Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog
|
Yesterday on the Dividing Line: Dr. Laurence Brown 0-15 on the Deen Show
09/30/2011 - James White
We finished reviewing, and refuting, Dr. Brown's "Top Ten" list against the Trinity, and his "Top Five" list against the Sonship of Jesus. Sadly, this kind of inaccurate, truth-deprived attack upon the Christian faith is the standard fare in Islamic countries, so it is important to know how to expose these falsehoods. But more to the point, this is the kind of material The Deen Show pumps out with regularity. Be prepared! Here's the program.And don't forget the WayBack Machine, streaming Dividing Lines from 1998 onward 24/7! You can listen on the Flash Player found here.
19:05:53 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -
Sagacious Advice for Wet-Behind-The-Ears Preachers
09/30/2011 - Alan Kurschner
Tim Raymond:"After the sermon, when this young pastor was standing at the door saying goodbye to his congregants, an elderly farmer came up and put his hand on his shoulder. In words none-too-subtle he barked, “Young man, I thought James wrote the book of James before I got here this morning!” The man walked out the door without saying another word."
http://www.credomag.com/2011/09/30/how-seminarians-can-learn-to-preach-to-normal-people-part-1/
07:32:13 - Category: Pastoral Theology - Link to this article -
Today's DL Begins Half an Hour Early
09/29/2011 - James White
Going to start at 3:30pm MST today instead of 4 to fit the full 90 minutes in before 5pm. Will finish up my review and rebuttal of Laurence Brown's "scholarly" attacks upon the Trinity and the Sonship of Jesus, and try to get back to Abdullah Kunde and Roger Perkins. Join us!12:56:35 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -
In Antithesis: A Journal of Apologetics
09/29/2011 - James White
The folks at Choosing Hats have produced a very nice looking, useful journal of apologetics that would be of great interest to most of our readers.
(Click graphic for pdf download)
08:30:11 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -
Steve Hays Replies: Well Worth Reading
09/29/2011 - James White
Here is his reply accusing me of doing what Norman Geisler has done in perpetuating the Great Evangelical Cover-up regarding the many myths and lies of Ergun Caner. The ability to not only disregard the obvious meaning of my words, but to stretch to this incredible length, speaks so loudly to the length to which Mr. Hays is willing to go in the prosecution of his case against those he personally dislikes that I truly need to make no further comment. I simply ask the reader to compare what I wrote to his response, see how the substance of my reply was ignored, and that what he does say in response ignores my clear intent and purpose, and make your decision on the basis of the facts. I pray the Lord's blessings on Steve, and on the whole Triablogue team. I simply pray he will recover his balance and seek fairness in his future efforts.06:48:11 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -
Wednesday Musings
09/28/2011 - James White
I have been downright encouraged to note the response that has appeared to the amazing statements of James McDonald of "Vertical Church" herewherein he basically throws Nicene orthodoxy under the proverbial bus. Here is the paragraph that drew the attention of many:2: I do not agree that T.D. Jakes is a Modalist.
I affirm the doctrine of the Trinity as I find it in Scripture. I believe it is clearly presented but not detailed or nuanced. I believe God is very happy with His Word as given to us and does not wish to update or clarify anything that He has purposefully left opaque. Somethings are stark and immensely clear, such as the deity of Jesus Christ; others are taught but shrouded in mystery, such as the Trinity. I do not trace my beliefs to credal statements that seek clarity on things the Bible clouds with mystery. I do not require T.D. Jakes or anyone else to define the details of Trinitarianism the way that I might. His website states clearly that he believes God has existed eternally in three manifestations. I am looking forward to hearing him explain what he means by that. I am also excited to hear him state his views on money, which may be closer to Scripture than the monasticism currently touring reformed world. I believe T.D. Jakes shows immense humility by being willing to step outside his own circles to interact with brothers in Christ who may see certain things differently. Getting brothers together who believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone but normally don’t interact, is what the Elephant Room is all about. Talking about issues that separate with grace and truth is what the Elephant Room is all about. We are greatly honored that T.D. Jakes has agreed to participate.
