the issue. He skimmed it for a moment and then offered a couple of comments. Remember, he's coming from the perspective that the KJV is inerrant, infallible, and the absolute inspired Word of God in the English language. This conversation is edited to only include that which is pertinent to the belief in KJV Onlyism.

Prophetnick77 [5:36 P.M.]: The First Resurrection Pictured in the Harvest <<--it's in there (Stage 2)

KJV 1611 Onlyist [5:37 P.M.]: I am just writing my paper on the resurrections of the BIble...and...I want you to think about someting...as I read so far..."Christ the firstfruits"--plural--is Christ and "many (not all) bodies of the saints which slept, arose"---and it is the 144,000 that preach the GOspel of the Kingdomin the church age---it is not the OT saints.

Prophetnick77 [5:42 P.M.]: I'd just make one correction... 'firstfruits' is a singular noun... (Gk. aparche) -- the plural would be 'aparchai'...

KJV 1611 Onlyist [5:43 P.M.]: That's correct...and in these last days, you are going to find out that the Hebrew and Greek should not be ignored, but heeded. However, never allow it to CORRECT the words that God wanted you to have...and in the english--it is PLURAL.

Prophetnick77 [5:45 P.M.]: Of course I disagree with you on God wanting me to have the 1611 KJV... But I'd point out that even in English it is singular... Sure it can be plural... But here (1Cor. 15:20) we see that it has reference to Jesus alone... We could compare this to the word 'deer' which can be singular or plural... We need to look at it in context to see what it means..

KJV 1611 Onlyist [5:59 P.M.]: Right...and I agree, but we must take the WHOLE body into account as well...and the Bible puts in terms as a garden of crops...and no one just goes out and gathers ONE stock of corn, etc.....Granted, firstfruits is a small portion---but definitely PLURAL!

Prophetnick77 [6:01 P.M.]: I'd point you to Romans 11:16 where the word 'firstfruit' appears in the KJV... This is the same Greek word as in 1Corinthians 15:20... What would your thoughts be on that since it doesn't have the 's' ending in the KJV?

KJV 1611 Onlyist [6:03 P.M.]: You woulnd't agree..but I'd say that since you KNOW that the translators are aware of the Greek word...and also aware that in one place they put an "S" and the other not--God leading them--and doctrinally---whether it is added or lacking in various places MEANS SOMETHING. You don't have to agree with my view of hte KJV--i dont expect that...

KJV 1611 Onlyist [6:03 P.M.]: let me give you a better example. the Greek word pascha or "passover". THey knew what the word meant in Acts 12:4! We know for SURE they knew, for their own marginal remark says "passover"--so its not like they "mistranslated" by mistake...it is an OBVIOUS and purposed INTERPOLATION. And how fitting...a ROMAN King (herod) who is an EBIONITE (jewish composite from HAM)--forshadowing the Antichrist...who will persecute the JEWS...and forbid them to continue doing temple worship and hteir customs... and EASTER comes from a ROME.... :) And that great MOTHER OF HARLOTS is a CITY on 7 HILLS who's colors are "PURPLE" and "GOLD" and she has a "CUP" and responsible for the deaths of MANY SAINTS....we know her identity! Or another example..."God is a spirit..."---sure! Get u a modern translation, and have some eeducated fool say... "well, in the verbally, inspired, original blankety bean bags"--- there is no article "a;" and while that's true...God is not SPIRIT...God is A spirit in disctinction from OTHER spirits...the DEVIL is spirit...you are SPIRIT...and agnels are SPIRIT...and GOD is "A" spirit in distinction from others...

Prophetnick77 [6:10 P.M.]: Yeah, but those educated fools realize that the original wording said something... And in fact God is Spirit... The passage isn't setting him in distinction from all other spirits... (who could be called 'a spirit' as well) -- It's speacking about the nature of God and how he desires worship in accordance with that nature...

KJV 1611 Onlyist [6:11 P.M.]: Yes, and the first role of that ANOITED CHERUB--the DEVIL who is a SPIRIT was worship!

Prophetnick77 [6:11 P.M.]: But this is all a little off topic... We can discuss the KJV some other time... And trust me... i have plenty of questions for you..

KJV 1611 Onlyist [6:13 P.M.]: Let me tell you this...and you don't have to agree...I will never use the Hebrew or Greek to "get rid" of the text of the AV. No person (educated or not) ever needs to consult a Hebrew or Greek text to "find the meaning" of anything that is not already well apparent and upheld in the ENGLISH. I am not a fan of those who are presented with Scripture on something..and then to get RID of it...they run to the Hebrew and Greek and find another word to suit their fancy. You havent done that---not at alll, to me....im speaking generally.

The conversation continued but I decided to cut if off here as this illustrates my point. This gentleman, as nice as he is (and I genuinely do like him) believes what he believes blindly. Now I don't think that I could know what I know to be true and ever hold his position but that's me. At the very least we can be glad that he believes the Bible, if only an inferior English translation.

Paul Washer -- Hard Preaching

2007-05-20T00:27:00.000-05:00

If you've got an extra hour, check out Paul Washer preaching a real hard message. He's a Southern Baptist who has very clear Calvinist leanings, but there is no doubt that this is a message that people need to hear. His statements on the necessity of hate to show forth God's love mirror something I said today in the Christian chat room. God must hate the wicked because he is absolutely righteous. God must hate injustice because he is absolutely just. God's hate shows forth his absolute love.

60 Questions on the Godhead (51-60)

2007-05-18T00:23:00.000-05:00

51. Does the Bible say that Jesus was God with us? Yes. Matthew 1:23.

Technically, עִמָּנוּ אֵל means ‘God IS with us’ (cf. Is. 8:10), but yes, Matthew does apply the name to Jesus.

52. Did Jesus ever say, "I and my Father are one?" Yes. John 10:30.

Yes and the Greek reads, egō kai patēr hen esmen. Esmen is the 2nd person plural of the verb eimi and translates literally as ‘we are’ while hen is the neuter form of the numeral one signifying that it is not ‘one person’ but rather ‘one thing’ that the Father and the Son are (which agrees perfectly with the doctrine of the Trinity)—Jesus literally said, ‘I and my father we are one [thing]’

53. Can it be proved scripturally that Jesus and the Father are one in the same sense that husband and wife are one? No. The Godhead was never compared to the relationship of a husband and wife. Jesus identified Himself with the Father in a way that husband and wife cannot be identified with each other. John 14:9-11.

The Trinitarian argument is not that the Father and Jesus are one the same way that a husband and wife are one. The only comparison that would possibly be made here by a Trinitarian is that the Hebrew word for ‘one’ (echad) is used to describe both. This is actually two logical fallacies in one. First they have created a faulty analogy and secondly they attribute this fallacious argument to Trinitarians and then attempt to knock it down when in fact we don’t hold this argument to begin with. Trinitarians do believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one as nothing else in existence is one. There is no perfectly analogous picture of the intimate relationship shared within the Trinity.

54. Does the Bible say that there is only one wise God? Yes. Jude 25.

And again, Trinitarianism is monotheism—the barrage of questions concerning ‘one God’ are pointless in that proving monotheism doesn’t prove modalism nor does it disprove Trinitarianism.

55. Does the Bible call the Holy Ghost a second or third person in the Godhead? No. The Holy Ghost is the one Spirit of God, the one God Himself at work in our lives. John 4:24; I Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:19; 12:13.

John 4:24 is clearly in reference to the Father which can be seen easily from reading the verse immediately before it. Also, John 4:24 shows us the three persons of the Trinity in the worship for it is the Father who seeks our worship in Spirit (i.e. the Holy Spirit) and Truth (i.e. the Son, see Jo. 14:6). As far as the title ‘third person’ is concerned, again… the title doesn’t need to present for the doctrine to be taught. The Father begets, the Son is begotten, the Spirit proceeds. It’s that simple.

56. Can Trinitarians show that three divine persons were present when Jesus was baptized by John? Absolutely not. The one, omnipresent God used three simultaneous manifestations. Only one divine person was present--Jesus Christ the Lord.

Notice that all they have done here is re-state their premise in the conclusion without actually having shown this to be true. They’ve assumed that one God means one divine person and therefore conclude that three divine persons can not be shown at Jesus’ baptism. But because Trinitarians can show the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be three persons and Trinitarians can show the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be present at Jesus’ baptism, it then logically follows that Trinitarians can show three divine persons present at Jesus’ baptism. It is a common argument from the modalist that the omnipresence of God accounts for all three modes or manifestations being at Jesus’ baptism but this claim is light on substance.

The fact is that God is omnipresent, but this is a trait shared by each member of the Godhead. It is illogical to claim that Jesus in his deity (as the Father) spoke to Jesus in his humanity (as the Son) from heaven while Jesus as the Spirit (his omnipresent deity) descended upon himself (in his humanity). This violates the law of non-contradiction as the modalist would have one person being three persons at the same time and in the same sense. They might claim that these are not ‘persons’ at all but rather ‘three manifestations of one person’ but this is shown false in that each ‘manifestation’ exhibits the qualities of personhood. In the account of Jesus’ baptism alone we see at the very least the Father speaking and the Son being the subject of the words spoken as irrefutable proof of at least two personalities. Omnipresence does not account for such nonsense and the burden of proof is on the modalist to show such.

57. Then what were the other two of whom Trinitarians speak? One was a voice from heaven; the other was the Spirit of God in the form of a dove. Matthew 3:16-17.

Voices come from persons and the Holy Spirit is shown to be a person all throughout Scripture.

58. What did the voice say at Jesus' baptism? "Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Mark 1:11. As the Son of God, Jesus was the one God incarnate.

Again, a definite and clear distinction is seen in the Father in heaven speaking about the Son on earth at Jesus’ baptism. Yes, Jesus is God incarnate, but it is the Son who was incarnated, not the Father!

59. Does the Bible say that God shed His blood and that God laid down His life for us? Yes. Acts 20:28; I John 3:16. God was able to do this because He had taken upon Himself a human body.

Textual variants in Acts 20:28 aside, the Trinitarian can certainly affirm that God added a human nature and was incarnate in a human body for the purpose of redeeming mankind on the cross.

60. The Bible says that God is coming back with all his saints (Zechariah 14:5) and also that Jesus is coming back with all his saints (I Thessalonians 3:13). Are two coming back? No. Only one is coming back--our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Titus 2:13.

Again, Jesus is God. The Father and Jesus are two persons, not two Gods. Questions like this are straw man arguments in that they keep assuming a bi/tri-theism on the part of Trinitarians.

60 Questions on the Godhead (41-50)

2007-05-17T12:42:00.000-05:00

41. Does the Bible say that God alone treads upon the waves of the sea? Yes. Job 9:8

Agreed, but this question is asked in order to set up the next one which doesn’t necessitate that Jesus is God (although Trinitarians fully affirm the deity of Christ).

42. Why, then, was Jesus able to walk upon the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 14:25)? Because He is God the Creator. Colossians 1:16.

Peter walked on the water as well, does it follow that he was God the creator? Of course not. Job 9:8 has nothing to do with Matthew 14:25, 29.

43. Is God the only one who can forgive sin? Yes. Isiah 43:25; Mark 2:7.

Again, Trinitarians would agree with this but these questions maintain the same uni-personal assumptions that we have seen throughout. The argument is that if the Father is God and Jesus is God then Jesus must be the Father. If God does something and Jesus does something then Jesus is God and because there is only one person who is God Jesus must be the Father. But there is nothing to these actions that cannot be explained in light of the Trinity—in fact these things cannot be rationally explained apart from the Trinity.

44. Why, then, could Jesus forgive sin in Mark 2:5-11? Because He is God the Savior.

Yes, Jesus is God the Savior but remember that he was given authority (Mat. 28:18).*

*Note that this authority was given to the Son in eternity, not at any point of time—it has always been his but the fact that the Father gave it to him shows a distinction in person.

45. Is Jesus the true God? Yes. I John 5:20.

Agreed—but again, Jesus is NOT the Father.

46. If God and the Holy Ghost are two separate persons, which was the Father of Christ? Matthew 1:20 says that the Holy Ghost was the Father, while Romans 15:6, II Corinthians 11:31, and Ephesians 1:3 say that God was the Father. There is no contradiction when we realize that God the Father and the Holy Ghost are one and the same Spirit. Matthew 10:20; Ephesians 4:4; I Corinthians 3:16.

To begin with, the Holy Spirit and the Father are two DISTINCT (not separate) persons—there is no separation within the being of God. Secondly, the Father is the Father of the Son and this is an eternal distinction, not a temporal one. The Father was the Father in relation to the Son before the incarnation (see Pro. 30:4; Jo. 1:1-18).

To say that the Father and the Holy Spirit are the same Spirit is ambiguous as a Trinitarian could say the same thing but define it differently. ‘Same Spirit’ need not mean ‘same person’ as it can have reference to ‘same being/substance’.

47. When Paul asked the Lord who He was, what was the answer? "I am Jesus." Acts 9:5.

Jesus is Lord. Trinitarians affirm this.

48. When Stephen was dying, did he call God Jesus? Yes. Acts 7:59.

Jesus is God. Trinitarians affirm this.

49. Did Thomas ever call Jesus God? Yes. John 20:28.

Same answer as above.

50. How could Jesus be the Savior, when God the Father said in Isaiah 43:11, "Beside me there is no Savior?" Because "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." II Corinthians 5:19.

Jesus can be the savior because within the one being of Yahweh there exists three eternally distinct persons. All three persons were active in the redemptive plan.

60 Questions on the Godhead (31-40)

2007-05-16T01:58:00.000-05:00

31. Does the Bible say that Christ is the Lord? Yes. Luke 2:11.

Trinitarians agree. For the record, Arians do as well.

32. Does the Bible say that the Lord is God? Yes. I kings 18:39; Zechariah 14:5; Acts 2:39; Revelation 19:1.

The NT uses the title lord (Gk. kurios) for both the Father and the Son, making a distinction between the two.

Luke 10:21 says, “In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, "I thank you, Father, Lord (Gk. kurie) of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.” The Son clearly calls the Father Lord.

In Acts 2:36 we are plainly told, “Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God [the Father] has made him both Lord (Gk. kurion) and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."

The verse immediately before this makes reference to Psalm 110:1 in which Yahweh (LORD) tells Adonai (Lord) to sit at his right hand until he makes his enemy his footstool. This is without question in reference to the Father and the Son as it is applied in the NT (see Heb. 10:13)

33. How could the church belong to Jesus (Matthew 16:18) and yet be the church of God (I Corinthians 10:32)? Because Jesus is God in the flesh.

While Trinitarians certainly agree that Jesus is God in the flesh, this conclusion is not necessary to answer the question. The Church can belong to Jesus in the same sense that it belongs to the Father because those who make up the Church have been given to Jesus (Jo. 6:37) by the Father.

34. Will God give His glory to another? No. Isaiah 42:8.

Again, Trinitarians affirm the full deity of Christ—he shares the essential nature of deity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The glory is properly ascribed to all three persons.

35. Was there a God formed before Jehovah, or will there be one formed after? No. Isaiah 43:10.

Yet another proposition that Trinitarians affirm. Yahweh is the only God in existence, there were none before and there will be none after.

36. What is one thing that God does not know? Another God. Isaiah 44:8.

How is this question relevant to the ‘Godhead’? One could infer from the question that oneness Pentecostals equate Trinitarianism with Tritheism (which is obviously the case with David K. Bernard in his book The Oneness of God)—but this is a straw man argument since Trinitarians are firmly monotheistic.

37. What is one thing that God Cannot do? Lie. Titus 1:2.

Again, how is this question relevant?

38. How many Gods should we know? Only one. Hosea 13:4.

The same inference of Tritheism is made—to know the Triune God Yahweh is to know only one God.

39. How many names has the Lord? One. Zechariah 14:9.

Yes, and the name as given in Zechariah 14:9 is Yahweh.

40. Is it good to think upon the name of the Lord? Yes. Malachi 3:16.

Relevance?

60 Questions on the Godhead (26-30)

2007-05-12T21:15:00.000-05:00

26. Does the Bible say that God, who is the Word, was made flesh? Yes John 1:1, 14.

The Greek text of John 1:1 tells us that the Word is distinct from the God he is with in the second clause (kai ho logos pros ton theon). The lack of the article before theos in the third clause (kai theos ēn ho logos) tells us that the Word is not the Father. See answer to question #2. John 1:14 draws as clear if not a clearer distinction in saying that the Word made flesh is the only begotten of the Father.

27. For what purpose was God manifested in the flesh? To save sinners. Hebrews 2:9, 14.

Trinitarians would agree.

28. Was Jesus God manifested in the flesh? Yes. I Timothy 3:16.

The textual evidence argues in favor of reading hos as opposed to theos in 1Timothy 3:16 but this variant is insignificant to what the passage is teaching. Trinitarians would once again agree that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh; we simply deny that he is the Father manifest in the flesh.

29. Could Jesus have been on earth and in heaven at the same time? Yes. John 3:13.

The question and answer given here are too simplistic—Jesus is the Son/Word incarnate—this is important in understanding the question. There was a time before the Son/Word was Jesus—in other words, prior to the incarnation Jesus was not Jesus. With this understanding of Jesus as the incarnate Word/Son we need to realize that ‘Jesus’ is not separate from his humanity or body. He was not ‘physically’ present in heaven at the moment of John 3:13.

Every believer must grapple with the questions concerning the times when Jesus lacks knowledge of certain events, or when he is only in one place at one time, or his being given power/authority—all of these things would seem to contradict God’s omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. But they are answered in the incarnation and the hypostatic union. Too often the position is taken that ‘in Jesus’ humanity’ he did this or ‘in Jesus’ deity’ he did that but this misses the point of the incarnation and the hypostatic union. This tendency leads towards Nestorianism which was an ancient heresy that stated that Jesus was two persons.

The truth of the matter is that Jesus in his incarnation united two natures perfectly and completely in his one person, but willfully laid aside certain prerogatives of deity. This is not to say that he did not possess these prerogatives but rather that he willingly opted to cooperate with the limitations of humanity.

So in answer to the question, the answer is no. Jesus could only be physically present where he was, although his nature of deity which is shared equally with the Father and Holy Spirit is all-pervasive and fills the known universe and beyond. The oneness believer answers the question affirmatively because they create a division in the natures of deity and humanity which logically results in a Nestorian understanding of a divine and human Christ (although they would vehemently reject such a description of their belief). The result is Nestorian because they are forced to personalize the two natures of Jesus. They have the human nature on earth with the divine nature in heaven—the human nature prays to the divine nature—the human nature was sent by the divine nature—the human nature does the will of the divine nature, etc. (see David K. Bernard’s The Oneness of God, [Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame, 2000], 176-78).

30. Does the Bible say that there is but one Lord? Yes. Isaiah 45:18; Ephesians 4:5.

Again, Trinitarians would agree with this statement although we would qualify it by saying that the one Lord exists as three eternally distinct persons.

60 Questions on the Godhead (21-25)

2007-05-12T13:27:00.000-05:00

21. Whom do some designate as the last person in the trinity? The Holy Ghost. But Jesus said that He was the first and last. Revelation 1:17-18

The response given to this question is completely disconnected from the question itself. We speak of the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Trinity because it is the Spirit who proceeds from the Father through the Son. ‘First and Last’ is merely a title of Yahweh.

22. How many persons did John see sitting on the throne in heaven? One. Revelation 4:2.

It is here assumed that ‘one’ must mean ‘one person’ but this is nothing more than circular reasoning. There is nothing in the text to suggest one and only one person as it would be just as easy to assume ‘one being’ upon the throne, which is what the book of Revelation supports. John sees at least two persons on the throne in Revelation, the Father and the Lamb.

Jesus said in Revelation 3:21, “The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne” (ESV). Notice how Jesus makes a definite distinction between himself and the Father as well as explicitly stating that they share the same throne.

23. If Jesus is the first and the last, why did God say in Isaiah 44:6 that He was the first and the last? Because Jesus is the God of the Old Testament incarnate.

No argument from Trinitarians here. But it must be pointed out that the title is appropriate for any of the three persons of Yahweh.

24. Did Jesus tell Satan that God alone should be worshipped? Yes. Matthew 4:10

Again, no argument from Trinitarians on this point—God alone should be worshipped, but it is imperative that we worship the God of Scripture which is the Triune God, Yahweh.

25. Does the devil believe in more than one God? No. James 2:19.

James 2:19 actually has reference to demons (Gk. daimonia) which is a plural noun, not specifically the devil (i.e. Satan). But Trinitarians share in monotheism.

Tail Tucking & Childish Taunts

2007-05-10T14:53:00.000-05:00

I just received an email for a guy that I semi-debated a couple of years ago on the deity of Christ (see here for that debate) and that I have debated in the various Christian chat rooms hundreds of times in the last couple of years on the doctrine of the Trinity. Over time I decided to cut my losses and just ignore him because I've cast way too many pearls to this particular swine. Today I saw an atheist having a conversation about a passage in Deuteronomy 22 and he kept addressing this individual so I took him off of ignore to watch the foolishness ensue. Of course he had no idea what he was talking about and he attempted to turn a conversation about the proof of virginity into a discussion on why it is sinful to touch a menstruating woman. The atheist had to leave so the conversation ended and I decided to leave as well. I then received this email:

In a message dated 5/10/2007 3:47:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, NoTrinityNBible writes:

I know that you only want to talk with the Babes that don't know Scripture. That's the way all pseudo-intellectuals are.

I know you'll ignore me.

So I responded by saying:

I ignore you in the rooms because I know better than to cast my pearls to swine, but I'll extend another challenge to debate you on the doctrine of the Trinity. Formal written debate to be posted on my web site. We each get an opening statement, 2 rebuttals, and a closing. 1500 words per entry. I know that you won't accept the challenge because you have no real arguments against the doctrine. And you know that I have refuted you hundreds of times in the rooms. So what else do we have to discuss?

And when I went to send my email this was the message I got:

The following problems occurred while processing your request:

NoTrinityNBible - This member is currently not accepting e-mail from your account.

Your mail has not been sent. Please correct the problems listed and try again.

How ironic that I get emailed talking about how I'll ignore him yet my emails are blocked. How convenient. Well, the challenge still stands... If NoTrinityNBible ever wants to debate me on the doctrine of the Trinity then I'm game. If he want to keep tucking tail and running away while childishly taunting me then so be it... that's all I've come to expect from him.

B"H

60 Questions on the Godhead (16-20)

2007-05-09T02:25:00.000-05:00

16. When God said, "Let us make man in our image" (Genesis 1:26), was He speaking to another person in the Godhead? No. Isaiah 44:24; Malachi 2:10.

God was absolutely conversing within himself. The use of plural pronouns here and elsewhere is clear enough in pointing this out. The alternative view that God was speaking to angels is contradicted by Isaiah 44:24 or that God was speaking using the ‘royal we’ is based on an anachronistic reading of the text. Ecclesiastes 12:1 uses the word for creator in the plural (Heb. bor’ekha) while Psalm 149:2 uses the word maker in the plural (Heb. b’osav). All of this coupled with the fact that there is one creator argues highly in favor of a multi-personal God.

17. How many of God's qualities were in Christ? All. Colossians 2:9.

Trinitarians would agree although we recognize that certain prerogatives were laid aside in the incarnation. The Son cooperated fully with the humanity that he added to himself (see Phil. 2:5ff).

18. How may we see the God who sent Jesus into the world? By seeing Jesus. John 12:44-45; 14:9.

The question implies a recognizable distinction in persons. We have the Son who is sent and the Father who sends. One wonders how the oneness believer can ignore such a blatant reality.

19. Does the Bible say that Jesus is the Almighty? Yes. Revelation 1:8

Agreed.

20. Whom do some designate as the first person in the trinity? God the Father.

Absolutely—the Father is the first person in the Trinity because it is the Father who begets the Son and spirates the Spirit. The Father is unbegotten while the Son is begotten by the Father by an eternal generation (see response to question # 13) yet the Son does not beget or spirate—the Spirit proceeds forth from the Father by an eternal procession (Jo. 15:26) yet the Spirit is not begotten nor does he beget or spirate.

