American Episcopal rift over Gay Bishops Widens

NEW YORK - Two more Episcopal dioceses that consider gay relationships sinful are distancing themselves from the denomination by seeking oversight from fellow Anglicans overseas instead of the American church.

The Dioceses of Springfield, Ill., and Central Florida have joined three other dioceses in rejecting the authority of the Episcopal presiding bishop-elect — a step short of schism — and asking Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to assign them another leader.

Springfield Bishop Peter Beckwith said in a statement Friday that his diocese objects to Nevada Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, who will be installed Nov. 4, because she supports ordaining partnered gays and blessing same-sex couples, among other reasons. Earlier this week, the Dioceses of Pittsburgh, South Carolina and San Joaquin, Calif. made similar statements.

The Episcopal Church, with more than 100 dioceses, is the U.S. branch of the global Anglican Communion, the association of churches that trace their roots to the Church of England.

As the communion's spiritual leader, Williams has been struggling to keep the fellowship unified despite deep differences over the Bible and sexuality.

He said this week that the divisions have become so deep that member churches who support ordaining gays may have to accept a lesser role in the communion to prevent a permanent break.

Who Shot Bobby Kennedy?

Almost 40 years have transpired since 1968 Democtratic Presidential front- runner Robert Kennedy was shot and killed by Sirhan Sirhan in a Los Angeles Hotel. Kennedy, then the junior senator from New York and fomer Attorney General of the United States under his older brother John F. Kennedy.

Many historians and other astute observers of American life and politics have often asked the question "What if Bobby Kennedy lived?"

1968 was one of the most turmoil filled years in American history and the country was almost torn apart over the Vietnam War.

The war in Southeast Asia had greatly divided the country and was very unpopular, so much so it caused then President Lyndon Baines Johnson not to seek re-election.

Bobby Kennedy was a vocal opponent of the Vietnam War, if he had lived and won election as President in 1968, would he have stopped the war sooner? Would many American troops have survived?

An estimated 58,000 American men died in the War in Vietnam, if Bobby Kennedy became president would many of those men lived?

The Bible says in Ephesians 1:11 that" God works all things after the counsel of His will", so was not God ultimately responsible for the death of Bobby Kennedy and the continuation of the Vietnam War that ultimately came to an end in 1975 with the fall of Saigon?

So the question must be asked, "Who Shot Bobby Kennedy?"

Greg Bahnsen on Presuppostional Apologetics

The Impropriety of Evidentially Arguing for the Resurrection by Dr. Greg Bahnsen

It is indubitable that the resurrection of Jesus Christ has paramount significance for the history of redemption and for Christian theology (cf. Rom. 4:25; 1 Peter 1:3). It is also clear that this resurrection must be held by the Biblical Christian as one which took place in calendar time and involved Jesus' empirical body (cf. Luke. 24:39; 1 Cor. 15:4). Moreover, a decisive refutation of the resurrection would shatter the validity of the Christian faith (cf. 1 Cor. 15:14, 17).

Hence the Christian's affirmation of Christ's resurrection is not an empty assumption, dreamy speculation, or a timeless axiom. The Biblical faith is not indifferent to God's acts in history, nor is it pessimistic about evidences. The dead bones of Jesus will never be found, and the believer need never fear investigation into the facts. All facts are created facts which can be properly understood only when given the interpretation the Creator intends; as such, all facts demonstrate the truth of Christianity. So any and all relevant evidence pertaining to Jesus Christ's resurrection in history will be significant for the believer. And such evidence can have a role in his apologetical efforts.

However, a serious difficulty arises when the epistemological significance of the resurrection is separated from its soteriological function. It is correct to hold that God's raising of Jesus from the dead saves us both from sin and agnosticism, but it would be mistaken to understand by this that the epistemological problem could be handled independently of the (broader) moral problem which is at its base. It is with regret that one notices neo-evangelicals severing the justifying efficacy of Christ's resurrection from its truth-accrediting function. In reality, the latter is dependent upon the former. Only as Christ's resurrection (with its ensuing regeneration by the Holy Spirit of Christ) saves a sinner from his rebellion against God and God's word can it properly function to exhibit evidence for God's truthfulness.

Evangelicals are often prone to generate inductive arguments for the veracity of Christianity based on the historical resurrection of Christ, and such arguments occupy central importance in this apologetic. It is felt that if a man would simply consider the "facts" presented and use his common reasoning sense he would be rationally compelled to believe the truth of scripture. In such a case the evidences for Christ's resurrection are foundational to apologetical witnessing, whereas their only proper place is confirmatory of the believer's presupposed faith. There is a certain impropriety about attempting to move an opponent from his own circle into the circle of Christian belief by appealing to evidence for the resurrection, and there are many reasons why the evidentialist's building a case for Christianity upon neutral ground with the unbeliever ought to be avoided.

The first is the Lordship of Christ over the whole of the Christian's life, even his intellectual endeavors. Our every thought must be obedient to Christ (2 Cor. 10:5), and only when He is set apart as Lord in our thinking will we be able to offer a reason for the hope in us (1 Peter 3:15). The Christian cannot relinquish his submission to God's authority in order to reason upon some alleged neutral ground. God makes a radical demand on the believer's life which involves never demanding proof of God or trying Him. Even the Incarnate Son would not put God to the test, but rather relied upon the inscripturated word (cf. Matt. 4). The Christian does not look at the evidence impartially, standing on neutral ground with the unbeliever, waiting to see if the evidence warrants trust in God's truthfulness or not. Rather, he begins by submitting to the truth of God, preferring to view every man as a liar if he contradicts God's truthfulness or not.

Rather, he begins by submitting to the truth of God, preferring to view every man as a liar if he contradicts God's word (cf. Rom. 3:4). No one can demand proof from God, and the servant of the Lord should never give in to any such demand (and obviously, neither should he suggest that such a demand be made by the unbeliever). The apostles were certainly not afraid of evidence; yet we notice that they never argued on the basis of it.

They preached the resurrection without feeling any need to prove it to the skeptics; they unashamably appealed to it as fact. They explained the meaning of the resurrection, its significance, its fulfillment of prophecy, its centrality in theology, its redemptive power, its promise and assuring function - but they did not attempt to prove it by appealing to the "facts" which any "rational man" could use as satisfying scholarly requirements of credibility. By trying to build up a proof of the resurrection from unbiased grounds the Christian allows his witness to be absorbed into a pagan framework and reduces the antithesis between himself and the skeptic to a matter of a few particulars. The Christian world-view differs from that of unbelief at every point (when the skeptic is consistent with his avowed principles), and it is the only outlook which can account for factuality at all. The Christian apologete must present the full message of Christ with all of its challenge and not water it down in order to meet the unbeliever on his own faulty grounds.

