Archive for July, 2013

Is God anti-gay

Purchase: Westminster | Amazon


So much ink has been spilled concerning the topic of homosexuality, both for and against, and you might ask, “Why another book?”  What makes this one different?  I would say if one has to read only one book on this subject from a Christian perspective this would be it since the beauty of this book is its balance, simplicity, brevity, clarity, honesty and the author pastoral heart.

Right off the bat, the book opens up with a personal introduction from the author’s own life—and his struggle with homosexual desires at a young age.  Immediately I realized that this book isn’t just ABOUT homosexuals but also TO any possible homosexual readers.  That’s an important angle!  This book is gospel centered and not just a special condemnation of homosexuals.  For instance, he writes on page 8, “God’s message for gay people is the same as his message for everyone.  Repent and believe.”  Readers will discover that Sam Allberry makes an important distinction between “homosexuals” and those with same sex attractions (what he calls SSA for short).  I agree with Allberry’s rationale: He does not wish to ground his whole identity in his sexual struggle.  Having counsel people as a pastor myself, I see this is a crucial point for Christians to understand, that no matter what sexual sins one struggle with, a believer must ground their identity in Christ and that relationship and union with Christ is now what defines them rather than their pet sin.  What amazed me was how Allberry was able cover this within the first few pages into the book.

Allberry’s work is not just a collection of biblical proof texts that homosexuality is a sin though he does have a chapter on the Bible’s view of homosexuality. While a biblical view of homosexuality is foundational to the discussion, given that the book is written in mind for those who struggle with SSA and also the Church, Allberry moves beyond the thesis that homosexuality is a sin.  He has a practical and biblical perspective for those who choose to be single as a way of being obedient to Jesus.  There’s a chapter on the Church’s responsibility to those with SSA within the church and another chapter on the church’s relationship to homosexuals in the world.  He does not get into the political realm but focuses on witnessing and loving homosexuals to the Cross.

The format of the book was helpful in reinforcing the content of the book: I enjoyed the side bars throughout the book raising various questions of practical concern and objections.  Allberry provides a good answer to the objection of why can’t faithful homosexuals be married on pages 39-40.  I also appreciate the use of bold font to capture important points or terms throughout the book.  Allberry also had some good illustrations to communicate the point he is trying to make.

I recommend Pastors, believers struggling with SSA and all believers to get the book.

Rating: 5 stars of 5.

NOTE: This book is provided to me free by The Good Book Company and Cross-Focused Reviews without any obligation for a positive review. All opinions offered above are mine unless otherwise stated or implied.


Read Full Post »


Finally got around to finishing the Unbelievable show on Presuppositional apologetics with the dialogue between Presuppositionalist K. Scott Oliphint and apologist Kurt Jaros.

There’s already a lot of responses from Presuppositionalists to Kurt’s objection so there’s no need for me to beat a dead horse.

Instead I want to give my thoughts concerning Oliphint’s presentation.

Before I do so, I want to say that I am not trying to sound like a Back Row Baptist, or an Armchair Quarterback: You know, the type of guy who turns out to be a pesky, hyper-critical guy who watches a boxing match and have everything bad to say about everyone’s ability and talk all big putting down others yet the same guy couldn’t even fight.  I also realize the limitations of a radio debate that restricted Oliphint: you can’t be in control of the time to unpack everything you want to say, you don’t know and can’t control the host and his desire for the direction of the conversation, etc.  So with that I must begin with my appreciation and admiration of Dr. Oliphint for articulating to a broader audience Presuppositional apologetics (what he prefer to call Covenantal apologetics).  I wish the following would encourage all of us who are Presuppositional (myself included) to better communicate what we believe and our method.

There were times listening to the debate that I felt the two were talking pass each other; other times I felt Oliphint could have pressed Jaros more.  The following are in no particular order:

1.) When Jaros dismissed Oliphint’s Reformed interpretation of Romans 1 (that all unbelievers suppress the truth) it might have been helpful for Oliphint to press Jaros with the question:  “Can you provide an exegetical justification (that is, from the text itself) that ‘only some nonbelievers’ suppress the truth and some non-believers don’t suppress the truth at all?”

