Tuesday, 30 August 2011

"Not Allowing Women Pastors is Sexist"

by Matt Slick

Email: "I read what you had to say on women pastors and quite honestly my view has not changed in the least. Isn't God's will done in heaven as it is on earth? We are not defined by gender in heaven, why should we be on earth. The sons of God can also be female as well as male. Anyone who thinks a woman should not preach is sexist. Don't you think you should listen to her voice and words preached rather than judging her based upon what is under her clothes. Or is it that men find a woman preaching too distracting, just like how Muslims prefer their women to wear hoods. God forbid they ever speak! Sexism is a tool of the Devil himself! By the way, I am married to Christ. I submit to the Lord. Love, Erika P."

Sunday, 28 August 2011

Settle Down

Don’t lose your passion and energy; take charge of it
Tuesday, August 23, 2011, GTY.org

The “restless” aspect of the Young, Restless, Reformed movement is something of a mixed blessing. Restlessness per se is is of course no great virtue. But the energy, intensity, drive, and passion that underlie the restless tendencies of our young adult years are wonderful assets that hold great potential for good. They can be—and should be—harnessed and put to work for Christ’s kingdom.

Thursday, 25 August 2011

What Does It Mean to Fulfill the Law in Romans 8:3-4

Twelve Theses
December 09, 2001 | by John Piper | Scripture: Romans 8:3-4

Romans 8:3-4
For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
The question today is very practical and tremendously important. What does Paul mean in verse 4 when he says that the aim of Christ's death is "that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit"?

Why should God make people knowing they are going to hell forever?

This question raises many issues. If God is all-loving, why would He send people to hell? What is hell? Is it a place of eternal torment? Why create creatures knowing they will end up in an eternity of damnation? Is God helpless to save them all?

Wednesday, 24 August 2011

The Need To Answer Every Man - Norman L. Geisler

“You know, all this stuff about arguments for God’s existence and evidence for the Resurrection is interesting, and I know there is a place for it, but I’ve never needed it,” the pastor said as he looked in the rearview mirror to change lanes. The young man seated next to him remained silent for a moment, slightly shocked by this statement. The pastor continued, “The people I share the Gospel with just don’t ask those questions. They aren’t interested in whether truth is objective, or what ancient historians said about Jesus and the Resurrection, or solutions to the problem of evil. Most people just aren’t the kind that are philosophical about what they believe.”

Euthyphro's Dilemma

Plato's challenge concerning the nature of goodness is still being heard today: Is an act right because God says it's so, or does God say it's so because it's right?¹

By: Gregory Koukl

What is Euthyphro's Dilemma?
by Matt Slick

The Euthyphro dilemma comes from Plato’s Euthyphro dialogue, which has had different forms over the centuries. Basically, it is “Are moral acts willed by God because they are good, or are they good because they are willed by God?" Another way of saying it is, does God say that things are moral because they are by nature moral, or do they become moral because God declares them to be?

Saturday, 20 August 2011

Wretched on the YRR

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Be sure to catch Todd Friel interview Phil Johnson today at 12:00 noon PST on his radio program, “Wretched with Todd Friel.” It’s sure to be a lively discussion about John MacArthur’s YRR series.

Listen to this 43-minute clip

Resource: gty.org

Thursday, 18 August 2011

Bart Ehrman: The Incoherency of the Gospels

This is so easy. Just think about his argument. He argues that there are incoherencies between the Gospels. So what? The Bible isn't actually one book after all. He's acting as if Christians didn't see this before they put it together in 325 at the Council of Nicea. He also makes the argument that the manuscripts have been changed over time and he gives a "telephone" analogy as an illustration--very colourful, but that's just not how it happened with the early copies of the manuscripts.

