Archive for the ‘Apologetics’ Category

Dr.James A,PhD

If Islam is a religion of peace & hospitality, then why aren’t Muslims in the middle east welcoming Syrian refugees?

*UPDATED with MUST SEE VIDEO of a MODERATE Islamic authority admitting that all Muslims believe in death penalty for homosexuality, adultery, etc..

Dr. James White, considered an “expert” on Islam, posted a Facebook link obviously in response to tempers flaring about the attacks in Paris from “radical” Muslims, writes, “Ignorance and bigotry is ugly, no matter who the ignorant bigot is.”  On the Twitter link pointing to this comment, this sentiment is defended by many others like “WWUTT“-“If every Muslim is a terrorist, then with 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, how is that dude still alive?”

This is common naive rhetoric about Islam. Just because James White debates Muslims does not give him the right to distort the facts and demand that Americans concerned for the safety of our borders stop calling it like it is (i.e., that Islam IS the face of terrorism).

It is been often said that a moderate Muslim is a backslider. There’s a lot of truth in that statement because Islam from its inception was founded on the murder of their enemies. Christianity was not founded as such and that’s an enormous difference. Those of us who complain about Islamic terrorism don’t disagree that there are Muslims that *appear* to be peaceful, but as Brigitte Gabriel notes, the peaceful majority are irrelevant when it’s a 300 million minority of Muslims that are decimating cultures. This argument also ignores Islam’s historic tactic of assimilating into their surroundings until they gain the upper hand. So of course they are going to be “peaceful”; it’s part of the Quraysh Model  (cited by Alan Kurschner who has sided with White on KJVO issues, lest we be accused of citing biased sources!) where Muslims are permitted to lie, and lie in wait in deceit until they are in a better position to crush their foes. For more on Islam permitting its followers to lie, see Islam Permits Lying to Deceive Unbelievers and Bring World Domination! (See below for Quranic verses).

That “not all Muslims are terrorists” is a naive and weak argument. The justification of such contention goes something like this: we need to be fair because people often misrepresent Christians in the same way. Not all Christians participated in the Crusades, so it’s unfair to say that all Christians are cold-blooded killers. Thus, if we label all Muslims as terrorists, then we open that same door against Christians. But this is a false dichotomy. It ignores the fact that not only were Crusaders not Christians, but that Christianity’s written authority, the Bible, never advocates spreading the gospel by violence: ISLAM DOES (Surah 47; Surah 8:12). A “Christian” who kills in the name of Christ is not being faithful to the text of Scripture (John 16:2). A Muslim who kills in the name of Allah *IS* being faithful to his religious texts. White wants to give Islam the benefit of the doubt and allow for the creation of some kind of “good Islam”, some kind of hybrid offshoots that are somehow different from how the religion was created and founded in the first place. So as much sense as the “fairness” arguments appears to make, using the inconsistent examples of Christians that go rogue is a red herring that ignores the crucial distinction between what a Christian’s authority demands from that of a Muslim.  Muslims who are not Jihadists are inconsistent to their own religion, and it’s because of this that it is so important to weigh the rhetoric of “moderates” and arguments in favor of supporting them.

Not all KKK or Aryans are “racist”. There are many involved in these groups (in particular, the “Christian Identity” branch of the Aryan Nation) that claim to be pro-White, and do not advocate violence against non-whites, do not hate non-whites but simply put their own race first. Do we then ignore the rest of the Klan or Aryan Brotherhood because there are some that are not as militant as others? Of course not. Why? Because the whole organization from its inception is racist, bigoted, and is violent at its core. The minor deviations from the core group are the exception not the rule. Not all mafia members are hitmen/assassins. Do we give the mafia a pass and invite their stores into our neighborhoods because not all of the mafia are drug dealers or killers? Clearly not. But this is the type of logic that we are expected to succumb to by Dr. White and a majority of leftist liberals.

We “get” that James White wants to be “fair”, which is a little ironic given his presuppositional apologetics (where “fair” often MUST take a back seat to a foundational truth when “fair” is being used as subjectively and inconsistently as it is by White). However, White is often very inconsistent in his application of fairness towards others (White considers all King James Only (“KJVO”) advocates as “cultists” and uses such a label to marginalize any KJVO that would oppose him. If he read this article, he would likely demean its content based on our KJVO stance alone. He also considers all who oppose Calvinism as suffering from “Calvinist Derangement Syndrome”), so it’s a little more than discouraging that he gives Muslims greater deference than other Christians.

Obviously, the reason White’s position is a dangerous view is because it is one of the excuses used to permit Muslim refugees into the US, which officials have admitted can not even vet a percentage of those entering the country to determine how many have links to radical Muslim groups. And let’s face it, if these Muslims walked from Syria to Germany and beyond, do you really think that the U.S. states that refused them are going to stop their spread throughout the country? If only one state accepts them, then its game over. The only thing that will stop the spread of Islam in America are American gun owners-and the globalist liberals are coming for the guns, too. The Muslims will overwhelm the country until they are in a formidable position to take the fight to the next-door Americans. Think about it; thirteen major Islamic countries and none of those Islamic countries will accept the refugees? Seriously? Nobody sees a flaw in that manufactured conundrum? Of course, none of the celebrities screaming for the U.S. to bring the refugees in are willing to bring them into their homes. Groups like ISIS have already stated their intention to infiltrate the West by using the so-called refugee crisis. Can we really afford to give this kind of rhetoric by James White and many others who share these naive views the time of day?

Fortunately, not all of James White’s friends have swallowed his careless rhetoric about Islam. Although White has generally made some good points in exposing some inconsistencies within Islam, his tacit endorsement of moderate Muslims under the guise of “we need to reach them for the gospel” rivals only such ignorance as that of ecumenicists Russell Moore, Ed Stetzer and Rick Warren of the Southern Baptist Convention. Yes, Muslims too need to be reached with the gospel, but we don’t need to sugarcoat the other person’s religion just to avoid “offending” them anymore than we would sugarcoat witnessing to a Roman Catholic. Not all Roman Catholics participated in the Inquisitions or Crusades (nor would many modern Catholics approve of it now), but the fact is the Catholic Church is built on a false gospel and murder. Ignoring that fact to make the gospel easier to swallow is doing a great disservice to the hearer and avoids the necessary call to repentance for that person to forsake the false religion that has rendered him blind.

Furthermore, although White claims that he tells Muslims they need to repent, his views on “moderates” allows the Muslim to choose a “safer” alternative within Islam. White deprives the Muslim of one of the most compelling reasons to leave the cult, and that is because it’s very core and texts are based cruelty and murder.

We understand that there are many so-called “peaceful” Muslims, but given their own religious texts, there’s no way to even confirm that with certainty. Nevertheless, that completely misses the point. We can not afford to give the benefit of the doubt to sleeper cells of radical Islam posing as peaceful moderates, and over 1,000 years of bloody Islamic history proves that White and anyone sharing his misguided magniloquence are the ones in denial and gross error.





Quranic Verses On Lying

Qur’an (16:106) – Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.

Qur’an (3:28) – This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves” against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim should appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel that way..

Qur’an (9:3) – “…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…” The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Qur’an (40:28) – A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to “hide his faith” among those who are not believers.

Qur’an (2:225) – “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts” The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.

Qur’an (3:54) – “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.” The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means ‘deceit’. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)

*The following link is from a MODERATE Muslim that admits that ALL MUSLIMS believe in the death penalty and execution for things like homosexuality, adultery, etc…that women should sit separately from men, you name it. And the audience was a mixed group that were NOT radical Jihadists, but MODERATE Muslims.


Dr. James A, PhD

One of the arguments that “Christian Gays” such as Matthew Vines make is that a positive argument against homosexuality in the Bible can not be made against the absence of specific statements by Jesus that mandate such proscriptions (which is really a use of the fallacy known as argumentum ad ingorantium). However, that logic works both ways, and as we shall see, if God intended to permit gay marriage, He has played the greatest joke ever on the homosexual “community”. What follows are the results of gay marriage if the “logic” of Christian gay advocates were taken seriously.


*There are no proscriptions against divorce in the Bible for homosexuals. If a man marries a man, he must be stuck with him no matter what. Not even “adultery” or death can separate. 1 Corinthians 7 only permits a man to divorce a woman, and Romans 7 only permits remarriage after the death of a female spouse who was married to a male.

*There is no definition of adultery that includes members of the same-sex, thus a gay couple has no grounds in which to define “cheating”. Thus a gay couple can never accuse the other of being unfaithful.

*There is no guide on how to treat your “spouse”. Thus a gay couple does not have to submit as there is no “head” of family, which results in either couple having the ability to pull rank and with the possibility of creating a permanent impasse.

*A gay person does not have to properly understand his/her “spouse” by dwelling with them “according to knowledge” as Peter admonishes of straight couples. Peter’s rule is for a MAN to understand his WIFE. Therefore no gay person can ever complain that his spouse is mistreating him and/or fails to understand him.

*Gay males can’t stay home to raise children (that’s a whole other problem) since Paul limits that role to the mother (Titus 2:3-5), and 2 gay women can’t to work, since that role is relegated to the man. Granted, modern society has made it nearly impossible to achieve this with the burdens placed on the nuclear family, but BIBLICALLY that is the model family.

*Gay couples are not even under any obligation to love their spouse. Paul tells WIVES to submit to their HUSBANDS, and for the HUSBAND to love his WIFE. There is no Biblical mandate for a gay partner to love his other gay partner, and thus gay couples are under no Biblical obligation to love each other.

*Gay couples are under no obligation to refrain from being bitter against their “spouse” since Paul’s command is to the HUSBAND not to be bitter against his WIFE. Col 3:19. Therefore a gay partner may stay angry at his/her “spouse” as long as he/she wants to.

*A husband can’t get bailed out by a wife’s good conversation (1 Peter 3:1). Therefore, both gay couples will have to be on the same level theologically.

*Obviously, no gay couple could ever enter the ministry considering that of the 2 offices described in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1:6, the qualifications are that a bishop and/or deacon must be the HUSBAND of one WIFE.

*A gay couple does not have to love their spouse AS they love themselves since this model is only for the HUSBAND to love his WIFE as himself. Eph 5:28

*The church will never be under any obligation to care for them if they ever become “widowed” since the duty of the church toward widows applies ONLY to a WIFE of one MAN. 1 Tim 5:9

*A gay couple can not even get engaged. The only models in scripture for a betrothal before marriage are between a male and female. Thus gay couples can just skip the betrothal altogether.

*A gay couple can refrain from sexual relations with his “partner” as a means of revenge since the proscription against using sex as a weapon only applies to male and female marriages. 1 Cor 7:4

*If the gay couple ever adopts, their children are never under any obligation to leave their house if the children should marry. Scripture holds that the cause of marriage begins with the spouse leaving FATHER and MOTHER. Thus, if you have a father and father, or mother and mother, then you are under no obligation to leave, and can mooch off of your gay parents forever!

*And finally, the biggest joke of all, is that there’s not one single example in the Bible of any prince, prophet, priest, pastor, parishioner, or even pedestrian of the same sex married to one another. So gays can just scratch out marriage altogether.

In summary, there’s absolutely no handbook on how to treat your gay spouse. If you are a so-called Christian gay, you can cheat on each other, lie, steal, and even beat each other into submission (and the best fighter will have to decide who submits since submission is not a requirement of either couple). You don’t have to love, respect, cherish or nurture your “partner”. That is the most miserable relationship criteria at worst, and the funniest joke God has ever played on humanity at best if God actually permitted “loving committed same-sex relationships”.


Be sure to read our most recent articles on the “gay” marriage debate:

Exposing Matthew Vine’s Deceptive Argument For “Loving Committed Relationships”

The LGBT Conspiracy and the Daniel Trap: It Has NEVER Been About Rights or Equality: Part 1

J/A ThM, and Dr. James Ach


Matthew Vines, author of “God and the Gay Christian” offered a transcript of a video he’d posted about the Bible and homosexuality that we want to address. However, in this article we are not going to focus on the Biblical arguments against gay marriage or refute the arguments in support of it as argued in Vine’s video, that has already been done by others in a far greater capacity than what we have offered on the subject (* Resources listed below), but we will focus on one particular inconsistency in Matthew Vine’s presentation of his key argument in selling his gay “Christianity” to the masses.

Is Matthew Vines REALLY Arguing for “Loving Committed Relationships”?

Matthew Vines has pulled a sleight-of-hand trick on many defenders of traditional marriage (“TMA” or, traditional marriage advocates) and on his own followers regarding “committed same-sex relationships”. Vines has attempted to take the wind out of the TMA’s arguments against homosexuality by eliminating the sexual acts. In other words, TMA’s would have no grounds to assail homosexual behavior if he is not advocating for homosexual acts but merely celibate “committed relationships” between same sex couples. Naturally, if there is no opposition to a same-sex “loving” relationship, then it would logically follow that same-sex acts should not be prohibited, either, and although Vines is not claiming to argue for the latter conclusion, it is obvious that that his precisely his intention. Of course, Vines has never  thoroughly defined just what is a loving, committed, same-sex relationship (e.g., how is a loving homosexual loving committed relationship different than a loving, committed relationship between fraternal, biological brothers, and what is it that makes the former homosexual and what is it that makes the latter, brotherly) by Vines, but it nevertheless still reveals a gross inconsistency in his attack against Traditional Marriage, as follows.

If, as Matthew claims, that he is arguing for merely “committed relationships” of same-sex couples, then why is he defending the rights of homosexuals who do practice homosexual acts (as opposed to celibacy), and why does he continue to use the term “homophobia” as a pejorative term against TMAs? Has the term “homophobia” some how taken on a new meaning that refers to merely loving committed relationships between same sex couples? I trow not. Historically, “homophobia” has always referred to the opposition of homosexual ACTS as well has the overall homosexual DISPOSITION. Why then would Vines use the term ‘homophobia’ if he is not advocating a view that permits the homosexual acts of same sex couples?

Therefore, Vine’s is being quite disingenuous to give the appearance that he is arguing for loving committed same sex relationships that exclude the ACTS of sexual intercourse within those relationships, when the very language he uses to attack TMAs is derived from rhetoric that has always supported and defended homosexual intercourse.