60 Questions on the Godhead (11-15)

2007-05-08T00:44:00.000-05:00

11. Does the Bible say that all the Godhead is revealed in one person? Yes, in Jesus Christ. II Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:19; 2:9; Hebrews 1:3.

Colossians 2:9 seems the most relevant passage here and it merely states that all the fullness of deity dwells bodily in Christ Jesus. The key term here is not deity (Gk. theotetos) but rather bodily (Gk. sōmatikōs) for we could accurately say that the fullness of deity is within any one of the three persons of the Trinity, but it is the Son alone whom we can say it dwells bodily.

12. Is the mystery of the Deity hidden from some people? Yes. Luke 10:21-22.

I don’t believe that any defense can be made of Luke 10:21-22 having reference to the mystery of Deity. The plain sense of the passage is that no one intimately knows (Gk. ginōskei) the Son except the Father and no one intimately knows the Father except the Son—and it is the Son who chooses to reveal the Father to others. This is a very apt presentation of the distinction between the persons of the Father and the Son.

13. Who is the Father? The Father is the one God, particularly as revealed in parental relationship to humanity. Deuteronomy 32:6; Malachi 2:10.

This was explained in the response to question #8 but it merits a few more comments. We’ve already seen that the Son has been with the Father since before the beginning of creation from passages such as Proverbs 30:4; Micah 5:2; John 1:1-18; 17:5. The problem with this interpretation is that it makes the Fatherhood of God dependant upon his creation. But the Creator is not dependant upon the creation for anything. The Father is the Father in relation to the Son as is the case with every Father. The Son is begotten by an eternal generation.

To draw an analogy, the Sun generates rays of Sunlight… There was never a time when the Sun was not generating Sunlight nor was there a time when Sunlight was not generated from the Sun. Now let’s suppose the Sun were eternal—this would mean that it has always been from all eternity generating Sunlight.

14. Where was God the Father while Jesus was on earth? The Father was in Christ. John 14:10; II Corinthians 5:19. He was also in heaven, for God is omnipresent.

Again, these comments need to be qualified because as they stand they can be agreed upon by Trinitarians. What must be made clear is that there is a definite distinction in Person as is evidenced from many Jesus’ statements throughout the Gospel of John. One example will suffice. In John 5:30 Jesus says, “I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”

Jesus makes it clear in the plainest of language that he can do nothing on his own as well as speaking of the one who sent him (i.e. the Father, vs. 26). For the oneness position to be correct in asserting that Jesus is both Father and Son then they would have to discount this verse. Their attempt to solve the problem by saying that the Father is the divine nature and the Son is the human nature does not work because it then depersonalizes God or separates God into two persons which is self-contradictory to their position on his oneness. I will point out that natures do not send natures to do anything, persons send persons.

15. Did the prophet Isaiah say that Jesus would be the Father? Yes. Isaiah 9:6; 63:16.

Isaiah 63:16 says nothing about Jesus so we can dismiss that verse immediately. But Isaiah 9:6[5 MT] is probably one of the most abused verses in all of Scripture when dealing with oneness theology. The argument first relies on equivocation in that it asserts that ‘father’ is being used consistently when in fact it is not. In this verse we are told of a name that the Messiah shall be called—it is very important to note that this is a prophecy foretelling a future event—this is completely contrary to the oneness position of the Father being the Father in the OT but the Son in the NT.

Secondly, ‘eternal father’ is not the best rendering of the Hebrew avi ad. ‘Father of eternity’ or ‘father of the age to come’ would be more appropriate. If we understand this to mean father of eternity then this fits perfectly with the Biblical presentation of the Son as the creator of all things (Jo. 1:3; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2) but it is more likely that we should take it in the sense of ‘father of the age to come’ because this fits with the overall theme of the passage. This is a Messianic prophecy speaking directly of the Messianic Kingdom/Age. The Messiah will usher in this kingdom/age and can rightly be described as ‘father of the age come’ in the same sense that we could describe Martin Luther as ‘father of the reformation.’

60 Questions on the Godhead (6-10)

2007-05-07T09:56:00.000-05:00

6. Does the Bible use the word one in reference to God? Yes, many times. For example, see Zechariah 14:9; Malachi 2:10; Matthew 23:9; Mark 12:29, 32; John 8:41; 10:30; Romans 3:30; I Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; I Timothy 2:5; James 2:19.

No arguments here, the word ‘one’ is certainly used in reference to God which is completely consistent with Trinitarian belief in One God.

7. Can the mystery of the Godhead be understood? Yes. Romans 1:20; Colossians 2:9; I Timothy 3:16.

The question is not specific enough. Can the mystery of the Godhead (i.e. Deity) be understood in what way or to what degree?

If by this question they are asking if we can fully understand God then the obvious answer is no. To fully understand God would require us being at the very least equal to God if not greater than him—this is not the case. Yahweh spoke through the prophet Isaiah saying, 'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.' (Is. 55:9) Zophar the Naamathite asked the questions, 'Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty?' (Job 11:7, NIV)

If they are asking if God can be understood to a certain degree than the answer is yes—God can be understood to the degree that he has revealed himself in Scripture. It is from this that we know of his tri-personality. Remember, the saints are 'the ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God' (1Cor. 4:1).

8. Has the Christian only one Heavenly Father? Yes. Matthew 23:9.

No arguments here although it must be pointed out that the Father is one of three distinct persons of God. We know the Father in relation to the Son. Logically we would state the argument as follows:

One cannot be a Father without a child.
God is a Father (Mal. 2:10; Mat. 7:21).
Therefore God has a child (Pro. 30:4; Jo. 3:16).
But God is eternal and immutable (Ps. 90:2; Mal. 3:6).
Therefore God must have always been a Father (Jo. 17:5).
If God has always been a Father then God must have always had a Son.
Therefore the Son of God is eternal (Jo. 1:1; Mic. 5:2).

9. Then why did Jesus say to Philip, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9)? Because Jesus is the express image of God's person. Hebrews 1:3. The Greek word for person in this verse literally means "substance."

I would agree with this assessment but qualify it further. Yes, Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substance because they share one and the same substance. But Jesus’ comment to Phillip must be understood in light of John’s prologue and the incarnation. John shows a distinction between the Persons of the Father and the Son in John 1:1-3. This is evident in that the ‘Word was with God’ (Gk. pros ton theon). The preposition pros (with the accusative) denotes intimacy, fellowship, a living union, a motion towards, or a facing (cf. Mat. 13:56; 26:55; Mk. 6:3; 9:16; 1Cor. 16:6; 2Cor. 5:8)—meaning that the Word was ‘with’ God in an intimate and personal sense which is only possible if there are multiple persons.

10. Does the Bible say that there are two persons in the Godhead? No.

Again, the Bible doesn’t have to explicitly state that there are two persons in the Godhead for there to be two persons in the Godhead. Now obviously if the Bible teaches that there are three persons in the Godhead (which it does) then that necessarily includes two, but the question is phrased as to suppose binitarianism which the Bible does not teach.

60 Questions on the Godhead (1-5)

2007-05-05T14:22:00.000-05:00

The United Pentecostal Church International produces a tract called 60 Questions on the Godhead with Bible Answers in which it seeks to debunk the doctrine of the Trinity and defend the Oneness position of Modalism. I’m going to take the next week and a half to post and respond to all of their questions as well as the answers that they have provided. Expect 5 questions per post.

*Note that their questions are immediately followed by their answers. My answers will appear afterwards in red lettering.

1. Is the word trinity in the Bible? No.

This is absolutely true, the word ‘Trinity’ is not in the Bible—in the same respect that a plethora of other words we use to describe Biblical doctrines are not in the Bible (e.g. monotheism, incarnation, millennium, etc.). To quote F.F. Bruce, “Let us not be misled by the foolish argument that because the term 'Trinity' does not occur in scriptures, the doctrine of the Trinity is therefore unscriptural.”

2. Does the Bible say that there are three persons in the Godhead? No.

This question is ambiguous. Do they mean does the Bible explicitly use the phrase, ‘there are three persons in the Godhead’ or are they asking if such a concept can be found in Scripture? In response to the former question, of course not—this phrase occurs no more in the Scriptures than does a statement from Jesus saying, ‘I am God almighty, maker of heaven and earth.’ But if they are asking if the Bible teaches the doctrine that within the one being of God there exists three eternally distinct Persons, then yes! The Bible does say such a thing!

The doctrine of the Trinity is derived logically from observing no less than three self-evident truths of scripture:

1. Monotheism: There is only one eternal and immutable God that actually exists.

2. There are three distinct Persons all shown to be eternal, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

3. Each of the three Persons is identified as God (i.e. Deity).

The Hebrew Scriptures plainly declare that ‘Yahweh is God; there is no other besides him’ (Deut. 4:35). Israel’s declaration of faith the Shema says, ‘Hear O Israel, Yahweh our God, Yahweh alone’ (Deut. 6:4) in order to assert that Yahweh alone is the God of Israel and subsequently the rest of the universe. The book of Isaiah is replete with such comments as ‘I am the first and I am the last, beside me there is no God… Is there a God beside me? Yea, no Rock, I know not any’ (Is. 44:6, 8) and ‘I am Yahweh there is no other; besides me there is no God…I am Yahweh, there is no other’ (Is. 45:5-6).

Father: In a prayer for help Isaiah speaks on behalf of Israel saying, ‘…Yahweh our father, our redeemer, from everlasting is thy name’ (Is. 63:16). Likewise the psalmist speaks of God saying, ‘from everlasting to everlasting, you are God’ (Ps. 90:2). From this we conclude that the Father is indeed eternal.

Son: Likewise the Son has been with the Father from all eternity as is seen from John 1:1; 17:5. John 1:1 tells us that ‘in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.’ The verb was (Gk. ēn) is the third person imperfect of the verb to be (Gk. eimi). The imperfect tense denotes continuous action in the past so no matter how far back our minds can conceive, the Word existed before that. But its use in all three clauses tells us three different things about the Word: 1. The Word pre-existed the beginning; 2. The Word was always with God (the Father); 3. The Word was always as to his essential nature God. John 17:5 again utilizes the imperfect tense when Jesus says, ‘Father glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I possessed (Gk. hē eichon) with you before the world existed. The imperfect tense of I possessed (Gk. hē eichon) shows us that Jesus has always possessed this glory alongside the Father.

Holy Spirit: Hebrews 9:14 clearly calls the Holy Spirit the Eternal Spirit (Gk. pneumatos aiōniou), but this can further be substantiated in that the Holy Spirit was present in the beginning (Gen. 1:2). For the Spirit to be present in the beginning he must have existed prior to the beginning.

Each of the three persons is called God and performs the actions of God in Scripture, but this is not a point of disagreement as the Oneness Pentecostal acknowledges that all three are God, they simply believe these three persons to be manifestations of one person.

3. Does the Bible speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Yes.

Obviously—and it speaks of them in terms of eternally distinct persons as indicated in the answer to question #2.

4. Do these titles as used in Matthew 28:19 mean that there are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead? No, they refer to three offices, roles, or relationship to humanity.

The unorthodox language of ‘separate’ must first be discounted. We certainly do not believe that any separation exists within God—we do however recognize the distinction in persons which Matthew 28:19 clearly shows in its use of the definite article the (Gk. tou) before listing each person as well as the use of the conjunction and (Gk. kai) which connects all three.

The claim that these are merely offices, roles, or relationships to humanity is unfounded. A Father is a person, not a role or office and we have already established the eternal relationship of the Father and Son above in the answer to question #2. Likewise, the Son and the Holy Spirit’s pre-existence negate the claim that these are mere titles used in reference to their relationship to humanity. God enjoyed perfect fellowship within himself before the creation of all things.

5. Does the Bible use the word three in reference to God? Only one verse in the entire Bible does so-I John 5:7. It speaks of the Father, the Word (instead of Son), and the Holy Ghost, and it concludes by saying, "These three are one."

The Bible doesn't need to use the word three in reference to God for it to teach the doctrine of the Trinity. This argument is akin to question #1 in regards to the word Trinity being found in Scripture. We don't need the word three to count three divine persons. The answer provided for question #2 nullifies this argument.

Feel Good Prophets and The Bumper Sticker Gospel

2007-05-03T20:28:00.000-05:00

I've said this many times in my teaching at my local church and now I'll say it on the BLOG... I'm sick of this bumper sticker gospel that so many preach! When did Christianity become about catch phrases and slogans? Have you ever heard someone say the following:

It's not about a religion, it's about a relationship
Jesus + Nothing = Eternal Life
No Jesus, No Life... Know Jesus, Know Life
etc...

The list is endless and I'm sure that you've heard some that I haven't. My frustration stems from this watered down version of the Biblical message of salvation. Jesus, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, etc. all preahed one consistent message which enjoyed continuity with that of the Old Testament prophets and priests--Repent and Believe!

I'm a Charismatic Pentecostal as most people reading this BLOG know and I come across 'prophets' all the time in my circle and I have noticed one glaring difference between a good majority of the 'prophets' that I encounter and the Biblical prophets--that difference is the message of repentance! It's all good and well to tell people that they're going to another level and that God wants to bless them financially, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah... but that's not what the Biblical prophets were talking about.

I'm reminded of the prophet Micaiah in 1Kings 22. The text reads:

Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said to them, "Shall I go to battle against Ramoth-gilead, or shall I refrain?" And they said, "Go up, for the Lord will give it into the hand of the king." But Jehoshaphat said, "Is there not here another prophet of the LORD of whom we may inquire?" And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, "There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of the LORD, Micaiah the son of Imlah, but I hate him, for he never prophesies good concerning me, but evil." And Jehoshaphat said, "Let not the king say so." (1Ki. 22:6-8, ESV)

What happened to the prophets and preachers like Micaiah who told it like it was and said what God would have them to say? What happened to the message of faith and repentance that we see consistently presented throughout the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures? This is certainly the time that Paul warned Timothy about saying:

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. (2Tim. 4:3-4, ESV)

The words of the prophet Isaiah seem applicable to most these days:

For they are a rebellious people, lying children, children unwilling to hear the instruction of the LORD; who say to the seers, "Do not see," and to the prophets, "Do not prophesy to us what is right; speak to us smooth things, prophesy illusions, leave the way, turn aside from the path, let us hear no more about the Holy One of Israel." (Is. 30:9-11, ESV)

Who wants to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ when they can hear a catchy slogan designed to manipulate their emotions? Who wants to hear about the Holy One of Israel when they can hear about what he can do for them? We need to wake up and narrow our minds the way Paul narrowed his in saying, "For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1Cor. 2:2)

Ahh... now I feel better =)

B"H

Bible Study Tips

2007-05-02T15:19:00.000-05:00

Assess your reasons for studying

This will ultimately determine how you study as your presuppositions will certainly bias your approach to the Bible. We all have presuppositions and contrary to the claims of skeptics, there is no such thing as a ‘neutral observer’—for this reason you need to approach the Scriptures asking the question, ‘what must be in order for what is to be what it is?’ In other words, what has to be true in order for your presuppositions to be established as correct?

I must exhort you to always be prepared to follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if this means changing your position on certain issue. Truth should be the ultimate goal of any student seeking to understand the Scriptures. Above all, think critically!

Establish your hermeneutical principles

Hermeneutics are simply the system of interpretation we choose to employ in our study. I personally favor the historical-grammatical (literal) hermeneutic because I find it to be the only system of interpretation that does not ultimately contradict itself. This is not to be confused with ‘literalism’ (i.e. wooden literalism) which doesn’t allow various genres of literature to be what they are. For a quick overview of hermeneutical systems click here.

Build yourself a good reference library

This is imperative for good Bible study—admittedly most are not experts in the relevant fields of Biblical studies, and those who are experts in one or more fields are not experts in all fields—so ultimately we must rely on experts who have dedicated their professional lives to understanding specific aspects of the Bible.

Do not be misled into the thinking that because you are filled with the Holy Spirit that he will teach you all things and you have no need of men to teach you—this is intellectual suicide. Jesus gave the Church teachers for the equipping of the saints and the building up of the body of Christ (Eph. 4:11-12)—use them!

Every good reference library needs at the very least:

(A) A good quality commentary on the Bible
(B) Quality lexical aids (Hebrew & Greek)
(C) Good Bible Dictionaries (at least 2 for comparison)
(D) Multiple translations of the Bible (a parallel Bible is great for this)
(E) An exhaustive concordance or Bible software with a search engine

Don’t be duped into thinking that the apostles never needed all these materials so you don’t either—this type of thinking is WHY you NEED them! I’ll blog on that another time. Again, we have to remember that Bible study involves many specialized fields of research to include things such as linguistics, archeology, textual criticism, history, sociology, and much more, so in addition to these basics elements I would suggest purchasing materials in all of the relevant fields (or at least those relevant to your needs).

Allow me to encourage you to keep in touch with up to date materials from contemporary scholars rather than out of date materials that have become obsolete since their publication. I know it sounds appealing when you read in a catalogue or receive an email urging you to purchase a ‘time honored classic’ but resist the temptation to do so. Calvin’s Commentaries are good if you are studying what Calvin believed concerning certain matters, but they have little place in modern Biblical studies—much has been learned in the 400 years since he wrote.

Don’t be cheap!

Now building your library takes money and this is not an area to skimp—remember that this is an investment in your life and the lives of those whom you seek to help. Don’t buy a Strong’s Greek Dictionary simply because it’s only $10 while the BADG is $130—the saying is true… you get what you pay for! You will need to prioritize what is essential for you at the time and purchase materials as you are able and as you need them. C. Michael Patton has written a good blog post here on his problems with free bible study programs and sites—I recommend reading it.

Study one subject at a time

Focus is key in Bible study—you need to narrow your field of research so as to gain as great an understanding as possible in any given area. It is easy (especially if you own a reference Bible) to go down rabbit trails and lose track of what it is that you were originally researching—avoid this habit at all costs. Pick a subject and stick to it. What I recommend is using your reference materials by first checking for all relevant passages on the subject in your concordance. After reading the passages (in multiple translations) identify the key words and use your lexical aids to gain a deeper understanding of what they meant in their original context. From here consult your commentaries and dictionaries to gain knowledge concerning the social setting, cultural context, textual issues, etc. At the end of this process you should have enough understanding to move to the next subject.

I pray that these tips will help those reading this post to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ!

B”H

Moses Flores vs. Ben Rosado on the Papacy

2007-04-29T22:10:00.000-05:00

I've been keeping up with Moses Flores' debates with Charismatic Catholic Ben Rosado as the readers of this BLOG are well aware and in my reading just a moment ago I was very disappointed at some things that Ben said. Now let it be said here that I can empathize with Ben's charismatic experience because I am a Charismatic, but I can also empathize with Moses' doctrinal positions concerning authority because I am a Protestant--that being said, I cannot empathize with Ben's approach to this debate in his first rebuttal statement.

It's no secret that Charismatic's are generally perceived to be an emotional bunch who get all worked up and do a bunch of crazy things and aren't really all that concerned with doctrine--and the truth is (sad to say) that stereotypes are usually pretty accurate. Now not all of us are like that (my pastor for instance does not fit the sterotype) and I certainly don't wish to paint with a broad brush--I'd ask that you deal with each individual on an individual basis--but let's be serious for a second--a good majority of the Charismatics I know would abandon serious exegesis of a certain text of Scripture for a feeling they got from the Holy Spirit (as if the Holy Spirit would contradict sound exegesis).

But I said all this to say that I can place Mr. Rosado into this bunch and although I don't know him personally I can make this determination from his writings--after all Jesus did say, "for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" (Mat. 12:34). Now Ben's position is a bit different than the Charismatics that I interact with on a regular basis as he believes that the RCC is infallibly led by the Holy Spirit (which consequently bears witness with his spirit) and therefore whatever they teach is correct. This sets the stage for some of his comments to Moses in his first rebuttal of their debate on the Papacy.

Ben said:

Please listen to what we now teach about this very statement. We teach that Protestants are a part of Christ's sheep. This is because Protestants are under the care of Peter and His successors.

This is because the bible came from God and was put into the hands of the Catholic Church. After all, who else defined what books did and did not belong to the canon of scripture? It was of course, the Catholic Church with the inspiration of the holy Spirit. Can you deny this?

Be warned, if you claim that we did this without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then you have a huge problem with your bible. It most certainly has some wrong books in it. Also, some of the books that should be there are not. Because who can make an infallible decision (like which books belong to the bible) without the Holy Spirit???

Notice the logic (or lack thereof) in Ben's position. He first asserts that Protestants are under the care of Peter and his successors (i.e. the Bishops of Rome throughout the ages) which would be rejected by every Reformer and every Protestant not seeking some kind of ecumenical agreement with Rome. But from this he alleges that God infallibly led the Catholic Church by his Holy Spirit to define what books did and did not belong in the canon of Scripture. He asked if this can be denied and of course it can be! If we are to believe that it took an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church to infallibly decide the canon of Scripture then there was no canon for the first 1500+ years of the Church! Could we possibly argue in favor of such a position? But from this he alleges that if we do deny the infallible choice made by the Catholic Church in the choosing of the canon then we "most certainly have some wrong books" in our Bibles and also that we are missing some that should be there--but this does not follow. We never needed a group of fallible men claiming infallibility to declare Scripture--Scripture is what it is by virtue of the fact that it is God-Breathed. The recognition of this did not make it Scripture. Likewise the canon is what it is by virtue of what Scripture is (i.e. God-Breathed)--the canon of course being the 'rule of faith' for the Christian. Determining the canon is as easy as recognizing Scripture and ultimately we must credit the Scriptures themselves with bearing the marks of inspiration in order that they be recognized (these marks being things such as prophetic fulfillment; internal consistency, apostolic endorsement, etc.)

But this comment as misguided as I feel it is was not what disappointed me so much as what follows.

Ben later said:

Moses, I am getting tired of this discussion with you. Your own words are for you to listen to... You cannot come to the Eucharist and the Church unless the Father draws you.

I have seen many Christians not accept these things, you are not easily led. In fact, I have come to the conclusion that you don't even hear God talk to you. This is awful for you, because He is a loving friend and savior. You should try to start praying and listening. Become like Philip in Acts 8, 29. When you start hearing the Lord speak to you, you will know which way to go.

I have to leave you now. If you will not hear my voice, why do we talk? You might as well debate the catechism that is in your room. You don't need me to say anything to you, you don't want to.

This is a sad commentary on the position of many Charismatics (and this is from my experience a Charimatic thing moreso than a Roman Catholic thing)--the position that if one doesn't hear them then they are not hearing God. Ben entered this debate with Moses knowing well that Moses was a Protestant (and a Calvinist as well). Ben entered this debate knowing that their positions were contrary to one another and that they didn't agree to begin with. One has to ask why Ben is "getting tired of this discussion" now? From my vantage point it seems as if Ben has become frustrated with his inability to counter Moses' arguments and this is understandable as I have not seen anything even remotely close to a refutation (and Moses has said some things that I personally disagree with but nevertheless they went unrefuted).

Ben has concluded that Moses does not "hear God talk to [him]" simply because he is rediscovering what he already knew going into the debate... that Moses disagrees with him! This is the height of arrogance in my mind. Moses and I debated Calvinism for a while and during the process we never reached a mutual agreement but never once did the other accuse the other of not hearing or knowing God. I have to ask myself who is Ben to judge another's servant? I wonder if Ben has ever considered that perhaps Moses does hear from the Lord and the Lord has led him in the direction that he is going and perhaps it is him who should seek God's voice? I doubt it as this is usually not the mindset of my fellow Charismatics.

But Ben's closing really bothered me in that he asked why they continue to talk if Moses does not hear him and then suggests that Moses debate the Catechism in his room. This bothers me because Ben has taken the position that this debate is about converting Moses or about him being right--never taking the time to think that it is the readers of these exchanges that benefit from them. I have never once seen a debate in which either person changed their position. But that is not why we enter into these dialogues--no--we enter into them in hopes of understanding our opponents position better so as to possibly be able to help another somewhere along the line. But Ben's attitude is summed in saying, "why continue if you won't concede defeat and agree with me?"

I am very disappointed with this last exchange and while I still believe that Ben is a heck of a nice guy, I can't help but feel that these final comments are somewhat less nice.

