Friday, September 19, 2014

More self-defeating hypocrisy from Babies Are Murdered Here and Marcus Pittman

Earlier this week a significant hubbub resulted from a confrontation between abolitionist Chris Rush from Minnesota and pro-life big-shot celebrity heroine Abby Johnson. Rush apparently attended an Abby J event with the intent of speaking to her about something related to abolition. He carried a GoPro in his hand to record part of it. When Abby J noticed the camera she tried to grab it and then, as he pulled away, told her some half-dozen friends standing around to grab it. Thus she did nothing less than inciting mob violence against an individual, attempting robbery of his property.

Since then she has lied about Rush and refused to claim any guilt for instigating a violent encounter.

Anyway, to substantiate his account of the incident, Rush put out the unedited video of the encounter. He lost his cool and self-control and did not regain it in what I would call a timely manner, and a few times used profanity a few minutes after the attempted robbery.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

A Grab-Bag of Roman Catholic Mistakes

Roman Catholic: Hmm, guess I won't be joining. By the way y'all, there would be no bible without Catholics. Who do you think put the table of contents in there? Look it up folks!

Me: there would be no bible without Catholics.

All this time I thought God wrote the Bible.

Who do you think put the table of contents in there?

1) The people of God. Not Rome and not Roman Catholics.
2) Rome doesn't have a closed Old Testament Canon. See the book of 2 Esdras - the Council of Trent passed over that book in silence.
3) Rome doesn't have a canon of infallible teachings.

Rome is actually in a much worse position than Sola Scripturists on that question. MUCH worse.


RC:
The bible is a collection of books inspired by God and written by men. Catholics also hold the bible to be the inerrant word of God and the canon of the bible was established at the Council of Nicea in the 4th century. The OT consisted of the canon established by the Jews and would have been known by the Apostles. The NT canon needed to be established because there were many "gospels" at the time and some had to be excluded, such as the Gospel of Thomas, Peter, and numerous others. The Church Fathers met in a council to codify the canon of scripture until Martin Luther thought he knew better almost a thousand years later.


Me: Catholics also hold the bible to be the inerrant word of God

The RCC thinks that evolution is true. Thus your statement is false.

the canon of the bible was established at the Council of Nicea in the 4th century

That is untrue. Nicea did not deal with the canon at all. Show your evidence.

The OT consisted of the canon established by the Jews and would have been known by the Apostles

RCC claims to have apostolic succession. So is 2 Esdras canonical or not? Just answer the question.

The NT canon needed to be established because there were many "gospels" at the time and some had to be excluded, such as the Gospel of Thomas, Peter, and numerous others.

You're mistaken again. Those other "gospels" were written much later than the canonical Gospels.

The Church Fathers met in a council to codify the canon of scripture

No, they didn't. This is fiction.

until Martin Luther thought he knew better almost a thousand years later.

Pope Gregory the Great, Athanasius, and Cardinal Cajetan all held to DIFFERENT canons of the Old Testament than that which Rome affirmed at the Council of Trent.

Monday, September 15, 2014

Hosting a Debate

Friend of the blog Truth Unites...and Divides has asked me to host a debate between him and another individual. I have to go away from blog for a day or two but I can give a better name to this post when I get back if the two individuals would like to carry on debating in this combox.

No links to pr0n is pretty much all I ask.

Pericope Harmonisation in the Qur'an

Recently I was sharing the Gospel outside a local mosque, and one of the men who talked with me mentioned that since the New Testament tells the same story a few different ways in different books, the New Testament can't be from God. In essence he was making a clumsy and unsophisticated appeal to what some call "the Synoptic problem". It isn't really a problem at all but the meme is perpetuated by the many ignorant heathens in the West who have Internet access, as well as by pretty much any Muslim with the least desire to talk to a Christian about such matters. Yet even such a luminary as Bart Ehrman once told me in private email that he considered it an insuperable task to harmonise the four accounts of Jesus' Resurrection. When I told him I was way ahead of him, he didn't reply.

Anyway, I told my Muslim friend that the Qur'an does the exact same thing and though I didn't remember the exact references, I remembered that the pericope where Allah tells Satan (Iblis) to prostrate before Adam and Satan refuses was "guilty" of the same thing that my friend was saying proves the human origin of the New Testament. He didn't believe me and I couldn't prove it at the moment, but I went back and doublechecked, and this is what I found.

Also of interest to anyone who is familiar with the biblical account of creation is the way the Qur'anic author seems to try to follow the pattern of the fall laid out in Genesis, but messes up in numerous details. Nowhere in Genesis does Satan say anything about the nakedness of the first couple. Obviously nowhere is there any angelic interaction, much less does Adam name the angels or become the object of a worshipful posture. 

