God's exhaustive Foreknowledge part 3 (video)

God's Exhaustive Foreknowledge part 2 (video)

God's Exhaustive Foreknowledge part 1 (video)

Book Review: "Pulpit Crimes" by James White

In "Pulpit Crimes," James White seeks to expose those things which bring shame to the proclamation of God's Word. In order for something to be a crime, there must be a law in place. And that is what the author seeks to prove in this short but powerful book.

Some of the chapter titles include, "Prostitution," "Felonious Eisegesis," and "Body Count." Though I found the titles to be a bit on the cheesy side, I found the content to be compelling. To anyone reading this book, prepare your traditions to be challenged. What the author focused on as crimes, there were clear biblical commands to define them as such. One of these that I found to be most valuable was the pulpit crimes related to the preaching work.

Few Christians realize that the Bible has some very specific commands in regards to the preaching work. While I was hoping the author could spend some time discussing topical vs. expository, he spent most of the time in dealing with the pulpit crime of not preaching the full council of God's Word. I suppose this might have been a defense for expository preaching, but I think his main point was to point out that too many pastors choose to speak on those topics that they want to speak about, while trying to avoid those "difficult" subjects like doctrine.

One thing I appreciated about this book was that it covered churches from every end of the spectrum. So whether you are a part of a solid Reformed Baptist fellowship or a leftist Episcopal one, the author covered topics from the most liberal to the most conservative in terms of their pulpit crimes. Topics like pluralism were tackled, as well as the women's role in the church. In other words, it seems like there was something in here for everyone!

Overall, this book is worth reading because I don't think our traditions are challenged enough. There is always the potential danger or falling into a man-centered time of worship that is focused more on the show than on God. So its always good to be reminded of what's most important in our time of worship; and that is God!

Debate with a Jehovah's Witness on the proposition: "What does the Bible mean when it calls Jesus G/god?"

This is the entirety of the debate between myself and a Jehovah's Witness that took place in 2008. If you would like to ask questions or leave comments for either debater, please do so on this page.

Opening Statement by Mike (Trinitarian position)

Opening Statement by David (non-Trinitarian position)

First Rebuttal by Mike

First Rebuttal by David

Cross Examination: Questions for David from Mike

Cross Examination: Questions for Mike from David

Final Rebuttal by Mike

Final Rebuttal by David

Closing Statement by Mike

Closing Statement by David

Some positive elements of Jehovah's Witnesses (video)

2008 Watchtower Annual Report

I haven't really gotten to analyze this in detail, but thought i'd post this for anyone who wanted to see what's going on. The fact that there are numbers here should motivate any Bible-believing Christian to better equip themselves to give a defense for the hope that is within us (1 Peter 3:15).

You can download scans of these images by clicking here.

Closing Statement from David (non-Trinitarian position) on the proposition, "What does the Bible mean when it calls Jesus G/god?"

This debate could not have more starkly contrasted my opponent’s position with my own, and for that I believe it was a success. Undoubtedly many will declare victor the side they had determined to be correct before the debate began. For those who were uncertain true benefit is found. What has been presented are but a few of the arguments and reasonings behind our respective positions so that such ones may more fully understand the basis for them.

The Bible clearly attests to the fact that many are properly identified as gods. My opponent has argued that these are either false gods or figuratively gods but he has offered nothing to demand such categorization. Indeed ones were gods only in that they represented the true God (Psa. 82:6), but there were also ones who were so defined because they held a nature higher than that of man (Psa. 8:5). Because of this fact there is no dilemma in identifying the preexistent Messiah as “a god” based upon, among other things, his exalted nature (John 1:1). As ‘the exact representation of God’s being’ he could be nothing less (Heb. 1:3), but he is “god” only relative to ‘his God’ (Heb. 1:8-9).

Much more could be said than has been. Numerous texts could be presented and discussed on both sides. While this would be advantageous it is not feasible. Whether you are one who believes you already understand the scriptures or you are a new student of God’s word I would encourage you to continue to pray for understanding. Ask God to direct you through his word so that you can free yourself from error and more fully understand who he is, his will and his purpose. Upon asking for this direction read from his word with an open mind and heart. Seek to understand it more perfectly and thus share it with others.

I would like to thank Mike for his time and his patience with the delay between my responses. He has handled himself professionally both in this debate and in private communication so that I would be pleased to have further discussions with him on related issues.

Adnan Rashid vs. James White - Trinity and Shirk

This was a very interesting debate on a pretty unique proposition. "Shirk" is a word in Islam that conveys the highest form of idolatry and damns any violator to hell. I found it pretty interesting that James White sought to defend the belief that the Trinity doesn't violate the Koranic understanding of "Shirk." Of course, the Muslim disagrees. See for yourself. This was an excellent debate featuring clear presentations from both sides!