B"H

Paganism Shmaganism

2007-04-27T17:52:00.000-05:00

I'm always amazed at the claims of skeptics and cultists that certain Christian beliefs are 'pagan.' Now the skeptic simply wants to attribute all things Christian to an earlier pagan origin (usually on the basis of some perceived parallel) while the cultist usually just takes the parts that they don't like about 'mainstream' Christianity (as if their cult were some other branch of 'true' Christianity) and claim that it is pagan.

As of late I've been asking these folks to document for me what pagan documents they have actually read and which pagan cultures and customs they are actually familiar with. Last night in fact I had a Jehovah's Witness tell me that the doctrine of the Rapture was pagan and when I asked for sources that pagans believed that Jesus would return for his Church (note that the timing of the Rapture wasn't the issue but the 'catching away' itself), I was provided with none--no surprise there. I then asked the above questions and they went off on a cut and paste tangent and flooded the room with material that was completely irrelevant to pagan origins of the doctrine of the Rapture. In fact the focus of the material posted was on the word 'Rapture' being a Latin word! Well, the word is actually English and is based on a Latin word but that doesn't make it pagan, now does it?

Same night, same room, I had a Christadelphian who I have debated in the past on the doctrine of the Trinity claim that the Trinity had pagan origins. He actually had the audacity to claim that I was well aware of the pagan origins of the Trinity and believed in it anyway. Again I asked him what pagan documents he has actually read and what pagan cultures and customs he was familiar with--my answer?--He said that he had read The Two Babylons! I pointed out that Alexander Hislop's book is at best a secondary source and it is very much outdated. And it is also worth noting that Hislop accepted the doctrine of the Trinity and concluded that it was pagan religions who had represented it blasphemously (see here). In other words, it is the Triune God that is the true God and false religions merely conterfeit the true God in their idolatrous triads.

Now today I came across this web page where a skeptic reproduced some portions of a Christian man's comments on some discussion board and then proceeds to respond. I'm going to post some of the highlights. The original Christian writer's words will be green, the skeptic's responses will be blue, and my responses red.

[Christian writes]: Mithra? I have to assume that you're joking. In order to have a serious discussion about Christianity and atheism, then you have to turn aside your intense desire to disparage Christianity at every turn and instead let's talk intelligently and objectively.

[Skeptic Response]: Notice how the Christian starts out. He immediately dismisses the idea that Mithra may have been a role model for the Jesus story by assuming that any talk about Mithra is a joke. Then the Christian accuses the skeptic of not being objective and only interested in Christianity bashing. This is a rather obvious ploy which attempts to discredit the idea that Jesus may have been copied from prior savior gods by attempting to laugh off the idea from the start.

In other words, in order to "intelligently" and "objectively" discuss Christianity, silly notions that there could have been savior gods who existed prior to Jesus and who had very similar attributes to Jesus must be put aside as nonsense. When dealing with a zealous Christian, one must always remember that there is nothing in the universe which has any "real" validity other than Jesus and the Bible.

[My Response]: Here we see the skeptic assuming that the Christian has assumed that any talk about Mithra being a model for Jesus is a joke but funnily enough he never assumes that the Christian has actually studied the subject and drawn his conclusions prior to speaking with this particular atheist. What is obvious is not a ploy that attempts to laugh off evidence, but rather that this particular skeptic is not familiar with the issues at hand and is so bent on discrediting Christianity and Jesus that he will blindly accept anything that fits his preconceptions.

His second paragraph is pure emotionalism and question begging. First of all he begs the question in assuming that ‘very similar attributes’ equates to Christianity borrowing from these pagan religions. But all similarity proves is similarity. I’ve often used the example that the story of my grandfather’s birth is set in a hospital in 1916 while mine is set in a hospital in 1981—now this must mean that the story of my birth was borrowed from that of my grandfather—the parallels are just too great. Observe:

*My grandfather was born a male/I was born a male

*My grandfather was born to a man whose last name was Norelli/I was born to a man whose last name was Norelli

*My grandfather cried when he was born/I cried when I was born

*My grandfather was circumcised/I was circumcised

I mean there’s no way that the story of my birth can be unique or genuine with so many similarities to that of my grandfather, especially since my birth came 65 years later! Clearly the ridiculousness of such an argument can be seen from this example.

Next is his caricature of all Christians who would deny such a proposition of pagan origins to Christianity as ‘zealous’ people who deny that everything in the universe has ‘real validity’ other than Jesus and the Bible. This is pure nonsense and one wonders how many actual Christians this man has met. There are any number of honest skeptics who would deny the same claims because they are honest enough to follow where the evidence leads.

[Christian writes]: Firstly, even the experts will acknowledge that there is virtually no literary evidence as to the beliefs of Mirthraism (please refer to "The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries" by David Ulansey).

[Skeptic Response]: The experts? Experts are a dime a dozen. The experts at the Christian Institute for Creation Research declare that the earth is only about 6,000 years old. For every Christian "expert" on pagan religions, I can cite one who isn't a Christian and establishes that Mithra was a savior God who was worshipped prior to Jesus and whose origins date long before Jesus was supposed to have been born.

The real problem is that if some parts of the Jesus story were patterned after "pagan" Gods, then the validity of the New Testament as the word of God is in jeopardy and Christians can't allow that.

[My Response]: My, oh my, how the tables have turned—the shoe is on the other foot—the pot has called the kettle black—umm… I can’t think of any more clichés to describe what has just happened so now I’ll comment on it. The skeptic has just dismissed experts on Mithraism with the wave of a hand while just above he criticized the Christian for thinking it a joke to equate Christianity with Mithraism.

You will also notice that rather than deal with what the experts admit (and yes, the Christian provides a reference to a credentialed scholar and one of his works on the subject) the skeptic has simply tried to change the subject by referring to Creationists who date the earth to 6000 years old. One wonders what does the age of the earth have to do with Mithraism and its alleged relationship to Christian origins. You will also notice that this skeptic is not at all familiar with the author referenced so he places the title ‘expert’ in quotations as if this man was anything less than that. In point of fact Dr. Ulansey has a doctorate in Religion from Princeton University and he specializes in ancient Mediterranean religions with an emphasis on the Mystery religions (which includes Mithraism!).

So the real problem is that some skeptics are not informed enough to actually offer a meaningful critique to the Christian position. At best all we can expect is conjecture and ‘what ifs’ that are supposed to somehow render all Christian arguments null and void because the skeptic, speaking according to his blind faith and hatred for Christianity wants them to.

[Christian writes]: The simple reason that Mithraism could not possibly have influenced first-century Christianity (in fact, the opposite was likely true) is that the timing is all wrong. Mithraism didn't really begin to flourish until AFTER the closing of New Testament canon (see "The Mysteries of Mithra" by Franz Cumont) and in fact, no monuments to this religion can be dated any earlier than AD 90 - 100.

[Skeptic Response]: Here we see the mind of a Christian zealot in all it's radiant splendor. Instead of Jesus being copied from Mithra, he asserts Mithra was copied from Jesus. The Christian turns the tables by saying that pagan copycats used the Jesus story to invent Mithra.
It's simply not possible in this persons mind that the Jesus story could have been influenced by stories of other god/men who existed in history prior to Jesus.

Since Mithra was a Persian God who was introduced to the Romans before Jesus was ever written about, Mithra was around in some form before Jesus. Notice how the Christian dances around this by saying that Mithraism "didn't really begin to flourish" until the NT canon was closed. The issue is not when Mithraism was at it's most popular in the region, but how old it's foundations are and where they originated from.

This Christian can sing and dance and quote any number of books he wants.

[My Response]: See the straw man? I do! The Christian didn’t say that Mithra was invented later than Christianity and patterned after Christ (although his alleged resurrection can be proven to have come post-Christianity). He simply pointed out a fact that credentialed scholars (and again the Christian actually refers the atheist to one) admit, which is that Mithraism did not flourish pre-Christianity. So no tables have been turned and there is no Christian conspiracy to suppress the truth of Mithraism—there are only the facts that those who are in ‘the know’ acknowledge.

Again, the skeptic doesn’t stop to consider that the possibility of Jesus having been patterned after Mithra is excluded because the Christian writing has actually taken the time to study the issue and has found the claim to be without warrant. The skeptic presupposes that the ‘Jesus story’ (as he calls it) had to have been patterned after some other myth because of course the ‘Jesus story’ cannot possibly be true. What we have here is a classic example of projection where the skeptic is projecting his presuppositional bias to the Christian.

And finally this skeptic shows us his uncanny ability to completely miss the point—the issue is not whether Mithraism existed before Jesus, but whether Christian belief about Jesus was BORROWED or PATTERNED after Mithra. The Christian readily acknowledges the existence of Mithraism in the first century, he only points out that it was not in a position to influence Christianity, but in fact the opposite was true.

So the skeptic can sing and dance and fail to quote any authority on the subject thud demonstrating his utter inability to do any kind of scholarly research all he wants.

Without quoting the rest of the article, I’d just point out that after this point the skeptic goes on the quote the Encarta Online Encyclopedia and then a Dr. Michael D. Magee to show that Mithraism pre-existed Christianity as if that was a point of dispute. But notice here how credentialed scholars who specialize in the field are quickly dismissed by the skeptic yet he runs to an online encyclopedia and a guy who admits to ‘just write as a hobby’ and whose web page claims to ‘revolutionize Jewish and Christian origins.’ And please note that Dr. Magee is not a historian, theologian, or philosopher. He is a scientist.

There is one other comment that I have to post here and respond to before ending this post.

[Christian #2 writes]: If there was any borrowing it was the pagans from the Christians. Christianity is based on a historical person. A big difference from mythology.

[Skeptic Response]: Historical people are not the product of virgin births as Christians claim Jesus was. Pagan god/men in mythology are however often the products of a God mating with a human female. Christians always ignore this fact.

[My Response]: Says who? There is no doubt that Jesus was a historical person and the only reliable accounts of his birth that we have are from the Gospels which claim that he was born of a virgin. Notice also the false analogy in equating the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth with pagan myths of gods mating with human women (although this is only one of many alleged accounts of Mithra’s birth). God did not mate with Mary because had he done so she would have ceased to be a virgin and no virgin birth would then be possible. But then again, we’re dealing with a skeptic and skeptics have proven to not be the sharpest tools in the shed.

I would recommend that everyone reading this BLOG post check out this article and read it in full. Get familiar with the uninformed arguments of internet skeptics and arm yourselves (not with facts to correct them because obviously that doesn’t work) but rather with a thick enough skin to not let the utter lack of cogent argument bother you.

Trust me, with their presuppositions you’ll never win an argument so rather than getting all frustrated at their inability to look at the issues objectively, just learn to do what the Christian gentleman did above… assume that their joking because whatever follows is sure to be pure comedy.

Papacy Defended? Part 2

2007-04-25T20:09:00.000-05:00

Gnrhead responded has responded with a video on YouTube to my BLOG post responding to his original video. Watch it and then read my rebuttal.

Gnrhead opened up saying,

“I’m going to treat his BLOG response to me in hopefully a scholarly fashion.”

Well readers—don’t get your hopes up—he took a moment to contrast some other responses he has gotten with mine which I do appreciate because at least it shows that I’m serious in my responses and my goals are not to attack people but rather to speak the truth in love.

I also appreciate that he acknowledged my BLOG by saying, “I recommend that you pass on by and check him out, anyone who watches my videos; it’s a good BLOG, he’s got some good stuff there”—thanks for the shout out Gnrhead!

However, this marks the end of my positive feedback concerning his video response to my presentation. He quotes me as saying that his level of argumentation was pathetic and then begins to go on a tangent about my belief in Sola Scriptura. As you just saw, he said:

“Someone that believes in Sola Scriptura… and my level of argumentation is pathetic.”

Well, yes, it was in fact pathetic—it had the capacity to move me to a contemptuous pity (See Webster’s Dictionary). I said what I meant, and I meant what I said—but what does my belief in Sola Scriptura have to do with his level of argumentation?—nothing! Let’s say that I believed in little purple three-headed Martians that ran a commune in North Dakota where they produced environment friendly alternative fuels out of corn husks and baby powder—what does this have to do with the arguments that Gnrhead made in defense of the papacy? Does the fact that Elvis Presley liked peanut butter and banana sandwiches somehow change because Lisa Marie Presley married Michael Jackson? One has to wonder what his purpose was in even making such a comment.

He continues by saying:

“You believe in something that is not even five hundred years old, created by a man who had no problem with polygamy, who was an anti-Semite, and who had no problem with murdering a [unintelligible] who had no problem with murdering individuals; umm, the doctrine that he created in Sola Scriptura and I’m the pathetic one.”

The genetic fallacy just jumps out with an extended hand saying, ‘pleased to meet you, I’ve come to attack with illogic.’ All Gnrhead has done is tried to discredit a doctrine based on some perceived faults in its founder. He doesn’t explicitly name the culprit and truthfully according to many of the RC internet apologists I have spoken with, this description would fit just about any reformer—but I’m quite sure he had the arch-heretic Luther in mind during this mini-tirade. But obviously we know that a doctrine or belief is not necessarily false because of the imperfections of its founder (or in this case one of its advocates as I would certainly reject that Luther created the doctrine).

But then notice the misunderstanding on his part in thinking that I somehow called him pathetic. This is not the case at all as I pride myself on not resorting to ad hominem arguments in my debates/dialogues/refutations, etc. and to call him such in the context of my response to his video would be an ad hominem attack. Remember, as he noted in his opening, I called his argumentation pathetic and I stand by that comment. But I don’t know Gnrhead personally at all and certainly not enough to attack his character by calling him pathetic.

He continued:

“Before he even addresses the passages I’ve listed he attempts to say that Matthew chapter 16 verse 18 is no support for the Papacy even though, uh, even though every single early Church father agrees that Peter was the rock.”

Well, in context I was simply reiterating what Gnrhead had said in his opening to his defense of the papacy video. The person to whom he was responding asked for support other than Matthew 16:18 which I don’t feel is support for the papacy in the first place. As far as Peter being the rock to which Jesus referred is concerned, who argued otherwise? It wasn’t me as I believe that this is a tenable explanation of the passage. Unlike most Protestants I actually reject the notions that the rock was Jesus or Peter’s confession. The grammar and syntax of the passage can (but do not necessarily) support Peter as the rock in question.

But there is another tenable explanation and that is the actual place where they stood as being the rock that Jesus spoke of. The noun petra is in the dative case if we are using the 5 case system, but if we favor the 8 case system then it would be locative. The events of Matthew 16:13-20 took place in Caesarea Phillipi and it is well established that this was a center for pagan worship in the Greco-Roman world. In fact, Caesarea Phillipi “was first known by the name Panion, meaning ‘sanctuary of Pan’ a pagan god associated with fields and herds.”[1] It was here that “a profusion of rocks was scattered along the river bank. Idols were nestled in the niches of a high rock wall dedicated to Pan.”[2] This sets the stage for Jesus’ comments that he would establish his Church, a Church that was never to be destroyed—in the midst of paganism Jesus’ Church would prevail, not the gates of Hades.

Now concerning this idea of unanimous agreement on the interpretation of Peter as the rock among Patristic sources, I’d have to disagree (Eusebius of Caesarea and Augustine come to mind), but it isn’t really germane to the discussion of the papacy because even I am willing to entertain that Peter is the rock but I do not believe this to be a proof of the papacy.

Gnrhead then denied that he treated the verb poimaine as a noun when he said:

“But if you do read this guy’s BLOG, if you read further on you’ll see this guy says that I acknowledge uh, the word in John chapter 21 verses 15 to 17 of poy-me-nah-oh as a verb, He says that umm, I later treat it as a noun, umm, which I never once ever say that it is a noun, Maybe he misunderstood me or maybe you don’t like the fact that I use the lexical form of the word, oh well…”

OK, I’d ask that everyone watch Gnrhead’s original video again and then read my original response. Yes, he originally acknowledges the word as a verb but then does in fact treat it as a noun when he says: “out of all the 12 apostles Christ could have easily told James, he could have told any of them that they would be a shepherd, uh a ‘poy-me-nah-oh’” and “The funny thing is, we don’t have a singular other Biblical passage in which Christ calls any other apostle a ‘poy-me-nah-oh’, a leader, a shepherd”

So no, I didn’t misunderstand him—I simply commented on his words as he spoke them. It was probably unintentional but that’s beside the point—notice that whether he meant to or not he did treat the word as a noun in saying that Christ could have called James or any of the other apostles a poimaine but didn’t. Well, you don’t call people verbs, you call them nouns. And for the record, I don’t particularly have a problem with him quoting the lexical form of verbs, but he represents himself as one versed in Greek. I simply commented on what I feel is pseudo-scholarship.

He then said:

“Well the plain fact is, umm, that you go on by saying that my whole standard of argument is ridiculous cuz I reject Sola Scriptura, right; something that can’t even, cannot be even remotely found in the face of Scripture in Sola Scriptura is why I’m misled.”

This is a caricature of my argument for sure. In commenting on the standard he set up (namely that Jesus had to speak the same words to another apostle) I said that it was a ridiculous standard in that it forces us to ignore the remainder of the Word of God. I then said that this no doubt stems from his rejection of Sola Scriptura which leads to a low view of Scripture. I never once said that this is why he is misled.

I would imagine that any objective reader could see the same problem with his standard that I have—namely that it forces us to exclude evidence to the contrary. I liken this type of argument to the skeptic who demands proof of the historical Jesus but only allows that it be a secular reference from a hostile contemporary of Jesus who knew him personally yet didn’t have any vested religious interest in the man. Of course the standard is set so as not to be able to meet it!—which is entirely ridiculous. Or perhaps we can compare this argument to the Jehovah’s Witness who demands proof for the doctrine of the Trinity or the full deity of Christ by asking that you show them the word ‘Trinity’ in Scripture or a statement where Jesus utters the phrase ‘I am God Almighty’—again the standard is set so that it can never be met.

He continues by briefly summarizing my response and then says:

“In other words this is what this guy is attempting to do; He’s using, throwing all these Biblical passage out there and saying oh look, the same Greek word is used in all these passages, ha ha, umm those passages you listed don’t support the papacy. That’s pretty much what he’s saying. Umm, the fact of the matter is that in my challenge, my challenge was that if anybody can show me any passage in which Christ uses those same terms, for any other apostle besides Peter and the fact that this guy goes and throws out all of these other irrelevant passages… you’re not even touching upon my challenge…”

As I stated originally and just above, the challenge is ridiculous—by exposing the faulty foundation of his standard which is one that forces the challenged to exclude all evidence to the contrary I then opened the door to prove his position wrong by using the entirety of Scripture. Now to say that those passages are irrelevant is to betray a severe lack of understanding of what was said in the first place. These passages are parallel to Jesus’ words in John 21:17 and they are entirely relevant as they show the same command being given to GROUPS of believers. And the one to whom Gnrhead believes Christ gave supreme authority then turns around and gives OTHERS the SAME COMMAND that Christ gave him! Was Peter fallibly commanding those dispersed Jews to shepherd the flock of God that was in their charge? Was his authority not so established so as to be able to in turn pass this same authority to a group of others? And I didn’t even bring up the fact that Peter declared himself a ‘fellow elder’ (Gk. sumpresbuteros).

Gnrhead continued:

“I mean he doesn’t even understand the impact of the fact that Christ not an apostle put Peter in charge of the flock, I don’t care if Paul or Peter or anyone else is using the exact, the exact same Greek word, I don’t care, they’re not Christ, Does that not penetrate in your skull? I mean they’re leaders in the Church and they had the right to put who they want in charge of course, but they’re not almighty God. So you fail in your attempt to try to debunk John chapter 21 verses 15-17 in which Christ tells Peter that he will be the shepherd, he will shepherd his flock. You can’t debunk that, you won’t be able to.”

Again, this comment stems from a decidedly low view of Scripture. He admits to not caring what the Scriptures declare concerning certain matters (especially when these declarations refute his position). It stands to reason that if Jesus is God Almighty (which of course he is) and all Scripture is God-Breathed then Jesus was involved with their composition. So are any words of Scripture less authoritative than the words in red? I think not—but let us not forget that John recorded Jesus’ words in the same manner that Paul recorded his own and Peter (allegedly) recorded his own—as being carried along by the Holy Spirit (2Pet. 1:21). These statements are as authoritative as John’s record of Jesus’ statements in John 21:17.

So this is what penetrates my skull—we have three NT writers, John, Paul, Peter(?) who are all writing that which is God-Breathed (i.e. Scripture). All three writers were carried along by the same Holy Spirit, yet Gnrhead for some reason feels that the writings of John are superior to the writings of Peter or Paul. Which gets me wondering why he would feel that the words of just a regular old disciple are somehow more authoritative than the words of the first Pope to whom Jesus gave all authority over the Church.

And merely stating that I have failed in my attempt is not the same as me actually failing. I’m not naïve—it’s not as if I expected to refute the guy’s position and then have him running from Rome with his arms up shouting ‘free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, I’m free at last!’ But I write with the reading audience in mind and pray that they will think critically through the issues and examine all of the evidence. To tell me that I can't debunk something that I already have is pointless, and I’ll leave it to the reader to decide whose position is in line with Scripture.

Again he summarizes my arguments in which I noted his reliance on a single word (stērison/stērixon) that he feels established his doctrine, to which he replied:

“Well let’s get real, I never said this very word itself established a doctrine. I use this passage to support the papacy, but never said this word established a doctrine. He complains that I give the lexical form of the verb and not its conjugated form in Scripture, well you get my point don’t you, it’s not like I’m using another word like hagios, or any other Greek word, I’m using a word that you understand. Once again this individual has his way with me by attempting to make me seem stupid of the Greek since I prefer using the lexical form at times. Get real man, you’re smoke screen attempts of disproving my passages by saying, ‘oh, well you use a lexical form of this Greek word’ is not gonna work, attack me in my preferences, it’s not going to make the passages cease to exist, or make every single church father that agreed with me cease to exist and agree with your ridiculous premise, it won’t happen palo-walo.”

His original video defending the papacy focused on exactly two Greek words which is clear to anyone who has seen it—if he didn’t feel that the words establish the doctrine then perhaps he should have went another route in his apologetic. Again, I didn’t ‘complain’ that he used the lexical form of the verb, I merely pointed it out. Yes! I understood the point being made, but again, as one who represents themselves as being competent in Greek grammar and syntax, it should show through in their presentations. It’s not as if he hasn’t told others to ‘learn Greek’ (to include me in an email).

I haven’t attempted to make him look stupid and if he feels that he looks stupid then he should look in the mirror for that. I simply pointed out what the facts support—the lexical form of these verbs was used. These are not smokescreen attempts to disprove the passages presented either as I disproved them with specific references to relevant parallel uses of the same verbs. Yes, the passages exist and no they don’t say what Gnrhead would like them to—too much is inferred on his part and then parallels are dismissed as irrelevant. As far as these constant appeals to unanimous consent among the early fathers, I’m going to need to see proof of this. I find that those who make these claims are not well versed in Patristic sources because if they had been they would realize that the fathers contradicted each other (as well as themselves) on many points and at many times, but this is to be expected from fallible men.

He then reads some more of my response, this time more fully and then responds:

“Again, Luke, the passage in Luke is not disproven, again he did not give a relevant passage in which Christ tells any apostle other than Peter to strengthen, to stand fast, to help establish, anyone else; he does not debunk any of the passages, instead he throws out a bunch of [ir]relevant passages, something protestants are very famous for doing.”

The problem is that the Luke passage does not establish anything let alone the papacy! The passage itself is not proven false but what Gnrhead has read into the passage has been. I’ve noted the ridiculousness of the standard and I reject it. Again, this kind of argumentation is pathetic and conjures up thoughts in my mind of a man standing before God and challenging him to make a square circle then when God doesn’t do it because it’s illogical and therefore impossible for him, the man charges God with being less than omnipotent. Believe it or not, this is fundamentally the same thing. Once again, because I allow the entirety of Scripture to speak and I esteem all of the Biblical writers’ words as God-Breathed I have no problem with seeing parallel passages as completely relevant.

