Wednesday, August 15, 2012

The Epic Boston College Debate on the Papacy

Was the Apostle Peter the First Pope?

The following videos are the 2 Boston College Debates between Catholic apologists Scott Butler & Robert Sungenis versus Protestant apologists James White & Robert Zins which occurred in the summer of 1995.

Two Debates in One:
1. Is the Papacy Biblical? 2. Is the Papacy Historical?

Together, both debates are over 4 hours long. But, in my opinion, definitely worth listening to.

I first listened to these debates about a decade ago. I personally think the Protestants won both debates. However, I say that as a former Catholic, and current Protestant. So, I might be biased in that opinion. But you can now decide for yourself, thanks to YouTube.

Inferior video versions of the above debates:

Debate 1 deals with the BIBLICAL evidence for or against the Papacy

Debate 2 deals with the HISTORICAL evidence for or against the Papacy

Friday, August 10, 2012

Let's be Honest about the Papacy

With few corrections in grammar, the following are comments I left at Triablogue --->HERE<---

Any other significant additions by me are in double brackets.

Let's be honest. If Peter was the Pope then:

1. Why were the Zebedee brothers asking if they could be Jesus' right-hand and left-hand men (Matt. 20:20ff) if Jesus already made it clear that Peter was to be the Pope in Matt. 16? Why wouldn't the Gospel writers correct their misunderstanding and state that Peter was Pope? [[We know that Mark made a comment about Jesus' teaching in 7:19.]]

2. Why wouldn't Paul make the exception of Peter when he sarcastically referred to "super apostles" (2 Cor. 11:5) if the Papacy is true?

Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles.-ESV

For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.-NASB

3. When Paul's apostleship was questioned by some, why didn't he immediately appeal to the fact that the Pope acknowledged his genuine apostleship to settle the issue, if the Papacy is true?

4. In light of 1 Cor. 1:12ff and the whole of chapter 3, why wouldn't Paul refer to Peter as Pope? If the Papacy is true, then there can be a genuine sense in which one could say, "I am of Cephas/Peter". Even if there might be a negative fleshly sense in which it can be said. Yet Paul doesn't explicitly affirm or implicitly acknowledge the Papacy. Nor does Paul address the abuses of the Papacy but deals with himself, Peter and Apollos as equals. It seems to me that a Pope cult developed years later (as the Orthodox have documented).

5. If the Papacy is true, why would Paul (in Gal. 2:9) refer to James, Cephas, and John as seeming/reputed pillars of the Church when he knows all along that there is a special sense in which Peter is pope? He refers to all three as if they were equals.

6. Regarding the same context, if the Papacy were true, why would Paul say what he did in Gal. 2:6?

And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.-ESV

But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)-- well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me.-NASB

Paul implies his equality with them (including Peter).

7. If central authority was essential to Christianity, why didn't Jesus do something about those others who were preaching in His name (Mark 9:38ff)? If the Papacy were true, why would Jesus say, "For he that is not against us is on our part"? Notice I cited Mark's gospel. The gospel that may have been based on Peter's sermons. Why wouldn't Mark make clear in this passage (or any where else in this gospel) that Peter is the Pope?

8. If the Papacy is true, why in John 12:20-22 did Philip go to Andrew and then together they went to Jesus, when Philip could have gone to Peter as the Pope? The only way I can understand this is if the Church didn't realize Peter was the Pope until later. Maybe after the resurrection. If so, when exactly after the resurrection? Before or after Paul's conversion? Before or after Peter's own death? How many generations or centuries afterward?

9. If the Papacy is true, why isn't that office mentioned in Eph. 4:11-12, 1 Cor. 12:28-29, 1&2 Timothy or Titus?

10. If the Papacy is true, why doesn't Peter (in his epistles) acknowledge or make reference to it? In fact, Peter refers to himself as a "fellow elder" (1 Pet. 5:1ff) in a context where it would be supremely fitting for him to appeal to his position as Pope.

So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed:- ESV

Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed,-NASB

11. If the Papacy is true, then why doesn't the author of Hebrews acknowledge the Papacy in light of the fact that authority and priesthood are two of the main topics of the book? How could such a supposedly vital and useful office not be referred to in any of the epistles (including Peter's) or in this very long book (Hebrews)?

