“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.”
Thursday, August 23, 2012
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.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
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:
Monday, August 20, 2012
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.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
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.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
'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).
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Theology Matters Radio show with Myself and my Wife Melissa
.jpg)
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!
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
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 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??
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.
(Galatians 3:16-18 ESV)
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 That God can "change" or undergo differing modes
Lamarie Austin I believe it's the same God.
Lamarie Austin personhood is a confinment/restriction of omnipresence in how God reveals himself to men
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 Never leaving Heaven bankrupt
Devin Pellew I understand they are both God
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....
Devin Pellew Your theology itself puts you in a corner
Devin Pellew Define what you mean by personhood?
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?
I will post the 3rd and final part of the debate this weekend.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
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
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
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
Monday, August 13, 2012
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!
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?
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
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?
Sunday, August 12, 2012
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.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
The Gospel
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.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Theology Matters With The Pellews
.jpg)
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
The Way of the Master - God's Wonderful Plan
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
Monday, August 6, 2012
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
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?
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. :)
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. :)
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
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
I would ask you to hold off until I get part 2 up so its not confusing, thanks :)
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.
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
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!
Friday, August 3, 2012
Theology Matters with the Pellews
.jpg)
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 General Revelation. We will explore questions such as "What can we know about God just from observing nature?", "How does the fact that humans have a conscious point to God's existence?" and "Is the acknowledgement that God exists through the evidences in general revelation enough to save us?". During the second hour, we will have Dr. Richard Howe, Professor of Philosophy and Apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary on the air to discuss and breakdown the Kalam-Cosmological Argument- a powerful argument for God's existence, that he has used in formal debates with well-known atheists. You don't want to miss this information- packed and fun show! As always, we will be taking your calls and the chatroom will be open during the show.
Ravi Zacharias RZIM lecture at TIU
In this evening lecture, Ravi Zacharias talks about the gospel in light of new spirituality.
Debates!
As those who are friends with me on facebook you know that I frequently get into debates and discussions on various topics. Since the debates are open to public I will be posting several of them here on my blog. I think this helps others see how apologetics helps in real word situations and how to respond to many objections.
I am currently in a discussion with a guy names Adam. There has been numerous exchanges and I will put the discussion up as it is without me editing anything. So here is the first in numerous exchanges! The topic was on the recent Chick-fil-A fiasco and traditional marriage. Enjoy!
Adam : it's sad to see so many people supporting intolerance.
Adam : They are supporting keeping a group of people down. Jesus also supported slavery and the beating slaves (luke 12:45-48). Do you consider slavery a "christian value"?
It is absurd to cry for tolerance and yet be intolerant of those who disagree with you. Your view collapses on itself and is self defeating and you know this which is why you have to switch the topic to slavery and on top of it you misrepresent the passage which is a PARABLE not a historical account of a actual event. You are doing eisegesis instead of proper exegesis. You demonstrate
1) Your position on tolerance is self defeating in that you will not tolerate those whom you think are intolerant
2)You have NOT done your home work on the text you gave and demonstraye you are not familiar with hermenudicts and have wrongly accused Jesus of supporting "beating slaves".
You failed on both points.
I am on my phone so forgive my spelling :)
Great post Deangelo, Sola deo Gloria!
Adam,
You said
"You're taking the term "intolerant" too wholly"
What does this even mean?What you seem to be doing is using the word "intolerant" and changing the definition to what you think it means to suite your argument. Here is the definition from dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intolerance
"lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc."
Again to claim that you will not be tolerant of those who you do not agree with is ALSO and makes you just as much as a "bigot" as those you blast.
You said
" I am not going to be tolerant of bigots who want to keep rights from a specific group of people."
Then you are not tolerant my friend. Which is your right but then do not turn around and claim we should all be tolerant. Does not matter how smart you are or how badly you believe you are right, your argument COLLAPSES on itself because it is self defeating. I have shown what the word tolerance means and you are having to redefine what the word means for you to try and escape a "self defeating" argument.
Next you said
" I fully support EVERYONE's right to have their own opinion but when it goes from opinion to actively funding trying to keep people down then that's where it crosses the line."
