D'Souza vs. Barker Demonstrates “Theology Matters”

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence

Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed

Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with dr.

White call now 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll -free across the

United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three three -four -one And now with today's topic here is

James white And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line a special edition of dividing line 90 minutes today.

Don't know how you can stand it But I wanted to have enough time today to not have to rush through the material that I wanted to present on the subject of Theology matters and it matters especially in the field of apologetics once again this morning

I was doing my Study, which means I was writing and I listened to the debate that took place not very long ago

Between Dinesh D'Souza and Dan Barker. Obviously, I'm listening to Everything by Dan Barker these days because two weeks from today.

We will be debating at the University of Illinois and As I listened to this debate

There was once again those a couple of times where anyone at one point

I I specifically know that I was riding along a certain spot behind some houses and If someone was in the backyard of their house, they would have heard me yelling just answer his question and Unfortunately, I wasn't yelling at Dan Barker It seemed to me that There were so many opportunities

That were just completely missed in this debate and that's because theology matters that is

Dinesh D'Souza is a Roman Catholic and I'm afraid that many people just do not understand

Why it is that there is a fundamental difference in how we defend the faith between those who?

Specifically seek to follow the scriptures as the sole infallible rule of faith and those who do not But there is a fundamental difference or at least there should be

For there are many who call themselves Protestants who like Roman Catholics have a hobbled a crippled

Apologetic it is not a thoroughly biblical apologetic. It is not an apostolic apologetic.

It is not how the Apostles Defended the faith. This is something we've talked about many times when you hear someone presenting a

Probability argument for the existence of God you're listening to someone who is not following an apostolic example

That is not how the Apostles Proclaimed the gospel or defended the proclamation of the gospel either and that's what

I heard in this program. I want to start off This particular debate, I'm sorry, I want to start off with some difficult words one of the reasons that Cornelius Vantil Is difficult for people follows because English was not his primary language and As such he reading

Vantil is not easy It is not something can be sped read in any way

But he brings out some important issues and you're going to hear the practical ramifications of This material

I'm reading here from his book Christian apologetics now the addition that I have is

Actually rather old it's from PNR from many many moons ago, and it's rather poorly typeset but let me

Try to work through some of this with you lay the foundation so that as we listen to this debate You will be able to see why

I keep emphasizing these things. I think it's extremely important I think there are many solid biblical Christians who think that as long as you're a theist we're all on the same page

We're all on the same side that simply isn't the case There are people who defend the existence of God, but they do so in such a way

That they are defending the existence of a general deity rather than the

Christian God of Scripture and When you bring someone or pretend to bring someone to the faith with some biblical argumentation

And then you attempt to to introduce them to the fullness of what the

Bible teaches Which may not happen in many of these types of churches anyways certainly not in Roman Catholicism Then they they see the the dissonance that exists the the contradiction that exists

Between the arguments you got to you used to get them there and then what you actually want them to end up believing this was brought home to me very clearly by a presuppositionalist professor that I had at Fuller seminary and I You know

I had never heard of any of this stuff. This was the exact same time when I began to Encounter reform theology it all happened at one time from two different directions, which

I'm very thankful for in hindsight But I was blown away when he stood in front of our

Class and he said Thomas Aquinas proved the wrong God now all

I'd ever heard of was Aquinas I mean you know about the only thing you could get if you went out to a

Bookstore would be something like from from Norman Geisler or something like that that you know classical apologetics

Or whatever it might be and it was a standard arguments that are used and and You know that that's what

I just thought there was and so I couldn't understand why he was saying what he was saying But he was basically saying you cannot start with the creation reason from the creation to the creator in the way that Aquinas Attempted to do and that was that was a shock to me

I didn't accept that at first, but thankfully he was having us read Schaefer He was having us read the

Blaise Pascal's the Pensee and At the same time I was I started reading a book by R .C.

Sproul, and that was the end of that so That that was part of my coming to understand these things, but let me try to explain

Why it is that there is such a fundamental difference, and then we will in the rest of dividing line

Help people to understand what the the situation is This is from page 16 of Christian apologetics

Roman Catholic well, let me back up here in conjunction with man's false ideal of knowledge We may mention here the fact that when man saw he could not attain his own false ideal of knowledge he blamed this

To his finite character man confused finitude with sin Thus he commingled the metaphysical and the ethical aspects of reality not willing to take the blame for sin

Man laid it to circumstances round about him or within him. You know what go back up even more because I I'm just gonna read this.

I'm gonna back up anymore because I think you need on the question of epistemology as On that of metaphysics the

Roman Catholic Church again occupies a straddling position With non -christian forms of epistemology in general and with Aristotle in particular

Its most basic concept is that of knowledge in general this is naturally involved in the

Aristotelian idea of being in general Roman Catholicism not only admits But it maintains that Aristotle was right in assuming that it is possible to say something intelligible about being in general

Accordingly it follows Aristotle and speaking of the requirements to which knowledge in general must answer if it is to be true with Aristotle Romanism assumes that God and man listen to this stand in exactly the same sort of relation to the law of contradiction

To think and know truly it is assumed Both must think in accordance with that law as an abstraction from the nature of either so God and us

We both have to think in the same way, and there's this law above God This law of non -contradiction.

It's above God and God has to answer that law see that was my insertion because it was in more flowing

English Going back to Vantil the consequences are again fatal both for systematic theology and apologetics for systematic theology

It means the truth is not made ultimately to consistent correspondence to the internally

Self -complete nature and knowledge that God has of himself and of all created reality

Hence man's dealings in the realm of truth are not ultimately with God Both with an abstraction that stands above God with truth capital

T truth as such for apologetics It means the basic principle the non -christian conception of truth cannot be challenged

According to this most basic assumption it is man rather than God that is the final reference point in all predication

The idea of truth in the abstract is in accord with this assumption in fact

The idea of truth in the abstract is based upon this assumption a moment's reflection upon the fall of man in paradise will prove this

To be true in paradise. God said to man that if he ate of the forbidden fruit He would surely die The truth about the facts in the created universe

Adam and Eve were told in effect could be known ultimately only if one knew their relationship to the plan of God It is this plan of God that makes all created facts to be what they are

Granted that man's activity with respect to many facts is a factor in making him what they are

Even so it remains true that back of everything that man might do it is ultimately God's plan

That is all controlling and this plan is in accord with the being or nature of God God did not because he could not look up to an abstract principle of truth capital

T truth above himself in Order in accordance with it to fashion the world Satan however

Suggested to Eve that God's statement about the relation of one temporal fact to another was not

Determinative of the nature of that relationship facts and the truth about the relationships to another can be known by man

Satan contended in effect without getting any information about them from God as their maker and controller

I just step out again In other words what Satan is doing is he's tempting Eve to think in Separation from God not only in rebellion from God But to think in a way not dependent upon God's own nature and God's own revelation

I go back to Mantel. How can they thus be known in the first place by observation? But observation is not sufficient man needed to know something about the future

God pretended to interpret the future relationships of temporal facts to one another that is through giving his law in Rejecting God's interpretation the future relationship of temporal facts to one another man could only rest upon the powers of logical thought within himself

Mere observation of facts could not help him to offer a substitute prediction for that of God for there was as yet No past so man had to depend upon his powers of logic alone

And he had to assume that these powers could somehow Legislate for what is to be in the future he had in short to assume that his powers of logic could legislate

For what is possible and impossible in reality about him keep that in mind If anything has struck me in Dan Barker's fundamentalist humanism

That is a good description of it right there man had to depend upon his powers of logic alone

He had to assume that these powers could somehow legislate for what to for what is to be in the future he had in short to assume that his powers of logic could legislate for what is possible and Impossible in reality about him he had to say in effect that what

God said would come about Could not possibly come about and he had to find this power of legislation exclusively within himself

He had as yet no experience about the course of nature. He could appeal to no law of truth in any objective sense

He had to choose between taking the divine mind or his own mind as the source of truth about all facts truth out of all relationship to any mind is a pure meaningless abstraction now

Roman Catholicism bound as it is to its most basic notion of Supposedly intelligent predication about being in general is unable to place this alternative before men

It cannot challenge those who make man the center of their interpretation of life With a view that makes

God the center of the interpretation of life until was not exactly ecumenical in his perspectives

So back to Let's see here what I had been been saying before Let me on page 17 just two more paragraphs and I'll look at some others in the view of knowledge the

Romanist view of man involves both rationalism and irrationalism These correspond to determinism and indeterminism in the realm of being the

Roman Catholic apologist will make his final appeal to knowledge In general instead of to the self -conscious ontological

Trinity He will try to prove the existence of God by the method of Aristotle That is by showing that God's existence is in accord with logic in general

So so doing he does not prove the existence of the ontological Trinity. Listen to this.