12. If the Papacy is true, why didn't Christ sent Paul immediately to the Pope to be instructed and have his apostleship legitimized? Or why didn't Christ send Peter to Paul ahead of time like Cornelius did when he sent two of his servants and one of his soldiers to find Peter? Instead Christ sends Ananias to Paul. You might say that it's because Ananias was closer. But Paul didn't visit Peter for years afterward. In all those years, Paul could have gone to see Peter, or Peter to have seen Paul. When they do meet, Paul refers to Peter and the others as not having "added/contributed anything" to him (Gal. 2:6). How could the Pope not add/contribute anything to Paul? After Paul's conversion, many Christians feared whether he was a false convert. At any time he could have sought the Pope's confirmation.

13. If the Papacy is true, then wouldn't the Jews know that Peter was the Pope and therefore the leader of Christianity? If so why didn't they go after him and "cut off the head", as it were? Why, instead, go after Paul (Acts 21:28)? As Jason said, "he's the man they hold most responsible for teaching Christianity everywhere." It was Paul, not the Pope that opponents of Christianity wanted to assassinate (Acts 23:12).

14. Paul says in 1 Cor. 11:1 "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." (ESV). Why doesn't Paul or any other writer of the NT say that about Peter, especially since he's supposed to be the Pope? Excluding Matthew (because of the disputed interpretation of chap. 16), no New Testament writer teaches about or refers to (even implicitly acknowledges) the office of the Pope (or Peter as Pope). Not the writer of Hebrews, or Mark, James, Jude, or in the entire Lukan, Johannine, Pauline, (EVEN!) Petrine corpus.

15. If the Papacy is true, why would Peter's centrality fade in NT history as the book of Acts shows and as the rest of the epistles show by their deafening silence of Peter? Before Luke published Acts, he could have conferred with other Christians regarding the Pope's whereabouts and activities. But he didn't. [[It might be said that Luke was in a rush to get his book distributed. Still, why didn't he publish a longer version with the Pope's history included? Why wasn't a book written in the NT that was dedicated to the Pope's exploits? Any of the Apostles' assistants could have done it (obviously with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit).]]

Finally, EVEN IF Peter were the Pope, that doesn't prove that his successors have the same or similar prerogatives. Apostolic succession is an additional burden of proof Catholics need to shoulder.

The following 16th question was added MONTHS AFTER Dave Armstrong interacted with this blog post. I'm noting this to be fair to him. He's always welcome to respond to it or continue the dialogue.

16. If the Papacy is true, then why didn't Jesus explain in what sense Peter was leader of the Church and of the other apostles after He explained how the leaders of the Church aren't supposed to "Lord it over" their fellow believers in Matt. 25:24-28? Jesus said this in the context of when the sons of Zebedee (James and John) wanted to be the top leaders in Jesus' Kingdom.

24    And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers.
25    But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.
26    It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,
27    and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,
28    even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

I understand that the Pope considers himself to be the "Servant of the Servants of God" (an official title). However, a case can be made that the bishop of Rome has "Lorded it over" other believers and bishops (as Tertullian argued when he sarcastically called the bishop of Rome "Pontifex Maximus" on account of how Callistus abused his bishopric by asserting/claiming more authority than he actually had).

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Contradictory Objections to Christianity

*****Currently being re-edited*****

This is a more elaborate version of some comments I left at this blog:

Steve, I thought the same thing at times.

I've noticed that objections to Christianity (and the Christian worldview) are often contradictory, neutralize each other to some extent or actually cancel each other out. Sometimes these objections come from DIFFERENT groups and individuals. Other times, they come from the SAME groups and individuals. Here are just some examples that people of different epochs and/or differing degrees of knowledge make. There are variations in each of these statements. They can also be formulated more precisely or in a more informed way. I've opted to state them in the most popular form (i.e. less rigorous) and therefore can appear to be strawmen representations. Though, SOME people will actually state it in these ways. Also, the comparisons aren't always exact opposites since sometimes they are comparing two similar or dissimilar types of arguments or objections but applying them to different categories or subjects.

There are Christian answers to these arguments or objections. In this blog post, I'll be noting how many of these objections to Christianity often conflict or contradict each other. Or how the objections don't really make sense because if the case were opposite, one could still make a similar objection. This shows how many people will go to great lengths (sometimes even to the point of contradicting themselves), in order to justify their rejection of the Christian God.

