White Verses Silverman

Last night, Dr. White debated atheist David Silverman, and I, like Jamin Hubner, forgot it was on and came across it when I turned on my computer. Hubner has written a brief review with which I could not agree more.

I write this just as the Q & A is beginning, and I truly believe this is one of (if not) the most useful Christian vs. atheist debate ever on record - even amongst presuppositional Christian vs. atheist debates (and I've listened to my share of atheist debates, I assure you). Why so?

To which Jamin Hubner then offer 3 major reasons. I must agree that I have not heard of a "smack down" against an atheist like this since probably the infamous Bahnsen/Stein debate.

In the end, smack down or not, what really impressed me the most was that James White did not shrink back from explaining the necessity and sufficiency of God's sovereign grace in the life of a dead and wicked rebellious sinner.

I just hope the audio gets posted soon. It will certainly be an encouragment to believers and perhaps a tool that thoroughly explains why Christianity is true to a world that desperately needs Christ.

Rush Says What Should Be Obvious

I have found it interesting for many years now how Islamic Leaders will side and work with Communist countries (I realize that is not always the case). For instance, Sadam Hussein was a huge fan of Stalin. How a supposed Allah fearing man loves and imitates an atheist of the worst kind is beyond me.

Rush made this great observation on his program today that I wish would be repeated everywhere and to every Leftist in this country.

Put aside the subjective term "moderate Islam." Just put it aside for a moment and let's focus on an uncontested the fact. There is no separation of church and state in Islam. Now, as you know, to the American ruling class and the American left "separation of church and state"is one of the most important things they believe exists in this country. They don't want any religious person having one damn thing to say about anything political in this country.

And all of these people, from Katty Kay on up or down depending on where you want to put her in the scale here, look at religious people with slanted eyes, with distrust. They look at them through grimaces. There's a suspicion of religious people. They don't like them. "Separation of church and state!" They've even defined that in a way it was never meant constitutionally. "Separation of church and state," and yet here they are supporting "moderate Islam." Ms. Kay, do you realize there is no separation of church and state in Islam? It's one and the same. Are you going to demand separation of church and state among Muslims or Islamists in this country or in your own country of the UK? Every religious building in action in Islam is political.

That's how they look at it. It's the core reason there should not be a mosque built at Ground Zero. There's no separation of church and state here with this bunch -- and yet with the ruling class in this country, the American left, "Separation of church and state, why, that's fundamental! We gotta have separation of church and state. We can't have any Pat Robertsons running around. We can't have any Billy Grahams running around impacting policy. We -- we -- we can't have it! We -- we can't elect these rabid, right-wing Christians! We can't have this. They're not allowed." But Islamists are not separated from the church in any way. The defining thing is the religion. Some might say the religion is the government.

Now just in case you may try the "moderate" Muslim argument here, Rush makes another reference to Andy McArthy's article.

RUSH: I just want to clarify something Andy McCarthy said. He did not say that there aren't any moderate Muslims. He says in his piece that there are millions of moderate Muslims. What he says is there's no moderate Islam, that the doctrine is not moderate for all the reasons we've been detailing, i.e., separation church and state. For example, what does the ICLU say about all this, the Islamic Civil Liberties Union? There isn't one. We have an ACLU but there is not an Islamic Civil Liberties Union getting in to help adjudicate disputes within the religion.

So why do Leftists side with Islamic leaders?

In the Hamasque issue, the American left sees conservatives opposed to it, and therefore since they hate us more than they hate anybody else, they have to support the mosque. 'Cause, frankly, I don't think they care. This is the first time I've ever heard the American left be so devoted to defending a religion. I don't remember it. I can't think of a time. Mostly the American left acts scared to death of it. Separation, church and state, I mean what the hell's the purpose of the ACLU? What's the purpose of Barry Lynn? The purpose is to wipe out religion. The Southern Poverty Law Center, all of these groups exist basically attacking right wing religious people. They do it under the guise of racism, bigotry, being opposed to all that. But now all of a sudden out of the blue, the biggest supporters of a mosque and Islam are the American left. Even if you were to tell 'em, "Hey, hey, hey, hey, there's no separation of church and state in Islam," it wouldn't matter. They oppose us. They hate us more than they hate anything else.

We are most certainly living in dangerous times when the President of the united States think Islam is a religion that is seeking to be at peace with the world. We need to get past Anonymous' political correctness and understand the real threat in the world.

