Darwinian Evolution is Self-Defeating

Darwinian Natural Selection Is Self-Defeating

James A., Ph.D.

Hypothesis: Darwinian evolution is self-defeating because it requires something to determine that a part of a functional system know that it’s functional before it is “saved” for future usage. For example. The bacterial flagellum motor consists of multiple parts that rival an outboard motor on a boat (to borrow Michael Behe’s analogy). Each part must be present simultaneously for the motor to work. To explain the origins of this machine,  Evolution would posit that the individual parts developed gradually over time, with natural selection “keeping” the parts that function, and rejecting those that don’t, and eventually, natural selection produces a fully functionally advantageous part. (Granted, I understand Evolutionists will complain that Darwin never attempted to explain the origins of anything, which I think is a disingenuous response because whenever a Darwinian evolutionists attempts to rebut a creationist who is explaining the origins of something, the Darwinian responds with the exact same arguments he/she would use if they were merely by ipse dixit assuming arguendo the origins of the thing to be explained.)

Here’s the problem. How does natural selection “know” that any evolved part is functional in the first place? How does natural selection know what any individual part is supposed to do? Without any guided, external intelligent governance, this requires natural selection to have amazing foresight because there’s nothing for natural selection to compare the part to in order to know that it will be useful for something in the future. For example, say natural selection develops a metal flap for a carburetor that later proves useful in regulating gasoline for a combustion engine. Since no engine is yet present, on what basis does natural selection “decide” that the flap should be saved and somehow stored for future use? Why would natural selection save the metal flap at all? How does it know it WILL need it? The only rebuttal I’ve heard from atheists I’ve presented this argument to is “evolution doesn’t ‘know’ things”, which is really a red herring and a “it just is” argument. However, natural selection would HAVE to know to produce its predictions.

A second problem is that of memory. For natural selection to know not to repeat the same mistakes of the previously rejected components, it must have the ability to remember that the manner in which a previous part was constructed was improper, and thus should not be used as a template for the part in the future. But where does natural selection get this memory from? Without some idea of what the part will even be, how does natural selection maintain the memory required for knowing that any previously deficient part is in fact, deficient?

And finally, since natural selection rejects and eliminates what isn’t functional or doesn’t provide some kind of essential survival benefit (which wouldn’t be a benefit if “it” wasn’t functional), how did any fully functional mechanism like the flagellum or any of its parts arise at all if natural selection relies on gradual processes? If the metal flap on the carburetor took a billion years to get right, but then took a billion more years to develop the spring with correct tension to ensure the metal flap properly opens and closes to allow proper fuel ratios, wouldn’t the metal flap have been a failure in the first place since it was impossible to determine whether the flap functioned correctly without the spring and hence rejected by natural selection? Why did natural selection keep that part in the first place? Without the concurrent functioning parts, natural selection should have rejected the very part that it “saved” since it is implausible that a billion years should expire without any evidence that the metal flap was an actual functional part. Naturalists would have to create an arbitrary standard (that begs the question and affirms the consequent) for why natural selection can preserve one part over billions of years but yet reject others parts as non functional when neither part can show that at the moment natural selection “decides” to save something, that it SHOULD BE saved at all.

Because natural selection as interpreted by materialists, naturalists, and Darwinian atheists can not account for the memory of natural selection, it’s amazing foresight, how it decides whether a functional part is actually functional, on what basis does it determine that a part should be saved for future usage, or why natural selection didn’t reject the very part it preserved, I am arguing that this type of selection is self-defeating, and Darwinian natural selection is false.

Debunking An Atheist’s Objection To Objective Morality

Dr. James A., PhD

Following yesterday’s article on the Trolley Car, we follow up with the other atheist who offered the following objections to the moral argument for the existence of God. Mind you, the presentation is quite childish, which follows the rhetoric of Richard Dawkins who encourages his followers to insult and mock Christians. As I’ll demonstrate, such an attitude is quite presumptuous given the utter vacuous nature of the following arguments.

Just to recap, the moral argument was stated in 2 ways: If God does not exist, objective moral duties and obligations do not exist. Objective moral duties and obligations exist. Therefore, God exists. And the second that a moral law implies a moral law Giver. If the premises of the first argument are true, then the conclusion necessarily follows. The arguments below from Tony Murphy did nothing to attack the premises of either argument.

1. To start, Tony commits the fallacy of appeal to the stone. He gives no value for x or y so one can’t really determine what kind of argument he’s referring to because he can’t possibly claim that I gave no grounds for my argument given that he’s ignored the major and minor premises of the moral argument. His argument is a mere assertion that no argument was given because he disagrees with the conclusion. In fact, the rebuttal itself is “ex recto”.
2. The second opening argument appeals to the stone as well, not to mention, is questing begging (asserting swaths of evidence without citing any, not that he even offered just what this swatch of evidence is supposed to support).
3. In his argument against the terms “subjective” and “objective”, he is punting to the either/or verses the both/and system of logic, as well as the old arguments against the meaningfulness of language (although doesn’t specifically make that argument, it’s clearly implied by the silly semantic attack on the distinctions between these terms, and how they apply to moral arguments). First, I assume that Tony expects me to believe he’s making meaningful statements about the lack of meaningfulness of language, so that part of his argument is self-defeating. Secondly, in attempting to eliminate the existence of dichotomy by punting to both/and version of logic, he makes the fatal mistake of maintaining that this is the only correct view of morality. However, that creates its own dichotomy because he posits that either his view is correct to the exclusion of all others, or my view is correct. If his view is merely subjective, then there’s no reason for me or anyone else to take him seriously. If it’s objective, then it needs to provide an ontological explanation for its grounding.
4. Empathy and Solidarity. First of all, his statement that “rules are the antithesis or morality. Real morality requires thought, and fixed rules prohibit thought” is sheer sophist nonsense. He assumes that there is a proper way to think in reaching the right conclusions which is itself, a RULE of thought that follows basic principles and rules of logic. Furthermore, this statement does nothing to explain the foundations of morality. It simply describes certain behaviors, and posits them as a ‘just so’ morality. Moreover, by assuming there is a “real” reality, there must be a “fake” or lesser morality. No foundation is offered as to how the difference was determined, so where exactly the mind hides while it waits for the standard to give him something to think about is a mystery.
5. The ad hominem attack about what he knows today about our “idiot mythology” isn’t even worth addressing. The arguments used by atheists against the stoning of rebellious children in the Old Testament has been addressed thoroughly by Paul Copan in Is God A Moral Monster? so I won’t belabor the argument here. However, given that Tony never raised the issue of the Old Testament setting, God’s right to judge evil, nor any explanation at all as to what standard he is relying to determine that any act was evil to begin, this amounts to merely argumentum ad misericordiam.
6. Morality is a simple contract, says Tony. What determines whether the person drafting the contract is right about his/her terms? Where there’s a social contract, there’s a social contract writer, and that writer must have had some premise on which to ground the rules for the society to live by. And just how does one go about determining which society’s contracts should be followed? Are these rules only right for that society, or are they binding on all people at all places and times? If they are only proper for our society, then aren’t we guilty of imposing our morality on Nazi Germany for condemning the murder of Jews? The majority of their culture “signed a contract” that tolerated and encouraged the murder of Jews (we’ll not mention Hitler’s argument from Darwinianism as to why Jews were an inferior race). Thus, on what basis does Tony condemn Nazi Germany? If culture decides its own morality, then the atheist can’t claim that the Nazis were objectively wrong.
7. Moreover, the idea that we “rewrite and modify” the contract presumes that some transcendent standard exists outside of the herd. If moral obligations exist prior to the natural selection of these somehow crafted genes of morality, then evolution itself can’t serve as the explanation. “New situations” and “new understandings” are quite arbitrary given that the fittest of the culture could  simply decide that continued care of the elderly is a financial burden on the herd, so it’s best to just euthanize him. With no objective standard that transcends the herd that applies to all people in all situations and places and times, there’s no reason why such a decision can be deemed “evil” (in fact, it’s being practiced in Norway).

Tony also accused me of committing the fallacy of “affirming the consequent”. This argument, is itself, fallacious because affirming the consequent is a FORMAL fallacy that has to do with the rules of categorical syllogisms, and Tony is using it as an informal fallacy. Affirming the consequent does not apply when the minor and major premise of an argument have been distributed properly, and avoids other rule violations (such as 4 term fallacies). The premises being true (and he never offered any objections to the premises raised by the moral arguments), the conclusion NECESSARILY follows.

Atheism has no explanation for why I ought to be moral because it can not explain how moral duties and obligations obtain from an evolutionary foundation. They can explain past moral behavior in a descriptive manner, but they can’t offer a reason why I should be moral in the future. Atheism consistently confuses the explanation of morality in terms of knowing how people react and behave and describing their outward conduct (epistemology) with the question of where did morality come from (ontology)? What gave morality it’s “oughtness”?If evolution is the explanation, on what basis did evolution “know” that there would be a herd that would need moral guidance so much that an uncaused, undesigned set of morals would show up in the gene pool that just happened to have the effect of a conscious aversion to murder, albeit, without even knowing yet whether propagating the species was even a good thing to begin with, or why punishing humans for willfully murdering another human would be different from punishing dogs for raping other dogs. As William Lane Craig stated, “it’s as if nature knew we were coming”. Not only is evolutionary explanations for morality beyond credulity, it claims a supernatural clairvoyance about the needs of the future species which is why even Dawkins admits that the universe “appears” designed.

Unfortunately, I stopped watching the NFL given that they’ve turned a sport into a cesspool of immorality, and recently, an arena for politics. So I won’t be able to see Tony showing his “arse” on television, although I think we’ve all seen enough of it in his writings.

 

___________________

For more on addressing the fallacious reasoning behind these social contracts, see Mark Linville’s, Moral Argument, Greg Koukl’s Relativism, Feet Planted Firmly In Midair, and J. Budziszewski, Is Morality Neutral?

Enough With “Not All Muslims Are Terrorists” Nonsense

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)

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/011-taqiyya.htm

*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.

 

If God Permits Gay Marriage, He Has Pulled The Funniest Prank EVER On Homosexuals

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

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

J/A ThM, and Dr. James Ach

UPDATED AT THE BOTTOM OF ARTICLE TO INCLUDE MATTHEW VINES, IMO, LYING ABOUT HIS “SALVATION” TESTIMONY

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.

*RESOURCES:

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: 

Hell Prepared For The Devil Debunks Calvinism

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” (Twitter.com/liveyneckwear) 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:

¹ 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.

⁹ 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

 

 

Why The Ergun Caner Scandal Matters

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

Three Hundred Fifty Prophecies Fulfilled In Christ

“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

Free Will Proves The Sovereignty Of God

J/A and Dr. Elisha Weismann

“Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call 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

Refuting Calvinism Part 1: Matthew 23:37

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!

J/A