Secondly there is a myriad of methodological problems which afflict an evidential argument for the resurrection which is foundational rather than confirmatory of a presupposition. We note immediately that an inductive (historical) argument rests for its validity on the premise of uniformity (past and present) in nature; this makes possible a consideration of an analogy of circumstance. Yet the very point which the evidentialist is trying to prove is that of miracle, i.e. discontinuity. So he is enmeshed in using a principle of continuity to establish the truth of discontinuity! When the evidentialist seeks to exhibit that the resurrection very probably occurred as a unique truth-attesting sign he is divided against himself.

Furthermore, since inductive argumentation is dependent upon the premise of uniformity, and since this premise can only be established by a Christian presupposing the truth of scripture (for Hume's skepticism has yet to be countered on anything but presuppositional grounds), the "evidentialist's" argument is really presuppositional at base anyway. The non-Christian has no right to expect regularity in nature and the honest skeptic knows it; so an inductive argument for the historical resurrection could only have been probative force for one who granted the truth of Christianity already. Next, we observe that probability is statistically predicated of a series in which an event reoccurs on a regular basis; that is, general probability might be proven for a reoccurring event, but the resurrection of Christ is a one-time event. Can probability be predicated of a particular occurrence? Not normally. Again, we note that in recent years the crucial role of paradigms for factual argumentation has become evident (cf. T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

Facts are "facts" for particular theories in which they function; hence the fact of Christ's resurrection can be granted and understood only within the Christian paradigm or presupposition. The rules of evidence and argumentation are not the same for a Christian and non-Christian; they will have different authorities for final appeals, different standards of proof, different sets of considerations which are assumed to be crucially relevant, etc. Hence a step by step argument from the supposition of the historical reliability in the resurrection accounts and its denial is not possible. Another brief indication of difficulty in the evidentialist's attempt to establish the resurrection of Christ is found in the logic of the argument if it be taken as intending to prove the possibility of indeterminacy and oddity in the universe or history; such an argument would point to a world ted by chance, whereas the scriptures clearly present God as sovereignly controlling everything by the word of His power. If oddity and chance become the crux of one's apologetic, then he has forfeited the orthodoxy of his witness. Finally, once the evidentialist has failed to maintain that Christianity is the only adequate basis for a meaningful interpretation of historical facts and not simply a working hypothesis which is "as plausible" as the next with respect to isolated facts, and once he has lowered his sights by appealing to the probability of scripture's truth, then he has left the door open for the skeptic's escape to considerations of possibility. If Christ only probably arose, then it is possible that the evidence adduced has a completely different interpretation; even if certain facts seem to point to the probable resurrection of Jesus, it is admitted that other evidence points to the disconfirmation of the gospel records! But this is not the Christian position, for according to it there is no possibility that Christ did not arise; this is a foundational, incorrigible fact as revealed in God's authoritative word.

Now even if the above considerations were put aside for a moment we would still have to see that the evidential argument for Christ's resurrection is unsuitable as the crux for our apologetic. Under cross-examination most of the considerations brought forth by evidentialists can be dismissed as overstated, gratuitous, or inconclusive. There is little if any basis for holding to a resurrection as probably taking place in the past and arguing that the witnesses are probably reliable is a completely different matter. It is also unsuitable for the intended aim of the argument, for the very place that the witnesses could be mistaken, deceptive, or distorted might be the very event under question! But even putting aside these things, the evidentialist may prove the historical resurrection of Christ, but he proves that it is simply an isolated and uninterpreted "freak" event in a contingent universe. He is still stranded on the far side of Lessing's ditch (i.e. the skeptic can grant that Christ arose and then simply ask what that odd, ancient fact has to do with his own present life and experience). The fact that Christ rose from the dead does not prove anything within the neutral framework of an evidentialist's argument. Christ's resurrection does not entail his deity, just as our future resurrection does not entail our divinity! And one could not argue that the first person to rise from the dead is God, for on that basis Lazarus would have greater claim to deity that Christ! The evidentialist may prove the resurrection of Jesus, but until he proves every other point of Christianity, then resurrection is an isolated, irrelevant, "brute" fact which is no aid to our apologetical efforts. Only within the system of Christian logic does the resurrection of Christ have meaning and implication; and that system of logical entailment and premises can only be used on a presuppositional basis - you do not argue into it. In terms of the evidentialist's approach to the unbeliever, that skeptic can accept the resurrection without flinching, for the resurrection is simply a random fact until a Christian foundation has been placed under it. Furthermore, in the past men like Reimarus and Paulus have utilized the same enlightened, scientific methodology as that of evidentialism and have concluded that Christ could not have rose from the dead. It is terribly unwise for the Christian to stake his apologetic on the shifting sands of "scientific" scholarship.

Scripture itself should be enough to dissuade a person from depending upon evidential arguments for Christ's resurrection. God's word makes clear that man's rebellion against the truth is morally, not intellectually, rooted. The sinner needs a changed heart and Spiritually opened eyes, not more facts and reasons. Moreover, proving the resurrection as a historical fact would have no effect as far as engendering belief in God's word.

The only tool an apologete needs is the word of God, for the sinner will either presuppose its truth and find Christianity to be coherent and convincing (given his spiritual condition and past experience) or he will reject it and never be able to come to a knowledge of the truth. "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31). God's word is sufficient in giving the sinner the necessary witness which can lead him to conversion; if he will not hear the inspired word of God, neither will he be moved by a human argument for the resurrection. A proof of the resurrection is certainly no more powerful than the living and bodily presence of the resurrected Savior before one's own eyes; yet we learn from Matthew 28:17 that even some of the eleven disciples of Christ doubted while in His resurrected presence! When one is not ready to submit to God's self-attesting word, no amount of evidence can persuade him - even compelling evidence for Christ's resurrection. When Christ met with two travelers on the road to Emmaus and found them doubtful about the resurrection, He rebuked them for being slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken (Luke 24:25). Rather than offering them compelling evidence for His resurrection (by immediately opening their eyes to recognize Him), He made their hearts burn within them by expounding to them the Scriptures.