Faithful Explains To Talkative About True Saving Grace

I have been reading Pilgrim's Progress with my 4-year-old. I realize he does not know most of what I am talking about, but he wants me to read it anyway. I thought this portion of Faithful's conversation with Mr. Talkative was quite insightful.

Faithful: A work of grace in the soul discovereth itself, either to him
that hath it, or to standers-by.

To him that hath it, thus: It gives him conviction of sin, especially the defilement of his nature, and the sin of unbelief, for the sake of which he is sure to be damned, if he findeth not mercy at God’s hand, by faith in Jesus Christ. This sight and sense of things worketh in him sorrow and shame for sin. Psa. 38:18; Jer. 31:19; John 16:8; Rom. 7:24; Mark 16:16; Gal. 2:16; Rev. 1:6. He findeth, moreover, revealed in him the Saviour of the world, and the absolute necessity of closing with him for life; at the which he findeth hungerings and thirstings after him; to which hungerings, etc., the promise is made.

Now, according to the strength or weakness of his faith in his Saviour, so is his joy and peace, so is his love to holiness, so are his desires to know him more, and also to serve him in this world. But though, I say, it discovereth itself thus unto him, yet it is but seldom that he is able to conclude that this is a work of grace; because his corruptions now, and his abused reason, make his mind to misjudge in this matter: therefore in him that hath this work there is required a very sound judgment, before he can with steadiness conclude that this is a work of grace. John 16:9; Gal. 2:15,16; Acts 4:12; Matt. 5:6; Rev. 21:6.

To others it is thus discovered:

1. By an experimental confession of his faith in Christ.

2. By a life answerable to that confession; to wit, a life of holiness-heart-holiness, family-holiness, (if he hath a family,) and by conversation-holiness in the world; which in the general teacheth him inwardly to abhor his sin, and himself for that, in secret; to suppress it in his family, and to promote holiness in the world: not by talk only, as a hypocrite or talkative person may do, but by a practical subjection in faith and love to the power of the word. Job 42:5,6; Psa. 50:23; Ezek. 20:43; Matt. 5:8; John 14:15; Rom. 10:10; Ezek. 36:25; Phil. 1:27; 3:17-20. And now, sir, as to this brief description of the work of grace, and also the discovery of it, if you have aught to object, object; if not, then give me leave to propound to you a second question.

How many assume they are Christians without testing their own faith in light of God's Word?

Rush On Health Care

Rush was once again right.

RUSH: Now, this health care slideshow that advises the Democrats on what to say and what not to say, is a blatant acknowledgement that Obamacare was pushed through Congress on the basis of a lie. I want to go back to his immaculation speech when Imam Obama was immaculated.

He said, "Our health care is too costly," and then he expanded on that in his speech on health care to Congress in September of 2009. Remember that speech? That was the speech where Congressman Joe Wilson shouted out, "You lie!" Remember that? In that speech, Imam Obama said, "Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close. These are the facts. Nobody disputes them. The plan I'm announcing tonight would meet three basic goals. It will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government." That's what Imam Obama said. "Nobody disputes " it. That was then. Now, as with all of his promises, there's an expiration date.

The expiration date on this one has arrived. That's the speech that Joe Wilson shouted "You lie," when Obama's out there talking about how his health care plan is gonna permanently reduce the deficit, lower health care costs, and now the Democrats say, "Don't say it." Because, see, Obamacare would have had a sunset provision locked in if it did not claim to reduce the deficit. That's some newfangled law that they've had in the budget requirements for a while. The tax cuts have to sunset because the CBO said they wouldn't reduce the deficit. If it doesn't reduce the deficit, then it's gotta be ended at some point. So they had to say that health care was gonna reduce the deficit in order to make it permanent. Folks, we were lied to, scammed. This is fraud and deceit, and it's admission now by the Democrats with this slide show is profound.

To get Obamacare through the reconciliation -- you remember all of this? To get
Obamacare through the reconciliation process without a sunset provision, the CBO claimed it would reduce the deficit by $118 billion. Remember they remember massaging and manipulating this to say it was never going to cost more than a trillion because that's what the Iraq war had cost and the regime was out there saying, "Oh, health care is going to cost less than the Iraq war." It was all lies, and Joe Wilson shouted that, and look what happened to him. So now we have... It's unconscionable. This entire regime has been a lie. It is an ongoing lie. They continue to lie when they say that the...

Well, the CBO is out on the Bush tax cuts. Get this. The CBO, "the nonpartisan CBO" (I always love it when they put that in the description, "the nonpartisan CBO") "says that extending the Bush tax cuts would have a temporary and immediate positive impact on the economy, but it would ruin the deficit by 2020." Now, would somebody explain that to me? The Bush tax cuts, if left in place, would have an immediate benefit to the economy and its rebound, recovery and economic growth. But the deficit would become unmanageable by 2020. So what are we to do here? How can both of those be true? Somebody needs to tell me how in hell we can have those tax cuts be an immediate economic boom leading to an out-of-control deficit?

Well, it doesn't make sense. That's another lie, and it's the lie that says tax cuts reduce revenue, that tax cuts add to the deficit. You and I all know that that's not true. It's all academic anyway. Anybody who thinks these tax cuts are going to be extended? That is a triumph of emotion over common sense like I can think of no other example. You've got Geithner out there saying that this isn't going to happen. Obama's out there saying that it isn't going to happen. People are making it sound like this has got a chance. It ought to. These tax cuts ought to be extended, but I really do not see it happening.

New Democrat message: Improve health care, don't talk costs. Don't talk costs. Talk about all the benefits. It's not a big deal. It's now health care, actual health care is much better. "Key White House allies are dramatically shifting their attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims that it will reduce costs and the deficit and instead stressing a promise to 'improve it.'" and again, the only reason this was in there is to make it permanent. If a program expands the deficit, by law, it has to have a sunset. It has to end. And they want Obamacare to be perpetual. So they had to lie that it will reduce the deficit $118 billion. Big whoop. All a lie. Everything they have said about it is a lie.

CTC Discusses Hume and Miracles

Some time ago on this blog I had a discussion with Mr. Ellis. At one point we got into the "problem" of miracles. Although I made an attempt to answer Mr. Ellis' objections, it was obvious that we approached the subject in such radically different ways that I simply was not able to communicate my position as I needed to.

This morning I finished listening to a two-part program by Christ the Center Podcast that discussed the philosopher Hume and his view on miracles. At one point, the recent debate between Christopher Hitchens and Doug Wilson was raised in which Hitchens asked Wilson as to why he believed the biblical miracles and not Mormonism's miracles.

The question was so similar to my own discussion with Mr. Ellis, and the answers offered being fuller in depth than what I was able to articulate, that I thought that those, who are more philosophically inclined, may benefit to hear a sound Reformed answer.

Here are the two programs one and two.

Machen On Liberalism

Due to afriend of mine drift into Theological Liberalism, I decided to finally read J. Gresham Machen's book, Christianity and Liberalism. Machen shows that theological liberalism assumes that because the world has changed, therefore the Christian message must change. Yet in the end, Liberalism leaves us empty and with nothing to defend. In fact, Liberalism does not want to defend itself. It simply morphs into whatever. Here is the quote of the day.

It is this problem which modern liberalism attempts to solve. Admitting that scientific objections may arise against the particularities of the Christian religion-- against the Christian doctrines of the person of Christ, and of redemption through His death and resurrection--the liberal theologian seeks to rescue certain of the general principles of religion, of which these particularities are thought to be mere temporary symbols, and these general principles he regards as constituting "the essence of Christianity."

It may well be questioned, however, whether this method of defense will really prove to be efficacious; for after the apologist has abandoned his outer defenses to the enemy and withdrawn into some inner citadel, he will probably discover that the enemy pursues him even there. Modern materialism, especially in the realm of psychology, is not content with occupying the lower quarters of the Christian city, but pushes its way into all the higher reaches of life; it is just as much opposed to the philosophical idealism of the liberal preacher as to the Biblical doctrines that the liberal preacher has abandoned in the interests of peace. Mere concessiveness, therefore, will never succeed in avoiding the intellectual conflict. In the intellectual battle of the present day there can be no "peace without victory"; one side or the other must win.

As a matter of fact, however, it may appear that the figure which has just been used is altogether misleading; it may appear that what the liberal theologian has retained after abandoning to the enemy one Christian doctrine after another is not Christianity at all, but a religion which is so entirely different from Christianity as to be long in a distinct category. It may appear further that the fears of the modern man as to Christianity were entirely ungrounded, and that in abandoning the embattled walls of the city of God he has fled in needless panic into the open plains of a vague natural religion only to fall an easy victim to the enemy who ever lies in ambush there.