2.) It might appear to be rather annoying, but I think there’s a place to respond to the charge that Presuppositionalists are circular with the question “How do you know that?” to any truth claims given by Jaros.  That way you show that eventually one gets to a bed rock point where one says “Just because it’s true,” or something to that effect and show how everyone has axiomatic starting point that control everything else we believe, even if someone else think it’s “circular.”

3.) It might be helpful to ask Jaros how much Presuppositionalists he might have read and more specifically authors and titles.  I wonder if this might explain Jaros’ misrepresentation of Presuppositionalism.

4.) I think Dr. Oliphint could have employed the Presuppositionalists theme of the impossibility of neutrality throughout different points in the conversation to his favor, and in particular why Presuppositionalist begin with the truth of the Christian worldview at the outset of a debate!

5.) There was a moment in the discussion when Jaros mentioned that Presuppositionalists have to “borrow” from the other school of apologetics.  I loved how Jaros used a VanTillian motif against Oliphint!  Oliphint could have turned that around and talked about the very tools other school of apologetics employ such as historical argumentation, application of the laws of logic, etc actually require Christianity to be true in order for them to be intelligible.  Presuppositionalists sees the very methods of proving things are themselves “evidence” for God.  Non-Presuppositionalists then uses the very tools that Presuppositionalists argue transcendentally for God which also makes those tools meaningful and intelligible; thus, if we were to play the “borrowing” game, Non-Presuppositionalists must “borrow” from Presuppositionalism.  Wouldn’t it be nice to call this the Transcendental Argument for Presuppositionalism (TAP)?

6.) Several times Jaros made a point to say that nonbelievers do reason.  Presuppositionalists do believe nonbelievers can reason, but they would contend that nonbelievers can’t account for reason, and the nature of reasoning.  Oliphint could have made the observation of Jaros’ double standard of allowing nonbelievers to just presuppose reasoning “works” within their unbelieving worldview while critical of Presuppositionalists who believe reasoning “works” only within the Christian worldview.

Perhaps Oliphint did those things that I mentioned and I missed it in my listening; or perhaps there were other things that one might add that Oliphint could have done.  Still I’m grateful the debate.

Any thoughts?

Read Full Post »

logic poythress

Nearly 20 years ago Vern Poythress wrote an important essay published by the Westminster Theological Journal titled REFORMING ONTOLOGY AND LOGIC IN THE LIGHT OF THE TRINITY: AN APPLICATION OF VAN TIL’S IDEA OF ANALOGY.

This year Crossway published a 700 page book by Poythress on a Christian view of logic!

This past weekend, Poythress has made it available for free on their website.

You can access it as a PDF download by clicking HERE.

Read Full Post »

The Man Jesus Christ Bruce Ware

Purchase: Westminster | Amazon

Appreciated Bruce Ware’s work which got me thinking about the humanity of Jesus Christ more deeply than before. I have always been more amazed at the deity of Jesus Christ more than His humanity until about a year ago when I started realized how much the book of Hebrews has to say about the implication of Jesus’ humanity. The book is an excellent treatment of the topic. I’m convinced by Ware’s argument in chapter two that much of Jesus’ life and ministry was Christ’s humanity empowered by the Holy Spirit rather than Jesus invoking or utilizing His Divinity. Of course there are exception such as Jesus’ ability to forgive sin, which only God can do. It was moving to read this book and see the humility of Jesus, who though in being very nature God became incarnate as a man and had to increase in wisdom and even grow in his faith just like everybody else. Chapter four powerfully demonstrated that Jesus also needed to grow in His humanity spiritually to be ready to face the cross for our sins. The chapter on Jesus’ temptation was worth buying the book alone: entering into the classic debate about Jesus impeccability, Ware argues that there is a distinction between Jesus “could not sin” versus Jesus “did not sin.” He gives a wonderful illustration of a swimmer who could not drown because his friends were in a boat behind him while the reason why he did not drown was really because he did the work of swimming! The book also had a chapter focusing on why Jesus had to be a man, that is a response to some egalitarians and Evangelical feminists who see Jesus’ masculinity is accidental to Him being the Messiah. Overall, an excellent book to read. I appreciated how each chapter ended with an application section and questions for discussion. I was worshiping God as I read the book!

Read Full Post »

Saved without a Doubt

 Purchase: Amazon

I appreciated this book by John MacArthur on the topic of the Christian assurance of salvation. This book is biblical, pastoral and practical; it will certainly help the believer understand the Gospel better and applying it to the subject of assurance. The book is divided into three parts: After establishing the biblical warrant for the Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the Saints, part two feature 11 tests on whether or not one is a believer according to 1 John followed by part three that ties the loose ends: Dealing with doubt, adding virtue which thereby adds more assurance of one’s salvation and biblical encouragement to persevere. I particularly enjoy chapter 7, “Adding Virtue upon Virtue” which is an exposition of 2 Peter 1, with MacArthur’s insight into the Greek terms and what it means. MacArthur does a masterful job of encouraging the believer with the reality of what God has done and promise to do. I recommend it to every believer whether they are struggling with whether or saved or whether they are already assured.

Read Full Post »

This is a good list of free Creationist books online!

Scripture Thoughts

Following up on recent posts, here are links to several good online books concerning creation:

Available in PDF Format:

Creationism.org has a Books Section page with links to many books of varying lengths and topics.  From this list I recognize one book I bought around 1990 (It’s a Young World After All), and their link to the online text “After the Flood” (see my recent review).  The titles include some from the early 2000s back to the 1980s, as well as earlier 20th century and earlier public domain books.  Especially interesting titles here include the classic “The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch (1966)” by Donald W. Patten. and “In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood…

View original post 178 more words

Read Full Post »

religious neutrality

Religious Neutrality Defined: The idea that man can be without any beliefs or views that is for or against God, the Bible, etc.

Objective: We must realize that in regards to ‘facts’ and everywhere and everything that man approaches, he/she can not approach it without presuppositions or with a neutrality towards God.


There are traits and attitudes that have come up in regards to defending religious neutrality that encompasses one or more of these points:

(A) People might ask, “Do you really have to bring up the Bible when we are dealing with Geography[1], Psychology[2], Mathematics[3], Economics[4] or man’s relationship to the Earth[5]?”

 (B) There are people who appear to be sincerely ‘neutral’ towards the surrounding issues concerning God. Doesn’t this show that one can be religiously neutral? (See Romans 1:18-22)

 (C) God is not relevant at all in the Sphere of X and/or Y. (See below on Creation)

 (D) I am not taking any sides for or against a religion.

      1. Everything in this world belongs to God
      2. “If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, [a] you are there.” (Psalms 139:8)
      3. “The LORD has established his throne in heaven,
      4.        and his kingdom rules over all.” (Psalms 103:19)
      5. SEE ALSO Psalms 19:1-4 and 1 Chronicles 29:11
      1. Christ the source of Wisdom and Knowledge: “Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.  I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.” (Col. 2:3-4)
      2. God the Source of Wisdom: “5If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.” (James 1:5)
    1. “Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)
    2. “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.” (Matthew 12:30)
      1. “And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Col. 3:17)
      2. “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.” (1 Chorinthians 10:31)
      1. If not, then he is in rebellion against God and not submitting to Him.  He is therefore not neutral.
      1. Those Premises and Propositions acknowledge Christianity or not.
      2. Sometimes it can be beliefs that we are not always conscious of.
      1. When someone say He is neutral towards God’s existence or Christianity, he himself has anti-theistic or non-Christian assumption. It is not neutral.
      2. ANALOGY: When someone says they are neutral towards the Holocaust and when some Runaway Jews beg you for cover, your ‘neutrality’ position towards the Holocaust and non-action is still a position and action against the runaway Jews.
      1. To argue for neutrality, is to argue for a position, and the more evidence and arguments you marshal, the more it is evident that Neutrality itself is a position.
      2. Yet, the very point of neutrality is no longer neutral.  It is something that is now debated and to assume it would be begging the question.