Now I know that "emergent" folks have an odd relationship with history---they love to drag stuff out of history, without its attendant context, as if it is "new," but when it comes to accepting that stand on the shoulders of giants and that there are things that have simply been settled in the past, they rebel and want to put everything "back on the table." Evidently, the very definition of modalism, and the meaning of Nicea, is "up for grabs" as well, at least for these folks.
Briefly, there is no question that the language of Jakes is modalistic, as anyone who has been listening to our review of the teachings of Oneness teacher Roger Perkins can attest. For McDonald, it seems that the history of Oneness teachings and creedal statements over the past century or so can be disregarded for a "fresh discussion." How any progress could ever be made in defining truth (or exposing error) in the light of the never-ending, never-concluding "discussion," I do not know. As with many other groups, it is simply absurd to think that given the definition of the Trinity (which has sort of been around for a very long time now) that specific rejection of that terminology coupled with a substitution of something else is anything other than a rejection of the Trinity itself. The idea that we get to "tweak" the definition today just because we are "modern" and (implicit assumption) so much more with it than those old fogies back then is a glorious example of modernistic hubris, one that sadly shows no understanding of what took place before, during, and after Nicea. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]
21:14:35 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -
The Absurdity of Pakistan's "Blasphemy" Law Illustrated
09/28/2011 - James White
Christian Girl, Family in Pakistan Expelled over MisspellingWild accusation of ‘blasphemy’ forces eighth-grader’s family to relocate.
LAHORE, Pakistan, September 28 (CDN) — An eighth-grade student in Pakistan has been expelled from school and her family forced to relocate after the Christian girl misspelled an Urdu word, leading to accusations of “blasphemy,” sources said.
In the garrison city of Abbottabad, 13-year-old Faryal Bhatti, a student at the Sir Syed Girls High School in Pakistan Ordnance Factories (POF) Colony Havelian, misspelled a word on an Urdu exam on Thursday (Sept. 22) while answering a question on a poem in praise of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, according to area Christians.
Faryal wrote laanat, the transliteration of the Urdu word for “curse,” instead of naat, which means a poem written in praise of Islam’s prophet, they said. The school administration and local Islamists declared that the error was serious enough to violate Pakistan’s widely condemned laws against blaspheming Muhammad and Islam.
Conviction under Section 295-C of Pakistan’s blasphemy law for derogatory comments about Muhammad is punishable by death, though life imprisonment is also possible.
Faryal’s Urdu teacher was collecting the answer sheets from her students when she noticed the word on Faryal’s paper. The teacher, identified only as Fareeda, summoned the Christian girl, scolded her and beat her, area sources told Compass by telephone.
Fareeda then notified the principal, who in turn informed school officials as news of the error spread throughout the colony. The next day, male students at the school as well as some Muslim representatives staged a demonstration, demanding registration of a criminal case against the eighth-grader and her eviction from the area, sources said.
Prayer leaders within the Muslim community also condemned the incident in their Friday sermons, asking the colony’s administration to take action against Faryal as well as her family, sources said.
POF Colony Havelian Managing Director Asif Siddiki called a meeting of clerics and school teachers to discuss the conflict, according to reports, at which the girl and her mother were ordered to appear; they explained that it was a mere error caused by a resemblance between the two words. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]
16:26:23 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -
Christology for Christians: A Study of the History and Theology of the Person of Christ
09/27/2011 - James White
Christology for Christians: A Study of the History and Theology of the Person of ChristTuesday, October 4th, 2011
The Dividing Line, 1 to 3:30pm MST (appx)
On Tuesday beginning at 1pm MST we will have the equivalent of a seminary level class on Christology on The Dividing Line. Christology should be a fundamental area of study of any serious believer, yet it is often an area of profound ignorance amongst many who name the name of Christ. We would like to help our listeners to have a much better grasp of this vital area. So, we will do at least two full hours of lecture on this topic, with a brief break halfway through the lecture.
To make this lecture most helpful, I am assigning reading to be done beforehand. The main reading is from James P. Boyce's Abstract of Systematic Theology, chapters 14, 15, 26 and 27, found here. We will likewise be looking at the Nicene, Chalcedonian and Athanasian creeds. You can find the text of these creeds here. If you wish to do some extra background reading, you can find background on the Nicene creed here, the Chalcedonian here, and the Athanasian here. Please join us for this important study live next Tuesday from 1 to 3:30pm MST. Obviously, for those who work during the day, we will post the audio as quickly as possible after the program is over. We hope you find this program a blessing!
16:05:01 - Category: Theology Matters - Link to this article -
Today on the Dividing Line
09/27/2011 - James White
We continued our examination of two recent programs on The Deen Show featuring "Christian scholar" Dr. Laurence Brown. I intended to finish the complete program where he gave his Top Ten reasons against the Trinity, but lo and behold, the sound file I created of the program cut off before the end! So I will finish that up on Thursday. We got about halfway through the second program, which I posted yesterday, the top five reasons why Jesus is not the Son of God. Needless to say, we have yet to find a single of one Dr. Brown's arguments to hold water. We would once again exhort the producers of The Deen Show to strive for a much higher standard in their treatment of these important subjects. Here's the program.And don't forget the WayBack Machine, streaming Dividing Lines from 1998 onward 24/7! You can listen on the Flash Player found here.
14:32:29 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -
So Much for "Friendly" Arminianism!
09/27/2011 - James White
So after Roger Olson deleted my comment asking him for clarification on what he meant by saying he does not read anything I write "on principle," I wrote to him directly:rogereolson says:
September 24, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Nope. Haven’t read either one. As a matter of principle I don’t read anything by Norman Geisler or James White.
Dr. Olson:
May I inquire as to what "principle" would lead you to ignore not only my writings, but Dr. Geisler's as well? Given how widely Dr. Geisler and I disagree, would it be our common commitment to inerrancy, perhaps? I had left a comment asking about this, but it was deleted. I look forward to hearing from you.
james
وفي المحاماة عن الانجيل وتثبيته
Well, needless to say, I did not get even the common courtesy of a response. I have no idea why Dr. Olson is so unfriendly toward me, or what he has against me, but as of now, it does not seem he feels any compulsion to explain his behavior. Perhaps we have here a touch of hyper-Arminianism, the "your god is so disgusting to me I don't really consider you a fellow believer anyway" type thing? Hard to say, since, obviously, he has no interest in explaining himself. So, as is so often the case, this will be a one-sided discussion, the Arminians doing the monologue, the Reformed folks providing the dialogue. Nothing new there!
I did encounter another interesting comment in the thread at Olson's blog (unlike him, I have no problems reading what he has to say, even when I find him far off the mark).
Nelson says:
September 26, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Hello Dr. Olson,
I can’t wait for your book to arrive at my front door. Your book on “Arminian Myths” was fantastic as it addressed the issues clearly and precisely.
Have you read White’s blog on his premature objection to your book…he apparently had nothing else to go on but what you stated on “September 24, 2011 at 12:08 pm”.
I realize you’d rather not read White but I hope you will change your mind as far as responding to any substantive future comment he may make on you book in the future. If you ask me, his exegesis of Biblical texts is lacking and he makes too much emphasis his style of exegesis.
rogereolson says:
September 26, 2011 at 11:23 pm
What you said….
Let me respond to Nelson first. Nelson identifies as “premature” my objection to Olson's book. The problem is, of course, anyone who read my blog article realizes that I was specifically responding to Olson's words in his own comments on his blog. I was not commenting on his book, but was asserting that Olson was providing his own summary statement of the thesis of his book. Do forgive me for assuming that the author would accurately summarize his own book! As for having nothing else to go on, unlike Dr. Olson, I have been reading his materials for quite some time. None of this, however, is even slightly relevant to the accuracy of what I said in responding to Olson's statements. Next, I find it ironic that Nelson would criticize my exegesis. He provides no examples, something we are very accustomed to. But then he uses this strange language of speaking of my “style” of exegesis. I wonder what that means? Is he referring to a grammatical–historical methodology of exegesis? Given what I have read on Olson's blog, I get the feeling that the kind of people he attracts are a good bit to my left, and hence would be much more comfortable with a view of Scripture that leaves much to the imagination. That is, my belief that there is a clear word from God and that the Scriptures are sufficient to communicate this to us may not be something that Nelson is fully committed to. Of course, Olson's three word response provides no meaningful assistance in further understanding his unwillingness to engage my writings or my viewpoints.
A number of people have attempted to purchase the Kindle version of Olson's new book for me, but have been unable to do so as of yet. I appreciate the attempts, and look forward to having the opportunity to work through Olson's book as soon as it is made available.
10:20:35 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -
Tuesday on the Dividing Line: Further Responses to "Christian" Scholar Laurence Brown
09/25/2011 - James White
Please do not ask me why anyone would call a man who is a Muslim and now openly admits to having never believed in the deity of Christ a "Christian scholar," but such is the odd world of The Deen Show. Another video has been posted featuring Laurence Brown pontificating on issues about which he seems to be woefully misinformed (such as the meaning of μονογενὴς and the dating of the early manuscripts of the New Testament). I will be adding this to the material we will be finishing up from last Monday's DL. So tune us in tomorrow at our normal time (11am MST) for the Dividing Line! Here is Dr. Brown's presentation:21:17:28 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -
Editing God: The Arminian Refusal to Let God be Free (With Update)
09/25/2011 - James White
Another book is hitting the shelves aimed at the Reformed faith, this one by well known Arminian author Roger E. Olson, who teaches at Baylor University. Against Calvinism evidently is part of a two book series, Michael Horton having written For Calvinism. I am sure we will be hearing all about the book over the next few months. I have kept an eye on Olson's writings for a while, and to be honest, I do not expect a great deal from this book. His arguments are primarily philosophical, and given his less-than-conservative bent, he is really not in a good position to make a major impact upon most Reformed folks, at least those who are Reformed by conviction. (I am assuming Reformed by conviction includes a very high view of Scripture and even the dreaded "i-word," inerrancy). But I was directed to his announcement of the forthcoming book having arrived (a pre-publication copy), and I found two of his comments interesting. Here is the first:rogereolson says:
September 24, 2011 at 12:08 pm
True. But if they are real Calvinists (and I explain what I mean by that in the book) they believe a doctrine of providence called “divine determinism” (I explain that in the book also) that absolutely rules out an conditionality of either election or reprobation. Besides (as I also explain in the book) IF election to salvation is absolutely unconditional, God COULD elect everyone to salvation. If he doesn’t (but could) he’s a moral monster. The only way around that is to believe that both individual election and reprobation are conditional.
It sounds like this is a summary of his main argument. Let me put it in plain language. IF God is completely free in the matter of salvation, and IF God exercises His freedom in the salvation of those who actually deserve nothing but His just wrath, and IF God's freedom includes His ability to save or to justly damn, THEN God is a "moral monster." Miss the leap over the massive chasm of reasoning there? Me too. But it is not the first time I have seen that kind of reasoning, and it will not be the last. Whether there will be any meaningful interaction with the necessary discussion of primary and secondary causes, creaturely freedom vs. autonomy, etc., we will see (I have placed the Kindle edition on the Ministry Resource List, and should someone obtain it for me, I will get through it on a long ride, unless it doesn't come out before I leave for Australia, then all bets are off). Of course, the real question is, "Where is the exegesis?" That is where I think we will once again be left wanting.
A little later in the comment thread we encountered this:
Daniel Ashworth, Jr. says:
September 24, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Dr. Roger,
I look forward to reading the book. I was wondering, did you read Norm Geisler’s “Chosen but Free” and James White’s response “The Potter’s Freedom” in your preparation for your text? I’d be interested in your thoughts on these two texts.
Blessings,
Daniel
rogereolson says:
September 24, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Nope. Haven’t read either one. As a matter of principle I don’t read anything by Norman Geisler or James White. :-)
While there is a "smiley face" at the end of this statement, I confess I have no idea what he means. It is too vague a statement to really understand. It could be sarcastic, as in, "Of course I have," or it could be serious. I have left a comment asking, but as of this evening, it has not been approved, or replied to.
Update
My question has been deleted without response. I have written via e-mail, but again, no response. James Anderson, a Oneness advocate, also asked If Olson just does not read apologists. Olson responded, "Not at all. I have read and occasionally still read apologetic literature." So it remains a mystery as to why Olson made this comment. I am wondering if, perhaps, the fact that both Norman Geisler and myself are ardent inerrantists might be the issue (Olson would hardly qualify as a strong conservative).
21:02:04 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -
Zakir Naik Illustrates the Dual Face of Islam When in the Public Square
09/20/2011 - James White
Very interesting contrast from Zakir Naik's own mouth (again illustrating why Naik refuses to debate those who could expose his arguments).06:04:35 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -
Responding to Dr. Brown's Top Ten List Against the Trinity on Today's Dividing Line
09/19/2011 - James White
I did not quite finish up the entire program, but I did manage to get to the majority of Dr. Laurence Brown's "Top Ten" list of reasons to reject the Trinity. Needless to say, we didn't find a single valid point in the list, but we instead found that once again, "inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument." Here's the program.Don't forget that I will be in Georgia the rest of this week, so the next Dividing Line is scheduled for its regular time on Tuesday, September 27th!
21:07:42 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -
A Response to "SolaSaint" on the Puritan Board
09/19/2011 - James White
The following was posted to the Puritan Board today. I would like to respond to it:I have been listening to the Dividing Line by James White lately and I have found him to be overly harsh with many who don't line up with him theologically. I really like him and his stand for the truth and in the past have always enjoyed his apologetic approach but he really seems to blast some of the top apologists in Christianity when they don't line up with him exactly. He blasted William L. Craig last week for a comment made in jest about a debate opponent becoming a Christian. He roughed up Michael Licona this week on his new book on the Resurrection about using non cannonical literature. He has really bashed Giesler lately and I agree with him on standing up to him, but he is really taking it to an extreme by using harsh rhetoric. Poking fun at Giesler an Caner won't win too many to the faith or the cause of apologetics.
Don't get me wrong, I'm an apologist and I do like James White but I think he is the one being unbiblical lately in his attack of other Christians. We don't need to bash each other but come in love and edification. I know White has tried to get Giesler to reply and I'm not sure where he is at with that, but when is it right or allowable to get ugly with anyone, especially a believer?
Anyone have an opinion either way on this. Am I wrong or has James gone a little too far?
Dear Mr. SolaSaint:
I am amazed that you can give consideration to the issues I have addressed regarding men such as William Lane Craig, Mike Licona, Ergun Caner and Norman Geisler, and put them all under the rubric of simply "not lining up with" me "theologically." Please allow me to set the record straight. These are not matters of minutiae, irrelevancies of interpretation. As most know, I do not in any way, shape, or form, focus upon such things. Let me demonstrate from the examples you yourself provided.
First, William Lane Craig was not jesting with his atheist opponent. He was being perfectly serious in suggesting that his opponent become a Christian "who simply doesn't believe in inerrancy." Can you make heads or tails out of such a suggestion, sir? What was Craig asking him to do? Believe Jesus died and rose from the dead solely on the basis of the "greater probability" of the event from a historical perspective? What if his opponent then asked, "But, even if I believe that, what does it have to do with me…and don't answer by reference to the Bible, since, of course, I don't believe it is a divine revelation to begin with." What then? Given the context of the debate, was it not obvious that having this as the final statement made by Craig that night communicated very clearly that the authority, accuracy, and consistency of the Bible is very low on his list of apologetic priorities? Do you think this was a wise way to end the debate? Do you think it is wrong to point this out and discuss it and point to a better way? Why is it "harsh" of me to do so?
Second, if you believe I was criticizing Mike Licona for making reference to non-canonical sources, you completely and utterly missed the entire point of my examination of his book. But first, did you notice I was actually reviewing what Licona wrote? Is that permissible? Or is it "harsh" to review books that are in the public domain? How many others actually took the time (as I have done) to both exegete the relevant text (Matthew 27:51ff) and to read Licona's entire section from his book? I did not criticize him for using non-canonical sources, of course. I said I did not think the Greco-Roman parallels he provided match up to the text in Matthew 27. There is a major difference, obviously. I further indicated that the Old Testament citations he raised were not contextually linked either. So you have simply misunderstood my entire discussion of that subject, and I would direct you to the blog article I posted on the topic, and to a re-listening of the program for a corrective of your misapprehension.
Next, I began responding to Norman Geisler's viewpoints, primarily on Reformed theology, eleven years ago. My replies have been fair, and thorough. Geisler's response has been neither. Have you read the incredible appendix he wrote for his second edition (which, thankfully, was removed from the third edition)? In any case, that is not the issue any longer. The issue now is Geisler's taking the lead in perpetrating a cover up in the evangelical community, a cover-up of monumental proportions, a cover-up that has no substance. Do you agree that Ergun Caner lied in making up the story of his alleged expertise in Islam and his being trained in jihad, born in Istanbul, etc. and etc.? If so, have you seen repentance from Caner? Or do you see him speaking at apologetics conferences around the nation with Norman Geisler, still speaking on the subject of Islam? Are you involved in witnessing to Muslims, sir? If so, how can you not see the continuing damage Geisler and Caner are doing, with the willing if silent assistance of so many "apologists" in the "discernment community" who sit quietly for fear of the power Geisler wields? Are you amongst those who say "Well, it is just time to move on," as if sweeping such things under the rug is a viable option?
Norman Geisler knows what he is doing here. His engagement in the Licona dispute shows that he is more than capable of quickly responding to challenges to his position. And yet he has remained obstinately unwilling to admit his own errors and his role in covering for Ergun Caner for over a year. Do you think we should just be silent? Let it all blow over? I mean, who really cares if the Christian community refuses to deal with such dishonesty with openness and integrity? It's just the Muslims we are talking about anyway, right? Well, sorry, but that is not an option for me. And yes, it has been very, very costly to my ministry and to me personally. But I do not see compromise on matters of ministerial and biblical integrity to be an option just because it might make a few more people "like" me. The names we remember from church history are not of the compromisers, but of those who stood for the glory of God and the truth of the gospel, whatever it cost.
You may not like the idea of a "What About Hadith 2425?" t-shirt. That's fine, you don't have to buy one. But what have you done about this situation? Have you called for Caner's repentance? For Geisler to come clean and answer the questions he knows he cannot answer? What would you be willing to do? Anything at all?
Many think using any humor at all in light of the silence of the perpetrators of the Great Evangelical Cover-Up is wrong. So, if I use humor I'm harsh, if I don't use humor I'm even harsher. Seems like I'm in a no win situation! So let's just forget about it and…do what? I am still in the arena dealing with Islam. I do not have the luxury of closing my eyes and ears and pretending all is well at Veritas Seminary. That is only for those who do not have to worry about standing before Islamic apologists while seeking to bear witness to the truth.
21:04:58 - Category: Personal - Link to this article -
A Special Monday Dividing Line Beginning at 1PM MST
09/19/2011 - James White
Join us today for the only Dividing Line of the week at 1pm MST. I will be addressing Dr. Laurence Brown's "Top Ten" list against the Trinity as it aired on the Deen Show!08:47:09 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -
On Today's Dividing Line
09/15/2011 - James White
Had seriously thought about doing a regular one-hour program today but, when my opening discussion of Dr. Licona's statements in his book regarding Matthew 27 (as well as Dr. Geisler's ability to be very focused on this issue while closing his eyes to his cover up of Ergun Caner) took the first fifty minutes, I decided to go for ninety minutes, and pressed on mainly with the Perkins debate, but took a little time toward the end to discuss other issues relating to the harmony and unity of Scripture. Here's the program.And don't forget the WayBack Machine, streaming Dividing Lines from 1998 onward 24/7! You can listen on the Flash Player found here.
20:07:08 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -
Setting the Messiah Apart as Holy in Your Hearts as Kurios
09/15/2011 - James White
Thanks to the Psalm 119 folks, and Ralph Provance, and Lane Chaplin, for making this available:10:26:36 - Category: Exegesis - Link to this article -
Can God become a man?: A Christian/Muslim Dialogue - Australia
09/13/2011 - Micah Burke
Can God become a man?
A Christian/Muslim Dialogue on the Concept of the Incarnation of Jesus
Monday, October 17, 2011 - 7pm
University of New South Wales
CLB7 (Central Lecture Block) ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]
11:04:49 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -
Hermeneutics Class Offered in New Jersey
09/11/2011 - Alan Kurschner
Tuesday is the deadline to sign up for INTRODUCTION TO BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION at Jesus Bible Institute. For class information go here:http://www.jesusbibleinstitute.org
18:08:13 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -
Today on the Dividing Line
09/07/2011 - James White
We finished off the Comis/Fernandes debate! Woohoo! Success! Now, as I said at the start, I will be happy to have Dr. Fernandes on to discuss the issues I raised, if he wishes to do so, it is all up to him. I think our review was very fair and very full. I then finished up Abdullah Kunde's opening statements, did a few seconds with Roger Perkins, and then lapsed into a discussion of whether we should do a seminary level class on the DL on the subject of Christology (yes, I think we will). Here's the program.And don't forget the WayBack Machine, streaming Dividing Lines from 1998 onward 24/7! You can listen on the Flash Player found here.
14:00:30 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -
Today on the DL: Reluctant Inerrantists and More
09/06/2011 - James White
Started off with a few quick comments on the most recent Unbelievable broadcast, but then spent most of an hour playing clips from the Ehrman/Licona discusion on their "faith journeys" that aired the week before. I focused solely on Mike Licona's assertion that as long as Jesus rose from the dead, Christianity is true, even if the Bible is wrong about all the details of the resurrection. Dr. Licona's view that the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible is a side-issue, something that may, or may not, be true, provided little in the way of helpful contrast the Ehrman's anti-Christian rhetoric. A most disappointing encounter, to be sure. For most of the last half hour we pressed on with the Fernandes/Comis debate (we will finish it soon!). Here's the program.And don't forget the WayBack Machine, streaming Dividing Lines from 1998 onward 24/7! You can listen on the Flash Player found here.
14:08:38 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -
The James White/Ergun Caner Debate
09/05/2011 - James White
A few years ago Lane Chaplin put this "debate" together, and since someone just popped into channel and made reference to it (he was freaking out about the advertisement that plays beforehand---for him, it was for Scientology. These are random ads---mine was for Mormonism!). Remember, at this point, we were scheduled to debate at Liberty in October of 2006, a debate which was scuttled by the Liberty side. In any case, it took a lot of work to put this together, and I wanted to repost it here for those who have not yet seen it.17:47:47 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -
The Sin Unto Death and Justification
09/05/2011 - James White
My Sunday School study from yesterday morning, and my fellow elder's sermon from Romans 4:08:17:10 - Category: Exegesis - Link to this article -
On the Last DL (This Past Thursday)
09/03/2011 - James White
We did another Jumbo DL, covering our three debates, and making good progress toward finishing the Fernandes/Comis debate! Sorry about being slow in getting it blogged, as I left right after the program and just now got back home. Remember, the format for the shows is always the same, so you do not need to wait for me to blog it---it is just the date of the program. Very easy to grab. But, for those who are really tech challenged, here's the program.18:53:43 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -
One of the Least Compelling Attacks on the Trinity from the Deen Show Ever Aired
09/02/2011 - James White
I will try to find the time before I head to Sydney and Brisbane to do a series of videos refuting this. Amazing reliance upon such experts as Hans Kung!Dr. Brown: let's schedule a debate on this, shall we? I would love to expose this kind of inconsistent anti-Christian rhetoric.
(By the way, note his #1 reason includes a discussion of The Comma Johanneum!!)
16:46:39 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -
|