And this is the point Adam. If you think this then fine, but the whole point is the cry for "tolerance" does not work when you yourself refuse to be tolerant of those whom you think are crossing the line. Thats why the argument for "tolerance" fails.
What the debate should be about is whether "gay-marriage" is something that would be good for the country and whether a select few should have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else. However Sir, that is not the approach you took but rather have used a self defeating premise and still cling to it even after showing it collapses on itself. We can not go much further if you throw out logic and proper reasoning and are willing to embrace self-refuting arguments. I do not say this to be rude or nasty, just a fact, your premise collapses on itself.
Next you said
"as for the point I made about Jesus, he told parables to teach lessons and prove points"
You are correct, I agree with you. The question is what is the points He is teaching in this parable, and as will be shown you did NOT do your homework.
You then said
"He told a parable about Slaves being beaten and said that it was fine"
As I said you did not do your homework at all. Lets do some proper exegesis and hopefully those reading this post will see that when people use this passage to claim Jesus supported "beating slaves" you can demonstrate they do not know what they are talking about and have slandered the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Luke 12:35-40 ESV)
“Stay dressed for action and keep your lamps burning, and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the wedding feast, so that they may open the door to him at once when he comes and knocks. Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at table, and he will come and serve them. If he comes in the second watch, or in the third, and finds them awake, blessed are those servants! But know this, that if the master of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have left his house to be broken into. You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”
This is speaking the the return of Jesus, NOT moral, ethical codes endorsing slavery. It is obvious to anyone who reads the passage that Jesus is giving us a warning to be alert and ready because the coming of Christ is imanent.
The second part
(Luke 12:41-48 ESV)
"Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?” And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful. And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more."
This again uses the "Master-Slave" imagery and this time is talking about a wicked servant who was not waiting and ready for the Master and in the parallel account
(Matthew 24:45-51 ESV)
“Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. But if that wicked servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed,’ and begins to beat his fellow servants and eats and drinks with drunkards, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
The reference is very clear Christ is talking about Hell and those who refuse to repent and surrender to Christ will spend eternity in Hell.
The point is Adam, you did NOT do your homework when throwing this passage up and it is not at all hard to see, all one has to do is flip there and read the WHOLE passage. You have slandered Jesus Christ and really need to repent and retract your claim because it has been demonstrated that you did not do your homework.
Lastly you said
" So in my mind, I didn't fail on both points. you just failed to understand them."
I understand them perfectly well and have given a very long explanation as to why:
1-Your first point is based on a self refuting argument which was demonstrated
2-You did not do your homework on the text you quoted and I demonstrated that
I am thankful for the dialog and look forward to your response if you choose to
You said
"You're taking the term "intolerant" too wholly"
What does this even mean?What you seem to be doing is using the word "intolerant" and changing the definition to what you think it means to suite your argument. Here is the definition from dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intolerance
"lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc."
Again to claim that you will not be tolerant of those who you do not agree with is ALSO and makes you just as much as a "bigot" as those you blast.
You said
" I am not going to be tolerant of bigots who want to keep rights from a specific group of people."
Then you are not tolerant my friend. Which is your right but then do not turn around and claim we should all be tolerant. Does not matter how smart you are or how badly you believe you are right, your argument COLLAPSES on itself because it is self defeating. I have shown what the word tolerance means and you are having to redefine what the word means for you to try and escape a "self defeating" argument.
Next you said
" I fully support EVERYONE's right to have their own opinion but when it goes from opinion to actively funding trying to keep people down then that's where it crosses the line."
And this is the point Adam. If you think this then fine, but the whole point is the cry for "tolerance" does not work when you yourself refuse to be tolerant of those whom you think are crossing the line. Thats why the argument for "tolerance" fails.
What the debate should be about is whether "gay-marriage" is something that would be good for the country and whether a select few should have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else. However Sir, that is not the approach you took but rather have used a self defeating premise and still cling to it even after showing it collapses on itself. We can not go much further if you throw out logic and proper reasoning and are willing to embrace self-refuting arguments. I do not say this to be rude or nasty, just a fact, your premise collapses on itself.