Jehovah's Witnesses and the timing of salvation (video)

Book Review: "God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism," by Bruce Ware

When attempting to refute a disagreeable position, many seek to do so at the expense of offering a positive response. This leaves many with a similar attitude that Peter had when challenged by the Lord Jesus, "Lord, to whom shall we go?" (John 6:68) Bruce Ware, in his book, "God's Lesser Glory," does no such thing. Not only does he offer a solid refutation of the open theist position; he explains why the classical theism position is better.

Many Christians are unaware of the open theist position and how it is seeping into the very fabric of what we call, "conservative evangelicalism." They find it rather odd to hear things like, "God isn't sovereign," or, "God isn't in control." Sure, open theists might use such phraseology, but mean something completely different. The problem is, many Christians have already come to embrace a form of libertarian freedom that seeks to "get God off the hook" when it comes to theodicy (i.e., the "problem" of evil). They reason that because God is all-loving, He cannot be "responsible" for evil. Thus, God "allows" evil, but doesn't "cause" it. The only thing that the Christian can do without being an open theist is to still affirm God's exhaustive knowledge of future events. This keeps God in the realm of being in control. As long as God knows the future (though He didn't actually decree it), we can still attribute "control" to Him since He knows the outcome and knows what's best for His children.

However slippery this slope may be for the Arminian who still affirms God's exhaustive knowledge of future events, Bruce Ware argues in such a way (for the most part) that the Arminian will be able to refute the open theist position. But why should the follower of Jesus Christ be concerned with such an argument? Because the manner in which we conduct our Christian lives are at stake. If God does not know the future, does this not have the most profound implications on how you live your life? As Bruce Ware points out, the future becomes a guessing game that depends solely on the free actions of men. God may desire and do the best he can to preserve the greatest good, but in the end we just can't know for sure what is best; not even God.

Throughout much of the book, Bruce Ware spends a great deal of time explaining the open view of God. I confess to never having read a book by an open theist, but Ware explains their position in such a way that it seems the open theist spends a lot of time explaining the benefits of their position. I have no reason to doubt that the author was accurate in his portrayal of the open view, so I can say that their position was explained in detail and well documented. The two proponents that Ware seemed to focus on the most was John Sanders and Gregory Boyd.

If anything can be said about this book, it would be that it is very "meaty." That is, most of the book was devoted to lengthy exegesis of the key passages; in particular, those which are used by the open proponents to defend their view. Ware's explanation of these texts couldn't have been better. Rather than divert from the texts with responses like, "This text might seem to support your position, but it can't mean that because of this text over here..." the author faces the text head on and offers sound exegesis.

One of these texts included Genesis 22:12. In this text, God says that he learns the state of Abraham's heart. If you are unaware of the open view, keep in mind that they believe that God doesn't actually know everything; he is in a constant state of learning. The author rightly points out the implications if the open position is correct. Ware argues, "First, if God must test Abraham to find out what is in his heart (recall that the text says, "for now I know that you fear God"), then it calls into question God's present knowledge of Abraham's inner spiritual, psychological, mental, and emotional state." (p. 67) Next, Ware points out the irony in whether or not God really needed this text to prove whether Abraham fears God. "That is, while it is significant that the openness interpretation implicitly denies God's present knowledge (the first point), even more telling here is the implicit denial of the specific content of this present knowledge, that is, knowledge that Abraham fears God." (p. 68) Thus, the author refutes the open position by their own standards.

After spending more than enough pages in refuting the open position through their key texts, the author goes into the exegesis of the texts which establish God's exhaustive knowledge of the future. For those of us who have read Pink's, "The sovereignty of God," and other standard works within Reformed theology, Ware was only stating the obvious. That is, it is difficult to imagine how one can read through Isaiah and miss the fact that God not only knows all things, but is in control of all things. Unfortunately, the open theist abandons the clear teaching of Scripture in favor of the freedom of man. This turns God into the divine reactor rather than the divine initiator.

The last section of Ware's book is perhaps what I appreciated most, for he offered the benefits of the classical theistic position in light of the weaknesses of the openness position. One of these benefits that I found to be noteworthy is that of prayer. For me, this is where the rubber meets the road in refuting the so-called "benefits" within open theism. Ware rightly summarizes the issue with, "Your will be done," rather than, "Your will be formed."

In conclusion, I cannot recommend Ware's book enough. Even if open theism is not on the rise in your area, you will find Ware's book to be a refreshing breath of fresh air as he establishes a sound case for God's sovereignty. If you are an Arminian, I would recommend this book to you as well, as you will see that the Reformed position offers the strongest refutation of the open view available.

*This review also appears on my Amazon.com review page.

How NOT to have a discussion with Jehovah's Witnesses

It is obvious that the guy at the door just wanted to argue. Every time the JW tried to explain their position, he would interrupt them. I wonder if this guy went to sleep at night thinking, "wow, I made the world a better place knowing that I might have destroyed these people's faith without offering something positive in return." Even from an argumentative standpoint, this guy did a very poor job in challenging their beliefs. Obviously he was an atheist. But it seemed like the only book he's ever read on atheism is Sam Harris, who's arguments are elementary at best. In other words, had he been a little more informed, he could have posed some much better arguments against the Bible. But obviously, you could tell that he didn't know much about Jehovah's Witnesses; probably thinking that they are just another denomination.

Some atheists really do think that seeing JW's leaving their religion is a good thing; that the world would be a better place if people weren't "deceived" in the way that they are. If someone finds purpose in that, then de-convert every JW that you want. But I recommend using a different approach than this guy. Here's a few tips, whether you are a Christian, Mormon, Atheist, or whatever:

1) Listen to what they have to say. Don't interrupt.

2) Complement them with things like, "Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me, you certainly seem like someone who really cares about knowing the truth."

3) Ask more questions and less arguments. Question marks are shaped like hooks for a reason. They cause people to think. And that's exactly what you want JW's to do.

4) If you are going to make arguments, use good ones. "Oh, so you think the Bible condemns slavery do you? I can show you where it condones it!" This is an example of a bad argument and could be easily refuted by anyone with a rudimentary understanding of apologetics. Also, the, "So which Bible is the Word of God," is a bad argument also, as it conveys the idea that the translation process has something to do with the transmission process. This reminds me of the kinds of things Mormon missionaries will say.

5) Don't expect too much from them if you are using a camera. Cameras make people nervous. In fact, don't use a camera, especially if you want to have a second conversation with them.

6) Don't humiliate them. Making someone feel stupid is about the worst thing you could do. If that's your motive, then I feel sorry for you. If humiliation gratifies you, then you are a sorry human being. Grow up.

7) Just don't do anything this guy did. Do the opposite.

*On a personal note, this video broke my heart. I am saddened that these nice people were humiliated in the way that they were. They so desperately needed to hear the gospel message. And it pains me to think that they may never get to hear this. I hope and pray that followers of Jesus Christ will never treat JW's in this way and use opportunities like this to share the gospel.

Closing statement from Mike (Trinitarian position) on the proposition, "What does the Bible mean when it calls Jesus G/god?"

I would first like to thank my opponent for agreeing to participate in this debate. Because he stuck to the topic, retained excellent candor and respect, and articulated his position very well, it goes to show that two opposing sides can discuss these topics without diverting to personal attacks. I certainly hope this opens the door for future opportunities with Jehovah’s Witnesses and other groups who would disagree with, what I believe to be, essential doctrines of the Christian faith.

With that said, I realize there were quite a few points that were left untouched from both sides. Unfortunately, this is what happens with word limits, time restraints, etc. With that in mind, I hope the reader will look at what was responded to rather than what wasn’t responded to.

I revert back to my opening statement in establishing the semantic range of “God” as used in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. I believe my position to be very clear in establishing what makes one to be G/god in the ontological sense as opposed to those that aren’t. If the Scriptures are consistent (as I believe they are), we would expect only the clearest differentiation so as to avoid the most heinous sin of idolatry.

So the question I ask the reader is, which side provided the most consistent application of the semantic range of “God” as used in the Scriptures? This question is foundational to the debate proposition, “What does the Bible mean when it calls Jesus G/god?” Surely, if one misunderstands the monotheistic context of the Hebrew Scriptures (as I believe my opponent does), then they are likely to also misunderstand the identity of Jesus in the Greek Scriptures.

This is perhaps one of the main reasons why Jehovah’s Witnesses find it so hard to understand why Trinitarians identify Jesus in the way that they do; because of the claims of Jesus and the New Testament writers in light of what the Hebrew Scriptures teach. That is, for Thomas to identify Jesus as, “My Lord and My God,” is only the highest form of blasphemy if, in fact, Jesus isn’t YHWH. Why? Because it is inconceivable that the monotheistic Jew would utter the words of Deuteronomy 6:4 every morning, “Hear, O Israel! YHWH is our God, YHWH is one,” and then utter the words of John 20:28 that same day.

In closing, I hope the reader will consider the words of Jesus in John 8:24, “Unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” In a day in age where there is widespread confusion as to the identity of Jesus, those who claim to be followers of Christ cannot be confused as to who He is. Thanks for reading, and feel free to ask questions in the comment section or email me at entrsnm3@aol.com

Final Rebuttal by David (non-Trinitarian position) on the proposition: "What does the Bible mean when it calls Jesus 'G/god'?"

My opponent’s suggestion that Hebrews 1:3 articulates equality with God and Christ demands more attention be given this text. For the purpose of demonstrating my position and the soundness of it I will rely upon A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edition (BDAG), for defining key terms, while examining a couple of cited parallels will offer further solidification.

Reading my opponent’s words I understand him to have confused ‘God’s being’ with God himself. He has apparently read “the exact representation of his being” to be “the exact representation of him.” There is a reason that the author of Hebrews chose the former over the latter.

The word hupostasis as it was originally understood in this context referred to “the essential or basic structure/nature of an entity, substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality” (p. 1040). I suspect confusion stems from the use of “nature” and “essence,” with my opponent perhaps connecting these with attributes (holiness, power, knowledge) that are aspects of God’s nature. What is here in view is more specifically “substantial nature,” which has nothing to do with such attributes. Instead we are looking at God’s “basic structure,” referring to whatever it is that he consists of. By way of comparison, the “basic structure” of man is flesh.

The meaning here intended is as cited by BDAG comparable to a text in the early Christian Letter to Diognetus. At 2:1 the passage refers to the “substance” (hupostasis) of idols, “whose basic reality is someth[ing] material like stone, metal etc” (ibid.). The notion of attributes such as knowledge, power, holiness or even age was entirely absent. In view was only what idols consisted of materially.

Regarding carakthr, my opponent may be overreaching in attempting to force “exact representation” to essentially mean “identical.” The former is not a necessary force of carakthr, as perhaps best seen when Clement spoke of man as the carakthr of God’s image (1Cle. 33:4). Far from meaning that man is identical to God or his image, or even that they were equal, man is the reproduction or that which was produced as a representation of God’s image and it is only to this extent that he is the “exact representation.”

There exists significant difficulty for the Trinitarian when one considers that Hebrews 1:3 refers to “someth[thing] produced as a representation, reproduction, representation” (p. 1078). As something “produced” or a “reproduction” Jesus is implicitly created. This is perhaps best seen when Beck’s New Testament translation renders carakthr “copy” (similarly, TestSim 5:4).

My opponent made use of a line and a line segment to illustrate what he felt was the trouble with my interpretation of Hebrews 1:3. The illustration only substantiates my position. What Hebrews 1:3 speaks of is not the line itself but what the line is made of. Were the line made of grape juice the language of Hebrews 1:3 would only mean that the line segment consisted of the same. While the line was infinite the segment was not, yet the segment still served as the carakthr of the line’s hupostasis.

The meaning behind this text might well be paralleled with Eve’s creation. Made of Adam’s rib she was produced from his substance. In such a way she was “the exact representation of his being,” having been made of the same material as he. What must be realized is that in her creation holiness, knowledge, power and wisdom were not directly transferred. Neither was age. She was newly created, but created from the substance of Adam. With Hebrews 1:3 we find Jesus as the carakthr to be a creation, but having been made so of God’s hupostasis he was made of the same substance as God. To be clear, this is not to say they share a substance in the Trinitarian sense, only that they are made of the same just as all men consist of flesh. Jesus is the very thing we would expect God’s only son to be.

I had mentioned 1 Corinthians 8:6 as a text defining a distinct difference between God and Christ. To this was given the following response:

This indicates another incorrect assumption on his part that “instrumentality (that Jesus was the agent used to create) indicates an inferiority in nature.”

What my opponent views as only an “incorrect assumption” is in fact accurate. God is by nature the source of all things. If only the Father is the source of all things I would argue that he is the only one who could be identified as God by nature. So the text refers not only to a functional difference but also an ontological one.

Finally my opponent comments on the matter of worship, but his argument repeats his earlier statements, to which I have responded. He is correct in that there were commands to only worship God, one of which Jesus himself repeated. Yet my opponent continues to ignore the full scope of my argument, which is that God came only after exalting Jesus and allowed him to be worshipped. The Bible expressly defines Jesus’ worship as based upon God’s decision and action. It is never said to be based upon Jesus’ identity or role as God Almighty. My opponent can continue appealing to passages that predate God’s exaltation of Jesus and the command to worship him, but these do not overturn what is repeatedly defined in the New Testament. I am reminded in many ways of those who argue similarly that we must today continue to observe the Sabbath.

Question for Jehovah's Witnesses on Galatians 4:8