And of course we all saw the closing to this video where I am said to have provided comical relief while Gnrhead enjoyed his cereal but that I still failed to meet the impossible standard of his challenge. But hey, before getting my F for failing at least I got a big E for effort. I’m going to have to have my parents hang that up on the fridge as it is sure to be my crowning achievement in life.

Now he seemed to get the impression from my saying that I found no merit in his arguments that I believe to be a “complete fool” but this isn’t the case at all. Like I said above, I don’t know the man at all, let alone well enough to call him a complete fool, nor do I wish to address his character—I’m content to deal with his arguments and address them for what they are, which from where I’m standing isn’t much. And my feelings haven’t changed with this video as he says that I didn’t touch upon anything that he asked me to. Well, the ludicrousness of the challenge has been noted, noted again, and then noted some more—how do you touch on the word ‘Trinity’ when the JW demands you to show it in the Bible? I don’t know what he does but I establish the fact that the word doesn’t need to be in the Bible for what the word describes to be Biblical. The same applies here. I don’t need to refute his position from passages that don’t exist, I can simply do it from the passages that do exist.

And finally I’m told to expect another video with quotes from the Church fathers that will make me look more pathetic than I look from my post. Notice how I was capable of attacking his position and argumentation but he couldn’t resist attacking me personally. I’ve come to expect no less from Gnrhead from the videos of his that I have previously seen.

Notes

___________________

[1] “Caesarea Phillip” in NIV Archeological Study Bible, Walter C. Kasier, Jr. Ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 1589.

[2] “The Geography of Palestine” in Illustrated Manners and Customs of the Bible, Packer, and M.C. Tenney, Eds., (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1980), 198.

Peter, Paul, and Irenaeus?

2007-04-25T10:33:00.000-05:00

I just finished reading the debate on Sola Scriptura between Moses Flores and Benjamin Rosado and I noticed one fairly significant error in Mr. Rosado's closing statement. He said:

this was passed down from generation to generation to all people until this very day. It is called Apostolic succession. This means that the same message is handed down o that we are believing the same thing taught by Christ and the Apostles. Wonderfully, we can even read what next generation Christians like Irenaeus (who was taught by Peter and Paul) believed. This is the best way to clear up scriptures that are interpreted in different ways by today’s Christians.

Now Mr. Rosado is a really nice guy who as far as I can tell has a very meek and humble spirit, but it has been said that he is a Charismatic Catholic and from my experience with Charismatic Catholics (sadly with most all Charismatics of any denominational background [and remember that I am Charismatic!]) is that they are not the most careful students. I believe that this has been demonstrated throughout Mr. Rosado's segments of the debate on a large scale but this one thing jumped out at me, that is the statement that Irenaeus was taught by Peter and Paul.

It's true that I may be entirely misunderstanding this comment and that Ben might mean that Irenaeus was taught through the writings of Peter and Paul (although there is some doubt in my mind that Peter actually authored the letters that bear his name) but I don't think so. I believe the statement if taken as is was simply asserting that Peter and Paul discipled Irenaeus. But Church history does not bear this out.

Clement of Rome in his First Epistle to the Corinthians (ch. 5) mentions Peter and Paul's martyrdom and this was written around A.D. 95. Irenaeus was not born until A.D. 130 so it would have been impossible for him to have been taught directly by Peter and Paul. We could also look to Eusebius' Church History (2.22; 25) which would date both their martyrdom in the mid to late 60's A.D. again making it impossible for Irenaeus to have learned from them directly.

In point of fact Irenaeus learned from Polycarp as a child and Polycarp was discipled by John but the evidence that John lived to the end of the 1st century A.D. is overwhelming, most notably from Irenaeus dating the book of Revelation (Against Heresies 5.30.3) toward the end of Domitian's reign (A.D. 81-96).

So while this is a minor error it speaks volumes of Ben's fideism. Now Ben relies on the RCC and their ability to accurately define doctrine according to Scripture AND Tradition (which is the crux of the debate), yet appears to be uninformed concerning the history and traditions of the RCC that he seeks to defend. But in Ben's defense, even if he were the most knowledgable Roman Catholic on the face of the planet, his position is still ultimately indefensible since it is wholly circular--appeal must be made to Scripture to assert Rome's authority (e.g. Mat. 16:18; Jo. 20:23; 21:16) yet Rome claims authority in declaring Scripture (Trent, Session IV).

Gnrhead Responds

2007-04-24T21:42:00.000-05:00

So I recently posted a couple of comments on gnrhead's video about a debate cross examination session that James White of Alpha and Omega ministries and Robert Sungensis a Roman Catholic apologist had on the topic of the Mass. At the end of gnrhead's video he claimed that the Church fathers were 'unanimous' on transubstantiation and challenged anyone to prove that they were not. Well, Moses Flores made a video response that gnrhead did not post or reply to and another gentleman posted some quotes from Pope Gelasius and Augustine. I then quoted Marcarius and Theodoret and gnrhead responded with his usual dismissal and ad hominem attacks against the other gentleman and claimed that he had not seen my quotes and he denied knowing of any video response posted by Moses. He then said:

Why don't you make a video response to my videos instead of running your mouth. Try the Papacy video.

Interestingly enough that is exactly the video I wrote my BLOG response to. I tried to inform him of this by posting responses to the video on YouTube but for whatever reason they would not post. I then tried again to post the link for it on this video (as well as the link for Moses' response) but it would not work. So finally I decided to email gnrhead and send him the links.

I will now reproduce our email dialogue…

Nick:

For some reason my responses are not being posted but here is what I said:

The response to your video from Prchdaword is available here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=XVuesQBEnHw No video responses from me due to the lack of a camera but I have dealt with your papacy video on my BLOG and for some reason my informing you of it didn't post either. Here is the address for that: http://rightly-dividing.blogspot.com/2007/04/papacy-defended.html

I'm all for debate, but if you're going to respond to me as you have done to others in your videos then don't bother. If you actually feel like supporting your assertions rather than name calling then I'm all for it.

Gnrhead:

I mispronounce it? In case you are not aware, I did not MISPRONOUNCE anything. I suggest you either learn Greek or be quiet. I will read the rest you wrote later on your blog only saw a bit of it..gotta go now. Will respond in a few hours

Nick:

Yes, you mispronounced it. But you have obviously fallen into the Strong's Greek Dictionary/Concordance trap (or perhaps some other lexicon, but I doubt it) that so many before you have. But even according to Strong's pronunciation scheme you got it wrong. The correct pronunciation is POY (rhymes with boy) - MY (as in oh MY God) - NO (as is NO you did not say it correctly). But again, you chose to mispronounce the lexical form of the word (i.e. the first person, present indicative; which is another problem that comes with relying on lexicons, they only give the lexical form) rather than the conjugated form of the verb 'poimaine' (POY-MY-neh; which is a second person, present indicative). The 'oi' and 'ai' are diphthongs, the 'oi' is pronounced as it is in the word 'oil' and the 'ai' is pronounced as it is in the word 'aisle'. This is basic stuff, so please learn it before capitalizing that you 'did not MISPRONOUNCE' anything and suggesting that I learn Greek.

Gnrhead:

And as far as pronouncing it..I just found 4 different scholars..listened to 8 clips of how others pronounce it and have heard YOUR variant of it as well as MY variant of it as well as several others. I guess we'll consult with the Early Greek Fathers to see which one of us is correct. I would love the references to all 4 scholars and 8 clips. And as far as I know, none of the early Greek fathers recorded their pronunciation for us to listen to, so at best we can read what they wrote and if we are going to follow the rules of Greek grammar then the diphthongs are going to be pronounced like they are in every other word that they appear in. But those references would be appreciated.

Nick:

I would love the references to all 4 scholars and 8 clips. And as far as I know, none of the early Greek fathers recorded their pronunciation for us to listen to, so at best we can read what they wrote and if we are going to follow the rules of Greek grammar then the diphthongs are going to be pronounced like they are in every other word that they appear in. But those references would be appreciated.

Gnrhead:

Sorry I didn't bookmark them..and I was joking about listening to the Greek Fathers pronunciations. As far as the correct pronunciation, I have heard many and many different variances on several different Greek words there is no SET list of orthodox way of pronouncing many given words in case you didn't know. But..even though I failed to bookmark all the things I heard I can name a few theologians and even one you probably idolize that have pronounced it as such. James White/Robert Sungenis/William Webster have all pronounced it the same way. Anyhow..regardless of the fact..you might want to get MSN messenger we can communicate a lot better that way.

Nick:

No problem... I'll look into it... But if you come across those sources again, keep me in mind... I have never heard it pronounced that way... and I don't idolize any of the men you mentioned, thanks. But just for my understanding, how do you or any of those other men justify pronouncing the word 'poy-me-nah-oh'?

And excuse a typo in my second to last email... I said it was a 2nd person present indicative... I meant imperative.

---------End of Emails---------

Now please don't misunderstand me... I think that Strong's Greek Dictionary is a great reference tool and it is the one that I began with as well, but it can only do so much for you. There comes a time when the serious student has to advance past the basics and move into some meatier stuff and it just seems as if gnrhead hasn't reached that point yet. Lord willing one day he will.

And for all who would like to hear it pronounced as it appears in lexicons click here.

The Bible or Christ Crucified?

2007-04-16T21:55:00.000-05:00

I just had a conversation with a KJV only advocate and of course they made some peculiar claims in defense of the KJV. They first claimed that the Dead Sea Scrolls were corrupted in their opinion and then when asked why they said because they felt that the discovery of them 'smelled fishy' and when asked why the response was basically that it was a Jesuit conspiracy. Now this is ridiculous on its face and I'm going to spend the time defending the DSS as this is simply the conversation that gave rise to an attack upon me as a believer, a minister, and a person in general.

I made the statement that the KJV was not divinely inspired or perfectly preserved and not even the translators believed it to be so. In the preface to the 1611 KJV they wrote:

Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

They acknowledged that other translations were the Word of God! They didn't claim to be the only translators to ever produce an accurate translation of the Bible. They were also ready to build off these other translations and make corrections when necessary. Again they said in the preface to the 1611 KJV:

...but let us rather bless God from the ground of our heart, for working this religious care in him, to have the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined. For by this means it cometh to pass, that whatsoever is sound already (and all is sound for substance, in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours far better than their authentic vulgar) the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place. And what can the King command to be done, that will bring him more true honour than this?

Now why people take a position on the KJV today that even the translators didn't take is beyond me. But all this is irrelevant to the point of the entry--when I made these comments I was attacked and ridiculed. This woman asked me where my inspired translation of the Bible was and if I didn't have one what right did I have to accuse the men who translated the KJV of error? She then said that she'll take the word of men who were martyred for their faith and for producing the Bible over me. Of course this line of argumentation is ridiculous as I pointed out. I repeatedly stated the various reasons for error in translation such as insufficient manuscript evidence, reliance on Erasmus' Greek text that included late readings (e.g. 1Jo. 5:7) that were not found in any early Greek mss and also his reliance on the Latin Vulgate for the last few verses of Revelation. Again I was told that my word wasn't good enough and she'd rely on the translation of these men from the 17th century.

In spite of all this I admitted that the KJV is still a very good translation for what it is and that it didn't have any doctrinal errors that I knew of, but this wasn't good enough. I asked why she felt that these men from the 17th century had more knowledge concerning the original languages that the Bible was written in or the manuscripts from which the Bible was translated then do modern scholars. I explained the advances that have been made in the field of textual criticism and that we have a much greater wealth of mss evidence to work with now then they did then. I explained the discovery of Ugaritic and the insight it lends to the study of other ancient Semitic languages, especially Hebrew. Again, this is something the KJV translators had no knowledge of. But what did I get in return? I was accused of leading people away from Christ by pointing out facts.

She specifically made the comment that "sinners come in here [i.e. the chat room] seeking salvation, not to be informed that the Bible has errors in it." My response was that I don't believe that sinners seek salvation. In fact I believe what the KJV says regarding that in Romans 3:11, "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God." I explained that I believe what the KJV says in John 6:44, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him..." I explained that when the Father does draw the sinner he draws them to Christ, not the Bible. Now as important and foundational as the Bible is to the believer, it is not the center of our faith... Christ crucified and resurrected is our foundation.

Paul said, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1Cor. 2:2) as well as "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (1Cor. 15:14). I don't need a perfect preserved English translation of the Bible to preach Christ crucified, nor do I need today's popular doctrine of 'decisional regeneration' (and by this I mean the Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian model of salvation wherein man initiates the process). Now the scripture is certainly sufficient as the rule of faith and it contains all that a man needs to know in order to be saved, but God does the saving, not the Bible! Salvation is the solitary work of the Trinitarian God and we must always keep that on our minds.

So before you go exalting a antiquated translation of the Bible over the God who saves, think twice. Soli Deo Gloria!

Reality Check

2007-04-16T10:53:00.000-05:00

About a month ago I was speaking with my pastor and he mentioned his disenchantment with today’s prosperity preaching. It’s not that he opposes prosperity per se as of course we believe that God wants his children to prosper, but he despises this message that believers are somehow less faithful if they don’t have a Lexus parked in the driveway or a $5000 suit on their back. This is decidedly not the gospel!

Then again last night I was speaking with a brother in Christ and just venting my frustration with the Charismatic ‘experience’ paradigm whereby personal experience is used to determine truth. I made the comment that experiences are at best subjective and at worst deceptive, therefore we need to judge them all according to Scripture. He quickly agreed. But all of this is based on nearly five years of observation in a Charismatic Pentecostal denomination where many times precedence is given to the gifts of the Spirit over and above the Spirit that gives the gifts. I’ve often likened our denomination to the Corinthian church that Paul so sharply rebuked and lovingly corrected.

Then this morning I came across an article written by Donald C. Stamps in the March/April 2001 Discernment Newsletter entitled, “Contending for the Faith of Historic Pentecostalism” in which he vocalized some of the same concerns. The article in full is available here, but I just wanted to reproduce a few portions here on the BLOG.

Historic Pentecostalism and N. T. Truth

Historic Pentecostalism began in the early 20th century with a doctrine and not with a religious experience. The early Pentecostals believed that in order to experience the fullness of God’s kingdom they had to return to the apostolic faith of the N.T. They believed firmly in the fundamentals of the faith, Biblical standards of holiness and righteousness, and that the N. T. promised a Baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. It was this belief and a return to the N.T. truth that led them into a Book of Acts experience.

The Beginning of Error

However, as the movement gained momentum, some fell into the same error as the N. T. Pentecostals of the church at Corinth. There developed an unscriptural approach to religious experience, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and miracles (I Cor. 12-14). This led to a devaluation of the importance of love for truth and righteousness (I Cor. 13:4,6). In other words, religious experiences and spiritual manifestations began to take precedent over revealed Biblical truth and were considered, therefore, as valid for determining the will of God for His church as was apostolic teaching the New Testament.

Within Pentecostal, circles there arose a tendency to validate teaching, doctrine, new theologies, as well as the ministry of individuals not on the authoritative word of God, but based on professed religious experience or spiritual manifestations. Thus, prophecies, miracles, healings, speaking in tongues, a professed baptism in the Holy Spirit, inspirational preaching, ministerial success, and even church growth became the ultimate test of truth rather than authoritative Scripture. Many Pentecostals ignored the warnings of Christ and the apostles that certain religious experiences, spiritual manifestations, miracles, and successful ministries can and will be produced through powers other than God. We were told by God Himself to take heed lest we be deceived by various kinds of supernatural occurrences (Matt. 7:22; 24:5, 11,24). Christ and the apostles continually pointed to only one ultimate, final source of authority to validate both doctrine and experience – the inspired word of God (Matt. 4:4; John 15:7; I Tim. 3:15-16).

The tragic irony is that it was love for the word of God and N. T. truth that brought us into N. T. spiritual experience. Now it is our distorted love for spiritual experience that is leading us away from the same N. T. truth. A growing consequence of this error is a lack of respect for doctrine and theology, and, in particular, a little desire to defend, explain or even define the historic Pentecostal faith. The disastrous consequences of this failure to love the truth as we should has resulted in the following conditions:

1. Tolerance of False Doctrine. There are those in the Pentecostal movement who feel no need to defend the Biblical faith as did the N. T. apostles. Rather, they glory in their tolerance for all kinds of doctrines so long as those doctrines are accompanied by a professed experience with the Holy Spirit. They are attracted to successful preachers who openly scorn the apostolic faith. They lack sympathy and affection for the true spirit of the Bible, which rebukes and reproves false teaching. They seem ready to accept without challenge or protest nearly anything for the cause of "unity" or the success of their own ministry. It is tragic that their inability to recognize that the distortion of the Pentecostal-Biblical faith will result in millions of souls being lost for eternity.

2. Man-Centered Theology. A further result in emphasizing religious experience over N. T. doctrine has been the development within Pentecostal circles of a man-centered rather than a God-centered theology. The God-centered theology of Scripture emphasizes the truth that were created and redeemed by God to serve Him for His glory and that in doing this we are to enjoy His fellowship and love for eternity. The man-centered theology advocated today stresses those things that we can get from God, and what He is to do for us upon this earth. Preaching is centered not so much on the cross, self-denial, sacrifice, and the forsaking of sin, but on health, wealth, prosperity, happiness, self-esteem, positive thinking, and the satisfaction of human and even carnal desires. I am not saying that all of these things are wrong, but that we have failed to first love God, His kingdom, and His righteousness above all else. We have turned the gospel into a means of selfish personal gain and claim to have now found the way to save our souls and at the same time gain the whole world.

Among the tragic consequences of this man-centered gospel is that some will no longer "endure sound doctrine’ but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths" (2 Tim. 4:3-4). The man of God who faithfully follows the ministry of the Holy Spirit and preaches sin, righteousness, and judgment finds himself rejected by some of the very Pentecostals he tries to serve.

3. Inability to Identify Biblical Christianity. The lack of a sufficient understanding of N.T. apostolic spirit, attitude, and teaching led more than a few Pentecostals (even dedicated and sincere believers) into a tragic inability to discern when Biblical Christianity was being distorted. The classic example of recent days is the now discredited and fallen charismatic P.T.L. television program. There were those among both leaders and laymen alike who did not recognize that the program was in many ways not of the Spirit of Christ nor loyal to N.T. apostolic faith and Biblical standards of righteousness. The program portrayed permissiveness towards deviation from Scriptural truth and a conspicuous lack of concern for moral righteousness and holiness within the church. There was seen little manifestation of the Holy Spirit’s ministry of conviction concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment. Pentecostalism was reduced to soap opera entertainment, and the fear of God and reverence for the sacred was destroyed in the process. The Pentecostal acceptance of the materialistic, worldly life-style of its leadership, as well as its tolerance of the unbiblical elements of this program, has resulted in shame, discredit, and untold harm to the Pentecostal cause around the world.

4. Accommodation to Charismatic Theology. A fourth consequence of the Pentecostal predisposition to value religious experience above N.T. doctrine resulted in its inability to sufficiently meet the challenge and need of the Charismatics in the 1960’s and 70’s. Many of them came into Pentecostal churches or established independent fellowships. They had received an experience with the Holy Spirit, but often fell short of a deep commitment to all the truth of Scripture, as well as a clear understanding of Christ’s demand for a life of holiness. Due to Pentecostalism’s lack of desire to adequately and forcefully define a Pentecostal apologetic based on Biblical revelation, it failed to guide the Charismatics into a more Biblical faith. Instead, historic Pentecostals themselves began to conform to the unscriptural theologies and lack of Biblical standards of some Charismatics. Consequently, old-fashioned Pentecostal theology, along with the Biblical cry against sin and worldliness commonly fell into disrepute. All types of theology, both old and new, which could not be validated by close examination of the Biblical text, entered Pentecostal fellowships.

Low Views of Scripture

2007-04-13T18:44:00.000-05:00

I was just in the Christian chat room defending the doctrine of the Trinity against a few who would deny it and in the process of the conversation one woman cited John 1:18 as a proof that Jesus was not God. I immediately pointed out the rather significant textual variant in the verse, whereas the oldest manuscripts (mss) read monogenēs theos which can be translated as 'the unique God' or 'the only begotten God' or 'the one of a kind God' [See The Greek New Testament, 4th Rev. Ed., Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce Metzger, eds. (Germany: United Bible Society, 1998), 314 for a list of mss containing this reading.] The later mss read monogenēs huios from which we get the translation 'only begotten Son' or 'unique Son' etc. The woman proceeded to tell me that she can read it in English and doesn't need to stinking Greek, blah blah blah... So of course I suggested reading the NIV ('God the one and only') or the NASB ('only begotten God').

Then here comes a Roman Catholic with his low view of Scripture spouting off about how no two mss read the same and all we have are copies of copies of copies. Of course I mentioned to him that the science of textual criticism gives us the ability to compare variant readings and get back to the original reading. He obviously didn't understand what I was saying as he began to chide that we don't have the original mss, all we have are copies from the 4th century and later. I corrected him again by saying that we do not need the autographs (original mss) to get back to the original reading. I then corrected his misinformation about the oldest manuscripts.

Above you see the John Rylands P52 Papyrus which dates to about A.D. 125 which is within 40 years of the time of John's writing! Now of course this alone refuted the assertion that we have no mss evidence prior to the 4th century but I was inclined to list even more.

So I also mentioned the Bodmer Papyri P64 and P66 which date to about A.D. 200 and P75 which dates in the early 3rd century as well. Did he change his tune after this? Of course not.

Then I continued along in my quest and mentioned the Chester Beatty Papyrus P45 which dates to the early to mid 3rd century.

Other mss worth noting are P1; P5; P15; P22; P27; P30; P39; P40; P47; P48; P49; P65; P67; P70; P76 (all of which date to the 3rd century). But none of this matters to the Roman Catholic because again, they have a decidedly low view of Scripture.

I have to ask myself why this man would enter into a conversation in which I was defending the doctrines of the Trinity and full deity of Christ and attempt to undercut me by claiming that the mss we possess are of late dates and not original. The only answer I can come up with is so that he could eventually assert the authority of the RCC in these matters. It's not enough to simply deny the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but the Scriptures themselves must be attacked in order to garner support for the RC position. But what is really frustrating is that even after I listed these various papyri and their dates, this man stuck his fingers in his ears, his head in the sand, and started shouting at the top of his lungs, 'I can't hear you!'

He wouldn't even acknowledge the evidence I presented or attempt to check into it. His next argument was that no gospel was accepted before A.D. 140! Well of course this was false as well (and also quite beside the point, especially for the RC who had no canon until Trent in the 16th century!) Paul's conflates two quotes, 1 from the LXX (Ou phimōseis boun aloōnta, Deut. 25:4) and one from Luke's Gospel (ho ergatēs tou misthou autou, Lu. 10:7) in his first epistle to Timothy (1Tim. 5:18) which dates between A.D. 55-63. So we have a New Testament example from the early first century that the gospels were accepted before A.D. 140!

But I also asked him if he was familiar with Papias and when he wrote. He refused to answer the question which of course means no. Scholars date the fragments of Papias which are preserved in Eusebius' Church History to around A.D. 100. Papias acknowledged Mark as "the interpreter of Peter, [who] wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered" (Papias, "Fragments VI" in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson, eds. (Christian Literature, 1885; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, rpt. 2004), 154-55.) So his argument fails on Patristic evidence as well.

It can also be added that Ignatius and Polycarp accepted the gospels prior to A.D. 140 but that woudn't matter either because when one is stuck in their tradition they seem to want to stay stuck no matter what. I can only hold Scripture in the highest esteem and praise God for the Word that he has given me! These words seem fitting, “O God, I praise your word. Yes, LORD, I praise your word.” (Ps. 56:10, NLT)

An Upset of Fatih

2007-04-09T12:46:00.000-05:00

This past Saturday (4/7/07) I had some friends over to watch UFC 69: Shootout where Georges St. Pierre was defending his welterweight title for the first time. St. Pierre won the belt back in Novemnber of 2006 in dominant performance against Matt Hughes (my personal favorite welterweight) where he knocked him out early in the second round.