Bart Ehrman's Remark on Gnostics

"Secret knowledge." That hurts. Even though there is emphasis on being "not of this world" and finding salvation in "secret knowledge". He has no reason to make such a statement about Christians. It's so subjective. Gnostic "christians" believe in all truth and they look for any truth to comfort them. It was a heresy made up from the time of the early churches. It wasn't a church per se but a group of people who felt that Christianity became a narrow understanding. Gnostic christians believe that "there was and is a more refreshing, honest, open, spiritual, loving, and exciting way to be a Christian." ¹

Anyways, he's still not as amazing as John MacArthur when it comes to knowledge of the scriptures. I mean just listen to John's lectures and sermons or a person with even more amazing knowledge is R.C. Sproul. They are just so in depth. Far more than Ehrman. If you're interested to read some arguments against his book and lecture, check out the link below:


Reference: ¹ Larry Angus, gnosticschristians.com

Cynicism in Arguments

Ravi Zacharias wrote in his book Can Man Live Without God,
"Skepticism and cynicism have suddenly become the hallmarks of sophistication, and the knowledge of who we are has been left to the domain of the uneducated or unscientific (since they are the only ones naive enough to believe that truth is absolute)."

If God exists, then...

Following are four attempted proofs for why God does not exist, which have been taken from the CARM atheism discussion board.  I have reproduced them and addressed each one.


  1. If God exists he would make himself clearly known to me.
  2. He has not made Himself clearly known to me.
  3. Therefore God does not exist.
    1. Premise:  If God exists he would make himself clearly known to me.
      1. Response:  It is not logically necessary that if God exists he must make himself known to any individual.  There is no "must" or "ought" or "would" to it as required by this atheist.  If God exists, he can do what he wants; whether it is to remain undetected, or detected, to anyone.
    2. Premise:  He has not made Himself clearly known to me.
      1. Response:  This may or may not be the case.  It may be that such a person has indeed encountered a revelation of God.  But, if the person has a presuppositional base that excludes the existence of God, then such evidence of God would be discarded and missed.
    3. Premise:  Therefore God does not exist.
      1. Response:  Since premise one and two are not logically true, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.

Monday, 15 August 2011

Arguing By False Authority & Arguing to Be the Smartest!

Arguing to be the Smartest!
I'm just tired of arguing with Atheists who act like their beliefs were never influenced by others. They act like they know more than I do or even the scholars I refer to. I can admit that I don't know everything and so I quote a resource that I trust.

Arguing by False Authority
The worst argument I've heard is one from Richard Dawkins where he argues that when you are grown up in a Hindu family then you believe in Hinduism or if you were brought up Christian you are identified as Christian. He also argues that people shouldn't be "labelled" by their parents. Does he think he came to this "rationality" on his own? His argument is basically that religious people brainwash their children to believe in something against their will and innocence. He believes that it's wrong to indoctrinate children with religion because they are credulous to believe in anything. But on the other hand it's okay to indoctrinate them with his worldview. His worldview has been influenced by people he respected. This could be people with authority in science and academics. He quotes his favourite influences, doesn't he? As I trust in good credible bible scholars, so does he trust in credible scholars of his own. The difference is who we trust to be credible on the things we talk about--especially when it comes to the Bible.

How about Obama's open mockery of the Bible when he talked about public policy? He was so smug when he openly criticized verses like in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and the Sermon on the Mount, and condescends the people by saying, "Folks haven't been readin' their Bible!" He so arrogantly and sarcastically takes verses painfully out of context. He says it with a smug attitude laughing as if he understood the Bible--acting on false authority.

From the Defensive to the Offensive
About my first complaint, this type of Atheist will not be humble about their knowledge. It's immature. It's like the time I talked to an anarchist about the riots in London. You know what teenagers are like; excited to be part of some group, to feel like they belong, standing up against "The Man." It's ignorant and naive. Teenagers think they know everything and they think they're invincible and act out with illogical arguments. I'm only yet to be 26 in a few months and I can admit that I am naive about some things and ignorant. I won't try to prove myself to know more than someone else. And I won't make a claim unless I have good reason and evidence. I can share what I know and it's up to the listener to trust it or test it themselves. I can't throw it down their throat. But my point is that I am not gonna defend the Bible to these irrational Atheists, but be on the offensive to their illogical claims. I want them to think clearly about their worldview and arguments and show them where they went wrong in their logic and lead them to figure it out on their own.

