"...contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints."- Jude 1:3
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 29, 2025

Which Would You Prefer: the Gospels or Video of Jesus?


The following question was asked in a theology group on Facebook. The one who posted it may or may not have been a professing Christian.


 If you had to choose between the four written Gospel accounts, and a video recording of each and everything Jesus and said and did during His earthly ministry (with translated subtitles!), and the recording even featured the time stamps for everything, which would you choose?


The question could have been asked in genuine and innocent curiosity. But it could also have been asked in an attitude of grumbling, ingratitude and doubt. The following is what I wrote in the comments of the Facebook post. See also my blogpost:

Why Isn't the Bible Clearer?



This like asking, which would you choose, what God in His wisdom has chosen to actually do, or what you in your finitude and sinfulness would prefer?


God has chosen to give us a written revelation in the Bible for multiple reasons including these NINE reasons [among more that could be listed]:


1. To weed out those who don't really seek God seriously. As Isa. 66:2b states, "...But this is the one to whom I will look:

he who is humble and contrite in spirit

and trembles at my word."


2. To save only the elect, such that salvation isn't ultimately grounded in random or contingent superior intelligence, superior information, or humanly & sinfully acceptable evidence [no this does not actually contradict #1 or the doctrine of total depravity and unconditional election.] Ensuring salvation is by grace rather than strict merit or due to mere fortuitous circumstances.


3. To judge the world for it's rejection of the sufficient evidence of the self-authenticating, self-authorizing, self-validating inspired Word of God which the Holy Spirit testifies to; and to which they would naturally recognize its divine orign if it weren't for their depravity and indwelling aversion to God and the things of God.


4. To leave room for inspired faith given through Holy Spirit's enlightening and regeneration.


John 6:45 ESV [[cf. John 8:47]]

[45] It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me— 


John 10:27 ESV

[27] My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 


5. To leave room for that kind of faith, commitment and perseverance that sticks it out with God because Christianity and its conception of God is superior to all other worldviews. Which also leads to #6 below.


Romans 8:24-25 ESV

[24] For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? [25] But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.


Hebrews 11:1 ESV

[1] Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 


6. To create space for rewards for faithfulness despite doubts and hardships due to the divinely intended measured and balanced epistemic distance versus nearness that Scripture provides.


Hebrews 10:36 ESV

[36] For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. 


Hebrews 6:12 ESV

[12] so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. 


John 20:29 ESV

[29] Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” 


7. To leave room for diligent Bible study and prayer which will also be rewarded as per #6.


Proverbs 25:2 ESV

[2] It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.


8. To make the homecoming of entering heaven that much more satisfyingly sweet due to the temporary anticipation that measured epistemic distance creates.


1 Corinthians 2:9 ESV

[9] But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”—


1 Corinthians 2:9 ESV

[9] But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”—


1 John 3:2-3 ESV

[2] Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. [3] And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.


9. The measured limitation of sufficient evidence that Scripture provides is actually merciful for most people. Because the more evidence given, the greater the condemnation for its rejection. Some people in history have received much more [e.g. Pharaoh] and it made their punishment worse.


Regarding the sufficiency of the written Word of God:


Luke 16:29-31 ESV

[29] But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ [30] And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ [31] He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”


https://youtu.be/M0gi71-2Pok?si=btse7BZhnagLKV-7


Monday, April 10, 2023

The author of the SAB answered


Here's another Christian website that answers the anti-Christian website The Skeptic's Annotated Bible:


The author of the SAB answered

https://www.berenddeboer.net/sab/index.html

Friday, July 30, 2021

Why Isn't the Bible Clearer?

 

In a facebook group I belong to, an atheist asked this of Christians:


For all the literalist Christians- why do you think god took so many words to tell you some simple truths? If your god is so evident and real, why not just put out a useful pamphlet telling us the basics, rather than have to do it via a long winded, easily misinterpreted, morally ambiguous, repetitive and confusing text that hardly anyone can tolerate reading in its entirety? For useful and concise yet spiritually wise story-telling, it's difficult to find a better book than The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran. It seems a shame to me that the bible isn't more like that book. Thoughts?

I gave the following brief reply with minor editing. I've also added material that wasn't in the original response in purple:

There are many non-ultimate reasons, and other ultimate reasons.