[1] See the article “Impossible Neutrality: An Analogy from Humanistic Geography” in Reformed Perspective Magazine at http://thirdmill.org/articles/jim_li/jim_li.impossibleneutrality.html.

[2] I recommend any book on this topic by Jay Adams.

[3] Poythress, Vern. “A Biblical View of Mathematics” in Foundation of Christian Scholarship: Essays in the Van Til Perspective. California: Ross House Books, 1979: Pages 159-188.

[4] North, Gary and DeMar, Gary.  Christian Reconstruction: What It is, What It Isn’t  Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991

[5] Schaeffer, Francis A. Pollution and the Death of Man: The Christian View of Ecology. Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 1970

Read Full Post »

I first heard of Joe Boot from his book “Why I Still Believe” which is a play on the title of Van Til’s booklet, “Why I Believe.”

Ravi Zacharias has recommended his work in private conversation with my brother in law.

Here is an audio of Joe Boot teaching on the apologetics of Cornelius Van Til:

Read Full Post »


Please see the last post on the series, “Doctrine of Salvation,” Doctrine of Salvation: Conversion.

As more and more confusion arises concerning the beliefs Roman Catholicism during these dark times, I think that it is important that I interact with Roman Catholicism’s view on salvation.  Christianity and Catholicism are not the same and those in the evangelical world that consider the Roman Catholic Church to be a Christian church should be ashamed of themselves. Basically they are undermining the Reformation and ultimately the authority of the Bible.

Roman Catholicism is a religion that is significantly different from Christianity because they do not believe in salvation as the Bible states.  But because there are so many differences in regards to Roman Catholicism, we will cover only a few areas that I think has major implications.  In order to effectively deal with it, I will cover their view concerning sola Scriptura and sola ecclesia/magisterium. With that said, let’s first cover the Roman Catholic definition of the magisterium.

The Latin word magister for the English word magisterium means, “master.”  The meaning master is not only in the sense of “teacher” but it also means in the broader sense, someone who possesses authority or mastery in a particular field.  In the contemporary Roman Catholic usage, this term basically means that the teaching is reserved exclusively for the office of the pope and bishops.  It is important that we consider the topic of the magisterium, because without it, we would not be debating the subject of tradition versus Scripture in the first place.  In regards to the magisterium, the Catholic Church considers themselves the master or the entity that possesses the authority—whether it be the written Word of God or in the form of tradition.  The concept of the Roman Catholic Church being the master dates back to the fourth session of the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.  For example, in the first decree of the Council of Trent, it states that the Old and New Testament were not the only inspired source, but the traditions concerning faith and morals are also inspired because the Roman Catholic Church believes it came from the mouth of God; and it believes that it is preserved by the Holy Spirit in continuous succession in the Catholic Church.

When defining their source of authority, the Roman Catholic Church continues by saying, “The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered (has to be unanimously agreed by the bishops) over the earth, purpose a teaching on morals as one to be held by all the faithful.”  That is a dangerous teaching because only God and the Bible is infallible.

Moreover, the pope, who is part of the magisterium and who is the icon of the magisterium is believed to be infallible when he defines doctrines concerning faith and morals.  To question the pope in matters of infallibility is to second-guess him.  The so-called divine promise given to him through the succession of Apostle Peter, concerning the pope’s definition of doctrine concerning faith and morals cannot be revised or altered.  For example, papal infallibility in the area of making saints is final and irrevocable.  The pope who is the iconic leader of the magisterium can speak ex-cathedra, which means, that with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the Pope speaks without error.  Next we will cover the Roman Catholic Church so-called proof that the Magisterium has divine authority.

