Mormon vs Christian Debate!

Join Devin and Melissa Pellew each week at they discuss topics related to biblical theology, Christian apologetics and worldview issues. This week, we had a very interesting dialogue between an Evangelical Christian and a Mormon on the topic of "Who is God?" and other key doctrinal differences between the two belief systems. Representing The Church of Latter Day Saints will be Rashago Kemp of Springville, Utah. Rashago grew up the son of the pastor of a non-denomination church and was a youth leader before converting to the Church of Latter Day Saints five years ago. Representing Evangelical Christianity will be Michael Willenborg, graduate of Southern Evangelical Seminary with a Master's in Apologetics. We will also take your calls at the end of the show with questions directed at Rashago and Michael. You do not want to miss this interesting croosfire dialogue as we closely examine the teachings of Mormonism and orthodox Christianity and how they differ.

Listen to internet radio with The Invisible Conservative on Blog Talk Radio

Sola Scriptura Debate!!

Join Devin and Melissa Pellew each week at they discuss topics related to biblical theology, Christian apologetics and worldview issues. This week, we had a very interesting dialogue between a Roman Catholic apologist and a Protestant apologist on the topic of "Sola Scriptura". Is the Bible the only infallible rule of faith for the Church? We will explore this question and others related to the topic with Devin Rose, blogger and former atheist turned Catholic apologist and Nathanael Taylor, graduate of Biola University, Westminster Theological Seminary and current philosophy student at Talbot School of Theology. Please join us for this very engaging and respectful crossfire dialog, featuring an important topic of discussion, which has been ongoing for the last 2,000 years. 

Listen to internet radio with The Invisible Conservative on Blog Talk Radio

Theology Matters

Join Devin and Melissa Pellew each week at they discuss topics related to biblical theology, Christian apologetics and worldview issues. This week, we are so excited to have Dr. Norman Geisler, who is one of the fathers of the modern apologetics movement in America- having written over 80 books on various apolgetic and theological topics, started two apologetics- focused seminaries and having taught and lectured all over the world. Dr. Geisler will answer various apologetic questions- namely related to the New Atheist Movement. We will also have Christian counselor and Southern Evangelical Seminary graduate, Mike Kozlinski, with us after Dr. Geisler to discuss biblical Christian counselingand how knowing theology proper, anthropology, soteriology and apologetics informs one's ability and approach to counseling. You do not want to miss this exciting show!

Listen to internet radio with The Invisible Conservative on Blog Talk Radio

The Worship Experience?

This is a link to this excellent show done on White Horse Inn!

"The worship wars are over, and most Protestant churches now feature a praise band or worship team. In the quest for relevance, today’s churches offer worship experiences that are in tune with the expectations that parishioners receive from contemporary pop culture. However, some are beginning to recognize that this pop-music worship style lacks a certain transcendence, and in their quest to find a sense of the sacred, many are abandoning evangelicalism and are becoming Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. So is this new appreciation for Gregorian chants and swinging incense a healthy reaction? What is worship anyway? That’s what’s on tap on this edition of White Horse Inn."

CLICK HERE
http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/05/20/whi-1102-the-worship-experience/

Mass Debate

Robert Sungenis vs James White  Is Mass a Propitiatory Sacrifice?

Excellent debate with a good cross examination!

Church of Tares

This is an incredible two hour documentary on why the "seeker-driven" models that dominate so many of the churches today is based on a foundation that is polar opposite to that of sacred scripture. We are told in numerous places to fear the Lord and depart evil. It is true when we come to Christ we have purpose and meaning but the reason one needs Christ desperately is to escape the wrath and judgement of God for their sin. 

This video documents the dangerous teachings from men like Steven Furtick, Perry Noble, Rick Warren and others and explains why these churches should be avoided at all cost.

Theology Matters Show

Hey folks, been a while but I am back and will be doing more blogging regularly and plan to finish the book of 1 John.  I wanted to post the latest episode of our weekly apologetics show I do with my wife every Thursday from 6-8 est.

Join Devin & Melissa Pellew as they discuss topics related to biblical theology, Christian apologetics and worldview issues. This week's discussion will be on the topic of Intelligent Design. We will have special guest, Melissa Cain Travis, soon to be graduate of Biola University with a degree in Science and Religion. We will explore the differences between evolution theory and intelligent design as well as the different creation models. We will examine some ways in which the General Theory of Evolution fails the scientific test for truth and why Intelligent Design is a better explanation for the origin of life. We will explore these and other topics so you don't want to miss this interesting and informative discussion!

Listen to internet radio with The Invisible Conservative on Blog Talk Radio

St. Thomas Aquinas

“Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered.”

Alvin Plantinga Knocking Down Atheist Objections

http://closertotruth.com - PBS' Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn interviews Dr. Alvin Plantinga (often named as the most important living philosopher of religion today) about typical arguments made by atheists against the existence of God.

Facts on the Ressurection

Extracts from the full presentation, which can be viewed at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iyxR8uE9GQk "The Evidence for Jesus's Resurrection" by Dr William Lane Craig. This lecture, followed by audience Q&A, was held in Southampton during the UK Reasonable Faith Tour (October 2011).

Moral Code or Just Moral Opinions?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org - William Lane Craig addresses a question from the audience about the Moral Argument for the existence of God. Is it a moral code we follow or is it merely a moral opinion as some atheists may contend? What difference does it make if morals are just "opinion?" In this clip, Dr Craig answers these questions.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=8D03B649B2EC2A78 - To view the entire lecture on Arguments for the Existence of God & the New Atheists click the above link.

A Christian Perspective of Hinduism

In this boraodcast of Giving An Answer, H.C. Felder interviews Prem Isaac who talks about the origin, beliefs, and practices of Hinduism and how they differ from Christianity.

Category:

No Compromise Ever

No Co Ever: Episode 1 from No Compromise Radio on Vimeo.


No Co Ever: Episode 1 from No Compromise Radio on Vimeo.
Excellent video with some very respected leaders looking at the numerous problems with the "Elephant Room" and some of the guests as well as the questions that were asked to certain guests.

William Lane Craig Interviewed on PBS

Uploaded by drcraigvideos on May 16, 2011


PBS' "Closer to Truth" conducted the best interview Dr. William Lane Craig ever had. Host and scientist Robert Lawrence Kuhn asks all the right questions about philosophy, religion, and science with him. You will get a nutshell of Dr. Craig's thoughts in this interview (although his views on the resurrection of Jesus is absent from this interview). Hopefully, it will lead you to pursue more research on the topics. Dr. Craig is quite simply a philosopher's philosopher.

'New Kind of Christian'

Responding to Brian McLaren and the 'New Kind of Christian' (Ron Rhodes)



Ron Rhodes speaks on controversial figure Brian McLaren. Presented at the Veritas Apologetics Conference on May 6, 2011 at Mt. Airy Bible Church (mabcmd.org) in conjunction with Veritas Seminary (veritasseminary.com).