Now I'm a big St. Pierre fan as well, as I respect the sheer talent that this man possesses. He completely dismantled Frank Trigg by conducting a mixed martial arts clinic against his obviously undermatched opponent (Aug. 2005) and who can forget his fight with the legendary B.J. Penn where he won a decision having fought almost the entire fight with a severely bloodied nose (Mar. 2006). My first encounter with St. Pierre however was in a fight against Jay Hieron (Jun. 2004) who was known for his stand up skills and knock out power, but St. Pierre knocked him out quickly. I was immediately impressed. In his first fight against Matt Hughes (Oct. 2004) he was fairing quite well, and in my opinion was winning the round until he slipped up and allowed Hughes to catch him in an arm bar at the end of the round.

So having observed all of these priors showings, there was little to no doubt in my mind that St. Pierre would completely destroy The Ultimate Fighter reality show winner Matt Serra. Before commenting on Serra allow me to digress for a moment and speak about how my placing faith in St. Pierre based on past events agrees with the Christian presentation of faith in the New Testament.

So often Christians are represented as believing in Jesus (or more broadly God) blindly and without evidence, and for some this is true. This is known as fideism, but this is not the Biblical presentation of faith. Without writing a detailed treatise on the subject allow me to just point to two passages from the book of Acts.

Peter in his Pentecost sermon in Acts 2:22-36 makes many appeals to his Jewish audience in order to compell them to place their faith in Jesus as the Messiah of Israel and Savior of the world. Rather than post the passage in whole I will simply present the highlights. In vs. 22 Peter speaks of Jesus as a man attested by God through miracles, wonders, and signs. In vs. 23-24 the crucifixion and resurrection are mentioned. In vs. 25-35 Peter recounts and interprets a prophecy of David's from the psalms as being fulfilled in Jesus, highlighting in vs. 32 that they were all witnesses of the resurrection! The conclusion in vs. 36 is that God has vindicated the Lord whom they crucified by making him both Lord and Christ.

The next passage I wish to mention is Acts 17:30-31 where Paul states that God has commanded all men everywhere to repent and that he has appointed a day where he will judge the world in righteousness by the man (Jesus) whom he has ordained. But notice what follows... Paul says that God has given 'assurance' (Gk: pistin, i.e. faith) of this to all by raising Jesus from the dead!

So what's my point? My point is that 'faith' in the Biblical context is never to be some great leap whereby one must abandon logic and reason. Faith is not the cliche 'believing without seeing' that we hear so much about. No, rather faith is trusting something based on the evidence of past events. Read the narratives in the gospels in which Jesus healed and delivered the sick and demon possessed. They were delivered because they trusted that Jesus would do for them what he had done for others before them. The woman with the issue of blood is a prime example. In Mark 5 we see this women being healed by touching the hem of his garment and then a chapter later we see many being healed the same way!

Now back to the fight... Serra is a stocky 5'7" Italian guy from Long Island, NY who is known for his superior ground skills. The thought was that for Serra to even have a chance at winning he'd have to take St. Pierre down and catch him in a submission but this isn't what happened.

Serra stood up and actually boxed with the man and contrary to all past performances, St. Pierre got beat up. It was an upset to say the least. So how can this relate to the abovementioned comments on faith? Well, in my mind I see this as one of those occasions when a person believes God for something that they need (or even want) and sees no fulfillment. We don't know why exactly this happens although James 4 gives us some insight into the issue (cf. Jam. 1:6-8), but when it does happen it is a great upset of faith.

But we need to take a page out of the book of those UFC fighters who continue on in their sport and fight again with every intention to win back their titles (or even to win a title for the first time). Rather than giving up on God because we didn't get what we asked for, we need to forget what lies behind and strain forward to what lies ahead, pressing on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus (Phil. 3:13-14).

::WARNING::

The music in the background of this video contains profanity -- I recommend turning the volume down

My Problem with Presuppositional Apologetics

2007-04-07T17:21:00.000-05:00

I recently listened to a radio debate (listen here) that James White from Alpha & Omega Ministries had with 3 Mormons quite some time ago after his book Letters to a Mormon Elder was published. In this debate one of the Mormons raised the issue of inerrancy and asked White why he believed that the Bible was the Word of God as opposed to the Qur'an or the Baghavad Gita, etc. and what evidence he had for its inerrancy or inspiration. Now most folks would hear this and get all riled up and think of a few insults to hurl at the Mormon who asked the question, but in all honesty it's a fair question. James White made a claim that he believes to be true and was asked for support of this claim.

But here is where my disappointment comes in... James White responded by saying that he believes the Bible to be the Word of God and inerrant on the authority of Jesus Christ. He then appealed to the Old Testament Scriptures and Jesus' use of and attribution of authority to said Scriptures. He carried this over into the New Testament and Paul's pronouncement of 'all scripture' being 'God-Breathed' (2Tim. 3:16) and basically closed his initial answer by saying that we cannot seek something beyond God to establish the authority of Scripture.

So what's the problem? Well, it should be obvious to anyone with a rational mind... James White has merely begged the question! He was asked why he believed the Bible was the Word of God and inerrant and then appealed to the Bible as being the inerrant Word of God to answer the question! But this is what presuppositionalists are forced to do--they must begin with a presupposition that they hold as a truth (without actually proving it) and then argue that it is proved by the 'impossibility of the contrary' (as Bahnsen used to say). This is no different than an atheist beginning with naturalist presuppositions and arguing against the existence of God based on said assumptions and then claiming to have made their case because the contrary is impossible.

So my real problem with this approach to apologetics is that it sets up a double-standard that allows the Christian theist to do what he would never allow of the non-Christian (theist or atheist). James White can claim that there is no authority above and beyond God (which of course is true and I wouldn't argue with that at all) and then refuse to provide a real reason for believing the Bible to be the Word of God, but one can see why the Mormons with whom he was speaking were not impressed.

He made mention of fulfilled prophecy and internal consistency but said that he would never use these things to establish the God-Breathed nature of Scripture... Well, why not? These would be exactly the things that would prove such a point. This is why I favor evidential apologetics--it deals with evidence. It doesn't simply assume a position and hold to it blindly, with a finger in each ear, shouting 'nanny, nanny, boo, boo, I can't hear you' when opposing arguments are presented. It is my opinion that presuppositionalism leads to the worst kind of fundamentalism.

A good example of this is the KJV Only Crowd to which White has labored intensely in refuting. Why does he not accept their presupposition that the Textus Receptus and the King James Version of the Bible are free from error while all others are corrupt? Why does White appeal to textual evidence in this scenario to support his position and refute theirs? Now I don't wish to attack James White personally as my problem is not with him specifically, but rather with his brand of apologetics. I see it as inconsistent and hypocritical.

Anyway, that's my two cents on presuppositonal apologetics... I'll stick with the evidence and let that form my approach to defending the faith...

Papacy Defended?

2007-04-06T16:50:00.000-05:00

A Roman Catholic who calls himself gnrhead has posted a series of video clips on You Tube defending the RCC. I came across these videos as Moses Flores directed me to them when he contacted me about a debate that he is gearing up to have with this gentleman. After watching his presentations I have to appreciate the chat room Catholics so much more. Why you ask?—because the level of argumentation that this man presents is pathetic! At least in the chat room they cut and paste articles from Catholic Answers that have some inkling of support for the arguments presented.

In any event, as you will see in the video below, gnrhead attempts to defend the papacy in response to a video clip posted by someone asking for Scriptural support for the papacy other than Matthew 16:18 (as if that was support for the papacy at all). What we are told is that there are MANY passages that support the papacy but he only wished to focus on 2 in particular. Watch the video and then read my response.

OK… So he’s asked that we do a lexical study on the Greek word poimainō which he wrongly pronounces poy-me-nah-oh... no big deal, people mispronounce things all the time, although this is something he takes issue with... (see his derision of a man who mispronounces transubstantiation here). Well, before pulling out my lexicons I decided to check my UBS 4th ed. Greek New Testament and the word in question is not poimainō (the standard lexical form) but rather the 2nd person, present, active, imperative poimaine. This is a verb which he acknowledges and tells us that it literally means ‘to lead a flock’ but then seems to ignore this and treat it as a noun when he says:

out of all the 12 apostles Christ could have easily told James, he could have told any of them that they would be a shepherd, uh a ‘poy-me-nah-oh.’

Well not to nitpick, but poimēn is a shepherd, not poimainō (he closes with a challenge for Protestants to find a passage where Jesus calls anyone other than Peter a poy-me-nah-oh, but that’s impossible since he doesn’t even call Peter one here!) He goes on to set up a ridiculous standard in saying:

The funny thing is, we don’t have a singular other Biblical passage in which Christ calls any other apostle a ‘poy-me-nah-oh’, a leader, a shepherd; in the sense of leading the flock the way he told Peter, we don’t have a single other passage of him designating such power.

Why is this standard ridiculous you ask—it’s ridiculous because it excludes the remainder of the Word of God! No doubt this comes from his rejection of Sola Scriptura which ultimately leads to a low view of Scripture, but that matters not as we don’t need the words to be in red letters to know that they are authoritative. We don’t need Jesus to tell anyone else to poimaine his sheep because others say it in Scripture.

Paul speaking to the Ephesian elders instructs them to ‘shepherd the Church of God’ [Gk. poimainein tēn ekklēsian tou theou] (Acts 20:28). This is parallel to Jesus’ statement to Peter and it was spoken to a GROUP of elders! Again we have Peter himself (allegedly) speaking to ‘the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappado'cia, Asia, and Bithyn'ia’ (1Pet. 1:1, RSV) saying to, ‘shepherd the flock of God that is in your charge’ [Gk. poimanate to en humin poimnion tou theou] (1Pet. 5:2, my translation). Peter (the one to whom RCs claim Christ gave supreme authority) just gave this SAME command (it is in the imperative mood, the mood of command) to MANY believers in the diaspora!

So even if we don’t have Jesus giving this command to any other apostles, we have the apostle to whom he gave it giving it to others! It seems that Peter was more than willing to share his primacy!

Next he addressed Luke 22:31-32 focusing on Jesus telling Peter to ‘strengthen thy brethren’ again focusing on a single Greek word that he feels establishes a doctrine. This time the word is stērison (or stērixon if you are relying on the Textus Receptus) which means to make stable, place firmly, set fast, fix, to strengthen, make firm, etc. Again he gives us the lexical form of the verb (stērizō) and not its conjugated form in scripture.

Again he chides:

Out of all of the apostles, Peter’s the only one Christ tells to stērizō…

And then claims to have done extensive study on this one Greek word that he cannot even seem to conjugate or cite in its conjugated form. Again, are we to ignore the entire Word of God to only focus on one passage that this man thinks supports his view? Of course not! In point of fact Paul says that he longed to see the Romans that he could impart to them some spiritual gift that in the end they ‘may be strengthened’ [Gk. stērichthēnai] (Rom. 1:11). Paul also tells the Thessalonians that he sent Timothy to ‘establish’ [Gk. stērixai] them (1Th. 3:2). James tells the 12 tribes which are scattered abroad (Jam. 1:1) to be patient and ‘strengthen’ [Gk. stērixate] their hearts (Jam. 5:8).

So again, when we refuse to exclude evidence and we allow the whole of Scripture to speak, then we arrive at decidedly different conclusions than our RC friends would like us to. I find no merit to gnrhead’s assertions. And he may consider this the answer to his challenge at the end of the video to:

Refute the passages that [he has] listed in a scholarly fashion, not the usual ridiculous ad hominem attack fashion.

Hindu Trinity? Quick Facts on the Trimurti

2007-04-03T23:48:00.000-05:00

The book “The Symbolism of Hindu Gods and Rituals” says regarding a Hindu trinity that existed centuries before Christ: “Siva is one of the gods of the Trinity. He is said to be the god of destruction. The other two gods are Brahma, the god of creation and Vishnu, the god of maintenance. . . . To indicate that these three processes are one and the same the three gods are combined in one form.”—Published by A. Parthasarathy, Bombay. [Should You Believe in the Trinity?, (Georgetown, Ontario: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada, 1989), 12.]

Once again, a weak analogy is drawn between one indivisible God which exists as three inseparable persons and three gods in a triad. The above quote readily admits the Hindu view of the “Trimurti” (Hindu Trinity) as three gods. This is blatant tri-theism. But there is actually another view which is just as inconsistent with Trinitarianism as the above. This other view is explained in The New Book of Knowledge,

“Hindus believe that there is one spirit that runs through everything in the world – plants, animals, and human beings. Because a part of the spirit is found in each of us, we are all united spiritually. Hindus call this unifying spirit Brahman. […] Hindus worship many gods that represent different sides of Brahman, or pure spirit. The most important are Siva the Destoyer, Vishnu the Preserver, Ganesha the Giver of Success, and Kartikeya, a son of the Divine Mother of the universe. Hindus also worship goddesses which represent in different ways the power of Brahman called the Divine Mother. Among them are the goddesses Kali, Durga, Laksmi, and Saraswati. […] Brahma the Creator is another important god, but Hindus do not worship him with the devotion with which they worship the other gods.” [Cooper, Kenneth S. “Hinduism,” The New Book of Knowledge, (Danbury, CT: Grolier, 1988), 8:129.]

The analogy crumbles in light of the facts presented:

1. Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva are actually various manifestations of the Brahman (not to be confused with Brahma). But they are not the only exclusive manifestations, but rather this “unifying spirit” is believed to be in all things!

2. Hindus worship many gods whereas Trinitarians worship only one!

3. There are many other gods that Hindus worship aside from the three in the Trimurti. It seems as though those who oppose the Trinity only like to single out three from the many others in order to draw a faulty analogy.

4. The power of Brahman is represented as the Divine Mother, a far cry from God the Father!

5. Brahma is not afforded the same worship as the other two gods of the Trimurti, Siva, and Vishnu. Brahma is not even given the same worship as the goddesses that represent the power of Brahman!

Excerpted from:
The Defense of an Essential: A Believer’s Handbook for Defending the Trinity
Copyright © 2006
Nick Norelli

All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.

Moses Flores vs. Ben Rosado -- Sola Scriptura Debate, Pt. 2

2007-04-02T00:50:00.000-05:00

So I just got done reading Mr. Ben Rosado’s third rebuttal statement (available here) and quite frankly, he has yet to engage Moses in the topic of debate which is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I found myself frustrated and disappointed in reading his response to Moses’ arguments so much so to the point that I wish I could send him a reply. Obviously this is not possible and Moses is well equipped (probably more so than I) to point out the logical fallacies in Mr. Rosado’s argumentation and continue from there. But I did want to take this time and space on the blog to comment on a few things that Mr. Rosado said.

Mr. Rosado claimed that:

“…that it is not exactly true when you say that only scripture is God-breathed. After all, there are many instances in the scriptures of other things that are God-breathed…”

And then went on to cite Genesis 2:7 where God forms man out of the dust of the earth and breaths into his nostrils the breath of life and John 20:21-23 where Jesus breathes on the disciples and tells them to receive the Holy Spirit. Now it is obvious even upon the most casual reading of this argument that it is a false analogy.

First of all, theopneustos is an adjective describing what all scripture is. In Genesis 2:7 the LXX uses the word enephusēsen which is a verb describing the act of God breathing the breath of life into the nostrils of Adam. After God performs this action Adam is called psuchēn zosan (a living soul)—he is not described with the adjective theopneustos and with good reason, he was not such!

Secondly, the same verb (enephusēsen) is used in John 20:22 when Jesus breathed on the disciples and tells them to receive the Holy Spirit. Now this is a wonderful parallel to Genesis 2:7 and could be used in an argument concerning Jesus as Sovereign Lord and Creator, but it has no place in a debate about Sola Scriptura—especially since in the analogy set forth, it is supposed to be comparable to the nature of Scripture! Again, after receiving the action of the verb, the disciples are not referred to as theopneustos.

Thirdly, theopneustos is a hapax legomenon meaning that it is a word used only once in the entire corpus of Greek scripture (to include the LXX). There is no analogy that can be set forth in regard to this word or the implications that it carries. It is unique in the Biblical context because it defines the very nature of what God’s revelation to man is.

He went off on a few rabbit trails and then said:

“For without the holy Spirit, no one can ever understand the scriptures. And hence, Sola Scriptura cannot be true… For you need not only the scriptures, but you also need the holy Spirit to interpret them… But how can anyone receieve [sic] the holy Spirit that was given to the Apostles so long ago? Well they must receive it from those who already have it…”

The problems of this argument are many but I wish to focus in on 1 in particular.

Moses took the time to define the RCC’s position on Sacred Tradition and Scripture by reading what official RCC sources had to say on the matters—Mr. Rosado has not extended this courtesy to Moses. The Westminster Confession of Faith says, “The Holy Spirit speaking in the Bible is the supreme judge of all religious controversies, all decisions of religious councils, all the opinions of ancient writers, all human teachings, and every private opinion. We are to be satisfied with the judgment of him who is and can be the only judge.” (Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms in Modern English, (Livonia, MI: Evangelical Presbyterian Church, 2004), I:10, p. 6).

It is the Protestant position that the Holy Spirit DOES guide us in understanding the Scriptures, but he does this THROUGH the scriptures themselves. It is not a subjective inner witness that we rely on to interpret scripture, but rather the Spirit speaking through Scripture itself.

And let us remember that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura simply asserts that the text of Scripture itself is the sole infallible authority in all matters of doctrine and conduct for the believer. It also posits the sufficiency of Scripture to reveal all that is necessary for man to inherit eternal life. Again the WCF says, “The meanings of all the passages in the Bible are not equally obvious, nor is any individual passage equally clear to everyone. However, everything which we have to know, believe, and observe in order to be saved is so clearly presented and revealed somewhere in the Bible that the uneducated as well as educated can sufficiently understand it by proper use of the ordinary means of Grace.” (Ibid., I:7)

And finally Mr. Rosado in arguing for what appears to be the authority of the Magisterium said:

"Non-Catholic preachers will have a hard time trying to prove that they were sent by the authority of GOD since they are not in the line of succession going all the way back to the Apostles. So by what authority do these persons preach? They cannot claim that "GOD told me" either, since that would be, at most, only a private revelation if that, and not a public one, so how could anyone "prove" that their claim to "GOD told me" is to be believed? Anyone can utter the excuse that "GOD told me!". History is repleat [sic] with heretics, criminals, dictators, and despots who used that term as their supposed justification for their evil deeds."

This merely begs the question by

1. Assuming the RCC’s apostolic succession without establishing the fact.

2. Rejecting the doctrine of Sola Scriptura without having yet provided sufficient reason for doing so.

This is what leads Mr. Rosado to claim that non-Catholics would have a hard time proving that they were sent by God. In point of fact if the Protestant position on Sola Scriptura is in fact true (which Moses has provided compelling arguments in support of) then it follows that we actually have no problem in proving that we are sent to preach the gospel. This is in fact not a ‘private revelation’ but rather a public declaration made by the Lord Jesus Christ to go into the world and preach the Gospel to every creature (Matt. 28:19). We are likewise exhorted by Paul to be ready and preach the word in season and out of season (2Tim. 4:2).

And lastly, the guilt by association fallacy presented by equating all non-Catholics with “heretics, criminals, dictators, and despots” is unwarranted especially in light of Mr. Rosado’s misrepresentation of the Protestant position!

In closing I’d just like to say this… We need a concrete standard, a rule (Gk. kanon) by which to determine what is and is not true. We cannot rely on an inner witness from the Holy Spirit for this because such experiences are at best subjective and at worst deceptive. It is entirely possible that it is not the Holy Spirit speaking at all and rather a demonic force sent to deceive (cf. 1Tim. 4:1). This is clearly the case with the Mormon ‘burning in the bosom’ experience which Roman Catholics would reject as fast if not faster than the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Rather we need the text of Scripture which is theopneustos to stand as our foundation and rule, and by this standard we judge all subjective experiences.

Now of course I am a Charismatic Pentecostal and I very much believe that the Holy Spirit still speaks to us personally, but we can never know if it is the Spirit speaking unless we have the text of Scripture present to gauge what is said. The Spirit of God will never contradict the Word of God which he has inspired, but when men claiming to be led by the Spirit contradict what is written then it is the men and the spirit by which they speak that are wrong.

My Disappointment with Chat Room Skeptics

2007-03-31T22:51:00.000-05:00

When I say 'skeptic' what exactly do I mean? Well, I'm speaking of unbelieving agnostic/atheist skeptics, not of skeptical believers (as opposed to blind faith filled believers) who critically examine the things presented to them. I find skeptics in general (and Oneness Pentcostals in particular) to be the most irrational people that I deal with in any given situation and that's only because of their denial of God. And please let us not be fooled by the old canard that they aren't denying God, they merely don't believe a god exists. Unbelief is active denial no matter how you slice it.

But these chat room skeptics are a breed all their own... The more I interact with them the more I am convinced that they haven't the slightest clue about what they are talking about. They demonstrate night after night that they aren't equipped to actually critique the Bible with any meaningful arguments. All I get is the same ol' same ol' 'the Bible is full of contradictions' bit and then the same lame duck alleged contradictions that have been dealt with by every internet apologist with a website are cut and pasted into the room as if I'm supposed to leave with a new found faith in nothing. Clearly you can see my disappointment.

So I wanted to take this post not to recount any specific encounters (although I just had one about similar stories dealing with Abram & Isaac in Gen. 12; 20 [Abram] and Gen. 26 [Isaac] in which this guy asserted that Isaac's story was just retelling the events of Abram's experience due to some oral tradition), but rather to list off a few reasons why these skeptics haven't engaged in the necessary study to even begin having a problem with Scripture.

They don't read the source languages (i.e. Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek)
They are not familar with relevant text-critical issues that have direct bearing on certain texts
They are not familiar with Ancient Near Eastern culture and customs (e.g. practices, literature, mindset, etc...)
They fail to examine alleged problem passages in their immediate and then overall contexts
They are inconsistent in their hermeneutics
They come to the text with anti-supernatural presuppositions which already discount any possibility in believing narrative that recount miracles
The bring their emotions to the text and fault it simply because they don't like it

There's many more things that I could mention here but I feel that this list is fairly representative of the arguments I encounter (these could also be applied to Jewish anti-missionaries arguing against the New Testament). So when you hear arguments based on a faulty translation in the KJV or arguments based on modern Western ideas and ideals not agreeing with the text of scripture, or even arguments based on the impossibility of miracles, then perhaps you'll be as disappointed with chat room skeptics as I am.

Oh, and if I hear one more skeptic say that 'most scholars' or 'virtually all scholars' say this or believe that then I'm going to vomit! When asked for names I NEVER get any let alone a list big enough to represent the breadth of Biblical scholarship! And for all you Jesus Seminar lovers out there... you're in the minority--the rest of the world laughs at them and what they call scholarship! This favorite group of chatroom skeptics represents less than 2% of the Society of Biblical Literature to which they all belong... representative? Hardly!

B"H

Moses Flores vs. Ben Rosado -- Sola Scriptura Debate

2007-03-31T01:32:00.000-05:00

So I just checked in on Moses Flores' (the gentleman I was debating on Calvinism some months ago) site and saw that he had began a debate with a Roman Catholic named Ben Rosado on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (available here) which as we all know was one of the foundations of the Reformation. As I read Moses' opening statement I was refreshed to see how accurately he represented the RCC's position on Sacred Tradition and Scripture while immediately afterwards correcting 6 very common errors that RCs make when arguing against the Protestant position. I will reproduce his corrrection of those 6 errors here:

1) Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Bible is an exhaustive compendium of
all knowledge
2) Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Bible is an
exhaustive compendium of all religious knowledge
3) Sola Scriptura does not
preclude the Church from teaching nor from formulating Creeds or Confessions
4) Sola Scriptura is not a denial that the revelation of God was ever in
oral form
5) Sola Scriptura does not entail the rejection of all traditions
6) Sola Scriptura is not a restriction or a denial of the Holy Spirit in the
process of guiding and illuminating the Church

Moses then spent the remainder of the opening statement exegeting the text of 2Timothy 3 in a non-threatening, layman friendly manner. It was refreshing to see the truth expounded so clearly without having to go into the esoteric details of Greek grammar.