Acts 10:25-26 - When Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter raised him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am just a man.”
Revelation 19:10 - Then I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
Revelation 22:8-9 - I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. But he said to me, “Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God.”

If two or more authors or witnesses recount what they saw in ways that complement but do not contradict each other, why not consider that they are merely adding to the story from their own perspective? This Muslim argument against the divine origin of the New Testament fails, for it disproves the divine origin of the Qur'an as well.


Saturday, September 13, 2014

Since I apparently can't say this...

I'll just point out someone else who is saying what needs to be said about the exploitation of Braxton Caner's suicide by Ergun Caner and various others of his enablers.

I mean, this post was fine but didn't go nearly far enough in my humble opinion.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Preaching About Depo-Provera at the Gates of Hell

September 11 - A Good Day to Repent

More human beings will die today from abortion in the USA than died on Sept 11.

Chances are, you're not doing anything about that.

Moreover, while virtually nobody will ever have the opportunity to help stop a terrorist attack, virtually everyone has the opportunity on a daily basis to help stop the systematic butchery of children. Yet the abortionists continue their daily work and almost nobody stands in their way.

Repent, America.

Tuesday, September 09, 2014

Leaven of the Pharisees - "authority" "sending you out"

A faithful abolitionist and his family sacrificed of his time and energy to warn and preach the truth and the Gospel to attendees of a recent event in his area put on by a Word of Faith heretic.

He then posted some pictures and stories about his experience on Facebook. The following conversation ensued.


Pharisee Disciple: Hmmmm. Still trying to discern the motive here. Are y'all sent out there by a local pastor or any church government or authority?
September 7 at 9:23am

The Abolitionist In Question: The motive is love for God's Church. There are probably some sheep that are going in there that have ears to hear. We are there for them.
As far as being sent: we have King Jesus and all of His commands as authority enough as our dispatch orders.
#ChurchRepent
September 7 at 9:51am

A Former Abolitionist Who Has Ingested the Leaven of the Pharisees: His commands are to love one another assuming we are part of a governing body that He established.
Yesterday at 1:26am

Me: All believers are sent out by the authority of Jesus Christ. No other authority or sending is necessary.
A better question is: Why weren't other Christians and churches out there doing the same?
23 hours ago

Me: Where does the NT say anything about a GOVERNING body?
23 hours ago

Thursday, August 14, 2014

Repent of calling to repentance!

If you despise calls to repentance, that's because repentance is that which you most need.

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

When Unitarian Universalists "Debate"

AJ: Yo Matt, before you and your AHAer friends go condemning everyone else view on God, you ought to REALLY examine your own.
16 hrs

Me: We examine it all the time, and pro-abortion people are only too happy to help. We condemn falsehoods and deception, and we hope that your souls will be saved. Repent of your sin and idolatry. Place your faith in Jesus Christ, Him alone, to save you from your sin. Holding to the nonsense of UUism is not worth your soul.
16 hrs

AJ: No doubt you. Examine it a little bit more in depth Rhology. As I look back on my years as a Christian, I find it very refreshing that I am no longer tied to a belief system I did not invent or join because of upbringing.
16 hrs

Me: I didn't join it b/c of upbringing. I joined it b/c Jesus transformed me, brought me to repentance, forgave my sin, and told me to follow Him.
Why don't you follow Jesus?
8 hrs

Angel: Rhology, if Jesus told you to jump off a cliff would you?
7 hrs

Me: Sure. But that of course brings up a couple of questions, specifically how I would know it was Jesus talking.
Since the devil tempted Jesus to do that very thing and Jesus told him that one should not put the Lord to the test, there is every reason to think you have proposed an impossible and therefore empty hypothetical.
How about this, though? If He told me to love UUs so much that I would not pass up an opportunity to be seen as a fool and a crazy person in the eyes of my own culture if I may offer them the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I would obey.
3 hrs

AJ: Simple, Jesus isn't for me. I came from a denomination where Jesus was all it.
When I was still a Christian,
other Christians would usually expect me to show
how a certain belief was based in the Bible. Not a problem usually, I know the Bible backwards and forwards. Now I have developed my own spirituality. I prefer spiritual progress, not digression and stagnation.
3 hrs

Angel: Rhology, You claim Jesus told you to follow him, your own words, how do you know it is not the devil? You claim my sentence is an empty hypothetical, and since yours is just the same then yours must be an empty hypothetical, in which case Jesus did not tell you to follow him but you claim he did ... Kind of crazy of you make all that up no?
3 hrs · Edited

Me: Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Him. What flaw do you find in Jesus that you don't follow Him?

\\You claim Jesus told you to follow him, your own words, how do you know it is not the devil? \\

Because the devil wouldn't tell me to serve his mortal enemy.