1 a) The God of the Bible is too human to believe in. He's like the pagan gods of Greece and Rome. (i.e. God is too immanent).
b) The God of the Bible (esp. in Calvinism) is too sovereign that humans can't relate to, or understand him (i.e. God is too transcendent).

2 a) The world is too complex and there's too much that people don't yet know to come to firm conclusions about the nature of reality. Or, because of the limits of induction (i.e. no one has universal inductive experience) no one can know anything for sure.
b) There's enough (inductive) evidence to conclude that there's probably no God (e.g. because of gratuitous evil etc.). Or, It's clear and obvious that God doesn't exist. Or, there's not enough/sufficient evidence to conclude a God exists [yet they usually can't make a case for what's "sufficient"].

3 a) The Bible has such a low view of humanity because it presents human beings as such wretches and unworthy worms (especially in relation to God).
b) Christianity is (and Christians are) so egotistical because it has the audacity to claim that humans are the zenith of God's creation (in this physical universe). Even to the point of promising that redeemed man will one day be exalted above angels and will be as close to being like the infinite God as finite creatures can possibly be.

4 a) The universe so so vast that it's unlikely that a wise God created it because it's a massive waste of space.
b) Yet, I suspect that if the universe were much smaller, people would probably say that it's unworthy of the God we Christians claim exists (i.e. a transcendent, great, powerful and glorious one).

5 a) The Privileged Planet hypothesis fails because it makes its conclusion based on a sample of one (planet). Therefore it's no evidence for design or God.
b) Because of the multiverse (world ensemble) theory, any possible world may eventually (even inevitably) come into existence and therefore there's no need for a Creator to account for the amazing (but merely) apparent design in the universe.

6 a) Advocates for the fine-tuning the universe, solar system, earth (etc.) have weak imaginative powers because they can't imagine/envision a totally different kind of lifeform (or of evolutionary processes) because they are stuck on seeing life in terms of what they have seen.
b) Christians take too much liberty in their use of imagination (or too readily appeal to mystery) to resolve Bible contradictions, or theological paradoxes/antinomies (e.g. Trinity, theodicy, incarnation etc.).

7a) Christians readily appeal to mystery to resolve or accept problems in their worldview.
b) Even though there are many unknowns when it comes to how life arose by unguided mindless processes, as unlikely as it was, we know that it must have happened, and chance had a part in it.

8 a) God cannot exist because he has no observable substance/being, weight, power, inertia, mass, will.
b) Life occured by "chance". [They say this even though "chance" itself has no being, weight, mass, inertia, will, or power. I'm using definition #6 below].

Note: The word "chance" can refer to (among other things) 1. mathematical probability, 2. randomness, 3. our own ignorance of the conditions of a situation, 4. coincidences, 5. metaphysical contingent events, 6. power or force like luck, or fate, or fortune. Careful scientists usually use the word in the senses of 1-3. Sloppy scientists or common folk equivocate (by switching definitions within an argument) or use the wrong sense of the word "chance" in various contexts.

9 a) The Bible is too complex to understand. If God has written it, it would have been more easy to understand so that everyone could understand it.
b) The Bible is too simple or too child-like to believe. If God had written it, it would have been more complex and intricate. Or it's unbelievable because written by, and in the context of, ignorant and ancient peoples in an agrarian and superstitious society.

10 a) Christians are illogical and overly emotional.
b) Calvinists are too logical and don't have basic empathy.

11 a) If there were an artistic God of creativity, then there should be much more life in the universe/solar system than we find. Since life seems to be scare in the universe, therefore that counts against God's existence.
b.) If we found much more life in the universe, that would be evidence of evolution and how easily it can get started. Therefore it would count against the idea that life on Earth is specially made by God.

12 a) Reality is too perfectly ordered that something like pantheism must be true.
b) Reality is too imperfect that a wise God (with the "omni" attributes) couldn't have created it.

13 a) The loving God of the Bible, if he existed, wouldn't send anyone to hell (i.e. God is too strict).
b) The God of the Bible is too gracious because even a Hitler could go "scot-free" if he sincerely repented of his sins and believed on Christ (i.e. God is not strict enough).

14 a) Christianity is a mercenary religion. Christians do good because they want to be rewarded by God.
b) Christianity is morally abominable because it teaches that salvation is by grace and so encourages slack morals.

15 a) Penal substitution is unjust, and we want justice.
b) The God of the Bible is too just. Why can't He just let things slide so that no one needs to go to hell?

16 a) Salvation by grace is morally abhorrent. People should get what they deserve.
b) Yet sometimes the same people who say the above have no problem with the government doling out vast amounts of money to help EVEN THOSE who make no effort themselves to better their lives.

17 a) There are no moral absolutes. Therefore Christianity's morality doesn't/cannot universally apply.
b) Christianity is wrong or evil because of the things God allegedly did (does) or required (requires) or commanded (commands) of human beings. [Notice this objection assumes moral absolutes]

18 a) People should have the right to believe whatever they want, and practice what they believe [think of the rhetoric used by those in the Gay Rights movement]. We should be tolerant of all people and beliefs.
b) Some people shouldn't be allowed to practice what they believe, nor should their beliefs be tolerated or respected (e.g. Christians, pedophiles, rapists, murderers or anyone who they disagree with) [notice the blatant contradiction and double standard in those who believe this kind of "tolerance"].

19 a) Humans are smart enough to determine/recognize right from wrong (or true and false) for themselves apart from God. That's why we don't need God.
b) Humans by nature are driven by motives they usually don't understand or can control. They make decisions based on feeling, emotion and preference rather than for rational reasons. That's why so many people irrationally believe in God.

20 a) It's unfair for God to judge people for not having enough evidence for His existence.
b) People generally have enough moral sense that they don't need the Bible to tell them what's right and wrong [yet, often their morals are similar to those of the Bible and they freely admit they don't perfectly live up their morals. Hence God COULD judge them for failing to live up to even their own moral standards].

21 a) Judgements like those (allegedly) executed on Sodom and Gomorrah display a bloodthirsty God who delights in and looks forward to punishing his creatures whenever He can and as soon as He can (i.e. God has no patience or mercy).
b) The God of the Bible is unjust because he allows certain crimes to continue to happen without punishing the guilty immediately. And we all know that justice delayed, is justice denied.

22 a) The universe is so hostile to life that it doesn't make sense for it to have been created by God. Think of the vacuum of space; solar radiation; earthquakes; volcanoes; Gamma rays from supernovas; the coldness of space; asteroids hitting the earth etc.
b)Yet, if the universe were perfectly habitable, then it could be argued that God wouldn't be necessary for the creation of and sustaining of life because it's only natural and necessary that all things exist in such a way as to foster our existence. This is similar to the commonly used defeater for the Anthropic Principle. Namely, if the universe weren't the way it is in making our existence possible, we wouldn't be here to observe it's limited hospitability.

23 a) God, if It did exist, would be so transcendent that we human beings would be too insignificant for It to care about, love or to take notice of. Since, the Bible often portrays God as being concerned about trivial human matters it [i.e. the Bible] cannot be the revelation of God. It wouldn't even make sense for such a transcendent God to waste It's time to give a revelation to puny humans. The Biblical God is too loving.

b) The God of the Bible (and especially that version conceived of by Calvinists) is so sovereign and transcendent that it doesn't care enough about the needs and suffering of human beings. The Biblical God is too sovereign in His punishment of sinners to hell. More than that, the Calvinist God is too sovereign and transcendent in His reprobation of the non-elect sans [i.e. apart from] the creation. Such a God isn't loving enough.

24 a) The Calvinist conception of the Sovereignty of God is so all encompassing that it's non-falsifiable in that no amount of suffering or evil in the world could possibly falsify or call into serious question the existence of such a God.
b.) And yet some atheists believe in the multiverse. As John Polkinghorne has said "...[the multiverse] can explain anything...If a theory allows anything to be possible, it explains nothing; a theory of anything is not the same as a theory of everything." [John Polkinghorne: Anglican priest, philosopher and theist who was at one time a theoretical particle physicist at Cambridge]

Sunday, August 5, 2012

My Comments on Other Blogs (PAGE 2)

Here are links to some blogs I've commented on. My comments are those by the nick Annoyed Pinoy. They are generally listed chronologically (give or take a few days or months) starting with the most recent. I'm still in the process of posting them (there may be some duplicates).

This is the SECOND PAGE. The FIRST PAGE has over 300 links and can be accessed ----->>HERE<<-----

Some links from there are repeated here.

Mariolatry and unitarianism

God Incognito

Ipsissima verba

Longing for a better country

Are the "I am" statements authentic?

Carrier's snow machine

In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti

Tarry in Jerusalem

The day after Christmas

God's lighthouse

Is unitarian theism impossible?