Furthermore, if, as Vine’s contends, he is not arguing for the justification of sexual intercourse among same sex couples, but merely the relationship (a sort of gay eunuch with a gay eunuch partner who really love each other), then why does he spend so much effort in arguing against TMAs traditional defense of Scriptures that advocate against the “acts” of homosexual relationships?

Vine’s actions while claiming one thing, are actually clearly demonstrating something else. There’s nothing in Matthew Vine’s rhetoric to indicate that he is defending a mere gay friendship that does not-and would never-include sexual intercourse between 2 “loving and committed” same-sex couples**. Furthermore, why is Vines even trying to make his own distinction between homosexual acts and homosexual relationships? Seems like a guilty conscience trying to distance itself from a problem where the attempt to create dissonance itself reveals Vines’ true motive and the fact that he knows something about his argument needs to be covered up. But WHY?

If Vine’s can’t be honest about what he is really trying to promote, then he shouldn’t be trusted with his interpretations and representations of other Christian views on this subject, and especially his misinterpretations of Scripture.


CAVEAT: Many of these resources are written by Reformed authors with which we have great theological differences. However, we are in almost complete agreement with their arguments against homosexuality, and although we will likely never agree on the centuries old debate over Calvinism or Bible versions, no other issue has the potential to destroy the freedom to express those views publicly in the way gay legislation and jurisprudence have in their ability to silence Christians of all stripes.

There are many other resources, but these are the ones that we have actually read and can recommend on this subject.


Dr. Robert Gagnon’s Response To Matthew Vines 

The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics, Robert Gagnon

God and the Gay Christian? A Response to Matthew Vines (This link will immediately open a download to the free e-book by Albert Mohler & SBTS Staff)

The Emerging Church and Homosexuality, David Cloud

Adultery and Sex Perversion, John R. Rice

Can You Be Gay and Christians? Dr. Michael Brown

The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible’s Message About Homosexuality, James White [gasp]

Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options,  Norman Geisler This books covers ethics altogether, but has a chapter on homosexuality in Part 2 that is worth a read.

God Is Love, Peter Ruckman Although not a book on homosexuality, it covers the misuse by liberal Christians of the word “love” and deals with Biblical facts verses emotionally charged arguments.

The Truth About Homosexuals, Dr. Hugh Pyle

Be What You Are, Nathan McConnell


** We do find it a bit odd also that while same-sex couples argue that their attractions are natural, they are not normally attracted to same-sex FEATURES of their same sex.

…Let me explain.

More often than not, a gay male will take on the characteristics of a female, whether it be an effeminate walking style or hand gesture, feminine clothing or talking with a skewed lisp. It is an immediately recognizable characteristic of a gay male. Likewise many female gays take on a role of a male. Yet in attempting to distance themselves from their own sexuality to prove their gayness, they are in effect, shooting themselves in the foot because a person that claims to love the same sex should be attracted to his own features. The fact that he tries to escape from and alter his own appearance and mannerisms shows that the trait is not inherent and is not natural. In other words, the gay male does not appear to love his own maleness which is a self-contradiction in what he is actually claiming that he is in love with.

If gay males were consistent, there were be no visible difference between the gay male and the straight male. Yet gay males go out of their way to create a visible difference which would be unnecessary if they were inherently predisposed to their presentations.

One of the great things about sound Christian philosophy is that when the laws of logic are consistently applied they reveal the self-defeating flaws of arguments and behaviors that defy Biblical revelation. The arguments for same-sex relationships display just such an anomaly.

UPDATE: vinestestimony - Copy

Those who follow Twitter know there is a little troll who spams the IFB #oldpaths hashtag trying to unsuccessfully convert KJVO fundamental Baptists to Calvinism. “Wee Calvin” or Colin Maxwell (Wee, I assume, because of his small theology). He follows IFB members comments on this popular IFB hashtag, and then expounds on them on his blog, adding his own twist and fantasy to the tweeted material.

He’s targeted us a few times, but never responds after we take the time to thoroughly sink his paddle boat. He’s obnoxious, rude, foul-mouthed, and so we treat his responses to the IFB with the same courtesy minus some of the rhetoric (Prov 26:4-5, Titus 1:9-12).

Wee Calvin chose to pick on “L. Ivey” ( who quoted his opinion that Matthew 25:41 debunks Calvinism since hell was initially created for the devil and his angels, then the obvious conclusion is that God could not have intended to predetermine anyone to hell. Although this is not a new argument against Calvinism, it is still a goodie, because it’s true. But, Wee Calvin made an effort to defend Calvinism and did probably one of the most eisegetical hack jobs to Scripture I’ve ever seen.

Matthew 25:41 (KJV) reads:

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

And for additional analysis, we are going to throw in Isaiah 5:14:

 Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.

I guess we could also cite Genesis chapter 1 to show that hell was NOT one of the things created in God’s six days of creation. Since Lucifer did not fall until AFTER creation, then hell being prepared for Lucifer and his angels could not have existed BEFORE creation.

Wee Calvin first attempts to state the “old argument”, and then offers his first rebuttal,

Well, to state the pretty obvious, it does not say that Hell was prepared only for the Devil and his rebellious angels.That is the gist of the old argument, but it is not what the Saviour said.

Seriously? Now just think of how much grammatical sense it would make for Jesus to have said, “depart ye into everlasting fire prepared ONLY for the devil and his angels”? Of course it doesn’t say “only” because Jesus is speaking of a PRESENT warning based on a place that was prepared for Satan. Wee Calvin’s argument is IRRELEVANT. That text does not HAVE to include the word “only” in order to convey that hell was initially created ONLY for Satan and his angels.

The reason that hell was created for ONLY the devil and his angels is obvious: because Lucifer and the angels were CREATED BEFORE HUMANS and BEFORE HUMAN SIN. There was no need to include humanity in hell because Lucifer fell before Adam did. Hence, hell was prepared for Satan, but not for any of humanity. The only reason that Calvinists need to this to not be true is because Calvinism would have to claim that God DID create hell for humans in order to prove that He intended on sending the majority of His creation to hell by a predestinated eternal decree of reprobation. If the Calvinist can’t show in Scripture that God did not INTEND on including humans in hell PRIOR TO THE FALL OF ADAM, then that alone destroys the entire concept of Calvinist preterition.

Point 2 of Wee Calvin’s horrific response goes:

If such were the case i.e. that the everlasting fire of Hell was prepared only for the Devil and the angels, then does God deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13) when He bids the wicked above to depart as curséd to that dread place? Is God indeed a man that He should repent i.e. change His mind, after all? (1 Samuel 15:29)

What on earth does this have to do with whether or not hell was or wasn’t created for ONLY the devil and his angels? It’s based on a question-begging fallacy and circular reasoning, i.e., it must not be true because my warped theology says it isn’t true, and therefore God can not deny Himself and therefore it’s not true.

Furthermore, Wee Calvin has a disturbed view of God’s repentance, because Scripture is FULL of examples where God in fact DOES change a course of action that HE SAID HE WOULD DO, and the story of Jonah is a PERFECT example of this no matter how much Calvinists would like to change the narrative around to fit their awful presuppositions.

 8But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.

Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?

10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, THAT HE SAID THAT HE WOULD DO unto them; and he did it not.” Jonah 3:8-10

Now this passage ALONE should settle the debate as to whether or not the Bible contains counter-factual conditionals. As Brother Ruckman says, the Bible isn’t hard to understand IT’S HARD FOR PEOPLE TO BELIEVE. Notice that “repent” in vs 8-9 show God TURNING AWAY from something He SAID HE WOULD DO. So Jonah himself answers Wee’s hypothetical unbiblical NONSENSE and shoots #2 down in 3 verses.

On to point #3, Wee Calvin argues that:

Since God turns and will continue to turn the wicked into Hell (Psalm 9:17) then He has always purposed to do so. There was never a time in the mind of God when His hatred did not burn against sin and His justice demand that the perpetrators (if chronically unrepentant) of it be banished forever from His presence. (emphasis added).

Notice the highlighted part: God was ALWAYS purposed to do so??  SCRIPTURE??? Zero. None. Notta. Zilch. Nolo Contendere. NOWHERE does the Bible state anything near what Wee just claimed. IT IS PURELY A FICTIONAL SUPPOSITION BASED ON PHILOSOPHICAL SPECULATION. 

There are a number of other problems with this speculation as well:

*How can Wee Calvin claim “there was never a TIME…when God” when God exists OUTSIDE OF TIME? In order for Wee Calvin’s argument to even BEGIN to have substance, it would require that God’s emotions be bound to future events before time was even created.

*This is the equivalent of confirming dialectical materialism which maintains a premise of matter being eternally existent. In order for sin to be a reality in the mind of God for Him to be eternally angry about it, sin would have to coexist with God. Now the Calvinist will typically dress up a straw man and label it Open Theism by accusing anyone who would raise such an argument that God must not know the future if this isn’t possible, but notice the Calvinist does so without addressing the argument of dialectical materialism, and forces God to be bound by what He knows. In other words, God is not free to create, the future has a mind of its own that binds God to act according to His perfect knowledge of future events, and therefore the future is actually equal with God (the concept behind much Yin & Yang [Shintoism], or panentheism). So while Open Theism deprives God of being omniscient, Calvinism deprives God of being omnipotent.

*What perpetrators? In Wee Calvin’s rush to sound convincing, he claimed that God’s justice demands eternal punishment against “chronically unrepentent..perpetrators”. Where did these “perpetrators” come from in eternity? Are there some eternal perpetrators that God is mad at that we don’t know about? Maybe these eternal perpetrators are the ones who caused the devil to fall. WHO KNOWS. With Wee Calvin’s speculation, the sky is definitely NOT the limit.

Wee Calvin adds that:

This being the case, we read of ungodly men who were before of old ordained to this condemnation (Jude 4) and verses of a similar nature. Since God always determined to cast the wicked into Hell, then He determined that there would always be a Hell for wicked sinners to be cast into. One logically follows the other.

Jude 4 reads:

For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

One problem that Calvinists have is always interpreting “ordained” as “determined”. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. A pastor can be ordained for a certain ministry doesn’t mean he was DETERMINED to do so. See Titus 1:5, Acts 16:4, Gal 3:19, Eph 2:10 (Ephesians 2:10 is especially critical, an argument we have raised called the “Calvinist Uniformity Conundrum”. If ordained always meant determined, then how can believers ever backslide EVEN FOR A MOMENT if their works were determined? Unless God determines that believer’s sin, Eph 2:10 is VERY problematic for Reformed Theology).

But several things to note about Jude 4:

1) It doesn’t say these men were condemned from eternity, but “before OF OLD”. That means, the judgment was something proposed IN TIME, NOT eternity.

2) It was the CONDEMNATION that was ordained, not the particular group of men. In other words, the CONSEQUENCE for rejecting Christ is what is ordained.

3) Three above is further supported by the fact that the ordained destruction WAS IN RESPONSE to those who “turned the grace of God” into something evil. For God to have eternally reprobated these men would require the ABSENCE of any reason for doing so. Thus, God can not eternally reprobate men while Jude claims that their condemnation WAS BECAUSE OF their reaction to the grace of God IN TIME. Notice moreoever in verse 7 how that those of Sodom and Gomorrah GAVE THEMSELVES OVER to their own lusts and sinfulness.

The same “decree” that God gives for life- whosoever believes in Him shall not perish- He also gives for death, that whosoever believes not shall suffer eternal punishment. The Calvinist must read their own twisted eisegesis into the text to come out with eternal reprobation because that’s NOT what Jude 4 says.

And finally, we will end with the most contradictory babbling you will ever see or hear among most Calvinists, and the greatest examples of philosophical flip-flopping of common sense and Scripture twisting extant.

First of all, the “kingdom” that is being discussed in Matthew 25:34 has absolutely NOTHING to do with any Gentile Christian believer or non believer during the Church Age. It is based on a judgment of men that occurs as a result of their obedience during the millennial reign of Christ when the sheep and the goats are separated AT THE END OF THE THOUSAND YEARS. Although we won’t go into the differences between the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God here, it’s well worth the study.

Now notice that things that Jesus condemns those men of which He damns to eternal fire in Matthew 25: 42-45 because this is just as important as verse 41:

42  For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

Notice the list “FOR” which here means “BECAUSE OF”. Now here’s a hint: you can’t have a BECAUSE OF and an ETERNAL DECREE AT THE SAME TIME AGAINST THE SAME EVENT. “Because of” implies causation. Every single act mentioned by Christ is something that these men COULD HAVE done differently, BUT FOR or BECAUSE OF their action or inaction, they are condemned. They are condemned FOR WHAT THEY DID, NOT CONDEMNED FROM ETERNITY, and Christ spends 5 verses on this subject to prove that.

The sinner, as a fully responsible creature, should ever seek the Lord and rest not until he is found of Him, not having his own righteousness etc. The free gospel offer of salvation is addressed to the ‘whosoever will.’ Calvinist evangelists have always rejoiced in the preaching of it.

The sinner is hardly a responsible creature if his destiny as well as his punishment has already been determined. The Calvinist would say that he is free to choose out of the compatibilistic nature that God gave him, even though he can’t ever choose good because of it, nevertheless he is still held responsible. But the problem with even that view is that his judgment was determined before any of his choices were made, so that alone would serve to prove that the sinner is not responsible for his sin because he was damned to eternal fire before he even sinned. (See our article “Would God Have Reprobated Perfect Human Beings?)

According to Calvinism’s view of Total Depravity, the sinner has Total Inability to seek God, and for Wee Calvin to suggest otherwise is blatantly dishonest. In addition to the non elect sinner not ever having the ability to respond to the offer, it is certainly, moreover, not a “FREE gospel offer”. A free offer implies that it can actually be accepted by anyone. But if ONLY the elect can receive and respond to it, then how is it a “free offer” to “whosoever will”? IT ISN’T!! That’s how Calvinism maintains credibility by LYING to you about what they really believe.  Wee Calvin had just clarified his position by claiming that those headed for hell are going there because God determined it to be so. How then can anyone be DETERMINED to go to hell, and yet have the actual ability to FREELY respond to the gospel?  That is utter nonsense and is the most patent example of a logical contradiction if there ever existed one. These are two extremes that CAN NOT both be true at the same. The gospel can not possibly be addressed to whosoever will without any meaningful opportunity for those among the whosoever to respond to it FREELY. If you mean that “whosoever” is ONLY the elect, then be honest and say so, and stop appealing to “whosoevers” as if anybody can actually read your rubbish.

