I don’t often make reviews of debates, but when I do, it’s usually when I hear a debate that was exceptionally good and is worth commenting on. Perhaps one of the best debates I’ve heard this year was the one between Dr. James White and Abdullah Kunde on the doctrine of the incarnation. The debate took place in Australia back in September 17 of this year. The video of the debate can be viewed below:

Read the rest of this entry

Dear Dr. Esposito,

I just recently read through your article New Narrative for 9-11 and Muslim Americans. It is an interesting piece of writing, and I am always looking for people who are willing to give an apologetic for their viewpoint. In your article, you try to make the case that fears of Islamic extremism in the Muslim American community are unfounded, and that Muslims in America as a whole are well integrated into the rest of western society. I must confess that I am not convinced of your article’s thesis, and I would like to explain why. Read the rest of this entry

One of the theological debates that takes place between orthodox Trinitarian Christians and heretical cultists and other non-Trinitarians of various stripes is whether the Old Testament confirms or contradicts Trinitarian doctrines such as the existence of plurality within the Godhead and the reality of the incarnation. A full treatment of this subject is outside the purview of this article, partly because there are already plenty of excellent articles that tackle this topic (Such as this and this), and partly because there are too many verses that are relevant to this, that we will only be focusing on one. In particular, there is one verse in 1 Kings that contains a statement by King Solomon which is sometimes cited by non-Trinitarians (particularly Muslims) against the idea that God could enter into His creation:

But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built! (1 Kings 8:27).

As the argument goes, if God cannot be contained by heaven and earth, then it is impossible for God to enter into His own creation, since that would limit Him to a specific point in time and space.

Read the rest of this entry

The debate over the increasing acceptance of LGBT lifestyles in mainstream culture is one issue which — at least in Canadian society — has been more or less dominated by one side, which seeks to label all dissenters as “bigots,” “homophobes,” and even “extremists.” If you do not give them your unconditional assent and affirmation, they will level the most relentless forms of criticism against you. And this is precisely the case in the recent controversy over Toronto city mayor Rob Ford’s decision not to attend the annual Pride Parade.

To give a little background to people who are unfamiliar with this issue, Rob Ford is one of the most Conservative city mayors that Toronto has had in a long while. This particularly manifests in his policies regarding LGBT issues. He has publicly stated that he disagrees with same-sex marriage during his mayoral campaign, has refused to show up at a Pride flag raising at a public square, and has at least once threatened to cut public funding to the city’s annual Pride Parade. After all, why should the city spend public funds on such a parade anyway? Shouldn’t the LGBT community get its own funding if it wants a parade? Mayor Ford isn’t even targeting the LGBT Pride Parade in particular on this issue, since he has said in an article for The Star that “the public sector shouldn’t be funding parades, no matter what parade it is … The private sector should be sponsoring these parades.”[1] Be that as it may, the Pride Parade still got the funding that it wanted. There is just no stopping the LGBT agenda these days.

That being said, however, the biggest faux pas he has made recently (at least from the standpoint of the politically correct Left) was his refusal to attend the pride parade which took place earlier this month, on the grounds that it conflicted with a family tradition where he would spend the long weekend in a cottage away from the city. The responses that have been produced by Leftist pro-LGBT commentators and activists on newspapers and blogs have been merciless; most of them show relentless criticism of Mayor Ford for his personal choice. Now, if that isn’t ironic, I don’t know what is. These activists who demand society to affirm and support their ungodly lifestyles and personal preferences become very militant when others make personal choices that contradict the party line that LGBT activists force everybody else to follow. It seems that these days, their unofficial slogan is, “Support our campaign against bullying. If not, we’ll bully you until you do.” Read the rest of this entry

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful (Sura at Tawba 9:5).[1]

Although there are over a hundred ayat (verses) in the Qur’an that that pertain to jihad and warfare against the unbelievers, Sura 9:5 is perhaps the most well known among these. For this reason, it has often been called the “Ayah of the Sword.” This comes right in the heels of Sura 9:1-4, which declares the cancellation of any treaties between the Muslims and the Pagans (except those who cooperate with the Muslims), as shown in the preceding four verses:

A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Apostle, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:- Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him. And an announcement from Allah and His Apostle, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Apostle dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith. (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous (Sura at Tawba 9:1-4),

Read the rest of this entry

Just a quick update from me, very brief. Some emails were sent back and forth among our staff just recently pondering what might be an effective response to the common dialogue over the historical track record of atheism versus Christianity. That is, some Christians point to the atrocities under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., while atheists shoot back with such atrocities as the Crusades, Inquisitions, witch hunts, etc.

