Karl Barth and Carl Henry

Barth was what is called ” neo-Orthodox”, and I greatly respect his stance against Hitler in the 1930s, but later, the more details I find out, he was just a softer form of liberalism.

Carl F. Henry, editor of Christianity Today, had a news conference with Karl Barth in the 1960s reveals just how liberal Karl Barth was, because the way he responded to Henry shows he really did not believe in the historical reality of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead:
This reveals that Karl Barth really was a liberal, though he tried to save the Bible from the classic liberalism with his “neo-Orthodoxy” movement which said the word of God is not the word of God until it becomes an existential feeling of experience in the heart and mind – then it “becomes” the word of God to “me”. It totally guts the truth of the reality and history of it.

https://vimeo.com/65113816

For the Sake of the Name

Carl F.H. Henry recalls in his autobiography the time he engaged Karl Barth during a news conference:

Identifying myself as ‘Carl Henry, editor of Christianity Today,’ I continued: ‘The question, Dr. Barth, concerns the historical factuality of the resurrection of Jesus.’  I pointed to the press table and noted the presence of leading religion editors or reporters representing United Press, Religious News Services, Washington Post, Washington Star and other media.  If these journalists had their present duties in the time of Jesus, I asked, was the resurrection of such a nature that covering some aspect of it would have fallen into their area of responsibility?  ‘Was it news,’ I asked, ‘in the sense that the man in the street understands news?’

Barth became angry.  Pointing at me, and recalling my identification, he asked: ‘Did you say Christianity Today or Christianity Yesterday?’  The audience – largely nonevangelical professors…

View original post 45 more words

Advertisements
Posted in Historical Jesus, Historical reliability of the Bible, Liberal Theology, Reliability of the Bible, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Truth

Defense of the apostle John, disciple of Jesus, as the author of the fourth Gospel

http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2012/05/on_the_authorship_of_the_fourt.html

David Waltz had also put together an excellent introductory article on Defense of the Gospel of John with links to some of the same sources that Tim McGrew mentions.

Posted in Apologetics, Bible is not corrupted, Gospel according to John | 2 Comments

It takes a short video to cut through the accusations of Steve Camp and Janet Mefferd against Dr. White

This short video proves that Brannon Howse, Janet Mefferd, Steve Camp, and others who have been attacking Dr. James White on his apologetic dialogue with Dr. Qadhi have been wrong.

The Janet Mefferd Show with Steve Camp.

(Camp and Mefferd’s comments taken from that show)  (see at bottom for links of the initial dialogue between Dr. White and Dr. Qadhi.)

Dr. White’s refutation of  Steve Camp & Janet Mefferd on her show.

It is amazing that these Christians, brothers and sisters in the Lord, have been so vehement and over the top in their attacks on Dr. White, and the full videos of several hours have been right there for all to see and listen to; and yet they refused to give Dr. White the balance and credit of what he actually did do with this outreach to a Muslim scholar and the Muslims who were there and other Muslims who are willing to listen to the presentations that are on You Tube.  This short video gets to the core main complaints of these folks (especially Mefferd and Camp) and proves them wrong.

“And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scripturesexplaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.”  And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women. ”  Acts 17:2-4

“reasoned with them from the Scriptures” = διελέξατο αὐτοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν

διελέξατο – from διαλέγομαι – where we get the English word, “dialogue”.  “reasoning” with people means listening to them, respecting them, and also giving our apologetic content on the Bible and truth of Christianity.

(see also Acts 18:4 and 19:8 – reasoning and persuading together.)

διανοίγων καὶ παρατιθέμενος = explaining and giving evidence

ἐπείσθησαν – persuaded.  from peitho / πειθω – (see also 2 Corinthians 5:11 – “knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men . . . “; John 3:36 ( the negative of the word is used here, απειθω / apeitho, it is translated many times as “those those don’t obey” or “those who don’t believe”, but the real idea is, “those who refuse to be persuaded”)

For those that need to go back and see more of the background of this issue:

(see here for my report of the initial Brannon Howse and Worldview Weekend response.)