He proves the existence of a small G God a small G God that fits into the pattern of being in general and he will prove that this

God probably exists For man has no experience of any sort of being except as such as lies at the edge of non being

Thus Romanism cannot challenge the interpretation to the non -christian seeking to appeal to the reason of the natural man as the natural man himself

Interprets his reason the Roman Catholic apologist falls victim both of the rationalism and the irrationalism

Inherent in the non -christian view of life. How many times have we listened to William Lane Craig and those who follow

William Lane Craig? Argue that the preponderance of the evidence points to the greater probability of the existence of a

God It needs to be understood that William Lane Craig is standing upon a

Roman Catholic epistemology He is not thoroughly Protestant in his perspectives and if you don't see how that was relevant to what happened with Frank Beckwith Then you're not aware of that situation

Continuing in the field of ethics the Romanist view involves both Dictatorship and autonomy these correspond to determinism and indeterminism in the field of being and to rationalism and irrationalism the field of knowledge

The average man is virtually said to be properly subject in Absolute sense papal authority to such of their fellow men as have attained to a higher position than they have in the scale of being

The relationship between those in authority and those under authority is not exclusively or even primarily ethical

But metaphysical the Pope to be sure speaks for Christ on Christ's authority But the only Christ he knows is one who though God as well as man yet fits into a certain position in the scale of being

Thus even the Pope deals not exclusively or primarily with the creator Redeemer But with being in general and knowledge in general he derives the authority not primarily from revelation given him by Christ But from his supposedly superior insight into the proper proportions within the scale of being he is an expert in the realm of religion

The average man must listen to him as to a dictator Well, there's there's much more there.

I but I'm already burning through some time here moving to the defense of faith by Cornelius Vantill just a couple things here, and then we'll start listening to the debate

This is in the section on the reformed position, but I want to read the section where he's contrasting this with both

Roman Catholicism and Protestant evangelicalism But let me give you at least the

Last paragraph of presenting the reformed position this is on page 92 if you have the same book it is only when we begin our approach to the question of the point of contact by thus analyzing the situation as it obtained in Paradise before the fall of man

That we can attain to a true conception of the natural man in his capacities with respect to the truth The Apostle Paul speaks the natural man as actually possessing the knowledge of God Romans 1 19 through 21

Oh, I can't tell you how important that is The natural man possesses but suppresses

The knowledge of God the greatness of his sin lies precisely in the fact that when they knew God they glorified him not as God No man can escape knowing

God it is indelibly involved in his awareness of anything whatsoever Man ought therefore as Calvin puts it to recognize

God There is no excuse for him if he does not the reason for his failure to recognize God lies exclusively in him

It is due to his willful transgression of the very law of his being neither

Romanism nor Protestant evangelicalism can do full justice to this teaching of Paul in Effect both of them fail to surround man

Exclusively with God's revelation not holding the counsel of God as all controlling they cannot teach that man's self -awareness always presupposes awareness of God According to both

Rome and Evangelicalism man may have some measure of awareness of objects about him and of himself in relation to that relation to them

Without being aware at the same time of his responsibility to manipulate both of them in relation to God Thus man's consciousness of objects of self of time and of history are not from the outset brought into an exclusive relationship of dependence upon God Of course when we thus stress

Paul's teaching that all men do not have a mere capacity for but are in actual possession of the knowledge of God We have at once to add

Paul's further instruction of the effect that all men do the sin within them Always and in all relationships seek to suppress this knowledge of God Romans 1 18

The natural man is such a one as constantly throws water on a fire. He cannot quench

He has yielded the temptation of Satan and has become his bondservant when Satan tempted Adam and Eve in Paradise he sought to make them believe that man's self -consciousness was ultimate rather than derivative and God dependent

He argued as it were that it was of the nature of self -consciousness To make itself the final reference point of all predication

He argued as it were that God had no control over all that might come forth in the process of time

That is to say he argued in effect. That is any form of self -consciousness must assume its own ultimacy

So it must also admit its own limitation in the fact that much of that happens is under no control at all

Thus Satan argued as it were that man's consciousness of time and of times products in history is if intelligible at all intelligible in some measure independently of God Romanism and evangelicalism

However do not attribute this assumption of autonomy or ultimacy on the part of man as due to sin

Note this did if you're if you're if you're losing something here Romanism and evangelicalism

However, do not attribute this assumption of autonomy or ultimacy on the part of man as due to sin

They hold that man should quite properly think of himself and of his relation to objects in time in this way

And that is exactly What is part and parcel of Both of those theologies are minionism and Roman Catholicism both assert this very thing hence, they do not they do injustice to Paul's teaching with respect to the effect of sin on the interpretive activity of man as They virtually deny that originally man not merely had a capacity for the truth, but was an actual possession of the truth

So also they virtually deny that the natural man suppresses the truth It is not to be wondered at that neither

Romanism nor evangelicalism are little interested in challenging the philosophers when these as Calvin says

Interpret man's consciousness without being aware of the tremendous difference in man's attitude toward the truth before and after the fall

Accordingly, they do not distinguish carefully between the natural man's own conception of himself and the biblical conception of him

Yet for the question of the point of contact This is all important. If we make our appeal to the natural man without being aware of this distinction

We virtually admit that the natural man's estimate of himself is correct.

There is the absolute touchstone on Why it is that sub biblical apologetics can not be consistent and I would assert does not glorify

God Let me read again yet for the question of the point of contact, what's our point of contact?

Is there a neutral point of contract? Can we assume neutrality? No, we cannot to do so is to deny everything we believe

So what's the point of contact if we make our appeal to the natural man without being aware of this distinction?

We virtually admit that the natural man's estimate of himself is correct We may to be sure even then maintain that he is in need of information

Wait, we may even admit that he is morally corrupt but the one thing which on this basis we cannot admit is that his claim to be able to interpret least some

Area of experience in a way that is essentially correct is mistaken We cannot then challenge his most basic epistemological assumption to the effect that his self -consciousness and time -consciousness are

Self -explanatory, we cannot challenge his right to interpret all his experience and exclusively immanentistic categories and on this everything hinges for if we first allow the legitimacy of the natural man's assumption of himself as the ultimate reference point in Interpretation in any dimension.

