- Toby

Why would it be logically impossible to exist, then die and have infinite materials reassemble again after a very long period of time? I do not agree, “we could not exist again”, has to be true.

I would agree that the second law of thermodynamics makes it somewhat less likely
for this to occur.

If you say “nothing comes from nothing”, how can you then say, “since they were brought into existance by nothing”

2. Because nothing comes from nothing, those materials must have existed infinitely. — I like this much better.

http://johnchristiandoe.blogspot.com

Thanks Toby!!!!

Noran

Thanks for your feedback!
- Toby

Keep up the great work and would enjoy any comments you have. Bless

Blessings,
Toby

I would really like to keep the podcast going and have decided to start sending smal amounts of money to support this great ministry- I would like more people to experience this daily devotion.

Now I am listening to the Romans series.

Just finished listening and reading along to Romans 1:1-2…

Wanted to say thanks for starting this 2 years ago so I could enjoy it today!

Brian

God bless!
Toby

I’m not as good of a Berean as I should be, because I don’t know how many times in the bible God is giving figurative timeframes. But I do know, that of the prophecies I’ve studied so far, all the timeframes/days mentioned have been literal.

Thank you for all your teaching and your example to others.
-Matthew

Let me start off by defining what a cult is. As the late Walter Martin defined the term, a cult is a group of people which deny one or more of the essential doctrines of a religion – either implicitly or explicitly – and claim to still be a part of that parent religion.

One of the defining doctrines of Christianity is that of the Trinity. It’s something that the early Church realized once the New Testament was canonized and the Church leaders had time to make sense of all of the things the New Testament had to say about the nature of God.

As for your lack of knowledge regarding the Hebrew language, no…having no working knowledge or training in Hebrew doesn’t disqualify you from talking to me. But I will say that if you know nothing about Hebrew, then of course you would miss a lot of things that get lost in translation…such as God declaring that He is one (Deut. 6) was really God declaring that there was a plurality within God. This is one reason Christianity has historically affirmed that God is one Being who is of one substance, one nature, and yet three distinct Persons. Further, how can you make the argument from Isaiah 9:6 when you didn’t even know that the Hebrew can be translated differently (and that, in light of the cultural and textual contexts, maybe SHOULD be translated differently)?

You still have not answered why Jesus would refer to the Holy Spirit as “another.” The belief that God is one Person who is manifested, revealed, or operates in different modes is indeed a heresy called “modalism.” But you have touched on an even more significant heresy (and I hope that, in this case, I am simply not understanding you correctly): you referred to Jesus as simply a man. Do you not believe that Jesus was BOTH fully God and fully man?

Further, I find it absolutely unbelievable that you would support your position using John 14:17. Clearly Jesus is not referring to Himself, because, in referring to the other Helper – the Holy Spirit – Jesus very unambiguously states in this verse that the world “does not see Him.” Yet I’m sure you would not deny that Jesus was visible…right? The Greek word used here is “theoray”, which is translated elsewhere as “perceive” (cf. John 4:19, 12:19; Acts 4:13, 17:22, 27:10). The Holy Spirit was with the disciples (after all, they had worked miracles themselves already), but could not dwell within them because the ultimate sacrifice had not yet been made to enable the Holy Spirit to dwell WITHIN believers at that point. This is why the curtain in the temple was torn when Jesus was crucified…because the wrath of God was satisfied, allowing the Holy Spirit to dwell within believers instead of a temple.

That God is three Persons who are one God who is one substance, one nature, and one essence is also drawn from the fact that each plays a different role in the salvation process. God the Father chooses who will be drawn (John 6:44; Eph. 1:4), God the Son redeems the saved (Eph. 1:7), and the Holy Spirit seals them (Eph. 1:13). Paul makes three functional distinctions because…there are three distinct Persons in the Godhead. Throughout 1 Thessalonians, Paul again names each Person of the Godhead distinctively. Why? Because there are three distinct Persons in the Godhead.

Also, if you are looking for meaning underneath the surface, then why should I not interpret Scripture to really be a story of a clan of ninjas who get defeated by a clan of samurai warriors? There is only one meaning in Scripture: the objective meaning which is intended by the original author. Any attempt to read “under the surface” is a self-defeating methodology, because if meaning is found “under the surface,” then what is the sub-surface meaning of the phrase “under the surface”? The meaning is that which is ON the surface. I would strongly suggest that you pick up Thomas Howe’s “Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation.” You’ll see that you’re shooting yourself in the foot without meaning to when you argue that the true meaning of something is found “under the surface.”

In short, you are teaching modalism, which is a heresy (see http://www.carm.org/heresy/modalism.htm), which you have arrived at through use of a self-defeating method of interpretation. Further, you have used a verse (John 14:17) which supports the distinction in Personhood between Jesus and the Holy Spirit to deny such a distinction.

Thanks again for your response…I pray that you’ll see the errors in your interpretive method and understanding of God’s nature.

For the Kingdom,
Toby

As I stated in my last post, I do NOT deny that God is Triune. Scripture is clear about that. This is what is so frustrating to me in the debate between most “Trinitarians” and most “Oneness” believers. The difference between our two positions is NOT as big as some make it out to be. Obviously, there are extremes in both camps. For those who deny the work of God as Father and Holy Spirit and claim Jesus ONLY, they are in error. And those who believe in THREE Gods are also in error. But, most of us really do see things very much alike. God is ONE. He is represented as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. His ministry and work in each of these is distinct from His ministry and work in the others. But, that does not make Him three. He is still one. I just believe that Jesus is the PHYSICAL or BODILY representation of the eternal invisible Spirit of God.

The distinction between these at Jesus’ baptism does in no way challenge either of our positions or beliefs. The Holy Spirit is NOT a dove. He is an invisible eternal Spirit. The dove appeared for the benefit of John, so he would know that Jesus was the one, according to the word God had spoken to John. The voice from heaven was indeed from our Heavenly Father, who while Jesus walked the earth, did NOT cease to be eternal and omnipresent. The man Christ Jesus, our elder brother and covenant representative was fulfilling His calling and purpose as a Man and not as God. The baptism record accurately reflects the Triune nature of God, but does not contradict the position of most Oneness believers.

In response to your question about John 14:16 in which Jesus says the Father will give you another helper….

Verse 17 says that this helper you know, for He dwells with you and will be in you. Jesus was dwelling w/ them, but would be in them. (Christ in you, the hope of glory.) In verse 18 of same chapter, Jesus says, “I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you.” In John 16:7 Jesus says, “… if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will sent Him to you.”

So Jesus says in one place the Father will send the Holy Ghost. In another place, Jesus says I will come to you. In another place, Jesus says, I will send the Holy Ghost to you. Was Jesus confused? Or is there a message hidden just beneath the surface that simply reveals the majestic and beautiful truth that God is one. Though, he operate as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, He is still one.