Now remember when we started, we cited Isaiah 5:14! This is very simple logic and Bible. If hell was initially created for BOTH the devil, and sinful human beings, IT WOULD HAVE A PREDETERMINED PARAMETER. Would God make a place knowing exactly how many people were going to occupy it ONLY TO HAVE TO GO TO HOME DEPOT FOR MORE BUILDING SUPPLIES TO EXPAND IT LATER?? “Hell hath ENLARGED HERSELF”. The fact that hell GETS BIGGER shows that it was not intended to hold more than it was initially designed to hold.

Hence, Calvinism is NOT safe as Wee Calvin claims, and yes, hell was created initially for ONLY the devil and his angels which proves Biblically and logically that man was never predetermined to burn in hell.

Hell and destruction are NEVER FULL. Proverbs 27:20



By Dr. James Ach and Dr. Elisha Weismann

As independent fundamental Bible believing Baptists, we avoid most other denominations due to several doctrinal differences that we believe mandates separation from such believers. However, we still acknowledge many of the truths that some of them espouse to, and still consider many of them Christian brothers and sisters. Nevertheless, there are times when the actions of some churches and their leaders and supporters have an impact that affects us all.

We started this website after the scandal surrounding former pastor of First Baptist Church of Hammond, Jack Schaap, was arrested and convicted of child molestation. While we were still in America, we saw how the scandal affected the credibility of many Baptist churches across the US. Baptists had doors slammed in their face when out door knocking, and several new Facebook groups (“Do Righters”) were started that gained thousands of followers, and many of those groups are now a virtual haven for atheists and skeptics. One man’s actions turned several thousand people into critics, skeptics, atheists, and fundamentalist bashers. (We have dealt with facts beyond that generalization elsewhere, so don’t go into a tizzy about commenting us that it wasn’t just Schaap.)

The scandal surrounding Ergun Caner is beginning to have the same effect, even here in Israel (thanks to James White constantly reminding the Muslims about it for the last four years). Although it has not been so prevalent a topic as we have seen in America, there have been more than one occasion when we have attempted to witness to Muslims in Jerusalem where Ergun Caner has been brought up. It has already been dangerous enough with some of the work we have done (and hence why our personal information has been kept private) without the problems faced with this added scandal.

In our opinion, if Ergun Caner was to be tried in a criminal court with the testimony given by him in videos, and publicly written statements by him, he would be convicted of perjury.

We fear that many of his supporters are supporting him out of the fear that since the majority of his attackers are Calvinist, that it will somehow lend credibility to them as a group if Caner concedes to their accusations. Now those who follow us on here know we are just as much opposed to Calvinism as most of Caners supporters, and we are by no means a fan of James White, who has been undoubtedly the loudest opponent against Caner. But, James White has a point, and regardless of his other faux pas, I believe it is to the detriment of all of the churches involved to ignore this issue’s importance. Anytime any popular “religious” leader is involved in a scandal, it is always used as fodder against the rest of the church. Now we can’t be expected to police every little action or stupid thing some pastor or church member does, but we need to at least address the ones we can, especially when they have the potential to ruin the reputation of Christians on such a large scale.

We are going to view the following facts as we would have when we were both working in the legal field.

The Investigators Defense

This is probably the number one defense that others have offered for Ergun Caner. The problem with this is that, to our knowledge, we don’t know who the investigators were, and specifically, what they were looking for. Investigators always begin with a “hunch” which often leads to additional evidence. Or, they have a few very specific questions and suspicions that are the hallmark of the case, and the investigation begins by building a view based upon certain facts relevant to what the investigator believes is necessary to prove the case.

If the investigators were not specifically looking for deliberate lies, then their ultimate findings will be “we find no fault”. Furthermore, it also depends on which lies they were looking at. If the only matter they investigated is whether Ergun Caner was untruthful about the date of his arrival in the United States, then a simple acknowledging by him that a mistake was made would lead an investigator to conclude that their was no deliberate misconception. But we don’t know what they were looking for. 

As an independent investigator, I would have to conduct my own review of the facts and questions if the full report from the previous investigator is not available or disclosed. I could not simply rely on the conclusion without knowing how they arrived at their conclusion, because I need to know whether or not those conclusions can survive cross-examination in court. Investigators some times have biases, and I need to be able to prove my investigator a credible witness before I put him on the stand.

Therefore, we could not simply rely on the conclusions of these investigations without knowing their qualifications for investigating these kind of matters, what evidence they considered, and what kind of questions  they asked.

Apparent Cover Up of Information

This matter above all else, is what sold us on the scandal. When we first located Ergun Caner’s bio, this is what is now posted on his website, and pay close attention to what we have highlighted in bold:

Ergun Caner is a Professor & Apologist at the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School in Lynchburg, Virginia. Raised as a devout Sunni Muslim along with his two brothers, Caner converted in high school. After his conversion, he pursued his call to the ministry and education. He has a Masters degree from The Criswell College, a Master of Divinity and a Master of Theology from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a Doctor of Theology from the University of South Africa. [1]

However, we decided to use a website that maintains a permanent cache of information on websites. The following was Ergun Caner’s biography in this same section as above as follows from July of 2009:

Ergun Mehmet Caner (B.A., M.A., M.Div., Th,M., Ph.D.) is president of the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School at the Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. Raised as the son of a Muslim leader in Turkey, Caner became a Christian shortly before entering college. Serving under his Chancellor and President, Jerry Falwell Jr., Caner led the Seminary to triple in growth since his installation in 2005. A public speaker and apologist, Caner has debated Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and other religious leaders in thirteen countries and thirty-five states. [2]

The first issue to notice is

a) Caner’s initial bio stated he was raised the son of a Muslim leader IN TURKEY. This information is removed from the recent bio. If the contention was that Caner simply lived there for a short time, or merely visited there, why not correct the mistake by revising the bio to read “was raised in Ohio, and born in Sweden”. Why doesn’t the current bio reflect where he was actually born? It is common to include place of birth in bios, and he had already listed it once, but not only is the information now different, but any information about his birth place is totally missing from the bio altogether.

b) The original states that Caner has debated Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and other religious LEADERS in 13 countries and thirty-five states.

(i) One of those who he listed as debating was Shabir Ally, although he has at least now conceded that he never met Ally. But we find it highly unlikely that with as popular as Shabir Ally is in the Islamic community, that a person who claims to have been raised a devout Muslim and speaking Arabic would confuse his name with someone elses. That would be akin to us being raised Jewish confusing Moshe Dayan with Chaim Weizmann, or claiming to have debated James White when it was really Norman Geisler.

(ii)There is not one single report, video, audio program, witness of any debates or formal debates. Others have defended this statement as simply that he may have had an argument and mistook that for a debate. As a person trained in apologetics, we find it hard to believe that he could misconstrue what “debate” means, and considering that he listed it as a credential on a biography, it is simply too illogical to conclude that he did not intend to convey that he  had actually had formal debates, just as he said, with religious leaders in 13 countries, and thirty-five states.

We have also seen that lawsuits that have been filed demanding the removal of videos and internet articles. Why remove them if the truth about your testimony is actually in those videos? If they were “doctored”, then leave them there because they would serve as exemplars to any future “doctored” videos. And, if they were “doctored”, then simply produce the original. Filing a lawsuit, and claiming that videos were doctored implies you can produce the original testimony. Otherwise your complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Why not produce the original testimony and compare it with the “fake” videos? That would shut James White up permanently (well, maybe not permanently).

There are a number of other anomalies in what we have seen. And keep in mind, this is not based upon ANY information from James White or his crowd. It is no secret how we here, as King James Only Bible believers view White’s views and vise-versa. This is based on our own independent research. These facts alone that we have presented would be enough for us to obtain a warrant for probable cause if we were to try this as a criminal case in court, and deliberate embellishment was a crime.

Now we have clearly shown on here how biased James White has been, the cruel antics of his followers and down right vile tweets, and White’s selective prosecution of those outside of his Calvinist circle (see our article titled “Where was James White” and “Response to James White”) [UPDATE/CORRECTION-Since JD HALL has clarified that he did not intend to state that Al Mohler was complicit, we will be removing those argumentative points when we get a chance] However, even a broken clock is right twice a day, and even though we believe White to be broken in several places doctrinally, he’s right on this one.

If you believe that Calvinists have a bad habit of twisting simple commonly understood terms like “love” “all” “world” etc..then don’t do the same thing to Ergun Caner’s testimony. Would we expect White or Hall to ever repent or apologize for any of their actions? I doubt it, they haven’t so far, and probably never will. But if you want to prove that these Calvinists are dishonest and use misleading rhetoric to the detriment of potential converts, then stop giving them an excuse to point fingers at those of us who oppose their doctrinal views and are trying to engage them in a battle for the truth. Will White and others use it against him forever if he concedes? Probably. White still uses out-of-context quotes from Dave Hunt even after the man has been dead for quite some time now. But who cares about their opinions? It is right to either correct their errors, or confront the accusers and set the record straight, not because James White and his ilk say so, but because it’s simply the right thing to do before God. Caner can still have a productive ministry just as David did, but not if he keeps avoiding this matter, and others continue enabling him to do so.

I understand this will not earn us any brownie points, but the name of our blog is Do Right Christians. Doing the right thing is doing the Godly thing no matter what it costs, and let God sort out the fallout. We are not going to compromise what we believe just because we might lose a few friends over it. And if that’s why any of you are afraid to admit the obvious, then who do you fear more, God or men? Acts 5:29