Theology Matters Radio show with Myself and my Wife Melissa

You don't want to miss tomorrow's (Thursday) show from 6-8pm EDT! This week, Melissa Pellew and I will continue our discussion on the Attributes of God during the first hour. Why is it important to study God's Attributes? How does knowing about these Attributes help us in our walk with the Lord? We'll explore these questions and dive into some of the attributes. During the second hour, we will be joined by Bill Roach, doctoral student at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and co-author of Defending Inerrancy. We will be discussing general apologetics and will be taking your calls on a wide variety of questions and issues within the world of apologetics and theology. We are going to cover a lot of different topics so you don't want to miss this show. Please feel free to call in with your questions and/or comments at (760) 542-3907 and there's always lively discussion going on in our chatroom, with Steven Keeney moderating. Check it out!

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-visible-conservative-christians-unleashed/2012/08/16/theology-matters-with-the-pellews

Trinity vs Oneness Part 2

Here is the second half of my discussion with my friend. The conversation is unedited and moves very quickly so please forgive the grammatical errors.   Thanks again to Lamarie for the good discussion and thoughtful questions!

Lamarie Austin Okay, still reading, so Devin, here's another question/observation-where does the concept of omnipresence factor in to the personhood concept of the Trinity teaching-specifically, if we believe that God can be all places, all things, to anyone anywhere simultaneously, why confine Him to the person terminology? The only place in scripture where I see any reference to the terminology of personhood was Jesus as the Son in Hebrews 1:3. Again, not speaking of Father Son Spirit, trying to flesh out the modes vs. persons disagreement. Sabbelianism/Trinitarianism

Devin Pellew Right, when I say "person" I am reffering to the metaphysical sense. NOT a body. We would all agree that God has Mind, Will and Emotions. This is to differintiate from a JW for example who will say the Holy Spirit is not personal but rather a forcelike electricity

Devin Pellew So when I say a person I am not meaning in a physical sense as in a body. Just as Man is a body/soiul unity and we have an immaterial aspect

Lamarie Austin foreclike electricity?!! what???? sorry that one made me crack up!

Devin Pellew Oh yeah, that is what JWs believe regarding the Holy Spirit. That it is God's active force. I would also point out scripture refers to all 3 persons as "He" and "Him" using "person" language

Lamarie Austin I think the personhood issue trips alot of people up! so what about the omnipresence-what about modalism is wrong in light of ominipresence and God's ability to be multiple whatever simultaneously??? Does God really ever have to be seperated into persons to do anything if He is omnipresent?

Devin Pellew Omni presence has nothing to do with The Trinity. Even Muslims and Judaism believe that. You are confusing His "unity" which is His essence with "tri-unity"

Lamarie Austin how so?

Devin Pellew because even Judaism who is unitarian and denies the Trinity believes God is omni present

Devin Pellew Tri unity has to do with how many persons make up the one God. Not the classical attributes

Lamarie Austin but the Jews will come to the faith in the Lord Jesus according to Revelation, a good bit of them will. And Christianity/Judeo Christianity builds on the Jewish teaching of the Old Testament. If Jews are unitarians, how did Crhistians become tri-unitarians??

Devin Pellew You are bringining in new topics to the question. The jews who reject Christ now will not be going to heaven.

2-The Trinity was revealed in the OT and more light was given and more fully revealed in the NT

Devin Pellew Even Abraham believed in Christ, though did not fully understand the doctrine.

Devin Pellew Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
(Galatians 3:16-18 ESV)

Lamarie Austin It's all the same topic, just branching out a bit-No, I don't think Jews who dont receive Jesus are going to heaven. I do believe many who are blind now will not always be blind. And we are seeds of Abraham, so I disagree with this last claim about Him not fully understanding the doctrine. He knew God. His unitarian God. He just did not live long enough to see His unitarian God wrapped in human flesh as the atonement for our sin. So I don't know about fully understanding the doctrine, because we are the seed of Abraham and if Abraham had some different doctrine than we've got, we have a fundamental problem.

Lamarie Austin So, I'm still trying to understand how you are affirming Jews are unitarians/which would make the OT unitarian, right? and how we go from unitarianism to tri-unitarianism.

Devin Pellew All 3 persons are all called God, and we are told there is one God. The Father and Son are not the same person. And the Holy Spirit is NOT the same person as the Son.

The Father sent the Son. The Son did not send the Father. (John 6:44; 8:18; 10:36; 1 John 4:14)
John 5:37, “And the Father who sent Me, He has borne witness of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form."

Jesus came down from heaven, not to do his own will, but the will of the Father.
John 6:38, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me."

They are not the same person in differeing modes. The text is clear on this

Devin Pellew The jews reject Jesus is God correct? Unitarians believe That there is not more than one person in the God head

Devin Pellew Or

Devin Pellew That God can "change" or undergo differing modes

Devin Pellew Lamarie, is it your view that the Father and Son are really the same person with different titles?

Lamarie Austin I believe it's the same God.

Lamarie Austin Ominipresence I still see as a factor

Devin Pellew So when the Son is praying, he is praying to himself?

Lamarie Austin personhood is a confinment/restriction of omnipresence in how God reveals himself to men

Lamarie Austin the Son is praying to the father, Jesus says this in the bible.

Devin Pellew So the Father and son are not the same person?

Devin Pellew You are defining person only as physical and thats where the problem is coming in at

Devin Pellew So the Father and son are not the same person?

Lamarie Austin I'm not, I'm trying to understand why we need the terminology of personhood in reference to an Omnipresent God. Who can be as much and as varied as He wants all at the same time.

Devin Pellew Because scripture uses terms like "He and "him"

Lamarie Austin Who can be Father and Son and Spirit all in Human Form, at the Same time....

Lamarie Austin Never leaving Heaven bankrupt

Lamarie Austin Right, He can be Omnipresent, can He not????

Devin Pellew Hold on, trying to see what you are saying

Devin Pellew So does the Father and Son exist at the same time?

Lamarie Austin I think So, Yes. And exact same God, because He can Be Both Father Son, Comforter, everything All at One time

Devin Pellew Lamarie, who is Jesus talkink to when he is praying?

Lamarie Austin He says the Father!

Devin Pellew If you are saying that Jesus IS the Father, then Jesus is praying to himself

Devin Pellew ECACTLY :)

Lamarie Austin what????

Devin Pellew You are saying the Son and the Father are the same person right?

Devin Pellew I understand they are both God

Devin Pellew I get that

Lamarie Austin you're trying to back me into a theological corner again! lolol Seriously though, back to the confinement of personhood and the Idea of Omnipresence....