Angel, could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?
3 hrs

Monday, July 28, 2014

Some Bad Advice From Tony Miano

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/07/some-bad-advice-from-tony-miano.html

Monday, July 21, 2014

Another faithless liberal

I don't care how many times liberals tell me that they love Jesus and all that. Ask them enough questions and you find that they actually love themselves quite a bit more. Check out this comment conversation that developed on a video of mine:

 
Character assassination against Old and New Testament scholars who come to conclusions other than what is deemed acceptable by fundamentalist Christian apologists hardly qualifies as a meaningful critique of their research or positions. 


 
Huh?

 
+Rhology White mentions at 1:32 that much of the scholarship pertaining to the Bible in mainline Universities are anti Christian. Although White may interpret it that way, there are many Christian scholars of both Old and New Testament teaching in seminaries who have views that are very similar if not identical to the "anti-Christian liberals" whom White is referring to. Is this because these Christian scholars are looking for ways to deceive people? Hardly. White says that Old Testament studies has never recovered from the critical analysis from the German scholars of the 19th century (3:35-3:41), as if to say that the approach to the Old Testament has been damaged in some way. On the contrary, it is because the literary and documentary evidence of multiple scribal hands, redactions, anachronisms, and diverse theological outlook is so massive that scholars can no longer hold to the simple conclusions that were once held in regard to Biblical authorship and inerrancy such as "Moses wrote every word from Genesis 1 to Deuteronomy 34, because that's what our tradition tells us". To White, this is poison (8:24) and he wants to interpret the situation in pure black and white terms by insisting that anyone who doesn't agree with how he thinks scholarship should be done are perishing  and are doomed to hell. In my opinion, that is hardly a basis for substantiating the claims he is making. 

 
+ors712 \\Is this because these Christian scholars are looking for ways to deceive people?\\

How do you know that?


\\as if to say that the approach to the Old Testament has been damaged in some way\\

You don't think widespread liberalism has damaged real study of the Bible?


\\it is because the literary and documentary evidence of multiple scribal hands, redactions, anachronisms, and diverse theological outlook is so massive that scholars can no longer hold to the simple conclusions that were once held in regard to Biblical authorship and inerrancy such as "Moses wrote every word from Genesis 1 to Deuteronomy 34, because that's what our tradition tells us".\\

Ah, thanks for showing your hand.
As if these liberal "conclusions" aren't themselves based on naturalistic presuppositions. White interacts with that sort of idea all the time, as have many others. Liberalism is a position based in human imagination. It has no rational merit.


\\he wants to interpret the situation in pure black and white terms by insisting that anyone who doesn't agree with how he thinks scholarship should be done are perishing  and are doomed to hell.\\

This is not a fair analysis of what White said or thinks.

Wednesday, July 09, 2014

Open Theism followup

Teh Interw3bz are abuzz today about the debate between James White and Bob Enyart, which resulted in a massive success for White if the two cross-ex periods that are now available are any indication.

An open theist talked to me about it:

  • Christopher Minor Rhol, what were James White's responses to Bob's four main arguments in his opening statement? They were:

    If God is free, the future is open.

    The Incarnation proves God is not outside of time and not immutable.
    The five biblical attributes of God are different than the five philosophical attributes of God.
    Time cannot be created because time is a prerequisite to bring something from non-existence to existence.
  • Christopher Minor Rhol, I predict that James White did not answer these and that you cannot either. But I'm all ears.
  • Rhol Ogy I haven't listened to the whole debate, just the two cross-ex periods.

    My answers are:

    God is free and His decree is perfect, both.
    God the Son ENTERED INTO time and yet He remains immutable. How? Kenosis. It's quite mysterious. Yet it's true.
    I don't know what the 5 attributes are you're referring to.
    As for this:
    \\Time cannot be created because time is a prerequisite to bring something from non-existence to existence.\\

    1) You don't know that from the Bible. So it's pagan philosophy, which makes me LOL.
    2) The Bible says that God is timeless.
    3) The Bible says God created everything. Time is part of everything.
  • Rhol Ogy Could Jesus choose to cease to exist?
  • Christopher Minor Rhol, it looks like your post got cut off. The answers are missing.
  • Rhol Ogy refresh; I edited
  • Christopher Minor //God is free and His decree is perfect, both.//

    Was God free to decree, meaning He had the ability not to? Was God free to decree differently? And once God decreed, is He free to change His decree?


    //God the Son ENTERED INTO time and yet He remains immutable.//

    God the Son had one nature in eternity past and now has two natures. How is that not a change? And do you see the sequence experienced by God the Son? He was God the Son with one nature first, and God the Son with two natures second. That is a before and after, which means God is not outside of time.