Therefore, for moral, methodological, material, and pragmatic reasons we should see the impropriety of arguing for the resurrection of Christ in an evidentialist fashion. Although evidence has a part in the Christian apologetic, it is not the pivotal and foundational part. While we may momentarily silence the belligerent claim of the skeptic by showing that even on his tacit assumptions the resurrection is not a sheer impossibility (as evidence would indicate), our central defense of the faith had better be made of stronger stuff. As Paul at Athens, we must demand a complete, change of world-outlook and presupposition (based on the authority of God's word) and not just a mere addition of a few facts.

(For further reading on evidences in apologetics see C. Van Til's Christian-Theistic Evidences)

Biography on Greg Bahnsen

Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen was once described as "the man atheists fear most." He was a distinguished scholar, author, and Christian apologist. A graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (M.Div., Th.M.), he received his Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Southern California. While at Westminster, he had the privilege of studying under Dr. Cornelius Van Til, the father of presuppositionalism. He was an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

He was the author of Theonomy in Christian Ethics, a unique treatise on the ongoing validity of the application of God's law for us today.He also authored No Other Standard - Thenomy and Its Critics and House Divided: The Breakup of Dispensational Theology with Dr. Kenneth Gentry.

He traveled extensively and had the opportunity to visit Moscow, Russia and bring the light of God's Word to bear on that needy society. At the time of his death in December, 1995, he was the resident scholar at the Southern California Center for Christian Studies in Irvine, CA.
See also interview with Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen at Contra Mundum. and Tribute to Greg Bahnsen
Applied Presuppositionalism Home

Is Superman America's Jesus Christ?

Superman or Super Idol? America's Obsession with Cinematic Idolatry


by Ed Enochs
Theological Nomad,
The Evangelical Debate Society


"Because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen" (Romans 1:25).



Today marks the nationwide release of the summer motion picture blockbuster, Superman Returns. As many American's rush towards the theaters to experience firsthand, the latest and greatest groovy cinematic exploits of the man from Krypton, I am left wondering if contemporary Americana's fixation on fictitious Super heroes in glorified pajama's, leaves me wondering if there isn't something inherent within humanity that longs for to worship a figure that is greater than the themselves.

The wild cultural popularity of this super hero genre of films that has emerged from Hollywood is a seeming verification of the eminent German theologian and comparative religion scholar Rudolf Otto's thesis in his seminal and epic sociological work entitled, The Idea of the Holy, wherein Otto argues that all people in all cultures at all times seek to worship something that transcends the mundane. Otto argues that all men and women, irrespective of social stature and geographical location seek the numinous, or a non-rational, non-sensory experience of feeling whose primary and immediate object of fixation is external or outside of ones self. Otto derived this conception based on the Latin "numen" (Deity).

Popular American culture's worship and fascination with make believe hero's demonstrates the innate depravity of the human heart wherein people generally worship the created thing or make up "god's" for themselves like Aaron making the golden calf for the children of Israel. A pagan god that gives them some sense of spiritual satisfaction without the accountability to the true and living God as revealed in Holy Scripture. This universal trend towards depravity and idolatry is what the Apostle Paul refers to in Romans chapter one when he writes under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit,

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles" (Romans 1:18-23).

While the general American populace does not worship idols made with hands (unless you count their obsession with bigger and better homes and SUV's) yet this transcendent depraved condition towards idolatry is witnesses by our culture's worship of music stars, sports players and movie stars.

As Christians in a postmodern world given over to style without substance, to worship without accountability, we must turn to the preeminece of Jesus Christ and avoid drinking the sweet , indulgent Kool Aid of popular American culture that is good old satanic idolatry in disguise.

"Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross" (Colossians 1:14-20).

We must turn from our idolatry and abject sinfulness towards the true and living God who sent His only begotten Son Jesus Christ into the world to die upon the cross for our sins and rise again from the dead to give us eternal life if we sincerely repent from our sins and believe in the Gospel.

"The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead" (Acts 17:30-31).

Help End Abortion Now!

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that most laws against abortion violate a constitutional right to privacy, overturning all state laws outlawing or restricting abortion. It is one of the most controversial decisions in U.S. Supreme Court history. We here at the Evangelical Debate Society are dedicated to overturning Roe v. Wade and seeing the complete banning of Abortion throughout America.

For more info on how you can help stop abortion now please log on to :http://www.nrlc.org/

In Defense of Martin Luther

The German Reformer Martin Luther is getting a lot bunk filled criticism in theological circles today, but we here at the Evangelical Debate Society, support Luther and agree with his essential theological thesis that:

"We are justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone based on the authority of the Bible alone for the Glory of God alone."

I am Theologian X

Contemporary Iconoclasm- the destroyer of pop icons in postmodern Americana...

Iconoclasm is the destruction of religious icons and other symbols or monuments, usually for religious or political motives. In Christian circles, iconoclasm has generally been motivated by a literal interpretation of the second of the ten commandments, which forbids the making and worshipping of "graven images". It has sometimes been motivated by christological or even political concerns as well.

Westminster Confession on Predestination

CHAPTER III.

Of God's Eternal Decree.

I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions.

III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.

IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished.

V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.

VI. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

VII. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.

VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.

Kurt Cobain, Nietzsche and the Kingdom of God

Nihilism...

is a philosophical position which argues that the world, and especially human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. Nihilists generally believe all of the following: There is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, a "true morality" is unknown, and secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has no truth, and no action is known to be preferable to any other.

Nihilism is often more of a charge leveled against a particular idea, movement, or group, than a position to which someone overtly subscribes. Movements such as Dadaism, Deconstructionism, and punk have been described at various times as "nihilist". Usually this simply means or is meant to imply that the beliefs of the accuser are more "substantial" or "truthful", whereas the beliefs of the accused are nihilistic, and thereby comparatively amount to "nothing".
Nihilism is also a characteristic that has been ascribed to time periods: for example, Baudrillard has called postmodernity a nihilistic epoch, and some Christian theologians and figures of authority assert that modernity and postmodernity represent the rejection of God, and therefore are nihilistic.
Prominent philosophers who have written on the subject of nihilism include Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger. Nietzsche described Christianity as a nihilistic religion because it evaded the challenge of finding meaning in earthly life, creating instead a spiritual projection where mortality and suffering were removed instead of transcended. He believed nihilism resulted from the "death of God", and insisted that it was something to be overcome, by returning meaning to a monistic reality (he sought instead a "pragmatic idealism," in contrast to the prominent influence of Schopenhauer's "cosmic idealism"). Heidegger described nihilism as the state where "there is nothing left of Being as such," and argued that nihilism rested on the reduction of Being to mere value.

Nihilism and God is dead...

Nietzsche saw nihilism as the outcome of repeated frustrations in the search for meaning. He diagnosed nihilism as a latent presence within the very foundations of European culture, and saw it as a necessary and approaching destiny. The religious worldview had already suffered a number of challenges from contrary perspectives grounded in philosophical skepticism, and in modern science's evolutionary and heliocentric theory. Nietzsche saw this intellectual condition as a new challenge to European culture, which had extended itself beyond a sort of point-of-no-return. Nietzsche conceptualizes this with the famous statement "God is dead", which first appeared in his work in section 108 of The Gay Science, again in section 125 with the parable of "The Madman", and even more famously in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. The statement, typically placed in quotation marks,[1] accentuated the crisis that Nietzsche argued that Western culture must face and transcend in the wake of the irreparable dissolution of its traditional foundations, moored largely in classical Greek philosophy and Christianity.[2]

Kurt Cobain: The Prophet of Destruction

Hey wait...I've got a new conplaint...



It is doubtful there has ever existed an anti-establishment figure who ironically became the establishment as Kurt Cobain (1967-1994), the scraggly haired, alternative rock guitarist and frontman of the Seattle area grunge band Nirvana who played in my hometown Ann Arbor Michigan on April 10, 1990.

A generation of young people were heavily influenced by the sound and self-destructive ethos of Kurt Cobain and Nirvana, so much, that the entire music scene was changed forever after hearing Cobain and his grunge mates alternate between punk rock, heavy metal and Beatlesque pop ballads all in the same song.

In 1991 Nirvana's Nevermind Album caused an international sensation, thrusting the sensitive and drug addicted Cobain to the forefront of popular western culture, something his music ironically decried and loathed with their very being...

The essential ideological ethos of all of Cobain and Nirvana's music was nihilism, angst, disillusionment and total disenfranchisement from the mainstream society that ultimately christened Cobain as a sort of anti-Elvis pop icon.

In the end Kurt Cobain was a rebel, instead of turning to God in order to be healed from the intense pain and sense of alienation he felt, Cobain became a blasphemer, whose hatred of God and absolute truth is an essential motive throughout his music. Now more than likely Cobain, who sang of his alienation from society will now spend eternity in the lake of fire, forever separated and alienated from Almighty God.

Ironically, Cobain fulfilled the destiny of the following Nirvana Song entitled, Lake of Fire,

Where do bad folks go when they die?

They don't go to heaven where the angels fly

They go to the lake of fire and fry...

Is Your Theology Better than this?

the state of Evangelical theology in California

Just Say No to Pot: Should Marijuana be Legalized?

In recent years, there has been a major movement in California to legalize Marijuana by various organizations. Because of the interest in this subject on university and college campuses here in California, we have decided to host a debate on this subject at a University nearby. Stay tuned for the Pot Debate: Should Marijuana be Legalized?

Thought for the Day

"God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him"

~ John Piper

The Greatest Films of All Time

Crisis in Anglican Church

Episcopal delegates to adopt resolution

By RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Episcopal delegates approved a last-ditch attempt by their chief pastor Wednesday to salvage worldwide Anglican unity, voting to adopt a resolution that calls on U.S. church leaders to "exercise restraint" when considering gay candidates for bishop.
The nonbinding measure stops far short of the moratorium on gay bishops that Anglican leaders demanded to calm conservative outrage over the 2003 consecration of Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, who lives with his longtime male partner.

But it may leave open the chance for discussion between leaders of the Episcopal Church and other members of the Anglican Communion, who are badly at odds over gay clergy. Traditionalists hold that the Bible specifically prohibits gay .
The legislation passed in the final hours of an anguished nine-day General Convention. It asks Episcopal leaders to "exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration" of candidates for bishop "whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church."
The House of Deputies, comprised of more than 800 lay people and clergy, voted for the compromise resolution, one day after killing stronger legislation that would have urged dioceses to refrain from choosing bishops in same-gender relationships.

The vote came after direct pleas from outgoing Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold and Nevada Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, who will become presiding bishop in November, that deputies approve something to signal they understand the anger of Anglican leaders.
"Unless there is a clear perception on the part of our Anglican brothers and sisters that they have been taken seriously in their concerns, it will be impossible to have any genuine conversation," Griswold said Wednesday in a special joint session that he called of both houses.
Still, the resolution is not binding and Bishop John Chane of the Diocese of Washington, D.C., said immediately after it passed that he would not follow it.

"My own understanding of my responsibility as a bishop is to live into the integrity of my office," Chane said in a statement.

Presbyterians Suggest Gender-Inclusive Language in Worship

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — The divine Trinity — "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" — could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb" or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend" at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services under an action Monday by the church's national assembly.

Delegates to the meeting voted to "receive" a policy paper on gender-inclusive language for the Trinity, a step short of approving it. That means church officials can propose experimental liturgies with alternative phrasings for the Trinity, but congregations won't be required to use them. "This does not alter the church's theological position, but provides an educational resource to enhance the spiritual life of our membership," legislative committee chair Nancy Olthoff, an Iowa laywoman, said during Monday's debate on the Trinity.

The assembly narrowly defeated a conservative bid to refer the paper back for further study.
A panel that worked on the issue since 2000 said the classical language for the Trinity should still be used, but added that Presbyterians also should seek "fresh ways to speak of the mystery of the triune God" to "expand the church's vocabulary of praise and wonder."

One reason is that language limited to the Father and Son "has been used to support the idea that God is male and that men are superior to women," the panel said.

Conservatives responded that the church should stick close to the way God is named in the Bible and noted that Jesus' most famous prayer was addressed to "Our Father."
Besides "Mother, Child and Womb" and "Rock, Redeemer, Friend," proposed Trinity options drawn from biblical material include:
— "Lover, Beloved, Love"
— "Creator, Savior, Sanctifier"
— "King of Glory, Prince of Peace, Spirit of Love."
Early in Monday's business session, the Presbyterian assembly sang a revised version of a familiar doxology, "Praise God from whom all blessings flow" that avoided male nouns and pronouns for God.
Youth delegate Dorothy Hill, a student at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, was uncomfortable with changing the Trinity wording. She said the paper "suggests viewpoints that seem to be in tension with what our church has always held to be true about our Trinitarian God."

Hill reminded delegates that the Ten Commandments say "the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."

The Rev. Deborah Funke of Montana warned that the paper would be "theologically confusing and divisive" at a time when the denomination of 2.3 million members faces other troublesome issues.

On Tuesday, the assembly will vote on a proposal to give local congregations and regional "presbyteries" some leeway on ordaining clergy and lay officers living in gay relationships.
Ten conservative Presbyterian groups have warned jointly that approval of what they call "local option" would "promote schism by permitting the disregard of clear standards of Scripture."

Jesus Christ is Almighty God, the First and the Last

My Debate Message against the Biblical Unitarians

Friday, June 16th 2006

By Ed Enochs
Chairman,
The Evangelical Debate Society



In the pages of Holy Scripture, the Lord God of Israel is known by many names, among the many names God is called in the Bible are as follows,


~ Yahweh, or Jehovah, the one true God

~El Gibbor, “the Mighty God”

~El El-yon, “The most high God”

~ El Shaddai. “The Almighty”

~Elohim, the plural noun for the one true God,

~ El Olam, “The everlasting God”


Almighty God is also known in Holy Scripture as the Alpha and the Omega and the First and the Last.


In the Old Testament God calls Himself the First and the Last which is translated in Hebrew as

‘ECHAD and ‘Acharown” (ach-arown)

In Isaiah 41:4 God says,

“Who has performed and done this, calling the generations from the beginning? I, the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he”


In Isaiah 44:6 Almighty God says,

Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

Similarly, in the New Testament God calls Himself the Alpha and the Omega and the First and the Last

In Greek, the term first and the Last is Protos and Eschatos.

In the New Testament God calls Himself the First and the Last.

When we carefully probe who is speaking in these key passages, we find out clearly find out it is Jesus Christ who is calling Himself Almighty God and the First and the Last. Hence, demonstrating that Jesus saw Himself as God and that the Bible teaches the Deity of Christ, a major tenet of the Trinitarian theology.

It is also very clear in the Book of Revelation it is not the Father who is calling Himself the Almighty, who is also the First and the Last, but none other the Lord Jesus Christ, thus demonstrating unequivocally and irrefutably that Jesus Christ is God and the Doctrine of the Trinity is true and Biblical Unitarianism, is proven false.


Rev. 1:8-9 says,

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."


Rev. 1:11 says, 1 saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,”

Thus it is clear from these two passages that Almighty God is speaking and that He calls Himself the Alpha and the Omega and the First Last.

Revelation chapter 1:17-18 and Revelation 2:8 clearly demonstrate that the First and the First and the Last is Jesus Christ, since these Scriptures say the First and the Last died and rose again from the dead.


Rev. 1: 17 through 18 says,


When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, "Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore,

Revelation 2:8 says,

"And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: 'The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life.



In Revelation 22:13

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."


It is clear and irrefutable in these crucial passages that Jesus Christ is called Almighty God (pantokratwr), the Lord God, the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last.


The errors of the Biblical Unitarians are egregious in the handling of these crucial texts and no amount of exegetical gymnastics can allow them to escape the irrefutable fact that Jesus Christ is the Almighty God, the Alpha and the Omega the First and the Last.

Dr. AT Robertson, the best Greek scholar of the 20TH Century says the following on Revelation 22:13




I am the Alpha and the Omega (Egw to Alpa kai to O). Applied to God in Revelation 1:8; Revelation 21:6, and here alone to Christ, crowning proof in this book of Christ's deity. So in Revelation 21:6 God is termed, as Christ is here, h arch kai to teloß (the beginning and the end), while o prwtoß kai o escatoß (the first and the last) is applied only to Christ (Revelation 1:17; Revelation 2:8). Solemn assurance is thus given that Christ is qualified to be the Judge of verse Revelation 22:12


I am well aware that the Biblical Unitarians believe that both Father and the Son are called the Alpha and the Omega and that in Revelation 1:18 and 2:8 when it says the First and the Last died and rises again from the dead, that in these passages pertain to Christ only, but Revelation 1:8-9 which calls the first and the last, the Lord God and the “Almighty” only refers to the Father.

However this is hermeneutical suicide and clearly exegetical evasion, since there are absolutely no textual indicators whatsoever delineated in these passages that indicate that in some cases Jesus Christ is called the Alpha and the Omega and the First and the Last, but then is some cases, especially in the case when the First and the Last is called the Lord God and the Almighty it only refers to the Father.

This practicing an exegesis of convience rather that allowing the Scripture speak for itself and demonstrates that the Biblical Unitarians have a presuppotional bias against the deity of Christ already held when they attempt to interpret the text for itself.

For example, on Page 139 of Anthony Buzzard’s Book, “The Doctrine of the Trinity”, Christianity’s Self Inflicted Womb, Buzzard, shows this exegetical bias and mishandling of the word when he says God the Father is both the Alpha and the Omega, the Almighty and not Jesus Christ. He says that Jesus Christ is only the First and Last of God’s creation because God cannot die and since Christ died, He cannot die.

This shows us that the Biblical Unitarians such as are opponents tonight already hold to a bias that Jesus cannot be God before they even attempt to exegete these crucial passages in Revelation regarding Jesus being the Alpha and the Omega and the First and the Last, since there is nothing in these Revelation texts that specifically says that when Revelation 1:8-9 says Almighty God is the Alpha and the Omega and the First and the Last it refers to the Father, but in Revelation 1:18 and Revelation 2:8 says the First and the Last died and rose again from the dead it only then refers to Jesus Christ.

Nothing in these texts differentiates this and leads us to believe that the Scriptures teach that the Father is sometimes the First and the Last, specially when the First and the Last is called Almighty God and then sometimes the Son is called the First and Last, especially when it says the First and the Last is died and rose again from the dead it only then refers to Jesus. Nothing in the text distinguishes this and leads us to believe that in the Book of Revelation two individuals are called the Alpha and the Omega and the First and the Last.

The clear weight and evidence of Scripture demonstrates that the First and the Last who is called the Almighty and the Lord God in Revelation 1:8-9 is one and the same person as the same First and the Last mentioned in Revelation 1:18 and Revelation 2:8 that says the First and the Last died and rose again from the dead. And since nothing in these texts makes this demarcation, we are compelled by clear exegetical evidence that the First and the Last’s mentioned in these crucial texts is one and the same person.

And since it is clear that when the texts say that the First and the Last died and rose again it is referring to Jesus Christ, we must also be compelled to accept that Jesus Christ is Almighty God since Revelation 1:8-9 says that the First and the Last is called the Lord God and the Almighty God.

Thus, theses passages teach that Jesus Christ is God, a cardinal tenet of Trinitarian belief and the Biblical Unitarians are refuted, found wanting and left with exegetical evasionary tactics.

The evidence I have presented to you is clear and its line of reasoning is irrefutable. And like Jack Nicholson told Tom Cruise in a “Few Good Men” the Biblical Unitarians, “just can’t handle the truth!”

Apologetics for the Glory of God

Message Given on Sunday Evening, June 11, 2006 at
DC Fellowship Church, Moreno Valley California

by Ed Enochs
Chairman,
The Evangelical Debate Society


Over the past several months I have grown to love this church, and I greatly appreciate all the support you have given Pastors Mike, Gabe and I in coming out to our debates we have held against the Unitarians.

I would like to invite you out to my home church, Calvary Chapel Saving Grace this Friday night, June 16 at 7:00pm as Pastor Mike, Joel Hughes and I debate three Biblical Unitarians on the Doctrine of the Trinity.

The subject of apologetics, or defending the Christian faith is something that has consumed by life for the last twenty years.

I grew up in an unbelieving home and became a Christian on the University of Michigan Campus after I was given books by CS Lewis and Josh McDowel, giving evidence on why the Christian faith was true.

Since that time twenty years ago, I have dedicated my life to defending the Christian faith against ideological attack and to giving answers to demonstrate why Christianity is true.

The term Apologetics, or giving a reasoned defense of the Christian world view is taken from the Greek world, Apologia which means to give a reasoned verbal defense for something. Or to give a reasoned statement or argument.



Thus the term apologia of a formal defense of a cause or of one's beliefs or actions (from the Latin apologia, from the Greek "apo" and "logos").

The term is used in classical antiquity in the instance of the Apology (of Socrates) Plato's version of the speech given by Socrates as he defends himself against the charges of being a man "who corrupted the young, did not believe in the gods, and created new deities".


In 1 Peter 3:15 we also find the Greek term Apologia used, the English Standard Version reads,

But in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you”

The term apologia is also used in Acts 22:1

Acts 22
1"Brothers and fathers, hear the defense that I now make before you."

Acts 25:16
I answered them that it was not the custom of the Romans to give up anyone before the accused met the accusers face to face and had opportunity to make his defense concerning the charge laid against him

1 Corinthians 9:3

This is my defense to those who would examine me.

Philippians 1:7
It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.
Philippians 1:16 Paul writes,

The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel.

2 Timothy 4:16

At my first defense no one came to stand by me, but all deserted me. May it not be charged against them!



John Frame, professor of Apologetics at Reformed Theological Seminary in his book entitled, “Apologetics for the Glory of God” distinguishes the three facets of Apologetics:

1. Proof: presenting a rational basis for faith.

2. Defense: Answering objections to unbelief.

3. Offense: Exposing the foolishness of unbelieving thought.

The late Presuppostionalist Apologists Dr. Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen agure that among the functions of Biblical Apologetics is to.

1. Demonstrate the validity of the Christian worldview and truth claims.

2. To demonstrate the futility of all non Christian worldviews and that all non-Christian world-views will breakdown as being erroneous and self-contradictory as they are shown to contradict the Bible’s revealed teachings.



Again, in the Book of Acts we see the Apostle Paul engaged in the task of Apologetics throughout the book,

Acts 9:22 says,

Saul increased the more in strength and confounded the Jews that dwelt at Damascus, proving that Jesus is the Messiah.

Acts 17:2 says,

As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures

Acts 17:17 says,

So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there, [including] certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers.

Acts 18:4 says,

Every Sabbath Paul reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.

Acts 19:8-9 says,

Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God... [and later] reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.

It is necessary to defend the Christian Faith in order to give non-Christians Biblical reasons why the Christian faith in true and to guard the Church against the heresies of false prophets and false teachers that rise up in and outside the church time after time again.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 says, “to test all things, to hold fast to the truth”

1 John 4:1 tells us to test the spirits whether they be of God, for many false teachers have gone out into the world.

Jesus Christ said, “Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous worlves.

In Acts chapter 20, the Apostle Paul warns the Church in Ephesus,
I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears.

Paul also said in 2 Timothy 4:1-5

I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

Throughout the entire history of the Christian Church, we have had to guard ourselves against the doctrines of false teachers.

In the First century, the early church had to defend itself against the heretical teaching of the judiazers mentioned in books such as Galatians and hebrews, who tried to force jewish converts to Christianty back under the jewish law and attempted to force them to practice unbiblical rules and regulations that are contrary to Scripture such as circumscion and adhering to certain dietary laws.

The Church in the first few centuries also had to deal with the heresies known as Gnosticism and Docetism.

The Gnostics were a early heretical cult that taught that they alone were initiated into the true “knowledge” or gnosis, and they tought the heretical view that since all matter is evil, Jesus Christ could not have taken on an actual human body, but only appeared to take on a body, but was in actuality a hologram that appeared as the form of Christ.

The term
Docetism (from the Greek δοκέω [dokeō], "to seem") is the belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die.



In the Second Century, the Patristic followers, the immediate leades of the Christian Church after the passing of the Apostles, had to deal with the Gnostics as well as the heresies of the false teachers Marcion

Marcion and his followers-

Heretical sect founded in A.D. 144 at Rome by Marcion and continuing in the West for 300 years, but in the East some centuries longer, especially outside the Byzantine Empire. They rejected the writings of the Old Testament and taught that Christ was not the Son of the God of the Jews, but the Son of the good God, who was different from the God of the Ancient Covenant. They anticipated the more consistent dualism of Manichaeism and were finally absorbed by it. As they arose in the very infancy of Christianity and adopted from the beginning a strong ecclesiastical organization, parallel to that of the Catholic Church,


The early apologists, Justin the Martyr, Tertullian, and Irenaeus all wrote apologetical works against Marcion and his Followers as well as wrote works against the Pagan Platonic opponent of early Christianity named Celsus.
Celsus the Platonist was a polemical writer against Christianity, who flourished towards the end of the second century. he wrote a work entitled "The True Discourse" against the Christian religion.

Celsus's work may be divided as follows: a preface, an attack on Christianity from the point of view of Judaism, an attack on Christianity from the point of view of philosophy, a refutation of Christian teachings in detail, and an appeal to Christians to adopt paganism.

In the fourth century the Arian Controversy caused a young man named Athanasius to write a work on apologetics entitled the Incarnation of the Word against Arius who denied the doctrine of the Deity of Christ and argued that Jesus Christ was not God but was rather a created being, much like the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach today.

About a hundred years later, the major theologian Augustine of Hippo wrote works against the Pelagians and the Donantists.

Throughout the history of the Church the church has been attacked from within and from without and Christians have had to defend the Christian faith against the false teachings of the heretics.

In our own day there are many opponents of Christianity that are attacking the Christian Church such as the proponents of, Postmodernism evolution and secular humanism. Atheists and agnostics aganst the church are abounding.

There are also cults flourishing across America that are making millions of disciples. Cults such as the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are making converts at an alarming rate.

We must be like the apostle Paul and defend the Christian faith against all oppostion for the glory of God.

The Doctrine of the Trinity is true.

Jesus Christ is God.

The Bible is true.

This is why we defend the Christian faith all for the glory of Almighty God!

Jesus Christ is God in human flesh, He died on the cross and rose again from the dead in order to give eternal life to all those who repent of their sins and place their faith in Him.

"But these have been written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and that by believing you might have life in His name" (John 20:31).

My Thoughts on this Weekend's Debate

"Do the work of an evangelist fulfill your ministry"

(2 Timothy 4:5).


Let the Debate Begin!

Live this Thursday and Friday Night at 7:00pm!


It's the Great Debate Weekend!




This Thursday Night at 7:00pm, Pastor Matt Nicastro, of Calvary Chapel Saving Grace will be giving a special message on the Inspiration and Authority of the Bible and dealing with the perennial question, "Why Should We Trust the Bible?" Special Music will be performed by worship leader Lambert Lo and his praise band from Kona Hawaii.

Lambert Lo is a long time personal friend who graduated from Biola University with a degree in Biblical Studies and has an amazing spiritual gift of leading worship and has opened up for some of America's leading Evangelical speakers and bands, so it should be a great time!

This Friday (June 16th) we feature our great three on three debate between Trinitarians Ed Enochs, Joel Hughes and Mike Sarkissian vs. Biblical Unitarians Danny Dixon, Robert Hach and David Murphy.

This debate with these Biblical Unitarians is the last in a series of debates with this group. The First debate featured Pastors Mike, Gabe and I , vs. Danny Dixon, Dan Mages and Lee Greer and was hosted in Riverside California at the historic First Congergational Church on December 30, 2005.

The second debate was a one on one event between Dan Mages and I and was hosted at Calvary Chapel Saving Grace on May 26th 2006.

The location of this third debate is again at Calvary Chapel Saving Grace this Friday at 7:00pm


I personally look forward to this rubber match and final debate with the Biblical Unitarians and should be a dramatic time, since they are bringing out guys from across the country to debate us.

Over the last few months, I have received a lot of input about these debates. Some negative and some postitive. It seems like almost everyone has an opinion on how we could do these debates better.

My response to all of this, is the following, I have personally done less than ten formal debates, and I am growing in my abilities and look at all these debates as a preparation and learning experience. I greatly appreciate all the constructive criticism I have received, it only helps to make me a better speaker, debater and event coordinator.

James White is an awesome debater and I am learing so much from his tapes, videos and books as I am from reading Dr. Robert Morey's materials as well.

I have also received an enormous amount of positive support in doing these debates and I want to thank my loyal base of support out there, it means a lot to me

I am doing the best I can to take on the issues and provide the Evangelical community with the best debates possible and we look forward to doing more debates and hosting debates for major Evangelical Apologists from across the country.

We see the purpose of these debates as a means of focusing one the issues facing American Evangelicalism today, presenting Biblical truth against what we perceive to be error and to communicate the Gospel to non-Christians who may attend these events.

I want to tell everyone that I love you and I appreciate you all!


I want to personally invite everyone out to this Thursday and Friday nights special events.


Sincerely in Jesus Christ,

Ed Enochs

The Evangelical Debate Society

Dr. Al Mohler Jr's Website and Blog

One of America's leading Evangelical spokespersons and theologians is Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville Kentucky. Please check out his website and blog at:

http://www.albertmohler.com/

Studies in the First Epistle of John

1 John 2:1

2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous (English Standard Version).

2:1 τεκνια μου ταυτα γραφω υμιν ινα μη αμαρτητε και εαν τις αμαρτη παρακλητον εχομεν προς τον πατερα ιησουν χριστον δικαιον (1881 Westcott and Hort Edition of the Greek NT).

2:1 Filioli mei, haec scribo vobis, ut non peccetis; quod si quis peccaverit, advocatum habemus apud Patrein, Jesum Christurn justum (Latin Vulgate)

A.T. Robertson on 2:1 (Word Pictures of the NT)

My little children (teknia mou). Tender tone with this diminutive of teknon (child), again in John 2:12; John 3:18, but paidia in John 2:14. John is now an old man and regards his readers as his little children. That attitude is illustrated in the story of his visit to the robber to win him to Christ. That ye may not sin (ina mh amarthte). Purpose (negative) clause with ina mh and the second aorist (ingressive, commit sin) active subjunctive of amartanw, to sin. John has no patience with professional perfectionists (John 1:8-10), but he has still less with loose-livers like some of the Gnostics who went to all sorts of excesses without shame. If any man sin (ean tiß amarth). Third-class condition with ean and second aorist (ingressive) active subjunctive again, "if one commit sin." We have (ecomen). Present active indicative of ecw in the apodosis, a present reality like ecomen in 2 Corinthians 5:1. An advocate (paraklhton). See on John 14:16,26; John 15:26; John 16:7 for this word, nowhere else in the N.T. The Holy Spirit is God's Advocate on earth with men, while Christ is man's Advocate with the Father (the idea, but not the word, in Romans 8:31-39; Hebrews 7:25). As dikaioß (righteous) Jesus is qualified to plead our case and to enter the Father's presence (Hebrews 2:18).

Key Greek Word: advocate (paraklhton).
Original Word

Transliterated Word
para/klhtov
parakletos
Translated Words
advocate, Advocate


Definition

summoned, called to one's side, esp. called to one's aid
one who pleads another's cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for defense, legal assistant, an advocate

one who pleads another's cause with one, an intercessor
of Christ in his exaltation at God's right hand, pleading with God the Father for the pardon of our sins

in the widest sense, a helper, succourer, aider, assistant
of the Holy Spirit destined to take the place of Christ with the apostles (after his ascension to the Father), to lead them to a deeper knowledge of the gospel truth, and give them divine strength needed to enable them to undergo trials and persecutions on behalf of the divine kingdom

John 14:16 -
AndI will pray the Father, and he shall give you another advocate, that he may abide with you for ever;
John 14:26 -
But the advocate, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoeverI have said unto you.
John 15:26 -
But when the advocate is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 16:7 -
NeverthelessI tell you the truth; It is expedient for you thatI go away: for ifI go not away, the advocate will not come unto you; but ifI depart, I will send him unto you.
John 14:16 (English Standard Version)
English Standard Version (ESV)
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,
Footnotes:
John 14:16 Or Advocate, or Counselor; also 14:26; 15:26; 16:7


Calvin on 2:1
advocate. By these words he confirms what we have already said, that we are very far from being perfectly righteous, nay, that we contract new guilt daily, and that yet there is a remedy for reconciling us to God, if we flee to Christ; and this is alone that in which consciences call acquiesce, in which is included the righteousness of men, in which is founded the hope of salvation. The conditional particle, if, ought to be viewed as causal; for it cannot be but that we sin. In short, John means, that we are not only called away from sin by the gospel, because God invites us to himself, and offers to us the Spirit of regeneration, but that a provision is made for miserable sinners, that they may have God always propitious to them, and that the sins by which they are entangled, do not prevent them from becoming just, because they have a Mediator to reconcile them to God. But in order to shew how we return into favor with God, he says that Christ is our advocate; for he appears before God for this end, that he may exercise towards us the power and efficacy of his sacrifice.


Key Theological Terms and Issues:

Docetism (from the Greek δοκέω [dokeō], "to seem") is the belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die. This belief has historically been regarded as heretical by Biblical Christian theologians.

Gnosticism –Early heretical belief system that tought that only the initiated possesed “special knowledge” (gnosis) were antinomian and believed that all matter was evil. There fore Jesus Christ only appeared to take on a body of human flesh.

Harmatology: The study of the origin, effects and implications of sin.

Sinless Perfectionism: A belief that moral or spiritual perfection can be achieved in the Christian life through sanctification and mortification.

Sanctification or in its verb form, sanctify, literally means to set apart for special use or purpose, that is to make holy or sacred (compare Latin sanctus 'holy'). Therefore sanctification refers to the state or process of being set apart, i.e. made holy.

Antinomianism (Koine Greek αντι, against, νομος, law), or lawlessness (ανομια), in theology is the idea that members of a particular religious group are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality as presented by religious authorities. Antinomianism is the polar opposite of legalism, the notion that obedience to a code of religious law is necessary for salvation.

Unitarians, Evolution and the Coming Debate

by Ed Enochs,
The Evangelical Debate Society

"And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God."

John 3:19-21


A week has come and gone since last Friday's Debate with Dan Mages and before I can gather my breath, we are having another debate in exactly two weeks (June 16th) with some more Biblical Unitarians at my home church in Yorba Linda California. This time, I will be involved in an exciting three on three debate and we have an exciting line up prepared.

Pastor Mike Sarkassian (three earned Master's Degrees from Biola, Azuza and Trinity Seminary), Joel Hughes (Greek and Apologetics teacher at Faith Community Church, current CSUF major in Philosophy) and I, will be debating against Danny Dixon, Director of HungerTruth in Texas, David Murphy, Biblical Unitarian from New Mexico and Robert Hach, Professor of Rhetoric at Dade Community College in Miami Florida on the Subject of the Trinity and truth of the Biblical Unitarian on Friday June 16th, 2006 at 7:00pm.

As I reflect upon the Biblical Unitarian arguments, I am very perplexed as to who Jesus Christ really is to these guys. They espouse this concept of Unitary Monotheism and say that there is only one singular person in the godhead, namely the Father and the Jesus Christ are not co-equal and co-eternal members of the godhead.

Yet, according to the Biblical Unitarians, Jesus Christ is but merely a man, a created being who is somehow perfect, sinless, born of a virgin, our Lord and Savior, our mediator, our advocate, high priest, Messiah, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, yet inexplicably remains just a man and not God.

Dan Mages in my debate with him last Friday, argues that while Jesus Christ is not God, He is somehow greater than a man, who had the power to be the substitutionary atonement for our sin?

A long time ago, Greek Scholar J.B. Phillips published a book entitled, "Your God is too Small" and I am afraid the Jesus of the Biblical Unitarians is too small and does not possess intrinsically within Himself the ability and the power to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins, if in fact Jesus is merely a man. If He is more than a man, how so? One scholar recently told me he views the Biblical Unitarians to be similar to the Arians and Jehovah's Witnesses that suggest that while Christ is not "Almighty God", He is a "lesser God." Thus, the Arians and Jehovah's Witnesses are guilty of erecting an unbiblical divine caste like system or a pantheon of gods where the Father reigns as the supreme God and Jesus Christ is created being, is a sort of "demi-god", who possesses an enormous amount of derived power but is some how not God in the same sense as the Father.

Similarly, it appears that besides the very wear arguments the Biblical Unitarians use to explain away Jesus Christ's pre-existence, which I clearly refuted at the First Debate in Riverside last December 30th, the major "Achilles heel" and weakness of the Biblical Unitarian position concerning Jesus Christ is attempting to explain how Jesus Christ, while not being God, was born without sin and is able to atone for our sins all though he is a mere man. If He is more than a man, then he is a demi-god and thus, the Biblical Unitarians fall into the heresy of Bitarianism and polytheism, believing in two gods in the godhead and the belief in many gods existing simultaneously.

The Biblical Unitarian postion greatly depreciates the person and work of Jesus Christ and offers us no good reason to adopt their postion. In all actuality, like the evolutionist who has more faith than the creationist that the complex design of earth and the universe came into being via pure random chance then simply believing in a God who can create the earth, the Biblical Unitarians have a Jesus who is perfect, sinless, born of a virgin and can perfectly atone for our sins on the cross and yet remain less than God.

I believe it takes more blind and unsubstantiated faith to believe in the truncated Jesus of the Biblical Unitarians than believing in the true Jesus Christ found in Holy Scripture.

Yet, it is not too late for Dan, Danny, Robert, David and Anthony Buzzard and the Biblical Unitarians to change the road they are on. I believe there is still hope for them to change their views and come to faith in the triune God of Scripture before its too late.

I look forward to the debate coming up in two weeks at Calvary Chapel Saving Grace on Firday, June 16th at 7:00pm. Invite your friends and family, everyone is invited!

Sincerely in Jesus Christ, the True God and Eternal Life,

Ed Enochs,
Chairman,
The Evangelical Debate Society