Lamarie Austin personhood and Omnipresence?

Devin Pellew Your theology itself puts you in a corner

Devin Pellew Ok, what is the problem?

Devin Pellew Define what you mean by personhood?

Devin Pellew Do you think that to have personhood one MUST be physical?

Lamarie Austin that's what I'm asking you-If God is Omnipresent and Can be in multiple places doing multiple things all at once, why do we need to use the term person at all?

Devin Pellew Because he has the characteristics of what we describe as personhood. God has a Will, God has a mind, right He is not a supercomputer. He interacts with us and is personable correct?

I will post the 3rd and final part of the debate this weekend. 

Eugenie Scott vs William Dembski on Intelligent Design

Excellent discussion!

Does God Know The Future?

This discussion is very good as it shows the importance  of knowing philosophy as well as good theology!  This was a friendly dialog that happened on Facebook and is unedited.  If you are enjoying the dialogs please let me know.  I post these because I want people to see how apologetics and sound theology relate to everyday discussions and how to respond.  I am not a theologian or anything special but I do enjoy the dialogs and hope you do as well!

The discussions move rapidly so there are going to be spelling and grammatical errors so I apologize!



Tressa Washington-Adabo
I have a question to pose for many of you on here especially Darrell Zamora who states that God already knows who's saved and his omnipotence and omnipresence means that He's some mythical, magical creature that is just sitting on the throne playing with folks on earth for His enjoyment because hey he already knows what's going to happen to us all anyway.
Explain Genesis 3:20-22:20) And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, 21) I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know. 22) Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the Lord.
If God knows all and see all why did He come down to earth to confirm what He had HEARD? If he had to hear and confirm it then is it not right to suspect that God doesn't really know everything like some people say?

Devin Pellew ‎

Great question! I would say that there are a few things we need to look at.

The Bible is clear that God knows all things:

1- (Isaiah 46:9-10 ESV)
"remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,"

The text says He declares the end from the beginning.He tells us for example how we can know a the true God vs a false god

2- (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 ESV)
"But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?’—when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him."

For God to know the future means He has to be omniscient. He is not just guessing but telling us we know He is the true God because He is telling us the future


3-The numerous prophecies foretold hundreds of years before the events actually happen. Only a being that is omniscient can do that. Look at Pslam 22 which is written around 800 years before Christ took on a human nature and the dead sea scrolls were carbon dated showing that this was written that far before the events happened

(Psalm 22:16-18 ESV)
"For dogs encompass me;
a company of evildoers encircles me;
they have pierced my hands and feet—
I can count all my bones—
they stare and gloat over me;
they divide my garments among them,
and for my clothing they cast lots."

Now as for the scripture you raised we need to look at the study of hermenudicts which is the art and science of Biblical interpretation. The scripture you posted is "anthropamorphic" language which is where we ascribe human characteristics to God. For example we know God is immaterial and does not have a physical body (Luke 24:39) yet we see other texts that say the "Eyes of the Lord" and the strong "arm" of the Lord. But we know God does not have eyes, legs, etc. The language is anthropamorphic and is easily explained in light of scripture as a whole>

Thirdly scripture says God has chosen His elect BEFORE the foundation of the world

(Ephesians 1:3-6 ESV)
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved."

Jesus who Is God did know exactly the hearts of men

Matthew 9:4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?

John 6:64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.

John 13:11 For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.

I hope this helps answer your objection and I think it is a very thoughtful question

Tressa Washington-Adabo ‎Devin Pellew, I do believe that the scripture uses Anthropomorphic expressions and God visited Sodom & Gomorrah to really find out what happened but to prove to man that the judgement that was to come upon them was coming from God himself. God always tries to turn others from sin before sending judgement. However, I differ with you on the God's physical make up. The Bible also said that Jesus sat down at the right hand of the father so does that mean we must also conclude that Jesus is sitting down beside an "essence" called God? Genesis also states that God walked in the garden of Eden. He sat down eat and drank with Abraham prior to the visit. Must I imagine this is just imagined? I'm sorry but when the Bible says we were made in God's image, I take that to mean while God has not a natural physical body he has a spiritual body that has all the characteristics we do. Therefore he has eyes, arms, legs,etc. I applaud you Brother Pellew for giving scripture references to prove your point unlike some folk on here who expect others to be gullible enough to believe them based solely on the fact it came from their mouth.

Devin Pellew ‎

Again, very excellent questions! Hopefully my response will at least make you think about the issues.

You said

"However, I differ with you on the God's physical make up. The Bible also said that Jesus sat down at the right hand of the father so does that mean we must also conclude that Jesus is sitting down beside an "essence" called God? "

1-God does not have a physical make=up

John 4:24 says God is Spirit. Luke 24:39 A Spirit does not have flesh and bone.

So to put it in argument form

1-God is Spirit

2-A Spirit does not have flesh and bone

3-Therfore God does not have flesh and bone

Based on simple deductive arguments and scriptures it is very clear that God is not made up of physical parts but He is rather an immaterial being.

You also said

"Genesis also states that God walked in the garden of Eden. He sat down eat and drank with Abraham prior to the visit. Must I imagine this is just imagined?"

I think it is clear that just as the "Angel of the Lord" in the OT was God and had taken on a form, the same thing is going on in the passages you mention. God taking on a form though is not saying that form is essential to His nature. Again, scripture is clear that God is not made up of parts. The argument I gave above would clear that up.

Next you said

" I'm sorry but when the Bible says we were made in God's image, I take that to mean while God has not a natural physical body he has a spiritual body that has all the characteristics we do. Therefore he has eyes, arms, legs,etc"

To take that we are made in God's image as being physical would be in error. Scripture is clear we have some of the communicable attributes such as love, justice, goodness, etc. However the incommunicable like Holiness, pure actualty, aseity, etc only a being that is non-temporal, non-physical and timeless can fit the description of the God of the Bible.

We have both scriptural and philosophical reasons to reject that God is a physical being

Scripture

Numbers 23:19
"God is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not human, so he does not change his mind. Has he ever spoken and failed to act? Has he ever promised and not carried it through?"

1 Samuel 15:29 He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind."

1 Tim. 1:17
Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation

Philosophical arguments

1-The fact that the universe is not eternal and that space, time and matter came into existence means necessarily that God can not be spatial, material, and in time because before creation there was no space time and matter. Thus the cause could not be material and in time because matter and time did not exist

2-A God who is infinite and made of parts, would mean God has an infinite amount of parts. There are numerous ways to show that an ACTUAL infinite can not exist in reality.

3-Immutability (Unchangeability). In his epic Summa Theoligica (1a.9.1), Aquinas offers three basic arguments in favor of God's unchangeability. The first argument is passed on the fact that a God of Pure Actuality ("I-Am-ness") has no potentiality. It follows, therefore, that God cannot change (Exodus 3:14). Whatever changes has to have the potential to change. But as pure Actuality, God has no potential, so He cannot change.