God Bless

Sunday, 14 August 2011

Who Was Cain's Wife?

by Ken Ham on September 13, 2007

Who Was Cain?
Cain was the first child of Adam and Eve recorded in Scripture (Genesis 4:1). He and his brothers, Abel (Genesis 4:2) and Seth (Genesis 4:25), were part of the first generation of children ever born on this earth. Even though these three males are specifically mentioned, Adam and Eve had other children.

Cain’s Brothers and Sisters
In Genesis 5:4 we read a statement that sums up the life of Adam and Eve: “After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.”

During their lives, Adam and Eve had a number of male and female children. In fact, the Jewish historian Josephus wrote, “The number of Adam’s children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.”

Scripture doesn’t tell us how many children were born to Adam and Eve, but considering their long life spans (Adam lived for 930 years—Genesis 5:5), it would seem logical to suggest there were many. Remember, they were commanded to “be fruitful, and multiply” (Genesis 1:28).

Faith is Gullibility

Tuesday, 9 August 2011

Non-Biblical Accounts of New Testament Events and/or People

by Matt Slick at CARM.org

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2
"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."
Note: There is dispute as to the reliability of the Josephus accounts. However, there is no textual/manuscript reason for doubting them since the extant Greek manuscripts all agree with the texts in question; namely, the quotes shown on this page. However, the reason the quotes are in doubt is because of the text in italics in the various quotes; they seem a little too favorable regarding Christ. Also, it appears that the writings of Josephus were transmitted to us through the Christian community.

Thursday, 4 August 2011

The Marks of Immaturity, and How to Keep Growing

Wednesday, August 03, 2011

by John MacArthur

Editor’s Note: This post is adapted from Reckless Faith (Wheaton: Crossway, 1994, pp. 63-66). As you read, think about the fact that these words were written 17 years ago. For many of you YRR folks, John was writing to your parents!

The immaturity and lack of discernment that marked your parents’ generation explains much of what we’re living with today. On this, I think we are agreed: The YRR generation simply cannot follow the same course. So, listen to what your parents ignored, and together, let’s get this ship heading in the right direction.

Read more

Resource: www.gty.org/Blog

Wednesday, 3 August 2011

Did Christianity Copy Mythology?

Lee Strobel, BibleGateway.com
Questions from Readers, July 28

• Did Christianity copy mythology?
• Can people be good without God?

Q. I have heard that the story of Jesus is just a copy of Mithras, “The Sun God” who was worshipped centuries before Christ was born. Is this true? Is there a relationship between the two? From what I have read, Christianity and Mithraism are very similar. – Tami

Are You Telling the Right Story?

Dear Michael,

Long ago I heard an insight someone offered about being a Christian that I have never forgotten. Here it is: You may be the only “Living Bible” some people ever read.

No single phrase I can think of captures as artfully what it means for you to be an ambassador for Christ. To the majority of non-Christians in your life, you are their link to the only truth that can impart eternal life.

You are like the Corinthians who Paul referred to as “our letter…known and read by all men…cared for by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone, but on tablets of human hearts” (2 Cor. 3:2-3).

Your life is a letter. Your life is read by all men. Your life is written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God.

Tuesday, 2 August 2011

The Circumstantial Case for the Christian Worldview

The Circumstantial Case Against Phil Spector
On September 26th, 2007, the murder trial of Phil Specter ended in a mistrial. Two jurors were unable to find Spector guilty of murder. In spite of the many pieces of circumstantial evidence that made up the cumulative case, these two jurors focused on single isolated issues (more on this HERE) and these single issues proved to be the downfall of the prosecution’s case.