For the Roman Catholic Church, this is more than apostolic succession, but it is the gift of inspiration itself.  Here is what the Roman Catholic Church says concerning the very gift of inspiration itself being passed down to them, “But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, ‘handling over’ to them ‘the authority to teach in their own place.’”  Dei Verbum 8 says, “This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything…”

Because apostolic succession is key to this belief of authority, let’s take a look at how the Roman Catholic Church validates this claim.  For example, they try validating their claim by using the apostles as an example to validate apostolic succession.  They claim that all of the activities such as delegating authority (2 Cor. 3:5-6; 5:18-6:1; Eph. 6:28) in matters such as the proper interpretation of the Gospel (2 Peter 2:20-21), the norm of sound teaching (2 Tim. 1:13) that is to be found with the apostles, the eye-witnesses of Christ and His resurrection (Luke 24:47-48; Acts 1:8-9; Jn 20:31; 1 John 1:3; 4:16), delegated authority to others within the church of God.  The leaders appointed by the apostles within the church, that received delegated authority from the apostles (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5; 1 Timothy 3:1-7; 5:22; cf. Titus 1:6-9) would assume the tasks such as teaching and government duties in the church of God.  This thinking results in the logic that the Catholic Church too received delegated authority that was passed down to the bishops of the church.  The biggest proof they have in order to validate the infallibility of the magisterium is Apostle Peter.  They believe that their apostolic succession came from the line of Apostle Peter.  Because Christ promised that Hades will not prevail against the church that is founded on the faith of Peter (Matthew 16:18); and that God will remain with the successors of the apostles to the end of time (Matthew 28:20), then the magisterium can be reliable and will never lead the church into doctrinal error.  Another major issue is their view of tradition.

The Roman Catholic Church believes that tradition is everything that contributes to the holiness of life and the increase of faith of the people of God.  Tradition is key to Catholics because the Bible would not be understood rightly if we limit it to sola Scriptura.  They will go on to say that the church’s history and experience cannot be excluded if the Bible is to be rightly understood.  According to Vatican II Council, the Catholic Church believes in the unity and consistency of Scripture because tradition and Scripture are closely connected.  Scripture and tradition are illustrated as the two streams flowing from the same divine well-spring; and they actually merge together.  They say the apostles handed down the traditions to them.

Another category that is important when it comes to the Vatican view of tradition is the context of locations or loci of tradition.  There are four loci of tradition: rite of baptisms accompanied with prayers, repetition of the Eucharist, the writings of the church fathers, and the life of the church.

The loci of tradition in the area of liturgy for example such as baptism, imparts a sense of the universal need for redemption and the removal of sin by grace; and the Eucharist, together with the elevation of the consecrated elements impresses a realization of the real presence of God.  Church Fathers are also important sources of tradition, because they are believed to be the one’s who established the canon of Scripture, articles of the creed, the basic dogmas of the faith, the basic structures of the church, and also the essential forms of the liturgy.  The last location of tradition, which is the life of the church, is key, because the Roman Catholic Church believes that the Holy Spirit gives inspiration to the church in producing faithful members a sense of what is agreeable and disagreeable when it comes to salvation.  Vatican II says this about the faithful members of the church, “The sense of the faithful is not a totally autonomous source of doctrine, since it depends in part on the other bearers of tradition and overlaps with them, but it can often help identify the true content and meaning of tradition, especially when it confirms what is also attested by other sources.”

The Roman Catholic Church also contests that traditions are important.  For example, they believe that Paul spoke about tradition when he wrote to the Corinthian Church (1 Cor. 11:2).  However, they Roman Catholic Church misinterpreted that passage.  The Catholic Church traditions are unbiblical and different from what Paul is referring to.

It is clear that the Roman Catholic Church sees that tradition, the magisterium, and Scripture cannot be without the other.  They have a problem with the idea of sola Scripture.  They are three reasons why the Catholic Church rejects the doctrine of sola Scriptura: the Bible does not argue for the doctrine, the Bible teaches the authority of tradition, and the Bible cannot be interpreted correctly without tradition.  In light of their unbiblical foundation, there are negative implications on salvation.  Salvation can only be rightly understood through sola Scriptura.

Read Full Post »

Blown away argument

Been very busy with ministry and speaking.  Here’s the latest round up of Presuppositional apologetics links!

1.) God, Objective Moral Values, and Personal Preference–Mike Robinson’s piece.

2.) Can Life Have Meaning Without God?–James Anderson writes a piece for the Gospel Coalition.


4.) Chart on Post-modern objections

5.) Greg Bahnsen on the Problem of Universals

6.) Born to fail–Steve Hays on Matt Slick’s Daughter’s apostasy.

Read Full Post »


Here’s a link from Christianity Astray that announced “Barely Half of Weekly Churchgoers Think Pastors Contribute “A Lot” to Society.”

I went to read more from the Pew Forum themselves at this link http://www.pewforum.org/Other-Demographics/Public-Esteem-for-Military-Still-High.aspx#middling

I was asked on facebook of my thoughts on the study, specifically concerning people’s perception of the Clergy/Pastors.

First of, I think it’s important that how we evaluate ministry must be by the Word of God rather than what “works” in getting people to have more of a favorable view of the clergy, the church, etc.  We must never forget that faithfulness to God’s Word is the goal and not points of popularity.

Secondly, to be honest, I am surprise that it’s that high still. I think its more interesting seeing the further breakdown between the perception of the clergy by religious affiliation and how in particular White Mainline Protestants and Black Protestants who historically have clergy intensely involved with political activism has lower rating that White Evangelicals today. I wished the Pew Study could have explored more the correlation of clergy’s activity (social justice, Bible focus only churches, conservative or liberal political activism, etc) with the lay people’s perception of clergy’s contribution to society.

Thirdly, people themselves don’t judge their pastor’s contribution to society in a vacuum.  I know this might go beyond a poll survey, and maybe more of ethnography, but I wonder what people mean by contribution towards society, and how that expectation would shape the way they evaluate that of their minister.

Fourthly, I think one assessment that Evangelicals must make in light of this study is to ponder why do we go to church in the first place: If we view the clergy, leaders of our faith, as contributing little to society, what does that say about our faith and living out the implication of our faith? Now I think it’s problematic when we become so ingrained with contributing to society that we miss the Gospel or when it’s not Gospel focus and Gospel motivated; but the Gospel has implications and radical ramifications in every sphere of our life. Perhaps (a big perhaps) the reason why some people can still regularly attend church and yet have a low preception of their minister’s contribution and still be going week after week is because they see faith as a private subjective experience and not something that really makes any difference. Now THAT is truly frightening. And let’s hope Evangelical Gospel preachers aren’t reinforcing that.

Let’s pray Pastors are preaching the Gospel and drawing out the implication of the Gospel to bear to real life.  Let’s pray that the church become evangelistic to a lost and dying world!

Read Full Post »

Hebrew Israelite

Yesterday I posted on here a dialogue a Christian (host of Back Pack Radio Show) had with the racist Black Hebrew Israelites, who thinks Jews are the true Hebrews.  

There has not been a lot of Christian resources and apologetics dealing with this movement, which has various subgroups with different beliefs.

The following is my notes: First, I have practical apologetics pointers and secondly are some of my thoughts on what the Black Hebrew Israelites were saying.


-Remember to be gentle and respectable even when they are not.

– Talk to the less dogmatic member of the group when they are dominating loudly in the conversation.

– Use advantage of having other believers and the crowd to control the conversation

– Press them on the goal post for their exegesis:  It is not enough to show verses that the faith/salvation is for Israel; they have to show it’s only for Israel with no inclusion of Gentiles to prove their view

-Ask them a lot of questions if you are not sure what they believe ask them so you can accurately understand them

– Have the burden of proof on them by asking them questions; some helpful questions:

  • Does the Bible show that no one outside of Israel will ever be saved, not even one?
  • Show me where in the Bible that “Ethnos” ever refer to land and not people?

-Verses to keep in mind: Galatians 3:28 (“no Jews or Greeks”) and Revelation 21:24-27 (nations and their kings being cleaned, in heaven)


“ Line by Line” they say, but they haven’t done a good job of dealing with the verse within context.




1.)    Objection: They use Acts 17:24 to go against Malone going to a building to worship God on the basis of this verse


  • But in of itself worshipping in a building is not wrong, because at one time God instituted the Temple in the OT
  • John 4:24 is true, but don’t forget that Paul still went to the Temple in Acts 21:26-28

2.)    Objection: Response to Acts 17:26 by quoting from 2 Ezdras 6:54-56

54 And after these, Adam also, whom thou madest lord of all thy creatures: of him come we all, and the people also whom thou hast chosen.

55 All this have I spoken before thee, O Lord, because thou madest the world for our sakes

56 As for the other people, which also come of Adam, thou hast said that they are nothing, but be like unto spittle: and hast likened the abundance of them unto a drop that falleth from a vessel.

57 And now, O Lord, behold, these heathen, which have ever been reputed as nothing, have begun to be lords over us, and to devour us.

58 But we thy people, whom thou hast called thy firstborn, thy only begotten, and thy fervent lover, are given into their hands.

59 If the world now be made for our sakes, why do we not possess an inheritance with the world? how long shall this endure?


  • Apocrypha, not Bible


3.)    Objection: Gentiles are the Jews


  • Makes Romans 1:16 unintelligible

4.)    Objection: Deuteronomy 7:6, that the BHI are a special people


  • Being a special people does not mean that others are not beneficiaries of God’s blessing
  1.                                                                i.      The reason the Hebrews were free from Egpytian slavery is because of the Abrahamic Covenants (Exodus 3:6, 16)  and don’t forget the content of the Abrahamic covenant is to bless others (Genesis 12:3)
  2.                                                              ii.      Even more so in light of the NT and the New Covenant
  • But is it BHI? How do they respond to other enthno-centric cults who claim this applies to them such as the British Israelites movement?


5.)    Objection: The New Testament was written in Latin based upon John 19:20


  • Here this passage mentioned that the writing, “Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews” was written on the inscription of the cross that Jesus was being crucified in.
  • These BHI makes the mistake of assuming that just because there were people in Jerusalem during the death of Jesus that knew how to read Latin does not mean the New Testament itself was in Latin

6.)    Objection: The Dead Sea Scroll does not have the Old Testament, it has the New Testament, it has the Gospel of Thomas


  • DSS does have OT passages (think of the Isaiah Scroll!)
  • Gospel of Thomas is not part of the New Testament!



7.)    Objection: Salvation is only for Israel according to Acts 7:31


  • Acts 7:31 does not say only for Israel
  • Later the Gospel went to others as well as the book of Acts unfold especially with Paul the apostle to the Gentiles, which he described in his own word in Romans 11:13.
  • Turning to Romans 11, we read about Israel being darkened (v.7-10) and then how salvation has come to the Gentiles (v.11-12);
  • Looking closely at Romans 11:15 means reconciliation of the world!
  • John 12:32
  • Goes contrary to the example of Cornelius in Acts 10 and the conclusion Peter reached in Acts 10:34-35, and the Spirit’s miraculous confirmation of tongues in Acts 10:44-45.

8.)    Objection: Matthew 28:19-20 reference to nations means Jews in those physical location of other nations


  • The passage makes no reference to Jews only in those physical location of nations.
  • Term “nations” never refer to physical locations in the New Testament, but only to people.  Burden of proof is on them to prove otherwise.


9.)    Objection: Beat up other nations is premittable.


  • Contrary to the Bible’s teaching such as 1 Peter 2:12, 2:17, 2:20.

10.)                        Objection: Revelation 1:13-15 shows Jesus is black


  • Text never said that the skin of Jesus was black.
  • Symbolic language, do we expect Him to be Asian since it’s burning bright in verse 15 and therefore represent the “Yellow man”?
  • With this kind of hermeneutics, do we expect Psalm 45:2-3 and Matthew 17:2 to prove that Jesus is white?