The second argument for God's immutability follows from His simplicity. Everything that changes is composed of what changes and what does not change. God cannot change because an absolutely simple being has no composition. If everything about a being changed, then it would be an entirely new being. In fact, it would not be change but annihilation of one thing and a creation of something entirely new. Now if, in every change in a being something remains the same and something does not, then it must be composed of these two elements. So an absolutely simple being with no composition cannot change.

The third argument for God's unchangeability argues from His absolute perfection. Whatever changes acquires something new. But God cannot acquire anything new, since He could not be better or more complete. Therefore, God cannot change. If He did, He would not be God for He would have lacked some perfection.

Aquinas also argues that God alone is immutable (Summa Theologica, 1a.9.2). All creatures exist only because of the will of the Creator. His power brought them into existence, and it is His power that keeps them in existence. Therefore, if He withdrew His power they would cease to exist. Whatever can cease to exist is not immutable. Therefore, God alone is immutable; everything else could cease to exist.

4-God is pure actuality in that he has no potential to change because a being that has infinite knowledge can not grow in knowledge or learn anything new. Yet a god who is made up of physical parts is limited and changing, thus denying an essential attribute of

5-Simplicty (Indivisibility). Since God is not composed in His Being, but is Pure Existence, Pure Actuality with no potentiality; it follows that He is simple and indivisible. A Being that by nature is not composed cannot be decomposed. One that has no parts cannot be torn apart. Hence, God has absolute simplicity with no possibility of being divided. He is literally indivisble.

Likewise, a God of Pure Actuality with no potentiality cannot be divided. For if it were divisible, then it would have the potential to be divided. But Pure Actuality has no potentiality in its Being whatsoever. Hence, it must be absolutely simple or indivisible.

God's indivisibility follows also from His immutability. For if God could be divided, He could change. But God is unchangeable by nature. Thus He cannot be divided. He must be absolutely simple in His nature.
http://www.ovrlnd.com/Apologetics/NatureOfGod.html

That is just a few of God's attributes that demonstrate God can NOT be a physical being or composed of parts.

Hope this helps you see that it would be against the plain teachings of scripture as well as his attributes.

Great questions, God Bless!

Guard Yourself and Test All Things

"When you don’t even lay down clear doctrine at the level of the Gospel, where are you going to go from there? And the cry is, as one man said to me when my book on The Gospel According to Jesus came out, he said, “Your book is divisive!” Y
ou want to know something? He’s right. He’s right. Want to know something else? Doctrine divides. People say, “Oh doctrine divides…doctrine divides.” I say, “Amen, preach it, doctrine divides.” You know what it does? It confronts error. It separates true from false. It makes judgments. Today’s climate, however, of unity in the priority of relationships, that’s not tolerable."

~John MacArthur

Dr. Doug Geivett vs Dr. John Shook Part 1

Very exciting debate!  This is part one of a three part debate.   There are many atheists in the crowd and Dr. Shook is a formidable opponent.   Enjoy!

Trinity vs Oneness

Here is a discussion I had with a dear friend from Facebook.  She had some questions on the Trinity and the need for the historic councils. Here is the full conversation unedited.

The dialog is quick and moves fast so at times there is spelling and grammatical errors (especially from me).

Lamarie Austin i hope I'm not being to intrusive here Devin and Norm, but I'd like to chime in here. The council of Nicea 325 AD, some almost 300 years AFTER thhe resurrection of Jesus. Here's a few points I've always had an issue with this. First, because the council implemented the Doctrine of the Trinity, setting the terms of Christian Orthodoxy, going forward, anyone NOT UTILIZING THE TERMINOLOGY THEY DECIDED ON are AUTOMATICALLY BRANDED HERETICS. Now, here's my question on this point-NO ONE used this doctrine or terminology in coming to Faith in Jesus at Pentecost. There is not one recorded Account of this ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE. Which leads me to infer that the early church, founded on the Apostles and the Prophets with Christ as the cornerstone, THIS CHURCH, The one the gates of hell could not prevail against, WAS PERFECTLY CAPABLE to come to faith in the Lord Jesus, and to be LASTINGLY established, without this doctrine in place. So, if everyone after 325 AD is a heretic for not using the term Trinity in referencing the Godhead, Are you/this council claiming the early Christians/Apostles were HERETICS TOO?????




Lamarie Austin because if after this meeting non-trinity terminology using makes one a heretic, then before this meeting the same standard should apply, right?

Lamarie Austin Issue Number 2, this passage Comes from the second Catholic Encyclopedia-“As a colleague, then as guide of the bishops, the emperor felt he had a vocation to lead all men to unity in honoring the divinity within the Christian Church (Vita 2:65:1). In the Scriptures, Constantine found justification for his idea of the Church as a peace-bringing house of truth, the unifying element of the state as a kingdom of God (Vita 2:56,67). He respected the decisions of the bishops in synod, particularly the decrees of the Council of Nicaea, and considered all further theological dispute as nugatory. Hence his policy hardened toward pagans and Jews as time wore on. Although he employed pagan terms in speaking of the 'divinity,' 'the highest god,' and 'divine providence,' he had in mind the unique God of the Christians, the creator and judge of all who saved fallen man through His Son....In dealing with heretics and in his policy toward pagans, he exercised astute forbearance. There can be no doubt that he was a convinced Christian, whatever may have been the limitations in his understanding of the full significance of that faith.” (NCE, volume 4, page 182) Notice midway down what they say about Contstantine-ALTHOUGH HE EMPLOYED PAGAN TERMS IN SPEAKING OF DIVINITY-whoooooaaaaaa!!!! I don't care about their assessment of him, Look what they admit about the mans profession-He uses PAGAN TERMINOLOGY?!? Same Constantine who brought in these idolotrous holiday traditions that we are rooting out the Christian church now. Same Constantine over the Council of Nicea, same Pagan terminology using emporer now gives ANOTHER TERM TO DIVINITY, THIS TIME IT'S TRINITY. Why doesn't  anyone else see this as problematic??? Would a Christian Pastor Allow a Hindu to come into their meeting and set the terms for how their church should be run and how God should be taught doctrinally??? NO, absolutely Not! Yet, this council of Bishops let's a PROFESSING PAGAN do this at Nicea! I have an issue with this!

Lamarie Austin Devin, I'm a believer in the bible. I believe the Scripture CLEARLY speaks of the Godhead expressed in Father, Son, And Holy Spirit all over the place!! The bible clearly says that in Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form. I believe the Son is the Only way to the Father. I'm not denying a belief or affirmation of SCRIPTURE. I am discussing Constantine and my problem with this Compromised Paganism that He CLEARLY brought to the church. We still have all these pagan holidays now because of That time in History. COMPROMISE. And him and his leaders get to set a new RULE in Orthodox Christianity. It's suspect to me bro, the terminology, NOT SCRIPTURE.