- Our efforts, diligence and industry in trying to understand the Bible reveals our sincerity and seriousness in knowing about God and His ways. It weeds out those who aren't serious and sincere. Our response to the Bible exposes our character. It also affords room and possibility for rewards for diligence. Raking is easy, but you only get leaves. Digging is hard, but by doing so you can find diamonds and gold. Most people are only willing to rake the Bible. Because of our sinful nature, we are naturally intellectually lazy and immoral and biased in our reading/studying of the Bible. Yet, we are that way willingly, and therefore culpably so.

Prov. 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.

-A critic might ask, "Why couldn't Jesus and/or the Bible refrain from using idioms and only use pure universal unambiguous propositional prose so that every generation of Bible readers could understand plainly?" It's not clear that human language can be completely free of the use of idioms, emblematic language and other non-propositional like language. See the first section [pages 2-5] of Steve Hays' article here to get my meaning and point:

Why I Believe by Steve Hays

-Often, it's not just/merely the clear propositional aspects of the Bible that inspire faith [which is more than mere belief BTW], but it's often the narrative thrust of the Bible that often does so even more. Non-Christians understand how powerful narrative is in forming/developing morals. That's why Hollywood has been taken over by the most radical non-Christians. Why the woke want to impose their values on both theists and non-theists.

- A completely understandable Revelation this side of death [and of the eschaton, the final Day of Judgment and Final Manifestation of God] wouldn't capture & sustain the continual intrigue and fascination of humans for very long. Even regarding wonderful earthly things, we often take them for granted because they are so common and easily understood. This is why even ordinary human poetry and Shakespeare's works fascinate people who don't fully understand them. The mystery adds to and is part of the enjoyment. The more you dig into the Bible the more gold is found. Many Christians know by experience how studying a Biblical subject can be very enjoyable and awe inspiring.

Take for example the subject of the Messiahship of Jesus. Here's a link to Messianic Jew Arnold Fruchtenbaum's 21 lectures on the Jewish Life of Christ:

More could be said and enumerated regarding non-ultimate reasons. But I'll leave it at that.

The ultimate reason is that in God's sovereignty, He has inspired Scripture to say what it does in order to save the guilty elect and judicially condemn the guilty non-elect.

I'm a Calvinist Protestant, but even high predestinarian Catholic Blaise Pascal wrote in his famous Pensées:

//Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.//

//563 The prophecies, the very miracles and proofs of our religion, are not of such a nature that they can be said to be absolutely convincing. But they are also of such a kind that it cannot be said that it is unreasonable to believe them. Thus there is both evidence and obscurity to enlighten some and confuse others. But the evidence is such that it surpasses, or at least equals, the evidence to the contrary; so that it is not reason which can determine men not to follow it, and thus it can only be lust or malice of heart. And by this means there is sufficient evidence to condemn, and insufficient to convince; so that it appears in those who follow it, that it is grace, and not reason, which makes them follow it; and in those who shun it, that it is lust, not reason, which makes them shun it. //

//577 There is sufficient clearness to enlighten the elect, and sufficient obscurity to humble them. There is sufficient obscurity to blind the reprobate, and sufficient clearness to condemn them, and make them inexcusable.—Saint Augustine, Montaigne, Sébond.//

//574 All things work together for good to the elect, even the obscurities of Scripture; for they honour them because of what is divinely clear. And all things work together for evil to the rest of the world, even what is clear; for they revile such, because of the obscurities which they do not understand.//

//562 It will be one of the confusions of the damned to see that they are condemned by their own reason, by which they claimed to condemn the Christian religion.//

//576 God has made the blindness of this people subservient to the good of the elect.//

My point being that if the Bible were any more clearer OR any more ambiguous in either direction, not all and only all of God's elect might be saved. Though, the doctrine of predestination and the various options available to Christians is an in-house debate in Christianity and shouldn't take a center stage or usurp attention from the main issues. Christians are free to disagree on this topic. Whether one is a Calvinist like myself, or an Arminian, or middle knowledge Molinist, or middle knowledge Congruist, or Augustinian et cetera.