Next you said
"as for the point I made about Jesus, he told parables to teach lessons and prove points"
You are correct, I agree with you. The question is what is the points He is teaching in this parable, and as will be shown you did NOT do your homework.
You then said
"He told a parable about Slaves being beaten and said that it was fine"
As I said you did not do your homework at all. Lets do some proper exegesis and hopefully those reading this post will see that when people use this passage to claim Jesus supported "beating slaves" you can demonstrate they do not know what they are talking about and have slandered the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Luke 12:35-40 ESV)
“Stay dressed for action and keep your lamps burning, and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the wedding feast, so that they may open the door to him at once when he comes and knocks. Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at table, and he will come and serve them. If he comes in the second watch, or in the third, and finds them awake, blessed are those servants! But know this, that if the master of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have left his house to be broken into. You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”
This is speaking the the return of Jesus, NOT moral, ethical codes endorsing slavery. It is obvious to anyone who reads the passage that Jesus is giving us a warning to be alert and ready because the coming of Christ is imanent.
The second part
(Luke 12:41-48 ESV)
"Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?” And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful. And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more."
This again uses the "Master-Slave" imagery and this time is talking about a wicked servant who was not waiting and ready for the Master and in the parallel account
(Matthew 24:45-51 ESV)
“Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. But if that wicked servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed,’ and begins to beat his fellow servants and eats and drinks with drunkards, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
The reference is very clear Christ is talking about Hell and those who refuse to repent and surrender to Christ will spend eternity in Hell.
The point is Adam, you did NOT do your homework when throwing this passage up and it is not at all hard to see, all one has to do is flip there and read the WHOLE passage. You have slandered Jesus Christ and really need to repent and retract your claim because it has been demonstrated that you did not do your homework.
Lastly you said
" So in my mind, I didn't fail on both points. you just failed to understand them."
I understand them perfectly well and have given a very long explanation as to why:
1-Your first point is based on a self refuting argument which was demonstrated
2-You did not do your homework on the text you quoted and I demonstrated that
I am thankful for the dialog and look forward to your response if you choose to
Adam Wilson
The term I used "wholly" was simply a failure to find the correct word on my part. Maybe my argument for "complete" tolerance is incorrect. If I see a bully beating up a small person and I step in, you can say I'm being intolerant of bullies but I wouldn't consider myself an intolerant person. I feel there is a big distinction between the two.
And you say the coming of Christ is imminent. Imminent, by definition, means menacingly close at hand, impending, and/or threatening to occur immediately. Jesus died over 2,000 years ago. I would say the deadline for an imminent return has come and gone.
And by definition, Christians are one who follow Christ. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality being wrong. He preached love and compassion and "do unto others..." homosexuality is condemned in the OT along with MANY other things that are widely accepted today. I do accept that I didn't read the whole passage in Luke and that's my bad. I will however not repent for anything seeing that I believe Jesus was just a man and not the son of god. It does kind of seem odd though that you believe in a LOVING god who will send people to an eternity of torture simply for not worshipping him. If you believe in God then you also believe he gave us rational thought. Based on purely rational thinking, it's unlikely to believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful god. It actually defies rational and logical thought. He is going to punish us for being rational when he created us that way? I think I'm starting to veer off course though. Sorry. The only reason I have a horse in this race is because chik fil a is actively trying to oppress a group of people. 50 years ago, Christians were saying the exact same things during the civil rights era. Now look where we are. 50 years from now, I hope things have changed. 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. I don't think he needs to push or force his beliefs onto other people. And that is exactly what he is doing when he funds anti-gay groups
And you say the coming of Christ is imminent. Imminent, by definition, means menacingly close at hand, impending, and/or threatening to occur immediately. Jesus died over 2,000 years ago. I would say the deadline for an imminent return has come and gone.
