Archive for February, 2013

Rick Kelly

I enjoy reading this blog by a guy who goes by the handle “Wintery Knight.”  A few days ago WinteryKnight posted a lecture by Jerry Walls rejecting Calvinism. That post produced many comments.  In the past our blog experienced similar dialogues concerning Calvinism though at a smaller scale (see for instance the comment section of this post).  Overall the comments at Wintery Knight were cordial.  From a quick scan, I thought the most problematic comment was by an individual who went by the name “TMD” which I produce in full below :

Calvinists delude themselves into thinking that they have Scripturally-derived beliefs, when in fact, they are guilty of the exact same type of atomistic prooftexting that is often used to show Jews that Jesus is Messiah.

One can use this method to prove almost anything. Open theism can be proven no less effectively through this method:http://openviewtheology.com/95_verses.html

Calvinists might respond that there are responses to these verses. Sure, but the Arminian, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox responses to Calvinist prooftexting are no worse. The different parties are in exactly the same boat, but the Calvinists are in denial of this.

Our interpretation of Scripture must be shaped by outside factors, such as archaeology. The population size of ancient Egypt, for example, was so small that we cannot rationally hold to a literal interpretation of the numbers of people in the book of Numbers. Archaeology MUST take precedence over philology.

As Angus Menuge has demonstrated (along with Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga) it is logically impossible for any deterministic entity to reason. Therefore, any argument for determinism, including a Biblical argument, is self-refuting. The job of the exegete will then be to interpret Scripture in such a way that is consistent with the undeniability of libertarian free will. To do otherwise is like trying to prooftext that pi=3. It it futile to try.

I wish to offer some quick thoughts concerning the commentator’s reasoning rather than a defense of Calvinism per se.  In the past I have seen how some Calvinists are quick to offer a positive presentation of Calvinism but if the hearer’s hermeneutics and methodological commitments rule out the Calvinist’s Scriptural presentation ahead of time while remaining deeply flawed then it might be more fruitful to evaluate and tackle these pre-commitments head on first.  Have a metaphorical knock out.  Hopefully without the result of TMD (google it).

Let’s take a closer look at the comment.

“Calvinists delude themselves into thinking that they have Scripturally-derived beliefs, when in fact, they are guilty of the exact same type of atomistic prooftexting that is often used to show Jews that Jesus is Messiah.  One can use this method to prove almost anything.  Open theism can be proven no less effectively through this method:http://openviewtheology.com/95_verses.html  Calvinists might respond that there are responses to these verses. Sure, but the Arminian, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox responses to Calvinist prooftexting are no worse. The different parties are in exactly the same boat, but the Calvinists are in denial of this.”

Problem 1:  Note the first sentence makes claims that Calvinists “delude themselves,” and are guilty of “atomistic prooftexting.”  While he asserts this, he has not demonstrated that Calvinists have deluded themselves or are “atomistic” in their approach to Scripture.

Problem 2: To say that there are other interpretations besides the Calvinistic conclusion is no refutation of Calvinistic use of selected passages.

Problem 3: There is also the assertion that the Arminians, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox response to Calvinistic proof-texting are “in exactly the same boat” with the Calvinists.  This is also not demonstrated.

Problem 4: To just assert that Calvinists are in denial that they are proof texting neither prove Calvinists have committed proof texting nor does this refute Calvinism.

Our interpretation of Scripture must be shaped by outside factors, such as archaeology.The population size of ancient Egypt, for example, was so small that we cannot rationally hold to a literal interpretation of the numbers of people in the book of Numbers. Archaeology MUST take precedence over philology.

Problem 5: “Our interpretation of Scripture must be shaped by outside factors, such as archaeology…” but I would add that we must also take into account the degrees of certainty of each extra-biblical data being used.  The lower the certainty that the discovered data is true, the more cautious one should be in allowing these external data to shape our interpretation of Scripture.

Problem 6: While allowing room for archaeological contribution in our hermeneutics and exegesis, one must also realize the limitation of outside sources since things such as archaeological data are interpreted, partially complete and fallible.

Problem 7: Ironically, TMD’s previous rhetoric rejecting Calvinism on the basis that there’s “proof texting” being committed can be turned against his stance that archaeological data should drive one’s interpretation of Scripture:  Since all archaeological factoid is “decontextualized” to a certain degree despite the best effort of archaeologists, it is inevitable that archaeologists have a factoid that is isolated from it’s total context, and thus there is a level of proof text going on to a certain degree.