We cannot deny his right to interpret Christianity itself in naturalistic terms

There is so much more that I would highly recommend to you the defense of the faith It is not easy reading, but it is more than worth while reading

But what you're going to hear is the truthfulness of everything I just read to you repeated over and over and over again in much more simple terms

But we needed to lay that foundation Because in listening to this debate today again there were times

That I'm going yes, that's that's a valid point That's a valid point because I'm listening to a theist debating an atheist

And I I listened to you know Dan Barker, and and you know the fact is Dan Dan Barker Says wrong things he says in here the thing he says all the time

He says the term for kill in the Old Testament does not mean murder. It only means kill

No Hebrew scholar on the planet would ever back him up on that because Hebrew scholars know something called semantic domains, and they know something about Context and it just drives me nuts when

I hear stuff like that because it's just so obviously fallacious But so rarely gets challenged, but still

The point is that listening to opportunity after opportunity after opportunity go by In this debate was extremely

Difficult to listen to a couple things about the debate First of all it was a horrible debate in organization.

I Would never let myself get involved with us. It was at Harvard as I recall as at Harvard and There there was basically no meaningful opening statement.

There was almost no interaction almost no cross -examination It was nothing, but a CNN style

Short questions and answers and that's horrible secondly it doesn't seem that either debater had what

I'm holding in my hand a stopwatch a thing to let you know how much time you have left over and over and over again a person is mid -sentence or Starting another point when they get interrupted and shut down and it just you know

Maybe that's how you do it in the modern day where you have people whose whose attention span

Is only approximately 30 seconds to 2 minutes at the most I mean you're really stretching them at that point But it really makes it difficult to develop almost anything

So on both of those levels it was just horrific Along those lines the organization was all wrong and the interaction was all wrong, and it was just it was just terrible

But still the things that came out hopefully in light of what we just said will be of some assistance

So let's get to let's get to these let's start with This clip right here word of God, so how can you feel confident that yours is the one that's truly divinely inspired?

Sorry started that a little bit behind that this is a question about given all these world scriptures

How can you know that yours is divinely inspired? Here's the first example of Theology matters

I see religions as a

Human effort to apprehend the divine in this sense

The presence of the divine the transcendent God Can be defended and to a large degree known

By reason what can't call religion within the limits of reason alone now

Religion ultimately is based on two dimensions. You may say the dimension of reason and the dimension of revelation

It is impossible to use reason to adjudicate between competing revelations in that sense

I have no way of saying that Christianity is in its revelation better or truer

Than other religions. I can't say that based on reason in fact when the end of the world comes I guess we'll know if the phone final phone call turns out to be from Salt Lake City Big surprise to all of us won't it be

I? Stopped there just for a moment To with my mouth hanging open

Theology matters. Oh, we can't we can't do these things that with with reason what?

Such a fundamental difference as to how we even view divine revelation the sufficiency of Scripture between the rather liberal

Roman Catholic and the believing Christian Coming out right there. Hey, we might get a phone call from the

Mormons who knows What what what do you mean you cannot demonstrate the supremacy and superiority of the

Bible of the Book of Mormon Again the absolutely hamstringing of of any meaningful apologetic on on this level

What kind of Christianity is being defended here? It's certainly not the supernatural Christianity the

Apostles And that's the problem you see if you bring somebody to a non -supernatural philosophically based

Christianity that has no basis for the biblical discussions of Living under the

Lordship of Christ and taking every thought captive obedience of Christ and and all the rest is what are you leading them to?

Are they not even in more danger there than they were before because now they think they have

Christianity I? Really, I think it's a good question look.

I want to make a little different point the way I look at it is somewhat different I see

Religion as an effort to bridge the gap we all sense in our life a chasm between the way we are and you might say the way we should be we sense a chasm between our life as it is and Perfection and I by perfection what

I mean is perfect beauty perfect goodness perfect truth and so on so here is this huge divide

Religion is an effort to try to bridge that and I see the major Abrahamic religions particularly by the way

Judaism and Islam as a way to construct a ladder a Human ladder to God if you follow these codes these commandments these dietary

Regulations pray five times a day go to Mecca you're going to move up the rungs of the ladder Eastern religion similarly view the problem as the self and if you can extinguish the self you'll achieve in some sense is what the

Buddhists call Nirvana now Christianity is based on the premise that this divide this chasm is so big that no no human effort will ever bridge it and Therefore the only way to bridge it if it is going to be bridged is

God must in some sense descend down He must condescend to the human level and this is what

I see in the incarnation of Christ in a sense God If you will leaning down and closing this gap, and I think speaking

Anthropologically speaking on pure reason looking at the world as it is this seems to me a more realistic assessment of The way it's going to have to happen

I don't see a way for us We are made Immanuel Kant said out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made

I don't think man on his own can make his way to God God has to make his way to man for these reasons quite apart from whether the

Bible is true as opposed to the Quran I don't want to get into that kind of hocus -pocus debate I want to debate today not by quoting the

Bible not by flinging scriptural verses I want to debate based on history and philosophy and science the same

Rational evidence that the atheists appeal to my goal is ultimately to defeat atheism on its own ground all right.

Thank you, mr. D'Souza mr.. Bucky of 90 seconds to respond Well you did not answer the question

And Dinesh is obviously a very kind and very smart individual and I admire someone like him

But tonight all he's doing is equivocating. I think you can see that Yes, I can what an amazing thing a hocus -pocus as Was just point out in channel how ironic for a

Roman Catholic to be using this focus, but how is it? How do you prove a

Supernatural faith, how do you substantiate the truth claims of Christianity based upon natural reason?

that Treats divine revelation in this way How do you do it?

What what are you trying to bring people to I'm not gonna. Tell you I'm not gonna quote anything about what

God said I'm gonna quote Immanuel Kant all the time. Well. That's great

But what are you trying to accomplish? there's a fundamental difference between what the apologist who is trying to the

Incremental apologist and what I mean by an incremental apologist is an individual

Who is who thinks that you're accomplishing something for God? By bringing someone a little closer to the truth a little less pagan

This is the approach some use of Mormonism Well if we could get them to be you know just how about just three gods instead of an infinite number of gods that somehow is

Better than a few generations down the road we can get them down to we can try to get them down to one God and then we can eventually try to repair the

Trinity and and Instead of the apostolic example found in Galatians you once worshipped those which are by nature not gods you once worshipped them

We called you to repentance for that idolatry very politically incorrect But politically correct apologetics will never lead you to biblical

Christianity because biblical Christianity is not Politically correct So those are using that just are wasting

Resources and time and everything else in the process that doesn't mean that God can't use God could use a cricket a crooked stick to draw a straight line and God might use

Imperfect apologetics at least I sure hope he does because I'm not perfect But this is a fundamental difference in approach as to how you do apologetics

It truly truly is well here Here's the next question that was well not the next but here's the next question that I've I've selected

And again, how different? My response would be then offered that offered by the

Sousa Our next question is for mr. D'Souza We often hear

Christians citing Bible verse or Bible principles as proof of morality and immorality But some of these principles such as those that pertain to slavery or intense physical punishment are considered outdated today and Are largely ignored by the

Christian? Contingency do you believe that some traditional Christian morals are outdated if so is it possible that any of today's religious ethics will someday be?

Obsolete mr. Sousa you two minutes Let's look for a moment at the single and strongest example you gave which is the example of slavery now

Slavery has been a universal institution The Chinese had it the Indians had it it was slavery all over Africa American Indians had slaves long before Columbus For centuries slavery was uncontroversial it required no defenders because it had no critics

It is only in one civilization the civilization of the West also known as Christendom that slavery became controversial

Not by the way in the modern era many people think this was some sort of enlightenment idea Between the 4th century and the 10th century slavery virtually disappeared from Europe being replaced by serfdom

Very different from slavery then in the modern era first the Quakers and then the evangelical Christians Began to say the following if we are all created equal in the eyes of God a theological premise it follows

Politically that no man has the right to rule another man without his consent This startling idea

I admit. It's a it's a new interpretation of a very old theological principle This startling interpretation becomes the basis not only of anti -slavery or abolition

It also becomes the basis of democracy because what is the premise of democracy representative democracy?