“And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Revelation 19:10

PROPHECY                               DESCRIPTION                                                        FULFILLMENT

1. Gen. 3:15 Seed of a woman (virgin birth) Galatians 4:4-5, Matthew 1:18
2. Gen. 3:15 He will bruise Satan’s head Hebrews 2:14, 1John 3:8
3. Gen. 5:24 The bodily ascension to heaven illustrated Mark 16:19
4. Gen. 9:26, 27 The God of Shem will be the Son of Shem Luke 3:36
5. Gen. 12:3 Seed of Abraham will bless all nations Galatians 3:8, Acts 3:25, 26
6. Gen. 12:7 The Promise made to Abraham’s Seed Galatians 3:16
7. Gen. 14:18 A priest after the order of Melchizedek Hebrews 6:20
8. Gen. 14:18 King of Peace and Righteousness Hebrews 7:2
9. Gen. 14:18 The Last Supper foreshadowed Matthew 26:26-29
10. Gen. 17:19 Seed of Isaac (Gen. 21:12) Romans 9:7
11. Gen. 22:8 The Lamb of God promised John 1:29
12. Gen. 22:18 As Isaac’s seed, will bless all nations Galatians 3:16
13. Gen. 26:2-5 The Seed of Isaac promised as the Redeemer Hebrews 11:18
14. Gen. 28:12 The Bridge to heaven John 1:51
15. Gen. 28:14 The Seed of Jacob Luke 3:34
16. Gen. 49:10 The time of His coming Luke 2:1-7; Galatians 4:4
17. Gen. 49:10 The Seed of Judah Luke 3:33
18. Gen. 49:10 Called Shiloh or One Sent John 17:3
19. Gen. 49:10 Messiah to come before Judah lost identity John 11:47-52
20. Gen. 49:10 Unto Him shall the obedience of the people be John 10:16
21. Ex. 3:13-15 The Great “I AM” John 4:26, 8:58
22. Ex. 12:5 A Lamb without blemish Hebrews 9:14; 1Peter 1:19
23. Ex. 12:13 The blood of the Lamb saves from wrath Romans 5:8
24. Ex. 12:21-27 Christ is our Passover 1Corinthians 5:7
25. Ex. 12:46 Not a bone of the Lamb to be broken John 19:31-36
26. Ex. 15:2 His exaltation predicted as Yeshua Acts 7:55, 56
27. Ex. 15:11 His Character-Holiness Luke 1:35; Acts 4:27
28. Ex. 17:6 The Spiritual Rock of Israel 1Corinthians 10:4
29. Ex. 33:19 His Character-Merciful Luke 1:72
30. Lev. 1:2-9 His sacrifice a sweet smelling savor unto God Ephesians 5:2
31. Lev. 14:11 The leper cleansed-Sign to priesthood Luke 5:12-14; Acts 6:7
32. Lev. 16:15-17 Prefigures Christ’s once-for-all death Hebrews 9:7-14
33. Lev. 16:27 Suffering outside the Camp Matthew 27:33; Heb. 13:11, 12
34. Lev. 17:11 The Blood-the life of the flesh Matthew 26:28; Mark 10:45
35. Lev. 17:11 It is the blood that makes atonement Rom. 3:23-24; 1John 1:7
36. Lev. 23:36-37 The Drink-offering: “If any man thirst” John 7:37
37. Num. 9:12 Not a bone of Him broken John 19:31-36
38. Num. 21:9 The serpent on a pole-Christ lifted up John 3:14-18, 12:32
39. Num. 24:17 Time: “I shall see him, but not now.” John 1:14; Galatians 4:4
40. Deut. 18:15 “This is of a truth that prophet.” John 6:14
41. Deut. 18:15-16 “Had ye believed Moses, ye would believe me.” John 5:45-47
42. Deut. 18:18 Sent by the Father to speak His word John 8:28, 29
43. Deut. 18:19 Whoever will not hear must bear his sin Acts 3:22-23
44. Deut. 21:23 Cursed is he that hangs on a tree Galatians 3:10-13
45. Joshua 5:14-15 The Captain of our salvation Hebrews 2:10
46. Ruth 4:4-10 Christ, our kinsman, has redeemed us Ephesians 1:3-7
47. 1 Sam. 2:35 A Faithful Priest Heb. 2:17, 3:1-3, 6, 7:24-25
48. 1 Sam. 2:10 Shall be an anointed King to the Lord Mt. 28:18, John 12:15
49. 2 Sam. 7:12 David’s Seed Matthew 1:1
50. 2 Sam. 7:13 His Kingdom is everlasting 2Peter 1:11
51. 2 Sam. 7:14a The Son of God Luke 1:32, Romans 1:3-4
52. 2 Sam. 7:16 David’s house established forever Luke 3:31; Rev. 22:16
53. 2 Ki. 2:11 The bodily ascension to heaven illustrated Luke 24:51
54. 1 Chr. 17:11 David’s Seed Matthew 1:1, 9:27
55. 1 Chr. 17:12-13 To reign on David’s throne forever Luke 1:32, 33
56. 1 Chr. 17:13 “I will be His Father, He…my Son.” Hebrews 1:5
57. Job 9:32-33 Mediator between man and God 1 Timothy 2:5
58. Job 19:23-27 The Resurrection predicted John 5:24-29
59. Psa. 2:1-3 The enmity of kings foreordained Acts 4:25-28
60. Psa. 2:2 To own the title, Anointed (Christ) John 1:41, Acts 2:36
61. Psa. 2:6 His Character-Holiness John 8:46; Revelation 3:7
62. Psa. 2:6 To own the title King Matthew 2:2
63. Psa. 2:7 Declared the Beloved Son Matthew 3:17, Romans 1:4
64. Psa. 2:7, 8 The Crucifixion and Resurrection intimated Acts 13:29-33
65. Psa. 2:8, 9 Rule the nations with a rod of iron Rev. 2:27, 12:5, 19:15
66. Psa. 2:12 Life comes through faith in Him John 20:31
67. Psa. 8:2 The mouths of babes perfect His praise Matthew 21:16
68. Psa. 8:5, 6 His humiliation and exaltation Hebrews 2:5-9
69. Psa. 9:7-10 Judge the world in righteousness Acts 17:31
70. Psa. 16:10 Was not to see corruption Acts 2:31, 13:35
71. Psa. 16:9-11 Was to arise from the dead John 20:9
72. Psa. 17:15 The resurrection predicted Luke 24:6
73. Psa. 18:2-3 The horn of salvation Luke 1:69-71
74. Psa. 22:1 Forsaken because of sins of others 2 Corinthians 5:21
75. Psa. 22:1 “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Matthew 27:46
76. Psa. 22:2 Darkness upon Calvary for three hours Matthew 27:45
77. Psa. 22:7 They shoot out the lip and shake the head Matthew 27:39-44
78. Psa. 22:8 “He trusted in God, let Him deliver Him” Matthew 27:43
79. Psa. 22:9-10 Born the Saviour Luke 2:7
80. Psa. 22:12-13 They seek His death John 19:6
81. Psa. 22:14 His blood poured out when they pierced His side John 19:34
82. Psa. 22:14, 15 Suffered agony on Calvary Mark 15:34-37
83. Psa. 22:15 He thirsted John 19:28
84. Psa. 22:16 They pierced His hands and His feet John 19:34, 37; 20:27
85. Psa. 22:17, 18 Stripped Him before the stares of men Luke 23:34, 35
86. Psa. 22:18 They parted His garments John 19:23, 24
87. Psa. 22:20, 21 He committed Himself to God Luke 23:46
88. Psa. 22:20, 21 Satanic power bruising the Redeemer’s heel Hebrews 2:14
89. Psa. 22:22 His Resurrection declared John 20:17
90. Psa. 22:27-28 He shall be the governor of the nations Colossians 1:16
91. Psa. 22:31 “It is finished” John 19:30, Heb. 10:10, 12, 14, 18
92. Psa. 23:1 “I am the Good Shepherd” John 10:11, 1Peter 2:25
93. Psa. 24:3 His exaltation predicted Acts 1:11; Philippians 2:9
94. Psa. 30:3 His resurrection predicted Acts 2:32
95. Psa. 31:5 “Into thy hands I commit my spirit” Luke 23:46
96. Psa. 31:11 His acquaintances fled from Him Mark 14:50
97. Psa. 31:13 They took counsel to put Him to death Mt. 27:1, John 11:53
98. Psa. 31:14, 15 “He trusted in God, let Him deliver him” Matthew 27:43
99. Psa. 34:20 Not a bone of Him broken John 19:31-36
100. Psa. 35:11 False witnesses rose up against Him Matthew 26:59
101. Psa. 35:19 He was hated without a cause John 15:25
102. Psa. 38:11 His friends stood afar off Luke 23:49
103. Psa. 38:12 Enemies try to entangle Him by craft Mark 14:1, Mt. 22:15
104. Psa. 38:12-13 Silent before His accusers Matthew 27:12-14
105. Psa. 38:20 He went about doing good Acts 10:38
106. Psa. 40:2-5 The joy of His resurrection predicted John 20:20
107. Psa. 40:6-8 His delight-the will of the Father John 4:34, Heb. 10:5-10
108. Psa. 40:9 He was to preach the Righteousness in Israel Matthew 4:17
109. Psa. 40:14 Confronted by adversaries in the Garden John 18:4-6
110. Psa. 41:9 Betrayed by a familiar friend John 13:18
111. Psa. 45:2 Words of Grace come from His lips John 1:17, Luke 4:22
112. Psa. 45:6 To own the title, God or Elohim Hebrews 1:8
113. Psa. 45:7 A special anointing by the Holy Spirit Mt. 3:16; Heb. 1:9
114. Psa. 45:7, 8 Called the Christ (Messiah or Anointed) Luke 2:11
115. Psa. 45:17 His name remembered forever Ephesians 1:20-21, Heb. 1:8
116. Psa. 55:12-14 Betrayed by a friend, not an enemy John 13:18
117. Psa. 55:15 Unrepentant death of the Betrayer Matthew 27:3-5; Acts 1:16-19
118. Psa. 68:18 To give gifts to men Ephesians 4:7-16
119. Psa. 68:18 Ascended into Heaven Luke 24:51
120. Psa. 69:4 Hated without a cause John 15:25
121. Psa. 69:8 A stranger to own brethren John 1:11, 7:5
122. Psa. 69:9 Zealous for the Lord’s House John 2:17
123. Psa. 69:14-20 Messiah’s anguish of soul before crucifixion Matthew 26:36-45
124. Psa. 69:20 “My soul is exceeding sorrowful.” Matthew 26:38
125. Psa. 69:21 Given vinegar in thirst Matthew 27:34
126. Psa. 69:26 The Saviour given and smitten by God John 17:4; 18:11
127. Psa. 72:10, 11 Great persons were to visit Him Matthew 2:1-11
128. Psa. 72:16 The corn of wheat to fall into the Ground John 12:24-25
129. Psa. 72:17 Belief on His name will produce offspring John 1:12, 13
130. Psa. 72:17 All nations shall be blessed by Him Galatians 3:8
131. Psa. 72:17 All nations shall call Him blessed John 12:13, Rev. 5:8-12
132. Psa. 78:1-2 He would teach in parables Matthew 13:34-35
133. Psa. 78:2b To speak the Wisdom of God with authority Matthew 7:29
134. Psa. 80:17 The Man of God’s right hand Mark 14:61-62
135. Psa. 88 The Suffering and Reproach of Calvary Matthew 27:26-50
136. Psa. 88:8 They stood afar off and watched Luke 23:49
137. Psa. 89:27 Firstborn Colossians 1:15, 18
138. Psa. 89:27 Emmanuel to be higher than earthly kings Luke 1:32, 33
139. Psa. 89:35-37 David’s Seed, throne, kingdom endure forever Luke 1:32, 33
140. Psa. 89:36-37 His character-Faithfulness Revelation 1:5, 19:11
141. Psa. 90:2 He is from everlasting (Micah 5:2) John 1:1
142. Psa. 91:11, 12 Identified as Messianic; used to tempt Christ Luke 4:10, 11
143. Psa. 97:9 His exaltation predicted Acts 1:11; Ephesians 1:20
144. Psa. 100:5 His character-Goodness Matthew 19:16, 17
145. Psa. 102:1-11 The Suffering and Reproach of Calvary John 19:16-30
146. Psa. 102:25-27 Messiah is the Preexistent Son Hebrews 1:10-12
147. Psa. 109:25 Ridiculed Matthew 27:39
148. Psa. 110:1 Son of David Matthew 22:42-43
149. Psa. 110:1 To ascend to the right-hand of the Father Mark 16:19
150. Psa. 110:1 David’s son called Lord Matthew 22:44, 45
151. Psa. 110:4 A priest after Melchizedek’s order Hebrews 6:20
152. Psa. 112:4 His character-Compassionate, Gracious, et al Matthew 9:36
153. Psa. 118:17, 18 Messiah’s Resurrection assured Luke 24:5-7; 1Cor. 15:20
154. Psa. 118:22, 23 The rejected stone is Head of the corner Matthew 21:42, 43
155. Psa. 118:26a The Blessed One presented to Israel Matthew 21:9
156. Psa. 118:26b To come while Temple standing Matthew 21:12-15
157. Psa. 132:11 The Seed of David (the fruit of His Body) Luke 1:32, Act 2:30
158. Psa. 129:3 He was scourged Matthew 27:26
159. Psa. 138:1-6 The supremacy of David’s Seed amazes kings Matthew 2:2-6
160. Psa. 147:3, 6 The earthly ministry of Christ described Luke 4:18
161. Prov. 1:23 He will send the Spirit of God John 16:7
162. Prov. 8:23 Foreordained from everlasting Rev. 13:8, 1Peter 1:19-20
163. Song. 5:16 The altogether lovely One John 1:17
164. Isa. 2:3 He shall teach all nations John 4:25
165. Isa. 2:4 He shall judge among the nations John 5:22
166. Isa. 6:1 When Isaiah saw His glory John 12:40-41
167. Isa. 6:8 The One Sent by God John 12:38-45
168. Isa. 6:9-10 Parables fall on deaf ears Matthew 13:13-15
169. Isa. 6:9-12 Blinded to Christ and deaf to His words Acts 28:23-29
170. Isa. 7:14 To be born of a virgin Luke 1:35
171. Isa. 7:14 To be Emmanuel-God with us Matthew 1:18-23, 1Tim. 3:16
172. Isa. 8:8 Called Emmanuel Matthew 28:20
173. Isa. 8:14 A stone of stumbling, a Rock of offense 1Peter 2:8
174. Isa. 9:1, 2 His ministry to begin in Galilee Matthew 4:12-17
175. Isa. 9:6 A child born-Humanity Luke 1:31
176. Isa. 9:6 A Son given-Deity Luke 1:32, John 1:14, 1Tim. 3:16
177. Isa. 9:6 Declared to be the Son of God with power Romans 1:3, 4
178. Isa. 9:6 The Wonderful One, Peleh Luke 4:22
179. Isa. 9:6 The Counsellor, Yaatz Matthew 13:54
180. Isa. 9:6 The Mighty God, El Gibor 1Cor. 1:24, Titus 2:3
181. Isa. 9:6 The Everlasting Father, Avi Adth John 8:58, 10:30
182. Isa. 9:6 The Prince of Peace, Sar Shalom John 16:33
183. Isa. 9:7 To establish an everlasting kingdom Luke 1:32-33
184. Isa. 9:7 His Character-Just John 5:30
185. Isa. 9:7 No end to his Government, Throne, and Peace Luke 1:32-33
186. Isa. 11:1 Called a Nazarene-the Branch, Netzer Matthew 2:23
187. Isa. 11:1 A rod out of Jesse-Son of Jesse Luke 3:23, 32
188. Isa. 11:2 Anointed One by the Spirit Matthew 3:16, 17, Acts 10:38
189. Isa. 11:2 His Character-Wisdom, Knowledge, et al Colossians 2:3
190. Isa. 11:3 He would know their thoughts Luke 6:8, John 2:25
191. Isa. 11:4 Judge in righteousness Acts 17:31
192. Isa. 11:4 Judges with the sword of His mouth Rev. 2:16, 19:11, 15
193. Isa. 11:5 Character: Righteous & Faithful Rev. 19:11
194. Isa. 11:10 The Gentiles seek Him John 12:18-21
195. Isa. 12:2 Called Jesus-Yeshua Matthew 1:21
196. Isa. 22:22 The One given all authority to govern Revelation 3:7
197. Isa. 25:8 The Resurrection predicted 1Corinthians 15:54
198. Isa. 26:19 His power of Resurrection predicted Matthew 27:50-54
199. Isa. 28:16 The Messiah is the precious corner stone Acts 4:11, 12
200. Isa. 28:16 The Sure Foundation 1Corinthians 3:11, Mt. 16:18
201. Isa. 29:13 He indicated hypocritical obedience to His Word Matthew 15:7-9
202. Isa. 29:14 The wise are confounded by the Word 1Corinthians 1:18-31
203. Isa. 32:2 A Refuge-A man shall be a hiding place Matthew 23:37
204. Isa. 35:4 He will come and save you Matthew 1:21
205. Isa. 35:5-6 To have a ministry of miracles Matthew 11:2-6
206. Isa. 40:3, 4 Preceded by forerunner John 1:23
207. Isa. 40:9 “Behold your God.” John 1:36; 19:14
208. Isa. 40:10. He will come to reward Revelation 22:12
209. Isa. 40:11 A shepherd-compassionate life-giver John 10:10-18
210. Isa. 42:1-4 The Servant-as a faithful, patient redeemer Matthew 12:18-21
211. Isa. 42:2 Meek and lowly Matthew 11:28-30
212. Isa. 42:3 He brings hope for the hopeless John 4
213. Isa. 42:4 The nations shall wait on His teachings John 12:20-26
214. Isa. 42:6 The Light (salvation) of the Gentiles Luke 2:32
215. Isa. 42:1, 6 His is a worldwide compassion Matthew 28:19, 20
216. Isa. 42:7 Blind eyes opened. John 9:25-38
217. Isa. 43:11 He is the only Saviour. Acts 4:12
218. Isa. 44:3 He will send the Spirit of God John 16:7, 13
219. Isa. 45:21-25 He is Lord and Saviour Philippians 3:20, Titus 2:13
220. Isa. 45:23 He will be the Judge John 5:22; Romans 14:11
221. Isa. 46:9, 10 Declares things not yet done John 13:19
222. Isa. 48:12 The First and the Last John 1:30, Revelation 1:8, 17
223. Isa. 48:16, 17 He came as a Teacher John 3:2
224. Isa. 49:1 Called from the womb-His humanity Matthew 1:18
225. Isa. 49:5 A Servant from the womb. Luke 1:31, Philippians 2:7
226. Isa. 49:6 He will restore Israel Acts 3:19-21, 15:16-17
227. Isa. 49:6 He is Salvation for Israel Luke 2:29-32
228. Isa. 49:6 He is the Light of the Gentiles John 8:12, Acts 13:47
229. Isa. 49:6 He is Salvation unto the ends of the earth Acts 15:7-18
230. Isa. 49:7 He is despised of the Nation John 1:11, 8:48-49, 19:14-15
231. Isa. 50:3 Heaven is clothed in black at His humiliation Luke 23:44, 45
232. Isa. 50:4 He is a learned counselor for the weary Matthew 7:29, 11:28, 29
233. Isa. 50:5 The Servant bound willingly to obedience Matthew 26:39
234. Isa. 50:6a “I gave my back to the smiters.” Matthew 27:26
235. Isa. 50:6b He was smitten on the cheeks Matthew 26:67
236. Isa. 50:6c He was spat upon Matthew 27:30
237. Isa. 52:7 Published good tidings upon mountains Matthew 5:12,15:29,28:16
238. Isa. 52:13 The Servant exalted Acts 1:8-11; Eph. 1:19-22, Php. 2:5-9
239. Isa. 52:14 The Servant shockingly abused Luke 18:31-34; Mt. 26:67, 68
240. Isa. 52:15 Nations startled by message of the Servant Luke 18:31-34; Mt. 26:67, 68
241. Isa. 52:15 His blood shed sprinkles nations Hebrews 9:13-14, Rev. 1:5
242. Isa. 53:1 His people would not believe Him John 12:37-38
243. Isa. 53:2 Appearance of an ordinary man Philippians 2:6-8
244. Isa. 53:3a Despised Luke 4:28-29
245. Isa. 53:3b Rejected Matthew 27:21-23
246. Isa. 53:3c Great sorrow and grief Matthew 26:37-38, Luke 19:41, Heb. 4:15
247. Isa. 53:3d Men hide from being associated with Him Mark 14:50-52
248. Isa. 53:4a He would have a healing ministry Matthew 8:16-17
249. Isa. 53:4b Thought to be cursed by God Matthew 26:66, 27:41-43
250. Isa. 53:5a Bears penalty for mankind’s iniquities 2Cor. 5:21, Heb. 2:9
251. Isa. 53:5b His sacrifice provides peace between man and God Colossians 1:20
252. Isa. 53:5c His sacrifice would heal man of sin 1Peter 2:24
253. Isa. 53:6a He would be the sin-bearer for all mankind 1John 2:2, 4:10
254. Isa. 53:6b God’s will that He bear sin for all mankind Galatians 1:4
255. Isa. 53:7a Oppressed and afflicted Matthew 27:27-31
256. Isa. 53:7b Silent before his accusers Matthew 27:12-14
257. Isa. 53:7c Sacrificial lamb John 1:29, 1Peter 1:18-19
258. Isa. 53:8a Confined and persecuted Matthew 26:47-27:31
259. Isa. 53:8b He would be judged John 18:13-22
260. Isa. 53:8c Killed Matthew 27:35
261. Isa. 53:8d Dies for the sins of the world 1John 2:2
262. Isa. 53:9a Buried in a rich man’s grave Matthew 27:57
263. Isa. 53:9b Innocent and had done no violence Luke 23:41, John 18:38
264. Isa. 53:9c No deceit in his mouth 1Peter 2:22
265. Isa. 53:10a God’s will that He die for mankind John 18:11
266. Isa. 53:10b An offering for sin Matthew 20:28, Galatians 3:13
267. Isa. 53:10c Resurrected and live forever Romans 6:9
268. Isa. 53:10d He would prosper John 17:1-5
269. Isa. 53:11a God fully satisfied with His suffering John 12:27
270. Isa. 53:11b God’s servant would justify man Romans 5:8-9, 18-19
271. Isa. 53:11c The sin-bearer for all mankind Hebrews 9:28
272. Isa. 53:12a Exalted by God because of his sacrifice Matthew 28:18
273. Isa. 53:12b He would give up his life to save mankind Luke 23:46
274. Isa. 53:12c Numbered with the transgressors Mark 15:27-28
275. Isa. 53:12d Sin-bearer for all mankind 1Peter 2:24
276. Isa. 53:12e Intercede to God in behalf of mankind Luke 23:34, Rom. 8:34
277. Isa. 55:3 Resurrected by God Acts 13:34
278. Isa. 55:4a A witness John 18:37
279. Isa. 55:4b He is a leader and commander Hebrews 2:10
280. Isa. 55:5 God would glorify Him Acts 3:13
281. Isa. 59:16a Intercessor between man and God Matthew 10:32
282. Isa. 59:16b He would come to provide salvation John 6:40
283. Isa. 59:20 He would come to Zion as their Redeemer Luke 2:38
284. Isa. 60:1-3 He would shew light to the Gentiles Acts 26:23
285. Isa. 61:1a The Spirit of God upon him Matthew 3:16-17
286. Isa. 61:1b The Messiah would preach the good news Luke 4:16-21
287. Isa. 61:1c Provide freedom from the bondage of sin John 8:31-36
288. Isa. 61:1-2a Proclaim a period of grace Galatians 4:4-5
289. Jer. 23:5-6 Descendant of David Luke 3:23-31
290. Jer. 23:5-6 The Messiah would be both God and Man John 13:13, 1Ti 3:16
291. Jer. 31:22 Born of a virgin Matthew 1:18-20
292. Jer. 31:31 The Messiah would be the new covenant Matthew 26:28
293. Jer. 33:14-15 Descendant of David Luke 3:23-31
294. Eze.34:23-24 Descendant of David Matthew 1:1
295. Eze.37:24-25 Descendant of David Luke 1:31-33
296. Dan. 2:44-45 The Stone that shall break the kingdoms Matthew 21:44
297. Dan. 7:13-14a He would ascend into heaven Acts 1:9-11
298. Dan. 7:13-14b Highly exalted Ephesians 1:20-22
299. Dan. 7:13-14c His dominion would be everlasting Luke 1:31-33
300. Dan. 9:24a To make an end to sins Galatians 1:3-5
301. Dan. 9:24a To make reconciliation for iniquity Romans 5:10, 2Cor. 5:18-21
302. Dan. 9:24b He would be holy Luke 1:35
303. Dan. 9:25 His announcement John 12:12-13
304. Dan. 9:26a Cut off Matthew 16:21, 21:38-39
305. Dan. 9:26b Die for the sins of the world Hebrews 2:9
306. Dan. 9:26c Killed before the destruction of the temple Matthew 27:50-51
307. Dan. 10:5-6 Messiah in a glorified state Revelation 1:13-16
308. Hos. 11:1 He would be called out of Egypt Matthew 2:15
309. Hos. 13:14 He would defeat death 1Corinthians 15:55-57
310. Joel 2:32 Offer salvation to all mankind Romans 10:9-13
311. Jonah 1:17 Death and resurrection of Christ Matthew 12:40, 16:4
312. Mic. 5:2a Born in Bethlehem Matthew 2:1-6
313. Mic. 5:2b Ruler in Israel Luke 1:33
314. Mic. 5:2c From everlasting John 8:58
315. Hag. 2:6-9 He would visit the second Temple Luke 2:27-32
316. Hag. 2:23 Descendant of Zerubbabel Luke 2:27-32
317. Zech. 3:8 God’s servant John 17:4
318. Zech. 6:12-13 Priest and King Hebrews 8:1
319. Zech. 9:9a Greeted with rejoicing in Jerusalem Matthew 21:8-10
320. Zech. 9:9b Beheld as King John 12:12-13
321. Zech. 9:9c The Messiah would be just John 5:30
322. Zech. 9:9d The Messiah would bring salvation Luke 19:10
323. Zech. 9:9e The Messiah would be humble Matthew 11:29
324. Zech. 9:9f Presented to Jerusalem riding on a donkey Matthew 21:6-9
325. Zech. 10:4 The cornerstone Ephesians 2:20
326. Zech. 11:4-6a At His coming, Israel to have unfit leaders Matthew 23:1-4
327. Zech. 11:4-6b Rejection causes God to remove His protection Luke 19:41-44
328. Zech. 11:4-6c Rejected in favor of another king John 19:13-15
329. Zech. 11:7 Ministry to “poor,” the believing remnant Matthew 9:35-36
330. Zech. 11:8a Unbelief forces Messiah to reject them Matthew 23:33
331. Zech. 11:8b Despised Matthew 27:20
332. Zech. 11:9 Stops ministering to those who rejected Him Matthew 13:10-11
333. Zech. 11:10-11a Rejection causes God to remove protection Luke 19:41-44
334. Zech. 11:10-11b The Messiah would be God John 14:7
335. Zech. 11:12-13a Betrayed for thirty pieces of silver Matthew 26:14-15
336. Zech. 11:12-13b Rejected Matthew 26:14-15
337. Zech. 11:12-13c Thirty pieces of silver cast in the house of the Lord Matthew 27:3-5
338. Zech. 11:12-13d The Messiah would be God John 12:45
339. Zech. 12:10a The Messiah’s body would be pierced John 19:34-37
340. Zech. 12:10b The Messiah would be both God and man John 10:30
341. Zech. 12:10c The Messiah would be rejected John 1:11
342. Zech. 13:7a God’s will He die for mankind John 18:11
343. Zech. 13:7b A violent death Mark 14:27
344. Zech. 13:7c Both God and man John 14:9
345. Zech. 13:7d Israel scattered as a result of rejecting Him Matthew 26:31-56
346. Zech. 14:4 He would return to the Mt. of Olives Acts 1:11-12
347. Mal. 3:1a Messenger to prepare the way for Messiah Mark 1:1-8
348. Mal. 3:1b Sudden appearance at the temple Mark 11:15-16
349. Mal. 3:1c Messenger of the new covenant Luke 4:43
350. Mal. 4:5 Forerunner in spirit of Elijah Mt. 3:1-3, 11:10-14, 17:11-13
351. Mal. 4:6 Forerunner would turn many to righteousness Luke 1:16-17