“What might be a good response to this?” it was asked. Here was my answer:

When an atheist offers the reply, “What they did was horrendous, but it wasn’t done in the name of atheism; unlike the Crusades and witch hunts, which were done in the name of Christianity,” you can call him out on the False Analogy fallacy; i.e., when comparing apples, it is invalid to introduce oranges. The contrast of atheism is actually theism—not Christianity. Just as communism (e.g., Stalin) was atheistic but it was not atheism, so too Christianity is theistic but it is not theism. Consequently…

Atheist: “Stalin did not act in the name of atheism.”

Christian: “And the popes did not act in the name of theism.”

Every once in a while, those who deny the biblical witness concerning the nature of Jesus Christ (especially Liberals and Muslims) will try to appeal to the theory that the four Gospels reflect an evolution in the understanding of who Jesus was, and their authors did not view Him the same way. As the theory goes, Mark’s gospel, being the earliest, presents Jesus as a mere human being. Later authors embellish His story until we finally arrive at the Gospel of John, which affirms the full deity of Christ.

While this theory sounds neat at first glance, it misses the mark at various points. First of all, there is an inherent anti-supernatural bias in its explanation. It denies the possibility that there is progressive revelation involved in the increasing understanding of who Jesus was, and reduces the progression of revelation to mere legendary development. It is particularly telling that some Muslims have actually latched on to this theory. The ones who do so do not seem to realize that they are borrowing a theory that was produced by liberal scholars who deny the possibility of supernatural revelation. If the progressive revelation in the Gospels can be explained away naturalistically, what is to stop the proponents of this theory from applying the exact same standards to the Qur’an?

Be that as it may, it is not even true that Mark regarded Jesus as a mere human being. Sure, he does not emphasize that aspect of Jesus’ person as much as the other biblical authors, but that does not mean, however, that the doctrine was totally absent from Mark’s gospel. To demonstrate this, we must go through the relevant sections of Mark to see what kind of Christology is presented in his account. The first section to go through is the story of the healing of the paralytic in the second chapter. It begins thus:

A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. So many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. Some men came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
(Mark 2:1-7)

The scribes knew what was going on here. Jesus was claiming to have the power to forgive sins; something that only God can do. Now what is Jesus reaction to this? He does another thing that only God can do! Moving on:

Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking these things? Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . .” He said to the paralytic, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”
(Mark 2:8-12)

Pay close attention to what the eighth verse says about Jesus: He perceived the thoughts of the scribes. Those who read the Old Testament would know that only Yahweh is capable of doing that (cf. 1 Samuel 16:7, 1 Kings 8:39, Jeremiah 20:12). Clearly, if Jesus was a mere human being, He would not be capable of doing these things.

The next relevant passage comes later on in the same chapter, when the disciples are picking grain in the fields:

One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
(Mark 2:23-28)

Here is one example of an idea that is implicit in Mark but becomes more explicit later on. Those who have read the story of Jesus healing on the Sabbath in the Gospel of John would know that for Jesus to call Himself Lord of the Sabbath would be considered blasphemous because Yahweh was the Lord of the Sabbath: Yahweh was exempt from having to rest on that day because He was upholding the universe even on Sabbath day (John 5:17-18). Incidentally, this fits in well with the author of Hebrews’ understanding of Jesus as the One who “upholds all things by the word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3, NASB). It is clear here that for Jesus to claim to be the Lord of the Sabbath is tantamount to blasphemy unless He was actually Yahweh incarnate.

And then there is the episode in the country of the Gerasenes where Jesus encounters the demoniac. As Mark reports, “[w]hen he [the demoniac] saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshiped [προσεκύνησεν] Him” (Mark 5:6, NKJV). Some translations water down this particular verse by saying the demoniac merely “fell down” or “bowed down” at Jesus’ feet. Such a watered-down translation is unnecessary and unhelpful, though, since the same Greek word (προσκυνέω) is used by the other three Gospel writers to refer to the worship of God (cf. Matthew 4:10, Luke 4:8 and John 4:20-24). The KJV and NKJV are the most consistent in rendering προσκυνέω as worship here. Thus, the conclusion that we get from this verse is unavoidable: Jesus accepted worship, and Mark affirms this.

And then there is a passage which Jehovah’s Witnesses and Muslims try to twist in order to make it seem that Jesus is denying His divinity. In Mark 10:18, we find Jesus questioning the rich young man who walked up to Him:

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.
(Mark 10:17-18)

Jesus is not, at this point, denying the man’s description of Him as good. What He is doing, rather, is that He is trying to get the man to realize what he is just saying. In effect, He is telling the man, “Do you understand what you are calling Me? Or are you just calling me good to get closer to Me?” In an attempted response, it has been claimed (and by no less a debater than Muslim apologist Bassam Zawadi) that since the rich young man stopped calling Jesus “good” afterwards, that can’t be what He meant. If anything, this is just grasping at straws. The rich young man had only one other line after this (Mark 10:20), so this is too weak a case to stand on such limited evidence. Besides, Jesus affirms His goodness elsewhere. For example, when He is accused by the Jews, He asks them rhetorically in John 8:46, “Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?” There is also the fact that Jesus calls Himself the Good Shepherd (cf. John 10:11,14). The fact that those who deny the deity of Christ appeal to this passage is somewhat humorous, given that many of them would contend that Jesus is indeed good!

Another passage from Mark that opponents of biblical Christianity try to use is Mark 13:32, where Jesus says “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mark 13:32). Of course, since Christianity has historically affirmed that Jesus took on a true human nature during the incarnation, it would come as no surprise to us that in His self-emptying, He would choose not to avail Himself of some of His powers. However, this does not mean that He lost them completely, but merely restrained them.

The difference is akin to the difference between a person restraining his right arm by tying it behind his back and chopping it off. In the former case, the person only temporarily restrains his usage of his arm, and can regain it at any point in time by untying his arm. In the latter case, however, he loses usage of his arm completely, and cannot get it back. Jesus’ temporary self-emptying is analogous to the former case. His temporary restraint was cast off after His resurrection, since in His glorified resurrection body, He is said to “know all things” (John 21:17).

Also telling is the verse that comes immediately before this, where Jesus says “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Mark 13:31). This is significant, for Whose word is it, according to the Old Testament, that will never pass away? The answer:

The grass withers and the flowers fade
beneath the breath of the Lord.
And so it is with people.
The grass withers and the flowers fade,
but the word of our God stands forever.
(Isaiah 40:7-8)

So once again, we have here another prerogative of Yahweh that Jesus is claiming for Himself. Surely it is becoming quite unnecessary at this point to belabour the point any further, yet there is one more significant passage that needs to be addressed, which is the dialogue between Jesus and the High priest:

Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”

“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”

They all condemned him as worthy of death. Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him.
(Mark 14:60-65)

First of all, note that this is an “I Am” (ἐγώ εἰμι) statement. It is mistakenly thought by many that “I Am” statements are unique to John, yet we see that Mark has at least one as well (and it is repeated in Luke 22:70). Second, Jesus alludes to a significant messianic passage from the book of Daniel:

I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.
(Daniel 7:13-14, NASB)

The description given here could not be that of an ordinary person, for such a person would not have an “everlasting dominion.” Not only that, but in Jewish thinking, only one who is divine could be regarded as “sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” This is borne out by the fact that the high priest tore his robes upon Jesus saying this (something which the high priest is not allowed to do unless he is grieved from hearing a blasphemous remark), and condemned Him as deserving death. This passage could only make sense if Jesus was claiming divine prerogatives.