See here for part 1 with the full video of Dr. White and Dr. Yasir Qadhi. (and my questions and comments that I hope in the future is possible.)

Part 2 – full video – dialogue in a Mosque with Dr. Qadhi

Other posts related to Sam Shamoun and Brannon Howse’s and other Christians objections:

Answering Sam Shamoun’s objections regarding 1 and 2 John

2 John 9-11 in light of the Dialogue controversy.

2 John 9-11 Roundup

Does 2 John 9-11 forbid hospitality to unbelievers in our homes?

The way we American Christians come across to most Muslims.

Posted in Apologetic Dialogue, Apologetics, Balance, Christian Attitudes toward others, Islam, Muslim scholar, Muslims | 2 Comments

“When the Lord stops him, that’ll be it, too late. . . !”

This is a great Christian rock n roll song that communicates the truth of Hebrews 9:27 – “and in as much as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this comes the judgment.”

Time is running out for all of us; one day each one of us will die, and we will have to face God, the Holy One, in the judgment.   One day, time will stop; “When the Lord stops him, that’ll be it!” – God is sovereign and controls time, and one day He will bring it to an end.

Repent and believe in Jesus Christ, before it is too late.  (Mark 1:15Matthew 3:82 Corinthians 6:1-2Isaiah 55:6Acts 17:30-31; Psalm 90)

Time

By Phil Keaggy

Well He hasn’t always been around
And He won’t always be.
But He’s on the move at this moment
Measuring life for you and me.

I fear we all submit to him
Existing anxiously,
And no one is able to turn him off
Except the Lord who holds the key.

When the Lord stops him, that’ll be it,
Too late for apologies.
Too late to forgive your brother,
Too late to get on your knees.
When the Lord stops him, that’ll be it,
Too late to help the needy
And worst of all it’s too late to turn
You must face eternity.

His name is time and he’s coming to an end.
His name is time where will you be my friend?
His name is time and he’s coming to an end.
His name is time where will you be my friend?

Most people think he’ll never stop
He’ll go on perpetually,
But old man time is running out
And he’ll cease eventually.

When the Lord stops him, that’ll be it,
Too late for apologies.
Too late to forgive your brother,
Too late to get on your knees.

When the Lord stops him, that’ll be it,
Too late to help the needy
And worst of all it’s too late to turn
You must face eternity.

His name is time and he’s coming to an end.
His name is time where will you be my friend?
His name is time and he’s coming to an end.
His name is time where will you be my friend?

Posted in Music, Repentance

The ongoing controversy about the special Revelatory – miracle type Spiritual Gifts for today

Wayne Grudem and Ian Hamilton debated in 2010 on the spiritual gift of prophesy for today.

I agree with Ian Hamilton.
I love Ian Hamilton’s opening statement at 14:51 –

“I am a continuationist; um, I believe in the continuing, powerful, personal, mighty, supernatural, transforming, quickening work of the Holy Spirit.”

Years ago, I read Grudem’s book on the subject of the NT gift of Prophesy, and also read his understanding of that and spiritual gifts in his otherwise excellent, Systematic Theology. Grudem’s understanding that prophesy for today is different than the prophesies of the OT prophets, which always were infallible and come true; as in Deuteronomy 18:20 or the infallible prophesies of Jesus in the gospels or the apostles, that for today, it means “God bringing something to the mind of someone, that was previously unknown, but that when that person communicates it orally, he gets it garbled or some parts wrong” (and using Agabus in Acts 21:10-11 as an example of that)- this to me to be a very weak argument.   Hamilton shows that Grudem’s take on the gift of prophesy for today is 1.  Exegetically weak, 2.  Theologically weak and 3.  Pastorally weak.  Since about 80 % of prophetic Scripture in the OT is preaching about God and His character and about the need for repentance from sin; and only about 20 % is about future predictions; one can make the case that the NT gift of prophesy for today is “Spirit anointed preaching against sin that glorifies God and exalts God”.