J/A and Dr. Elisha Weismann

Seek ye the Lord while he may be foundcall ye upon him while he is near: 7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith 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.” Isaiah 55:6-9

There is a clear distinction between the mind of God and the mind of man. The struggle to define the boundaries of accountability and free choice is drawn between definitions of freedom. Free will is the ability to choose A or to not choose A without any compelling force that causes the choice, as opposed to determinism which is the view that God from eternity past has determined all things whatsoever comes to pass. Yet if determinism (viz, compatibilist freedom/soft determinism) is true, and our minds are simply following predetermined responses, then ultimately God is having a universal chess match with Himself.

Free will is important in distinguishing the difference between an infallible creator, and fallible humans. Permitting free will demonstrates that man makes choices that God would not make, and thoughts that God would not think, actions that God would not take. Free will shows that God’s thoughts and actions are infinitely superior to humans. By God allowing man to think and act independently without any external or internal compulsion, man proves that he is incapable of making the best and wisest choices. When man is given the choice to decide between A and B, and chooses B where God would have chosen A, man’s free will shows that he can not possibly be like God.

Free will proves the sovereignty of God far more than a deterministic system. If God determines that man chooses A, then ultimately man has not actually had the ability to make a decision that is independent from God, and if God controls the response as well as the decision, then there is no way to prove that man is not just as equally as intelligent as God.

In a compatibilist form of free will, compatibilists deny that man has the ability to refrain from choosing A or B, but only the freedom to incline and such inclinations being programmed into the man’s will. Thus man is still doing what he wants to do out of the will that he has been programmed with.

Thus, if a computer prints out the letters “ABCDEFG”, it does so not because it chooses to but because that is the manner in which the software has been designed to produce the sequence of letters. The computer is in effect printing what it wants to print based on the software that has given it its available options. However, if a glitch is introduced into the system that causes the computer to print “AXYZEFG” can the computer itself be blamed for its production?

The actions of the computer reflect the programming of the software designer. When a computer fails to produce what it was designed to produce, the creator of the software is held accountable because there is no distinction between the results produced by the computer, and the actions of the programmer. Thus ultimately, man who is pre-programmed to act out of a determined inclination can not be responsible or accountable for what he produces because his own actions and inclinations were not the cause or the ultimate origin of the glitches, but that of the programming.

For God to be the cause of man’s sinful actions and poor choices, deprives God of the ability to claim that His thoughts are higher than our thoughts because inevitably, our thoughts ARE His thoughts if our thoughts are the result of His determining. Compatibilist freedom is no more than a human philosophical attempt to be God. It turns our frailties into God’s attributes by proxy and extension.

Let God be true, and every man a liar (Rom 3:4). Albeit, man can not be said to be a liar if his thoughts and actions are concurrently dictated by that which God determines them to be predisposed to. Ultimately, God would be the cause of the lie, and could not consistently maintain His own truthfulness. The Bible shows an obvious distinction between choice and causation, yet determinism would opine that the 2 are equal:

“Then there shall be a place which the LORD your God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there; thither shall ye bring all that I command you; your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which ye vow unto the LORD” Deuteronomy 12:11

Only libertarian free will provides the distinction between God and humans. Only the permissive will of God that allows humans to act independently and autonomously proves that man is a complete failure in comparison to God. God proves nothing of Himself by determining men to fail. There is a way that seems right unto man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Prov 14:12. We see this concept often in our own families with our children. We often permit children to do things that we don’t always approve of, only for them to return later and say “Dad, you were right”. If we force them to do precisely what we desire, we can make no distinction between their reasons, will, and choices from ours. Thus we demonstrate that we are wiser than our children by allowing them to freely fail.

The concept of free will and accountability for choices is ingrained not only into our morals but also our governments. In the legal system, duress is a defense against actions that compelled the defendant to act otherwise than he would have chosen to. Likewise those who compel another to commit a crime are charged with conspiracy.The Bible is replete with examples of free will and accountability:

“And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him.” 1 Kings 18:21

“But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.” Daniel 1:8

“There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” Genesis 39:9

” Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season” Hebrews 11:25

“For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?” Luke 14:28

“Go and say unto David, Thus saith the Lord, I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee.” 2 Samuel 24:12

” And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left.” Isaiah 30:21

” But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them….I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:” Deut 30:17,19.

Furthermore, the Old Testament is full of moments where God shows anger for rebellion against Him. Isaiah 65:2, 2 Sam 4:21, Exodus 4:14, 2 Kings 13:3, Numbers 12:9, Joshua 7:1-13, 2 Sam 24:1, Isaiah 5:25, Judges 2:14. That fact that God reacts negatively to decisions that are made against His will show that God did not determine their actions. It would be absurd to imply that God is angry over actions that He determined and caused.

