The church fathers on Mary

http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Mary.html

Posted in Apologetics, church history, early church history, Mariolatry, Mariology, Roman Catholic False Doctrines, Roman Catholic false practices, Roman Catholicism | Leave a comment

Debate: Is the Bible Inerrant? Licona vs. Howe

Overall, Richard Howe is on the more correct side of  this dialogue / debate.  Licona seems fuzzy on what his position on Inerrancy is.  Some of the examples from the gospels are explained by harmonization, which Licona just dismisses as unreasonable.

There is much more that I could write, but don’t have the time.

This is very good for more documents on Inerrancy.

Richard Howe’s notes from the debate.

Especially good was this list by Richard Howe:

D. Ways a Statement Can Correspond to Reality

1. Literally “And as He walked by the Sea of Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.” (Mark 1:16)

2. Allegorically (Allegory) “But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic [ἀλληγορούμενα]. …” (Gal. 4:23-24a)

3. Metaphorically (Metaphor) “For you shall go out with joy, and be led out with peace; the mountains and the hills shall break forth into singing before you, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.” (Isa 55:12)

4. Similarly (Simile) “So his heart and the heart of his people were moved as the trees of the woods are moved with the wind.” (Isa 7:2)

5. Analogically (Analogy) “For we walk by faith, not by sight.” (2 Cor. 5:7)

6. Symbolically (Symbol)

“… the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. It was symbolic [παραβολὴ] for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience—” (Heb. 9:7-9)

7. Hyperbolically (Hyperbole) “Now the Midianites and Amalekites, all the people of the East, were lying in the valley as numerous as locusts; and their camels were without number, as the sand by the seashore in multitude.” (Judges 7:12)

8. Phenomenologically ” … for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, …” (Matt. 5:45) “The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.” (Joel 2:31)

9. Informally “… All who were numbered according to their armies of the forces were six hundred and three thousand five hundred and fifty.” (Num. 2:32) “And Moses said, ‘The people whom I am among are six hundred thousand men on foot; …'” (Num. 11:21)

10.Synecdochically (Synecdoche) “Give us this day our daily bread.” (Matt. 6:11)

11.Metonymically (Metonymy)

For it happened, when David was in Edom, and Joab the commander of the army had gone up to bury the slain, after he had killed every male in Edom” (1 Kings 11:15)

“After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained “Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus with them and baptized.” (John 3:22) Himself did not baptize, but His disciples),” (John 4:1-2) “Now when Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him … {8} The centurion answered and said, ‘Lord, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof. …'” (Matt. 8:5, 8) “… the centurion sent friends to Him, saying to Him, ‘Lord, do not trouble Yourself, for I am not worthy that You should enter under my roof.'” (Luke 7:6)

Richard Howe

See also here for a good article by Tim Challies:

Inerrancy by Tim Challies

The conclusion and Addendum is especially good:

Conclusion

My intent for this series was to do two things. First, I wanted to define inerrancy and seperate it from the other doctrines of Scripture such as authority, inspiration and transmission. While the basic sense of the word “inerrancy” is clear, the theological meaning is not always as lucid. Second, I wanted to answer some objections to inerrancy and show why this is a critical doctrine and why it is important that the church continues to affirm it.

Ultimately, inerrancy is true because perfection is consistent with God’s character and because He has told us it is true. We must be careful with any objections to this doctrine, for if we indicate that we believe there are errors with the original manuscripts, we strike at the very character of God. The Bible is inerrant because it was breathed out by an inerrant God. Because of this we can have full confidence, today and always, that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.

Addendum

Before I close this series, I would like to add one brief exhortation: We need to be certain that we do not confuse our issues. In reading ongoing discussions of inerrancy I often found objections to inerrancy based on deeper objections to other issues, and most notably, to young earth creationism. I had to ask myself the question, “Does a belief in inerrancy necessarily mean that we are forced to believe in a young earth?” I believe that it does not, for I know that many old earth creationists hold a high, inerrant view of Scripture. While I have not researched this issue extensively, and while I affirm my belief in a literal six-day creation, I believe that a case for old earth creation can be built from an inerrant view of Scripture. These differences may owe to hermeneutics or exegesis, but not necessarily from a lowered view of Scripture. Thus we must not confuse the doctrine of inerrancy with other doctrines, allowing ourselves to unfairly do away with one doctrine on the basis of another.

Tim Challies, (with my bolding and italics for emphasis. )

Posted in Apologetics, Bible is not corrupted, Inerrancy, Truth | Leave a comment

Debate: 2 Atheists vs. Dr. White and Jeff Durbin

Posted in Apologetics, atheism | Leave a comment

Medical Journal on the Physical Death of Jesus Christ

Proof of the fatal torture, crucifixion, and death of Christ from a medical journal.  Positive proof that Islam is wrong (Surah 4:157).  If Surah 4:157 is wrong, then all of Islam is proved false.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/19648788_On_the_Physical_Death_of_Jesus_Christ

 

Posted in Apologetics, Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, Death of Jesus on the cross, Historical Jesus, Historical reliability of the Bible, Islam, Muslims | Leave a comment

Resurrection accounts of Jesus harmonized

https://www.answering-islam.org/Andy/Resurrection/harmony.html

https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/resurrection/christs-resurrection-four-accounts-one-reality/

 

Posted in Apologetics, Bible is not corrupted, Historical Jesus, Historical reliability of the Bible, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Truth | Leave a comment

The Debate on the gift of Healing for today

 

 

I Corinthians 12:9, 28 – the Greek text uses double plurals – “gifts of healings”

χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων

This was a great debate and I agree with Dr. White, but I really  appreciate the way in which Dr. Brown dealt with the issue; and as Dr. White said, Dr. Brown’s position eliminated what we hear most of the time from Charismatics and Pentecostals and Word of Faith preachers / teachers on Christian TV and in many of those churches.

But is Biblical faith more about having the expectation that healing or blessing will certainly happen (from God’s mercy) or is Biblical faith more about believing that God can do the healing or miracle (Matthew 9:28; Daniel 3:17-18), but leaving the question of whether God will definitely do it for us or not up to Him and His goodness and wisdom in allowing trials and tragedies and sickness?

Is faith more about psychological certainty that God will heal me/ do a miracle, or is Biblical faith more about trusting Him even if He does not give me what I want? (healing, prosperity, success, comfort, etc.) Matthew 9:28; Daniel 3:17-18

When He entered the house, the blind men came up to Him, and Jesus *said to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” They *said to Him, “Yes, Lord.” Matthew 9:28

See Daniel 3:17-18 – “Our God is able to save us” – “but even if He does not, we will not bow down to your  idols, O King ” (of Babylon).  The proper attitude in prayer is, “yes, Lord, I believe that are you able to heal me, but even if You don’t, I will still trust You and love You and walk  with You, even if I have to go through sufferings and trials.  “Your will be done” is still the bottom line – Luke 22:42; Matthew 6:9-10.

It is important to listen to the whole debate and the interaction between Dr. White and Dr. Brown.  The burden that Dr. Brown seems to lay on us is that the Charismatic / Pentecostal movement constantly keeps on praying for healing -and with it usually comes lots of emotion, jumping up and down, screaming, claiming, sometimes doing and saying crazy things, shaking, etc. (granted, this is from my experience with Charismatics and Pentecostals who are pushy on their agenda in prayer meetings and that whole atmosphere of craziness takes over); and honestly, it seems to me, trying to manipulate God into answering our prayers according to our desires.  It still seems to me that 1 John 5:14-15 is key – “according to God’s will”, is the bottom line.

See the other 2 posts I have done on Charismatic gifts debates.

Sam Waldron vs. Michael Brown

(Have the miraculous / revelatory / apostolic gifts ceased after the death of the last apostle?)

Wayne Grudem vs. Ian Hamilton

(Debate on whether the gift of prophecy, as defined by Wayne Grudem, is still for today)

Posted in Healing, Spiritual Gifts

A “fundamentalist spirit / attitude”

What is wrong with a “fundamentalist spirit/attitude” that cannot discern nuances in disagreements on secondary and tertiary issues in other Christians?

Dr. White discusses an upcoming possible debate (sometime in 2020) with Sam Shamoun over 2 issues: 1. Limited Atonement and 2. TR Onlyism (that only the Textus Receptus, TR = “Textus Receptus” Greek text platform is the only proper Greek text and the claim that this is the ONLY preserved perfect “Word of God” for all of history for the church) .

Dr. White also points out that Sam Shamoun is continuing to exude bad character in apologetics by calling Muslims names like “the slime of Islam”.  How will Muslims listen to you when you call them names at the beginning of your attempts to reason and win them?  I have confronted Sam many times on this issue, and yet,  he refuses to listen.

There is a difference between the doctrinal understanding of a Fundamentalist = one who holds to the fundamentals / foundational doctrines of the Christian faith (which is a  good thing); vs. “a fundamentalist spirit” = one who cannot tolerate anyone else who does not agree with them on every minor point of doctrine or practice.  We Christians who believe the Bible are all “fundamentalists” to Muslims and atheists and skeptics and the secular world.  (all Christians who believe the Bible is God’s word, ie, the doctrine of inerrancy, and that Jesus gave His life in a real effective atonement that truly forgives sin, that Jesus rose from the dead, that He was born of the virgin Mary, that homosexuality is sin, etc.)

The Pulpit and Pen folks are hard to understand in their harshness and anger (same for Shamoun) – for both Shamoun and Pulpit and Pen have some good material.  But they destroy credibility by that “fundamentalist spirit”, although Shamoun’s is different, since he also has no problem, it seems, promoting (on his Facebook page) other issues from the nutty hate-filled KJV-Only-ist Steven Anderson and open-theist Greg Boyd, and others who are also either KJV-Only or TR only types that have no tolerance for the eclectic method of using all of the Greek NT manuscripts available for forming a Greek Text platform, etc.  I still think that Dr. White’s method in dealing with textual variants is the best that gives us apologetic credibility with those liberals and scholars who bring up the textual variants and history of the transmission of the text, like Bart Ehrman, and Muslims who use them to try and act like they are the intellectual ones, like the way Paul Williams, the British convert to Islam, uses liberal scholarship in his Da’awa methods for Islam.

Listen to the whole program – most of it, after the first 15 minutes or so, is really valuable in showing why the attitude behind TR-onlyism is wrong.

The “fundamentalist spirit / attitude” is the same basic attitude that several conservative Christians had when they reacted against Dr. White’s apologetic dialogues with the Muslim, Yasir Qadhi.  (See many of my past posts on that issue and attitude – see three of them under “Related” at the bottom of this article.)

Posted in "fundamentalist spirit / attitude", Apologetics, Christian Attitudes toward others, History, Sam Shamoun, Textual Variants | 7 Comments