This is a very good article explaining what “Cessationism” is NOT.
What Cessationism is NOT. by Nathan Busenitz

see an earlier post on a debate between Michael Brown vs. Sam Waldron on the issue of the ceasing of spiritual gifts.

I agree with Sam Waldron.

On the Strange Fire conference that John MacArthur hosted, with my take on aspects of the whole Charismatic Chaos and my emphasis here in this post on the heretical teachings of Joyce Meyer and Joel Osteen.

A good book on the 4 view basic views of the Miracle type Spiritual Gifts.

My view is that of what Ian Hamilton, Sam Walton, and Richard Gaffin (cessationism) in that book argue.   (and what John MacArthur and others have argued for a long time.) I used to be more open to what  Robert Saucy communicates (Open, but cautious), but practically speaking, I am a cessationist. Sam Storms is perhaps the best advocate that I have read for the continuation of the miraculous gifts. John Piper and Wayne Grudem have similar positions, but Sam Storms is more forceful in his argumentation.

The best arguments, it seems to me, for cessationism, is that once the Scriptures were finished (Jude 3), and the office and gift of apostle ceased, (with Sam Waldrom argued in his debate with Dr. Brown) there is no more need for revelation or miraculous gifts or tongues and interpretation of tongues, because the Bible is sufficient to teach us “the once for all faith that was delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Also, miraculous signs were given to authenticate the gospel message and the apostles, as in Hebrews 2:3-4 –

“how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, 4 God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.” Hebrews 2:3-4 (my emphasis)

John Piper’s response to some aspects of the Strange Fire conference. 

Piper makes some valid points.  It is important for those of us who are cessationists as to the miracle spiritual gifts, to remember and keep in mind these points also.

D.A. Carson’s book, “Showing the Spirit” is a book that, along with Storms and Piper’s argumentation, makes me struggle with defending cessationism; even though I think Cessationism is true. The hard part about defending cessationism, from just a pure exegetical case of Scriptural texts, is some of the texts that say things point blank, like “do not forbid to speak in tongues”(1 Cor. 14:39), and “earnestly desire the greater gifts” (like prophesy) (see 1 Cor. 12:31 and 14:1) – clear texts that Storms, Piper, and Grudem point out. The implication of 1 Corinthians 1:7 is that even the miraculous-type spiritual gifts will continue until the second coming of Christ.  Acts 4:29-31 is still a good prayer to pray, even for a cessationist; God can still heal and do miracles, and we still need to pray for boldness and power in witnessing and that God will take the word that we speak and transform hearts.
Busenitz gives a good summary of the different views on 1 Corinthians 13:8-12, in the article above.

A big problem with “continualism” is if a church is open to expressing these gifts or trying to actually promote them, and then someone does claim a prophesy or speak in tongues out loud, the problem is the subjective nature of people who think that they have a prophesy or special word of knowledge or word of wisdom or think they have the NT gift of speaking in tongues. For me, the “tongues” in the New Testament are real languages in the world of different ethnic people groups. That seems clear in Acts 2:6-11 and 1 Cor. 14:10-12 and 14:21 (the quote from Isaiah 28:11-12 shows it was about the Assyrians invading Israel and judging Israel. (see my discussion of this in the Strange Fire post.)

I am skeptical of all claims of prophesy and foretelling of the future; and the claim of someone having the NT gift of tongues for today. I am very skeptical of anyone who claims to have the spiritual gift of miracles or healings, as the apostles had in the gospels and Acts, and a few other believers who had these gifts.