Yesterday, today, and forever

Street Epistemology

High and glorified

The Passion and the Passover

Post hoc rationalizations

I-Thou relationships

Election and adoption

Response to Licona

Choose life!

Looking back

Divine signage

Moral skepticism and Scripture

The prince and the pauper

Alien abduction stories

"No one is good but God"

What would it take to abandon your faith?

Believe truth! Shun error!


"Why call me good"?

Sonny Corleone

Pretenders and the Parousia

Two-stage prophecies

Purgatory now

Is every promise fulfilled in Christ?

Moses was humble

Must purported revelation pass a moral test?

Crucifixion of the Warrior God

Arian and humanitarian unitarianism

Twilight of the gods

Soldier of Christ

Induction and universal generalizations

I said you are gods

Information and resurrection

Unitarian weasel watch

Keep yourselves from idols

God and God's Spirit

Were there rainbows before the flood?

Presuppositionalism and metaphor

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so"

"The priority of tradition"

The man Jesus Christ

Like angels

Former Pastor Joseph: "It was all in my mind. God doesn't talk to people."

The Lord said to my Lord

"Why are Christians such homophobic bigots?"

Should we say good-bye?

Their angels always see the Father's face

Composition fallacy


Hank Hanegraaff's Promotion Of Eastern Orthodoxy

Rationalists and mystery-mongers

The bell curve of atheism

The Restrained Nature Of The Resurrection Accounts

The Immortal dies!

Shades of faith

The Evidence For Organized Religion Can't Be Ignored

Pathways to inerrancy

Nabeel's recent dream

Hearing voices

Evolution is a channel, not a canal

Natural law and contraception

Casting mountains into the sea

Chopped liver

Faith and providence

Born of water and the Spirit


Does every religion have its own Superman?

Exposition of Daniel


The Seventy Sevens of Daniel 9: A Timetable for the Future?

Are serial killers entitled to respect?

Is Christmas verboten?

Blue lagoon

Too lucky to be luck

Miracles and sample bias

Crossing the line

Destination unkown

Debating Hitchens

Is God love?

Birthmarks and reincarnation


Self-hating atheism


Exchange with a Presuppositionalist

Dreams of Jesus

The first divorced president

Eschatological restoration

"The damnable thing about damnation"

Accidental beliefs

Bubbleboy cessationism

Avalos on prayer

God heals amputees!

Crop Circles: Aliens, Plasma Vortex or Human Creation?

Ambushed by life

McGrew on Van Til

Dearly departed

Does God create the reprobate to damn them?

John Calvin and the Love of God in 1 John

Journeys of faith

Is the world a brute fact?

Oppy on supernatural encounters

What's the image of God?

Genie in a bottle

Dreaming and dual consciousness

How problematic is the problem of unanswered prayer?

The Only One

Parenting tips for Scripturalists

Is inerrancy an impediment?

Where were the 5000 fed?

Scripturalists in the Matrix

The Word of Life

Taking geocentrism for a spin

Beat the devil

Between the devil and the deep blue sea

Cruz snubs Trump

The problems of unanswered prayer

Zetetic astronomy

Post-conversion letdown

"Street-level" Muslims

The shadow God

Gender and Trinity

Fahrenheit 381

Sting like a bee

Scotus, Anselm, and Owen

Gregory of Nazinazus on the Father as "greater" than the Son (John 14:28)

Trump toadies

Bart's groupies

Is God a person?

If private revelations agree with Scripture, they are needless

Richard Carrier has more waffles than IHOP

Did the disciples die for a lie?

Singapore church history

Letter boards

Dynasties and genealogies

The real problem of evil

Bart Blunderbuss

Jesus Christ, the Angel of Jehovah, and Michael the Archangel - part 2


Cooking the books

Defending eternal conscious punishment

Unitarian Judaism

Questions for theists

How to harmonize

Inspiration, evidentialism, and harmonization

Jesus and Romulus

Gospel harmonization

Jesus Christ, the Angel of Jehovah, and Michael the Archangel - part 1

Angelomorphic Christology



Honi the circle-drawer

Piper, pacifism, and Christomonism

Upending the good?

Seneca guns

Navajo witchcraft

The light of nature


Piper, pacifism, and complementarianism

Limits on prayer

What does Jesus know?

The crown prince

"Only Islam can defeat Islam!"

Chocolate eclair for president

Did Muhammad exist?

What really happened to Muhammad?

Tips on debating Muslims

Crouching at the door

Divine Permission, Asymmetry and Counterfactuals

Does God permit evil?

If only I had known

In defense of time-travel stories

How often does God intervene?

The Devil's Triangle

John Chrysostom Condemns Neglect Of Apologetics

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us

And the Word was God

Is Jesus the eternal Logos?

Dale Tuggy's Da Vinci Code

John Chrysostom Condemns Neglect Of Apologetics

God over all, forever blessed

Faith, justification, and salvation
The horserace

Richard Carrier on the rampage

Reactions To The Democrats' First Presidential Debate

Findings from experimental science that allegedly disconfirm theism

Is mass extinction consistent with divine planning?

Astrological atheism

Continuous creation

The power of paradigms

An anatomy of apostasy

Abortion, election, and apostasy

When did Paul first see Jesus?

Paul's Physical Experience With The Physical Risen Christ

All things bright and beautiful

Dead and buried, raised to life

William Provine

Why Do Sources Not Refer To Jesus Until After His Lifetime?

A duo of dueling fatalisms

Hair-raising theology

World's oldest Koran may predate Muhammad

A duo of dueling fatalisms

Hair-raising theology

Deistic evolution

How firm a foundation

Has the Comforter come?

Chestnuts roasting on an open fire

The deity of Christ in Hebrews 1

Is the Incarnation possible?

Quote-mining the church fathers

The coming king

Jesus and the prophets

Two For the Price of One: A Conservative President and an Extinct Republican Party!

The parables of Jesus

You're fired!

Bart Ehrman's Baal Shem Tov Parallel

Unitarian evangelism

Second childhood

Scripturalism and knowledge

The true body and blood of Christ


10 questions

Board my burning ship!

BW3 on women in ministry

Noah's ark

Good Jesus meets bad atheist

Christopher Lee

The virgin birth prophecy

Mapping the brain

How Bart Ehrman bungles the burial of Christ

The Significance Of Long-Lasting New Testament Manuscripts

I'm stuck in "save the babies" mode

The Wood/Loftus Debate On The Resurrection

To hell and back

A Short Defense of Sola Scriptura

Demon-haunted world

Involuntary human experimentation

Was Jesus a Sabbath-breaker?

The Body Argument, the Problem of Evil, and Panentheism

Authorized to lie

Bad karma

Quest for nihilism

The Eternity of Hell-Torments

Problems With CNN's Turin Shroud Program


Evolutionary inferences

Former Roman Catholic Priests and Nuns who have left “the Church”

Kill the infidel

Hell under fire

Ship in a Bottle

A Fudgesicle's chance in hell

How Did The Earliest Christians Interpret John 3:5?

Psychopathy or nihilism?

False hope

Calvinism and Cartesian demons

The Long Branch Saloon

More Bad Consequences Of Same-Sex Marriage

Irrational skepticism forum

Dimestore atheist

continuing the conversation with Robert Bowman – different selves, same being?

What if I'm wrong?

How Islam's Prophetic Failures Support Christianity

Disambiguating impassibility

Simple Foreknowledge

When time and tide wait

Expect a miracle!

David and Jonathan


The hero with a thousand faces

God is my co-pilot

Gripped By A Great God

Islam is the problem

Near to the heart of God

Totemic animals

Grammar nazis

God plays with loaded dice

Stephen Braude On His New Book And Recent Paranormal Research 

Paranormal Maladies

"It is the Lord!"

Scientists discover that atheists might not exist

Will Santa occupy Wall Street?

Jesus Movies, Images of Christ & the Second Commandment

Adam, Eve, and Cain

Rev 22:19
Apparently, my final comments on this blog were deleted by Steve Hays because he felt I abused the combox. He has the right to do that. My final comments are reproduced here:

I've generously allowed you to hitch your caboose onto my steam engine. Don't abuse the privilege.
That's true.

You're confusing some hypothetical, counterfactual scenario with what election actually implies.......You might as well say that, in principle, the Son of God never had to become Incarnate...
I don't think it's merely an abstract hypothetical since it was the majority view among Augustinians (e.g. Prosper of Aquitaine, Aquinas, Luther, the Dominican order etc.) up until Calvinism came along. I'll leave it at that.

Prevenient grace

Keep A Record Of God's Providence In Your Life

The Idea of Heaven Seems Strange To Me Now

Vines v. Brown debate on homosexuality

Open Theism, God, and the Eternal Past

"Gnostic creationism" 

Corduan responds to Olson

Nailing our sins to the cross

Carbon credits

The Spirit of prophecy

Christian commitment

Bibliography on baptism

The Role of Tradition in the Church

On the wrong side of history

I'm on the right side of history

Of God and slot machines 

Josephus Misdated the Census of Quirinius

John's Passion week chronology

Putting the New Atheists out to pasture

Are miracles less likely than not?

Naturalism and the burden of proof

Jesus Spoke and Taught in Greek

Disfellowshipping Calvinists as damnable heretics

Austin Fischer

War On Boys

The deity of the Spirit

Genesis and polygenesis

Predestinarian apocalypticism 

Kruger reviews How Jesus Became God

Inerrancy and illocution

Helping Feser think

Doubting Thomist 


"Thomistic Simplicism"

History and miracles

Blomberg on modern miracles

Dog-eat-dog world

The temptation of Christ

This has got to go down as one of the strangest moments in history

Apollinarianism redux

Why high Calvinism is impossible

False flag operations

Gay martyrs

Baptizing transgenderism

On a wing and a prayer

God loves a hilarious giver

Irrational atheism

Celebrity converts


They shall take up serpents

Miracles and medicine

Camels in Genesis

John 14:12

Mere theism

Bill Nye's challenge

Total Depravity - Implicitly Denied

Takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'

Deceptive to whom?

Spaceship earth

Ender's Game review

Rapid speciation

"Sneering Calvinists"

Proximal prayer

Weeding out charlatans

Complete healing

The Gospel Sound

Matches in the dark

Modern xenoglossy 

The healing debate 

Milankovitch cycles

Praying for amputees

Instant healing

Blue language 

Classic Arminianism is dead!


Dealing with physical ailment 

Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy 

Craig v. Helm

The real problem of evil

The mystery of providence

What's a genius?

Biblical "fatalism"

Naïve Presuppositionalism

"Same-sex attraction" 

Giving the devil his due 


Tuggy's latest failure

God came down

Satanic gang wars

Divine hiddenness and freewill theism

Ufology and miracles 

Far from the kingdom

Calvinism is Flourishing in China

Was Spurgeon clairvoyant?

How to be a better atheist

How cessationism denies the self-attesting authority of Scripture

Over 100 Million in America Unemployed

Attacking the Virgin Birth

Tongues of fire

The prayer of faith

Fire and smoke

Dreaming of Jesus

Postmortem on the Waldron/Brown debate

Brown v. Waldron

Have the charismata ceased?

Hiding behind a girl

Throwing the baby out with the paintbrush

James White Debates on Calvinism

Parsing the virgin birth

What cessationism is not...or is it?

The prayer of faith will save the sick

Putting God in a box

Critical thinking on modern miracles 

God and chance

Healers and healing

George Müller: charismatic Calvinist

Is this charismatic?

Judging by appearances 

Brown v. Turk 

Identity and Trinity 

Deflecting miracles

Twitversation with Dr Michael Brown 

Repent or else!

Prophetic science

The Ninth Gate

Is there a tipping point?

Is football unchristian?

Answering moral objections to the OT

Sarfati v. Craig

Christianity And Its Evidence Keep Growing

Animal clairvoyance 

William Dembski, On "Evil, Creation and Intelligent Design" 

80/20 arguments for God: the Why and Wherefore argument, part 1

Beyond good and evil

Manichean open theism

Creative intelligence

Matthew's Authorship In Light Of That Gospel's Early Prominence 

To My Readers

The Nephilim

Biblical longevities

Who's redefining what? 

Rehoboam and compatibilism

Why do ghosts wear clothes? 

Rating Jesus 

Feminist cessationists 
To be read in light of:

Cessationism, testimonial evidence, and historical knowledge 

"Extrabiblical revelation" 

Hypocrites chiding hypocrites

What is prophecy? 

Can God be chained? 

Getting out of dodge 

The Church of Hume

Is continuationism false by definition?

Debunking continuationism

faith & works

Interpreting Old-Hag syndrome

Healing a few 

A little lower than the angels 

Are we justified by faith and works? 

Christian toga movement

Skeptical cessationism

John MacArthur’s Ministry Responds to Me (by Michael L. Brown)

Why doesn’t God give us more evidence of his existence?

Dying in Christ

Samson's Trojan Horse

Be Prepared To Address Paranormal Phenomena

Christian debunkers

Two-bit advice

Was Kathryn Kuhlman a charlatan?

The sun, moon, and stars

UFOs, Ghosts, and a Rising God: Debunking the Resurrection of Jesus

Dodge City

Guarding the tomb

Epilepsy or possession?

Divine dissimulation

 Is envy sinful?

Lay exorcism

Making People See Their Need For Apologetics

Hear the word of the Lord

The waters above

Prayerless Arminians

The fate of unbaptized infants


The Religious Beliefs Of Scientists


Is Apologetics a Failure?

Johannine asides

Did Matthew Write The Gospel Attributed To Him?

The only love that counts

Perspectives on death 

Coercing God

 Amazing Bible Verses: The Secret to Long Life!

It takes one to know one

Quem quaerimus adjutorem nisi te, Domine?

Walking on water

Adam & Genetics

 Roman Catholicism and Paganism; Alexander Hislop’s Two Babylons and Woodrow’s Weak Criticism

"Hearing God"

"Learning to hear God's voice"

Angels ascending

Divine guidance
To be read in light of my comments:
and here

Perseverance and suicide
see also: Can a Christian Commit Suicide?

Lies for lives

Tactful lies

Coping with suicide

Dubious stats

Marshall v. Carrier

Calvinists and their familiars

Pope Francis: “I Want a Poor Church for the Poor”

First Clement And Pope Francis

Unilateral disarmament in the homosexual debate

As deserts are with sands

Secular mysterians

How to become pope

Origen on Our Object of Prayer by Mark Xu, ed. Drake

Coming from behind

“The Real and True Nature of Anglicanism”

Resurrecting Jesus

Immortal or indestructible?

"How Could God Command Genocide in the Old Testament?"

Bitter atheism

Coping with depression

Piper on Healing and Exorcism


Benedict XVI Resignation: Vatican Press Briefing

The Life of George Herbert

Suicide: "You've got to go back"

Confessionalism & continuationism 
Read in light of

“Catholic Social Teaching” and “The Popes Against the Jews”

 Into and Out of Roman Catholicism

The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief

Is atheism worth defending?

Everyone is crazy but me!

Replying to ANNOYED PINOY’s Comments at Triablogue

Scoring the multiverse

Reply to Ryan


"My Lord and my God"

Outing the Devil

Trinitarian plumbing

The Eternal Sonship of Christ

"Begotten, not made"

Monstrous bedroom furniture 

Making the Bible unbelievably believable


Where is God?

 Two go in, one comes out: John Calvin and Grizzly Adams in the Octogon

The Light John 8:12 Casts Upon John 7:42

The star of Bethlehem

Hoping for the lost

The Santa wars

Divine Frustration

Musings on the multiverse

Coming home to Mother Synagogue

Hiding in plain sight

Strange bedfellows

 The charismata

Breaking Bad

God, man, and miracles

Why should the Big Bang singularity help the Kalam cosmological argument?

Combatting zombiephobes

Yanking God's chain

Antichrist "Risers"

The Islamic Antichrist?


Dembski reviews Nagel

Part 1 – Response to Preterist Gary DeMar

Now on YouTube: John Wycliffe

Plant liberation

A Neurosurgeon’s Near Death Experience

Eternity in their hardened hearts

A mission without a mission field

The significance of the fourth day

I Was Once a Fetus: That is Why Abortion is Wrong

Design Detection

“Double Predestination”?

The virtual world of Scripturalism
Not chronologically posted

The witness of the Spirit

Peter's denials

Making light of sin, Roman Catholic style

How did Antiochus die?


Explaining away Augustine's error

Atheists at prayer

Following one man over the cliff

Atheism at sixes and sevens

What do unbelievers live for?

The agony and the ecstasy

Why God Would Perform Partial, Gradual, And Other Lesser Miracles

51 Biblical Proofs Of A Pauline Papacy And Ephesian Primacy

Circuit breaker

Pope or antipope? Let's flip a coin

Why Miracles Aren't More Documented

A false Euthyphro dilemma

The ‘Rule of Faith’ and the New Testament Canon

A token grief

Psychosomatic Miracles?

Can singles cheat?

Already, and not yet

Wintery Knight on Van Til