To my disappointment his opponent wasn't as set on presenting his case as Moses was in his opening statement, opting rather to ask a few questions that he felt 'refuted' Moses' position on the doctrine. It was actually quite hard to work through (and it was only about 1100 words!) due to the plethora of straw man argumentation presented. Now I'm not just saying this because I like Moses or because I agree with him on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura--on the contrary, I'm saying this because this is what I read. Mr. Rosado's opening amounted to little more than claiming that Moses' position on Sola Scriptura is a declaration that the gates of Hades had prevailed against the Church. I could not follow his logic in the least.

Of course Moses responded with corrections and offered more in support of his position to which Mr. Rosado replied with an apology (the kind where you say 'I'm sorry' not the kind offered on defense of the faith) and a little bit about why he believes that the Church is infallible. I only skimmed through the rebuttals of each and plan to read them more thoroughly tommorrow, but I felt the need to comment on what I have read right now.

It's refreshing to see young Christian men (such as Moses and myself, I'm not sure about Mr. Rosado's age) so zealous for Christ. It was us to whom John wrote saying, "I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one. " AMEN!!! And I know he said this because Scripture is sufficient to tell me!

Gene Cook Strikes Again... or umm... Gets struck...

2007-03-06T13:22:00.000-05:00

I listened to Gene Cook, Jr. again the other night and a recorded telephone conversation that he had with a Jehovah's Witness. I don't know why, but he let this guy push him around all over the place. The man kept talking over Cook, telling Cook how wrong he was, and Cook was just taking it... But not in the 'I'm just being as humble as I can be without flipping out' kid of way... Rather he was just letting this guy bully him around. I can't call it...

The JW was representing as if he understood Greek which was clear to someone with even an elementary understanding of the language (like myself) that he did not... His big argument was that the Greek word for 'spirit' is in the neuter gender so the Holy Spirit cannot be a 'he' but HAS to be an 'it' -- Did Cook contest this? Not really... He just said, well the Holy Spirit has a will... And I will give credit where credit is due... he showed that the Holy Spirit did have a will and the JW went into denial mode...

But Cook missed that the JW admitted that the gender of a noun has NOTHING to do with its identity... He refuted his own position and Cook failed to capitalize... The JW also neglected the fact that the masculine pronoun 'ekeinos' (he) is applied to the Holy Spirit twice in John's gospel (15:26; 16:13) -- It seemed that neither the JW nor Cook was aware of this information... And what of 'moi' (me) in Acts 13:2 where the Holy Spirit is speaking?

And what frustrated me more than anything... Cook was allowing the JW to tell him (i.e. Cook) what he (i.e. Cook) believed and said... Shouldn't Gene have known his own thoughts and words? I just can't believe that a man who has pastored a church for the last 8 or 9 years could be so weak apologetically... I genuinely feel sorry for his flock as they can't possibly be receiving the weaponry necessary to survive on the apologetic battle field... At least not from their pastor...

It is my sincere prayer that Cook takes the time to attend seminary or at least some correspondance courses to help equip him for the tasks that he takes up... And he has some very knowledgable friends (James White being one of them) who can give him at least the basics in refuting these cultists and heretics...

So far I've heard Cook 3 times and so far he is 0 for 3... Lord willing when I hear #4 he'll fair better...

Why did the Chicken Cross the Road?

2007-02-27T23:12:00.000-05:00

To get out of actually debating me on the Trinity!

So my Trinity debate is over but it didn't go down exactly like I would have liked. My opponent never actually raised on objection to the doctrine based on scripture--all I got was a bunch of evasion and childish remarks about how I was not using heremeneutics. Then in their first rebuttal they copied and pasted a bunch of articles from BiblicalUnitarian.com!!! I know, I couldn't believe it either. Anyway, you can see my presentation and my opponents evasion HERE... So sorry to dissapoint.

Unitarian Debate

2007-02-17T11:52:00.000-05:00

I was in the chat room a few days ago speaking with someone I have talked to countless times in the past about the Trinity when I just got sick and tired of the constant nonsense that they spout every time that I see them. So finally I issued a challnge... I challenged them to a formal written debate on the Trinity and the actually accepted! I was very surprised to say the least as I have refuted every argument they have ever presented in chat... but nevertheless, they accepted.

We agreed on 4 posts apiece (1. Opening Statement, 2. First Rebuttal, 3. Second Rebuttal, 4. Closing Statement) and set the word limit at 2500 words per post. Well, rounds 1 and 2 are in the books and will be posted on my site shortly, but let me just say how absolutely dissapointed I am. I'll let the reader decide for themself on the quality of the arguments presented, but it shouldn't be tough to see who is really serious about this. Rest assured that I'm taking full advantage of the word limit while my opponent doesn't seem to be as eager to do so.

Can't wait til it's finished... Until then...

...To be continued

Open Challenge

2007-01-29T14:52:00.000-05:00

So I was checking my email yesterday and came across something from this guy named Christopher who has a little website called Foundation of the Nations. He wrote concerning my screen name 'Prophetnick77' and had a problem with my use of the title 'Prophet'. Look at these two comments from his original email to me and see how ridiculous his problem actually was.

First he said, "Reguardless of your doctrine, I wanted to comment on the fact that you call yourself with the title 'prophet'."

He later said, "So, you see brother I am not making a point about your doctrine, but about your motive for the use of a title to try to establish your identity in the eyes of men instead of allowing the fruit of a prophet to be established."

Notice that his problem was with a title and NOT my doctrine. How completely superficial is that? I responded to his email and asked that he follow Jesus' command in John 7:24 to judge not according to appearences, but rather judge a righteous judgment. He replied by saying that he took the time to check out some of the content on my site and then wrote it off as the 'same old Babylonian doctrine' that he used to believe. Pretty general, I know, I know... But that's what I got.

So I took a couple of minutes and browsed his site (which is pretty messy just by aesthetical standards) and came across an article by a man named Mike Vinson. I was familiar with the article as it used to be posted on L. Ray Smith's web site and I have interacted with Smith in the past. He also had an article which he excerpted from J. Preston Eby, and on his links page he links to Smith's site. The common denominator is that all these men are Universalists. I know that Smith and Vinson deny the Trinity although I'm not positive if Eby does. So from his association I concluded that he too was a heretic and I then challenged him to a debate on any of the following 4 doctrines.

1. The Trinity

2. The Hypostatic Union of Christ

3. The Virgin Birth

4. Justification by Faith Alone

So as of now, this is where I stand... I have given an open challenege to debate these topics... Time will tell if he wants to or not. What I do not want to do is go back and forth with him and his subjective interpretations of scripture. I'm not interested in what any passage, chapter, or book says to him personally. I'm interested in the important things like DOCTRINE, not titles or the way the Bible makes us feel.

Not a 'Holy' Kiss...

2007-01-22T15:51:00.000-05:00

So my friend just called me up this morning to tell me about this man getting knocked out for kissing another man in the octagon (for all those not familiar with the UFC, that's the ring in which they fight) -- The video of this event can be viewed here http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=MultiMedia.Detail&gid=4228 [No Longer Available] -- On the one hand this is extremely disturbing... This fighter was so bound by a perverse spirit that he had enough gall to violate another man with a homosexual act in the octagon -- But on the other hand it is extremely funny in that the fighter who was attacked (and yes I consider a homosexual act against a man who did not welcome it an attack) knocked the other man out with little to no effort at all -- And this was BEFORE the fight even started! The whole event took place in the center of the octagon when the rules were given by the ref... You gotta see it to believe it... Check the link..

Update: Just Watch Below

Not Again!

2007-01-10T19:46:00.000-05:00

Just heard this guy Cook debate a Jehovah's Witness on the Trinity and the J-Dub slammed him! Pastor Cook had sent the JW an email before the debate explaining that he didn't know the Biblical languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) and would appreciate if they were left out of the debate. That raised some flags right there... If he doesn't have knowledge of the source languages then why debate someone who does; especially when appeals to the source languages are almost necessary when defining and explaining the doctrine.

But here's what got me... He started accusing the New World Translation of mistranslating certain passages--which of course it has!--but this line of argument opened the door for the JW to start using Greek grammar and syntax on him. Cook was lost as would be expected from someone who doesn't know Greek.

In any event, Cook didn't even present a good affirmative argument for the Trinity, forget about his rebuttals. I think that Gene Cook, Jr. is in serious need of some schooling or intensive reading on this subject--just reading Robert Morey’s and James White’s books on the Trinity are not going to equip one for formal debate. He should cease from such encounters until he is better equipped to deal with his opponents.

There's nothing worse then seeing someone lose a debate when they are holding the position of truth. For anyone interested in learning more about the Trinity, check out my new web site at this address: http://www.freewebs.com/trinitytruth/index.htm

Gene Cook debates the Trinity with David K. Bernard

2006-12-23T18:41:00.000-05:00

So I'm listening to this debate as I type on the Trinity between Oneness Pentecostal author and Pastor David K. Bernard and Calvinist Pastor Gene Cook, Jr. and to be honest, I'm not impressed with either. As far as debates go, Bernard is winning (correction, 'won' -- It just ended) because his arguments are better and he is more prepared, but winning a debate doesn't mean that the winner is correct.

I think we can just chalk this up to Pastor Cook not being all that well educated on the topic or not being prepared. It seems as though he gathered his information from apologetic web sites or maybe some elementary level books such as Morey's The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, but without speaking with Cook personally I can't know that for sure. I do however know that he much like myself is without formal education past high school. He has not attended college or seminary and perhaps he should in order to gain a better understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity.

In his opening statement Cook made the mistake of describing the Persons of the Trinity as 'separate' which Bernard noted and pointed out in his rebuttal. Cook replied by saying that he didn't believe that he had said that, but if he did he didn't mean it. OK... fair enough, mistakes happen. Cook also presented the weak argument that Genesis 1:26-27 somehow shows the Trinity from the very beginning of scripture when in fact all it does is help to build a case for it. At best we can say that it supports plurality but that can be 2 to infinity... 3 is not expressly mentioned by the uses of 'us' and 'our' in that passage.

When it came to the question and answer session Cook failed miserably to adequately answer Bernard's questions (he answered them, but not even to my satisfaction and I'm a Trinitarian!). Bernard asked Cook to define how he was using the term 'person' in reference to God and Cook's answer was along the lines of saying that a 'person is distinct' (which doesn't actually define what 'person' means.) And to top it off, at the end of Bernard's questioning he somehow tricked Cook into saying that Jesus was the name of the One God by asking what the one name of Matthew 28:19 was to which Cook said 'God' (notice he said God, not Yahweh) and then Bernard jumped over to Acts 4:12 asking what that name that could save was and Cook said Jesus. Fallacious as it was, it seemed to make Bernard's point... I found myself frustrated to say the least.

And what was worse is that when it came time for Cook to question Bernard, Bernard was ready with answers (wrong as they were, he was still ready). At one point Cook asked the question does God dwell in Satan. Bernard said no and was then asked if that limits God's omnipresence which of course he answered saying no, it doesn't. Bernard then proceeded to differentiate between omnipresence as meaning present in all physical locations at one time and indwelling as having a controling relationship with the one being indwelt (both adequate definitions and at least he defined his terms!) -- Cook then asked the same question again and Bernard replied that no, God does not indwell Satan and no God is not in Satan (in reference to omnipresence) because Satan is not a physical location. Cook then proceeds with this line of question and then really stuck his foot in his mouth by saying, well you've just given an example of where God is not physically present in Satan to which Bernard replied, but Satan isn't a physical being. Then the audience began to laugh and I just sat there shaking my head.

Cook then closed out by jumping off the topic of the Trinity and jumping on Oneness Pentecostalism in general saying that it's built on a faulty foundation, that they have the wrong baptismal formula, that tongues isn't necessary for salvation, and that one can't be saved in it. True as those statements may be, they had nothing to do with the topic of debate which was the Trinity. I was very disappointed to say the least with Cook's performance. In conclusion, Bernard won the debate with a false doctrine and a terrible understanding of the nature and persons of God. It just so happens that his opponent was a worse debator than he was.

Intellectual Honesty

2006-12-03T03:44:00.000-05:00

I converse with Catholics daily and one theme remains a constant... Defend all things Catholic at all costs! So what's wrong with that? I mean most people would assume that I would defend my faith at all costs, right? WRONG!!! I won't defend it at the cost of intellectual honesty. I don't need to deceive myself into thinking that everything about my particular church, denomination, etc. is perfect. I don't need to skew history so as to make my faith seem as if it has existed without flaw from the beginning of time (and I'm not exagerating, I see this kind of stuff daily). I'm honest enough to deal with the truth as the truth is... this means that I don't need to bend, twist, or change it in order to fit my preconceptions. If the truth leads me away from something that I presently believe then Hallelujah!!! Praise God for that because that means the present belief isn't true! I only wish the Catholics I speak with daily could hold such a position... and no, I'm not saying that this is all Catholics in general, but it does seem to be all that I deal with on a regular basis. Maybe it's just them going into defense mode from all the namecalling and being told to get out of their cult, etc. but that's not how I approach them. In any event, I have a saying... "I covet truth and whoever has it, I want it" -- that goes for all... I've decided to follow the truth wherever it leads even if that means leaving behind some comfortable beliefs... After all, Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life... I can't get to the Father but by him...

B"H

Note to All Catholics

2006-11-25T21:52:00.000-05:00

I'd just like to ask any and all Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox believers when entering into dialogue/debate with me on any given subject, please don't ask me where my authority comes from to interpret a text or a doctrine a certain way or to disagree with you and your sect. Such a nonsensical question is the height of ridiculousness. I'm not RC/EO therefore I'm not impressed or influenced by your preferred hierarchy. I'd like to know who gave you the authority to ask such a stupid question and also who gave you the authority to disagree with me? (of course I'm being fecetious, but you get the point). So once again, if we are going to disagree and discuss our disagreements, just know that I don't need the approval of the magesterium or Orthodox bishops to hold my views. I'm one of those Sola Scriptura guys, and yes... I realize that not everything is written in the Bible... Just like I realize that the vast majority of people who object to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura are really objecting to a caricature of it.

Thank you

Superman Returns -- Nov. 28th

2006-11-14T15:27:00.000-05:00

I just saw a commercial stating that Superman Returns will be released on DVD later this month and I can't wait! Unfortunately I only had the pleasure of seeing the movie once in the theater but you can bet that I'll be playing it repeatedly once I get the DVD. My love of Superman comes from my youth. I grew up with Superman comics, the original motion pictures starring Christopher Reeve, and the various television shows. I'm one of the few people I know who actually remembers the short lived Superboy television series in which Clark Kent was in college with Lex Luther. But from Lois and Clark to Smallville, I have been a fan for years so naturally when I heard there was a new Superman movie being made I was excited.

I had hoped that Tom Welling the star of Smallville would be starring in it but after seeing the way that Brandon Routh played the role I'm glad that he didn't. Routh brought all of the presence that this character requires. There was no serious deviation in the attitude or mannerisms of the character that Reeve had played in the original movies which I thought was a plus. I also enjoyed how the movie was serious yet fun, the special effects of course were second to none in the Superman series.

But I had the distinct pleasure of seeing this latest Superman after having been born again whereas I was still dead in sin for all of the ones that came before it. This allowed me to view the movie in a completely different light. There was one thing that jumped out at me and that was a conversation that Superman was having with Lois Lane after his return to earth after a five year hiatus. Lois had written a Pulitzer Prize winning article on how the world did not need Superman in which she said, "the world doesn't need a savior, and neither do I" and Superman replied by saying, "But every day I hear people crying out for one." Powerful words indeed! Of course we know who the Savior is (Jesus Christ) but the parallels between Superman and Christ are many, especially as highlighted in this film, the most obvious being that Jesus and Superman were sent into the world by their Fathers to save it!

I give this movie a 10 on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the best! I give it 5 stars and 2 thumbs up! It's that good! Everyone should buy a copy for themself and one for a friend or family member for Christmas.

Oh No... Here We Go Again...

2006-11-10T11:52:00.000-05:00

So after this guy Baalslay sends me his little email yesterday which I guess was supposed to lead me to Calvin, uh, I mean Christ... I get another email from the guy I had the original disagreement with (Daytime). He felt the need to engage in his usual ad hominem argumentation which can be seen in the original conversation.

Basically this is what he said (I'd post the whole email but it was mostly nonsense, whining and complaining) -- He said that my responses to the scriptures he posted were unscriptural... Well of course they were, they disagreed with his interpretation, why wouldn't they be? (wink) -- Next I was told that I took things 'blatantly out of context', although I don't know if he was talking about scripture or his comments... either way he is incorrect. Then I was accused of not responding to or posting the verses that 'expose my position' even though I responded to everything he said and posted our entire dialogue in full.

Then he starts whining about me calling him a Calvinist as if he wasn't one. He asks if that was a theological debate, I don't know... was it? To me a debate requires intelligence on both sides of the issue... a requirement he failed to meet (jk). He said that I didn't even try to defend my position... yeah, imagine that... I spent all those emails just supporting his and not defending mine. He said that I was fond of phrases like "ad hominem and the like because [they] make [me] sound like a theologian, and [they] stroke the ego of one (which would be me) who simply has not a clue."

Well, I'm fond of phrases like ad hominem because they accurately describe arguments aimed toward the person and not the person's argument. And I guess Daytime has a bad understanding of exactly what a theologian is. Since theology is the study of God, then anyone who engages in this practice is a theologian, including, yes you guessed it... ME! And if having a clue would make me believe the stuff that Daytime believes, then I'd prefer to stay clueless.

He then rambles on about how Calvin didn't define the words, "predestination, election, chosen, or preordained" and asked how I define them and what my authority is. Then he urges me to use the "spiritual dictionary" (presumably the Bible) and asks me to stop calling myself 'prophet' if I don't agree with him.

Yeah, I know... I found it all quite silly as well... Like I said yesterday... I was done with this a year and a half ago. Everything I had to say was said then and since then I have yet to speak with a Calvinist, even the ones I like, who has been able to convince me that their position is correct. So I'm gonna need a little bit more then ranting in an email sent to the "brethren" and myself. Until then I'm secure in the truth and will continue to follow it whereever it leads...

B"H

Why Waste My Time?

2006-11-09T13:05:00.000-05:00

So I just received an email from a guy who calls himself Baalslay. Baalslay is a Calvinist who sent a few emails to a couple of his buddies about a year and a half ago in response to a mini-debate I was having with his friend Daytime. Let me backtrack for a second and explain what happened.

I was minding my own business one day when I received an email from Daytime filled with some nonsense about me spewing bilge and swill (I'm still wondering if the guy is from England) and some stuff about how there is no free will, blah, blah, blah... Anyway, I took a little time to respond and we had a little 'debate' if you could even call it that. Well apparently this guy was emailing everything he sent me to his friends, although I don't think he was forwarding my responses to them. This is how Baalslayer got involved.

I received two emails from Baalslay but they weren't actually addressing me personally. It was almost as if I was on the email list by accident... who knows? In any event, I took a few minutes to write replies that were posted on my homepage (Here) -- Now keep in mind that this was a year and a half ago.

Now I just got an email from Baalslay actually addressing me and he managed to repeat the same exact Calvinist arguments that I have been interacting with for the past 4 years. Nothing new or innovative in his comments. Same stuff about dead men have no wills, God is sovereign and can do whatever he wants, effectual calling, etc... Apparently he thinks that I've never heard this stuff before so he decided to 'enlighten' me.

I considered responding for a second but then said, "why waste my time?" -- He's content to be a Calvinist and I'm ok with him being a Calvinist. If he brought something to the table that I never heard before then maybe it would have warranted some serious consideration, but at present it's the same ol' Calvinist theology. Not exactly compelling stuff from where I'm standing.

Let's just for the record state that I like Calvinists, generally speaking. A lot of my online buddies are Calvi's... I recognize that the system of theology no matter how misguided is well within the limits of orthodoxy. Same with my Arminian buddies (although I feel from a Biblical standpoint that they have a better leg to stand on).

So I've decided to limit my interaction with this resurrected argument to this BLOG post alone. I was done with it a year and a half ago. Right now my attention is on studying the Trinity (by the way, my NEW BLOG is dedicated to defending the Trinity and deals exclusively with this doctrine -- I've been posting excerpts from my unpublished book).

B"H

Final Thoughts on Morey's Book...

2006-11-01T04:08:00.000-05:00

So I finished Morey's book about a week ago (finally) and I was just as unimpressed upon completion as I was initially. Don't get me wrong, it's a great book for beginners. Anyone who is not at all familiar with the doctrine of the Trinity should pick up a copy, but anyone who has studied the subject at length will find themselves less than thrilled with the work.

Some of my major problems with the book were mentioned in my last post about it, but to add to those I would include Morey's treatment of the Granville Sharp rule. He wrongly applies it to many texts and actually makes himself look worse for doing so than had he not mentioned it at all. Another annoyance was the Greek and Hebrew texts that appeared throughout the book. They were completely unecessary and took up space that could have been saved had he simply put the relevant original language words in parenthesis in the Englsih text. I can only speculate that he wanted to make the book seem longer than it actually was.

Morey constantly referred to the Persons of God as "separate" which bothers me to no end. The reason being that if a "separation" exists then it leads to tri-theism whether we want to admit it or not. This is one of the main reasons that the doctrine of the Trinity is misrepresented by those who oppose it, because many times those advocating it use language that undermines the doctrine altogether. Now someone might read this and say, "well, if they aren't 'separate' Persons then you are advocating modalism." -- Not at all... I recognize a DISTINCTION between the Three Persons of God who exist simultaneously and share the nature of deity. But just because all things that are separate are distinct, doesn't mean that all things that are distinct are separate. For instance, a coin and its inscription are distinct from one another, yet they are not separate. They share the same being yet are completely distinguishable from one another. The inscription makes the coin and its value known (hint: study the word 'charakter' as used in Hebrews 1:3 sometime).

Then there's the times when Morey spoke from his view as a Calvinist and represented it as the universal view of Christianity. There were also many typographical errors which are more than likely the fault of the publisher, but still it would be nice to see them corrected. All in all, I'd recommend this book to the newly born again believer or the budding apologist. But I recommend it with the warning that there is more to the Trinity and to defending the doctrine than appears in this volume. I wish someone would have shared those words with me before I purchased the book. Everyone I spoke to told me that it was the best book on the subject that they had ever read. I'm starting to wonder if it is the only book on the subject they have ever read.

If I had to rate this book with thumbs I'd give it 1 up... If I were using stars then it would get 3 out of 5... If at all possible, borrow the book from a friend or check it out at your local library. If you have to purchase it then get the cheapest one you can find.

When will they learn?

2006-09-25T22:30:00.000-05:00

So I've taken a short break from reading Morey's book on the Trinity (by the way, I'm still not impressed, although I would recommend it for any beginner) to read a booklet that I got from the Restored Church of God (an Armstrongite splinter group) on the Trinity. Restored Church of God leader David C. Pack has written a 171 page book on the Trinity called, "The Trinity-Is God three-in-one?" This book can be viewed at this address <http://www.thercg.org/books/ttigtio.html> online. Pack makes the same lame arguments that most opponents of Trinitarianism make, but it takes quote some time for him to even get there. The book begins by espousing the doctrines of all Armstrongite churches, i.e. Sabbatarianism, Dietary Laws, Tithing, No Christmas, No Easter, blah, blah, blah...

He then goes on to whine about the word Trinity not being a Biblical word, then he brings up a few Pagan "trinities" (triads) just like the JWs do in their booklet "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" -- Nothing too new there. Nevermind that the triads are always three out of dozens to thousands of other gods worshipped by these people... Nevermind that there is no real analogy between three gods in a Triad and the Three Persons of the Trinity. After this he begins connecting the dots with Orthodox Christianity and Platonism, and the philosophy of Philo.

He spends quite a few words telling us that Origen is the father of Trinitarianism and that no definition of the Trinity has gone outside the bounds set by Origen, never mentioning the fact that Origen considered the Son a lesser god, second in substance to the Father (which is anything but Trinitarian, to say the least). His reliance upon the Encyclopedia Britannica is alarming, as one would expect more research be done in order to refute the central tenet of the Christian faith than to merely look to the bookshelf that is lined with the set of encyclopedia he purchased from a door to door salesman in the 80's.