Addendum:  August 2, 2017

A couple of other interesting links, by Tom Pennington:

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/TM13-7/a-case-for-cessationism-tom-pennington

https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B140505/~

Posted in Spiritual Gifts | 1 Comment

Debates on the Marian Dogmas

Dr. White recently (in May of 2017) debated Peter D. Williams on the Marian Dogmas:

Dr. White debated Gerry Matatics on the Marian Dogmas years ago (1996):

Posted in Apologetics, Mariology, Roman Catholic False Doctrines, Roman Catholic false practices, Roman Catholicism

Main points of Daniel 9:24-27 in response to Muslim questions about forgiveness of sins and sacrifices in OT

Muslims are forced to question the atonement and the need for sacrifices for forgiveness of sins, because of Islam’s denial of it and the Qu’ran’s denial of the crucifixion, death, and atonement of the Messiah. (Surah 4:157)

See discussion here.  see the video and Paul Williams questioning of the Christian concepts of forgiveness of sins by the atonement of Christ, and discussion in the com-boxes.

Daniel 9:24-27

“Seventy weeks (seventy periods of seven years = 490 years from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem) have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, . . . (focus on those 3 purposes – all about atonement for sin) (verse 24)

that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; (verse 25)

(483 years – Messiah appears, or is anointed at His baptism – the prophesy in Daniel spoken in Persia around 500 BC,  being passed down from generation to generation of the Magi in the Persian Empire, along with the revelation of God through the miracle star, causes Magi in Persian Empire to come to Jerusalem because the prophesy was spoken and written by Daniel in Persia around 500 BC. (Matthew 2:1-12)

and 7 weeks (7 periods of seven years = 49 years
and 62 periods of seven years = 434 years
49 + 434 = 483 years – brings us to either time around Jesus’ birth or Jesus’ baptism, depending on which of the decrees of Persian kings one starts with. (Darius the Great and Ardeshir (Artaxerxes) issued decrees to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. books of Ezra and Nehemiah).

Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off (see Isaiah 53:8 for similar concept of being cut off = killed)
and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. (verse 26)

the sanctuary was destroyed later in 70 AD – verse 27 – “desolations are determined” (prophesied by Jesus around 30 AD in Matthew 24)

Background theology from both OT and NT:

All the animal sacrifices of the OT point to the Messiah’s atonement (Daniel 9:24-27; Isaiah 52 & 53) and the NT fulfillment (John 1:29; Mark 10:45; 1 Peter 1:18-19; Revelation chapter 5)

And book of Hebrews, chapters 8, 9, 10 explain this also, shows fulfillment of Levitical sacrifices.

A Muslim claims that OT Burnt offerings had nothing to do with atonement for sin.

My Response:

(also included later are my main points from scripture and from the Qur’an 37:107, that demonstrates that even the Qur’an unwittingly affirmed substitutionary atonement) 

Sure they did – Genesis 8:20-21 (first time Olah used in Hebrew Bible) shows the burnt offering & context of the sinfulness of mankind and the worship and sacrifice almost ALWAYS (unless the specific context shows, as in the grain offerings) had some aspect of repentance and contrition over sin. One cannot worship God without part of that worship being confession of sin and repentance from sin, and mourning over our sin.

Nevertheless, Leviticus 1-7 and 16-17 are clear that they are Mosaic laws with reference to sin.

Furthermore, Genesis 3, when God killed animals for clothing for Adam and Eve, AFTER they sinned, points to the shedding of blood for atonement for sin.

