Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog
|
A Tale of Two Debates
10/22/2011 - James White
You could not have a stronger contrast between the mindset and behavior of my two debate opponents this week, and, in particular, in their response to how I bent over backwards to try to make these debates as fair, even-handed, and useful as possible. I refer to my taking a tremendous amount of time on the Dividing Line going over their own presentations in recent debates so as to make sure that they would know exactly where I was coming from and exactly what I would be saying. Abdullah Kunde clearly listened, learned, incorporated my comments, accepted correction where necessary, and the result was a very excellent debate that while direct and forthright was likewise respectful and cordial, the very best kind. The issues were clearly presented and debated as a result of Abdullah Kunde's willingness to listen and learn without feigning offense at my refutation of some of his previous statements.Alas, Roger Perkins chose the exact opposite path. Rather than listening, pondering, considering, learning, and growing, he chose to be deeply offended at what I did in responding to his own statements on the Dividing Line. All through the debate he kept referring to what I had said in the most negative fashion. He was clearly personally offended and chose to interpret my review in the most negative light. The result was to be expected: just as in the debates we reviewed, Mr. Perkins showed himself unwilling, or unable, to "hear" what was being said to him. You could tell he was sitting there, waiting for me to finish my question, just so he could launch into a prepared response, even if that response was not even relevant to the question I was asking. He came with sound clips, for example, from the Dividing Line, as I had predicted. However, he put them together so as to try to forge a contradiction or inconsistency on my part. But to do so he had to obviously violate the context of my statements. He took one statement where, in commenting on 1 John 2:23, I said that you cannot "separate" the Father and the Son. Obviously, to any semi-honest or reasonable person, my meaning was clear. I was saying you cannot have the Son without the Father, and you cannot have the Father without the Son. John's point is that confession of the Father demands confession of the Son, and vice versa, in light of the Father's testimony to the Son (a concept found in John 5, 8, etc. as well). Then he took that specific comment that had a specific context about what was being said in 1 John 2:23, and tried to create a contradiction with other statement I made regarding the distinction that is provided by the actions and attributes of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Hence, I had said that we can distinguish the Father from the Son, and he took this to be a contradiction to what I had said about 1 John 2:23. Does Mr. Perkins really lack the ability to grasp that basic level of human communication and language, or is he just being obtuse in defense of his tradition? I do not know.
One mistake I made in hindsight was to not press him to answer a question I had raised in my opening statement. I even ended my second portion of cross-examination almost three minutes early, mainly out of disgust at trying to reason with someone who clearly had no intention of engaging in rational thought. I should have taken that time to press him on the mediatorial role of Jesus today, since he did not make a single comment on the question, and I do not think he has ever considered the question at all. I likewise misspoke once and referred to Mr. Perkins "mistranslating" Rev. 21:22, when I should have said "misinterpreting" or "misreading." My point remained valid, however, as he had attempted to draw a parallel between this text and John 10:30 when there is no valid syntactical relationship whatsoever.
One of the limitations of doing debate like this at the speed we were going was illustrated last evening, but it is also a learning opportunity as well. I found Mr. Perkins is not interested in learning, but others will be, so here we go.
...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]
05:22:54 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -
Advice from Family Radio on the End of the World
10/20/2011 - James Swan
Even though Harold Camping isn't actively speaking on Family Radio since his illness, his followers are still busy. On Family Radio's website the most recent recording appears to be from Tom Evans (Evans is on the board of Family Radio, and claims to have known Mr. Camping for thirty years). They are promoting his "Latest Study (Oct 16,2011)" (mp3). It's a fascinating listen. At around eleven minutes in he says,
"2011 has become a very real year. It has become a very important year. So now, here we are now. The ten thousand pound elephant sitting right in the room. In less than five days from today, we'll know whether we were right or wrong, whether we understood the scriptures correctly, whether the Spirit of God directed us, or whether we were deceived. That's a big question."
At around sixteen minutes in Tom says,
"Has the Spirit of God guided us to this point? I say yes. I'm not ashamed of the Gospel. I'm not ashamed of all the verses."
This link also covers this audio presentation from Family Radio: Harold Camping Oct. 21 Rapture: Family Radio Seeks to Comfort Believers Ahead of 'Rapture'.
And by the way, free materials from Family Radio are no longer available till October 24. They are now available to October 27.
09:08:21 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -
Trinity Debate
10/11/2011 - Micah Burke
James White vs Roger Perkins
Friday, October 21st, 7PM
Free Admission
Hope Christian Church
121 Barbaralla Dr.
Springwood, QLD 4127
Australia
15:38:37 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -
One Day Remaining to do Your Homework on Christology!
10/03/2011 - Alan Kurschner
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."
You can find the homework assignment here:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4798
07:41:53 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -
|