Also, if the Bible were too clear, then God's providential plan for history [or literally HIS-story] would not come to pass. The progress of Redemptive History and of civilization, with all it's ups and downs, are part of God's plan to glorify Himself and prove man's need for God. There are three main views on the Millennium among Christians. All three are within the pale of Christian orthodoxy. Amillennialism, Premillennialism and Postmillennialism. If postmillennialism is true [as I suspect], then one day the world of humanity will eventually be fully evangelized and Christianized such that the majority of humanity will be saved on earth and all aspects of society will be sanctified. That's a process that will take time. A process that will bring greatest glory to God. Just like in superhero movies the origins story with all its struggles and ups and downs to develop character in the protagonist makes the journey all the more glorious. God is like the Mickey to the Rocky of human history. Or the Mr. Miagi to the Karate Kid of human history. Or the Obi Wan Kenobi to the Luke. You also need a Vader to fight the Luke. The wheat must struggle with the tares/weeds [cf. the Parable of the Wheat and Tares in the Bible].

Even if I'm wrong about Postmillennialism and Premillennialism or Amillennialism were true, a Bible that were much clearer wouldn't result in fulfilling either the Premil or Amil position.

Also, God's ways are deeper and higher than our ways. Moreover, God's nature, while truly apprehensible, is nevertheless incomprehensible. We can apprehend God to some degree, but we cannot fully comprehend God exhaustively. The finite cannot contain the infinite.

Rom. 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?"
35 "Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?"
36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

Isa. 55:6 "Seek the LORD while he may be found; call upon him while he is near;
7 let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
10 "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

I then recommended reading The Weight of Glory by C.S. Lewis

SEE ALSO MY BLOGPOST:

Saturday, May 22, 2021

Does the God of the Bible "Have a Terribly Fragile Ego" As Some Non-Christians Claim?

 

It's common to hear non-Christians, especially atheists claim that the God of the Bible has a fragile ego. Does he?

Not at all. God's zeal for His glory is not merely a matter of ego or pride, but of holiness. In one sense, God, being as great and super-competent as He is, rightly ought to brag. Something that, in excess, is immodest and immoral in finite creatures.

However, additionally, it would be idolatrous for God to not love and magnify that which is worthy and deserving of all honor and devotion, namely Himself. It's an act not only of self love, but of love to the creature for God to promote His own glory. Since He is the source of all goodness. God giving Himself to creatures is the most loving thing He could do. It leads to their eternal blessedness, joy and fulfillment. John Piper explains that in his books 1. Desiring God, 2. The Pleasures of God, 3. Future Grace. Here's a quick 1 1/2 minute video where he introduces the subject:

https://youtu.be/hUmgThMr7Xg

See also:

https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/is-god-for-us-or-for-himself [same as https://youtu.be/Ap0LSFb4Sx8]

https://www.crossway.org/articles/if-we-were-created-for-gods-glory-is-god-merely-using-us/



Monday, April 19, 2021

Egyptologist David Falk Has Strong Evidence for a REAL Exodus





Egyptologist David Falk Has Strong Evidence for a REAL Exodus
https://youtu.be/syS-SOXJa-A





An Egyptologist reacts to "Does Archaeology Bury the Bible? Dr. Joshua Bowen."

https://youtu.be/dVPCddl3xAU


 

Dr. Falk's website: http://www.egyptandthebible.com/​

Dr. Falk's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF1f7vTqonOIwaGU6DwTvjg


See also the videos by Dr. James Hoffmeier  HERE


See also the videos by Dr. Titus Kennedy HERE

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Atheist Asks About Sola Scriptura


The following is a (rearranged) transcript of a discussion I had in an atheist Facebook group. Names have been changed to preserve their anonymity. I've addressed my fuller views on Sola Scriptura and (its compatibility with) continuationism in my various comments on the Comboxes of other people's Blogs HERE. Presumably, "Buzz" is an atheist. I'm not sure.

Buzz wrote: For those of you who subscribe to 'Atheism Fails', don't bother. If you prove them wrong, they'll delete your last post and kick you out of their group. The original question was, 'Does the bible say if the bible is the word of god?' I guess theism failed in this case.