    //I don't know what the 5 attributes are you're referring to.//

    5 Biblical attributes: Living, Personal, Relational, Good and Loving
    5 Philosophical attributes: Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Immutability, Impassibility

    Christ was all 5 of the biblical attributes in the emptied incarnate state, but none of the 5 philosophical attributes, yet remained God. This proves the 5 biblical attributes are essential to God and the 5 philosophical attributes are not, because Christ remained God without them.

    //1) You don't know that from the Bible. So it's pagan philosophy, which makes me LOL.//

    God being outside of time came from pagan philosophy, not the Bible.

    //2) The Bible says that God is timeless.//

    No it doesn't.

    //3) The Bible says God created everything. Time is part of everything.//

    Time is not part of everything, like truth and morality are not part of everything. Time, truth and morality all exist, yet none were created by God. They flow from His nature. We experience linear duration because God does.
    58 mins · Like · 1
  • Rhol Ogy Was God free to decree, meaning He had the ability not to? --- Yes. Since God doesn't have a decree, could His will to bring about the final Eschaton the way He wants be thwarted?

    Was God free to decree differently? --- Not sure. His decree is perfect
    , so you're asking whether He is free to decree imperfection. Does your god even know what perfection is? If so, how? Does that idea ever change?

    once God decreed, is He free to change His decree? --- His decree has never not existed, and it has always been perfect. Can your god be sure that anything he says will certainly come to pass?

    God the Son had one nature in eternity past and now has two natures. How is that not a change? --- Because Hebrews 13:8.

    That is a before and after, which means God is not outside of time. --- He entered into time for a reason and a purpose b/c He is omnipotent.
    Since your god is inside time, doesn't that mean that there are things that have always existed alongside him? That he didn't create? Which means your god is not a necessary being?

    Christ was all 5 of the biblical attributes in the emptied incarnate state, but none of the 5 philosophical attributes, yet remained God. --- Like pretty much all open theists I've talked to, you never take the kenosis into account.

    God being outside of time came from pagan philosophy, not the Bible. --- Except for all the times God says that He created everything. So it's what I said, not what you said.

    Time is not part of everything, like truth and morality are not part of everything. --- LOL. I'm not part of everything either. I am sui generis!
  • Christopher Minor //Was God free to decree, meaning He had the ability not to? --- Yes.//

    This means that the future was open and not settled. Which also means God did not have exhaustive foreknowledge until He decreed. Which means the God of Calvinism learns. He incre
    ased in knowledge once He decided what to decree.

    //Was God free to decree differently? --- Not sure.//

    If God could not have decreed differently, then He is not free. But I believe God has libertarian free will. And that means He has the ability to choose. Let's make this simple for you. Could God have created the universe differently, with just one more grain of sand than He did? And how would one more grain of sand make the universe "imperfect"?

    //once God decreed, is He free to change His decree?//

    Yes or No?

    //God the Son had one nature in eternity past and now has two natures. How is that not a change? --- Because Hebrews 13:8.//

    That's not an answer. Does Hebrews 13:8 mean that Jesus did not grow in wisdom and stature?

    //That is a before and after, which means God is not outside of time. --- He entered into time for a reason and a purpose b/c He is omnipotent.//

    I didn't ask about God entering into time. How do you account for the sequence experienced by God going from one nature in eternity past to two natures in eternity future? When you meet Him, He will have two natures. When Enoch met Him, He only had one.

    //Like pretty much all open theists I've talked to, you never take the kenosis into account.//

    This is not an answer. Christ remained God, yet was not omniscient. This means that omniscience is not an essential attribute of God.

    //God being outside of time came from pagan philosophy, not the Bible. --- Except for all the times God says that He created everything.//

    Did God create truth and morality? Yes or no?
  • Rhol Ogy No no no... Your turn to answer my questions. Then we can proceed with yours.
  • Christopher Minor We're not finished with my original questions. Once we hash those out, I'm all yours. You can ask me whatever you want and I'll answer everything with a direct Yes or No.
  • Rhol Ogy \\We're not finished with my original questions.\\

    And we haven't even started with my own original questions.
  • Rhol Ogy \\You can ask me whatever you want and I'll answer everything with a direct Yes or No.\\

    Go ahead and start now. thanks!
  • Christopher Minor Rhol, it's clear you can't answer my questions. I'm content with that.
  • Rhol Ogy Shrug. I gave a lot more answers than you did.
  • Christopher Minor I'm prepared to answer many more from you. I predicted (originally) that you could not answer Bob's four main arguments. I want to finish that challenge before moving on to something else. It makes it easier to follow.
  • Rhol Ogy I'm prepared to answer many more from you as well including the follow-ups you sent rather than answering my own questions.

    At this point, one of us has ponied up some dough. The other is ruffling his fur, trying to look big.,
  • Christopher Minor Well, you have an opportunity to prove my prediction wrong. I'll be waiting. Feel free to post on my wall anytime. Thanks.