A commenter who goes by “Erasmus” point out what Job 1:5 says:

“And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.”  Job 1:5

The Jewish Scriptures show the Messiah to come would be the one who would be the final sacrifice, the atonement for sin, the “finishing” of iniquity – Daniel 7:24-27; Isaiah 52:13-15 & Isaiah 53:1-12 and the NT confirms this – Mark 10:45; John 1:29; I Peter 1:18-19; Revelation chapter 5. people from every nation, tribe, people group, and language have been purchased ( redeemed, ransomed, فدا، فدیه ) by the blood of the lamb – the Messiah (Rev. 5:5-5 – the one from the tribe of Judah, root of David, Jesus Himself, the eternal Word and eternal Son). Rev. 5:9

Read Genesis 22; Exodus 12; Leviticus chapters 1-7; 16-17; Isaiah 53; and then the NT interpretation – John 1:29; Rev. 5; I Peter 1:18-19, Hebrews chapters 7, 8, 9, 10

I Corinthians 5:7 – “For Christ, our passover lamb, has been sacrificed”

I cannot help it if you do not study and try to sincerely understand Christian theology.

The ram  (of Genesis 22 and Surah 37:107) is an innocent, sinless victim, which is the theology of Exodus 12 (Passover lambs); Leviticus 1-7; 16-17 – “spotless”, “without blemish”, – the innocent animals take the place of the sinful humans and the animal sacrifices in the OT in Exodus 12; Lev. 1-7; 16-17-
they point to the coming Messiah – Isaiah 53; Daniel 9:24-27.

the whole Bible teaches this progressively from Genesis to Revelation; which the NT teaches also:

“18 knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, 19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.” 1 Peter 1:18-19

See also Revelation 5:5-6, 9-14.

The Muslims keep asking why the transition from animal sacrifices to the Messiah as a human sacrifice – the answer is in progressive revelation – from Genesis to Leviticus to prophesies of the Messiah to the NT fulfillment.

Progressive revelation. All faith and repentance in the OT and John the Baptizer یحیی Yahya – before Christ and before the cross – all of it looks forward to the Messiah and His “once for all sacrifice for sins”. John the Baptizer himself said about Jesus – “behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”. (John 1:29)

Same for Genesis 22 – the sacrifice of the ram in the place of the human (Abraham’s unique beloved son) points to the Messiah and His sacrificial atonement at the cross.

Even the Qur’an hints at the truth of substitutionary ransom atonement – Surah 37:107 – “We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice”.

وَفَدَيْنَاهُ بِذِبْحٍ عَظِيمٍ – 37:107

The root of that word for “ransom” in Arabic, is the same root word for ransom when Mark 10:45/Matthew 20:28 is translated into Arabic or Farsi – فدیه و فدا

“The Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” Mark 10:45
The Qur’an, by affirming the historical narrative of Genesis 22, preserves the truth of substitutionary ransom sacrifice in Surah 37:107.

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/10/21/so-why-did-allah-substitute-an-innocent-animal-in-the-place-of-abrahams-son/

Islam, both in AHadith and Qur’an, by affirming the previous 2 monotheistic religions, could not get rid of the clear affirmation of substitutionary ransom sacrifice for forgiveness for sins.

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/08/23/islam-could-not-get-rid-of-the-concept-of-sacrifice-ransom-or-substitutionary-atonement/

but why the need for a substitute sacrifice ذبح and ransom فدا ، فدیه ? Allah could have stopped him from killing his son without a substitute? Truth bears repeating and you guys have never answered or refuted this; since also the Qur’an skips over all the subsequent prophesy and theology based on this in Genesis 22 – Leviticus chapters 1-7, 16-17; Isaiah 53; the whole NT, Mark 10:45, etc.

Why is the Eid Al Adha عید الاضحی or عید قربان Eid e Qorban “a path for you do after your father” ?

Why did Allah substitute a ram in the place of the human?

How is that a reward?

The Messiah was the fulfillment of all the prophesies about a perfect atonement –
Daniel 9:24-27 – to make atonement, to forgive iniquity, to finish transgression . . .Messiah will be cut off (see also Isaiah 53:8 – He was cut off from the land of the living = killed.

Yahya یحیی (John the Baptizer) the prophet said, “Behold, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World.” John 1:29

 

Posted in Atonement for sin, Islam, Messiah in OT in work of atonement, Muslims, Substitutionary Atonement, The Atonement of Christ