Annoyed Pinoy: To ask 'Does the bible say if the bible is the word of god?' is to misunderstand the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. See James White's debates with Roman Catholics on the topic of Sola Scriptura. For example:

White vs. Matatics (1992)
Transcript: http://vintage.aomin.org/SolaTop.html

White vs. Madrid (1993)
Video: https://youtu.be/2IJYWqFjKb0
Transcript: http://vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html

White vs. Staples (1996)
Audio: https://youtu.be/E1nDiyGeBNI

White vs. Matatics (1997)
Video:https://youtu.be/pmYWBwIvejY

White vs. Pacwa (1999)
Video: https://youtu.be/nxTEtArbCgs

White vs. Williams (2013)
Audio: https://youtu.be/ziAGNdXqHqo

Zins vs. Matatics (date?)
Video: https://youtu.be/oKs0QUfJ_b8

Buzz: Does the bible say Sola Scriptura is the right pathway to God? lol

Annoyed Pinoy: To ask the question is again to misunderstand the doctrine. That's the same type of objection Roman Catholics give.

Buzz:  Does the bible explain the correct understanding of Sola Scriptura?

Annoyed Pinoy: By its very nature Sola Scriptura couldn't have been taught or practiced during times when verbal Revelation on par with Scripture was being given. Because the very moment an Old Testament Prophet or New Testament Apostle taught Sola Scriptura, it would mean that they could no longer give verbally inspired Revelation from then on out. To make a long explanation short, Sola Scriptura necessarily follows from the fact that new inspired Revelation has ceased being given, and because Scripture is the the only source of infallible and inerrant teaching. This basic explanation (is over-simplified a bit) but should suffice a professing Christian. Of course if I were talking to an atheist I would have to use other wider arguments.

Buzz:  From my perspective, it just seems like an extra-biblical doctrine endorses the authority of a book that eschews extra-biblical doctrines. Catch 22 perhaps?

Annoyed Pinoy: Not at all since (and in addition to what I've already written) 1. the Scriptures teach we're only to accept as fully authoritative inspired Revelation (whether it be in the form of Scripture, Verbal proclamation, Visionary, Oneiric [i.e. dreams]). 2. Ever since Moses and the giving of the Law/Torah, all further revelations in any form (written, verbal, visionary etc.) were to be tested by the already established Scriptures at the time. So for example, before the book of Ruth could be included in the Canon, it had to be tested by the Penteteuch/Torah. Similarly, before any of the NT books could be included, they had to be tested by the Tanakh.

Annoyed Pinoy: Same with any prophet. If every a professing prohet (say Isaiah) allegedly gave a revelation, his revelation had to be tested by the then already established Canon. The Scriptures always held highest authority above all other further alleged revelations.

Catholics will claim that some inspired revelation has been passed down through Tradition. The problem is that there is no instance of an alleged orally transmitted inspired Revelation that can be documented down through history. Moreover, oral tradition is notoriously untrustworthy. Think for example of Irenaeus' claimed oral tradition that Jesus was approximately 50 years old when He was crucified. No one believes that anymore (historian, scholar, theologian etc.).

Finally, Jesus gave the example that the traditions of men must be tested by the Word of God. He faulted the Jews of His time for teaching doctrines of men as if they were the Commandments of God. Jesus taught tradition was not infallible. That's why Karaite Jews (who are sola scripturarians) think Jesus was either a Karaite or influenced by them.

Annoyed Pinoy: By the way, Michael L. Brown (a Messianic Jew himself), considered to be the foremost living expert in apologetics dealing with Jewish Counter-Missionaries, cites the works of modern Karaite Jews like Nehemia Gordon in support of Sola Scriptura.

Buzz: The problem with visions, dreams, revelations and interpretations of scripture is subjectivity. If two or more people are inspired, who's proclamations are considered to be more true or accurate? How does one test for such things? I thought the NT books were voted into the cannon, there's no way to be sure they were tested to meet OT criteria. Paul wasn't an authority but taught doctrines and traditions anyway, some of those not Jewish in character. Several of the NT authors make claims mentioned in the OT which aren't actually found in the OT and a few of those are found in the oral Mishnah. Jesus, Paul and Pharisees in general also accepted non-biblical traditions, both written and oral. The authority and proclamations of church leaders is taken for granted in the NT. At which point does the bible specifically state that church authority and instruction ends after Revelations?