No, man has the right to rule another without consent These ideas have no clear secular roots

Even Jefferson who was the most secular of all the founders the least of a believer when he came down to saying what is the source?

of our rights He didn't name four sources. He named only one our creator our rights come directly

He thought from God the simple assumption of the sacredness of human life He could think of no other source

And he was a pretty smart guy, and he was a very scientifically minded guy than God so my point is what you call outdated

Yes, slavery is outdated. That's because Christianity made it outdated if it wasn't yes, sir

By the way you pay half as much for a female slave is for a male slave Jesus talked about there are some slaves who ought to be beat harder than others you would have thought that this wonderful lawgiver this wonderful Omnipotent powerful deity who was coming to give us advice would have said something about it in one of his parables

Maybe he would have said by the way slavery is a bad idea. No he incorporated slavery you notice

What Dan does he recognizes that the Susan wall? That's interesting and and all that may be true, and it is interesting to notice that that slavery was a you know universal thing all

That's true But how does it help this person to recognize the supremacy of the

Word of God and the propriety of the Word of God? And how it handled slavery it doesn't What should have been said is we need to understand that while the

Bible does not? condemn slavery it provides Specific guidelines to rule over it in other words it allows

For the message here the Old Testament message in regards to the to the Jews and then in the

New Testament Written to people who most of whom were slaves Most of whom were in that situation and was the

Bible tell them honor your masters even those who are not Christians even those who are Not kind to you do it to glorify.

God. It doesn't say start a revolution The gospel gets to go to every single nation nations with slavery and nations without slavery

Slavery was part and parcel of the economic system of the day to simply say oh

Everyone needs to abolish slavery would have meant that for Christianity to enter into any place in the

Roman Empire would have required revolution and armed revolution at that so the what is being

Demanded of the revelation and then Barker does this all the time from Barker's perspective the revelation had to be given in the 21st century

It had to be given in a modern context Speak to modern context the fact that was given those old ignorant people back then he suffers horribly from modernist syndrome but to Give it in such a way that it speaks to the reality of whatever culture it enters into that never even crosses their mind the fact that it

Regulated Hebrew slavery and even allowed for slaves who were who loved their masters

To become permanent slaves as in part of the household. Oh, we never mentioned anything like that.

No, no No, we don't we don't we don't talk about anything like that No, this is just a bludgeon to beat on the Bible and ignore the historical context in which it is found

And that needs to be and you see so many Christians need to hear this because this is very very common

You need to be able to point out that slavery was the essence of the economic system of that time we're talking about employers and employees and So to just simply say oh, well, it should have been abolitionists from the very very foundation.

Yeah, it's right it laid the foundation of abolition and there are all sorts of Errors in the non

Hebraic form of slavery in the Old Testament There are all sorts of things that were there were violations of God's law in in that ignored those things

But the fact of the matter is is that what you're demanding if you're saying that the New Testament The Christian Church from the very beginning should have should have been saying get rid of slavery

Think about that when 75 % maybe of your members are slaves. What have you just forced

Christianity to be? It's a revolution. It's it's a rebel army And you are inviting not only the persecution the

Christian experienced, but you're inviting the legions to march against you in a situation like that and So that just needs to be brought out needs to be said but wasn't in in that situation and of course then

Dan jumped all over it and you know again starts going after the Bible because he knows if The one person is not defending the

Bible and will not defend the Bible and will not get into even talking about the Bible While he is attacking the

Bible out of so often out of context I said, oh, I'm always in context baloney It's not even close

But since he does that and the other side is not defending it. What what's the ultimate ultimate response again?

Here's here's another example of Theology matter he understands that your mind your state of mind is important and your works are also important There's been of course a big debate between Catholicism and the

Protestant churches on this very point is it faith though is it works Look, I see this as a hair -splitting debate

Ultimately, I see faith and works or intentions and effects is working as the two sides of a scissors So the entire issue of the

Reformation was a hair -splitting debate and evidently on both sides so I would imagine that the

Roman Catholics the tridentine Roman Catholics who hold to the Condemnations of Sola Fide in the

Council of Trent hear that and go. What are you talking about? I did look up online on there was a link to an article about him

And I think he described himself as a believing but not very good practicing Catholic Well there

I think you have a pretty decent example of that To be sure in in regards to that This next one again

How would you respond? How this this is most people know that especially on this one

I would have packed a lot into the two minutes that I was given, but I Didn't get to be there.

So here is the next next section. So what are your views on abortion and capital punishment?

Do you attach a different value to the life of a fetus than to that of a convict? Thank you. Um, this is if you'd like answer first I think of abortion and capital punishment as in some ways related and in some ways distinct

They're clearly clearly related in the sense that they both involve the taking of life They in some ways involve the deliberate taking of life in that sense an element of intentionality is involved in both situations

They're different for the reason that we discussed earlier and that is the question of guilt or innocence

I think would be hard to argue in any sense that a fetus assuming it has a right to life deserves to die

One feminist writer described the fetus as an uninvited guest Which it may be in the womb

But even so it is an immorally in a very different position than the guy the serial killer who goes out

And massacres, let's say five people at Virginia Tech or more So that's the key difference

Abortion is a difficult issue My own thinking on it has been shaped a little bit by looking at the Lincoln -Douglas debates

Which are very fascinating and I'm by the way, I'm not making some crude analogy with slave But the Lincoln -Douglas debates were ultimately over what to do about the expansion of slavery into the territories

The interestingly Douglas argued the pro -choice view Douglas said listen, I don't care if you have slavery. I don't care if you don't have it

I am indifferent to whether slavery is voted up or down, but I think we should agree to disagree

We shouldn't have a rule We should let each state each community decide for itself if it wants to vote yes or no on slavery

Lincoln made a very profound rebuttal to this. He says you cannot defend choice

Without attention to the content of what is being chosen. This is a moral evasion

He says ultimately the real question is is the Negro a human being or is the

Negro the moral equivalent of a hog? If the Negro is the moral equivalent of a hog, then my opponent is right we can decide up or down We can be morally indifferent

But if the fetus is a human being or if the slave is a human being the question settles itself choice becomes irrelevant so Similarly on the abortion issue.

I would like to see a little bit more. There's too much easy refuge in the principle of choice

I think that that evades Something that we as a society like to evade and that is the the status of the unborn and this is particularly

Ironic in an age of compassion at a time when you may say the orbits of compassion are stretching further out to encompass in some

Cases are not only the marginalized groups But in some cases even animals Peter Singer will be debating on Friday in LA once apes to have

The rights enshrined in the in in the human in the UN Charter, so we are going beyond our species

We are reaching far and wide apparently the only candidate for exemption in this widening circle of moral compassion

Is the one candidate that gets in our way? Thank you, Mr.. D'Souza, Mr.. Barker the same question

I don't speak for all atheists obviously there are some atheists who are anti abortion

There are some atheists who are pro death penalty Most of the atheists that I know happen to be

Socially liberal, but not all of them, but I can speak for myself at least tonight the Humanistic morality really is not concerned with punishment

Humanistic morality is concerned with protecting society from unnecessary harm so a humanist being ethical would say we need to exercise the minimal amount of protection or restraint necessary to avoid harm unnecessary harm to society

We think that capital punishment crosses that line. We think there are ways to protect society We don't care if that prisoner feels bad or feels punished.

I mean, that's not our business What we care is that society is protected, so Speaking for myself.

It is if we're trying to tell people Killing is wrong, and if you do it. We're gonna kill you the state's gonna kill you well

Then that the state is just as complicit in killing and just as immoral other atheists disagree with me But that's my position as a humanistic atheist.

I support a woman's right to choose an abortion Jesus never said anything about a woman with a unwanted pregnancy.

He was silent on the issue I think Christians should be as well. I think for most women an abortion is a blessing in her life

It is a wonderful thing obviously there's a difference between a fetus. That's the size of the thumb that has What that you, but what would you put it in a little locket and hang it on your neck?

It's not a fully developed. It's like the difference between an acorn and a tree obviously there's some potential there Every sperm has potential every sperm wants to be a future being as well, and yet We don't make masturbation a crime right so we we we have to make moral distinctions

And I think the reason I support a woman's right to choose is that it's her

Problem it's her issue It's none of your business or mine to butt in with her private decision with her doctor and with her priests and her rabbi

And her lawyer Thank You mr. Barker In the interest of time we're going to skip it now

I Barker's response was was just absolutely pathetic.

I would love to debate every issue he brought up For example the sperm

If you leave a sperm alone Will you end up if you don't kill a sperm will you end up with a human being with a unique genetic code?

No Evidently size determines person who will it's really teeny and tiny, but if you don't kill it.

What will it become? What what what is it? It's human is it not in fact.

It's absolutely unique. Yeah, it is. Oh anyway So you know taking apart?

the the imbecilic argumentations of Those who support the murder of unborn children is not difficult to do if you really have

Invested much time in the preparation of so doing The you know and it's and it's funny well, it's not funny

It's it's sad and disgusting that the Dan Barker likes likes to there's no big M Morality out there like there's a huge stomach, and you've got digestion and digestion to think he constantly contradicts himself on that He just hit did here well

You know the good of the society no no cap that were the big capital G. Good good of a society How is it good of society?

That millions and millions of unique individuals who had unique talents and capacities have been destroyed and killed

Since Roe v. Wade what how is how is society? Aided and assisted in this way.

Well. There's fewer of us there you go this kind of Thinking is amazing, but again.

I go back to D'Souza's response How is that a response? What you know at least you know okay emphasize the fact

That there is a fundamental difference between the criminal who has Broken God's law and man's law and is a danger to society and to others

Then emphasize the fact that his punishment is not just we'll put these people away

So they don't hurt us because society is all good. Do you hear that in Barker stuff is well?

We don't care about punishment. Well of course. I don't care about punishment all we are are ugly bags of water

All we are are random atoms bouncing around against each other so punishments irrelevant.

There's no such thing as justice There's no such thing as as transcendent values or anything like that of course every person who has been wronged

Knows there's such a thing as justice and desires it But that's just simply something going on between your ears, and it stops when you go to sleep when you die.

It's no longer relevancy that's the the the essence of his functional atheistic humanistic morality, but still when

D'Souza has two minutes to talk about the the horrific

Degradation of mankind inherent in abortion and The fact that not punishing evildoers likewise degrades

Humanity you don't get any of that well. It's because we were at Harvard. Well. You know the people at Harvard Are deeply deceived and you know they need to hear the truth?

And there was a situation where that just that didn't happen So let's press on as we have only 40 minutes left in the program already halfway

Through the extended version of the program today, let's press on trying to do is something perhaps a little different There's Christian apologetics and most of it goes on within the churches

What I'm trying to do if you will is engage atheism on its own ground So you'll notice for example that at no point today have

I appealed to authority or revelation or an encyclical? Or even scripture

I have essentially argued on the same terms as Dan Barker And that's why it shocks me that he basically says these religious views have to be somehow excluded from the public square because they are

Dangerous meanwhile apparently his views are perfectly safe, and they should have a monopoly in the public square this

Thank you. It strikes me as ludicrous as well that specific aspect, but what strikes me is even more ludicrous is a

Christian who thinks that reasoning on the same level as the atheist is going to somehow

Substantiate the supernatural truth claims claims of Christianity this goes back to what I spent the first 20 minutes reading and If you sort of zoned out, and you said oh, man, you know read something more relevant

This is where the rubber meets the road. This is where those foundational issues of How we know what we know and what is a consistent?

Christian epistemology come to bear in The real world standing in front of students at Harvard in the marketplace of ideas

This is where this all comes to fruition and probably

I believe No this isn't it, but this is getting close to where I was yelling as I was writing along today

But this one's this one's fairly close. Let's let's listen. Mr.. DeSouza. I'd like to ask you a question

You stated that the God was omniscient earlier in the presentation now

Accepting that term. I would like for you to ask how an omniscient entity

When creating this planet and the human beings could screw up so badly

They had Adam and Eve their first progeny was a murderer and going through there's no 10 or 15 generations

This omniscient Entity had to acknowledge that he had made such a mess that every man woman and child was murdered by drowning

And not too long after that he murdered his own so -called begotten son to correct for these failures of his own creation

And this doesn't sound like an omniscient entity to my understanding of the English words.

I mean I expect competence Yes now

I Think he has two minutes to respond And I maybe it's only one minute.

I'm not sure but again the response to such a presentation

Well how are you gonna handle it well depends on what you believe Now obviously there are gonna be some audience questions two weeks from today

And let's say someone stands up and asks that question, and I have a very brief period of time to respond in fact

I'm gonna. I'm gonna limit it. I think Looking at this he only has one One minute here let me look here 29

We're currently at 28 10 it goes 29 30. He has 90 seconds 90 seconds

So I'm gonna. I'm gonna put 90 seconds on my little clock here And I'll respond and then we'll see how

Dennis D'Souza response to the question Well sir of course the the problem with your question is that it ignores what

Christians believe Specifically in regards to the fact that God not only is omniscient

But he is omniscient because he has a sovereign decree that is determined everything that takes place in time

So God has a purpose for all the things that you call screw -ups

You may not understand what they are now We as creatures do not have an exhaustive knowledge of what

God's decree is but he assures us that everything that takes place has a purpose in his decree that will eventually lead to his glorification and So what you have described is not a matter of incompetence

It is a matter of our ignorance and especially in our state of rebellion our unwillingness to allow

God to define his own creation the scriptures tell us that he has created with a purpose and that purpose has included sin and That purpose has included redemption from sin through the person of Jesus Christ to his own glory

So none of those things were quote -unquote screw -ups. They were on our part, but not on God's part

They are part and parcel of the plan that he is working out in this world and so what that means is the

Christian believes that there is a Purpose even in the existence of evil and that God is going to glorify himself

Through the redemption of a peculiar people and through the punishment of those who love their sin So in answer to your question, sir

You would need to look to the God of the Bible to have a full understanding of what his purposes really are

And that was with two seconds left at the end That's why you need one of these things so you can try to wrap things up.

Let's listen to what Dinesh D'Souza said When I was at Dartmouth One of the things

I learned was in in answering an objection in in in critiquing a view

Always try first to state the view from the inside try to state the view as the advocate of that view might hold it and Then attack that because otherwise you're attacking a straw man

Now the first thing I would say is what is the Christian understanding of omniscience? And is the

God that we see in the world inconsistent with that the Christian understanding of omniscience is the following Number one

God created the universe and a lawful universe God created man and woman and created them with free will now he could have done it differently

He could have created us automatons. He could have made us robots. The Christian view is that for whatever reason?

And you can dispute it He created free will now freedom in the essence of it and dance wears by freedom as his core principle as you know

Freedom is there is the freedom to choose the good But it is not freedom if it doesn't have the equivalent freedom to deny the good to choose the evil

And so Christians are not surprised to see evil in the world particularly moral evil

It is the direct consequence of giving human beings free will now Well, that is a very standard answer.

It is not a reformed answer. It's not a biblical answer and it answers absolutely positively nothing Because well, it's because free will

God gave us free will and that's why there's evil in the world Well that didn't answer the man's question Did it because he said if God was omniscient then he knew what was gonna happen as a result of giving man free will

And if he doesn't have a decree, he's still stuck with absolutely senseless evil. It has no purpose

That's why I'm a reformed apologist. I don't know how anybody else Can be anything other to be perfect honest with you?

How how do you really think that's a satisfying answer? I don't know. I just don't know two more clips from this and then we'll go to some some other material

But we're actually gonna go ahead and take a brief break here. It's the bottom of the hour. We'll be right back

How the pilgrims progress it's not an easy way It's a journey

Following Jesus Bible works 8 is here full of innovative and essential tools users will have a hundred and ninety plus Bible translations 35 original language text and morphology databases 29 lexical grammatical references and an abundance of additional resources pastors

You will appreciate the phrase matching tool which will allow you to find all of the verses containing phrases

Similar to your search verse giving you greater depth and keener insight during sermon preparation Seminary professors and students will be enriched by the way

Bible works 8 shows the most common words in the pericope book or chapter Plus provides a wider range of formatting options and faster access to copying preferences scholars your research

Just got easier with the army external resources manager a handy tool to collect organize and display resource files from your computer

As well as the internet. Dr. James White says Bible works is the best Bible software available I have used

Bible works software for years and each new release has brought many new and useful tools to the program This is the program that runs 24 7 on my office computer and it is the one that's running on my laptop when

I engage In debates it is simply the number one research tool for anyone doing serious exegesis of the text for over 15 years

Bible works has assisted all users in their study of the original languages and That enables you to do one thing focus on the text and that translates to focusing on the truth

Order your copy of Bible works at a omen org and for a limited time You'll receive free shipping and a free mp3 download of the white airmen debate

The Trinity is a basic teaching of the

Christian faith. It defines God's essence and describes how he relates to us James White's book

The Forgotten Trinity is a concise understandable explanation of what the Trinity is and why it matters It refutes cultic distortions of God as well as showing how a grasp of the significant teaching leads to renewed worship and deeper understanding of what it means to be a

Christian and Amid today's emphasis on the renewing work of the Holy Spirit. The Forgotten Trinity is a balanced look at all three persons of the

Trinity Dr. John MacArthur senior pastor of Grace Community Church says James White's lucid presentation will help lay person and pastor alike highly recommended

You can order the Forgotten Trinity by going to our website at a omen org Hello everyone.

This is Rich Pierce In a day and age where the gospel is being twisted into a man -centered self -help program

The need for a no -nonsense presentation of the gospel has never been greater I am convinced that a great many go to church every

Sunday yet. They have never been confronted with their sin Alpha and Omega ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner making no excuses

Man is sinful and God is holy That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior and Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior?

We are to come before the Holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with while equipping the body of Christ as well

Support Alpha and Omega ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace

Thank you, and welcome back to the fighting line.

That was not an act of rebellion on Rich's part I can see him in there staring at the screen going

Why isn't there any sound coming out of the computer? I don't know why so it was not it was not a no

We do not have any bumper music, but obviously this proves once again that we need new bumper music. That's what we need and There are our

CDs out there to help rich with that That particular thing

Anyway, all right, let's continue on. I've got two more clips here and still lots to do We are gonna fill up the 90 minutes today and make your head explode.

So here we go. Next question, please My question is for mr. Barker and mr. DeSouza And I was just wondering what both of you thought of why?

Women are almost universally excluded from religious decision -making hierarchies and specifically

Christianity Go ahead. Can you tell you're at Harvard religious decision -making hierarchies?

I Like that you can tell you're at Harvard there is a book written by a noted

Evolutionary biologist that is called the inevitability of patriarchy it's an important book because it makes a

Darwinian argument by the way seconded by leading atheists like Steven Pinker.

I believe now at Harvard formerly of MIT Arguing that these male -female differences are rooted in evolutionary biology

In other words religion doesn't invent these things The argument is and this is an argument made with impeccable scientific and atheist credentials

That these things are in nature And in a sense you might say religion assigns differential sacramental authority based on these presumed differences now

Frankly, I doubt the biology Because because this is a case where a theological argument is sitting on top of What is presumed to be natural the same by the way the debate about homosexuality same thing the idea that homosexuality is unnatural is not an invention of religion people didn't say oh, you know what the book of Leviticus and therefore no

I Suppose there have been some times when

I just took the wrong track And when you only got 90 seconds you have no idea what it's like to try to To if you've not done this before you have no idea what it's like to try to create a coherent response in only 90 seconds

It's it's not easy so But I can criticize because I do it all the time so but what was that Again it's like he has an absolute clear and obvious aversion to anything biblical

You know I mean, how would I respond to that well? I would go to the Bible and explain the consistent teaching of the

Bible and maybe Paul's Discussion of it wasn't Adam who was deceived it was the woman, and I don't know

That might be someplace you'd be willing to go I mean Instead you start talking about evolutionary biology that you then disagree with which of course just led into I didn't play it but Led into Dan Barker being able to just go actually it's very obvious religion

It was just borrowing from evolutionary biology which demonstrates that that religion is Secondary it comes afterwards and blah blah blah you know it's just set up.

It's a complete set up, okay? Finally last one. This is the one where I about halfway through this through D'Souza's response

I went would you just think and answer the question? But part of the reason that he can't is because his theology

Doesn't allow him to and you're gonna hear some really questionable theology come out here

So you know again the man sounds like a wonderfully nice fellow But you know what if you're gonna get engaged in debates like this you might want to take some time to find out what you believe even

I can just imagine a lot of Roman Catholic apologists sitting around going

At some of these things, but this one especially this is the one where if If You're out in your backyard this morning near a certain canal

And you saw a guy going by at about 18 to going would you just answer the question?

This is the one that that got me going um Mr.. D'Souza, I recently read your book and you were kind enough to respond to a couple of emails that I sent you

I Really didn't feel like you answer my question so I want to try it again, and I appreciate the fact that you brought up Something just absolutely wrong murder six million

Jews and I I feel like I'm really quite sympathetic to faith, but certain things to me just seem to Be so unethical that I I have to reject them now

It seems there's Jesus loves you Christianity, and you love Jesus, or you go to hell

Christianity, and I'm wondering The six million Jews that were murdered by the Nazis and their supporters hundreds of millions of Christians still are taught and believe that If those

Jews died apparently not believing in Jesus they would go to hell Whether it's Anne Frank or the

Polish doctor who went to Treblinka with the orphans, please are you yes? I mean the question is right here So do you believe in a

Christ where there's any possibility at all that Jews? Murdered for being

Jews could be sent to hell because or denied access to heaven because They died as Jews not as Christians now.

I stop right there Now I fully understand this guy.

This this is a trap. This is meant to this is meant to Inflame emotion I understand all of those things

But if you're standing in front of an audience you have to give a clear answer

One thing is I'm gonna get to here if I have time yeah, I will is is a section in Dan Barker's book godless where he evaluates his own debates including this one and It's very painfully clear that that Dan does not realize did not realize

How badly Doug Wilson took him to the woodshed in? 1997 he thinks he did this he thinks he's the one who did it as we're gonna see here in a moment

Because he just doesn't understand and You cannot stand in front of this group and say oh, man

If I say what I really need to say here the majority these people are not gonna like me You're not there for the majority of the people

You're there for an audience of one at least if you're being a biblical apologist You're there first for an audience of one you have to you are an ambassador you have to speak

Christ's truth You can't worry about the response to people in front of you. That's a B if you really believe what you're saying is true

And you really believe the Spirit of God is going to use the truth of God to draw the people of God into salvation Then you don't have to worry about this stuff.