Paragraph after paragraph Pack poisons the well before ever once presenting any case against Trinitarianism. He does everything in his power to prejudice the reader against the doctrine before he even attempts to mis-quote and selectively cite Trinitarian authorities. The standard out of context scriptural references are there as well, as he claims that the Trinity must be false because "God is not the author of confusion" and the Trinity is said to be a "Mystery." Who cares that Paul was speaking to the Corinthians about the order of worship and the conduct of a church service--I mean if Pack says that God is not the author of confusion, then the Trinity can't be true, now can it?!

He contradicts himself from one page to the next, for example he said:

"One must use 'philosophical reflection' to deduce what the trinity is. This actually contradicts verses we have already seen. Mankind, on his own, cannot uinderstand spiritual matters! In fact, ouor natural thoughts are hostile to what God teaches: 'Because the carnal mind is enmity against [Greek: hostile to] God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neother indeed can be' (Rom. 8:7)." [p. 55]

Then 5 pages later he chides, "Yet, we have seen that God commands us to prove Him!" in response to a quote taken from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia on the Trinity which said:

"That is to say, it embodies a truth which has never been discovered, and is indiscoverable, by NATURAL REASON. With all his searching, man has not been able to find out for himself the deepest things of God" [p. 60, Caps Mine]

So which is it? Can we with our natural mind that is hostile toward God understand Him, or can't we? Mr. Pack seems to like it both ways, changing up when it suits his position!

In any event, I'm only about a third of the way through the book and am already very bored and unimpressed with the level of argument. This is your standard uneducated cult leader at work. These arguments may fool his congregation, but they wouldn't budge anyone who has studied this doctrine in any depth. I should have the book finished in the next day or two and will make my final comments on it then...

...To be continued

Original Sin/Pelagianism

2006-09-10T17:08:00.000-05:00

I was just in the chat room discussing the impeccability of Christ and the topic shifted to original sin. I was asking if it was possible for Christ to have succumb to the temptation described in Matthew 4/Luke 4/Hebrews 4:15 and this guy kept saying that we cannot compare Christ to us because he was perfect, sinless, etc... And that the word "tempted" must have a different meaning when applied to Christ then when applied to anyone else. I quickly pointed out that I was not comparing Christ to anyone because there is no legitimate comparison.

Jesus was without sin, period. We all know this and we all agree that it is true. The question was not if Jesus did sin... We know that he didn't. Likewise, the question is not if Jesus would sin, because obviously he didn't. The question was could Jesus have succumb to temptation, and if he could not, then was it really tremptation? But obviously there is a false analogy between Jesus and other men because Jesus is the God-Man being is possession of the natures of Deity and Humanity via his incarnation and Hypostatic Union. Whereas we all have sinned. this is where original sin came into the discussion.

I made the comment that even those infants who have not yet sinned will sin by virtue of the fact that they have a sin nature. This gentleman then said, "technically infants have sinned, Ps. 51..." My response was, "technically, the sin is attributed to David's mother in Psalm 51..." We then got into a discussion on personal sin vs. imputed sin. His position was that they are one and the same. In other words, the personal sin of our ancestors are passed on to us. My position is that Adam's sin was imputed to humanity because he was the federal head of humanity representing us in the Garden of Eden. It is not Adam's personal sin that we are guilty of. We will all be judged according to our own sin (Romans 14:12).

The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

"Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam."

The Calvinist Westminster Confession of Faith says:

"They [Adam & Eve] being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation." (VI:III)

I also made the statement that Ezekiel 18 as well as other passages show us that our Father's personal sins are not passed on to us and at this he called me a Pelagian. Let's look to the scriptures and then I'll comment on Pelagius.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Deu 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

2Ki 14:6 But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

2Ch 25:4 But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.

Now this gentleman is a Calvinist, so of course because I am not then I must be an Arminian, and since I am an Arminian I must be a Pelagian... This is the kind of reasoning that we do see from many (not all) of our Calvinist friends. so I went to great lengths to explain how I believe in the imputation of Adam's sin to mankind; how I believe in the universality of sin; how I believe that all men have sinned and those infants who haven't had the chance will sin. And after this he stilled said, "Then you are a Pelagian, lol [laughing out loud]."

Pelagius was an interesting fellow. He denied the doctrine of original sin because he felt it was somewhat of a copout... Kinda like saying, "I just couldn't help myself, my nature made me sin." Being a monk he favored asceticism (self-denial, spiritual discipline). Funnily enough, his biggest opponent St. Augustine is said to have called him a "saintly man." In any event, Pelagius taught that Adam was merely a bad example and we could in and of ourselves abstain from sin. Now I certainly do not believe this. He also believed that we could be perfect morally and keep the entire law, which is another thing I do not believe. His theology ultimately leads to a denial of the necessity of Christ's sacrifice for our sin, which I certainly do not believe.

So how I'm a Pelagian I'll never know... I guess I'll just have to keep wondering...

B"H

My Debate on TULIP

2006-09-04T23:01:00.000-05:00

Well, faithful readers of my homepage will have no doubt glanced in on my debate with Calvinist Moses Flores on the 5 Points of Calvinism... We just wrapped the cross examination session for Unconditional Election... I handed him the debate... I basically said, "you're right, I'm wrong..."--not because it's true, but because I just don't feel like debating the topic anymore... The other day I stumbled upon Mr. Flores' BLOG only to find his last post was about me... He gave his thoughts concerning my paper on Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and concluded by saying that I'm an "unfit minister of the gospel."

Now I'm not a sensitive dude, but this just turned me off completely... So I've decided to just be as facetious as possible and basically agree with everything he said... I took the time to seriously answer one question on God's omniscience and omnipresense, but other than that I don't believe a word I said... But hey, I figure that since I'm an unfit minister, I might as well be an unfit debator... In any event, don't expect to see any more out of this debate... I may however in the future endeavor to write an in depth analysis of Calvinism... Time will tell...

B" H

A Few Thoughts on Robert Morey's, "The Trinity: Evidence & Issues"

2006-09-01T14:47:00.000-05:00

So I just got Dr. Robert Morey's book The Trinity: Evidence and Issues. I've only read the first 7 chapters and I have mixed emotions about the book. From the table of contents I noticed that the topics covered are amazingly similar to those which I have addressed in the book I'm working on concerning the Trinity. This came as no great shock since both works are apologetic in nature. Morey takes an interesting appraoch though and that is assuming the Trinity is true and then looking to see if the Bible supports this.

I was a little bored by the first few chapters as my epistomology is already developed, therefore he was only preaching to the choir. He contrasted Christians and Humanists which I saw as unnecessary and he appealed to the Trinity's being a mystery as proof of its truthfulness. I don't know... So far I'm unimpressed.

One thing that irked me a little bit was his treatment of the Hebrew words "yachid" and "echad" in chapter 7. His claim was that if "yachid" were used to describe God in scripture (which by the way it is not) then that would mean God was a solitary person as opposed to a plurality of persons. As an orthodox Trinitarian, I wholeheartedly disagree. The "yachid" argument doesn't hurt Trinitarianism in the least. We believe in One Indivisible God. An Eternal, Immutable, Simple, Necessary Being. Therefore "yachid" is wholly qualified to speak of the NATURE of God.

He then made the common error that echad means "compound unity" when the truth is that it ALLOWS for diversity in unity, but at times has no reference to this at all. The simple truth is that "echad" means "one" -- no more, no less. It's the word that "echad" modifies that tells us whether or not a diversity or plurality in unity is in view. One group is obviously composed of more than one person, while one king would be one and only one person. So we need to be careful not to stack the deck in our favor when it isn't necessary to do so.

I still have a lot to read and from what I've heard it's a good book. So far I haven't learned anything new and some common errors that actually hurt the Trinitarian position have been found, but I'll reserve full judgment for my completion of the book. Another thing that bugged me was Morey's mistake in saying that "Elohim" is the plural form of "El" -- this isn't the case and is a rookie mistake that should have been avoided by a guy with quite a few advanced degrees. For the record, "elim" is the plural of "el" and "elohim" is the plural of "eloah"

Anyway... When I'm done reading it I'll give it a full review...

To be continued...

It's Official...

2006-08-28T23:12:00.000-05:00

It's official...

I hereby publicly repent to God and renounce any defense I have ever made in the past for Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox doctrine which is not derived specifically from scripture. I am not ready to call them a cult yet because I recognize that these are historic Christian churches, but I feel as the reformers did that they have erred from the truth and strayed from the faith that was once delievered unto the saints.

Although I have never believed in the doctrines of purgatory, prayers for the dead, praying to saints, the immaculate conception, the assumption of Mary, salvation via sacraments, etc... I did at one time defend the doctrines against those who opposed them. Mainly I did this for the sake of argument, because I really do enjoy arguing (even positions I don't hold), but also as a defense of people I considered brethren. I apologize to any well-intentioned and well-informed "Protestant" that I may have alienated in the past due to these arguments. I will no longer support those who believe these doctrines in believing them. I will demand proof of them via verifiable early Church history (which means that if you want to claim them as 2000 year old Christian teachings you better show them in scripture and from the earliest post-apostolic fathers like Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, etc...).

I also reject the title "Protestant" as it is a pejorative used to denigrate Godly men and women who reject the false doctrines of Rome in favor of Biblical Christianity. And I'd also note that the Reformation happened, the "protest" is over. Concerning the title "Catholic" I reclaim it for myself and all other believers in the Biblical Jesus and the Biblical Gospel. The word has been hi-jacked and through anachronism has become synonymous with "Roman Catholic" or "Eastern Orthodox."

A line has been drawn and it was drawn by God... He said, "come out from among them and be separated" (2Cor. 6:17) as well as "come out from among her my people" (Rev. 18:4). Now I am not saying that the RCC is the harlot from Revelation or Babylon the great, but I will say that as far as churches go, the RCC is in the running to become this apostate church that the Bible speaks of in the last days. I do not have any ill feelings for RC and EO men and women, But I do demand that they support their beliefs sufficiently before claiming them to be "2000 year old Christian beliefs."

Soli Deo Gloria

Sigh

2006-08-23T23:26:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I read the closing argument of my opponent for Point 2 (The Person of Being of the Father) of my Trinity debate. (*sigh*) I'm still waiting for him to actually present an affirmative position on why he believes what he believes--thus far it has only been talks about creeds and what-not.

One thing I found to be crazy was that he actually used a point I made to try to refute the same point that I made! Don't believe me? Well check it out...

My Original Argument

Concerning the Shema as was wrongly cited twice now as Deuteronomy 6:6 (6:4 is the proper citation), there is no interaction with the verse itself. In Hebrew it reads, “Shema Yisrael Yahweh eloheynu Yahweh echad.” Immediately I must point out that “eloheynu” (‘our God’) is in the plural form. Secondly, the word “echad” translated as “one” in many versions is a word that allows [notice I did not say this is always the case] for diversity in unity (cf. Genesis 2:24, 11:6; Ezek. 37:17). It’s the word that “echad” modifies which determines whether or not a plurality in unity is in view. In this case, “echad” modifies “Yahweh” and as such there is no a priori reason to assume that Yahweh is not a plurality of persons, especially in light of verses such as Genesis 19:24.

His Rebuttal

An appeal was made to the Hebrew word ‘echad’, and it was erroneously claimed that the Trinity is a ‘compound unity’. [I never used these words, I said 'diversity in unity'] In fact a compound unity is a union of separate entities, not a single entity, and since Trinitarians insist that God is not a union of separate entities, He cannot be described as a ‘compound unity’. The Hebrew word ‘echad’ functions as the English word ‘one’ does, and when placed in front of a noun such as ‘one lord’ (Deuteronomy 6:4), means one single noun, not a ‘compound unity’ (and a ‘lord’ is certainly not a ‘compound unity’) [notice that he completely missed my point which was that there is no a priori reason to assume Yahweh is not a plurality of persons]. Academic Trinitarian apologists such as Gregory Boyd understand this (here).

My Point Mirrored in his note

This is what Gregory Boyd said:

"An examination of the Old Testament usage reveals that the word echad is as capable of various meanings as is our English word one. The context must determine whether a numerical or unified singularity is intended.'"

Another thing I found to be strange was that he actually claimed that "elohim" was not a plural noun. He said it functions like the English words, "sheep" or "fish" but is determined by the context whether or not it is plural. Well, I had to actually step away from the computer, and rub my eyes because I couldn't believe I saw that. "Elohim" ends in "im" which is a masculine plural ending in Hebrew. Yes it can refer to a single entity such as God, but this fits nicely into the Trinitarian framework, I mean c'mon, plural noun describing a single God--how perfect is that.

Verb agreement really has nothing to do with it because many instance can be pointed to where "elohim" is not the one acting, such as Jonah 3:5 where it is the people of Nineveh who believe "God/Elohim" and proclaim a fast. Notice that "God/Elohim" does not do anything, thus there is no verb connected to the noun. In any event, "elohim" is the plural of the singular noun "eloah" which is used nearly 60 times in the Hebrew scriptures. Why anyone would say this is beyond me.

Another thing to note is that there are occurences of plural verb agreement with the plural "elohim" in reference to the One True God Yahweh in scripture (e.g. Gen. 20:13, 35:7; 2Sam. 7:23; Ps. 58:12, et al.)

So alas, I am left to just take a deep breath and release a long sigh... My opponent has yet to present a compelling argument, and truthfully, he has yet to present a relevant argument... I just can't wait to get into the Deity of Christ issue... Until then, God bless!

Wow! Did this guy really say that?

2006-08-20T14:52:00.000-05:00

So I've been debating this guy who is a Christadelphian on the topic the Trinity. A friend set up the debate because the gentleman I'm debating would consistently come into chat rooms claiming that the doctrine is unscriptural and he can prove it via these emails and audio messages he sends out. Whenever challenged to debate the topic in the chat room, he would claim that there is too much to go over and he cannot cover it all in the room. Then he'd try to pawn his emails off.

So this mutual friend of ours spoke to him and told him that he would set up a blog where we could debate the topic. After some time the Christadelphian agreed and committed to the debate. The parameters of the debate were set by the moderator. They are as follows:

This is a Four Point Debate

Point 1 is: "The Doctrine of the Trinity-is it or is it not Sound Biblical Doctrine?"

Point 2 is: "The Person or Being of the Father"

Point 3 is: "The Person of the Son"

Point 4 is: "Who or What is the Holy Spirit"

Rules were then discussed between the three of us (the mutual friend is moderating) and agreed upon. Those rules being:

Each person will get two posts for each Point of debate which appears as:

1. Opening Statement (Participant 1)
2. Rebuttal (Participant 2)
3. Reply to Rebuttal (Participant 1)
4. Closing Statement (Participant 2)

We agreed to alternate between points. He began point 1, I began point 2, He will begin point 3, I will begin point 4.

A 1500 word limit was placed upon each post so as not to bore the reader but also to keep things even. And also it was asked that each response be made within 3 days of the other debator posting. In addition, after the argument was posted, no one was allowed to go back and edit it.

Immediately, this guy began with what I felt was a rule violation in that he posted links with extra text. I felt as if this was adding to his argument more than the 1500 words could express. This was taken to the moderator and because we did not specifically exclude the use of links, some ground rules were established. These were:

No more than 4 links per post.
Each link can only show charts, creeds, scripture quotations, or early church father quotes.
The links can not be used to continue an argument past the 1500 word limit.
All proper citations must be included at end of post for any page linked.

So again this guy violated even these rules in that he continued arguments i the links. He also included footnotes to the NET Bible which certainly violated the rules. He quoted me in the links but not in his posts, so that got around the 1500 word limit. Whenever I quoted him it was within the limit of my 1500. After making note of this, the gentleman went back and edited his link pages, which violated another rule, so the moderator decided to discontinue the use of links.

Now that all that has been explained, I can get to the point of this post... Before beginning point 1 he sent me an email asking if the Creeds were my foundation for belief in the Trinity. I said, NO, the Bible is. He then begins to argue that the Trinity is unscriptural based on creeds. I reminded him in my response that the topic was "The Trinity-Is it or is it not Sound BIBLICAL DOCTRINE?" -- His last post to point 1 stayed focused on the creeds. OK, that's his right... To bring in irrelevant information as a point of argument, I have no problem with that as it only shows the strength of my position since my position was not refuted.

Now we move to point 2 which was the "Person or Being of the Father" -- I made my affirmative argument for the deity of the Father (which we both agree upon) but moreso for the Personality of the Father (a point he was taking for granted). The close of my argument dealt with the fact that the Father is only known in relation to the Son. I mean, there is no Father without a Child (i.e. Son). So he responds with the same red herring argument he had used throughout which was the creed thing. He then attributed arguments to me that I had never made, and brought in some more irrelevant data. He began his response by stating that we agreed that the Trinity is not taught in any passage of scripture... To this I objected because clearly we had not agreed on this. He then ended his post with an objection that my argument for the Father being known as the Father based on his having a Son should not be discussed in this post and it should be saved for Point 3! -- Well, how can I present any position on the Father and leave the Son out?

In any event, I replied and responded to all of his arguments, both relevant (which wasn't much) and illogical (which there was too much of). I wasted much of my space refuting his caricatures of my position. Then I received this email a few minutes ago from him asking the moderator to make me change my comments because he doesn't want to have to spend time correcting my misrepresentations of his arguments. My jaw literally dropped! He then proceeded to document what he felt were misrepresentations, but after having read them I was only more resolute in my post. I emailed him back and told him that he could use his 1500 words as he saw fit. He could use them as I did and correct what he feels to be in error, or he can use them as I did and present an affirmative argument which proves his position.

I doubt that he'll choose either option probably opting rather to continue along the same lines that he has been traveling, irrelevant arguments and misdirection. God only knows what he'll do, but one thing is for sure... He won't win the debate if continues in his current direction.

Anyway... If you want to read the debate then check it out here... As with all blogs, start at the bottom and work your way up... Enjoy!

To God be the Glory!!!

Repulsive!

2006-08-19T16:22:00.000-05:00

The other day I was talking to a friend of mine and he made a comment that he believed a good Jew or Muslim can make it to heaven the same as a good Christian could. He then points to Romans 2:11-16 which says:

"For there is no partiality with God. For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus. " (NASB)

So herein lies the dillemma... The passage appear to say that those who naturally do what is good will be judged according to their conscience. OK... That sounds good and I'm sure many would agree with it... But (oh yes, there's a BUT) Paul a chapter later echoes a sentiment that is seen all throughout scripture and that is, "there is none righteous, no NOT ONE!" (Rom. 3:10) Likewise King David said, "there is NO MAN that sinneth not" (1Ki. 8:46). The psalmist asked who would stand if God marked iniquities (Ps. 130:3).

So then the picture is clear... even if we were to allow those who have never heard the gospel entrance into heaven according to their conscience, they will still miss the mark because they have all sinned. This brings me to my next point which makes me literally ill to think about, and that is that a Muslim could enter heaven. Why would such a thought repulse me? Simply because Muslims deny without apology that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, a position condemned by John throughout his first epistle. They also deny the deity of Christ which logically necessitates that Allah, their God, is a false god. To think that an idolator can enter heaven under any circumstances violates too many passages of scripture to even mention.

The last thing is this... If people could inherit the kingdom of heaven apart from Jesus' sacrificial death and substitutionary atonement, then WHY did he have to die? Why did he have to endure such extreme suffering at the hands of wicked men if we could enter eternal life with sin in our beings? Why would the Father subject the only perfect man to ever walk this earth to such a task if it wasn't necessary?

Such thoughts are sickening and bring no honor to our Lord Jesus or his infinite work. The notion is heretical according to scripture and I refuse to accept what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, or what any other so-called believer in Christ says on the subject. I still love my friend and it is my prayer that he will abandon such a grossly misplaced belief, but I will never tolerate such denigrating claims.

On a side note, after my friend made this comment a Roman Catholic began defending it claimign that Allah was the same God as the Christians worship. I demonstrated from accurate and reliable historical sources that this was not so, btu he persisted in his defense. This same man consistently downplays the scriptures and the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which I find interesting. It is interesting that one who claims to be Christian would defend and idol more than they would defend the very Word of God. My opinion of Catholics is rapidly declining!

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." [That name is JESUS!!!] (Acts 4:12)

Denial is More than a River in Egypt

2006-08-18T15:05:00.000-05:00

So I just got done talking to an Orthodox Jewish guy that I speak to regularly. I hesitate to call him a "friend" because I know how he feels about Gentiles in general and more specifically Christians. Nevertheless, we have had some interesting conversations in the past.

Having said that, I would define this as perhaps one of the most fruitless exchanges we have had to date. Let me lay the foundation for you before speaking about this particular conversation. A few weeks ago this guy made a claim to the effect that the New Testament was false and contradicted itself, blah, blah, blah... Same stuff I always hear from Jewish anti-missionaries. So of course in turn I replied that the NT was historically accurate and a reliable doctrine. I told him that if he held the Tanach (Hebrew scriptures) to the same standard that he held the NT to, then he would have to conclude the Tanach was false as well.

This sparked a lengthy email exchange where he made points like he knew the Tanach was true because of the eyewitness testimony of the 5 million+ Jews who were there. When I pointed out that no such testimony exists he claimed that it had been passed to him via tradition from his father, and his father before him, etc... So of course I stated that the NT is based on eyewitness testimony, Matthew, John, James, Peter, Jude and Paul all having been eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ, as well as Luke interviewing eyewitnesses and researching their claims along with traveling alongside Paul. Mark was a companion of Peter so he had direct access to an Apostolic eyewitness.

Well this was not good enough for him because there are people who contradict their testimonies and the testimonies themselves contradict each other. When I pointed out that there are people who contradict his "eyewitness" testimony and that his "eyewitness" testimony contradicts itself (via the Talmud) he simply wrote that off as false. In fact he went so far as to play the ad populum game. Because he allegedly had 5 million eyewitnesses, that trumps my 5 (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul *an error I pointed out in that there were more than 5 eyewitnesses who wrote*). I then pointed out that he really only had 1 eyewitness of the exodus and Sinai in Moses, maybe 2 if we include Joshua. He wrote that off as well.

Certainly he cannot claim eyewitness testimony for the creation, fall of Adam, flood of Noah, birth of Esau and Jacob, etc... seeing as how the nation of Israel that he claims as his 5 million eyewitnesses were not even in existence yet. But he had no problems with this.

Then came the claim that I could not use the textual accuracy and reliability of the NT as a proof that the NT is reliable and true because a text cannot verify itself, (now get this) EXCEPT in RARE CASES! Guess what one of these "rare cases" just happened to be? You got it... the Tanach! He then cites a verse from Leviticus 25 about a man receiving enough grain for three years if he asks in the Sabbatical year what they will eat in the 7th year. He claims that the Torah backs itself into a corner here and proves itself to be true because anyone who asks this question would have been provided for and if they were not then we know the Torah was lying. He then cites an example from the NT about having faith and moving mountains saying that there is no real verification in this because if a person doesn't move a mountain he can always claim to have not had enough faith, therefore there is an "out" as he put it. The problem with this argument which I pointed out to him is that there IS an "out" to the Leviticus passage and that is the condidtion set forth in the verses preceding it (Lev. 25:17-19). Basically obedience was required for God to provide during the Sabbatical year. So if one asks the question and is not provided for than we can always say they were disobedient. Of course he rejected this as well.

Then there were the annoying claims that secular historians didn't agree with the NT. I provided numerous sources that corroborated people and events from the NT. He dismissed these because there are other accounts that disagree with them. I pointed out that there is no secular history to corroborate anything that Moses wrote, none! He dismissed this and said he had eyewitness testimony.

He cited ridiculous mythical claims about Jesus being the son of a Roman soldier and when pointed to Jewish sources that said this was not true he dismissed them as being written by people who didn't know about Judaism. I directed him to the writings of Dr. Michael Brown in his 3 (soon to be 5) volume work, "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus." He claims to own all three but only had read the first 81 pages of the first book before deciding that Dr. Brown was an "idiot" who "knew nothing about Judaism." This is what was a main topic of conversation today although he kept attempting to change the subject.

Anyway, today he claimed that Dr. Brown was an idiot who knew nothing about Judaism. I pointed out that this is demonstrably false seeing that Dr. Brown is a credentialed scholar who holds a PhD from New York University in Near Eastern Languages and Semitics. He is recognized by both his peers and anti-missionaries as a scholar. He is a Jew by birth and well versed in the Rabbinic literature of Orthodox Judaism. This was dismissed and he kept incessantly asking which orthodox rabbi accredited Dr. Brown. I explained to him that scholarship is not determined by orthodox rabbis, but rather by credentialed institutions. His claim was that to be a scholar of Judaism you had to be accredited by a rabbi and those guys at NYU probably didn't know enough about Judaism to accredit him either. So now you see the mentality I was dealing with. To draw an analogy, asking an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi to accredit (and by the way as far as scholarship goes they have no right in and of themselves to give such accredidation) a Messianic Jewish believer is like asking an atheistic science journal to publish an article written by a scientist who holds to a literal 6 day creation. It would never happen! I wonder if he would object if I claimed that unless and Islamic Imam accredited Rabbi Moses Maimonides then he was no scholar of Judaism. Of course he would, but we see the double standard that is being applied here.

He kept insisting that Dr. Brown's arguments were stupid and easily diffused, yet when asked to refute them he could not. In fact he showed no knowledge of any of Dr. Brown's arguments to even hold an opinion about them. He kept insisting that no orthodox rabbi would call Dr. Brown a scholar. I then listed 4 who not only will, but have in the past done so, those being: Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, Rabbi Tovia Singer, Rabbi Dr. David Blumofe, and finally Rabbi Dr. Immanuel Schochet. All four men have debated Dr. Brown in the past and although they disagree with him, they never questioned his credentials. So then because he saw that he was wrong he demanded the locations of these rabbis so he could contact them. Of course I don't know the men personally nor do I have any clue as to where they live. Such a request is ridiculous, but it was made in an attempt to say that if I couldn't provide this info then these men were not real rabbis. Once again, you see the mentality I was dealing with.

The red herrings started and he began asking me what the first commandment in the Bible is claiming that any 6 year Jewish child knows this. I pointed out that it was irrelevant and a red herring so I didn't answer. He then says I don't have enough knowledge about Judaism to know anything about it or challenge him on any issue. Once again ridiculous and illogical. I then asked him if he felt he knew enough about Christianity to challenge me and his reply was that he didn't have to know about Christianity to know that Jesus was a false prophet and not the Messiah. Once again we see the double standard in action...

This is just a small sampling of the illogical and irrational arguments that I had to deal with. There is so much more that I can't cram into a little blog, but I would love to address it all. The bottom line is this... If the Tanach and Talmud were held to the same standard as the NT was then they would be rejected by Jewish anti-missionaries as well.

To be continued...

Morphe (Form)

2006-08-10T21:46:00.000-05:00

Last night I made a comment about the two natures of Christ (i.e. deity & humanity) and someone claimed that the Bible nowhere says that Jesus had two natures. I was shocked at such a statement as this is an essential and fundamental doctrine of the faith. I referred them to Philippians 2:5-7 which states that Jesus exists in the form (morphe) of God and took upon himself the form (morphe) of a servant (i.e. human). After reading the passage this person told me that it didn't mean what I said it meant and I asked them to study the word morphe and then tell me that.

In any event, to help them along I took my time, went through my reference material, and put together a nice little email with various comments from Greek scholars on this particular word. If anyone want to view the email then let me know--it included treatments from Kenneth Wuest, Marvin Vincent, A.T. Robertson, W.E. Vine, Spiros Zodhiates, as well as reference to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament's commentary on the word.

But to my surprise, this was the email I received in return:

1) the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision.

2) external appearance
For Synonyms see entry 5865

morphe {mor-fay'}

Nick. Thank you for the information. I mean no disrespect to you but i find your e mail and the information in it to be very biased toward supporting a view. To me, you and the authors of what you sent are trying very hard to make a doctrine of something that is just not there. A dual nature is just not talked about or intended to be expressed by the passage in Phl 2.

What Paul is saying is very clear and consistent with what is said elsewhere in scripture.

To the vision of Paul and all those who encountered Jesus He appeared as the form of God. What may be known of God is revealed to us thru Jesus. He strikes our vision as having the personality and attributes of God. This is what John was talking about when he said Jesus is the word of God. Gods means of expressing His thoughts and intent to man. The word WAS God. Those same thoughts and intent that was expressed thru Jesus was God. Because the witness of Jesus which was not of Himself was true. Jesus expressed the Father. God.

Verse 7. Same thing apply's. Taking upon him the form of a servant. What he appeared to them to be. What they saw.

The intent of the text is not teaching about the Nature or "Stuff" as you put it the other night. Its simply telling us how Jesus was viewed by them. And also how we are to view Jesus.

I can't believe that he actually accused these scholars of bias and then attempted to trump their work with a definition from Strong's! Well, my question is if Christ was not Divine or Human then what was he? If he wasn't either of these things, then how could he appear to be either of these things to those that saw him? My ultimate question is how can people be so self-deceived? How can people completely disregard all scholarship just to hold to some strange belief? I guess I'll never know...

Ridiculous, simply ridiculous!

Tired of Catholics...

2006-08-08T18:04:00.000-05:00

As of late I have become increasingly annoyed with Roman Catholics and their Eastern Orthodox kinsmen. Being a former Roman Catholic I know a little bit about what they believe concerning the essential doctrines of the faith and I stand opposed to most Protestant claims that Catholicism is a cult and that Catholics have another Jesus and preach a false gospel.

That being said, the more I speak with Catholics (Roman and Eastern) the more I'm starting to believe that something definitely ain't right. The second you disagree with them on anything (and this is not limited to doctrine) they label you an "anti-Catholic" or a "Catholic Basher" -- Yet when asked what exactly "bashing" entails, they give no repsonse (at least I haven't gotten any yet).

Aside from the name calling (which is illogical, ad hominem argumentation) the Catholics I speak with seem to come to a lot of irrelevant conclusions, erect a lot of straw man arguments, and argue emotionally more for the purpose of glorifying their church than glorifying God. For example, I was in the Christian Beliefs chat room earlier and the topic of the canon of scripture came up. Now this one Roman Catholic who I speak with all the time and really can't stand for the above mentioned reasons, began to say that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible... Without the Catholic Church there would be no Word of God, etc... Of course I responded that such a belief was nonsense.

The fact is that God gave us the Bible and scripture has been scripture since the moment it was written. This guy actually claimed that because the apostles didn't know that what they were writing was scripture that it wasn't actually scripture until the Catholic Church decided it was! I couldn't believe it. So I respond with my usual argument which is the fact that the same NT canon that the Catholic Church recognized as inspired was recognized by Athanasius in A.D. 367 which was two to three decades before the Church made any declaration on the subject. He didn't need the Church to tell him what was inspired... In fact, they followed his lead! Although I would add that Athanasius recognized that the deuterocanonical books did not belong in the canon.

Next there is the issue of the councils of Hippo (A.D. 390) and Carthage (A.D. 397) being local councils and not ecumenical, therefore Catholics can't even claim their canon was binding on the entire Church (which obviously it was not since the Eastern Church has a different canon). It wasn't until 1545 at the council of Trent that the Catholic canon was established.

So are we to believe that all the Ante-Nicene Fathers from the first to fourth centuries didn't know what scripture was? Are we to imagine that without the Catholic Church there would have been no Scriptures at all? It seems to me that the Jews did fine without them... In fact they did so well that they never saw the need to add a deuterocanon (second canon) as the Catholics did.

But my real frustration is not so much in the belief of some of these Catholics, so much as it is in the way they argue their points. They constantly appeal to history, yet the history has been seriously revised. They employ anachronism like no other group I have ever seen (Mormons included) claiming that modern Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox understandings of terms must be first and second century Catholic understandings of them. Next is the constant appeals to Popularity and Tradition as if something is true because a lot of people believe it or because it has been believed for a long time. The circular reasoning used by Catholics is also quite irritating, constantly appealing to 2000 year old "Christian beliefs" while only assuming that the first century Church believed these things and never actually proving it. When we examine most of these beliefs in light of scripture they don't hold up.

After having spent many hours of my life speaking with Catholics and debating certain doctrines, e.g. transubstantiation, prayers for the dead, the canon of scripture, etc... I have grown tired. Tired of the attitude that they display toward anyone who is not Catholic... Tired of the revisionist history they present you with and argue as fact... Tired of the lack of humility exhibited by those I speak with... Tired of the ridicule laced comments that they make when debating... Tired of the superiority complex and arrogance possessed by those Catholics who see no need to even examine alternative points of view or their opponents arguments... I'm just tired...

That being said, they ain't all bad. There are some very nice Catholics that I converse with and am able to have intelligent and meaningful dialogues with. We may disagree but we can do it agreeably. In general though I find that Catholics are a big pain in the neck. They're no easier to reason with than Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons (and no, I'm not saying that Catholcism is a cult, but its members do exhibit some cultist behavior).

To be continued...

NIV Archeological Study Bible

2006-08-07T23:37:00.000-05:00

A couple of months ago I ordered this New International Version Archeological Study Bible (published by Zondervan) to fulfill an order requirement that comes with a membership to Crossings (Christian Books & Gifts). Now I certainly was not in need of a another Bible as I have over 20. I didn't need another NIV either because I already have 4 of them. But there was something about this particular NIV. It was the scholarship behind it.

I read that Dr. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. was the editor of the project and this peaked my interest. After having seen him on the John Ankerburg Show debating the topic of creation with the guys from AnswersinGenesis.com, I immediately respected the man. Although I didn't agree with his view of creation (day/age theory) his character spoke volumes and his scholarship was sound. I did an internet search on him and came across this information:

Dr. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. is the Colman M. Mockler distinguished Professor of Old Testament and President of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts. Dr. Kaiser received his A.B. from Wheaton College and a B.D. from Wheaton Graduate School. He has earned both a M.A. and a Ph.D. in Mediterranean studies from Brandeis University. A recipient of the Danforth Teacher Study Grant, Dr. Kaiser is a member of the Wheaton College Scholastic Honor Society.

In any event, I haven't been disappointed with the Bible. There are tons of articles on ancient culture, customs, language, etc... As well as maps, charts, and the like to aid the reader in their understanding of the geography of the Bible. Articles concerning archeological and historical background of the Bible abound.

All in all, this is one of the best Bibles I own. It certainly helps us to understand the scriptures as the original readers would have understood them. This is important in our present age of anachronism. I would highly recommend this Bible to any and all seekers of knowledge concerning the culture of the Bible. I'd give it 10 thumbs up but I only have 2.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that they include a CD-Rom with the NIV text of the Bible as well as photgraphs, charts, and maps that can be found in the Bible. A convenient little bonus.

Purchase the NIV Archeological Study Bible from:

Amazon.com for $31.49

Christianbook.com for $37.99

The Trinity isn't Biblical? -- Really?

2006-08-04T02:13:00.000-05:00

Why do people always say the Trinity isn't Biblical? Granted, the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, but neither is the word "Bible" -- Other important words not found in the Bible are "Monotheism" - "Millennium" - "Rapture" - "Incarnation" - etc... Yet these are all doctrines taught in scripture... So having debunked that objection, why do people claim it isn't Biblical? Can we just chalk it up to their being dead in their sin? Perhaps because they don't have the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth they can't see it. I think that these two options are viable and moreso probable.

Allow me to make a bold statement, and that is that anyone who denies the Trinity is not saved! Yeah, I said it... Anyone who denies the Trinity isn't saved! There, I said it again! Why would I say this? Well the answer is simple... The Trinity is who and what God is... No Trinity, No Salvation... Plain and simple...

The Trinity in Scripture

There is Only One God (Isaiah 44:8)

The Father is God (Malachi 2:10)

The Son is God (Hebrews 1:8)

The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4)

Easy enough, right? Now go ahead and tell me how the Trinity isn't Biblical?

Are Atheists Logical?

2006-08-03T00:58:00.000-05:00

Having just left the chat room, I find myself bewildered by the illogic of atheists. Well, at least the illogic of one particular atheist. He appealed to logic for some reason or another (I can't remember why) and I asked him if he was a theist. He replied that he was not a theist because it is illogical to be one. I asked him which of the first principles of logic were violated by theism. his reponse, "there's no evidence" -- I asked which principle this was and he responded by saying that he had already answered. I continued to ask what principle of logic was violated by theism and his reply was the same, "I answered already, there is no evidence." -- Well, of course I had never heard of the "principle of no evidence" and I then asked what constituted "evidence" being very careful to differentiate between empirical evidence and logical evidence. He didn't seem to grasp that and then told me to go ahead and prove God logically.

Well, I first wanted to establish which type of logic he had appealed to earlier and this is a point he didn't seem to grasp either. He simply said that there were no types, only ways to view logic... Of course he had no clue about Stoic logic as opposed to Aristotelian logic, etc... which are indeed different systems of logic with different focuses. In any event, I began by asking him if he knew the first principles... He was beligerent and demanded that I prove God logically. So I began to do exactly that, but before being able to do that I needed to establish the first principles.

I began with principle of causality, although in retrospect I should have begun with the principle of Existence. In any event, I asked him if he knew what the principle of causality was, he said yes. I asked him to define it and he threw the task back to me. So of course I said, "the principle of causality states that Non-Being cannot produce Being." -- Immediately he told me I was wrong and this was not the principle of causality. I asked him what was and he said that every effect had a cause. I tried to explain how this was the same thing. He said it wasn't and I was redefining terms and arguing illogically. So as you can see we were off to a bad start. His main objection was that the word "being" was not in the dictionary definition of causality. Yet he failed to explain how saying that Non-Being cannot cause Being is not the law of causality...

When asked what logician he knew of that would disagree with my definition he accused me of the fallacy of appealing to an authority. Of course I wasn't doing this, in fact it would be impossible to do such in this case since all logicians are in agreement on the priniple of Causality. For appealing to an authority to be fallacious, one must assert one authority over another when the authorities themselves disagree. Such is not the case with this... But not to draw the story out... I continued with the first principles, such as the principle of Existence, the principle of Contingency, the principle of Existential Causality, the principle of Existential Necessity, etc... All along the way being told that these things do not prove God and are illogical.

So then I mentioned a few arguments i.e. the Cosmological argument and Teleological argument... he told me that they didn't prove God and were illogical... And this after not being able to define the first principles en toto, as well as being told that every definition was illogical and every principle wrong. So what was I to do? He then began to repeat questions that I had answered already... He drew a few false analogies saying that "nature" could fit into each argument where I place God, although I showed him how that argument fails. He then began to argue from silence claiming that just because we don't know of other universes doesn't mean that other universes don't exist and couldn't have produced our universe. I said there is no logical or scientific reason to believe in such universes and he then threw that back to me as an argument against God, yet the whole time I was making logical arguments in favor of theism.

After a while of this he began demanding that I prove God and prove God when he said so... Of course I had been making my arguments all along, although he never let me establish my foundation... I went with it... But once the demands began I told him to stop... He continued... I then made some demands of my own, first demanding that he stop making demands, secondly that he apologize three times to me, and thirdly that he do it in 3 seconds... He did not comply and I used the wonderful ignore feature that AOL offers, but the last post I saw was that I was only ignoring him because I was scared and couldn't prove God logically. Well, the purpose of this post is to show the logical proof of God. I will begin with the first principles and then make the argument based on the first principles.

Being Is (Principle of Existence)
Being is Being (Principle of Identity)
Being is not Non-Being (Principle of Non-Contradiction)
Either Being or Non-Being (Principle of the Excluded Middle)
Non-Being cannot cause Being (Principle of Causality)
Contingent Being cannot cause Contingent Being (Principle of Contingency/Dependancy)
Only Necessary Being can cause Contingent Being (Positive Principle of Modality)
Necessary Being cannot cause Necessary Being (Negative Principle of Modality)
Every Contingent Being is caused by a Necessary Being (Principle of Existential Causality)
Necessary being exists (Principle of Existential Necessity)
Contingent Being exists (Principle of Existential Contingency)
Necessary Being is similar to similar Contingent Being(s) it causes (Principle of Analogy)

OK... Now for the logical argument for the existence of God based on the first principles of rational thought.

Something exists (e.g. I do).
I am a contingent being.
Nothing cannot cause something.
Only a Necessary Being can cause a contingent being.
Therefore I am caused to exist by a Necessary Being.
But I am a personal, rational, and moral kind of being (since I engage in these types of activities).
Therefore this Necessary Being must be a personal, rational, and moral kind of being since I am similar to him by the Principle of Analogy.
But a Necessary Being cannot be contingent in its being which would be a contradiction.
Therefore this Necessary Being is personal, rational, moral in a necessary way, not in a contingent way.
This Necessary Being is also eternal, uncaused, unchanging, unlimited, and one, since a Necessary Being cannot come to be, be caused by another, undergo change, be limited by any possibility of what it could be (a Necessary Being has no possibility to be other than it is), or to be more than one Being, (since there cannot be two infinite beings).
Therefore, one necessary, eternal, uncaused, unlimited (= infinite), rational, personal, and moral Being exists.
Such a Being is appropriately called "God" in the theistic sense, because he possesses all the essential characteristics of a theistic God.
Therefore the theistic God exists.

Definitions of First Principles and Demonstration of God's Existence were taken from the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, By Dr. Norman L. Geisler (p. 250-53).

Mormons Deceptively Quote Others...

2006-08-01T23:40:00.000-05:00

Anyone who has ever read anything on Mormon apologetic websites (e.g. FAIR or FARMS) has no doubt heard the constant ranting over anti-Mormons and their out of context quotes of Mormon authors, teaching, etc... And to be honest it gets very annoying... I mean just get over it... Some people don't agree with unscriptural doctrines... No need to call them anti-Mormon (at least not in the derogatory manner they use it)... Anyway...

Recently is while doing research for the book I'm writing on the Trinity I came across a paper written by Larry Hurtado who is a scholar that teaches at the Univeristy of Edinburg School of Divinity... The basis of the paper was first century Jewish monotheism and the basic premise and conclusion was that Jews could still lay claim to the title monotheist while believing in a hierarchy of divine beings... Basically the conclusion was that belief in other divine beings like angels in no way hindered their monotheism because these other beings are not essentially gods... You can read the paper for yourself by clicking here...

I also came across two papers written by Mormon apologist Barry R. Bickmore in which he quotes Dr. Hurtado in support of his polytheistic position... He represents Hurtados works as proof of polytheism within the ranks of Judaism and that belief in One and only One God was never a Biblical or Jewish belief... Of course I was alarmed by such a shocking misrepresentation, although not surprised... But to be sure I contacted Dr. Hurtado to clear the entire thing up and see where he stands on the subject... I mean I didn't want to be the one misrepresenting Hurtado's works... So I had to test all things and see if they are true (1Thes. 5:21)...

This was the response I received after asking the question:

Professor Hurtado,

I wanted to know if you would support the conclusions drawn by this author and encourage his further use of your writings, or reject the conclusions and discourage the use of your works. I thank you for your response and help concerning this question.

Nick,

I have no knowledge of the Mormon author of whom you write. I have no interest in being used in such a way, but it is not possible to govern what readers make of your publications. I am surprised thatMormons think that my works support their theology, as to my mind I see what I've done as showing why the questions dealt with at Nicea were unavoidable!

LWH

So my suspicions were confirmed and another Mormon apologist was guilty of a crime that Mormons are so famous for accusing others of! Thank God that there are serious scholars out there who are not too busy to stand by their beliefs and answer our questions concerning them. Dr. Hurtado is greatly appreciated for taking the time to do so.

Skepticism... What's the Point?

2006-07-30T23:33:00.000-05:00

Recently I had a dialogue with a skeptic in the Christian Beliefs chat room on AOL. It basically went like they all go... He denied the reliability of the Bible, specifically the New Testament, and I provided supporting evidence for my belief in its reliability. And the result was nothing more than an apparent waste of time on my part. I know that I planted seeds, and I pray another will come along and water them... But in the end it is God and God alone who provides the increase as John 6:44 says that no man comes to Jesus unless drawn by the Father.

But at this point I wanted to just highlight the tactics of the majority of uneducated skeptics (and by this I mean skeptics who are not scholars, i.e. don't hold doctorates and spend the time actually studying and publishing on these issues).

1. The skeptic will never accept the New Testament on its textual merit. In other words, forget that we know without a doubt that we have an accurate account of what the original New Testament writers wrote (and we base this on over 25,000 supporting manuscripts over a number of centuries, in Greek, Latin, Syriac, etc...).

2. The skeptic will never except fulfilled prophecy as a proof, claiming that the prophecies were written after they were fulfilled (even when overwhelming proof to the contrary can be demonstrated).

3. The skeptic will always demand secular history corroborating the New Testament accounts (yet when provided with such they scream that these testimonies are invalid because they are not contemoporary, even when some of them are!).

4. The skeptic will deny all archeological evidence presented even when scholars do not.

5. The skeptic will constantly appeal to authorities while never actually naming any authorities who agree with them (e.g. 'virtually all scholars are in agreement that the NT is a mythical religious document') -- problem being, scholars don't believe this.

6. The skeptic will consistently resort to illogic (e.g. arguing that miracles cannot be proven when the actual argument is the reliability of the NT, which would be a straw man argument)

7. Last but not least (and there are certainly more than 7 points) the skeptic will resort to utter denial. No matter how much historical, archeological, prophetic, textual, scientific, logical, etc... evidence is presented, they will just deny that you have made any argument at all, laugh it off and proceed to mock the God-Breathed scriptures...

This encounter led me to begin writing a mock dialogue which will mirror the one I had with this particular skeptic. The only reason I didn't just post the actual dialogue was because I did not have Power Tools for AOL loaded which allows me to save the entire chat room log. But all the arguments in this mock dialogue will be the same ones I encountered the other night... A link will be posted soon.

May God bless you ALL!!!

B"H

Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

I'm Blogging at Wordpress Now

When Will They Learn?

I had to go back, I just had to!

What is 'Real' Music?

Observation

Problem Fixed

Sorry Commentators

A Quick Word on Mercy/Love vs. Justice

Does it Matter?

Judaism, Incarnation, and Original Sin

Relics of Faith: The Bible and Prayer Cloths

Fideism Hard at Work

Paul Washer -- Hard Preaching

60 Questions on the Godhead (51-60)

60 Questions on the Godhead (41-50)

60 Questions on the Godhead (31-40)

60 Questions on the Godhead (26-30)

60 Questions on the Godhead (21-25)

Tail Tucking & Childish Taunts

60 Questions on the Godhead (16-20)

60 Questions on the Godhead (11-15)

60 Questions on the Godhead (6-10)

60 Questions on the Godhead (1-5)

Feel Good Prophets and The Bumper Sticker Gospel

Bible Study Tips

Moses Flores vs. Ben Rosado on the Papacy

Paganism Shmaganism

Papacy Defended? Part 2

Peter, Paul, and Irenaeus?

Gnrhead Responds

The Bible or Christ Crucified?

Reality Check

Low Views of Scripture

An Upset of Fatih

My Problem with Presuppositional Apologetics

Papacy Defended?

Hindu Trinity? Quick Facts on the Trimurti

Moses Flores vs. Ben Rosado -- Sola Scriptura Debate, Pt. 2

My Disappointment with Chat Room Skeptics

Moses Flores vs. Ben Rosado -- Sola Scriptura Debate

Gene Cook Strikes Again... or umm... Gets struck...

Why did the Chicken Cross the Road?

Unitarian Debate

Open Challenge

Not a 'Holy' Kiss...

Not Again!

Gene Cook debates the Trinity with David K. Bernard

Intellectual Honesty

Note to All Catholics

Superman Returns -- Nov. 28th

Oh No... Here We Go Again...

Why Waste My Time?

Final Thoughts on Morey's Book...

When will they learn?

Original Sin/Pelagianism

My Debate on TULIP

A Few Thoughts on Robert Morey's, "The Trinity: Evidence & Issues"

It's Official...

**Sigh**

Wow! Did this guy really say that?

Repulsive!

Denial is More than a River in Egypt

Morphe (Form)

Tired of Catholics...

NIV Archeological Study Bible

The Trinity isn't Biblical? -- Really?

Are Atheists Logical?

Mormons Deceptively Quote Others...

Skepticism... What's the Point?

Sigh