” And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech;which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.” Jeremiah 32:35

“Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.” Isaiah 65:12

The fact that the Bible itself proscribes against compelling others to sin and choose to act negatively is telling of the character of God. Mark 9:42, Romans 14:21.

There are clear Biblical and logical reasons to reject any form of determinism and compatibilist freedom. Divine determinism is an affront to the sovereignty of God because it not only makes the human will and mind equal to God and provides no distinction between His thoughts and our thoughts as it only claims to limit capacity but not origin, it fails to prove that God always chooses that which is ultimately the best and wisest choices by eliminating any standard of comparison to that which is autonomously inferior, thus obscuring God’s own will as well as turning options themselves into a deity equally rivaling God’s omnipotence.

When determinism is compared to Scripture, and reduced to its logical denouement it fails miserably as a legitimate explanation of our relationship to God, our accountability and responsibility for decisions, the very existence of choices, and God’s own autonomy and omnipotence. No Christian should ever be a compatibilist. Only free will rightly provides the distinction that demonstrates the holiness and sovereignty of God.


See also short excerpts from Dr. Elisha Weismann’s debate on secondary causation on our forum

This will be part one of a series to refute the rebuttals that Calvinists argue against standard texts used by those that oppose Calvinism.

Matthew 23:37 is a common passage used to refute the “I” in the TULIP of Calvinism (Irresistible Grace) and rightly so. The passage reads:

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye WOULD NOT!

The Calvinist believes that man’s will or free will is never involved in the salvation of the believer, but that the grace of God is superimposed upon the believer regardless of whether he wills to be saved or not. Jesus clearly states here that He would have gathered them together, but they WOULD not. Would is an indication of the will of the subject.

Now my dear Calvinist friend has an explanation for this, but as I will demonstrate, the explanation fails for several reasons.

CALVINIST ARGUMENT 1: God promises to bring Israel back into the land under His covenant, so Israel will eventually be saved anyway. And relying on Matthew 23:39 in support of such which reads:

“For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.”

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT 1: It is clear that in Matthew 23:37, regardless of when God will EVENTUALLY take Israel out of blindness, in THIS passage and during THIS SPECIFIC PERIOD, His gathering of Jerusalem was conditioned upon their “WOULD”. What the Calvinist ignores is that even though passages such as Romans chapters 9-11 speak of an eventual restoration of Israel, there could have been an EARLIER one if they had WILLINGLY accepted Christ as their Messiah.

If at ANY point in time any person had an opportunity to come to Christ of his own free will, such a notion would defeat the Calvinist position.

Furthermore, relying on v. 39 does not support their case, but rather the opposite. The Calvinist emphasizes that this verse shows there will be a future restoration and thus God’s grace is sovereign after all against the will of man, but they ignore the part where this restoration is CONDITIONED on Israel saying, “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord”.

Another thing to note here (and a fact in many other verses) is something that destroys Calvinism, and that is the existence of any condition at all upon man. For in Calvinism, God alone gives repentance, spiritual awakening from the dead, faith, and ultimately salvation totally as an independent act of God and completely separate from any response or involvement by man.

However, even if God preordained the children of Jerusalem to call on Him, even if God FORCED their confessions (Romans 10:9-10), and FORCED them to call on the name of the Lord, that still proves there is a human element that is required in the salvation process even if it is God that provokes or causes it, and as such, still contradicts Calvinism. Now the Calvinist may argue “any human element involved at all would be a works salvation”. Not true. A works salvation is depending on ones own effort of keeping God’s commandments and being a “good person”. Yielding the will to God is not a human effort to achieve salvation.

The Bible is clear in Romans 10:9-10 that with the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Confessing Christ is a matter that requires the man to do something, confess with the mouth. Now there are some passages of scripture that may give the appearance that God would impose belief (and we will deal with those later) but there are NONE that show God imposing His will on a man’s mouth to confession.

CALVINIST ARGUMENT 2: Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees and not Jerusalem as a whole. (This argument is not held to by my friend, but is held to by other Calvinists when dealing with Matthew 23 so I am including the rebuttal to it here.)

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT 2: It is argued by the Calvinist that the context of Matthew 23 is a rebuke to the Pharisees, so when Jesus makes this statement to Jerusalem, he is not talking to Jerusalem as a whole, but to those who killed the prophets and caused the rebellions in Israel. So just as Jesus did not mean that God so loved the world, but that God so loved the elect, this verse also has a limited application in Calvinism.

However, if you carefully note in verse 37, Jesus said how often He would have gathered their CHILDREN. Jesus wasn’t speaking to any CHILDREN while rebuking the Pharisees. Moreover, the plain meaning of the text is that Jesus is in fact speaking to Jerusalem as a whole. In fact, He says it TWICE!

CALVINIST ARGUMENT 3: It is argued that several OT passages that reference the GATHERING of Israel, demonstrate that God will eventually impose His will on Israel, siting Deut. 30:1-6, Isaiah 11:11,12, Isaiah 54:6-8, Jeremiah 23:3, Jeremiah 29:14, Jeremiah 31:8-10, Ezekiel 11:16-20, Ezekiel 20:32-37.

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT 3: Almost all of these passages are a reference to God regathering the scattered of Israel back to their homeland, and are not even remotely close to the context of what Jesus is referring to in Matthew 23, particularly since Israel would not be scattered for another 40 years when Titus attacked Jerusalem in AD 70.

In Ezekiel 20:32-37, where God causes Israel to “pass through the rod” is a reference to the tribulation where God will try the entire earth, and even then only a remnant of Israel is saved. If all of these verses are used to prove God’s will over the will of Israel, then it would logically follow that there could not possibly be a remnant that end up lost in Israel.

Now I personally believe that when Paul mentions that all Israel will be saved in Romans 11, that the tribulation is going to kill off all the unbelieving Israelites, but even during the tribulation, men refuse to repent of their deeds (Rev 16:11) which shows a free will to choose to accept or reject Christ, and in Revelation 2:22, those that commit adultery with the whore are told to repent, and in Revelation 18:4, Israel is told to come out of Babylon so that she receives none of her plagues and does not become partakers of her sins which implies that God’s people have a choice to stay in Babylon or be destroyed with her.

Nevertheless, the fact that there will be those among the Jews that reject Christ during the tribulation (Rev 2:2, 9, and 3:9) shows that relying on verses to prove God forces all Israel to be saved as a means of His imposition over their will prove false.

Moreover, sovereign grace that holds God’s will is imposed against the will of man does not give options to leave or remain in a damning situation (as in Rev 18:4). If Irresistable Grace were true, this command in Revelation 18:4 would not be necessary, God would simply drag them out like He does to the tribulation saints just prior to the last 3 1/2 years of the tribulation in Revelation 12:6.

Yet and still, these passages must be interpreted in light of the clear reading of Matthew 23:37-39. Regardless of what interpretation is given to the words “gathering” in all of the OT texts, when arriving at Matthew 23, it would not happen unless Israel calls upon the name of the Lord, and that condition teaches the exact opposite of Calvinist theology.

If Jesus WOULD HAVE gathered them, then that means He COULD HAVE gathered them, and the parallel between verses 37 and 39 show that He COULD NOT because they WOULD NOT!


[Jeffrey Hoffman is the founder of BJUnity and regular contributor to the Do Right BJU Facebook page.] Giving Jeffrey Hoffman the benefit of a doubt that he may have been drunk when he posted the excerpt we are about to discuss*, I was quite surprised to see how Jeffrey seems to be totally oblivious to Islamic beliefs and practices.

On or about March 9, 2013, Jeffrey posted a cartoon of American’s claiming that not all Muslims are hateful, with a Muslim replying not all Christians are hateful. [1]. Jeffrey made it clear that he had Muslim friends that read his “wall” and that Islam should not be insulted. And then, Jeffrey stated this comment:

Do you know that Muslims are awaiting the second coming of JeSus? That Mohammed prophesied that Jesus would return?

This type of misunderstanding of the true nature of Islam has helped put American’s to sleep about not only Islam’s history but about their true intentions regarding “The Great Satan”, America.


Islam does not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, nor do they believe that He was ever crucified. Islam argues that Allah ” is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. How can He have children when He has no wife? He created all things and He is the All-Knower of everything.” (emphasis added). Surah 6:101. And in Surah 23:91 the Quran reads, “Say not that Allah begat a son”.

Islam believe that Jesus Christ (Isa) was no more than just a prophet like Moses. He was neither God nor the Son of God.


Islam awaits the “12th Imam”, or the Al-Mahdi. Some Muslims believe this Imam was born in 869 AD and never died but was hidden by Allah. Nevertheless, it is common among all sects of Islam that the Imam will be the final prophet that restores order and the rule of Allah upon the world.

This Imam must also be a descendant of Mohammed. Since Arabs come from the lineage of Hagar, it would be impossible for Jesus Christ to meet the criteria of becoming the 12th Imam.

In fact, if you look at the beliefs of Islam about the 12th Imam, it is strikingly similar to the rule of the antichrist in Revelation:

  • He will be a descendant of Muhammad and the son of Fatima
  • Will have a broad forehead and pointed nose
  • Will return just before the end of the world
  • His appearance will be preceded by a number of prophetic events during 3 years of horrendous world chaos, tyranny and oppression (see Revelation 13:5 and Daniel 9:25-27)
  • Will escape from Madina to Mekkah, thousands will pledge allegiance to him
  • Will rule over the Arabs and the world for 7 years (see Daniel 9:27)
  • Will eradicate all tyranny and oppression bringing harmony and total peace (See Daniel 8:25)

Jesus Christ does not return as a prophet.

Jesus Christ returns as the Lord of lords and King of kings. Revelation 17:14. When Jesus Christ returns, He returns WITH His bride (Revelation 19:1-9) not another prophet.

When Jesus returns He establishes a JEWISH rule where He reigns from the throne of David from JERUSALEM, not Mecca  or Medina. Revelation 3:12, Isaiah 9:7, Luke 1:32, Acts 2:30.

Therefore it is clear that the Imam that Islam awaits is not the Jesus of the Bible.


While many attempt to portray Islam as a religion of peace, Holy Jihad is a fundamental foundation for ALL of Islam regardless of what sect it is.

Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scriptures [Jews and Christians] until they pay Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. Surah 9:29

Fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and polytheism, worshiping another god besides Allah] and the religion will be for Allah Alone. Surah 8:39.

Find and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem (of war). Surah 9:5, Ali Translation.

Islam has demonstrated repeatedly that peace is not in their interest, but the total annihilation of Israel and the Americans.


Islam only gives the appearance of peace when it is expedient for them to do so. History has proven this to be a staunch fact (Oslo Accord, for example).

Islam employs what is known as the “Quraysh Method” which is based on the event where Muhammad permitted his friend, Amar Ben Yasser, to deny his allegiance to Allah when he was captured by the Quraysh tribe to avoid torture.

Since the Quraysh incident, lying is acceptable in Islam if it offers an advantage over ones enemy.

Saddam Hussein used this reasoning with President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. Mubarak visited Saddam in Baghdad the day before Iraq invaded Kuwaitt. Hussein promised Mubarak there would be no invasion of Iraq. Iraq invaded Kuwait while Mubarak was in transit to Cairo.

Know this that lying is not sin by itself, but if it brings harm to you it could be ugly. However, you can lie if that will keep you from evil or if it will result in prosperity. Abi Hamid Al Gahazali, Ehia Al-owlom Al-Den [A Revival of the Religious Books] (Cairo, Egypt: Maktabet al-Turas, 1971), pp 3, 137.

Thus any Muslim that attempts to give the appearance of friendliness is merely doing so because it is fundamental to their belief system that they need to “lay low” until they are in a position to “strike the enemy”. History has proven time and time again that ALL Islamic nations have taken advantage of opportunities to exploit Israel, America, and Christian interests by breaking treaties and capitalizing on any chance given (or taken) to further the cause of Islam toward total world domination.

Islam began as a religion created by the sword upon anyone that did not pledge allegiance to Mohammed and the Moon god of Arabia (Allah), and Islam intends to finish that way, too.

Foolish ignorance of the true nature of Islam and sympathy for the doctrines held by the sworn enemies of Israel, Christianity and the Americans has not only led to lopsided politics, but will ultimately lead to God cursing the American nation (Gen 12:3) and allowing Islam to continue it’s clandestine plots to destroy its enemies.

With Iran’s push to obtain nuclear weapons, it is not a question of IF they will use these weapons on America, but WHEN. One would think that September 11, 2001 would serve as a permanent reminder of that fact, and those who believe that any part of Islam can be separated from the acts of 911, or the AMERICAN Muslim Sergeant that shot up an Army base, or bomb targets that were planned in American Mosques,  are deceiving themselves.     


*Jeffrey Hoffman 15 hours ago: “That moment when you realize that having drunk an entire chalice worth of the consecrated wine, you are officially drunk on Jesus….” “Too much was left over… and I am not as think as your drunk I am.” ” Bob Jones can kiss my ashes.”

Jeffrey Hoffman has responded to this article’s question saying “The answer is no”. So then we have re-worded the question as “So does Jeffrey Hoffman support the RELIGION that sponsors terrorism, Islam?”

In the same manner that Jeffrey refused to answer whether or not the Roman Catholic Church was teaching “hate speech” for their views against homosexuality, Jeffrey refused to answer the question about supporting the religion that promotes terrorism and if you can find his page, he even saved us the trouble of screenshotting the conversation! Of course his reason for screen-shotting the conversation was to accuse 3 different people of someone named Jerry Kaifetz who recently had a falling out with Trisha Lacroix, but that just shows the extant of depravity in the minds of the anti-fundamentalist crowds they are so willing to play childish games they will blame 2 people (or 20 for that matter) of being the same person even though their doctrinal views are the difference between night and day!

It is pretty obvious that Jerry Kaifetz is no friend of the IFB and appears somewhat like some of the Do Right groups with attacks on the IFB although not quite as aggressive. This website clearly shows we are IFB and make no apologies for it. We even have a youtube video that has an audio recording of James Ach, and a video that we found made by Jerry Kaifetz that shows a clear difference in voice tone, depth, accent, annunciation and even in the face of such evidence, Jeffrey, Trisha Lacroix, Cathy Harris, Reiko Souma and a few others still follow Jeffrey’s accusations.