Lamarie Austin Third point, which piggy backs off my first point, this council did not meet or decide on the new orthodox Christianity term UNTIL AFTER ALL THE EYEWITNESSES OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION AND THEIR DIRECT DISCIPLES WERE DEAD. Everyone knows, that by the 3rd or 4th generation of followers, COMPROMISE slips in. What we don't do in excellence, the next generation won't do in mediocrity. That's how it always works. SOOOOO, No trinitarian term required for first generation, ARGUABLY some of THE MOST RADICAL IN THE CHURCH! I mean, when's the last time you've heard of anyone being healed by your shadow or the sweat off your handkerchief?!?. First generation Church warning all over the epistles of apostacy, false teachers slipping in unaware and bringing in damnable teaching that denies the Lordship and deity of Jesus, this generation. Raising up a next generation-one that will commit the testimony to faithful men. No trinitarian term passed down anywhere in the epistles to the second generation. NO WHERE IN THERE. they pass down to their disciples, hey, Constantine may be 5th or 6th generation of folks my point is, why did it take so long for this terminology to show up, if it's that authentic, shouldn't the WITNESSES WHO WALKED WITH JESUS HIMSELF AND WERE WITH HIM DIRECTLY, shouldn't they if anyone have given us the terms to believe in Him??? Did they not already???? And who authorized the changing of the terminology????

Lamarie Austin Term change always denotes a spiritual shift, does it not???

Devin Pellew Put up your Dukes Lamarie :)

Let me say up front that me and Lamarie are good friends and I would not try and insult her or be nasty to her. This is two friends having a theological discussion. That said I will be pressing her and holding her feet to the fire :)

Let ma make a few points that will hopefully clarify the issues.

You said in your first post

" Here's a few points I've always had an issue with this. First, because the council implemented the Doctrine of the Trinity, setting the terms of Christian Orthodoxy"

This is simply not true. The councils do not "determine" a doctrine but rather put forth what has already been "discovered" in the texts of scripture. They did not "invent" the Trinity anymore than they "invented" the deity of Jesus. The doctrines are already revealed through out the scriptures. The creeds put the scriptures in a systematic form to clarify what has already been taught. So a lot of what you say from here on collapses because it is based on a false premise of what the creeds do.

Next you said

" anyone NOT UTILIZING THE TERMINOLOGY THEY DECIDED ON are AUTOMATICALLY BRANDED HERETICS"

One must understand church history and understand the NUMEROUS heresies that were arising. You had the Arians (Modern day Jehovahs Witnesses) claiming Jesus was a created being as well
 as other numerous heresies. With the Trinity you had Sebalious who denied the Trinity and taught that God instead appeared in three different modes, rejecting that the Father, Son and Spirit are co-persons ,co-equal and co-eternal. Thus even today we see MASSIVE confusion in the church over this issue thus when the Athanasian creed (Most detailed creed on the Trinity) they are making the distinctions that MUST be made to separate Saballeianism and Trinitarianism.

If one does not want to use the term Trinity, my question would be why? To say one affirms the Trinity is to make the distinction between orthodox Christianity and outright heresy. To say that because the word "Trinity" is not used in the Bible, is to miss the point. The word "Monotheism" (Only one God) is not used in the scriptures either but the concept is taught, and that is how we derive our doctrines. Nor whether the paticular word is there. As protestants we all affirm the 5 solas of the reformation and why the terms are not used the concepts are.

Next you said

"Now, here's my question on this point-NO ONE used this doctrine or terminology in coming to Faith in Jesus at Pentecost. "

I would completly disagree with you that the doctrine of the Trinity is not taught implicitly through the scriptures. If you want to say the "word" Trinity was not used then I agree, but to say the doctrine is not there is completly false in my view. Just as the word (Monotheism) was not used the doctrine is taught all through out scripture. Again the "word" does not have to be there, but rather the question is if the "concept" is taught.

Next you said

"So, if everyone after 325 AD is a heretic for not using the term Trinity in referencing the Godhead, Are you/this council claiming the early Christians/Apostles were HERETICS TOO?????"

Who said those who do not use the term "Trinity" is a heretic? If one denies that the Father, Son and Spirit are co-equal-co eternal and co-persons then I would affirm one is a heretic. If they deny the word "trinity" that does not make one a heretic, to deny the "doctrine" would be heretical. Just as if one does not use the term monotheism they are not a heretic, however to deny the doctrine of Monotheism Would be a heresey.

You brought up a second issue and quoted out of the Catholic Encyclopedia and after quoting it you said

"Notice midway down what they say about Contstantine-ALTHOUGH HE EMPLOYED PAGAN TERMS IN SPEAKING OF DIVINITY-whoooooaaaaaa!!!! I don't care about their assessment of him, Look what they admit about the mans profession-He uses PAGAN TERMINOLOGY?!?"

Again this is all irrelevant to the doctrine Lamarie. This actually would commit the "genetic-fallacy" in logic where you are attacking the source of the term used rather than the merits of the doctrine found in scripture.

The question is whether or not the doctrine is found in the scriptures, not who came up with what they eventually name it.

Secondly, Constantine DID NOT first use the term Trinity but rather he employed the term which had already been around

"This word is derived from the Greek word trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Latin trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine."

http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/trinity.html

This being said your second objection fails because

1-It commits the "genetic-fallacy"

2-The term Trinity had been used before Constantine was even alive!

Part 2 is coming to address the rest of your objections

Great dialog

Devin Pellew Actually looking at your third point is was already addressed in your first point. The term is irrelevant, it is the doctrine or substance is the key issue. The doctrine IS taught through scripture. If one wants to uphold the doctrine but not use the term "Trinity" then I am ok with that.

Great discussion my friend and I hope that helps :)


I will post part 2 of the debate Wednesday!

Arminianism (Dr. Michael Brown) vs Calvinism (Dr. James White)

Very good debate between to competent scholars!

Do the Gospels Have Contradictions?

In this lecture, entitled Alleged Contradictions in the Gospels, Dr. Timothy McGrew explores and answers 7 alleged contradictions between the Gospels. This is about an hour of content followed by about 15 minutes of Q&A. If you want the powerpoint and PDF of this lecture, go tohttp://www.Apologetics315.com

To Him Be Glory Forevermore

Our Focus: The Glory of God

So we will focus today on the glory of God. Here’s the plan: First, I will try to do the impossible and define the indefinable, the glory of God; second, we will look at the words “to him be glory” in Romans 16:27, and ask what it means to say “glory be to something.” And third, instead of a systematic treatment of Paul’s understanding of the glory of God, we will start with chapter one and simply walk through the entire book and see the role that the glory of God plays in the book of Romans as a whole. My prayer is that you see and love the glory of God for what it is.

Case For Christ

Based upon the Gold Medallion award-winning best-seller, The Case for Christ documents Lee Strobel's journey from atheism to faith through his two-year investigation of the Bible and the life of Jesus Christ. Strobel, the former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune, draws upon his investigative skills to examine the historical accuracy of the Gospels, the personal claims of Jesus and His resurrection from the dead. Is there evidence to confirm that Jesus of Nazareth was, indeed, the son of God and the savior of the world? This remarkable film features interviews with 10 leading Biblical scholars from North America and England, cutting-edge apologetics, and a compelling original music score.

At the Bottom of this Blog I have several others videos like this dealing with science, the Bible, etc. Please take time to check them all out.

The Gospel

These have been selling like Hot cakes in American Evangelicalism!  Many Christians in American evangelicalism are either caught up in the "prosperity gospel"  or the latest craze of the "seeker sensitive" movement and are not being taught the full council of God's word.

Watch this video of these people who hear the gospel for the first time and go ecstatic to find out that Jesus Christ died on the cross and His blood will save His elect from their sins

No cool band with "skinny jeans". No strobe lights and electric guitars. Just the gospel of Jesus Christ!  They celebrated for over two hours straight!!!  Oh that we would fall in love with the gospel and that we would see that it is more than enough.

Theology Matters With The Pellews

Join us tomorrow (Thursday) from 6-8pm EDT for an exciting "Theology Matters". This week during the first hour, we will be giving an introduction to our study on the Attributes of God. For the next several weeks, we will be diving into different attributes that tell us about the nature of God. During the second hour, we will have Brendon Helms, apologetics speaker and Associate Pastor at Macedonia Baptist Church- Lincolnton, NC, on the air with us to discuss evidence for the Reliability of the New Testament. This is going to be a great show so make sure you tune in to listen at the link below and as always, feel free to call in with your questions and comments at (760) 542-3907. For those who want to participate, the chatroom will also be up during the show.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-visible-conservative-christians-unleashed/2012/08/09/theology-matters-with-the-pellews#.UCKt6UWOxbQ.facebook

The Way of the Master - God's Wonderful Plan

Have you ever heard the phrase "God has a wonderful plan for your life"? Do you think it's biblical? Before you answer, consider this -- What would you say if you were able to preach to 1,000 people in Tower One of the World Trade Center, the day before it collapsed and killed them? Would you say that God had a "wonderful plan" for their lives? How could you say that when their lives are going to end the next day in the most horrible of ways? This episode not only exposes this popular yet unbiblical presentation, it shows how it actually limits the Gospel to a certain segment of the world, and how it has the potential to fill the Church with false converts.

Journey Inside The Cell

This animation shows how the digital information encoded in DNA directs protein synthesis inside the cell and provides a unique look at the evidence for intelligent design as described in Dr. Stephen C. Meyers book Signature in the Cell. For more information visithttp://www.signatureinthecell.com

William Lane Craig on Richard Dawkins and The God Delusion

Uploaded by drcraigvideos2 on Feb 28, 2012


Gracepoint Berkeley (2010) - William Lane Craig critiques and reviews atheist Richard Dawkins and his best-selling book The God Delusion. Craig shows how Dawkins fails to represent and refute traditional arguments for God's existence, like the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Fine-tuning Argument (or argument from design), and the Ontological Argument. For more information on William Lane Craig: http://reasonablefaith.org

My Debate With Adam Part 2

Here is part 2 of my debate with Adam.  As of today He has not responded but I will post when or if he does.


Adam Wilson

first, I have not changed topic. I was merely responding to things YOU said. The exact same thing that you have been doing to me. it was not to take anything away from the original topic of thinking that Dan Cathy is intolerant. I stick by that assertion; and I would love for you to try to convince me that trying to suppress a group of people based on their orientation is NOT intolerant.

Second, based strictly on the definition YOU provided earlier for tolerance, it does NOT involve someone's actions, only beliefs and opinions. I am tolerant of people's opinions and beliefs. Dan Cathy is not. He is using his company to actively attempt to suppress a group of people. I will not support his ACTIONS but I am tolerant of his beliefs no matter if I think they are wrong or not.

Third, the imminent comment was based on your words, not the bible's. You said it was imminent. you decided to not use the actual definition of imminent because it doesn't fit your beliefs. you are changing the definition of imminent by saying "in theological terms". Is there a theological dictionary? I haven't read one. You changed the definition of imminent to fit your argument and try to disprove what I said. you can't use definitions against me and then when I use it against you, you say "well in theological terms..." and then those passages you mentioned merely meant that no one will know when jesus will return. just like no one knows when lightning will strike.
fourth, you said, "jesus certainly affirms that marriage is between a man and a woman." but he does 

NOT say that it is ONLY between a man and a woman. I’m not saying that's not what he meant, but it's not what he said. per the bible, you are to not take anything away or add anything. so you have to go by exactly.

fifth, you said god handed down the moral and ceremonial laws to separate them from the pagans. I didn't see any scripture "confirming" that assertion. Please provide biblical support for that comment. 1 Corinthians 6 also says that wrongdoers, adulterers, idolators, slanderers, the greedy, drunkards, swindlers, and sexually immoral will not enter the kingdom of heaven. but Paul goes on to say that the people of Corinth were washed which most interpret to mean have been cleaned and will enter the kingdom of heaven. so as long as homosexuals are baptized (washed) then they will be allowed to enter correct?

Sixth, you said I changed the topic AGAIN. and again, i was merely responding to what you said because you told me to repent. which is your not so subtle way of pushing your beliefs on me. I understand that you feel commanded by God to share your faith with me but I do not feel the same. If I have an old book that tells me to smack you in the face. should I do it? I understand that is a big leap with what you are doing but it brings me back to the point that Dan Cathy is pushing is beliefs on other people. not everyone is christian and they have a right to believe what they want to believe. you or Dan Cathy have no right to force your beliefs onto other people. .