Problem 8: Per problem 7, wouldn’t Scripture being true also help situate archaeological finds and give them a “fuller” context?  Rather than it being a one way street, Scripture helps one from “proof texting” archaological data.  And since the nature of Scripture is both (1) propositional in form, that is revealing truth directly and (2) as God’s Word is always true, it seems the inter-relationship between archaeology and the Bible is not equal in their inter-dependence and authority.

Problem 9: Per Problem 7, it must be legitimately questioned whether “archaeology MUST take precedence over philology.”  Especially since philology involves language, being the actual medium directly used to convey information in the Scriptures, there must be a greater priority for philology and all things pertaining to languages in one’s heremeneutical hierarchy in order to establish authorial intent.

Problem 10: Per Problems 6, 7, 8 and 9, TMD’s example against “a literal interpretation of the numbers of people in the book of Numbers” does not follow.

As Angus Menuge has demonstrated (along with Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga) it is logically impossible for any deterministic entity to reason. Therefore, any argument for determinism, including a Biblical argument, is self-refuting. The job of the exegete will then be to interpret Scripture in such a way that is consistent with the undeniability of libertarian free will. To do otherwise is like trying to prooftext that pi=3. It it futile to try.

Problem 11:  “The job of the exegete will then be to interpret Scripture in such a way that is consistent with the undeniability of libertarian free will.”  But I will contend that it still needs to be demonstrated that LFW exists rather than a given.

Problem 12: Per 11, to assume LFW as a hermeneutical priority in reading the text makes one suspectible to proof texting, especially if it’s not a given that Scripture teaches LFW.

Problem 13: No demonstration is given of how a Biblical argument against LFW is self-refuting.

Problem 14: Angus Menuge paper titled “Libertarian Free Will and the Argument from Reason” acknowledges, “However,being controlled isn’t the problem: what matter is what controls you: you are free so long as your will is governed by the right (rational) causes.”  Then he went on to argue against Compatibalism (a view many Calvinist hold) by refuting something that is not compatiablism (thus commiting a straw man fallacy) on the basis that reasoning presupposes responsibility and without coercion against their will.  Compatibalism holds to both tenets.

Read Full Post »


Not too recently, a scandal concerning Tim Tebow who made arrangements to speak on April 28, 2013 at the big 11,000-member First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas (formerly pastored by the well-known expository preacher W.A. Criswell).  That church is now being pastored by Pastor Robert Jeffress (disclaimer: I do not know every thing about Pastor Jeffress’ view on Catholicism, but I just watched a video and heard him say that the “Pope is a Christian man.”  That is a big concern to me and seems like a compromise on his part.  Therefore I cannot give a public endorsement to him.  I wonder what W.A. Criswell would say if he heard that).  For some reason, the media found out about the church where Teabow will be speaking at.  They did their research and found out that the church is not suitable to their relativistic cultural taste.  And guess what? They did not like it because their cultural standards are being pricked on because Pastor Jeffress messages appear to be intolerant of others.  Gregg Doyel, a national columnist critisized Tebow by saying,

Agreeing to speak at intolerant church is Teabow’s greatest sin” (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/21726884/agreeing-to-speak-at-intolerant-church-is-tebows-greatest-sin).

While the criticism of Tebow continued, Tebow during that time, changed his mind about speaking at First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas.  People are speculating that Tebow’s refusal to speak at the church is due to the media’s negative caricature of Pastor Jeffress’ message against sin (i.e. homosexuality, Islam, Mormonism, etc.).  Tebow also commented in his Twitter during this scandal by saying,

While I was looking forward to sharing a message of hope and Christ’s unconditional love with the faithful members of the historic… First Baptist Church of Dallas in April, due to new information that has been brought to my attention, I have decided to cancel my …upcoming appearance. I will continue to use the platform God has blessed me with to bring Faith, Hope and Love to all those…

By implication, “it appears” Tebow stepped down from the anticpated event to speak at the church because his PR or market value maybe marred.  It has also been said that Tebow may speak at the church in the future, but that is still yet to be revealed.  What do you guys think?  Is this Tebow’s greatest fumble, as Dr. Albert Mohler puts it?  May we pray for Tebow and may we learn from this scandal because soon, as Dr. Mohler said:

Soon, the ball will be thrown to each of us.”

If it is true that Tebow declined to speak at First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas  because his image maybe tarred, then I do believe it will “probably” be Tebow’s “greatest fumble.”  But will depend on what his reasons are.  If I had the opportunity to speak to him, I would encourage this brother to not succumb to the pressure of the standards of the culture that are based on relativism.  I would exhort him to live all out for God’s glory and not worry about what the world says but worry about what God’s Word says.  Living a godly life will bring persecution.  1 Timothy 3:12 says, “Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (NASB).

Until then, I will look forward to see whether Tim Tebow will bounce back from this issue and I hope that the perceived fumble will be recovered. Also, it is difficult to know what is going on in Tebow’s mind.  It could very well be that he decided not to go because this pastor “seemed” to compromise on the biblical view on Catholicism.  But that is my logical guess.  So perhaps the greatest fumble could be on Pastor Jeffress when he stated that the pope is a Christian man; and saying that “there will be millions of Catholics who are going to be in heaven because of their faith in Christ.”

Here are some good links to follow concerning this issue:

1) Dr. Jeffress Responds to Tebow Controversy.  Here are videos concerning Dr. Jeffress’ rebuttal against the media’s unbiblical views.

2) Message 2, Feet Firmly Planted in Midair. “Most students entering college today believe that truth is relative, that what is true for you may not be true for me. In this message, Dr. Steven Lawson looks at the influence relativism has had on our culture and explores the consequences. He will explain the absurd and self-defeating nature of relativism and remind us of God’s call to stand for the unchanging absolute truth of His Word.”

3) Tebow’s Big Fumble.  This is an article by Dr. Albert Mohler, from Christianity Today, concerning Tim Tebow’s refusal to speak at Pastor Jeffress’ church.

Read Full Post »

Rosary and Bible

On February 14, my friend posted this on her Facebook wall.  Her purpose was not to pick a fight.  But here is the background- she is surrounded with many unbelievers during her weekdays most of time.  In her environment, she gets confronted with many different types of topics.  One of them had to do with Catholicism.   Because she is concerned for many who are lost in their sins, she wanted to voice her concerns about the lost.  Here is what she posted:

CATHOLICISM vs. CHRISTIANITY: To friends who has voiced their opinions about whether or not a true Catholics are “saved”. Here, I pulled out from the Catechism of the Catholic church. If you don’t believe in this, you’re not a Catholic. Here the link: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2E.HTM

Here is the explanation:

977: This teaches that water baptism by the Roman Catholic Church is necessary for forgiveness of sins.

978: This teaches that when one receives baptism, all their sins are removed – perfection is accomplished. It also teaches that the Catholic is now sinless and given the task to try to live a good enough life for God.

979: This teaches that not only baptism is necessary for salvation, but the Roman Catholic Church is necessary for the remission of sins committed after baptism.

980: This teaches that Penance – human works that supposedly offset your sins against God – is necessary for salvation.

Conclusion: So just from this section alone, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that for salvation a person must…

Believe in Jesus Christ + be baptized by the Roman Catholic Church + have the Roman Catholic declare that their sins are forgiven + the acts of penance

This is in no way salvation through faith in Jesus Christ alone. It is the work of Christ on the cross plus numerous, legalistic works imposed by the Roman Catholic Church. This is what the letter of Galatians warns against.”

It did not take to long to get responses back.  I had a few comments from my own end too.  I will not be quoting every comment for the sake of the length of this post.  And just as a footnote, whenever you see this: “[my friend]” that is a substitute for my friend’s real name out of respect.  But here are some of the comments from the responders who are either Catholics, professing Christians who think Catholics are Christians, and Christians who do not believe true Catholics are Christians:

Zach: [My friend] you are beating a dead horse.

EvangelZ: Do you subscribe that salvation is by Faith alone?

Matthew: Yes. But that’s beside the point.

Many Reformed people argue that Arminianism and Catholicism are essentially the same when it comes to salvation, because if faith is not gift of God’s grace, or is a gift that can be refused, then salvation does really come down to works in Arminian theology as well.

I would also like to note that Catholic theology strongly affirms that salvation and faith are gifts of God’s grace. The issue where we differ is how that gift of salvation is received; and honestly, when it comes down to it, the difference is more linguistic than many are willing to admit.

EvangelZ:  Please quote the source and please define your understanding of God’s grace from Scripture.

Matthew:  I’m not really interested in getting into an exegetical debate here. I’m simply challenging [my friend’s name will be unknown out of respect] consistency on this issue, so I’ll wait for her response.

*Matthew thinks my friend is inconsistent because Matthew thinks that if we label Catholics as not being Christians, then we must label Arminians as non-Christians too.  That is why he is challenging my friend’s consistency on this issue.  Clearly, Matthew has a distorted view because many Arminians believe in that salvation is by Faith alone, not faith + plus works, as the Catechism puts it.

Katie Hurd: Who are you to say who is and who is not a Christian? Isn’t “God” supposed to decide those things on “judgement day”?

Ellen: It’s good you are using the Vatican website but the “explanations” are not accurate. For example the very first doesn’t even mention water. We believe there is more than one kind of baptism. Again all of you who think you know our beliefs and you believe we are going against God talk to practicing Catholics in person.

EvangelZ: Matthew, what are your thoughts on the Catholic Church? Do you believe they are Christians? If so, please state your reason.

Matthew: They are Christians. They believe in Jesus Christ; that he is one person with two natures; that he is the second Person of the Trinity; that he lived, died, and rose for us and our salvation; that we can be saved only through faith in him; that he is coming again in glory to judge the living and the dead.

There are many things wrong with the Roman Catholic Church in my opinion; that doesn’t mean that it’s not a Christian church.

[My friend]: Just got home from the movies. Sorry for a late reply. Matthew, I do believe that bad theology can send you to Hell, especially the ones that involve salvation. I am going to trust what the Bible says about salvation, that is, repentance and faith in Christ alone.

You asked whether or not I believe Arminians are Christians. I have to tell you it is a case by case examination. In the case of the Catholics, I don’t understand why you are defending the validity of their faith. I presented to you the Vatican above showing their understanding of salvation- Saved, in part, by good works. It doesn’t match up with what the Bible say salvation is. And if you believe the Bible is THE Word of God and nothing else is, you have to take how the Bible qualifies as salvation, and not how you think salvation should be.

The Catholics tell about us who they are in black and white on paper. I am using that as my evidence against them.

I do have a couple questions for you: Do you have any case from the Bible that proves your point of salvation is saved in part and finished off by human works added on? What about the idea of being able to pay for your own sins by punishing yourself?

[My friend]: Ellen, a practicing Catholic must have read the Vatican, right? That is what they profess that they are. And if that is what they profess they are, then the Bible is clear that they are not saved. Not saying you aren’t. When I do the side-by-side comparison, the list of necessity of salvation clearly does not match. Penance, purgatory, and so forth..

Ellen: Again [my friend] the “summaries/explanations” you providers of the little paragraphs in the Vatican are not true. Just read it as it is and things like purgatory talk to a few well knowledgable practicing Catholics. These little explanations are mostly assumptions.

I alone am no going to be able to offend every attack you have on our Christian faith and I don’t want to keep trying forever. So you and you other guys need to go talk to at least a few different REAL Catholics in person. Attacking our religion by things you will not understand by Protestant biases will lead you and others no where. Talk to those in a local Catholic Church community before you carry on further.

[My friend]: Okay, Ellen. I am reading the Vatican by itself: “This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism,….”

Ellen:  Yes. Penance for us is usually prayer and reflection. From my understanding that is how we believe we can show remorse for our sins and to keep us sinning in the future. Jesus opened this possibility for us, but we must still be responsible for the times we have offended God. Once we confess to a priest by the power of the Holy Spirit (which was given to us by Christ) our sins are completely washed away. But like I said please talk to other practicing Catholics as well because I do not know everything.

Christine Rios: This is absurd. I’m catholic and proud. I’m sorry [my friend] I can’t support this and I’m going to have to remove you from my friends list.

EvangelZ: Matthew, if you read [my friend’s] earlier post of what Catholicism believes concerning salvation, it would be a categorical fallacy to say Catholics who believe in the teachings of Rome are Christians. You seem to subscribe to a theory of coherence concerning Catholics that does not correspond to divine revelation (66 books). Therefore, your statement that Catholics are Christians is not coherent. Please explain their teachings concerning salvation accurately. Otherwise, I will consider it as a sweeping generalization on your part.

Matthew Neal: Well I guess my definition of Christian and yours are clearly not the same. I stated above what I believe (and what historically has been defined) to be the core of the Christian faith; if you want to believe that no one before 1517 was a Christian then I have nothing else to say, other than to note the fact that both Luther and Calvin used the term “Christian” in reference to the Roman Catholic faithful.

Peace out.

[My friend]: But isn’t Luther the one that nailed the 95 thesis against the Roman Catholic Church?

EvangelZ: Matthew, please quote the source where Luther and Calvin would consider a Roman Catholic that subscribes to works righteousness and Tradition (as being over and equal to sola Scriptura), as being Christians.

Ellen Kemper: Seriously you guys are missing the big picture. Catholics believe in Christ and are Christians. ANYONE who believes in Christ and follows the commandments are Christians. Why try to pervert someone’s genuine belief and love for God by saying they are not truly loving and following Christ when they themself KNOW they are. So much time is wasted with argument of what someone THINKS when real focus should be on what someone DOES. If you could talk to Mother Teresa face to face right now would you really tell her to stop being Catholic because she is not following Christ? What are you trying to accomplish here?

The most important is that we LOVE God with everything and that we love our neighbors as ourself. This is exactly what Jesus taught us. Why not focus on this.. Looking at what we have in common rather than our differences in showing God our love for Him and His creation. It’s pointless to “predict” who is saved and who is not because that is God’s decision and God’s decision alone. We do not save others, God does. Our job is to love one another, and by our love we will glorify God. It doesn’t matter what language someone speaks, how much I.Q. they have, or even how many bible verses they can memorize. What matters is that they truly love God and others as them self. This is what Jesus Christ taught us, and this is what it means to be a Christian. Do not criticize what you do not understand.

Also I just want to say I was extremely blessed to be raised Catholic from birth. I grew up in traumatizing and confusing situations at home, more than anyone should have to go through.

But my religion saved me because at a young age it taught me about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. It convinced me and still does that there is life after death. It gave me a mother (our blessed Mother) who was trustworthy and brought me peace when my mom in the world couldn’t. It taught me about other people in history (saints) who had been incredibly blessed with Gods strength in their own personal ways and gave me something to relate to. It gave me much needed faith in a guardian angel when I was young. It taught me that “Jesus is always with us”. I can honestly say it made me survive.. If I wasn’t raised with this I could have ended up a crazy homeless lady addicted to drugs. I am so grateful to my religious educators and my family. And I will forever defend my faith. So if you want to keep driving people away from the original and unified church of Christ be my guest, but you are sadly mistaken and doing more harm than good.

[My friend]

Ellen, we try because we know to path to Heaven is very narrow. We try because we love you. This sounds cheesy, but it is not. Satan is out there getting every soul he can to go down with him. I am not driving anyone away; they are already away. There is one road to Heaven, and that road is through the life, ALONE the death, and the resurrection of Christ ALONE.

Here is where you and I differ, Ellen: Where the Bible describes salvation begins and ends in Christ ALONE, you say salvation begins in Christ and ends with human righteousness.

You help me prove my own point. You said, “Once we confess to a priest by the power of the Holy Spirit (which was given to us by Christ) our sins are completely washed away.” What if I die on the way to church and haven’t gotten the chance to confess?

You religion pays for the sins PRIOR to conversion and leave YOU to pay for your own sins after conversion via penance and purgatory. My Jesus pays for my sins once and for all, before/during/after conversion. My record of sin is empty. It doesn’t mean I don’t fall short as a human, but it means that I am relaying on Him and not myself for my deliverance when I die.

I never once said that you have to have a great IQ to be a follower of Christ. But I did say that you have to rely on Christ and Christ alone for your salvation.

I am going to go video type a priest and let him tell you that the Catholic Church believes in the necessity of penance and purgatory for salvation. I don’t do this to spike you; I do this because I love you.

As you can see this debate will never end.  It has been going on for ages.  But what is sad is that many who profess to be part of the Protestant camp or profess to be Bible believers, are saying that Catholics are Christians.  But a true Catholic who subscribes to the teachings of the Catechism as mentioned above are not Christians because it is not a true salvation based through God’s grace through faith alone (Eph. 2:8).

Not too long ago, The Domain for Truth wrote some articles on Catholicism.  For more information, please see these links:

Observations from Irenaeus’ Against Heresy Book Three Chapters 2-4 in light of the argument that it is against Sola Scriptura

Sola Scriptura Versus Sola Ecclesia: Introduction

Sola Scriptura Versus Sola Ecclesia: Part II

Sola Scriptura Versus Sola Ecclesia: Part IIISola Scriptura Verses Sola Ecclesia: Part IV

For some other great articles on this subject, please see these links:

Can you be saved and still be Roman Catholic?

Catholic Christians – is this an oxymoron?

For those, reading this blog, please feel free to share your comments.

Read Full Post »

These are tips on Open Air Preaching for Christian evangelism by Tony Miano.  Practical wisdom especially the ones concerning law enforcement.  Tony Miano should know–he’s a former Sheriff’s Deputy himself.


Read Full Post »


Some more links on Presuppositional apologetics on the World Wide web.  Are there other links you can share?  I do want to know!

1.) Exchanging Truth for a Lie— Ben Holloway puts atheism in perspective in light of Romans 1.

2.) Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended – A Review— Fred Butler’s review of Greg Bahnsen’s book.

3.) Intellectual Sense,”Giving Reasons,” and the Christian Worldview— Joseph Torres quotes Van Til and cites Bahnsen’s explanation.

4.) Defining Skepticism— Ben Holloway looks at Shermer’s assumption in defining skepticism.


5.) Apologetics: The Fruit of Faith–An essay over at Reformed Forum explaining Bavinck’s theme that apologetics is the fruit and not the root of faith.  Good read.

6.) Proof and Presuasion— A Presuppositionalist’s look at Cold Case apologist J. Warner Wallace’s distinction between evidence and proofs.

7.) Van Tilian Old Calendarists— Steve Hays critiques of a previous article I shared last time by Nate Shannon, which critiques James Anderson and Greg Welty.

Read Full Post »

Aquinas for Armchair

Purchase: Amazon

This is the second book I read from the series of books “for Armchair Theologians.” I’m beginning to doubt these books are for armchair theologians. For this series, the editors picked a professor of religion at Georgia State University. In the beginning of the book the author reveal his interests for Aquinas through his professors in his graduate studies at Princeton University. The first chapter was a good and concise biography of Aquinas, and I learned that Aquinas was actually a name of the city where Thomas was from. Good trivial fact I suppose. I also appreciated the author’s frankness that reading Aquinas at times could be a little dry which leads to his attempt to explain thing simply while also trying to make the book a fun read. However, at times I thought his humor was distracting, especially when it’s inappropriate such as sexual innuendos. Much of the book was a discussion of Aquinas’ ideas, and I really enjoyed the chapter on just wars and the ethical issues of double effects.  But I also wondered why the book’s chapter on the problem of evil and free will has no consideration of Aquinas’ view of predestination. I see this as a serious omission. The book does talk a lot about Aquinas’ contribution for our society today especially with Natural Law theory. Personally I am rather reluctant with the concept itself though I haven’t fully rule it out. My caution is because I believe God’s revealed Word is the foundation for ethics and morality, though I do believe non-Christians also knows what is right and wrong (though it can be suppressed). Natural law theology in history is often an appeal for the status quo for various things including injustices and evil. My concern for people’s appeal to ‘natural law’ for sins can be seen in this book itself: the author tries to present a case for homosexuality on the basis of natural law–though I think the project to defend homosexuality on Aquinas’ paradigm is doom from the start if Scripture itself goes contrary to it. Moreover, the author’s argument in favor of homosexuality (the premises being, the goal of sex is intent on reproduction, homosexual relations does not seem likely but they do it out of a faith of a miracle that it would happen, therefore homosexual relations is a good thing because it shows incredible faith) is quite problematic on it’s own ground if one realizes that one could use the same line of reasoning to defend underage sexual relationship, etc. I would not recommend this book.

Read Full Post »

James White

Two days ago I analyzed a frequent Muslim apologist’s argument that the Bible predicted the coming of Muhammad.  I thought it was timely that James White, a Christian apologists who the last few years have spent a lot of time and effort in researching, lecturing and debating on Islam, recently delivered a talk at Reformed Theological Seminary on the topic of why Muslims reject the Gospel.  I am encouraged to see an apologist who has the combination of original language exegetical skills, Presuppositional apologetics and Reformed theology addressing the cults and now Islam.

His book on Islam is coming out sometime this year.

Yesterday, EvangelZ also posted a book review on Piper’s response to the New Perspective on Paul.  James White earlier this month has also debated N.T. Wright, the audio which is made available here.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »