Archive for category: The Dividing Line

I forgot to blog these videos that I posted of the very lengthy DL engaging the claims of Patrick Navas and David Barron. Enjoy!

We went for 90 minutes today because I just had to take the time to respond to the “Vortex” video posted below. We took the first half hour showing all the errors in this slick pro-Romanist video, and then tackled some more of Diaa Mohamed’s comments before finishing off the last half hour with more examination of Bart Ehrman’s claims

We are reviewing the comments of Diaa Mohamed in his debate with Samuel Green from Sydney the week after my debate with Abdullah Kunde.

We are reviewing and responding to the Wallace/Ehrman debate from 10/1, including a review of my cross-examination period from my debate with Ehrman as well, all with a focus upon the fact that for Ehrman, for the New Testament to be “trustworthy,” we would have to possess the originals. Period. His skepticism is, in fact, completely radical and outside the

I had hoped to get through my response to this video in about an hour or so, but alas, it took the entire two hours of a Mega DL, dedicated to one of our channel rats and ministry supporters, Ralph P., to finish up. So, I will dive into the Ehrman/Wallace debate, and my review of the Samuel Green/Diaa Mohamed

Below I provide original language references and citations that I will be covering in the discussion on the Dividing Line for November 29, 2011. . A) Is. 6:1 ¶ Καὶ ἐγένετο τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ,

Yesterday we did a Jumbo edition of the DL, investing 90 minutes primarily focused upon the exegesis of Philippians 2:5-11, and the real reason we should be thankful at all times. Some might call it an overly long sermon, but I hope those who appreciate textually-based studies will be encouraged, blessed, and edified.

Yes, there WAS a Dividing Line episode today… and you missed it, didn’t you? Well, today Dr. White examined the writings of Patrick Navas a unitarian and countered with the clear teaching of the New Testament regarding the deity of Christ. James starts out responding to anti-trinitarian book by Patrick Navas. He points out how dogmatic Patrick is when he

Weather will delay me a bit getting back home today, so I will need to postpone today’s DL till…well, next week. Since next week is Thanksgiving week, I will try to arrange it to have two DLs early in the week, hopefully longer versions, probably Monday and Tuesday. Hope to see you then! UPDATE: James is on his way in

Answered an e-mail question regarding New Testament textual variants and the comparison to the Qur’an, then took phone calls on various subjects from infra/supralapsarianism to baptismal regeneration. Then David from New Mexico called and filled us in on the Pravda, err, Veritas Seminary apologetics conference in Albuquerque this past weekend, where Ergun Caner spoke with armed police standing by. Could

Back on June 11, 2011, a debate took place in Rochester, New York, on the topic of the Five Points. It was billed as “the Baptists” vs. “the Reformed.” What it was, of course, was Independent Fundamentalist King James Only Dispensationalist Synergists vs. Reformed Theology. I am a Baptist, but there was nothing in these men’s hermeneutics that I could

We finished looking at the eleven Calvinist objections answered in the appendix of Olson’s new book. I noted that I will try to work his book on Arminian theology into my reading/listening/riding schedule over the next few weeks, mainly because I found his attempts to explain God’s relationship to time and the events in time highly problematic. Stay tuned for

We had been hearing about the arrival of Roger Olson’s book, Against Calvinism, for quite some time. It happened to arrive just before I left for Australia, so I did not have time to do much more than review his comments on 1 Timothy 2:4 (here). I have now returned home, so I got his book recorded to mp3 and

What happens when you take the time to read through Roger Olson’s new book? You need to do a Radio Free Geneva! Yes indeed, this afternoon at 4pm tune in for a review of Against Calvinism!

This past weekend I saw a tweet about a brother who had gone to the Veritas National Apologetics Conference at the Costa Mesa Calvary Chapel in California. He wore his own version of the Hadith 2425 t-shirt and went to Ergun Caner’s table in the bookstore. The resultant encounter was narrated today on the Dividing Line as he called in

Join us at the regular time for the Dividing Line today (11am MST) where we will have open phones—so how long the program is depends on the callers! See you then!

Snuck a quick DL in during my one day home between ministry trips, giving a report on my trip to Australia and playing sections of both debates which took place last week. While playing a section of the Perkins debate I took the time to look up the reference Perkins provided on the web earlier today where he alleged I

Took half an hour to talk about the “Mormonism as a cult” controversy in the news, then dove back into the Roger Perkins debate given that this was the last time we will be reviewing that material prior to my leaving for Australia. Managed to get about 2/3 of the way through the second day’s opening statement, so, all in

I really wanted to finish up reviewing the debate between Abdullah Kunde and Samuel Green on Trinity and Tawheed, so we managed to do that in the first 1:15 of the program today; then I moved back to the Oneness debate featuring Roger Perkins, which we will continue to work on tomorrow at 11am as well. We will finish up

We launched into our on-line Christology lecture today, covering such things as the Athanasian Creed, the Symbol of Chalcedon, Apollinarianism, Eutychianism, Nestorianism, etc., over the course of about two hours and twenty five minutes. I truly hope the program will be educational and edifying for those who take the time to listen. Not your normal Christian podcasting, but then again,

Since we have folks wandering into channel asking where the Dividing Line is, let me remind everyone: our special ultra-mega long DL on Christology is scheduled for 1pm today, MST (4pm EDT). Hope you can join us then!

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

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!

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.

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

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.” Don’t

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!

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

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,