And by definition, Christians are one who follow Christ. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality being wrong. He preached love and compassion and "do unto others..." homosexuality is condemned in the OT along with MANY other things that are widely accepted today. I do accept that I didn't read the whole passage in Luke and that's my bad. I will however not repent for anything seeing that I believe Jesus was just a man and not the son of god. It does kind of seem odd though that you believe in a LOVING god who will send people to an eternity of torture simply for not worshipping him. If you believe in God then you also believe he gave us rational thought. Based on purely rational thinking, it's unlikely to believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful god. It actually defies rational and logical thought. He is going to punish us for being rational when he created us that way? I think I'm starting to veer off course though. Sorry. The only reason I have a horse in this race is because chik fil a is actively trying to oppress a group of people. 50 years ago, Christians were saying the exact same things during the civil rights era. Now look where we are. 50 years from now, I hope things have changed. 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. I don't think he needs to push or force his beliefs onto other people. And that is exactly what he is doing when he funds anti-gay groups
Devin Pellew
Adam,
Thank you for your response and I am thankful for the thoughtful and friendly dialog.
You said
"The term I used "wholly" was simply a failure to find the correct word on my part. Maybe my argument for "complete" tolerance is incorrect"
Glad to see you recognize the argument as you stated it fails and collapses on itself.
Next you said
"And you say the coming of Christ is imminent. Imminent, by definition, means menacingly close at hand, impending, and/or threatening to occur immediately. Jesus died over 2,000 years ago. I would say the deadline for an imminent return has come and gone. "
Just so people watching this thread can see, Adam has changed the topic again from the original discussion to get attention off the original claims. In logic this is a fallacy called a "Red-Herring" when one brings in unrelated issues to get attention away from the original arguments. Be that as it may I will tackle the objection.
In theological terms imminent does not have to mean occurring soon but rather when it happens it will be in an instant. You are assuming it means with length of time when the passages clearly in Luke 12 are talking about He could show up at anytime and when he does it will not be a long process but rather it will happen instantly.
Mathew 24:27
"For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."
Matthew 24:44
So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
Luke 17:24
For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other.
Again, context means everything and thus I think your objection fails
Next you said
"And by definition, Christians are one who follow Christ. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality being wrong"
I see this claim a lot. The Bible is clear that ALL scripture is given by God, not just the red letters
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness"
2 Peter 1:21
" For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
Secondly Jesus affirmed all the books of the OT as inspired by God which would include the OT passages speaking about homosexuality. Further Jesus tells us in Mark the purpose of marriage and how it is defined
(Mark 10:6-9 ESV)
"But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
1-Jesus certainly affirms that marriage is between a man and a woman.
2- Jesus is God and ALL scripture is breathed by God
3-Jesus affirmed all the writings of the OT as inspired by God
This being the case your objection fails
Next you said
"He preached love and compassion and "do unto others..."
1- You do not define what you mean by love. Biblically to love someone is to desire the best for them, not affirm them in whatever sinful choices they want to do. A father loves his 2 year old but that does not mean he will let the child play in traffic if he wants to or eat nothing but cookies instead of vegetables. True love is desiring the best for the other person.
2-Secondly Why Jesus did preach Biblical love and compassion He also had many hard things to say as well.
(John 8:24 ESV)
I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”
(Mark 8:34-38 ESV)
And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”
We see in Isaiah 63 talking about the coming King Jesus
(Isaiah 63:3-6 ESV)
“I have trodden the winepress alone,
and from the peoples no one was with me;
I trod them in my anger
and trampled them in my wrath;
their lifeblood spattered on my garments,
and stained all my apparel.
For the day of vengeance was in my heart,
and my year of redemption had come.
I looked, but there was no one to help;
I was appalled, but there was no one to uphold;
so my own arm brought me salvation,
and my wrath upheld me.
I trampled down the peoples in my anger;
I made them drunk in my wrath,
and I poured out their lifeblood on the earth.”
You need to have a Biblical understanding of love and need to know the whole of scripture, not just cherry pic the parts you like.
Next you said
"homosexuality is condemned in the OT along with MANY other things that are widely accepted today. "
This is to make a "Category-Mistake" in that Israel was a theocracy and thus God had handed down the Civil/-Ceremonial-/Moral laws and so for example eating pork, wearing cotton, etc was given to separate Israel from the surrounding pagan nations. Jesus fulfilled the law in his death on the cross however the moral law is universal and is reaffirmed in numerous passages in the NT such as 1 Corinthians 6.
Again you do not understand Biblical theology and are attacking it and do not even understand what you are attacking. I hope you see that the objections you have given are very easily answered and that you really should think about some of these things because eternity is at stake. I say that because I care for you, not to be a jerk. You seem like a nice guy.
Part 2 is on the way
Thank you for your response and I am thankful for the thoughtful and friendly dialog.
You said
"The term I used "wholly" was simply a failure to find the correct word on my part. Maybe my argument for "complete" tolerance is incorrect"
Glad to see you recognize the argument as you stated it fails and collapses on itself.
Next you said
"And you say the coming of Christ is imminent. Imminent, by definition, means menacingly close at hand, impending, and/or threatening to occur immediately. Jesus died over 2,000 years ago. I would say the deadline for an imminent return has come and gone. "
Just so people watching this thread can see, Adam has changed the topic again from the original discussion to get attention off the original claims. In logic this is a fallacy called a "Red-Herring" when one brings in unrelated issues to get attention away from the original arguments. Be that as it may I will tackle the objection.
In theological terms imminent does not have to mean occurring soon but rather when it happens it will be in an instant. You are assuming it means with length of time when the passages clearly in Luke 12 are talking about He could show up at anytime and when he does it will not be a long process but rather it will happen instantly.
Mathew 24:27
"For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."
Matthew 24:44
So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
Luke 17:24
For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other.
Again, context means everything and thus I think your objection fails
Next you said
"And by definition, Christians are one who follow Christ. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality being wrong"
I see this claim a lot. The Bible is clear that ALL scripture is given by God, not just the red letters
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness"
2 Peter 1:21
" For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
Secondly Jesus affirmed all the books of the OT as inspired by God which would include the OT passages speaking about homosexuality. Further Jesus tells us in Mark the purpose of marriage and how it is defined
(Mark 10:6-9 ESV)
"But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
1-Jesus certainly affirms that marriage is between a man and a woman.
2- Jesus is God and ALL scripture is breathed by God
3-Jesus affirmed all the writings of the OT as inspired by God
This being the case your objection fails
Next you said
"He preached love and compassion and "do unto others..."
1- You do not define what you mean by love. Biblically to love someone is to desire the best for them, not affirm them in whatever sinful choices they want to do. A father loves his 2 year old but that does not mean he will let the child play in traffic if he wants to or eat nothing but cookies instead of vegetables. True love is desiring the best for the other person.
2-Secondly Why Jesus did preach Biblical love and compassion He also had many hard things to say as well.
(John 8:24 ESV)
I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”
(Mark 8:34-38 ESV)
And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”
We see in Isaiah 63 talking about the coming King Jesus
(Isaiah 63:3-6 ESV)
“I have trodden the winepress alone,
and from the peoples no one was with me;
I trod them in my anger
and trampled them in my wrath;
their lifeblood spattered on my garments,
and stained all my apparel.
For the day of vengeance was in my heart,
and my year of redemption had come.
I looked, but there was no one to help;
I was appalled, but there was no one to uphold;
so my own arm brought me salvation,
and my wrath upheld me.
I trampled down the peoples in my anger;
I made them drunk in my wrath,
and I poured out their lifeblood on the earth.”
You need to have a Biblical understanding of love and need to know the whole of scripture, not just cherry pic the parts you like.
Next you said
"homosexuality is condemned in the OT along with MANY other things that are widely accepted today. "
This is to make a "Category-Mistake" in that Israel was a theocracy and thus God had handed down the Civil/-Ceremonial-/Moral laws and so for example eating pork, wearing cotton, etc was given to separate Israel from the surrounding pagan nations. Jesus fulfilled the law in his death on the cross however the moral law is universal and is reaffirmed in numerous passages in the NT such as 1 Corinthians 6.
Again you do not understand Biblical theology and are attacking it and do not even understand what you are attacking. I hope you see that the objections you have given are very easily answered and that you really should think about some of these things because eternity is at stake. I say that because I care for you, not to be a jerk. You seem like a nice guy.
Part 2 is on the way
Part 2
Next you said
"I do accept that I didn't read the whole passage in Luke and that's my bad."
So you conceeded BOTH points! I am glad that you admit this and hope in future debates with others you will not use the same arguments now you have been shown they are self refuting and taking scripture out of context.
Next you said
"I will however not repent for anything seeing that I believe Jesus was just a man and not the son of god. "
So you now change the topic AGAIN to bring in unrelated topics. I however will take your challenge. What reasons do you have for believing this? Are you an Atheist? If so maybe we can start for looking at some arguments for the existence of God and start from there. If God does not exist then miracles are not possible, however if God does exist then Jesus being God is at least possible and we need to look at the arguments put forth to defend that. I will await your response.
You go on to ANOTHER objection when you say
"It does kind of seem odd though that you believe in a LOVING god who will send people to an eternity of torture simply for not worshipping him."
There are several assumptions you are making that need to be corrected
1-It is because God is loving He does not force people into heaven against their will but rather gives them exactly what they want. If one does not want to even sit in church or read His word for 20 min a day then why would they want to go be with Him for eternity? It is because God is not a divine rapist and lets people freely choose that he does not force people into heaven against their wishes
2-The Bible NEVER uses the word "torture" but rather "torment". They ae tormented in that they must live apart from the most Holy Beautiful being in existence and live with their sinful, selfish choices. As one Atheist commented that the doors of Hell are locked from the inside.
3-Man goes to Hell because the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) and man wilfully sins against God and because He is Holy and Just (Attributes you ignore) sin can not be in His presence.
4-The reason God created us was for His glory and the purpose of man as the Westminster confession of faith says is "to worship God and enjoy Him forever". To not do that is for us to never be satisfied and find our purpose. God is perfectly happy Triune being whom in His goodness invites us to partake in union with Him. Those who reject Him are the ones missing out, not Him.
Next you said
"If you believe in God then you also believe he gave us rational thought. Based on purely rational thinking, it's unlikely to believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful god. It actually defies rational and logical thought"
More errors that need to be flushed out
1-As a Theist I can explain the basis for rational thought and the laws of logic as well as a metaphysical part of man which is the mind. The Atheists is reduced to materialism which is known as a real problem for atheism because now you have no free will and your thought are reduced to chemical reactions in the brain. How can one who rapes a child be held accountable if there is no metaphysical mind where he is able to make volitional choices? It is like a branch going on a tree, he did not freely choose to do that and it was nothing more than the laws of physics and chemistry in his brain.
2-To claim it defies logic I would ask you to please point out the logical contradiction in saying God is all knowing and all powerful? Please state the law of logic that is being violated.
Next you said
"He is going to punish us for being rational when he created us that way?"
I think being a Theist is FAR more rational than being an atheist. When we look at the evidence it is not even close from
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.
The existence of God can be established by the points listed above and the fact we know that the God who exists is the God of the Bible can be shown by the fact that
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
So to claim the Theist is irrational I would GLADLY debate you on that.
Next 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."
How very tolerant of you sir. We can disagree with you as long as it is not in public. You sir are the poster child of bigotry and last I checked this is America, NOT Iran and we have freedom of speech. If you do not like what Christians believe then that is your right, but to banish all those who disagree with you to church or their house is bigotry at its worst. You do not want Christian ideas in public because you know if they are there naturalism will be shown to look silly and does not have a chance. You showed all reading this post who the true bigot is
Lastly you said
"I don't think he needs to push or force his beliefs onto other people. And that is exactly what he is doing when he funds anti-gay groups."
We all have a right to our opinions Adam. If you do not agree then fine, but as a Christian I see a select few wanting to redefine marriage for all and it is a DISASTER waiting to happen. I am not getting into the arguments against gay marriage here because I have already written a ton. But your intolerance and bigtry is shocking sir!
Again I enjoy the dialog and look forward to your reply
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)