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.

It's Fair-Time

Steven launched his rocket, and I was lucky enough to catch it the second time.

Writers of NT Hide God's Name?

It seems every cult has something unique about them that sets them apart in order to show they are the true religion. For Jehovah's Witnesses, one of those distinguishing marks is right in their name. They know the true Name of God, therefore they are right.

My JW friend, Russell, has deposited another Watchtower at my door with articles attempting to demonstrate the Necessity of using the proper name of God in order to be the true religion. Now there is a sense in which this is true. If God tells us His Name and we prefer to use an entirely different name, then we would be doing the things the WT charges. However, is it really the case that Protestant churches in general attempt to hide God's Name from mankind?

For instance, in one article, The Challenge of Knowing God by Name, Bible translators are constantly accused of hiding God's Name.

Protestants have been no less disrespectful in their treatment of Jehovah's Name. A spokesman for the Protestant-sponsored New International Version, published in English in 1978, wrote: "Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2-1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, 'Yahweh is my Shepherd.'"

Now of course is it really the case that translators are hiding God's Name? Are we really to suppose that this quote is meant to be a full explanation of why the Translators did what they did? Is there really no historical of linguistic reasons for choosing the methods of translating the Bible properly? Is this really the result of "Satan [using] false religion to hinder people from coming to know God's Name"?

The article even asserts that not only do the old manuscripts of the Septuagint use the proper Name for God, "the New Testament writers no doubt included the Tetragrammaton in their quotations." The odd thing about this claim is that not one shred of evidence is provided that the New Testament writers did any such thing. So for the purposes of this post, I just want to demonstrate that the Apostles, in fact used the Greek term Kurios instead of the proper Name or the Tetragrammaton, Yahweh/Jehovah.

Another example in the WT article states in one paragraph,

Deleting God's Name from His written Word and replacing it with "Lord" hinders readers from truly knowing who God is. Such a substitution creates confusion. For example, a reader may not be able to discern whether the term "Lord" refers to Jehovah or to His Son, Jesus. Thus, in the Scripture in which the Apostle Peter quotes David as saying: "Jehovah said to my Lord [the resurrected Jesus]: 'Sit at my right hand,'" many Bible translations read: "The Lord said to my Lord."

To which the paragraph concludes that this has caused Christians to focus upon Christ instead of the God to whom Jesus directed His prayers. Keep in mind, even though Jesus tells us that all of Scripture is about Him and how He will save men, somehow Jesus and the Apostles never meant to demonstrate the perfect unity between Father and Son.

Now what is the evidence that the writers of the New Testament used Jehovah instead of Kurios [Lord]? None. The article provides nothing at all. They simply assume that since the Septuagint has some manuscripts that possess the "divine name", then the New Testament writers must have done so as well. Yet there are no New Testament manuscripts that possess the Tetragrammaton. Wikipedia (I know I know. Its Wikipedia.) states,

Archaeologists have discovered papyrus fragments of works which were later included in the canon of the New Testament dating as far back as the middle of the second century. While some believe that the Tetragrammaton was used in original New Testament autographs, none have survived until today, while none of the 5,000
extant New Testament manuscripts contain any form of the Hebrew יהוה (Tetragrammaton).

At Tetragrammaton.org, the website admits of the same problem by the Watchtower,

Watchtower Society publications frequently refer to the presumed presence of the Tetragrammaton (יהוה) in the autographs. However, these discussions almost never refer to manuscript evidence. Rather, they refer to external supporting evidence such as Septuagint editions which used the Tetragrammaton, an assumed heresy involving the second and third century scribes, Hebrew versions which use the Tetragrammaton, and the like.

In other words, it is simply assumed that the original New Testament autographs contained the Tetragrammaton, and Christian copyists purposefully did not copy the "divine name". Why? To hide God's Name, of course.

However, believing this kind of thing leads to a major problem. It undermines the authority of Scripture and the ability of God to preserve His Word. If it can be argued that copyists left out the Tetragrammaton, then the arguments of a Bart Erhman stand correct. The idea of Tenacity in the manuscript tradition is lost and we simply have no idea if any part of the Bible is original. As even the website concurs,

From the Watch Tower Society's perspective, it is forced to defend its position that the Tetragrammaton (יהוה) was included 237 times in the Christian Scripture autographs. This is true because the unique quality of the New World Translation is entirely dependent on it. Thus, the debate will continue because others who are not ones of Jehovah's Witnesses have high regard for Scripture as being the inerrant (error-free) Word of God. It is inconceivable to this latter group that the Watch Tower Society can claim that they follow a Christian Scripture which is reliable while at the same time they claim to "restore" the Tetragrammaton (יהוה) to the Christian Scriptures while admitting that there is no manuscript evidence for its use in the autographs.

In other words, the false premises and false presuppositions that go into trying to rescue God's proper name, destroys the foundation for the authority of the Bible. The facts are that all of the manuscripts in the manuscript tradition do not have the Tetragrammaton. The tenacity of the NT manuscript tradition is overwhelming. The term Kurios is used at every place the Watchtower claims should be Jehovah. There is not a shred of evidence that the early church even had the ability, much less the desire or power, to destroy such evidence for the Tetragrammaton supposed originals.

Therefore, the Apostles had no problem with using a translation of the Hebrew that every Greek would have understood. It is the exact same reason the NIV translators chose to use "Lord" instead of "Jehovah". 21st century Americans have no idea what a Yahweh/Jehovah is. We would no more say Yahweh anymore than we would say Yeshua, which is the proper name for Jesus.

Happy Independence Day...A Day Late

I originally posted some videos on youtube for my brother, who lives in the People's Republic of Taxachusetts. The night only got better. I don't think I have ever seen so many fireworks within the City limits, and especially my own neighborhood. The first video looks like guerrilla warfare.



Here was the Midnight Sunburn Finally.

I Was Wrong, Thomas Is Right

Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument as my friend James White has said on many occasions. Well, I must confess, I have been inconsistent in my understanding of the Constitution.

For years I have struggled with the First Amendment's Establishment clause. It has seemed to me that it only applied to the Federal Government. Yet for years, I have argued that the Second Amendment applies to both states and localities as well as the Federal Government. Why? Because it seemed obvious to me that without the fundamental right to bear arms, governments and other organizations could easily overthrow liberty.

Yet it is precisely here that I have struggled with my understanding. For my most Liberal friends would point out to me my blatant inconsistency. Of course, I would point out their inconsistency as well, only in reverse.

The recent High Court's decision has been getting the most ridiculous media coverage. Every story is entitled, "Supreme Court extends gun rights to states", or something to that effect. In this Washington Times Story, you would think that the Majority had no arguments against the minority. That just by fiat, they reinterpreted the Constitution. As the article states,

Justice Stephen G. Breyer said he could "find nothing in the Second Amendment's text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as fundamental' insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes."

"Nor can I find any justification for interpreting the Constitution as transferring ultimate regulatory authority over the private uses of firearms from democratically elected legislatures to courts or from the states to the federal government,"

This statement coming from the Court's Left sounds conservative! Yet they would never apply this standard to their own political causes...eh um...I mean decisions that support Modern Liberalism.

Yet the Majority did actually defend the notion that the Second Amendment applies to States is not new, but you would have no idea from the article that Thomas shows our inconsistencies. For instance the article ends with a statement about Justice Thomas,

Justice Thomas penned another concurring opinion that supported a fresh interpretation of the privileges and immunities clause.

That's it! Yet Thomas has written an opinion that should shame us all for our inconsistent thinking. It sure would be nice if these articles would link to the Court's decision. It is telling to me that they don't. You would also think they would be taking on Thomas since he starts his opinion by stating,

I agree with the Court that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to keep and bear arms set forth in the Second Amendment “fully applicable to the States.” Ante, at 1. I write separately because I believe there is a more straightforward path to this conclusion, one that is morefaithful to the Fourteenth Amendment’s text and history.

A more "straightforward path" simply means that he is going to argue that history bears out his position clearly. He states a few pages later,

As was evident to many throughout our Nation’s early history, slavery, and the measures designed to protect it, were irreconcilable with the principles of equality, government by consent, and inalienable rights proclaimed by the Declaration of Independence and em-bedded in our constitutional structure.

What principles?

Chief among those cases is United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 (1876). There, the Court held that members of a white militia who had brutally murdered as many as 165 black Louisianians congregating outside a courthousehad not deprived the victims of their privileges as American citizens to peaceably assemble or to keep and bear arms. Ibid.; see L. Keith, The Colfax Massacre 109 (2008). According to the Court, the right to peaceably assemble codified in the First Amendment was not a privilege of United States citizenship because “[t]he right . . . existed long before the adoption of the Constitution.” 92 U. S., at 551 (emphasis added). Similarly, the Court held that the right to keep and bear arms was not a privilege of United States citizenship because it was not “in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” Id., at 553. In other words, the reason the Framers codified the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment—its nature as an inalienable right that pre-existed the Constitution’s adoption—was the very reason citizens could not enforce it against States through the Fourteenth.

That circular reasoning effectively has been the Court’slast word on the Privileges or Immunities Clause.1

Circular indeed! I was wrong. I would never argue that the Freedom of the Press or Free Speech did not apply to States. So why then why apply it to the Second Amendment? I mean really? Thomas has written a very persuasive argument. Slaves in the South faced some of the most horrific and brutal assaults on their lives. It is precisely the fact that in order to maintain slavery, the fundamental right to bear arms must not be granted to blacks. How else could families be so easily broken up and children to never be seen again by their parents? Simply deny them Liberty by denying them the tools to uphold Liberty!

So in conclusion,I have learned some great history thanks to Justice Thomas. No longer will I hold to the inconsistent views that I have held in the past. You want religious freedom? You want Liberty? Buy a gun and keep it loaded!