Seventh, no i am not atheist. I am agnostic. I have no proof of an all-knowing, all powerful god and an ancient book written by men is not proof (even if the writers of that book say it was inspired by God), therefore I am 100% sure that I don't know if there is or isn't a God. If I told you today that God told me to tell you that homosexuality was ok, would you believe me? then why do you believe someone else that says it simply because it happened long ago? and no, i do not believe in miracles. I do not believe that a virgin became pregnant, I do not believe that water can be turned to wine, I do not believe that someone can walk on water. that is magic. I do not believe in magic whether it is said to happen today, 50 years ago or 2,000 years ago.
you then say that god gives us free will. there is a paradox in that assertion. Free will cannot exist if God is all knowing and all powerful. you merely have the illusion of free will. If god is all knowing and all powerful, then he knew every decision were you going to make before he created you correct? If you say no, then you are limiting god's knowledge therefore removing the "all-knowing" tag from his title. If you say yes, then you have no free will. your path has already been laid out for you when he created you. again, I'm not changing the topic, only responding to what you are saying.
next, you say that people will not experience torture but torment. So are you saying that people in hell will not be in excruciating pain for eternity? that seems like torture to me.
and you misinterpreted what I said. By me saying he should keep his opinions to himself, I was meaning that he doesn’t need to force his beliefs on others. the fact that you call me a bigot is laughable. I gladly support your right to your opinion but if you give your money to a group that wants to keep me, my friends, a group of people based on sexual orientation, color, religion, or culture down then I will proudly draw the line there. I am tolerant of ideas, not actions. if you can't see the difference then i feel sorry for you.
and lastly, I would LOVE for you to explain how a man marrying a man is a "DISASTER" waiting to happen. do you have any proof of this? or just assumptions? 

How would a same sex couple getting married affect you in any way? please explain. I would also like to explain how the laws which per the constitution shouldn't be sponsored by any religion (which is why crosses are being removed from govt. property because is sponsors christianity), can't allow the same rights to gay people as they afford to straight people. that's what this whole thing is about. homosexuals just want the same rights that you have. how would you feel if someone of a different religion said "well I have this religion that says you can only marry someone of the same race as you and they have to be the same age so we're going to make it illegal to do anything different." you wouldn't like it because that's not what you believe yet that's exactly what Cathy is doing to others. He feels his beliefs are better than everyone else's and everyone needs to live by his beliefs. People who support Cathy are supporting oppression. Do you support oppression? Do you support withholding rights from a group of people? The same thing happened during the Civil rights era. "Christians" were strongly opposed to desegregation because they thought blacks were less than whites. Nowadays people are doing the same things except now they are doing it against a different group of people and doing it through different ways. I know they aren't putting fire hoses to people but they are using social media to spew their hate.
I do love the dialogue and will gladly keep conversing with you if you'd like. You are by far the most intelligent person I’ve debated with on this and I’m 99.9% positive you have done way more studying than me. I love the challenge. This was sent from my iphone so I hope I don’t have any grammatical errors. I hate to hear from the grammar police again. I have two warrants out already. :)

Devin Pellew 

Adam,

Good stuff my friend. Our posts keep getting longer and loner ....haha In response to your coments you said

"I would love for you to try to convince me that trying to suppress a group of people based on their orientation is NOT intolerant."

This again would go into the debate on gay-marriage which we can get into later, but of course I do not agree it is based on orientation but behavior. However, my argument was not complaining that we all need to be tolerant and have showed how (which you agreed) that your argument was self defeating. To maintain your postion about it being intolerant then you also need to admit you are not tolerant of those who would disagree with you on this. The whole point is that the argument from "tolerance" is a failure.

You said

"Second, based strictly on the definition YOU provided earlier for tolerance, it does NOT involve someone's actions, only beliefs and opinions. I am tolerant of people's opinions and beliefs. Dan Cathy is not."

No you are not sir, as all could see in the last post you did where you said

""I'm not upset that Cathy has an opinion however I think he needs to keep his opinion in his house or in his church."

This is NOT tolerance. Secondly to say you are tolerant of ideas but not actions is absurd. Actions come from ideas. You again change the definition of tolerance to fit your argument. If you do not see the problem then there is not much more I can say as I have gone to great lengths to show why your first argument failed (Which you already agreed with).

Next you said

"the imminent comment was based on your words, not the bible's. You said it was imminent."

The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible either, neither does it need to be in order for the concepts and doctrine to be taught. The question is whether the concept is found, not the word and I posted 2 or 3 scriptures and expounded on the context of the verses in question.

Next you said

"you decided to not use the actual definition of imminent because it doesn't fit your beliefs. you are changing the definition of imminent by saying "in theological terms". Is there a theological dictionary?"

This one took me a little by surprise. There are TONS of theological dictionaries. Here is a link to Amazon with at least 20 different ones.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=theological+dictionary

Many people may not know because Christians push a very anti-intellectualism in much of the culture today but doing theology is hard work and study. People like myself and DeAngelo Burse have spent years going to school and have yet to even scratch the surface. Hopefully in this exchange Adam you will see Christianity in a different light then maybe you did before in that theology is a lot more involved then maybe you had thought. Growing up in the church I had no clue theology could be so deep and involved.

Next you said

"I haven't read one. You changed the definition of imminent to fit your argument and try to disprove what I said. you can't use definitions against me and then when I use it against you, you say "well in theological terms..."

Sorry but yes I can. There are words used in everyday language that just do not have the same meanings as everyday normal usage.

Here is a great article dealing with this doctrine that you can read more about here and you will see I am not playing word games

"The primary thought expressed by imminency is that something important is likely to happen, and could do so without delay. While it may not be immediate nor necessarily soon, it is next on the program and may take place at any time. "
http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/doctrine-of-imminency-is-it-biblical

Next you said

" and then those passages you mentioned merely meant that no one will know when jesus will return. just like no one knows when lightning will strike. "

That is THE POINT! That is what the doctrine teaches and you just proved my point!

Next you said

"you said, "jesus certainly affirms that marriage is between a man and a woman." but he does NOT say that it is ONLY between a man and a woman. I’m not saying that's not what he meant, but it's not what he said. per the bible, you are to not take anything away or add anything. so you have to go by exactly."

1-Jesus is not telling us what marriage is not, he is telling us what it IS.

2-Jesus does tells us in positive terms what marriage IS

3-One must look at the whole of marriage and going to Genesis 3 which is where Jesus quoted the institution of marriage is established.

Next you said

"you said god handed down the moral and ceremonial laws to separate them from the pagans. I didn't see any scripture "confirming" that assertion. Please provide biblical support for that comment."

Not a problem. This is basic Christian theology and maybe the Bible will make more sense to you when you see some of the central themes in scripture. Here is where you find them

1- The Moral Law or the Ten Commandments. This part of the Law governed the moral life giving guidance to Israel in principles of right and wrong in relation to God and man (Exodus 20:1-17).

2- The Judgments, or the Social Law. This part of the Law governed Israel in her secular, social, political, and economic life (Exodus 21:1–23:13).

3-The Ordinances or the Ceremonial Law. This was the religious portion of Law which guided and provided for Israel in her worship and spiritual relationship and fellowship with God. It included the priesthood, tabernacle and sacrifices (Exodus 25:-31: Leviticus).