I am a father, a son, and a husband. But I am only ONE person. As a father my actions, personality, and position is different from those of when I am son or husband. This does not make me THREE PERSONS. It just reveals the complexity of life. And we were created in the image of God. We have a body, soul, and spirit, but are still just ONE PERSON.

Your question of under whom did I study Hebrew. I have spent my life studying the Word of God in the Seminary of the Holy Ghost. I give no man credit or blame for my beliefs or positions. Seminaries and Bible Schools are wonderful tools, but we MUST keep the Holy Spirit as our teacher throughout life. I have no titles before our after my name. If this makes me unqualified to discuss the Word w/ you, that is fine.

But, if not, I would love to continue – not to prove you wrong, but to show you that we are NOT that far apart. And Oneness believers are, for that most part, NOT heretics.

Steve

In regards to Heb. 1:3, we say that Jesus is the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15), because God is pure spirit, and thus cannot be seen. Jesus, however, took on flesh, and was thus visible. Because He took on visible form, and is both fully God and fully man, it was proper to say that He was “the exact representation of His [i.e., God's] nature.”

Regarding Rev. 4:2, to argue that because only One was sitting on that throne implies that only One COULD sit on that throne, and that therefore God is only one Person is an argument from silence, and involves all sorts of blind and unjustified inferences. This will be addressed below.

Regarding Isaiah 9:6, where Jesus is referred to as “everlasting Father.” The Hebrew is written so as that this would literally be translated “Father eternity” (Heb: ‘ab ‘ad). In the Hebrew culture, if someone owned/possessed or created something, they were said to be the father of it. Thus, it’s clear that ‘ad (eternity) is not being used as an adjective in this context, but as a noun. Thus, this verse is telling us that the Messiah is the creator and/or possessor of eternity. If I may ask, under whom did you study Hebrew?

Regarding the Shemah (“Hear [not 'here'] O Israel, the Lord our God is one!”), can you tell me what the Hebrew word that gets translated as “one” here is? And how does it differ from ‘echad (cf. Gen. 1:5, 1:9; 2:21)? The Hebrew word used in the Shema (Deut. 6:4) indicates a plurality that is unified…that is, it would be the word one would use to refer to a cluster of grapes. What is that word, and how does it differ from ‘echad? Again, under whom did you study Hebrew?

In your next response, I would just cordially request that you would please answer the questions I have raised, both in this post and in the previous post.

Toby

Isa 9.6 shows us that Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace is also the everlasting Father.

The Scriptures tell us that the Holy Spirit is the Father of Jesus (Mt. 1.20) That Jesus is the Father (Isa 9.6) and obviously the Father is the Father. How can this be? Scripture never contradicts itself. Here O Israel, the Lord our God is ONE !!

And it wouldn’t matter to me if MAN had said for 6,000 years that those who deny the Trinity are heretics. The WORD OF GOD is the source of all truth !!

Another passage would be John 14. In verse 16, Jesus says that He will ask the Father (and in order to do so, He must be distinct in personhood from the Father) “to send ANOTHER helper” (i.e., the Holy Spirit). If Jesus is sending Himself, why would He speak of this helper as “another?” And why would Jesus say “He may be with you forever”? It’s abundantly clear that by speaking in the third person, Jesus is necessarily indicating that the person Jesus was not this other helper.

Further, in verse 26, Jesus says, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” If Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the same person, why didn’t Jesus say “But I, whom I will send in My name, I will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you?” There are four nouns/personal pronouns being used here: 1) the Helper/Holy Spirit, 2) “My/I” (referring to the person speaking: Jesus), 3) the Father, and 4) “you” (i.e. those being spoken to–the disciples).

In 1 Thes. 1:1-5, Paul makes it abundantly clear that there is a distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

So why are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit referred to as “Persons”? Based on the definition of “person.” A person has intellect, will, and emotion. Scripture clearly ascribes these aspects individually and distinctly to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

O.P. theology requires an inconsistent hermeneutic in which a plain reading of Scripture is insufficient. Without a consistent hermeneutic, there is no objective basis for any doctrinal position (in fact, to deny this is self-defeating). Thus, a consistent hermeneutic is fundamental to Christian doctrine. This is why anyone who denies the Trinity is a herertic…and that’s exactly what those who deny the Trinity have been referred to as for the past 1,500 years. Why should that change now?

I pray that you would seek the truth on this matter with all of your heart, and that the Holy Spirit would lead you to the truth.

For the Kingdom,
Toby

When one group uses the WORD to support their doctrinal positions, and another group uses their own personal beliefs, or the teachings of the bible school, or seminary, or what the “early church” (which, as you used the term, was not the church at the time of the apostles).

So if I disagree with the Trinity, which T.D. Jakes accurately says is NOT in the Bible. Or if we don’t use the term “Persons” to describe the Godhead, which is also NOT Biblical, then WE are the heretics ???

To use anything other than the WORD of GOD to establish truth is HERESY !!

Anytime you would like to have a discussion concerning the Godhead, I would love to.

It’s OK that you don’t see it the same way I do. We all look through a glass darkly. I certainly don’t know everything there is to know about the God we serve.

But, I will not call you a heretic because you believe in the Trinity, and you should NOT call those who do not either.

There are probably heretics on both sides, but not necessarily because of their views on the Godhead.

Pastor Steve Ragon
Grace Awakening Church

In the end, Christ came to serve rather than be served. It may be that if I place an expectation on my fellow believers that is to high or idealistic I will set myself up for disappointment–it has happened and will no doubt happen again. Rather, may I place my trust in Christ, the one in whom I know there is no fickle feature, in Christ alone–yet, including those times when fellow believers bring glory to God by allowing the manifest fruit of Christ by His Spirit in them to minister His grace and truth–when all others would fail on account of their human frailty, Christ will not. Now to Him who is able to keep you until the day of His coming, give all glory, honor, and praise to His name, the Name above all names, Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen.

In my going…
db

I think I must expect the church to exist for the very reason of serving everyone (myself included) through the sanctifying work of Christ in every member of his body. Are mature believers the only ones discipling others and no longer in need of discipleship? Even as a pastor you find the need to be invigorated by the refreshing truths of God’s Word that is alive and at work in the hearts of those within your congregation and those more closely regarded as peers in a setting outside of the local fellowshipping body of Christ.

I must say that I expect a lot from a church…as you said at the outset, many pastors and teachers today are more akin to motivational speakers than they are ministers of God’s Word. Therefore it is vital that a healthy body diligently seek to remain spiritually fit by expecting to gather together, in the giving of praise and worship to the one who sanctifies his Bride (as in John 17:17), and receive nutritious words of Godly encouragement, praise, and even rebuke, knowing that in the end spiritual vitality will prevail in all members of the body.

There is no doubt—since God’s Word is clear on it—that God has gifted some in particular ways as Eph. 4:11 indicates, yet those called into such positions must never think they have arrived—nor any of us. This is clear in verse 13 where Paul includes himself in saying “until we all attain…unity of faith,…knowledge of Son of God,…maturity,…to a fullness belonging to Christ.”

I hear this idea quite often and in many ways it rings true, this idea that I shouldn’t expect to be served by the church rather I should be mature enough to know I should fully embrace my gifts and serve the church. I call for balance here. High times and low, I need to step up to the plate and make it happen for the team by serving, and by putting myself in a position to maintain my spiritual health for continued and effective service, yet at those times when I strike out or make an error, I honestly need, and even expect that my team—in this case the local fellowship of believers—to serve me by bringing encouragement in the grace and truth of Christ’s to the praise and glory of God.

In my going…
db

Consider the following statement by T.D. Jakes: “I think it’s very, very significant that we first of all study the Trinity apart from salvation, and first of all that we embrace Christ and come to Him and come to know Who He is. Having come to know Who He is, then we begin to deal with the Trinity, which I believe is a very complex issue. The Trinity, the term Trinity, is not a biblical term, to begin with. It’s a theological description for something that is so beyond human comprehension that I’m not sure that we can totally hold God to a numerical system. The Lord said, “Behold, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one, and beside Him there is no other.” When God got ready to make a man that looked like Him, He didn’t make three. He made one man. However, that one man had three parts. He was body, soul and spirit. We have one God, but He is Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in regeneration. It’s very important that we understand that, but I think that the first thing that every believer needs to do is to approach God by faith, and then having approached Him by faith, then they need to sit up under good teaching so that they can begin to understand who the God is that they have believed upon.”

(“Living by the Word” on KKLA, hosted by John Coleman, Aug. 23, 1998)

There is most certainly a reason that the Potter’s House doctrinal statement uses the verbage from Hebrews 1:3 rather than the typical verbage used by the creeds and confessions of the early church – it’s to mask their denial of the Trinity.

Thanks for the input!
Toby

God Bless!

Paul

Toby

Now, you’ve changed your argument, because you never claimed that you could lift any boat. If you were able to lift all boats, regardless of size, weight, etc., then regardless of how large the boat you build is, you would be able to lift it. Thus the boat example works if you were to assert that you were capable of lifting a boat of any size, weight, etc.
Your definition of “omnipotence” entails logical impossibility…if God is only omnipotent if He can do all things – regardless of logic – then it would be possible for Him to be both omnipotent and non-omnipotent simultaneously.
Honestly, if you can’t see how ridiculous your argument is, we’re both just wasting our time here

Assumption: god is omnipotent.
Claim: Can god create a rock too heavy to lift?
Suppose god cannot create a rock…
This, without the need for the rest of
the claim is already a contradiction.

Suppose god CAN create a rock that is
too heavy to lift.
Now we are at the next contradiction.

Since all pathways of the claim end in a contradiction, this means that our assumption is false. Therefore, god is not omnipotent.

Now you are saying that there is a difference in the power of capability and the power of strength, however, the quote is referring to god’s omnipotence, which is why I phrased the logic as such, and the definition of omnipotence is all-powerful or unlimited power. Now regardless of whether the claim uses too different meanings of “power”, unlimited power refers to all possible types, and if god is omnipotent then he/she/it would possess the capability for all powers. This is the true implication of the quote.

~Yeshua/Mazuac

Blessings,
judy

I will pray for you and the ministry to keep on and keep strong..

Let me put it this way…let’s say that we wanted to write an allegory about the evil CEO of a company, and all the swindling he does…and he had the same name as the current President of the United States. Would this be viewed as an allegory attacking world leaders in general, or would it be viewed as an attack on our current President?

I’m almost tempted to think that your post is an attempt at humor…unless you are arguing from ignorance of who Yahweh is (???). I don’t think it’s coincidence that the God who has a war waged against Him has the same name as the Christian God, and allegory doesn’t use actual names. I take the usage of God’s name as a very specific and clear indication that the story is an attack on the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Thanks for your feedback
Toby

Based on responses I’ve received from that lesson, I think most people maybe had an easier time connecting the dots than you did, apparently. Let me clarify for you…
(1) In countries such as Norway and the Netherlands, homosexuality has been widely accepted.
(2) In those same countries, the more homosexuality was accepted, the more people viewed relationships as “coupling,” and marriage rates decreased.
(3) As a result of marriage rates decreasing, more children were born out of wedlock.

I apologize if I didn’t make the connection sufficiently clear in the lesson.

Further, you’re the pot calling the kettle black by accusing me of drawing up a straw man argument, when you yourself are clearly guilty of doing just that yourself. I never said that broken homes are necessarily gay homes. Where did that come from? And what makes you think I haven’t read anything about gay parenting? Here’s an article that features interviews with grown children of gay parents, and the damage that had been done to them http://www.family.org/marriage/A000002318.cfm .

I’m guessing that you missed the entire point of the lesson because you were too busy looking for something to criticize, but forgive me if I’m mistaken

Toby

p.s. Check out the book, written by David Popenoe, called Life Without Father: Compelling Evidence that Fatherhood and Marriage Are Indispensible for the Good of Children, (New York, The Free Press, 1997.
p.p.s. Also see these critiques of the same-sex parenting studies that you are likely referring to:
Lerner and Nagai, “No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting” (Marriage Law Project, 2001) http://marriagelaw.cua.edu/secure/No%20Basis.pdf
Stacy and Biblarz, “(How) does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review 66:159-183 (Apr. 2001)
Wardle, “The Potential Impact of Homosexual Parenting on Children,” University of Illinois Law Review 1997:833-919

First of all, thanks for listening to the lesson. Let me start off by saying that I need to stay away from sin just as desperately as you do, so I’m not trying to come across as “holier than thou” or anything.
Based on your post, it’s pretty clear that you didn’t listen to ALL of the lessons, as I covered your objection: the fact that you feel that you were born homosexual. You are committing the fallacy of equivocation in how you use the word “choose.” If I feel that I am born to be a murderer, does that justify me murdering someone? Of course not, and neither does your feeling that you were born gay justify acting on your inclination. We’re all born with a sin nature, but God still asks us to do things His way.
If you think that you are harming no one by being in a gay relationship, again…listen to all of the lessons. Nothing could be further from the truth. Studies have demonstrated that homosexuality does great damage not only to the individuals, but to society at large as well.
As for your argument that you have the right to be happy, let me ask you something…did Hitler have the right to be happy by whatever means he felt were necessary? Was it possible for Hitler to be happy and at the same time for the Jews in western Europe to be happy? Hopefully that gets you thinking a little bit about how very unimportant personal happiness is in comparison to the importance of a) developing virtuous character; and b) society at large.
As for a “solution” to being gay, again, if you would listen to all of the lessons, I’ve addressed what I would recommend that you do…get help from http://www.CrossMinistry.org, a ministry run by a recovering homosexual that is designed for practicing and recovering homosexuals.
I’m not trying to be heartless here. My goal is to be logical. While your argument rests on nothing but emotion, I try to present arguments that are empirically-, logically-, and factually-based. I recognize your struggle, and while I may seem harsh or heartless, the purpose of this study was to reach out in true love to people like yourself (and if you listen to all of the lessons, you’ll understand why reaching out to homosexuals the way I have is the most loving thing a person can do for you).
I pray that you will listen to all of the lessons, and that you will at least check out CrossMinistry.Org.
Toby

I’m still waiting for a legitimate line of reasoning/argumentation from you. And while I know that you don’t have one…aren’t you at least going to try? hehe
It’s all good, bro…seek the truth and you’ll find it on the narrow path.

Toby

it’s moot, though, because it’s not something i’m interested in arguing or discussing with you.

this mini-series of yours has been a blast. i’ve been sharing it with all my friends. thanks for all the good times and keep up the good work.

Thanks for a starting point with the scriptures. I don’t know what plans you have for future podcasts but maybe something on the degrees of sin or even how to properly study the Bible. I know I didn’t know how to study the Bible until I took a college course on it and from a general consencus in my neck of the woods it seems that most have the same problem.

Thanks,

Mike

I understand your discomfort with cutting someone off completely. To be honest, I’m not comfortable with it at all, either. I do know this, though – whenever I have gone by the model of church disciple as outlined in Matt. 18, it has worked every time, and harmony has been restored.
I think that there is a good reason that this is the formula that Jesus gave us, and I don’t think it’s supposed to be easy. The thing is, if someone refuses to turn away from their sinful lifestyle, we have to ask how they might be influencing us, those around us, our children, or new believers. As I was mowing the yard today, I was thinking to myself, “man, I hope I never have to get all the way to the end of that formula with anyone in the church I’ll be planting!” And then I got to thinking…have you ever watched the TV show, Intervention? The intervention counselors always tell the family that if a person won’t be reformed (from whatever their addiction is), the family has to sever ties…because to do so is the last effective option for helping an addict who refuses to straighten up. That’s some seriously tough love, but it’s the same basic formula that Jesus gave His disciples. So really, what we’re doing is an intervention with a Christian who is addicted to some sin. I don’t like it…I’m very uncomfortable with it…I hope I never have to do it…but I am Christ’s bond-servant, and will follow Him up the steepest grade and the narrowest of paths.

Verses that refer specifically to there being degrees of sin: Matthew 12:32, 22:38, 23:23; John 19:11; 1 Cor. 11:29-30; 1 John 5:16; Rev. 20:12

My personal email is Cleanslate.Ministries@hotmail.com…I look forward to hearing from you and talking about the church plant

For His glory,
Toby

I also considered Matthew 18 while I was writing you and then the definition of love came to mind in 1 Cor. 13. Please know that I really do understand tough love and it’s purpose, especially since we see God’s tough love to us all throughout the Bible. I also was on the receiving end of tough love from my parents which eventually turned me from rebellion to righteousness but they never cut me off completely.

Now, back to Matthew 18. If this scripture is followed exactly we give everyone a 3 strike rule and they’re done until they decide to change. Do you think this is set in stone? I guess I kind of struggle with this since love is patient and kind but yet we can’t delight in evil (which I’m not condoning) and of course love protects therefore we must protect our brothers from sin.

Cutting somebody off completely seems harsh to me since by definition you don’t associate with that person anymore. I would say, you distance yourself from the person for a season but still show open arms to them as Christ does to us in our sin.

I will study this issue more in depth since I clearly don’t have all the answers. Also, do you have scripture where I can study the degrees of sin?

One more thing. Do you have a personal e-mail I can talk to you on. I know you’re starting a new church soon and would like to talk to you about it.

Thanks,

Mike

As always you do a great job! I’ve been listening to all the podcasts for three months now and have not only been educated, but encouraged by your work. Thank you!

I do want to make a comment on the above question that I think so many Christians get wrong and would like to see if you agree.

I think that homosexuality is looked at, by Christians, as some sort of “ultimate” sin, therefore homosexuals are outcasts in churches. Isn’t it biblical to see homosexuality as the same as any other sin (i.e. alcoholism, cursing)? If you see a brother in Christ sin, of course you lovingly and biblically correct him but I’m not sure if I’d cut all ties with him.

I understand distancing yourself from the person’s sinful act and not condone it by letting that person stay in a place of leadership in the church, but to cut all ties with someone for a sin seems unloving. (This is being said with the understanding that if a person causes you to fall because of thier sin, of course you’d cut ties with them)

What I guess I’m trying to say is that homosexuality is no different of a sin than anything else, therefore we should treat it the same as any other sin.

I like to think that one day, if God blesses me with a church to run, I’d accept all sinners and turn nobody from the chance to hear God’s Word again and again.

Thank you again for all you do and I can’t wait for a response!

Mike

Are you able to give me a good reason to believe that my position is incorrect or are you not? So far, you haven’t made an effort to substantiate anything you’ve said on here. Are you able to do so? Then please do. If you’re not able to do so, then maybe you need to ask yourself why you hold the position that you do.
I realize that I’ll be held accountable for where I lead people, which is why I lead people based on what Scripture says, and not on some emotional, pseudo-rational, unsubstantiated claim that someone makes.

Toby

It’s actually *FREE* on iTunes. Do a search for “More Rain” on there, and you’ll find Dan Smith’s music under podcasts.
You can also download it from his website at http://www.MoreRain.com
I hope this helps!
God bless
Toby

Thank you for NOT watering down God’s message and making it man pleasing. There is WAY to much of that now days and it makes weak and sickly Christians instead of growing, thriving, productive “bond-servants” of Christ that are able to point others to salvation.

I attend a church that is lead by a pastor who stands as you do! Praise God there are still those that lead in truth and not in popularity!!!

Ps- I know you are very busy but if you ever get time listen to a recent message from our church. http://www.crosspointfellowship.us/

This is honestly the first evidence I have ever seen of the warnings in scripture about FALSE witnesses.

WHOA to Oprah for she is leading MILLIONS astray… WHOA that she will receive because scripture says so. She is leading believers AWAY from Christ and the work on the Cross.

Let no one confuse the false prophet (anti christ) spoken of in revelation here. Ohprah is not the Anti christ. But.. she along with Tolle and this williamson lady are FALSE prophets on a GLOBAL SCALE…. its scary.

God is Real.. He is the God of the canonical bible. Jesus is Gods sun and through Jesus, is the only way to eternity with God…

And I feel sorry for Ohprah.. who will one day stand… cower before God .. and all her good deeds wont do a thing to save her… she did NOT believe in Jesus as Gods son nor did she trust in Jesus for her salvation…

Ohprah still has time to embrace the TRUTH and only Gods grace and love can help her see the truth now… steeped so far in lies and deceit.

Maybe do a monthly drawing (christain cd or book you recommend) for anyone who posts a comment for that month? Announce that in your bible study podcasts.

I know its always nice to get feedback from your listeners but sometimes its like pullin teeth lol

LOVE the eat your own feeces logistical argument for homosexual animals as biological evidence. WOOT.. I know I want to eat my young too cause.. dont ya know… animals do so I guess I should too..LOL

Hmm maybe we should think about a new formal greeting as well.. like sniffin ….. Sorry… I’m getting out of hand now

First of all, thanks for listening and for taking the time to share your thoughts. I wish more people would comment on here. But…maybe someday, right?

In response to your question about how to respond to people who say that they’re “born with it”…being born a certain way doesn’t justify anything. Some people are thought to be more pre-disposed than others to commit murder, but obviously, even if there is a pre-disposition to commit murder, that wouldn’t justify murdering an innocent person.

As for the natural law comment…I agree with you. Eventually, the person needs to come to the point where they’re willing to accept God’s word at face value. The problem is that until they come to that point, they don’t care what the Bible says. So to avoid putting pearls before swine, if we can reason with them using the natural law, we’ll have a common starting point with them. If a person doesn’t care what God’s word says, then we can’t effectively reach that person with it (which is ultimately between them and God). Further, there are certain environments in which we are perhaps unable to use the Bible (for example, how can a Christian teacher in the public schools talk to a student who is struggling about homosexuality if using the Bible could get them fired? By using the natural law!).
Appealing to reason is a great way to show a non-believer why they are wrong…if it wasn’t a legitimate way to win people over for Christ, we’d all be Muslims today because Thomas Aquinas never would have been able to use reason to battle the spread of Islam into Europe and win converts to Christianity in his day and age.

But I agree with you…our ultimate goal is to bring a person to accept Jesus and accept God’s word as truth and the standard by which all truth must be measured. Our immediate goal is to demonstrate the sinfulness of homosexuality through whatever means will lead a person to that point.

Thanks again for the comments!
God bless!
Toby

Every homosexual will need to come to grips with GODS WORD to be reconciled to GOD just as any of us WHO SIN, need to go to Gods WORD to be reconciled to Him.

GODS WORD contains what we need to see the truth. To open our eyes we need Gods word. Not clever logic outside Gods word alone.

I know what you are saying and I get it but I think we error on SELF when we say we are going to reach out to homosexuals using the natural law.. AHHH but to show homosexuals about the NATURAL LAW.. YOU NEED THE BIBLE amigo!!!!! ITS IN THERE!

I know im arguing logistics but Gods Word should NEVER be removed from ANY ARGUMENT especially a healing or reachout.

Keep up the great work folks!

The REAL ISSUE is not a WORD but a BEHAVIOR and as you showed, the BEHAVIOR of men having relations with men and women with women is EXPLICITLY spoke of in the bible loud and clear whether or not the “word” homosexuality was used or not.

I would be interested to hear your rebutal on people who say, Im born a homosexual, it’s not a choice.

God bless you, brother!
Toby

Hey brother, I just wanted to thank you for your continued support of the music God has given me. I listened to the podcast from 2/8/08 and after a wonder teaching, I heard Honor and Glory. I really appreciate your endorsement.

You also solicited responses regarding losing weight. Let me first say that it has been a constant battle for me for years, in terms of weight gain and health maintenance. About 1 1/2 years ago, I decided to be more focused on exercise. I weight about 256 lbs. and I had a really tough time with walking because my back would be in pain. I started going to a chiropractor, which helped me to relax, but only lasted for a short time before I had to go back again to receive another “treatment”.

My wife suggested walking and I ran, no pun intended, from this idea completely. I gave her every excuse in the book. I told her that it just wasn’t enough stimuli for me, because I would be moving at too slow of a pace. I told her that my feet would hurt. I told her that I’d have more fun riding the bike. Some of those excuses had truths in them, but they weren’t the real truth. The real truth was that I didn’t feel that I could go walking because it hurt too much.

I work as a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor with people who have disabilities. Some of those disabilities deal with substance abuse (i.e. cocaine, heroin, alcohol, etc.) and physical problems (i.e. back injuries, cerebral palsy, etc.). It just so happened that I had a person that came into the office who was addicted to drugs and had gone through treatment. Although he went through treatment, he never really learned what the reasons were for his decision to utilize illegal drugs. I challenged him on this, as part of my counselor duties, and he gave every excuse in the book. However, none of his excuses were plausible and were easily broken down because they were inconsistent (i.e. “I used drugs because of my upbringing,” but when we talked about other people in his family who had the same upbringing, they did not choose to use drugs). As I listened to him give so many excuses, I saw myself giving excuses also, as to why I would not exercise.

It just so happened that on that same week, I met with another individual who had back problems and had a difficult time walking, as his leg was greatly bent out of shape. Yet this same person had a drive and determination to move forward in life. He was open to suggestions, came with a plan in mind, and was overall a person to be seen as an example. I looked at myself and saw ungratefulness.

So, finally, I decided that I would give it [walking] a try. I walked downstairs and walked for about two blocks and then turned around to go back to the office. I was so tired and my back was hurting so badly, Justin, that I stopped at a park bench and just laid out until I could catch my wind. If that bench had not have been there, I’d have just laid out on the ground and prayed that no one thought I was crazy or hurt or something. It was that bad! My back was killing me!

But then something else happened. The next day, I went walking again and I was able to walk 4 blocks. When I got back to the office, I was hurting again, but I was proud to have walked the distance. I actually was glad to see the scenery of the neighborhood while walking. This was something that I had, literally, never done before. I found out that the neighborhood of my job was pretty nice. I took the next step (no pun intended again) and began walking to work (about 3 blocks) and then walking during lunch time, and then walking home. I walked about 1 mile for lunch and you’ll never guess what happened. I began losing weight! I went from 256 to about 245 in a couple of months time.

My back stopped hurting and I haven’t been to the chiropractor in over a year! I soon discovered Bible Study Podcasts through iTunes and I was able to have Bible Study while walking. So I say all of that (yeah, I know it was a lot) to say that walking, my friend… walking is a great way to go. By the way, I’m down to 224 lbs, brother!

Great message today. Reminded me of a sermon our pastor did a few weeks ago where he talked about not only does God know the future, the past and the present but he also knows about all the possibilities based off all the possible choices. Check it out.
http://www.riverbend.com/podcast/Site/Podcast/Entries/2008/1/20_Finding_God_In_The_Fingerprints.html

Also I will pray that God provides you guidance on what he has in store for you in the future and that he will guide your choices to align with the path God wants for you. Of course we all know that God will get you where he wants you to be regardless of what choices we make. It will be just a matter of what our experience will be on our paths to His plans.

Love in Christ,
Dusten

It was in Cripple Creek. Unfortunately, things didn’t work out, and I never went out there for that position.
I’m glad to know that you’ve enjoyed the podcasts so much! Keep growing closer to Jesus!
Toby

“For I know the plans I have for you,” says the Lord, “They are plans for good and not disaster, to bring you a hope and a future” (Jeremiah 29:11)

In Your precious name we pray, AMEN

But, I grieve with you on any troubles you’re experiencing, and I will pray for you and the ministry.

Sorry I haven’t responded earlier! I have been out of town for the Christmas holiday. In the future, I should be able to respond in a more timely fashion.

Your question is one that I would like to deal with as we go through the study of Job. In fact, I hope to talk more about it in my next podcast. Why does God allow Satan to do these things to Job??

I agree with you that we may never really have a full / certain understanding of why God would allow Satan to torment Job. But we may be able to say some things about why God would allow it.

In short, and I will elaborate on this later, the devil is a tool that God uses to help us understand the nature of suffering this side of eternity. Job’s life is a lesson for the rest of humanity and the lesson is one of supreme importance! Beleivers have suffered a great deal through the ages and if our views of suffering lead us to think that God is evil, then the devil has accomplished his task: namely to distort our picture of God. Job helps us to stand back and look at suffering in a broader context.

If you want me to elaborate more, feel free to email me at biblestudypodcastsmatt@gmail.com

I’ll be discussing your question in my next podcast. I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic.

In Christ,

Matt

Thanks for the Q&A Podcast. My husband and I got cross tatoos 2 years ago for our anniversary to represent how we would not be together today if it weren’t for the grace of God and it has given us to great opportunities to witness to others.

I did have an additional question to the comments you had made on suicide. I do like how you pointed out that no sin is great enough to break the “seal of the Holy Spirit”. I had never thought of it that way. However, and I know this is splitting hairs, but what if someone kills themselves to get to heaven sooner? Is it just that they will not recieve all the rewards that were due to them because they did not finish the work God had intended on earth? And this leads into another question are there levels or different rewards for different people in heaven and where can we find this in the Bible?

Thank you Toby.

In Christ,
Judy

Laurie

I work in a hospital where 80% of patients are Hispanic. I am not exaggerating. On any given day, 8/10 of patients are Hispanic, a lot of them are here “illegally” whatever that means for this discussion.

Look, you can’t just look at one side of the issue. I found the scriptures you talk about last year in my Bible. However what I struggle with for example is CRIME. These people commit so much crime, it is unbelievable. In LA county 90% of homocides are committed by “illegal aliens”. So these are not your poor friendly people at all. Not to mention the drugs and gang culture they import. Illegal aliens have killed nearly 20,000 Americans every year since 2001. That’s over six times more than the victims on 9/11 EVERY YEAR.

In addition, it is a healthcare nightmare. U.S. hospitals are on the brink of collapse with many hospitals going bankrupt trying to pay for the uninsured who use emergency rooms as walk-in clinics.

Many of these people have kids out of wedlock as soon as they arrive in the U.S. so that they can have a child who is a U.S. citizen, that’s what they’re told. Invasion by multiplication.

Prisons are so overloaded and costing tax payers millions of dollars. Traffic in LA is a nightmare. I can’t even find a place to sit half the time using the subway. Uninsured motorists. You think if you become disabled for the rest of your life because they can’t drive, that this is a great idea of welcoming more of them to keep coming and filling every free space in every U.S. city?

And the list goes on and on. Their only defense is that “they’re hard working”? Come on, you can’t do 10 things wrong and one thing right and expect us to buy it. You can’t say: I’m paying rent in your home but I’m raping your wife on the weekends!

Also consider the national security issue. We have got to have secure borders.

I honestly feel sorry for the middle aged or elderly American citizen who has less rights and benefits than the illegal alien.

Children born in this country to both parents who came here illegally is instantly a U.S. citizen with every right to Medi-cal
benefits meanwhile many Americans and legal immigrants are denied such benefits.

The “alien” spoken of in the Old Testament was not a murderer, rapist, or thief. Not that all of them are like that, but the amount of crime they import into this nation cannot be ignored people!!

If you’re in LA turn to channel 25 which has a running broadcast of “wanted” criminals. I dare you to do the math and come up with a percentage less than 90% of the crime is committed by them.

These people REFUSE to assimilate. We already have free ESL classes in hundreds of places. This is not our fault. These people pick their nose shamelessly on public buses.

How would you feel if you son or daughter was slaughtered to death by a person who crossed the borders illegally? Stop and think about that for a moment.

In coclusion, there is no easy solution, we should love everyone but they sure make it awfully difficult for me to love them. They’re not sweet, humble people like the Vietnamese for example.

There are several resources you can check out to substantiate this. I’d encourage you to start with Baker’s Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler…or “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” by Frank Turek and Geisler. These are both on the recommended reading list. If you REALLY want to go deep with it, check out William F. Albright’s “Archaeology of Palestine” or F.F. Bruce’s book titled, “The New Testament Documents; Are They Reliable?”
Hope this helps!
Toby

First, I wrote:

Hi Stephen,

I had asked for one, and you gave me one (James 5:17). Be sure to listen to today’s podcast…and let me know which city you live in (can just be your zip code if you’d like).

Thanks,
Toby

To which Stephen responded…
Toby,

Thanks,
Stephen

So I responded by saying:

Stephen,

Again, the Bible isn’t intended to be a textbook on science. Let’s look at some Biblical examples of how the term “earth” doesn’t always refer to the literal whole earth…

Genesis 1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth

Of course, the oceans and other bodies of water comprise the earth as well…

Genesis 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth.

Of course, Cain remained on the earth…but in a DIFFERENT LOCATION. This is a similar usage of “earth” as a figure of speech (in comparison to James 5:17).

Exodus 9:15 thou shalt be cut off from the earth.

Again, the “earth” is a figure of speech for a particular region.

Some New Testament examples…

Matthew 25:18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth

Does this mean that he dug in all of the earth or in a particular region? C’mon, Stephen…I know that you know the answer to this one.

Matthew 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

Again, is this a region, or the whole earth? Why do we call it an EARTHquake when the whole earth doesn’t shake, Stephen? Could it be…a figure of speech?

Luke 11:31 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon [is] here.

Does this mean that she came from all over the earth, or do you think it refers to a particular region?

Do you need more examples?
I think we both know I’ve got you in checkmate here, bro. And I didn’t really think you’d be a man of your word, Stephen…but let me know if I was mistaken about that. That’s one thing I’d love to see you prove me wrong about. And I will publicly apologize in both of my podcasts next week if you do show yourself to be a man of your word.

Toby

So he wrote back…

Genesis 1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth
So by your theory land that is not Israel is not Earth? What did God call that? Also this is Hebrew not the Greek used by the Author of James.

“parts of the earth”

My final email to him:
You’re really stooping on this, Stephen. You can see as clearly as I can that the term “earth” is a figure of speech which refers to a region in general (not just Israel, but any region…it represents Israel in 1 Kings because that’s where 1 Kings was written).
But it is now clear to me that you have no interest whatsoever in truth. Like I said, I didn’t really expect you to be a man of your word. Instead of being honest with yourself (and me), you’ve resorted to playing a silly game of semantics. How do you function in society without being able to identify figures of speech or other non-literal forms of communication? When you see a stop sign, do you just sit there until it tells you to go? Or maybe you don’t believe everything you read, so you just keep on going when you see a stop sign? That’s an old Steven Wright joke…man, that guy was classic!
But anyway…I’ll be posting our dialogue here on the website.
So who’s your favorite football team? Or do you follow football at all?

Toby

Too bad we couldn’t have a rational conversation. He escapes reason, I escape wrath.
PLEASE KEEP PRAYING FOR STEPHEN!

Remember…it’s not about winning arguments – it’s about winning souls.
The moment you realize that someone is longer willing to think and converse rationally, change the subject!

So you are correct…we desperately do need to communicate the love of Christ to atheists, first and foremost. And then, if they are truly seeking answers (and not just an argument), we should be prepared to meet them – intellectually – where they are.

Thanks for the comment!
Toby

My Labor Day weekend was wonderful. I spent it at the beach…what could possibly be more relaxing than that? I hope yours was peaceful and restful as well.

In response to your counterpoints…

1. This is still a theory with no scientific evidence to support it. While it might seem more plausible than the theory that everything is constantly evolving gradually, it still does not answer the question as to how the offspring of a species would have more information/complexity than its parents. The potential of an effect has never been scientifically observed to have more potential than its cause. Otherwise, where would that difference come from? It would come from nothing, and thus it would be accurate to say that something DOES come from nothing. Yet we can know empirically that nothing comes from nothing.
2. If all it needs is the right environmental pressures, the right molecular makeup, and time…well, it had an infinite amount of time for that to happen, so any potential for that to have happened should have come to pass an infinite amount of time ago. So why only now, AFTER an infinite amount of time has elapsed, has everything come into existence? I don’t see how it’s possible for your theory to adequately respond to this.
3. Please give me one example in which mankind has scientifically observed an increase in genetic information.
4. You’ve got a few different problems with your argument. First of all, the fact that it could have been “any god” is irrelevant. Even if there were 50 gods or 5 million gods, science cannot explain the evolution of a mousetrap. Darwin realized that the complexity of the eye rendered his own theory doubtful, and science still has no explanation for how a multitude of necessary parts (of a giraffe, eyeball, or anything with irreducible complexity) which have no secondary function would all develop simultaneously to create something.

Secondly, I never said that a dryer would assemble the computer on its first try. Ah, is that a straw man argument I caught you in? But seriously…do you really believe that if the computer parts were put in a dryer for an indefinite amount of time that the pieces of the computer would eventually assemble into a working computer?

5. I don’t use the Bible as evidence for God’s existence. I think that God’s existence is revealed in nature. Only God’s PLAN is revealed in the Bible; but the Bible itself presupposes God’s existence, and thus I don’t view it as a means of proving His existence. The $10 challenge is to give a logical explanation for why we exist now, rather than an infinite amount of time into the past. I don’t know if you didn’t understand my argument, or perhaps you didn’t read through it, but I didn’t invoke Scripture into my argument a single time.

I actually have indeed done a podcast on the separation of church and State. It can be found here. Or if that doesn’t work, the link is http://biblestudypodcasts.org/index.php/archives/159.

I appreciate your response, as well as the time you took to listen to the podcast and write… and I look forward to hearing from you again.

Toby

I hope you had a good Labor Day weekend. I had hoped to respond to you sooner but last week was especially hectic for me. First of all, I’m sorry if my first comment was less than civil. I meant nothing by my comments other than to encourage your listeners to explore scientific sources for their information on the theory of evolution.

I am far from an expert on the specifics of current evolutionary theory, so please do not take any of this as the word of an expert. However, even with the limited amount of knowledge I possess on the subject it is clear that the evidence is overwhelming in support for the theory. As I understand your reasons I have quickly listed the scientific responses.

1. Punctuated equilibrium – anticipated by Darwin and fleshed out by Niles Eldredge and Steven Jay Gould, suggests that evolution proceeds in fits and bursts. I suggest reading their original work, which can be viewed at this link (http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.pdf). (Also, as an aside, Gould was a major proponent of “nonoverlapping magisterial,” where religion and science could not conflict because they had nothing to do with each other.)
2. The “something” you refer to as coming from “nothing” is a value judgment and cannot be addressed in any objective way. Intelligence and life did not come from nowhere, and evolution does not state this. The “potential” you refer to comes from the infinite combinations of DNA and billions of years of selective pressures. And a “brainless primordial soup” could have immense amounts of potential, given the right environmental pressures, the right molecular makeup, and enough time.
3. Increases in genetic material are observed all the time. Insertion is a common error that occurs in genetic replication. Also, viral insertion of genetic material happens all the time as well. Given enough time this could easily produce different numbers of chromosomes. In addition, DNA is more complex that we currently know. I believe there is evidence indicating that the way in which DNA folds and twists allows for more information to be stored in a smaller number of chromosomes. So more genetic material does not necessarily equal more information, the arrangement of this material is equally necessary.
4. Irreducible complexity has been soundly refuted as a complete logical error and I address that below.
5. I don’t think I understand this reason. It seems to me that you believe science and religion cannot be reconciled despite many people’s belief that they can. I don’t see how this is a reason to reject scientific facts.

While that is a quick response based on my limited understanding of the evolutionary literature, I also noticed that there was an undercurrent of misunderstanding in your reasons that add up to severe logical problems.

Your first reason for denying evolution involves the logical fallacy generally referred to as a “straw man.” In essence, this is setting up a fallacious claim about an opponent and proceeding to tear this down. In this specific case, your first critique is based on the assumption that evolutionary theory predicts a smooth process that is perfectly recorded through the fossil record. Evolutionary theory does not make this claim. Also, it is a common misunderstanding to simplify the evolutionary process to simple chance, like flipping a coin. However, there are many more forces at work in the evolutionary process. To make your analogies of the tornado or the clothes dryer more accurate you would have to change two things: 1) introduce other factors into both (heat, water, availability of other resources, competition with other computer pieces, etc. 2) remove the idea that there is a goal in mind. It is clear that a dryer couldn’t assemble a computer on the first try, but given billions of years, unrelenting pressures from nature, and a little chance, it could spit out something else that has another use.

From a logical standpoint irreducible complexity is just as problematic. Behe’s argument falls prey to a special case of the argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance, specifically “God of the Gaps”) which claims that an argument is false simply because one does not know or cannot imagine how it could be true. In this case, god is invoked to fill in gaps in scientific knowledge. There are two huge problems with this. 1) These gaps are getting smaller and smaller every day. 2) Invoking god is no different from invoking other gods or supernatural forces. One could use Behe’s logic to argue the gods of Olympus, the Norse gods, or the gods of Native Americans are responsible for the neck of a giraffe. If Behe was a Buddhist I’m sure his creator would have been different, but his argument would be the same.

Several times in your podcast you state that the reason individuals teach, believe, or argue for evolution is purely ideological. This is a mundane form of an ad hominem attack: the idea that discrediting the speaker will discredit his evidence. Unfortunately, this is not the way science works. The validity of any scientific finding is independent of an individual’s personal attitudes, beliefs, or behavior. If a scientist discovers a cure for cancer and then commits murder, the science behind the cure does not change.

Finally, it appears to me that it is our “human nature” to seek an understanding with the world around us. When we cannot, we must fill in the gaps in our knowledge with something, even if it is supernatural. This worked for humans as a species for thousands of years. And even the drawbacks (human sacrifice, persecution based on superstition, mistreatment of the mentally ill) were apparently not enough to outweigh any benefits. One problem with this facet of human nature is that once we have an objective finding that calls into question cherished supernatural beliefs; there are those who cannot let these beliefs go in the face of overwhelming evidence.

In response to your $10 Paypal challenge, it sounds like the serious flaw in your argument still comes back to “we know God exists because the Bible says so.” Many times in your argument the statement “we know God to be eternal and timeless” (or something to that effect) is used without qualification. However, I do not know this and would have no concept of this if I was not familiar with the bible. Relying on this as an argument adds a level of circularity to your argument and certainly relies on the bible as the ultimate authority. I know that many people believe these to be the characteristics of god, but this was not always so and this belief is inherently linked to the bible. I saw a couple other problems but I’ve probably written enough. I do not want to change your mind about the existence of god and I doubt that I could do so. It has been my experience that belief is more dependent on emotions than on rational arguments.

I enjoy these kinds of discussions immensely. Even if we cannot agree on evolution I would love to get your take on the separation of church and state in the United States. I am currently working on a paper on this topic and would like to get your take on the issue. Have you done a podcast on this topic? Or would you like to share your thoughts with me?

Thank you once again for this discussion and I hope to hear from you soon.

Sam

Hey Sam,

I had emailed you last week regarding the comment that you left for the “Evolution: 5 Reasons I Reject It” podcast. However, I haven’t heard back from you. Do you have irrefutable evidence against these five points?
You can go to the page of the podcast where I’ve left some messages for you and we can discuss this in that forum. I have nothing to hide, and thus feel that this matter is probably best discussed publicly, since that’s where you originally posted your thoughts.

Anyway, I’m eager to hear back from you.

Best wishes and blessings,

Toby

Couldn’t help but notice that it’s been a couple days since I responded to you, but we haven’t heard anything back from you.

I’m sure I’m not the only one who is dying of curiosity here…

Eagerly awaiting your evidence against my reasons for dismissing evolution as a viable option,
Toby

First of all, thanks for taking the time to listen to the podcast and comment on it. I genuinely do appreciate that.
I do have a few questions for you, however, based on your comment.
First, what sorts of logical errors have I made in the podcast? I’m guessing that you’re not too familiar with logic, since there are basically 3 laws of logic: the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, and the law of the excluded middle. Something is only a logical error if it violates one or more of these laws. Would you care to tell me which of the three I have violated?
Secondly, I couldn’t help but notice that you didn’t directly refute any of my reasons for rejecting evolution. Would you please explain for me how my understanding of the PreCambrian Explosion is faulty? Or maybe you could give me just one scientifically documented instance in which an increase in genetic information has been observed?
If you can refute each of these reasons for rejecting evolution, I’ll be happy to swallow my pride and do a podcast on why I was wrong on each point. You encourage people to do their own research…well, that’s exactly what I did, and that’s how I arrived at the conclusions I’ve come to regarding evolution. Of course, I am still studying and coming up with even more reasons to reject evolution- such as the fact that man, despite his intelligence and technological/medical/scientific advancements, has yet to create life from nothing, yet we’re supposed to believe that NONintelligence (i.e. chance) caused our existence…
Further, I will publicly challenge you to refute my proof for God’s existence from the Romans 1:18-20 part 3 podcast. If you can sufficiently refute it, I’ll be happy to Paypal $10 to you. It’s been presented to hundreds of atheists, none of whom have been able to refute it. Can you? I think that if you try, you’ll discover that it takes more faith to be an atheist than it takes to be a theist.
Thanks again for listening. I hold no ill will toward you or anything…I simply enjoy a good, intellectual conversation.

Best wishes,
Toby

For anyone seeking an accurate account of research and evidence for the facts underlying evolutionary theory I urge you to do your own research. Do not let the misinterpretations and logical errors found in this podcast be your only guide.

- The Admin Team

When’s the next one, the suspense is killing me!!

God bless you, and to Him be the glory forever and ever!
Toby

I just listened to this today and have a few comments. I believe a person can apostatize. I know I am not going to convince you in this format, but a few thoughts: When you began, you cited the law of non-contradiction, but you left out the qualifiers: “one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.” When you say that one cannot both be able to and be unable to lose one’s salvation, you have to make sure you are speaking in the same respect. I totally agree there is no sin so large that Christ’s blood does not cover it. But the believer still must believe. So, as far as losing ones salvation due to ones sin, I agree that that will not happen. However, a believer who ceases to believe is in the same position as one who never believed: he is an unbeliever, his sin is not covered.

One of the verses you cited was the one where Christ promises to acknowledge those who acknowledge Him, but the very next verse he promises to deny anyone who denies Him.

So is it possible for someone to stop believing? Numerous verses would seem to preclude it, but many others seem to affirm it. Different people reconcile the verses differently. My understanding from a reading of the scripture without pre-determined theological ideas is that verses warning one to persevere, abide, endure, hold fast, etc., speak clearly to a responsibility to continue in the faith.

I think the best analogy is that of the vine. As long as one remains in Christ he is like a branch attached to the vine and reaps all the benefits of being in the vine. “He who has the Son has life.” If one ceases to believe, he is not abiding and does not partake in the benefits of the vine, he is “cut off” and destined for the fire. Eternal life is in the Son (the vine) and I receive it as soon as I am grafted in. I have eternal life. But if I do not abide in the vine, I no longer have eternal life. Thus I can both have and not have eternal life (just not at the same time).

I feel those who believe in eternal security are all to quick to label contrary verses as “hypothetical” and to label every case of apostasy as “they never really believed in the first place”…not based on evidence, but on a commitment to a theological position.

Thanks for taking the time to read this. I truly appreciate your podcast even though, like this note, it is not long enough to thoroughly cover a subject that theologians have debated through the ages. I believe you are doing a great work for God.

-Didymus

Thank you so much for the encouragment!

Toby