Just a few days later, a cumulative, circumstantial murder case of my own came to a very different conclusion. Our jury returned a guilty verdict in a 23 year old case in the city of Torrance (you can download a Word Document of the news coverage HERE and HERE). Like Phil Spector, our case was cumulative in nature, originally built on a large number of circumstantial pieces of evidence, all of which pointed to the killer, a man named William Marshall. But unlike the Spector case, our jury had been carefully picked as a part of the judicial process. We interviewed the prospective jurors carefully, and seated a panel that understood the value of circumstantial evidence and also understood the power of a CUMULATIVE case.

Cumulative, Circumstantial Cases
Our jury was instructed over the course of four days as we interviewed and screened the candidates. From the prosecution’s perspective, we wanted jurors who understood how powerful circumstantial evidence can be when taken cumulatively. Circumstantial evidences, by definition, are unrelated facts that, when considered together as a whole, can be used to infer a conclusion about something that was previously unknown. In this sense, circumstantial evidence is different than direct physical evidence. Let me give you an example. If you are sitting in a restaurant and someone comes inside and tells you that it is raining outside, you now have an eyewitness and you have direct physical evidence that it is raining. On the other hand, if you are sitting there and you see several people come in carrying umbrellas and dripping wet, you may reasonably infer that it is raining from this circumstantial evidence, even before any of them tells you that this is true. You see, all of us assess circumstantial evidence as a part of our normal experience.

As we selected our jury for the homicide trial, we simply wanted people who (1) understood the power of circumstantial evidence and (2) would not fixate on minutia. We wanted jurors who would not ‘major on the minors’ but were capable of seeing the ‘big picture’. We were trying to avoid jurors like the two hold outs in the Spector case; jurors who would ‘camp’ on minor ‘possibilities’, while ignoring the major ‘reasonable’ inferences. We wanted jurors who could understand the difference between what is ‘possible’ and what is ‘reasonable’.

Read more

Resource: PleaseConvinceMe.blogspot.com

The Problem of Evidential Insufficiency

OBJECTION: God's existence cannot be known with evidential certainty. The evidence for God's existence is entirely circumstantial and therefore cannot be trusted. There are no items of direct evidence that can be examined today to determine if Christianity's claims about God are true.

The Answer Lies in Our Perception of Evidence
There are two kinds of evidence that are used in criminal and civil trials each and every day across America: 'direct' evidence (evidence that proves something 'directly' on the basis of someone's first-hand experience) and 'circumstantial' evidence (evidence that proves something 'indirectly' on the basis of a reasonable inference). We might determine, for example, that a suspect committed a murder on the basis of an eyewitness who saw the murder directly or a suspect's later confession (two pieces of direct evidence), or we might determine this on the basis of the suspect's prior threatening remarks, his bloody appearance minutes after the crime, and his efforts to flee the scene (all examples of circumstantial evidence). Our criminal justice system draws no distinction between these two forms of evidence; both are equally viable and powerful in making a case.

The Reliability of the Gospel Eyewitnesses

500th Post! Presuppositions Can Lead to Mistaken Conclusions

Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Posted by Al at PleaseConvinceMe.blogspot.com

Presuppositions can have a profound impact on the beliefs that we hold. I was reminded of that recently while listening to a podcast from the UK called "Unbelievable." Jim mentioned it not long ago on one of his podcasts and I quickly became a big fan. The usual format is a debate between an atheist or agnostic and a believer. The podcast I was listening to was a discussion between Michael Licona and Bart Ehrman.
Ehrman is a well-credentialed former believer. He's the kind of Biblical expert that causes many Christians to experience pangs of doubt. After all, he's studied the Bible in far more detail than the vast majority of us, and in the original languages. He was once a believer himself, so maybe his journey away from faith is one to greater knowledge. Or maybe it's something else - the product of the presuppositions that shape his worldview.

Monday, 1 August 2011

The Golden Rule

The question is, which Golden Rule has ground?

Jesus mentioned this rule because he wanted his disciples to remember the Law of the Prophets when it says, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbour as yourself." (Lev. 22:37-40)
Jesus was narrowing all the Levitical commandments to just the two most important ones. If you love God, all the rest just come naturally from your heart.

How Can a Loving God Kill People in the Old Testament?