Annoyed Pinoy: The scope of my answer would depend on who is asking (whether Atheist, supernaturalist [e.g. witch, New Ager, Wiccan, Muslim, Hindu], Christian supernaturalist, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox etc.).

//If two or more people are inspired, who's proclamations are considered to be more true or accurate?//

As a Evangelical/Protestant continuationist [and Calvinist], I would point out that Scripture has highest authority and is alone to be trusted because it alone is infallible. As I wrote to someone else in this thread, I believe inspired public revelation on par with Scripture which is universally binding has ceased because the Canon of Scripture is closed. However I do believe that private revelation below the authority of Scripture continue. The New Testament iteself teaches us to test prophecies [cf. 1 Thess. 5:19-22; Acts 17:11; Rev. 2:2; Gal. 1:8 are just some examples].

19    Do not quench the Spirit.
20    Do not despise prophecies,
21    but test everything; hold fast what is good.
22    Abstain from every form of evil. - 1 Thess. 5:19-22

//How does one test for such things? //

Test it by how the the person's personal theology is with Scripture. Test it by how consistent the alleged private revelation is with or against Scripture. Test it by whether they come to pass or are empirically confirmed. Words of Knowledge and/or Prophecies are sometimes foretelling/predictive, sometimes forth-telling. So for example, if a predictive prophecy is fulfilled or not. Or if a word of knowledge about something can be confirmed as being true (e.g. say if I had a word of knowledge that your uncle Jeff sexually abused you in his car when you were 12 during your cousin Joe's birthday party). Test it by whether the revelation results in good fruit/results/consequences. Test it by whether it results or entails personal gain by the alleged prophet (which might suggest evil manipulation). Remember, I don't believe these private revelations are on par with Scripture. So, they naturally must be taken tentatively/provisionally.

//I thought the NT books were voted into the cannon, there's no way to be sure they were tested to meet OT criteria.//

That's not technically how they were received into the Canon. The canonization process was different for the OT and NT. Unfortunately William Webster's website is down. But I can access some of the material using Archive.org's WayBackMachine feature. I can't access the full articles I'd like to link to, but I can access the mp3 file of one of his lectures on the Canon using Archive.org.

Here's a link to Webster's mp3 lecture on the Canon:
https://web.archive.org/web/20161227153102/http://christiantruth.com/audio/3.mp3

Sola Scriptura: What Does Scripture Say?
https://web.archive.org/web/20160219132122/http://christiantruth.com/audio/2.mp3

Sola Scriptura: The [Church] Fathers Say Yes:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160326213724/http://christiantruth.com/audio/4.mp3

Here's a link to the series they're from "Roman Catholic Tradition: It's Roots and Evolution" - By: William Webster
https://web.archive.org/web/20170307095717/http://www.christiantruth.com:80/audiolectures.php

//Paul wasn't an authority but taught doctrines and traditions anyway, some of those not Jewish in character.//

I don't know what you mean by this. The apostle Paul has been accepted as genuine apostle by all major historic branches of Christianity (whether Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Nestorian etc.). The earliest of the church fathers accepted his apostolicity. For example, Clement of Rome places Paul on par with his mentor Peter (who was an apostle to Jews). Clement called him "the blessed Paul." John's disciple Polycarp says Paul "accurately and reliably taught the message of truth." Polycarp quotes Paul's letters can referred to them as part of the Sacred Scriptures.

See for example: The Historical Case for Paul’s Apostleship by Keith Thompson
http://answering-islam.org/authors/thompson/paul-historical.html
http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/09/100-similarities-between-lord-jesus.html

//Several of the NT authors make claims mentioned in the OT which aren't actually found in the OT and a few of those are found in the oral Mishnah. //

Not all OT allusions are quotations. Some are allusions, some paraphrases. Some are examples of the Jewish hermeneutical/interpretive method of Pardes/PaRDeS, as Messianic Jew Arnold Fruchtenbaum points out.
*P*ardes
Literal Prophecy Plus Literal Fulfillment: Pshat
The first category is known as “literal prophecy plus literal fulfillment,” reflecting the rabbinic pshat, which refers to the simple meaning of the text. The example of this first category is found in Matthew 2:5 6.

pa*R*des
Literal Plus Typical: Remez
The second category of quotations can be labeled “literal plus typical.” In rabbinic theology it was known are remez or “hint.” An example of this category is found in Matthew 2:15.

par*D*es
Literal Plus Application: Drash
The third category is “literal plus application,” correlating with the rabbinic drash. The example of this category is Matthew 2:17 18.

parde*S*
Summation: Sod
The fourth category is “summation” or “summary.” The meaning of sod is “secret” or “mystery” or “something unknown.” The example of the fourth category is found in Matthew 2:23.

//and a few of those are found in the oral Mishnah.//

The New Testament is free to quote or allude to extra-Scriptural (i.e. outside of Scripture) sources just as we could cite newpapers in sermons without implying they are on par with Scripture. Paul didn't endorse the prophethood of the Pagan poets/philosophers he quoted. Whether Aratus, Menander, Epimenides etc.

//Jesus, Paul and Pharisees in general also accepted non-biblical traditions, both written and oral.//

Again, alluding to extra-Scriptural sources is not necessarily an endorsement of them. Where do any of them say phrases like "It is Written" or "Scripture Says" or equivalent phrases for those citations? They conspicuously don't. As if by conscious intention. Whenever such phrases are used, they always apply to the standard Jerusalem Canon and not a wider Canon. Webster's article on the OT Canon is EXCELLENT. Unfortunately, I can't link to it in full right now. :(

//At which point does the bible specifically state that church authority and instruction ends?//

The New specifically states that the church is founded on Christ, the OT prophets and NT apostles.

"built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,"- Eph. 2:20

The term apostle is used in the NT in at least two senses. One way is n the sense of missionary. The second way was Apostle (with a capital "A" so to speak) whereby a person was personally chosen by the risen Christ (i.e. the original 12 apostles, with Judas replaced by Matthias, and Paul being picked by revelation on the road to Damascus).

Th authority of the church remains, but INFALLIBLE authority rested only on the original Apostles. But even then, in my opinion, they weren't completely exempt from hypothetical apostasy. That's why Paul said that his present message was to be tested by his past message and the consensus message of the rest of the Apostles (Gal. 1:8). At the present time, minsters of the Gospel have authority only in so far as they are in line with the teaching of Scripture.

Notice what the church father Cyril wrote in his Catechetical Lecture which would have been a summary of universal Christian teaching at that time:

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 4, 17)

I'm simplifying a lot of this of course. Books have been written that discuss these topics.

Buzz: I can appreciate the effort in your responses but when I read Madrids closing statement against White, Madrid appears to have addressed many of the claims you've made above. Consider reading the transcript of the White vs Madrid debate, specifically the closing statement from Madrid. I'm afraid his arguments are more convincing. Thank you for your time and effort.

Annoyed Pinoy: I've read that debate multiple times in the late 1990s.


CB:  Patrick Madrid swept the floor with James White btw. Sola Scriptura has been proven wrong over and over.

Annoyed Pinoy: As a Protestant, I completely disagree. The case for Sola Scriptura is strong historically, theologically, logically and patristically.

CB: I would be happy to go over it with you and study this issue together

Annoyed Pinoy: I have more important things to do. Presumably we're both already familiar with the arguments for and against Sola Scriptura. For myself, I sometimes prefer the term Summa Scriptura or Prima Scriptura for apologetical purposes (and because I'm a continuationists regarding the charismatic gifts, rather than a cessationist).

Annoyed Pinoy: As a continuationists I believe private revelation is still being given by God, but not public revelation that's fully inspired on par with Scripture. Otherwise, such fully inspired revelation would be universally binding on the consciences of Christians. It would also imply that the Canon isn't closed (which I think is closed).

Monday, November 7, 2016

Gideons' International Statement About the Bible

The following statement about the Bible is found in many of the New Testaments printed and distributed by Gideons International. It seems to me (correctly or incorrectly) that there have been slight variations of the statement down through the years. At least from what I've seen online. Nevertheless, the following is the version I'm used to and prefer down to the paragraphing and punctuation.


THE BIBLE contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers. Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable. Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy. It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you.

It is the traveler’s map, the pilgrim’s staff, the pilot’s compass, the soldier’s sword, and the Christian’s charter. Here Paradise is restored, Heaven opened, and the gates of hell disclosed.

CHRIST is its grand subject, our good its design, and the glory of God its end.

It should fill the memory, rule the heart, and guide the feet. Read it slowly, frequently, and prayerfully.  It is a mine of wealth, a paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure. It is given you in life, will be opened at the judgment, and be remembered forever. It involves the highest responsibility, will reward the greatest labor, and will condemn all who trifle with its sacred contents.

Friday, April 1, 2016

Flat Earth Refutations


I don't take seriously the idea of a flat Earth. Supposedly there are some interesting arguments in favor of the theory. However, I don't see the need for Christians to argue for a flat Earth. Nothing in the Bible requires it. Also, the arguments I have come across seem very far fetched. So, in my opinion, Christians who defend a flat earth are doing a disservice to Christianity. They are needlessly  creating a stumbling block or obstacle for non-Christians which makes it even more difficult for non-Christians to embrace Christianity. The same goes for those who insist on absolute geocentrism. I find the arguments for geocentrism more plausible than for a flat Earth. However, I don't dogmatically hold to geocentrism for the same reason. Namely, there's no Biblical need to. Having said that I do have a blogpost on the topic here: Quotes in Favor of Geocentrism

The following are links to refutations of a Flat Earth. Some are Christian and others are non-Christian refutations:

Earth is a sphere. Few proofs for the Flat Earth Society
https://youtu.be/d3GD9gXzUBk

Dr. Jason Lisle DESTROYS Flat Earth NONSENSE! | ICR - Christian Creationism
https://youtu.be/KbYbCB5Zj_E

Blowing up the flat earth
http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2017/08/blowing-up-flat-earth.html


Proving the Earth is not Flat - Part 1 - The Horizon
https://youtu.be/W9ksbh88OJs?list=PLAbO4DdyTGZpp-IOSB7qUbb_QYYg9ZA9B

Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain
https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati -Why the Bible is NOT a Flat Earth Book & Other Discoveries - Awakening Report
https://youtu.be/8iK5QILwahE
[[Sarfati is a well known Young Earth [Christian] Creationist. I lean toward an Old Earth Creationist position]]

Response to Globebusters - The Earth Still Isn't Flat
https://youtu.be/JDy95_eNPzM

10 Challenges For Flat Earthers
https://youtu.be/AQl8h7Aa75s

Destroying Flat Earth Without Using Science - Part 1: The Moon
https://youtu.be/_bHqBy92iGM

Destroying Flat Earth Without Using Science - Part 2: The Stars
https://youtu.be/su-fmoZUkF8

Destroying Flat Earth Without Using Science - Part 3: Airplanes
https://youtu.be/Dd-FAyHdpxI

The 10 Things That All Flat Earthers Say
https://youtu.be/KyD8VIK032o



Saturday, December 12, 2015

David Wood versus Shabir Ally


Most Christian apologists agree that Shabir Ally is the best Islamic debater currently alive. A few months ago David Wood and Shabir Ally debated six times in 9 days. If anyone is interested the following are links to those debates.

Monday Sept. 28 2015
Debate 1. "Is Jesus the Son of God?"
Debate 2. "Is Jesus a Prophet of Islam?"
https://youtu.be/idHxegbSunQ?t=2m12s

Tuesday Sept. 29 2015
Debate 3. "Does Paul Give Us the Truth about Jesus?"
Debate 4. "Does Muhammad Give Us the Truth about Jesus?"
https://youtu.be/XvBB8b4VF6M

Monday, Oct. 5, 2015
Debate 5. "Is the Qur'an a Book of Peace?"
https://youtu.be/NiKtuBH5ggM

Or Here https://youtu.be/Foiu6jsI3SY         Or  Here    https://youtu.be/UVh_GlM2tro


Tuesday Oct. 6, 2015
Debate 6. "Is the Bible a Book of Peace?"
https://youtu.be/DYK-CuWV_Ug


More of their continuing debates....

Tuesday, April 26, 2016
"What Is the Quran's View of the Christian Scriptures?"
https://youtu.be/WKqe8fKhfXg

Saturday, March 3, 2018
"Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?"
https://youtu.be/WYL5TZ9jJqg