The laws were given to the nation of Israel which was fulfilling the Abrhamic covenant made in Genesis 12-15-17. For more on this here is a great study
http://bible.org/article/mosaic-law-its-function-and-purpose-new-testament

Part 2 on the way

Devin Pellew

I would ask you to hold off until I get part 2 up so its not confusing, thanks :)

Adam Wilson 

No worries. I have to wait anyway so I can formulate a decent response. I do however want to go ahead and respond to one portion. There is a BIG difference between having an idea and acting on it. If I have an idea about how to rob a bank it is different than if I actually do it. If you believe that being gay is wrong then that's your prerogative. However, when you take that idea and start limiting the rights of others, it crosses a line. You are intelligent enough to see the difference. And I didn't change the definition. I am merely referring to the exact definition that you posted. Having ideas is not the same as committing actions.

Part 2
Devin Pellew

You said

"1 Corinthians 6 also says that wrongdoers, adulterers, idolators, slanderers, the greedy, drunkards, swindlers, and sexually immoral will not enter the kingdom of heaven. but Paul goes on to say that the people of Corinth were washed which most interpret to mean have been cleaned and will enter the kingdom of heaven. so as long as homosexuals are baptized (washed) then they will be allowed to enter correct? "

To be baptized is a symbol as circumcision was of being dead to your old self and raised with Christ. To be a Christian is to realize that you are sinful, wicked and need a savior. One must repent which means to turn from their sins and follow Christ alone. Jesus tells us what it means to be a follower of Christ

Mathew 16:24 "Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."

Matthew 10:38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."

Luke 14:27 And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple."

John 14:21 Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

John 14:23 Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him."

1 John 2:3 We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands."

So to just go get baptized and think that they will be with Christ for eternity is not taught in scriptures. We know we know Him by our obedience and thus if one was a true Christian they would abandon the homosexual life style. Not saying one will not fall or be tempted, but when it happens as a Christian you are grieved and broken over your sin. Hopefully this answers your question

Next you said

" no i am not atheist. I am agnostic. I have no proof of an all-knowing, all powerful god "

I would ask you then how do you explain

1-Origin of the universe
2-Fine tuning of the universe
3-Origin of life
4-Complexity in biological systems including Irreducible complexity
5-The failure of Gradualism and neo-darwinism
6-The Argument for morality
7-The existence of metaphysical properties such as minds, laws of logic, and objective moral values.
8-Why is there something rather than nothing

You may not know of arguments for the existence of God but to say "There is no evidence" is a pretty bold claim. The fact you may not know is one thing, to assert that there is no evidence is a much stronger claim. I would be certainly willing to do a debate on this topic if you are interested and would like to see your response to the 8 points I mentioned.

Next you said

"and an ancient book written by men is not proof (even if the writers of that book say it was inspired by God)"

Whether the book is old or not has no bearring on whether it is true. Secondly to say it is not proof would mean you can give a better answer to the 8 points listed above through a naturalistic explanation. Secondly you have not at all dealt with the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. You can not simply dismiss all the arguments and claim there is no evidence for it. This again is going to go back to whether God exists. If God exists then it is at least possible that the Bible is His word and so I think that is where we need to go.

"therefore I am 100% sure that I don't know if there is or isn't a God"

Well good, then at least you are open and I would say we need to examine arguments for the existence of God.

Next you said

" If I told you today that God told me to tell you that homosexuality was ok, would you believe me? "

No I would not based on the attributes of God.

1-The attribute of God's immutability is that God does not change in his ontological nature and can not undergo any change (Malachi 3:6) and neither does He change His mind (Numbers 23:19).

2-You are not a prophet of God

3-Hebrews 1 is clear that there are not any more prophets and so God does not speak as He did giving new revelation. The canon is closed.

Next you said

"then why do you believe someone else that says it simply because it happened long ago?""

The Quran was written long ago as well, that wouldnt make it true. I believe it based on the fact I think Theism explains the 8 things I listed earlier, and I have already mentioned these 3 points of why I believe the Bible which you did not even address but glossed right over them

1-The NT is the best attested work in ainceint history with over 5,700 manuscripts in Greek alone

2-The events that happened are recorded closer to the actual events then any work in ainceint history

3-The evidence for the death, burial and Resurrection of Jesus

Next you said

"and no, i do not believe in miracles. I do not believe that a virgin became pregnant, I do not believe that water can be turned to wine, I do not believe that someone can walk on water. that is magic."

No it is not magic, it would be a miracle. What the Atheist believes is even worse then magic in that they believe the universe came into existence from nothing and by nothing. At least in magic you have a magician who pulls the rabbit from the hat. In Atheism you dont even have the magician. Please explain how you deal with the 8 points mentioned earlier, this is where the debate hinges.

Next you said

"I do not believe in magic whether it is said to happen today, 50 years ago or 2,000 years ago. "

Good, then I am eager to hear your explanations on the 8 points.

Next you said

"Free will cannot exist if God is all knowing and all powerful. you merely have the illusion of free will. If god is all knowing and all powerful, then he knew every decision were you going to make before he created you correct?"

Yes but your false assumption lies in the fact that because He knows what we are going to do means we did not freely do it. He knows what we will do but the actions are still done freely. So unless you can show me a contradiction which you havent, I see no problem at all.

Part 3 coming

Part 3

Devin Pellew

You said

"next, you say that people will not experience torture but torment. So are you saying that people in hell will not be in excruciating pain for eternity? that seems like torture to me.

I do not deny they will be in pain but the pain and torment is self inflicted. I do not take the language of Hell as to be literal because the language and hermenudicts really allow for it. Scripture is telling us what Hell is "Like" and is giving analogies. For example fire is used but we are also told it is outer darkness. Both cant be literal because they are contradictory, also Hell is compared to be like a water-less cloud, wandering star and a bottomless dump. The scriptures is telling us what Hell is like. It will be far worse then we can imagine and the pain is inflicted from within and self caused. They will also face God's wrath and not have His goodness. The terms used in scripture is torment, not torture and they just are not the same things.

As far as the last part dealing with "gay marriage" is another whole debate in and of itself. We just have to much on the table now and need to focus on just one area I think. I would like to discuss arguments for God's existence as this is where it all comes down to.

I am thankful for the dialog my friend and you are a very intelligent guy and enjoy the discussion. If nothing else I hope you see that Christianity is not some brain dead belief but see there are good reasons to believe it is true.

Quickly you said

" There is a BIG difference between having an idea and acting on it. If I have an idea about how to rob a bank it is different than if I actually do it. If you believe that being gay is wrong then that's your prerogative. However, when you take that idea and start limiting the rights of others, it crosses a line. You are intelligent enough to see the difference."

Homosexuality is legal in America and is tolerated. The behavior is not promoted though through marriage and should not be because of the terrible effects on society. So no one is limiting their rights, however to redefine marriage for everyone else is a whole other ball game then just practicing it.

Look forward to hearing from you!