11.)                        Objection: You can’t be saved you don’t know your nationality.


  • Where does the Bible teaches that?

12.)                        Objection: The world cannot sin, only Israelite can sin.


  • “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned–” (Romans 5:12)


13.)                        Objection: Galatians 3:28, the “Greeks” refer to Hellenized Jews not Gentiles


  • The burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that ελλην refers to Jews that were Hellenized.
  • The Greek word used to describe a Hellenized, that is, a Grecian Jew is ελληνιστης such as found in Acts 6:1.
  • The context, it is unlikely to refer to Hellenized Greek because of the opposing contrasts such as the opposites of “free” vs. “slave, Male and female.

Read Full Post »

Vocab Malone


Have you ever heard of the Black Hebrew Israelites movement?

Vocab Malone of Back Pack Radio has witnessed to them and has recorded his dialogues with them.  He has divided the audios into 13 parts:

Here is the beginning of our “dialogue” …


According to BHI, only the BHI are saints … !!!

Enjoy this … the third part of a convo w/some local BHI guys. Since they had a bunch of signs out and were yeling loudly at everyone within earshot and then some, I asked what their biblical basis was; as in, who gave them the authority to preach their message?

Here is part 4 of the recent BHI run-in I had by the light rail here in Phoenix. In this section, I try to get to the heart of the matter by asking these young men, “how are your sins forgiven”?
The answers may surprise you!

In this part, the BHI talk about one of their favorite subjects. By the way, I don’t think I have mentioned it yet, but all of the BHI audio has a lot of profanity in it. These young men do not have clean mouths and it shows. So be warned about that … in fact, in some of the upcoming posts, it is going to get much worse!

BHI is very concerned with ethnicity and skin tone. In this clip from my talk with them, this concern comes out loud and clear.

Here I try to get into some salvation related issues w/the BHI. Hear for yourself how it turned out

How does a hate-group like the BHI define love?

In the words of one of my friends: “I know I shouldn’t laugh but these guys are a trip. Pray for them. They are angry and lost.”

The BHI – humble, they are not!

This clip …
– is mainly a bystander interacting w/the BHI
– does not include much of my dialogue
– is filled with all kinds of crazy profanity
– is absolutely hilarious in a tragic kinda way

I debated about including but in the end thought it could serve a purpose.
Be warned – it is not rated G or PG, to say the least!

The BHI loves to utilize the Apocrypha for its proof texts – but should it be in the Bible?

This is the last clip in the series. I hope these were helpful for you to understand their mentality a bit so you can better share the gospel with them.

Read Full Post »

photo (5)

The great Christian apologist Greg Bahnsen died very early in life but did a lot during those 47 years.  He is buried at Rose Hill Cemetery in Southern California.

I could not get a clearer picture because it was in the middle of the day and this was the best picture I could get.  The sun was shining very bright.

Next to his grave is that of his father and mother.  His mother Virigina has been a source of some Bahnsen’s private collection.

For those who are interested his grave at Rose Hill is at Gate 1, Garden of Rest, Section 22, Lot 1222, Grave 3.

Readers to this blog would know that Bahnsen is one of my heroes of the faith.  In fact when I was in Seminary he was my example to finish my MDiv and ThM in three years which Bahnsen also did when he was in Seminary.

Check out some of the resources we have on Greg Bahnsen here on Veritas Domain by clicking HERE.

Read Full Post »

car roof

These are links from around the web between July 8th-14th 2013.  Enjoy!

1.) The Bahnsen Conference 2013–Coming to Southern California!

2.)Do You Prioritize Apologetics Over Theology?

3.) Atheists Can’t Find Atheists to Support Atheism

4.)We Destroy Arguments: The Achilles’ Heel–Chapter 5 of Scott Oliphint’s new book!

5.) Theological and Apologetic Resources from K. Scott Oliphint located at Reformed Forum

6.) The Nature and Use of Apologetic Evidences

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »