Software Review: 4K Video Downloader

I have used 4K Video Downloader for five years now. It is superior to other video downloading softwares I have used. As the name states, it can download videos up to any size, including 4K. (4K videos only download in .MKV, every other size can be downloaded in other file formats.) 4K Video Downloader is not limited to only downloading from YouTube, but can download videos from other video hosting sites as well, including Vimeo. While it is called a video downloader, it can also download audio, from YouTube Videos as well as SoundCloud. I am probably not yet aware of many websites it can download from. I just discovered the SoundCloud downloading capibility the other day. Five years of use and I'm still learning all of the ways it is amazing. I recommend 4K Video Downloader for everybody!!!

"Evidence That Demands A Verdict" Review

45 years after first publication, the Christian apologetics classic "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell has been updated and expanded by Josh and his son Sean.

"Evidence That Demands A Verdict" is not a book you sit down and read cover-to-cover. The 880 page textbook features 32 chapters covering topics like "How We Got the Bible", "The Historical Evidence of Jesus", "Is Christianity a Copycat Religion?", The Nature and Knowability of Truth, and more! It is a great reference tool for research and study.

The new version will be released on Tuesday, October 3, 2017. If you pre-order the book from any retailer, you can download two chapters now for free. More information can be found at readevidence.com.

Classic Joke: Pillsbury Doughboy Obituary

Pillsbury spokesman Poppin' Fresh died yesterday, at 71. In attendance at the funeral were Mrs. Butterworth, the California Raisins, Hungry Jack, Betty Crocker and the Hostess Twinkies. Fresh rose quickly in show business, but his career was filled with many turnovers. He was not considered a smart cookie, wasting much of his dough on half-baked schemes. Still, even as a crusty old man, he was a roll model for millions. Fresh is survived by his second wife. They have two children and one in the oven. The funeral was held at 3:50 for about 20 minutes.

The Atheist Delusion

Uncensored Science: Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham

Today marks two years since TV personality Bill Nye "The Science Guy" debated Ken Ham, President and CEO of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum. Here is the video of the debate, plus pre- and post-shows from various ministries:

Jan 29, 2014
"The Comfort Zone" (Living Waters)
Episode 70, "Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham | LIVE Interview"


February 4, 2014
Pre-Debate Show (Creation Today Ministry)


Full Debate Video (Answers in Genesis)


Post-Debate Show (Creation Today Ministry)


February 5, 2014
Post-Debate Answers with Ken Ham (Answers in Genesis)


Feb 6, 2014
"The Comfort Zone" (Living Waters)
Episode 74, "Post Debate: Ham Talks About Nye"


Feb 7, 2014
Ken Ham / Bill Nye Debate Analysis (Creation Ministries International)

Audacity Movie

Peter (Travis Owens) is an aspiring comedian encouraged by his friend Ben (Ben Price, Australia’s Got Talent finalist) to perform at the local comedy club. But stage fright isn’t Peter’s only fear. When confronted with one of today’s most divisive issues, he feels compelled to speak, but can he? Challenged by his coworker Diana (Molly Ritter) to defend his convictions about homosexuality and gay marriage, will he have the courage to stand for what he believes—even at the risk of losing a friendship? And how will he respond when faced with a harrowing life-or-death experience?

From Living Waters, creators of the award-winning TV program The Way of the Master and the hit movies 180 and Evolution vs. God, comes the powerful film Audacity. Executive produced by TV co-host and best-selling author Ray Comfort (Hell’s Best Kept Secret, Scientific Facts in the Bible), this film delivers an unexpected, eye-opening look at the controversial topic of homosexuality.

Should Christians Accept The Big Bang Theory?

Updated April 2019

Videos and articles explaining why Christians should not accept the secular origin of the universe known as the Big Bang Theory.

Articles:

Answers Magazine: "The Big Bang: God’s Chosen Method of Creation?" by Dr. Jason Lisle, PhD in Astrophysics
The New Answers Book, Vol. 2: Chapter 10: "Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible?" by Dr. Jason Lisle
Old-Earth Creationism on Trial: Appendix E: The Big-Bang God or the God of Scripture? by Dr. Jason Lisle and Tim Chaffey
The Evolution Handbook by Vance Ferrell: "The Big Bang and Stellar Evolution: Why the Big Bang is a fizzle and stars cannot evolve out of gas"
The Evolution Handbook by Vance Ferrell: "Problems with Big Bang Creationism: When Opposites are Combined"
Answers Update: "A Big Belief" by Dr. Danny Faulkner, PhD in Astronomy
Biblical Science Institute: "A Big Bang" Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 by Dr. Jason Lisle

Videos:

The New Answers DVD, Vol. 2 "Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible?" by Dr. Jason Lisle

Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible?
Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible?
Posted by Answers in Genesis on Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Answers with Ken Ham - "Is the Big Bang Biblical?"


"The Big Bang Never Happened" by Spike Psarris


"The Age of the Earth" by Dr. Kent Hovind


Answers Academy: "Big Problems with the Big Bang" by Dr. Jason Lisle

[Download from SermonAudio.com]

"Could God Have Created With The Big Bang?" by Dr. Jason Lisle

The Hypocrisy of Red Nose Day

Photo credit: Red Nose Day Facebook/NBC

Let me clarify from the start: I am not against the goals of Red Nose Day. I believe raising money to help children in need is important. More on that later on.

Photo credit: NBC

So what is my problem? My problem is that most, if not all, of the celebrities that participated in the Red Nose Day are pro-abortion. They believe that if a child is going to be born into poverty or other situations where their life would be less than "ideal" then the child should be murdered before they are even born. And then these pro-abortion celebrities participate in a telethon to raise money to help out the children they believe should be dead in order to keep the children from dying of hunger, thirst, etc. Hypocrites!!!

Photo credit: NBC

The worst hypocrites are the self-described atheists, like Ian McKellan, Stephen Merchant, and Julianne Moore, that participated. Their worldview does not believe in absolute morality and has no reason to want to help the children. In fact, from an evolutionary viewpoint, shouldn't the children be allowed to die because of "survival of the fittest"? Hypocrites!!!

Why is it important to give money to charities to help the children? Because they were created in God's image and He commands us to help them. Only in the worldview of biblical Christianity does helping the children make sense. Sure, those who are not Christians know what the right thing to do is. They were created in God's image too, and he has written his moral Law on their hearts. Non-Christians can be moral, they just have no justification as to why they should be. They may give a reason along the lines of "Treat others the way you want to be treated", but that is a Christian concept. Morality only comes from the Creator God and His Word.

So the liberal celebrities need to stop acting like hypocrites. They need to repent of denying and sinning against the God they know exists, and trust in Christ instead of their success. Then they can be moral in the proper context, as children of God.

See also: Why Christianity

Defending Presuppositional Apologetics

Nearly every comment I get on this video is exactly the same. "Christians use presuppositional apologetics because they have no evidence for God." That is incorrect. Christians use presuppositional apologetics because we have ALL the evidence for God.

The fact is: God exists, He created everything, and He revealed Himself through Creation and His Word. Atheists may believe that they live in a universe that came from nothingness that was shaped by millions of years of natural processes, but that is not reality. We live in God's universe and everything in it is proof that He exists.

The fact of God’s existence, and that every person knows the truth, is the Christian's starting point in the presuppositional argument. They can then use evidence to confirm that fact to unbelievers (not to put God on trial) but the atheists will dismiss the evidence based on their own presupposition that God does not exist. It is then up to the Christian to show the atheist that their worldview is inconsistent. The fact that they want logical and reasonable evidence is proof of God’s existence, because logic, reason, and evidence only make sense in the Christian worldview.

Atheists will never understand this argument. They need to repent, turn away from their sins (including denying the God they know exists), and trust in Christ to save them. Then God will give them a new heart and mind, and only then will they understand the truth.

God's Not Dead: Advice for Christian Students

A new school year has started or is about to start, and I have compiled some advice for Christian students, especially Christian students that have seen the movie "God's Not Dead".

My Advice
Read your Bible; believe and do what it says:

• "Sanctify (set apart) Christ the Messiah as Lord in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense (an answer) to everyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness (gentleness) and fear (respect)." (1 Peter 3:15; Paraphrase based on the KJV, NKJV, NIV, and HCSB).
• Atheists know that God exists, they just suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. (Romans 1:18-22)
• Repentance leads to a knowledge of the truth. (2 Timothy 2:24-26)
• DO NOT put God on trial. (Deuteronomy 6:16, Matthew 4:7, Luke 4:12)

Advice from Experts

Dr. Jason Lisle, Answers in Genesis


See also: "The Ultimate Proof of Creation" by Dr. Jason Lisle
Paperback   Kindle   Video

Dr. Henry Morris III, The Institute for Creation Research, excerpt from the article "Creation and College" in "Acts & Facts" August 2013, Vol. 42, No. 8

Many young adults have been emotionally injured by attempting to correct a secular professor. Usually the motivation is good—the student wants to help his classmates or the prof see the truth in the face of some blatantly anti-Christian or arrogant sweep of philosophical blather. However well-meaning or well-versed a student may be, the classroom is often the worst place to share truth because the setting is designed to give all the power and intellectual edge to the teacher.

The most productive process for maintaining a solid Christian witness and an open confession of biblical truth in an educational setting is often to simply ask questions. Most educators welcome open discussion, and here are some basic classroom guidelines:

• Respect the teaching profession. It is the students’ role to seek knowledge. And the teacher’s responsibility is to provide instruction. Teaching the teacher—or confronting the teacher—reverses that role and usually ends in disaster. Asking the right questions will earn the respect of your classmates and will often expose error.
• Be polite, courteous, and factual. Sarcasm or disdain will seldom yield good results. Professional courtesy is always appreciated. Use proper titles when addressing teachers (Dr., Mr., Professor, etc.) and respond with “sir” or “ma’am” and “thank you” when you are addressed. Keep your questions focused on the facts, not your opinions. Learn when to stop.
• Use the student’s right to know when you ask questions: “Please help me understand....” “Please tell me if I understood you correctly. Did you mean to say...?” “Am I correct to understand that...?” “Would you help me understand why you believe that to be so?” “May I ask for the background evidence on that?” “Please tell me the basic reasoning behind that statement.”
• The most powerful phrases are “please help me” and “please tell me.” Questions that can be answered with a simple “yes” or “no” are weaker, although they may soften the approach. Questions that require responses are more likely to generate additional information.

The objective in this process is twofold: to elicit additional information from the instructor and to allow the class (and perhaps the teacher) to see the level of support for the information you are introducing into the discussion. Remember, the closer the class discussion is to the factual “what” and “how,” the less likely philosophy (or theology or worldview) is to be a part of the discussion—and the more the student is expected (and needs) to be involved in learning the content. The more “why” is involved, the more the student is at liberty to question—and to sort through the answers for genuine factual information.

G. Charles Jackson, Creation Truth Foundation




Greg Kokul, Stand to Reason, excerpt from "Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions" p. 65-67

Some professors are fond of taking potshots at Christianity with remarks like "The Bible is just a bunch of fables," even if the topic of the class has nothing to do with religious issues. Well-meaning believers sometimes take up the challenge and attempt a head-to-head duel with the professor.

Don't make this mistake. It's right-hearted, but wrongheaded. This approach rarely works because it violates a fundamental rule of engagement: Never make a frontal assult on a superior force in an entrenched position. An unwritten law of nature seems to govern exchanges like these: The man with the microphone wins. The professor always has the strategic advantage, and he knows it. It's foolish to get into a power struggle when you are out-gunned.

There's a better way. Don't disengage. ... Raise your hand and ask a question. For starters, you might ask, "Professor, can you give us a little more detail on what you mean? What kind of fable are you talking about? Do you think nothing in the biblical documents has any historical value? Is everything in the book a fanciful invention of some sort? What's your opinion?" ...

Let the professor explain himself. As a good student, listen carefully to his response. Take notes. Ask further clarification questions if necessary. If he falters in any way, the other students will notice. If he has trouble making his ideas clear, it will become obvious that he has not thought carefully about his ideas.

When you are satisfied that you have a clear take on his view, raise your hand again and ask him how he came to his conclusions. Ask him to explain the line of evidence that convinced him not to take the Bible seriously. Make the teacher, the one making the claim, shoulder the burden of proof for his own assertions. This allows you to stay engaged while deftly sidestepping the power struggle.

Now... The professor may sense your maneuver and try to turn the tables. He might say something like, "Oh, you must be one of those Fundamentalist Christians who thinks the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Okay, I'm a fair man," he continues, looking at his watch. "We have a little extra time. Why don't you take a moment and prove to the rest of the class that the Bible is not filled with fables?"

What has the professor just done? In one quick move, he has cleverly shifted the burden of proof back on you, the student. This is unfair, because you have not made any claim. He is the one who is expressing a view. It's up to him to defend it. He's the teacher, after all.

Don't take the bait. Falling into this trap is nearly always fatal. The professor is trying to get ou to do his job. Don't let it happen.

Instead, when you find yourself facing any form of the "Why don't you try to prove me wrong?" challenge, shift the burden back where it belongs, on the one who made the claim. Respond this way: "Professor, I actually haven't said anything about my own view, so you're just guessing right now. For all you know, I could be on your side. More to the point, my own view is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what I believe. Your ideas are on the table, not mine. I'm just a student trying to learn. I'm asking for clarification and wondering if you have good reasons. That's all."

If he gives an answer, thank him for explaining himself and either ask another question or let it go for the time being. You have done the best you can under the circumstances.

The "professor's ploy" is to shift the burden of proof from himself to someone else. He demands that others defend views they have not expressed even though he is the one who has made specific claims. He tries to sidestep his responsibility, but the burden of proof is still his.

Do not be afraid to question your professors. Challenge them on your terms, though, not theirs. And do it with grace, respect, and tact. Remember, you don't have to be the expert on every subject. If you keep the burden of proof on the other side when the person is making the claim, it takes the pressure off you but still allows you to direct the conversation.

"Tactics"   Paperback   Kindle

THE LAW OF CREATORSHIP - Request for a natural law

by Vance Ferrell, Appendix 1 in the "Science vs. Evolution" textbook

I am not here making request that such a law be invented, but that it be acknowledged; for it already exists.

This is a unique chapter, not normally found in creationist books. Yet it concerns something that is very important in our world and which should be recognized as such.

When Sir Isaac Newton announced the law of gravity, in his book, the Principia in 1687, he did not “prove” its existence. He only acknowledged that it was already operating, and then cited several mathematical formulas about it. Natural laws are never “made;” instead, their existence is acknowledged and several facts about them are stated.

Newton’s law did not show what gravity was; it explained neither its nature nor its cause. It only noted some ways by which it operated. We cannot expect to be able to do more than that when elucidating the Law of Creatorship.

Although we can explain neither the cause nor the nature of life, a vast amount of evidence has been uncovered which clarifies a portion of the many ways by which it functions.

All the evidence from nature, including the large amount given in this book, points to a Creator God who made living creatures and keeps them alive.

The fact that you are alive is as obvious as the fact that, if you jump in the air, gravity will quickly bring you back to the ground.

I differ from other creationists, in that I do not consider creation to be a theory, standing in opposition to the theory of evolution. Nowhere in this book will you find the suggestion that creation is a theory. A theory is a collected set of hypotheses, such as relativity, the quantum theory, evolution, and plate tectonics.

In strong contrast, creation is an established fact. An unprejudiced person need only study the structure and function of a hummingbird, most of which (without the feathers) is about the size of a bean, and he will be convinced of this fact. Or reseach into all that is involved in the human eye. Creation is a daily reality far beyond the theoretical stage!

What are some of the characteristics of natural laws? They are all-pervasive and everywhere applicable. They are regular in their occurrance. They consistently apply. They can be repeatedly observed in the laboratory or field; and theorems, principles, and laws can be formulated based on them. Exceptions can be explained as consistent with damage by accidents or mutations, not by primal origin.

The natural law of creatorship can be identified, in its application to each created object, by several qualities: precise coordination of many parts, intelligently and careful design, extreme complexity, specified complexity, irreducible complexity, a unified wholeness, and a reality unexplainable by any other causal agency.

This law of creatorship also covers one other unique and very astounding aspect, that of life. Just as scientists cannot make gravity out of nongravity, or tinker with gravity (making it heavier or lighter), so they cannot impart life to something non-living. (Resuscitating a person would not count, for life was still present and the heart need only be restarted.) The reality of life as part of a natural law should be acknowledged.

The law of creatorship is as solid, unerring, and undisprovable as is the law of gravity. It is really an already proven fact, and we should acknowledge it as such. It should be placed in the halls of science as a respected law. The creatorship of God was fully accepted by working, successful scientists for over 500 years before Darwin’s foolishness was extolled. They considered His creatorship to be a universally applicable fact.

The fact of creation requires a Creator. Therefore, I call it the law of creatorship, rather than the law of life or the law of creation. Creation cannot be explained apart from a super-intelligent, all-powerful Maker, who designed and made all things. The great truth remains: “In Him we live and move, and have our being.”

The law of creatorship also explains natural phenomena which are not living. For example, in 1680, Newton calculated that an inverse square law of gravitational attraction between the sun and the planets explained the elliptical orbits earlier discovered by Kepler. Yet the precise means by which all the planets are located exactly at certain distances from the sun, orbit at precisely certain speeds, and maintain their necessary elliptical configurations—requires something beyond Newton’s three laws of motion and the counteracting law of gravity which together keep them in balance in their orbits. Something else is at work, continually guiding all this, so the planets do not fall into the sun!

Our moon, with a mass only one-eighth and a gravity only one-sixth that of earth, is exactly held in orbit by its speed of rotation and mutual gravity between it and the earth. This sustained balance is too precise to be explained by anything other than the law of creatorship.

Chapter 18 in this book discusses the second law of thermodynamics, which also points us directly toward the law of creatorship. Indeed, the properties of this law of entropy require it.

“The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the qualitative degeneration of energy. That energy decay is also called 'entropy.' Entropy increases as matter or energy becomes less useable...The Second Law states that all systems will tend toward the most mathematically probable state, and eventually become totally random and disorganized. To put it in the vernacular, apart from a Higher Power, everything left to itself will ultimately go to pieces. All science bows low before the Second Law.”—pp. 747-748.

The Second Law declares that all of nature, throughout the universe, is running down—and thereby points us to a Creator which made it.

In addition, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that, since matter/energy can neither
make itself nor eliminate itself, only an outside agency or power could bring it into existence. Thus, that law also points to the Law of Creatorship.

The usual reply by evolutionary scientists is that nothing can be scientifically accepted as genuine, or existing, until it has been duplicated by scientists in one laboratory, and then repeated in other laboratories.

In reply, I say that, first, scientists do not have to make a gull’s wing in a laboratory in order to believe that it exists. Second, a gull’s wing could not be made in a laboratory anyway!

In reality, just as one scientist can examine a gull’s wing and another scientist can afterward verify his findings, so researchers should feel free to consider some of the many truly awesome wonders of living creatures and, based on those otherwise unexplainable marvels, acknowledge the Law of Creatorship. Only God could make and sustain those amazing things. There is no other answer.

That is the scientific proof of the law. The living, functioning existence of living creatures is the undeniable evidence. It may be rejected, but cannot scientifically be denied.

Read again Chapter 27 of this book [Summary of the Anthropic Principle] and acknowledge the truth of the situation. Creation is not a theory, but a fact. It is not a hypothesis, but one of the grand laws of matter and existence.

Great evils have fallen upon our world today because the God who made it is no longer recognized by so many in the world.

The Ultimate Proof of Creation

Today I visited Voddie Baucham's church where guest speaker Dr. Jason Lisle gave his "Ultimate Proof of Creation" presentation.

Long Haired Jesus

"Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him?" (1 Corinthians 11:14, HCSB)

Do a Google Image search for "Jesus". Nearly every image depicts Jesus as having long hair.