In conclusion, one can see that the Gospel of Mark has a high Christology, and can hardly be regarded as promoting the view that Jesus Christ was a mere human prophet. It is only by selectively using evidence and ignoring the context of the entire Gospel account that one can sustain such a questionable assertion.

For those who are not familiar with Louis Ruggiero, he runs an apologetics website called the King Messiah Project. He is quite Arminian in his theology, and has been charged by some of being a Pelagian (although he denies this charge). He is known primarily for his diatribes against Calvinism. For example, some time back, he and Matt Slick tried to set up a debate on Total Depravity, but the debate was scrapped because Lou would not stick to the topic at hand. More recently, he has published a book called The God of Calvinism: A Rebuttal of Reformed Theology. He attempts to present it as a rebuttal to Dr. White’s The Potter’s Freedom, and interestingly enough, the foreword is written by none other than Ergun M. Caner. Unfortunately, I don’t have a copy of the book with me right now (although one of my friends who has dialogued with Ruggiero before does, and perhaps I can borrow it from him). So, until I can get my hands on the book, I will instead deal with an article he has posted on his website titled, Refuting the Tulip With the Fear of the LORD.[1]

Read the rest of this entry

(Continued from part two)

In the first part of this series, we discussed and debunked Balgrim Ragoonanan’s tirades against Christian exclusivism and evangelistic efforts as a form of Religious Bigotry and Exclusivity. In the second part, we refuted his misuse and misrepresentation of Jesus’ teachings in order to promote Hindu pluralism over against what he deems to be The Insidiousness of an Only Pathway to God. In this third part in the series, we will be looking at the third of Mr. Ragoonanan’s articles, entitled, The Whole Truth About Those who Debase and Derogate Other Religions.[1] In his opening paragraph, he writes,

Anyone who thinks that he/she has some kind of corner on religious and spiritual beliefs and practices, and believes he/she can take another person to task for exposing the falsehood of an only pathway to God are welcome to do so. I am prepared to defend the legitimacy of all religions as I research and understand them better, especially when God and religion are purely for the transformation of the human heart to the higher state of the divine. I have been doing studies ever since I joined the membership of the Trinidad & Tobago Online Community, when it was once fashionable to deride, derogate, defame and characterize Hinduism as being outside the frame of legitimate religions.

Read the rest of this entry

Introduction

Because of the atmosphere of ecumenicism that has pervaded the Christian Church in recent decades, many Evangelical Christians are ill-equipped to properly handle the distinctive doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Mariology is one particularly sticky topic. Many misconceptions abound, and there are relatively few Evangelical writings that adequately handle this topic.[1] As such, it is necessary to tackle the Roman Catholic Marian Dogmas with care and accuracy, and this will hopefully be accomplished in this analysis of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Although the Immaculate Conception has an interesting history that goes back to the Middle Ages, it is one of the more recent of the Marian dogmas to have been officially declared a dogma by the Roman Catholic Church. It was declared as such by Pope Pius IX during 1844 in the apostolic constitution entitled Ineffabilis Deus. It is worth looking at the text of this constitution to see how Rome defines this dogma:

From the very beginning, and before time began, the eternal Father chose and prepared for his only-begotten Son a Mother in whom the Son of God would become incarnate and from whom, in the blessed fullness of time, he would be born into this world. Above all creatures did God so loved her that truly in her was the Father well pleased with singular delight. Therefore, far above all the angels and all the saints so wondrously did God endow her with the abundance of all heavenly gifts poured from the treasury of his divinity that this mother, ever absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect, would possess that fullness of holy innocence and sanctity than which, under God, one cannot even imagine anything greater, and which, outside of God, no mind can succeed in comprehending fully.

And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent. To her did the Father will to give his only-begotten Son — the Son whom, equal to the Father and begotten by him, the Father loves from his heart — and to give this Son in such a way that he would be the one and the same common Son of God the Father and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was she whom the Son himself chose to make his Mother and it was from her that the Holy Spirit willed and brought it about that he should be conceived and born from whom he himself proceeds.[2]

Read the rest of this entry