It is ironic that these accusations of me and Jerry Kaifetz being the same person never surfaced until Trisha Lacroix had several hundred people leave her group. This website has been here since August of 2012, and we have never changed our tune. Yet when Jerry Kaifetz called attention to some cartoon on Trisha’s page, it started an uproar that lead to an exodus out of her group and then all of a sudden, Trisha and Jeffrey put their heads together and the light bulb came on and, wallah! Jerry and James must be the same person because only Dr James Ach disagrees with Trisha and Jeffrey and all of the other anti-fundie groups.

In fact, the hundreds of people that left Trisha’s group are probably ALL Dr James Ach! And they call ME a conspiracy theorist!

The following is an excerpt taken from Norman Geisler’s “When Skeptics Ask, Chapter 12.

Additional Video Links at the end of this article.

“What is truth?” Pilate’s words ring with the cynicism of a man who has searched for it
but never found it. His implication is that there is no such thing. Pilate is not alone. Many
have followed the same road, so that what is taught in the schools is the same cynical
conclusion: There is no truth.
For the Christian, that view is not an option. Jesus said, “Thy word is truth” ( John
17:17 ), and He said again, “I am … the truth” ( 14:6 ). There is truth; but what is the
nature of truth? More important, how can we know truth?
Have you heard this one yet? “Whatever is true for you may not be true for me.” Or
how about, “I’m really glad you found something that works for you.” What good does it
do to tell someone about Jesus if he doesn’t realize that you are saying, “This is true for
everyone, everywhere, at all times, and it is not compatible with any opposing system of
beliefs”? If we are going to tell the world that we have the truth, then we better have
some idea of what truth is. How else can we make them understand?
The claim that truth is relative might be understood as relative in two ways

Either truth is relative to time and space (it was true then, but not now), or it is relative to persons (true for me, but not for you). On the other hand, absolute truth implies at least two things: (1)
that whatever is true at one time and in one place is true at all times and in all places, and
(2) that whatever is true for one person is true for all persons. Absolute truth doesn’t
change; relative truth changes from time to time and person to person.
The relativist would say that the statement, “The pencil is to the left of the pad,” is
relative since it depends on which side of the desk you are standing. Place is always
relative to perspective, they say. But truth can be time-bound as well. At one time, it was
perfectly true to say, “Reagan is President,” but one can hardly say that now. It was true
at one time, but not now. The truth of such statements is irrevocably contingent on the
time at which they are said.
Likewise, the relativist claims that truth is dependent on the person making the
statement. If a Christian says, “Ye are gods” ( John 10:34 ), it means that we have the
image of God and are His representatives. If a Mormon says it, he is speaking of his hope
to be the deity of his own planet. If a pantheist says it, she means that humans are God.
The truth depends on the views of the one who makes the statement and his intended
meaning. Also, “I feel sick” may be true for me but not for everyone else in the world.
All these statements are true only in relation to the person who makes them.
But there seems to be a misunderstanding here. The interpretation of the relativist
appears to be misguided. As regards time and place, the perspective of the speaker,
temporal and spatial, is understood in the statement. For example, “Reagan is President,”
when said in 1986 is true and it always will be true. At no time will it cease to be true that
Reagan was President in 1986. If someone uses the same words in 1990, then he is
making a new and different truth claim, because the present tense is now four years
removed from the context of the other statement. The spatial and temporal context of
statements is an inherent part of the context which determines the meaning of that
assertion. However, if “Reagan is President” (said in 1986) is always true for everyone
everywhere, then it is an absolute truth. The same can be said about the pencil on the
desk. The perspective of the speaker is understood as part of the context. It is an absolute
“All Truth Is Perspectival”
Many people will tell you that all truth is really true from a certain way of seeing
things or perspective. The old story of six blind men and the elephant is often used to
illustrate and support this position. One blind man, feeling only the trunk, thought that
it was a snake. Another discovered only the ears and concluded that it was a fan. The
one who came across the body said that it was a wall and, after finding a leg, another
said it was a tree. Another holding the tail declared it was a rope. Finally, the last
blind man felt a pointed tusk and informed them that it was a spear. To some, this
proves that what you think is true is only a matter of your perspective of things. It
should be pointed out, though, that all of the blind men were wrong. None of their
conclusions were true, so this illustration says nothing about truths. There really was
an objective truth that all of them failed to discover

Also, the statement, “All truth is perspectival,” is either an absolute statement or a perspectival one.

If it is absolute, then not all truths are perspectival. If it is perspectival, then there is no reason to think :

that it is absolutely true—it is only one perspective. It does not succeed either way.

But what about the second version of relativism, that truth is relative to persons? If
we take the case of the Christian, the Mormon, and the pantheist, we see that the same
problem of excluding perspective is involved. Using the same words does not guarantee
the same meaning. We must consider what the actual claim is in its context before we can
tell if it is true. What about, “I feel sick”? Guess what: personal pronouns don’t even
transfer as well as verb tenses. It doesn’t matter that the same words are used; when said
by different people, they take on a different meaning. Are these statements true for
everyone? Yes, it is true that the person called “I” in the sentence did feel sick at that
time and that must be acknowledged as true by everyone (though we have to take “I’s”
word about how he felt). In the same way, the meanings attached to the words “ye are
gods” truly reflect the views of the people who said them, and it will never be not true for
anyone, anytime, that those were their views when they stated them (even if they change
their views later).
Now about this time a relativist might say, “You are agreeing with me. You are
saying that truth is relative to the context.” That’s close. We are saying that meaning is
relative to the context. As for truth, we are saying that once the context is brought into the
picture, the meaning is understood and it becomes obvious that these are absolute truths.
We are not agreeing at all.
But relativism runs into other problems. If relativism were true, then the world would
be full of contradictory conditions. That pencil that we mentioned would be on all four
sides of the pad at the same time. “I” would have to be sick, well, angry, delighted,
hungry, stuffed, excited, and ambivalent all at once. How confusing! Such contradictory
conditions are impossible.
Also, no relativist can say, “It is absolutely true that this is true for me.” If truth can
only be relative, then it must only be relatively true for him. But wait a minute! THAT
can’t be claimed in any absolute sense either—it can only be relatively true that it is
relatively true for him. Should we keep going? Either the claim that truth is relative is an
absolute claim, which would falsify the relativist’s position, or it is an assertion that can
never be made, because every time you make it you have to add another “relatively.” It is
just the beginning of an infinite regress that will never pay off in a real statement.
“Life Is but a Dream”
Some might tell you that we each create our own reality. What is real to you is not
real to me because your dream is not my dream. In fact, you only perceive me in your
dream and don’t know whether I am real or not. Not only is truth subjective, there is
no absolute reality to be known. All reality is nothing but imagination run wild.
Something intuitively tells us that this view can’t be true. First, “nothing but”
statements assume “more than” knowledge.

But how can anyone have knowledge that is beyond their own dream?

For that matter, how can you have knowledge that is
“more than” all of reality? One would have to be omniscient to say this. Furthermore,
is this a statement about absolute reality or only about one person’s dream? If it is
really a statement about “all reality” in an absolute sense, then it cannot be true—for
at least this statement is true whether someone imagines it or not. But if it is only a
subjective statement about one person’s dream, then it makes no claim to be true and
can be dismissed. It might not hurt to remind such a person that he should not talk in
his sleep.
Of course, there are some benefits to relativism. It means that you can never be
wrong. As long as it is right for me, I’m right even when I’m wrong! Isn’t that
convenient? The drawback is that I could never learn anything either, because learning is
moving from a false belief to a true one—that is, from an absolutely false belief to an
absolutely true one. Maybe we’d better give absolutism another look.
Some people see problems in absolutism. “Don’t you have to have absolute evidence
to believe in absolute truth?” No. The truth can be absolute no matter what our grounds
for believing it are. We might not even know a truth, but it is still absolute in itself. The
truth doesn’t change just because we learn something about it.
“What about in-between things—like what warm means, or when not shaving
becomes a beard—how can those things be absolute?” The fact that it is in-between to me
is an absolute fact for all men, even if it is not in-between to them. Also, the condition
itself, the real temperature and the exact length of the beard, are objective and real
conditions. That truth doesn’t change either.
“You Christians Are So Closed-Minded”
Open-mindedness has become a self-evident virtue in our society and a closed mind,
a sign of ignorance and depravity. However, this thinking is based on half-truths.
Surely, it is good to admit the possibility that one might be wrong and never good to
maintain a position no matter what the evidence is against it. Also, one should never
make a firm decision without examining all the evidence without prejudice. That is
the half-truth that ropes us into this view, but a half-truth is a whole lie. Are we still to
remain open-minded when all reason says that there can be only one conclusion? That
is the same as the error of the closed mind. In fact, openness is the most closedminded position of all because it eliminates any absolute view from consideration.
What if the absolute view is true? Isn’t openness taken to be absolute? In the long
run, openness cannot really be true unless it is open to some real absolutes that cannot
be denied. Open-mindedness should not be confused with empty-mindedness. One
should never remain open to a second alternative when only one can be true.
“If truth never changes, then there can’t be any new truth.” New truth can be
understood in two ways. It might mean “new to us,” like a new discovery in science. But
that is only a matter of us discovering an old truth. The truth has always been there, but
we are just finding out about it.

The other way we might understand new truth is that something new has come into existence.

Absolutism has no trouble handling this either.
When January 1, 2022 arrives, a new truth will be born because then it will be true to say,
“This is January 1, 2022.” That can never be true before then. “Old” truths don’t change
but “new” truths can come to be.
There are two basic views of what truth is. One says that truth is what corresponds to
reality. The other says that a view is true if it coheres or holds together as an internally
consistent set of statements. The former says that truth is what corresponds to reality.
Truth is “telling it like it is.” The latter compares truth to a web hanging in space so that
its own network of connections upholds it. Like a chain, each link is dependent on the
others to hold it together.
The implications of the coherence theory are that some truths are truer than others
because they cohere better. There are degrees of truth and any statement is true only to
the extent that it fits into the system.
Saying that there are degrees of truth, as the coherentist does, and that all truths are
dependent is just another way of saying that all truth is relative. If all statements are
dependent (contingent) on the system, then no truth can be absolute. Even the system as a
whole is not absolute, because it depends on the coherence of all of its contingent parts. If
one statement can be more or less true than another statement, isn’t that the same as
saying that its truth is relative to the truth of the other? But we have already shown that
truth is, and must be, absolute. If the coherence theory says that truth is relative, then the
theory must be wrong.
Another objection to the coherentist view is that it makes truth dependent on an infinite
regress that will never arrive at any truth. If every truth claim presupposes some other
claim, and so on to infinity, then we have an infinite regress that will never assure us that
we have arrived at truth. For every explanation we give of why our belief is true, we
would have to explain its presuppositions, and then explain that explanation, and so on
forever. We could never finish explaining anything. If we did find an explanation that
needed no further explanation, then we will have arrived at a foundation (a self-evident
truth or undeniable first principle), and the coherence view was wrong to begin with. C.S.
Lewis put it this way:
But you cannot go on “explaining away” forever: you will find that you have explained
explanation itself away. You cannot go on “seeing through” things forever. The whole
point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the
window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if
you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to “see through” first principles.

If you see through everything then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world
is an invisible world. To “see through” all things is the same as not to see.
If we have to look behind or “see through” every explanation, then we will never find
anything. But don’t we search for truth because we expect to find something?
This infinite regress makes coherentism impossible. It is really a chain of unsupported
claims. After all, a chain can’t just hang in the air by itself; there has got to be a peg
somewhere that holds the whole chain up. And spiders don’t build webs in empty space.
They attach them to the walls. No system can stand without some absolute truth to
support it. Also, the best that a coherentist can do in evaluating other systems of belief is
to say that his system coheres better. He can never say that any other coherent system is
false. In that case, we could never refute pantheism, because once you throw out logic,
everything coheres.
Truth must be based on a firm foundation of self-evident truths or first principles that
correspond to reality. We will discuss self-evident truths a little later, but let’s focus on
the correspondence part of the definition for right now. There are several reasons for
accepting it, both from the Bible and from philosophy.
The Scriptures use the correspondence view of truth quite a bit. The ninth
commandment certainly presupposes it. “You shall not bear false witness against your
neighbor” ( Ex. 20:16 ) implies that the truth or falsity of a statement can be tested by
whether it checks out with the facts. When Satan said, “You shall not surely the,” it is
called a lie because it does not correspond to what God actually said.
Jack Rogers’ View of Truth
Jack Rogers, a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, has given the definition of
truth that is currently being used to say that the Bible is infallible in its intentions
(purpose), but not inerrant in its affirmations. He says, “to confuse ‘error’ in the sense
of technical accuracy with the biblical notion of error as willful deception diverts us
from the serious intent of Scripture.” He rejects the idea that truth must correspond to
reality with “technical accuracy.” Rather, he asserts that the “biblical notion of error”
involves knowingly telling a lie. Truth resides in the intention of the author rather
than what he actually said. This is confirmed when he says that inerrancy distracts us,
not from the message of Scripture, but from its “intent.” As long as the prophets and
disciples did not know any better than to make unscientific statements, they cannot be
considered errors because there was no intentional deception. Though Jesus may have
known better. He chose to accommodate to the popular views so that people would
not be distracted from His intended message, the Gospel. Those who hold this view
are sincere, but they are sincerely wrong.

1 C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: Macmillan Co., 1947), p. 91.

Joseph also used the correspondence theory when he said to his brothers, “Send one
of you that he may get your brother.…that your words may be tested, whether there is
truth in you” ( Gen. 42:16 ). Moses said that a prophet should be tested by seeing if his
prophecies correspond to actual events ( Deut. 18:22 ). When Solomon built the temple
he said, “Let Your word that You promised Your servant David my father come true” ( 1
Kings 8:26 , NIV ). Anything that does not correspond to God’s Law is considered false (
Ps. 119:163 ). And in the New Testament, Jesus says that His claims can be verified by
John the Baptist, saying, “You have sent to John and he has borne witness to the truth.”
The Jews also told the governor that he could “learn the truth” ( Acts 24:8 , 11 ) about the
charges they brought against Paul by examining the facts.
Philosophically, lying is impossible without a correspondence to reality. If our words
do not need to correspond to the facts, then they can never be factually incorrect. Without
a correspondence view of truth, there can be no true or false. There would be no real
difference in the accuracy of how a system describes a given fact because we could not
appeal to the fact as evidence. Statements could not be judged as true or false, but only
more or less cohesive. There has got to be a real difference between our thoughts about
things and the things themselves for us to say whether something is true or false.
Furthermore, all factual communication would break down. Statements that inform you
of something must correspond to the facts about which they claim to be giving
information. But if those facts are not to be used in evaluating the statement, then I really
haven’t told you anything. I have merely babbled something that you ought to consider
and weigh its relevance to your own system of thought. Now this could be quite
dangerous if you were crossing the street and my statement was to inform you that a
Mack truck was coming. How long should you take to see if that fits into your overall
network of beliefs? (And does not the Gospel carry the same kind of urgency?)
Correspondence to reality is a philosophical prerequisite for truth and truthful
Another theory is that truth is not a quality of propositions, but of intentions. Adherents
of this theory say that the meaning of any statement lies not in what it says about reality,
but in what the person intended to affirm when he said it. A statement is considered true
if it achieves its intended purpose and false only if it is intended to mislead someone.
Hence, a person can make statements which do not correspond to the facts but are not lies
or errors because the person meant to tell the truth—he did not intend to deceive. This
view has special relevance to the debate about whether there are errors in the Bible in that
some claim there can be factual inconsistencies in the Bible and still call the Scriptures
infallible. It is claimed that they infallibly accomplish their purpose of leading men to
Christ and the authors never intentionally deceived anyone.
The correspondence view says that truth resides in propositions. Meaning is a
disclosure of the author’s intentions, but it can only be discovered by looking at what he
actually said. Since we cannot read the author’s mind when we want to know the
meaning of a statement, we look at the statement itself.

Only when we see the proper relation of all the words in the sentence, and the sentence to the paragraph, etc., do we
understand the big meaning of the affirmation. Then we check it against reality to see if it
is true or false.
Is truth ever in a person rather than a proposition? Out of the hundred or so times that
“truth” is used in the New Testament, only one passage indisputably uses truth of a
Person ( John 14:6 ). Other texts refer to truth being in a person ( 1:14 , 17 ; 8:44 ; 1 John
2:4 ) or walking in truth ( 2 John 4 ). However, the context of these clarifies that the truth
is tested by the correspondence between the person’s behavior and God’s commands,
which are propositions. So even here truth is correspondence. Persons, their character,
and conduct can correspond to reality as well as propositions can. The emphasis of the
biblical text is certainly on prepositional truth. And passages where truth is used of a
person can be understood as relating to the truthfulness of that person’s words or works,
as to whether or not they correspond to God’s reality.
Even if some passages do use truth as a quality of persons, only the correspondence
view can accommodate both interpretations. The personal view says that truth does not
reside in propositions, but a correspondence view can say that the persons or actions in
question must correspond to God’s expectations. And the passages where truth is clearly
seen as propositional and correspondent cannot all be explained in a noncorrespondence
Just to top it off, any attempt to deny that truth is expressible in propositions is selfdefeating ,because it is a truth claim expressed in a proposition. Hence, the correspondence view of truth must be accepted for truth to reside in both persons and propositions.
Even among Christians there is a wide range of beliefs about how and how much we can
know about truth, especially truth about God. If what we have said so far is true though,
then only one of these positions is really reasonable.
There is a real difference between agnosticism and skepticism but the answers to both of
them are almost identical. Agnosticism says that nothing can be known, but skepticism
only says that we should doubt whether anything can be known. Skepticism came along
first, but as Immanuel Kant read David Hume’s doubts about absolute knowledge, he
decided to take it one step farther and disclaimed all knowledge of reality. Really both of
these views are self-defeating. If you know that you don’t know anything, then at least
you know that much. But that means you have positive knowledge of something and you
no longer have to be agnostic. Likewise, you may say that you should doubt everything,
but you don’t doubt that. That is, you don’t doubt that you should doubt. Now if there is one thing that you can be certain of (to the skeptic), or one thing that you can know (to
the agnostic), then there might be other things, and your position has proven itself to be
Dealing with Skeptics
One great philosopher had an effective way to deal with skepticism. When
encountered by people who claimed to doubt everything, he would ask, “Do you
doubt your own existence?” If they answered yes, then he would point out that they
must exist in order to doubt and that certainty should remove their doubts. If they
answered no, then he could show them that there are at least some things which are
beyond doubt. To counter this assault on their doctrines, Ac skeptics decided to
simply remain silent. Then they would not be caught in his trap. The philosopher was
not shaken though. At that point, he simply said, “I guess there is nobody here after
all. I may as well go talk to somebody who exists.” And he walked away.
Rationalism is not merely a view that says we use reason to test truth. Rationalism says
that we can determine all truth by logic. It says that we can rationally prove the existence
and nature of God. For a rationalist, no appeal to evidence can overturn a logical
demonstration. That is why Spinoza, having proven to his own satisfaction that all reality
was unified in absolute being, denied that anything in the world had existence distinct
from God, or that there was any free will. That is why Leibniz maintained that this is the
best of all possible worlds, no matter how bad things get. He was convinced by
rationalism that only the greatest good can exist. All truth is logically necessary to a
Irrational Rationalism
Oddly enough, the most stubborn rationalists in the world are pantheists, who don’t
believe in reason. Even from pantheism’s earliest statements in Western culture,
pantheists have begun with one principle and derived all others from it: All is one.
Now if that is true, they say, then whatever seems to be more than one must be
illusion. Hence, there is no matter, no evil, no right and wrong, etc. All of these things
follow from the one principle and are determined by a rationalistic method that allows
no evidence to contradict it. Most extraordinarily, rationalism leads them to the
rejection of reason. For once the distinction between true and false is removed, then
rationalism demands that logic be revoked. Reason, having gotten them this far, must
now be jettisoned because of the determinative nature of their original principle.
Rationalism becomes the foe of reason.
The big problem with rationalism is that it is a castle built in the air that has no link
with reality. It assumes—but does not prove—that the rationally inescapable is the real.
In fact, in all of its logical rationalizing, it never proves that anything real even exists.

The only way that rationalism can overcome these weaknesses is to quit being
rationalism and begin accepting some empirical evidence. Also, my own existence is
actually undeniable, but it is not logically necessary. There is nothing in my existence
that even suggests that I, or anything else, must exist, yet rationalism says, again without
solid proof, that this is logically necessary. Finally, when rationalism tries to prove its
own principles to offer a justification for itself, it fails doubly. The attempt itself is futile
because everyone from Aristotle to the present has agreed that first principles cannot be
proven; they must be self-evidently true and in need of no further explanation. Otherwise
you have to go on explaining forever. But rationalists fail again in that they don’t agree
on what the first principles are. Some end up in pantheism, some in theism, some with
finite gods, but none with the rationally necessary basis that they claim will justify their
Fideism holds that the only way we can know anything about God is by faith. Truth is
subjective and personal, so we can believe it but not prove it. There are no rational proofs
or empirical evidence that can lead us to knowledge of God. We must simply believe that
what He has said in His Word and done in our lives is true. Ultimately, as the old hymn
says, “You ask me how I know He lives; He lives within my heart.” Søren Kierkegaard is
a spokesman of this view.
“Truth Is Subjectivity”
Søren Kierkegaard, the father of existentialism, wrote an essay with this title. He
was concerned that, if Christianity was accepted only as a set of propositions, then it
would never lead one to a relationship with God. Hence, rather than focusing on the
objective truth of the faith, he stressed that it must be true to the individual or it is not
true at all. Faith “that” something was true was surpassed by faith “in” something.
“But the above definition for truth is an equivalent expression for faith. Without
risk there is no faith. Faith is precisely the contradiction between the infinite passion
of the individual’s inwardness and the objective uncertainty. If I am capable of
grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I
must believe. If I wish to preserve myself in faith I must constantly be intent upon
holding fast the objective uncertainty, so as to remain out upon the deep, over seventy
fathoms of water, still preserving my faith.” [ Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific
Postscript, trans. by David F. Swenson (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963),
p. 182.]
Now we certainly don’t want to demean the importance of faith. In fact, we often cite
the phrase of Augustine, “I believe in order that I may understand.” Also, logical
arguments are certainly not the basis of religious commitment. However, fideism has the
right answers for the wrong reasons. We can’t begin by assuming that God exists and has
revealed Himself in the Bible and works in the lives of His people. Those are the very
things that the unbeliever questions.

The main problem is that fideism doesn’t recognize the difference between belief in
and belief that. Evidence and logical proofs can assist us toward belief that God exists,
the Bible is His Word, etc., but they cannot make us commit our lives to those truths.
Commitment is belief and trusting in the Lord. Fideists only see the latter and overlook
the need for the former. Hence, they make no distinction between the basis of belief in
God (the truth of His Word) and the support or warrant for that belief. They require men
to believe in God without allowing them to first understand that there is a God to be
believed (see Heb. 11:6 ).
Besides, if faith alone is the only way to know truth, why not have faith in the Koran
or the Book of Mormon? Fideism doesn’t really attempt to justify any beliefs, so we
could simply believe anything that we wanted. The net result is that fideism really makes
no truth claims. It has to offer some way to test truth before it can make a truth claim.
Since it doesn’t have any test for truth, it can’t really make any claim to be true. It isn’t
even in the marketplace pushing its claims as true. Now if someone does begin to offer
some explanation or defense of why he is a fideist, then he has ceased to be one. The
minute he offers anything other than, “Believe it,” as support for his position, he has
stopped being a fideist and begun using justifiable beliefs. Either fideism is making no
truth claims or it is self-defeating. In either case, it cannot answer the question of how we
know about God.
The final view says that we can know some things about God. The other views are either
inconsistent or self-defeating. This one stands. We can’t know everything (rationalism),
for there is no way that a finite mind can comprehend all of an infinite being. But we do
know something because agnosticism is self-defeating. This is a reasonable and realistic
view. But the question remains. How do we know what we know about God? And that is
the last question we have to consider.
We can know what we know about God because thought applies to reality. In that
context, knowledge is possible. If thought does not apply to reality, then we can know
nothing. Logic is a necessary presupposition of all thought. Without logic (the laws of
thought), we can’t even think. But is it only a presupposition? How do we know that
logic applies to reality? We know it because it is undeniable.
Now this gets us back to those self-evident first principles that we mentioned earlier.
Don’t let that scare you. You can understand Winnie-the-Pooh, can’t you? Well, Pooh
had an adventure that illustrates how self-evident principles work. He was walking
through the forest when he came to Rabbit’s house.
So he bent down, put his head into the hole, and called out: “Is anybody at home?”
There was a sudden scuffling noise from inside the hole, and then silence.
“What I said was, ‘Is anybody home?’ “ called out Pooh very loudly.
“No!” said a voice; and then added, “You needn’t shout so loud. I heard you quite
well the first time.”
“Bother!” said Pooh. “Isn’t there anybody here at all?”
Winnie-the-Pooh took his head out of the hole, and thought for a little, and he
thought to himself, “There must be somebody there, because somebody must have said
‘Nobody.’ “
See, it’s that simple. We’ve been doing it together all through the book.

A selfevident principle is one that cannot be denied without assuming that it is true in the
process of the denial. Rabbit’s statement is really the reverse of this. It’s self-defeating,
and you have seen that word several times in this chapter. If you have to assume that a
statement is true in order to deny it, it is actually undeniable. First principles, which are
the starting point of all truth and the foundation of all thought, are these kind of
Logic applied to reality is a key example. Now all logic can be reduced to one single
axiom—the law of noncontradiction. This law says that no two opposite statements can
both be true at the same time in the same sense. Logicians usually simplify that to A is
not non-A. If we try to deny that, we get, “Two contradictory statements can be true,” or
“A is not [not non-A].” Both of these statements have a problem. They assume what they
are trying to deny. In the first, it still assumes that there can be truth without the law of
noncontradiction. But if opposites can be true then there is no difference between true
and false, so this statement cannot be true, as it claims to be. The symbolic form does the
same thing by clinging to the idea that A is still identifiable from anything else. The law
of noncontradiction cannot be denied because any denial assumes that opposites cannot
be true, and that is exactly what is being denied. So we find that the basis of logic is an
undeniable first principle.
But the statement, “Logic applies to reality,” is also undeniable. To say that logic
does not apply to reality, you have to make a logical statement about it. But if it takes a
logical statement to deny logic, then your actions defeat the purpose of your words.
Either way, logic must apply to reality. And if logic applies to reality, then we can use it
to test truth claims about reality.

2 A. A. Milne, Winnie-the-Pooh (New York: Dutton, 1961), p. 24. But let’s back up. Why do there have to be some self-evident, undeniable first principles? As we said before, agnosticism is self-defeating. We do know something.
And we know that it is impossible for every truth claim to be dependent on another truth
so that an infinite regress develops. Therefore, there must be some truths that stand all by
themselves and don’t need any further justification. We can’t get behind them or “see
through” them to find out why they are like that. That is why they are called first
principles—they have no other principles before them. It’s not that they are without
justification; rather, they justify themselves by being undeniable.
Really, we can recognize that these ideas are self-evident by intuition, without having
to test them by attempting to deny them. But sometimes we don’t understand what they
really mean, and the denial test brings this out.

In other words, sometimes they are selfevident in themselves, but not to us because we don’t understand them well enough. That
explains why these truths are not universally accepted and why we sometimes have to
examine them to see that they are undeniable.
What are some self-evident truths? We can find examples in every area of thought.
Without attempting an explanation, here are a few. All of these have been used at least
once in this book. See if you can recognize them as you use the book.

I. Self-evident propositions about logic
A. Law of noncontradiction (A is not non-A).
B. Law of identity (A is A).
C. Law of excluded middle (either A or non-A).
D. Laws of valid inference.
II. Self-evident propositions about knowledge
A. Something can be known.
B. Opposites cannot both be true.
C. Everything cannot be false.
III. Self-evident propositions about existence
A. Something exists (e.g., I do).
B. Nothing cannot produce something.
C. Everything that comes to be is caused. These principles become the foundation for all knowledge. From this point,logic and evidence can confirm that God exists and that Christ is His Son. Truth has an absolute
foundation in undeniable first principles and it can be tested through logical means
because it ultimately corresponds to reality. Christianity claims to be true and it bids all to
come in and dine at the table of truth.



Errors of Bart Ehrman