But did Jesus really have long hair? Probably not. Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians that it is a disgrace for men to have long hair. So Paul, Jesus, the disciples, etc. probably did not have long hair.

So why is Jesus usually portrayed with long hair? It is probably because of the incorrect belief that Jesus was a Nazarite.

Nazarites (like Samson) were required to have long hair to show that they were set apart to God. But Jesus was not a Nazarite, he was a Nazerene. A Nazerene was someone who lived in the city of Nazereth, just like a Houstonian is someone who lives in Houston. There were specific laws for Nazarites that Jesus did not follow. Jesus drank wine and vinegar made from wine. Jesus raised the dead. And Jesus probably did not have long hair.

John the Baptist possibly was a Nazarite, though the only evidence for this was that he was not allowed to drink wine. There is no mention of him having to keep the other rules of the Nazarites.

(Note: The New King James Version spells 'Nazirite'; The King James Version spells 'Nazarite'.)

Unbelievable: A Debate Between Sye TenBruggencate and Paul Baird

"Unbelievable" is a three part debate between Christian apologist Sye TenBruggencate and atheist Paul Baird.

Download Audio:
Round 1 (opens in iTunes)
Round 2 (opens in iTunes)
Round 3

Watch Round 3


Purchase (three audio CDs and one DVD)

On The Box | Presuppositional Apologetics

Sye TenBruggencate on On The Box

Sye TenBruggencate on Creation Today

Season 1, Episode 8



Season 1, Episode 13

Creation In Common Sense: How Do You Prove God Exists?

"Ultimate Authority"



"Logic"



"Science"



"Morality"

Sye Ten Bruggencate | Apologetics is easy - Believe your Bible

Sye TenBruggencate - Presuppositional Apologetics

Part 1: Ultimate Authority



Part 2: Logic & Science



Part 3: Morality

Presuppositional Apologetics - Scripture and Quotations

Scripture
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are taken from the Holman Christian Standard Bible®

Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission.

Holman Christian Standard Bible®, Holman CSB® and HCSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers.

Romans 1:18-23

“For God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of  people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse. For though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or show gratitude. Instead, their thinking became nonsense, and their senseless minds became darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man, birds, four-footed animals, and reptiles.”

Psalm 14:1

“The fool says in his heart, ‘God does not exist.’ They are corrupt; their actions are revolting. There is no one who does good.”

Psalm 53:1

“The fool says in his heart, ‘God does not exist.’ They are corrupt, and they do vile deeds. There is no one who does good.”

Genesis 8:22

“As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and
day and night, will not cease.”

Proverbs 1:7a

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge...”

Colossians 2:3

“In Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden.”

Proverbs 26:4-5

“Don’t answer a fool according to his foolishness or you will be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his foolishness or he’ll become wise in his own eyes.”

1 Peter 3:15

“[Sanctify the Lord God] [Set apart Christ as Lord] in your hearts and always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.” 

2 Timothy 2:24-26

“The Lord’s slave must not quarrel, but must be gentile to everyone, able to teach, and patient, instructing his opponents with gentleness. Perhaps God will grant them repentance to know the truth. Then they may come to their senses and escape the Devil’s trap, having been captured by him to do his will.”

Quotes

Dr. Greg Bahnsen, in "The Great Debate" vs. Dr. Gordon Stein

“The Bible tells us, the fool has said in his heart, there is no God. Don't misunderstand that. When the Bible uses the term fool, it's not engaging in name-calling. It's trying to describe somebody who is dense in the sense that they will not use his reason as God has given it. Somebody who is rebellious, who is hard-hearted. It's the fool who says in his heart there is no God.”

Sye TenBruggencate on “A Rebel’s Cause Radio” August 16, 2012

“The reason we do apologetics is because we are commanded to. We are commanded to give a reasoned defense of our faith. So if an unbeliever were to question the authenticity of our faith, then we have to be able to give them a reasoned answer.”

---

“I don’t say evidences are a bad thing. Evidences are a wonderful gift from God, normally used to bolster our faith. Now, you can use evidences with unbelievers, but just don’t use them to put God on trial. So rather than give evidence to prove to the unbeliever that God exists, I expose the fact that they already know God exists.”

---

“God is not the conclusion to the argument. He is the necessary starting point, because if God is the conclusion, it is not God you are arguing to, it is an idol of your making.”

Tony Miano in the article “Bill Nye the Scie... Foolish Guy”

“[T]o present evidences for the existence of God is, on some level, to assert that God needs to be proven. It is to give legitimacy to the blasphemous notion that God can be put on trial--that convicted criminals (sinners) have the right to cross examine the Judge. 

“I believe to entertain and engage unbelievers on this level not only fuels and encourages the unbelievers' sinfulness, but it is also a blasphemous exchange on the part of God's proponent. That's right. To allow an unbeliever to put God on trial by participating in such a kangaroo court, even as a well-intentioned and loving defense attorney, is to participate in the unbeliever's blasphemy. And by aiding and abetting such blasphemy, the Christian takes part in the blasphemy and is, therefore, guilty of the same.”

1 Peter 3:15 — Four Keys to Being an Effective Apologist

Taken from "How Do We Know The Bible Is True, Vol. 1"
Chapter 10, "How To Do 'Foolproof' Apologetics"
by Dr. Jason Lisle

“Sanctify Christ as Lord in your heart.”
Remember that all knowledge is in Christ  (Colossians 2:3), and so our defense (apologetic) should be based unashamedly on the person of Christ as revealed in His Word. We can show that any system of thought, if it’s not based ultimately on biblical revelation, is inherently irrational.
“Be ready always to give a defense.”In obedience to our Lord, we should continually study the Bible and read about the common issues in apologetics so that we will be prepared. Thinking through the issues and studying the Scriptures is a lifelong process that will continually improve our defense of the faith.
“To everyone who asks a reason of the hope that is in you.”Remember that our job is to give a good defense for those who ask. We should not be discouraged if the person is not persuaded, as long as we have given a good, biblical faithful reason for our faith. Conversion is the job of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3).
“With gentleness and respect.”Our defense should never be emotionally charged or derisive. Remember, even those who are in rebellion against God are made in His image and deserve respect.

Children of the Same God?

Mitt Romney (left) as a Mormon missionary.

"We're a nation that believes we're all children of the same God."

-Mitt Romney, first presidential debate, October 3, 2012

Mitt Romney is a Mormon. If you look at Mormon beliefs, his above quote fits in with that religion's worldview.

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, known as the Mormons, teaches that God the Father used to be a man on another planet, that he became a God by following the laws and ordinances of that God on that planet and came to this world with his wife (she became a goddess), and that they produce a spirit offspring in heaven.  These spirit offspring, which includes Jesus, the devil, and you and me, are all brothers and sisters born in the preexistence.  These preexistence spirits come down and inhabit babies at the time of birth and their memories of the preexistence are lost at the time.  Furthermore, faithful Mormons, who pay a full 10% tithe of their income to the Mormon church through Mormon temples, have the potential of becoming gods of their own planets and are then able to start the procedure over again." (Matt Slick, 'Mormon Beliefs, are they Christian?')

So it would make sense for Mitt Romney to say that he "believes we're all the children of the same God". But it is unbiblical to say that all people are the children of God. The Bible says:

"But to all who did receive Him, He gave them the right to be children of God, to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12-13)

"All those led by God’s Spirit are God’s sons. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry out, 'Abba, Father!' The Spirit Himself testifies together with our spirit that we are God’s children." (Romans 8:15-16)

Only those who are born of God are God's children. Everybody else are children of the devil (John 8:44) and children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3).

Romney cannot assert that all Americans believe in the same God. I believe in the God of Christianity who has revealed Himself through His written Word, known as the Holy Bible. Romney believes in a deity from the planet Kolob. Muslims believe in Allah. Atheists choose not to acknowledge the God who created them.

In the end, all that matters is what God says. Jesus made it clear when He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6) "...the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23b)

Do you need God?

Welcome!

This blog is the companion to http://briansayles1615.tumblr.com/