That's why theology matters That's why being an

Armenian apologist or Roman Catholic apologist By definition will have to cripple what you're saying

Because you're trying to appeal the natural man on the wrong basis. That's the whole thing Now listen to what happens.

Here's where I just knew any possibility well,

I Wouldn't answer as to possibilities, but I will say that I'm asking you if you believe there's any possibility

That's the question You believe there any possibility that Jesus Christ would deny access to heaven or send people to hell because They were murdered by Nazis for being

Jews and they died as Jews not Christians and they knew about Christian and didn't believe it Let me clarify You're saying that I you're trying to hold me to the proposition that all six million

Jews by virtue of being killed by Hitler should Be given automatic entree to heaven. No, just the ones they were Once it was good people, but didn't believe there.

Sorry this this there shouldn't be any back -and -forth now You have one minute to the question. Look, I'll answer your question in general about non -believers.

Is that satisfactory? No, that's not answering my question. You guys answer the question just Answer the question

As I here's one minute to speak. Okay. Well, I think you're trying to Appropriate if you will the moral horror of the

Holocaust To try to score a theological point where I'm addressing the question at its deep principled core, which is as a

Christian What do I think is going to happen to non -christians? Right, are they denied salvation? My answer is as far as I know no, but I don't know look the

Christianity states a positive teaching which is to say Christ is the way to heaven if you embrace Christ This is where you're going.

You will have salvation in some profound sense I do want to note by the way that for many leading atheists and I mentioned

Christopher Hitchens here very clearly He says look, I don't want to go to heaven. He says it's like celestial, North Korea He says

I don't want to stand and hand out garlands. He says I'd rather stay out of it If there's a place like that count me out.

I think this is very important because in Christian theology It's not that God is grabbing the atheist and flinging him into hell

The atheist in the sense that the Bible says in a very profound verse the salvation the gift of God Okay Now many people think this means

God gives us the gift of salvation wrong salvation is not the gift from God Salvation is the gift of God.

God is the gift time That is not what Ephesians 2 says actually

I Guess we're a good either universalist or inclusivist.

There you go Roman Catholics I thought that the Magisterium cleared all these things up and created absolute unanimity

Evidently not since we all know the majority of the Magisterium are inclusivist or universalist today anyways, but there you go

Man, I I wish I knew who that fellow was Because I would like to show him enough respect to answer his question

Directly from a biblical perspective and To do that you have to first did you hear what he said?

They were good people, but didn't believe in Jesus sir. There's no such thing. That's the whole point

Heaven is not something that people are shut out of no one deserves it

God would be perfectly just To let all of us run straight into the buzzsaw of his just righteous law and Every single one of us will fall short.

That is fundamental to Christianity you can't even begin to define what

Christianity believes if you don't recognize the universal sinfulness of man and the righteousness of God and the punishment thereof

And in fact may I suggest to you that in light of Romans chapter 3 Verses 18 and 19 the person who still stands before God Mouthing his own self -righteousness is the person who is not yet ready to hear about the gospel of grace and So first and foremost, sir

Every person I don't care who they are Jew Nazi Russian Chinese African It doesn't matter

Heaven is closed to them by their sin righteously and justly so and The whole this and this is such a common objection, it's a common objection to God's justice

It is not one that's going to fly before the throne of God. I assure you of that But if all you want to do is create emotions amongst people, well, you'll answer for doing that.

That's for certain But here was a perfect opportunity to talk about God's holiness to talk about God's justice, but Theology matters and Romanist theology is not

Christianity Rome has the wrong gospel.

That's the whole point and You just saw it in glowing colors

Presented before you in the non answer to the man's question right there right in front of you amazing absolutely amazing stuff well, that's why

I was muttering loudly actually yelling While writing and some of the rest of you are doing the same thing ran into I'm reading godless by Dan Barker and I ran into a very interesting section

Page 83 and once again, I need to clip on my uber -duber cool

CSI New York glasses here so I can read If you don't know what those are you haven't been watching my videos page 83 of godless

We Free thinkers want to do the opposite of something Jesus did that's why I love Debates and my new quote calling end quote

Dan loves debates He considers it a calling and so this whole section beginning back

Let's see here Chapter 4 starts on page 67 the new call is

About his engaging in debates and Dan's done a lot of debates. I've done more than Dan, but just barely He's done a lot of debates and he started doing them early on and it was fascinating reading his section about Doug Wilson Because we played this section just a few weeks ago from his debate with Doug Wilson and I'll start on page 69.

I debated Doug Wilson twice once at the University of Delaware And again his hometown of Moscow, Idaho, I didn't know about the second one

That's why I've now listened to the second ones. I learned it from reading the book He is the author of letter from a

Christian citizen response to Sam Harris's letter to a Christian nation and a presuppositional Calvinist pastor During our first debate.

He claimed that without the Bible there is no basis for morality. So I read him Psalm 137 9 which says

Happy shall he be that taketh and dashes thy little ones against the stones I then asked is it moral to throw little babies against rocks with little hesitation replied?

Yes, it is I'm paraphrasing from memory probably good to listen to it again, Dan Because I'm assuming because of this that Dan listens to everything

I've said I'm sure he's listening to all the dividing lines that he's searched the website for everything about Dan Barker.

So hi Dan How you doing? I haven't talked to you in a long long time We both had hair the last time we met doesn't look like either one of us to have much of it left there was audible gasping from members the audience including many

Christians, I Don't recall that that's what happened. And in fact, I hope he brings up Psalm 137 no one in Seemingly has talked about the fact that the real context of it but but Doug put it in the biblical context and Dan doesn't seem to understand that he he didn't raise an objection to the reality of What God was talking about in the punishment of the

Babylonian people? Expressed in that psalm in Psalm 137 continuing on according to Wilson We mortals are incapable of making moral judgments on our own and must submit to the superior wisdom of God No, actually what

Doug said is we all make moral decisions but they are perverted when we do not make them in accordance with God's Revelation because we're sinners and the very fact he doesn't get this either indicates dishonesty or I think

Dentist has no idea what reform people believe that I think that's why he kept shooting and missing in the

Wilson debate and it hasn't Changed and which means it won't change next week unless something happens

If the Bible says we should be happy or blessed as some translations render it to kill the innocent children of those who worship other

Gods, excuse me. They're not innocent children. That's all point. Then it would be a moral not to do it

I then switch to the Christian scriptures and read from Luke 12 47 48 where Jesus demonstrated his compassion by advising us

That there are some slaves who should not be beat as hard as other slaves because they didn't know any better That slave who knew what his master won

But did not prepare himself or do what was wanted will receive a severe beating But the one who did not know and did what deserved a beating receive a light beating in RSV I asked

Doug in front of the stunned audience. Is it a good idea to beat your slaves? He replied. Yes, it is another gasp from the audience. That wasn't the whole discussion.

Obviously Doug did take the time to discuss the in fact Doug even asked

Are you talking about the Hebrew law in regards to slavery or are you talking about the Roman law and that doesn't show up here

I was expecting Wilson to be a compassionate Christian an attempt to apply a modern interpretation

I wonder what modern interpretation means. I suppose that means some modern way of trying to get around What it meant in the original context claiming context or metaphor or insist that Jesus was simply giving example of what does happen

Not what should be done But there is no need to defend the Bible when all we have to do is blindly obey it in Wilson's mind slavery is not a bad idea since the

Bible commands it and G is not only and G is not only never condemns It but also incorporate incorporates it into his teachings if it were the most natural order

Which it was with to the authors the Bible, by the way, I just Remembered I didn't comment on something what an incredibly absurd argument to say

G has never talked about unwanted pregnancies Therefore the Christians shouldn't say anything about it That the the problem and I'm not the only one who's pointed this out

Dan Barker was a Fundamentalist Pentecostal charismatic

Okay, he had a very shallow understanding of the Bible and interpretation of the

Bible Problem is he still is He's still a fundamentalist.

He's just now a fundamentalist humanist naturalist materialist Darwinian though, he contradicts his Darwinian ism all the time, but he's still a fundamentalist.

He still Engages in very simplistic reasoning on these matters. He clearly as in his education, which he himself calls glorified

Sunday school Never dealt with any type of serious Christian theology or systematic theology or discussion of any of these things so He doesn't have a basis for even understanding a biblical doctrine of life and the protection of life and an objection to abortion

So to say well Jews never objected that that's like saying G has never objected to internet porn How meaningful is that?

It's not meaningful at all to anybody who's serious Anyways in their thinking if you don't want to be serious and you're thinking then, you know, whatever

Other day today at least Wilson is consistent I'll give him that consistently awful during our second debate attended by many

Calvinist ministers I told the horrible story of how John Calvin had co -reformer Michael Surveys co -reformer

Michael Surveys is a co -reformer in his mind he was And one of the things and if Dan's listening and again, hi

Dan One of the things that I would really like to ask is in light of Dan's definition of morality

Where To be moral is to simply do that which causes the least harm or which which eliminates harm

And it's such a simplistic definition. It cannot begin to answer a simple question. Why does Dan Barker lie about John Calvin?

Well, since John Calvin's dead then no one can be harmed by it So I guess that would be a moral thing for an atheist to do

But I've listened and I've got queued up here and I don't think we're gonna get to it But I I've listened to what what he says about Dan about the timber about John Calvin and he's again either ignorant or grossly dishonest one of the two

About this subject and when people, you know Accuse him of not knowing these things.

Well, I was right where you are, etc, etc, etc. I Told the horrible story of how

John Calvin had co -reformer Michael Surveys burned the stake for the crime of questioning his scriptural interpretations

Not only did Wilson not join me in denouncing Calvin he came to his defense Well, how could he not being a

Calvinist pastor anyone who holds John Calvin in high regard? I told that audience is morally bankrupt as it is what he said I have that that queued up here, but that was after lying about John Calvin and ignoring vast portions of history and Between now and next and and two weeks now

I'm gonna need to put together a brief description of Dan's activities that ignores the vast majority of what

Dan says about his own Conversion and present that and say you have no moral standing to say it

That's wrong because you ignored everything about the history of the survey this incident You ignored

Calvin's risking his life to meet surveyed us many years earlier. You're all your presentation

In fact, I've got it queued up. So I'll play. Well, let's go ahead and play a section. We got a few moments Let's let's listen to a portion of this very debate the very thing that that he was reporting in his well, wait a minute

Here's why I can't Because I got to read this. We'll do it next time. We'll do it next time 90 minutes a long time one of the things fascinating to me is he didn't mention this in his book is

I discovered a little something remember the section of the debate where they talked about capital punishment and a jury and Doug Wilson went through the fact that he was the the

Foreman on the jury and and I thought it was an excellent exchange because it

Demonstrated the the shallow nature of Dan's objections and I thought Doug did a great job. Well, guess what

I discovered Dan Barker knew That Doug had been on that jury before they went to the debate and it was his purpose to get him to raise this so He could raise the shallow objection of two witnesses

Remember the two witnesses thing. We also are chuckled because you know, obviously it was an a contextual reading it again

It was a it was a blind fundamentalist reading of the text. Well, you're gonna have two eyewitnesses

We can't we can't make any application DNA. No DNA can't no

Nice, I handle snakes too that's the kind of Christianity that Dan Barker objects to and he doesn't want anyone to recognize that there is a higher form of Christianity that takes the

Bible very seriously still can believe it's inerrant and the Bible's inerrant and yet make

Application of principles not I don't know I can't can't do that. I Discovered that I believe is feral till had sent to Dan Barker information about Doug Wilson serving on that very

Jury prior to that here is a email dated 13 March 1997 to Ralph Nielsen from Dan Barker Ralph the debate was great all the free thinkers in the audience agreed that I nailed

Wilson on many points So he wants to nail people. That's why he does debates He wants to nail people so we're gonna have very different reasons for being there right from the start

I think he was surprised that I was ready for him I actually was able to use his jury experience against him and he fell right into it

He doesn't know that I knew the story because I framed it hypothetically and he volunteered that he was foreman of that jury

So I just asked quote innocent and quote questions He eagerly stated that he would have recommended death penalty for the convicted murderer

I got him to claim that his verdict was a biblically based morally correct decision when I then asked him how many witnesses there were to the crime he looked very

Uncomfortable mumbled something about more than one line of evidence. He didn't mumble it I heard it quite clearly we had already established the two or three witnesses requirement from an early line of questioning

I pressed him on how many witnesses testified they saw the murder and he admitted none You'll have to see the tape to see how it went

That was just a tiny part of the whole evening, but I was very happy to have that card up my sleeve I got him to contradict himself on a few other matters as well.

The next day Wilson. I had a long friendly chat I told him that I had heard from a member of ours in Idaho. He was something of a local personage

He asked me for the name of this member and I didn't tell him not knowing how you would feel about it Thanks again for your help. This was

Ralph Nielsen Maybe that's the one Ralph Nielsen's want to send it to him I think feral till was involved in somehow getting this information to him

Then also on 13 March another Email from from Dan and I'll read quickly here

My debate with Doug Wilson Tuesday night at the University of Delaware is very successful 500 600 people maybe one of them were atheists agnostics many were busted from Maryland churches including some with children and many were

University students the atheists and agnostics in the audience told me that I won the debate handily Wilson stuck to his transcendent transcendent

Transcendental argument and I was prepared Okay See how vastly different this sounds given your presuppositions

Thanks to the thanks to the internet for resources such as Martin's Tang and other articles Michael Martin's reputation of tag was extremely helpful in giving me the jump on Wilson That was one of the most pathetic arguments

I've ever heard when he presented remember I got Wilson to contradict himself blatantly a number of times during cross -examination

His attempts to weasel out of them were pathetic. Although there were many amens from the audience as he did this But I was totally shocked by Wilson's attitude regarding morality totally shocked totally shocked capitalized

I hammered on him with numerous examples of cruelty committed or commanded by the God of the Bible and by Jesus Instead of denying the cruelty or claim that I was misinterpreting the

Bible Wilson agreed that the God of the Bible is cruel Of course Wilson actually pointed out that Dan didn't have any basis for defining cruelty

But that somehow doesn't make it into these When I asked him if this cruelty was good

He said yes, if God says that is good than it is good He agreed that Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves and this is a good teaching

He agreed that God had said in Psalm 137 thing and so on. I'm not kidding You'll have to see the whole debate and see how it went

They'll be sending me an audio and a videocassette at the we are free to distribute etc, etc Anyway, I feel pretty high about the debate and wanted to share it many of the internet infidels

Were very helpful during their preparation and I am appreciative of that. So the question then is

How does Dan Barker's definition of morality deal with what he has admitted he did in that debate and how does it deal with the amazing representations

He makes of these debates because the funny thing is I have now heard bunches of these debates before I read his own

Discussion of them and I'm like wow someone has an interesting lack of contact

Contact with reality here. Is this really how he heard it? Is this how he's remembered these things?

fascinating stuff truly is and so next time we will get into Dan Barker's gross ignorance or misrepresentation or both of John Calvin in that second debate with with Doug Wilson because it's just really really bad

Thanks for sticking around those of you who have for 90 minutes. I hope it's been useful to you.

We'll be back again Lord willing on Tuesday morning. We'll see you then.

God bless The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 973 4602 or write us at PO box 3 7 1 0 6

Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9 You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks