Debate: Is The NT Evil? (White vs Silverman)

The following presentation is a production of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Inc. and is protected by copyright laws of the

United States and its international treaties. Copying or distribution of this production without the expressed written permission of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Inc.

is prohibited. My name is Chris Arnzen, and for those of you who don't know,

I host a live nightly radio broadcast called Iron Sharpens Iron on WGBB 1240

AM and also live streaming around the world at sharpens .org,

and it airs Monday, Wednesday, Thursday nights, 8 to 9, and Saturdays 730 to 9.

And we deal with a wide range of topics. We have interviewed some of the most well -known evangelical scholars, theologians, authors, and evangelists in the world, such as R .C.

Sproul and John MacArthur and Ravi Zacharias, and the list goes on and on, and many of whom have written very wonderful endorsements for the broadcast.

I hope that you start listening to that broadcast either on the radio or on your internet. It's a live call -in show, so we look forward to hearing from you.

And I have a lot of people to thank tonight. First of all, I want to thank the fine folks here at Freedom Chapel International Worship Center for allowing us to use these gorgeous, spacious facilities, and Pastor Jimmy Jack and Pastor Bobby Lloyd and Kathy and Joanna and everybody on the staff has been so gracious and so helpful.

Let's please give them a round of applause. I've got to thank, first and foremost after that,

Dan Buttafuoco of the law firm of Buttafuoco and Associates, who has been my sponsor of Iron Sharpens Iron, my premier sponsor since the very inception of the broadcast four years ago.

In fact, last week, on August 25th, marked our fourth anniversary, and I would truly like to thank our brother

Dan Buttafuoco, who is moderating tonight. And Dan also runs the

Historical Bible Society, and you've got to invite him to your church, your school, your parachurch organization.

He has one of the most breathtaking collections of Bibles of antiquity and Christian books of antiquity, museum quality and of museum value.

And he will go to your church or organization absolutely free of charge, put much of the collection on display, and he will give a lecture of about an hour long on the history of how we received the

Bible from the original languages into English. And believe me, it's not boring at all. I've seen him do it 15 times at least, and it gets better every time.

So you've got to...doing it here at Freedom Chapel on October 17th, so keep that in mind.

I'd like to thank the BatteryDepot .com, another one of our sponsors of this event and of the

Iron Sharpens Iron broadcast. I'd like to thank the publishers of the New Standard Bible.

I'd like to thank GoodOldGold .com. GoodOldGold .com not only sponsored this event and the

Iron Sharpens Iron broadcast, but they're providing the videotaping of this event tonight. I'd like to thank the

SecureCom group. Anybody needs security cameras and everything that you need for security equipment for any type of building, get a hold of SecureCom group, which is a

Christian -owned organization and sponsor of this event and of the program.

I'd like to thank the Olive Branch Christian Bookstore in New Hyde Park also for distributing materials, and the

Timothy Hill Children's Ranch. I'd like to thank Teen Challenge, and I'd like to thank

WMCA Radio, my rival in the airwaves, for being here tonight.

They did us a huge favor, did an e -blast, an email blast, not only to their general audience, but to their pastors list, so we thank them enormously for that, and they have a booth out there too.

And I'm just so happy that I have the opportunity to be

Master of Ceremonies in the arranger of an important event like this. When you're a host on a little local small town radio station, sometimes you get asked to emcee silly things, and sometimes they're not so silly, but I'll give you an example of one that was kind of embarrassing.

This elderly deacon and his wife, sweet, sweet couple, they were in an animal rescue shelter, and they wanted me to emcee a fundraiser for them, and they basically trained the dogs to do tricks.

These mangy mutts that they had rescued from the shelter to do acrobatics and so forth.

Well, it was pretty embarrassing. First of all, they smelled horrible. I mean, the first few rows of people looked like they were getting physically sick from the smell, and they were running around, relieving themselves all over the stage, sniffing in embarrassing places.

It was just horrible. It would have been a disaster if the dogs that they brought with them weren't so remarkable.

Anyway. I saw that coming. This is a very important event.

I hope that you listen intently, and our moderator, Dan Buttafuoco, is now going to introduce not only our debaters, but he is also going to run the proceedings of the debate.

I thank you for coming, and God bless you all. Greetings, ladies and gentlemen.

As you heard, my name is Dan Buttafuoco, and for those of you who don't know, this is cutting out for some reason,

I am a trial lawyer, a civil trial lawyer, and regularly engage in a search for truth in what we term a clash of opposites, which is what a trial is.

Thank you. And so, I'm no stranger to these types of events, but we're going to go through a few ground rules as to what's going to happen today.

First of all, as I would tell any jury in jury selection, any prospective jurors, is that you have to come into these things with an open mind, but don't leave it open forever.

You have to eventually grasp it tightly around what you think is truth, but as it is a tendency in some of these things to come in rooting for one side or the other, you kind of lose the experience of listening to both sides and understanding the arguments that are being made, even if you don't necessarily agree with them.

And it's been said that everybody is entitled to their own opinion, even if everybody is not entitled to their own facts.

So, what we're going to talk about today hopefully will be some facts and some opinions and different ways of looking at the same facts, and just keep an open mind about that.

I also want to remind you, as Mr. Silverman was kind enough to point out, that we should, everyone shut our cell phones off.

There's nothing worse than that. In fact, if you do it in court, they confiscate your cell phones, you never see them again. So, we won't do that, but please turn your cell phones off.

I want to thank both of the participants, the debaters, for coming here today. I'm going to introduce them in a minute, but they've both been very kind and gracious to come to our venue here, and I'm sure they're going to put on a worthy contest, as it were, in this venue here.

So, let me just tell you first of all what the theme of the debate is. I know Dr. White will talk about why this was the theme of the debate.

You may know that initially one of the debaters on the atheist side was

Christopher Hitchens, a very famous man who wrote God is Not Great, and so the theme is, is the

New Testament evil? But I imagine that when the participants start talking, the topic will broaden somewhat, and we'll leave that up to them.

So, that's the theme of the debate, and the participants I'm going to introduce at this moment.

In this corner, weighing in at, to my right, making boxing maneuvers, we have

David Silverman, who is Vice President and National Communications Director for American Atheists, founded in 1963 by none other than Madeline Murray O 'Hare.

Many of you know who that is, or was, I should say, as a result of her successful battle against mandatory school prayer and Bible recitation.

Mr. Silverman has appeared on Hannity and Combs, The O 'Reilly Factor, Scarborough Country, CNN's Paul LeZon, Now, Fox &

Friends, CN8's It's Your Call, and NPR's, I guess that stands for National Public Radio, All Things Considered.

He also runs the Know God blog and hosts the Atheist Viewpoint TV show.

Since its inception, American Atheists has been the premier organization laboring for the civil liberties of atheists, and by the way, that's something everybody should agree on, and the total absolute separation of government and religion.

It was born out of a court case begun in 1959 by the Murray family, which challenged prayer recitation in the public schools.

I would ask you to give him a warm welcome at this time. To my left, sporting a full head of hair and looking mean,

Dr. James R. White, co -founder and director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, an evangelical

Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He is a professor, having taught

Greek, systematic theology, and various topics in the field of apologetics. He has authored or contributed to many books, including

The King James Only Controversy, The Forgotten Trinity, The Potter's Freedom, and The God Who Justifies.

He is an accomplished debater, having engaged in nearly 100 moderated public debates with leading proponents of Roman Catholicism, Islam, Jehovah Witnesses, and Mormonism, as well as critics such as Bart Ehrman, John Dominick Croson, Marcus Borg, and John Shelby Spong.

These are famous names. He is an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, and I was just informed that I think he has something like 490 videos on YouTube, which is remarkable.

So, would you please give him a warm welcome? Now, before I turn the floor over to the first contestant, as it were,

I just want to go through what the format is going to be. First of all, many of the things that will be said may produce a strong emotional response in some of you.

Well, if it's an emotional response, we already know it's not your brain that's involved. So I would ask you, please, do not boo, do not hiss.

I mean, these things should be obvious, but just to be safe, I'm saying it. Do not boo, do not hiss, do not catcall, do not be disrespectful.

Digest what's being said, and let every speaker have his opportunity to be heard. In short, let's be civilized and not like the people that Chris Arnson was talking about earlier.

And I'm sure you will. I'm sure you'll do that. Okay? And so what we're going to do is this format.

And I'm going to impose fairly strict time limits because it's a lengthy debate, and we want to keep it moving.

We'll give you a chance for questions and answers at the end. We're also going to impose limits on the questioners.

But the way it's going to go is like this. We're going to have opening statements. We're going to start with Mr. Silverman. He's going to get 20 minutes, and then

James White is going to get 20 minutes. Then rebuttals, 15 minutes each, beginning with Mr.

Silverman and then Mr. White. Then we're going to have a 15 -minute break. Okay? Then we're going to have cross -examination.

And cross -examination is important because it's a truth -seeking tool. And during that time,

I'm going to ask that the participants limit the cross -examination to cross -examination. No speeches.

It's going to be Q &A, just like in court, just like a judge would impose. And so Mr. David Silverman will go first.

He'll have 10 minutes. And then Mr. White will also have 10 minutes to cross -examine his antagonist there.

And then cross -examination again in reverse, and each 10 -minute segment all the way to the end, and then everyone's going to get 10 minutes of closing remarks.

And finally, we're going to have a segment of 30 minutes of Q &A from the audience. So you might want to start writing some questions down as the debate progresses.

Okay? And now, with great pleasure, I invite David Silverman to step forward and give his opening remarks, which will be 20 minutes long.

Good evening, everybody. Can you all hear me? Good. My name is

David Silverman. I'm a nice guy, but I don't play one on stage. I am vice president of American Atheists.

American Atheism is America's premier organization by and for the non -religious community, and I'm thrilled to be here today.

I really love this church. You know, if you look at the ceiling and you squint real hard, it looks like the sky.

It really does. Give it a try. You know, squinting makes things look different than they really are.

Lines blur. Shapes change. Reality itself seems to bend.

Such is the case with the New Testament. You have to squint really hard to see the good side.

Indeed, my opponent tonight is an expert in squinting at the Bible. He studies the individual words and sentences, squinting and blurring, so he can see the positive side of what is clearly one of the most evil doctrines in history.

Ooh, ah, I haven't even begun yet. Now, I don't consider myself a biblical scholar.

I don't speak any Greek. I have not spent years squinting at the New Testament. However, I do maintain that for a testament to be useful, it must be usable by the population, and so tonight

I will speak to you, not over you. I will speak English for the most part, and I will show you without insult, without shame, that the

New Testament is in fact an evil document. Now, reference .com

defines evil as morally wrong, bad, harmful, or injurious.

Admittedly, it's a judgment call, but that's okay. I want you to judge the

New Testament. That's really the reason that I'm here. I want you to think clearly about its contents.

Let me just adjust here. I want you to think clearly about its contents, and I want you to truly consider if it's worth dedicating your life and your money to its preachers.

I'm not here to push atheism, but rather to expose a naked emperor for all to see.

What makes the New Testament so evil? Well, I'm here to tell you it's not love thy neighbor, because the

Bible is not about love thy neighbor. The New Testament is about money, power, and above all, fear.

Now, granted, most religions are about money, power, and fear, and so yes, most religions are evil, but the

New Testament takes this concept to a whole new level. Consider, if you will, the concept of original sin.

Now, the Old Testament teaches us that God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden and told

Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit, and of course, we all know that story, but here's my take.

The Bible teaches us, and my opponent agrees, that God knows the future with 100 % certainty.

Psalm 139, verse 16 reads, he determined my destiny, thine eyes have seen my unformed substance.

Ephesians 1 reads, according he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love, having predestinated us into the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself according to the good pleasure of his will.

My opponent's own words are the ability to foresee is a clear indication of divinity.

Full knowledge of the past, present, and most importantly, the future, that is what omniscient means.

Okay, back to Adam and Eve. Since God is omniscient, he knew with 100 % certainty when he put the tree of knowledge in the

Garden of Good and Evil that Adam would eat the apple. Yet, he put it there anyways. Had he put it somewhere else or nowhere,

Adam might not have eaten the fruit, but God put it where he knew with 100 % certainty that Adam would eat the fruit.

Adam had no real choice in the matter at all because God knew it for certain.

And so, God trapped Adam into eating the fruit knowing that God would then use this as some sort of twisted excuse to hang the horrific concept of original sin over all of his descendants including us.

Why a loving God would do such a thing is up to us to ponder. But, the

New Testament takes things further and creates hell to which all are doomed unless they are saved.

The New Testament teaches us that all of us are sinners from birth and that most are born doomed to hell.

Psalm 51 .5, surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Psalm 58 .3, even from birth, the wicked go astray. From the womb, they are wayward and speak lies.

And in the New Testament, Romans 3 .10, there is none righteous. No, not one.

Apologist John MacArthur who wrote the MacArthur Study Bible supports my assertion. He writes, quote, the

Bible is absolutely crystal clear that all children are sinners from conception.

All children. The principle of iniquity is embedded in the human race. Children are born morally corrupt.

They are born with an irresistible bent toward evil. And any notion that children are born morally neutral and free of the predisposition to sin is absolutely contrary to scripture.

End quote. This is horrible. Let me tell you right here and right now, babies and children are not sinners.

Indeed, a better word for Christian children is victims. Victims of a

God that trapped Adam in an inescapable trap and then held that guiltless man's guilt over the actions of babies, children, and adults forever.

Yes. How can anyone call a baby a sinner, really? How can anyone justify sending a baby or child to hell for eternity whether or not they were baptized or born to believing parents?

How can anyone punish a child for someone else's deed forever and call it love?

I'll tell you how. Lots and lots of squinting. You see, there are two ways to learn the

Bible. You can read it yourself or you can have someone else read it for you and tell you what you want to hear.

If you read the Bible yourself, you can easily and will easily come away with the undeniable fact that there are babies and children in hell.

While the Bible doesn't say it specifically, it's very clearly implied, Romans 323, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Mark 16, 16, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

He that believeth not shall be damned. And since they are too young to accept

Jesus, all babies are hell bound. Of course, Christians don't like this because it's evil.

So they buy books from people who squint really hard and come up with the reasons and justifications for this ghoulish dogma.

Some do better than others. MacArthur published a 27 -page defense against this.

I have it here. 27 pages in which he squints really hard trying to state that babies and children do not go to hell.

He even quotes fiction writers like C .S. Lewis. But in the end, he admits that there is no biblical basis for that assertion.

My opponent, when speaking of children under the New Covenant, states, quote, the

New Covenant does not have infants who are included in it who will never experience the blessing of God in eternal life.

I don't mind excluding infants from a covenant that doesn't perfect them in a trust that God will, in fact, be gracious to them in the

New Covenant. That's also horrible. Just close your eyes and trust

God and don't worry about the billions of babies in hell. James suggests that since salvation is through grace, we should trust

God to save babies through grace, even though, again, he admits that there is no basis to be sure that will happen.

Of course, nobody suggests that babies and children of unbelieving parents go to heaven.

All children of non -Christians are doomed to the lake of fire according to the New Testament and the covenant contained therein.

Now, apologists make stuff up all the time to make their Bible sound less evil. One good example is the so -called age of accountability, something of which most of you are aware, which states that there's some time in a person's life, which can be at any time, where he is able to make decisions about Jesus and that beyond that time, he'll go to hell if he doesn't accept

Jesus. But before that time, the grace of God will put him into heaven. This, ladies and gentlemen, is simple salesmanship.

Yeah. The best way to sell something is to create a sense of urgency in a buyer, and that's what the age of accountability does.

If you have a child, you'd better indoctrinate him and make him a Christian as fast as you can because your grace period, grace period can end at any time.

And your beloved child will become vulnerable to eternity in hell if he has not accepted Jesus by then.

Get that child to church as often as possible. Get him in religion classes. Get him in Bible camp.

Sure, all of this costs money, but that's irrelevant because your child's immortal soul is in danger, and you, the parent, are the only ones who can save him.

And time is running short. And if that sounds like a used car salesman, that's because they use it too.

The parents swallow the sales pitch because it's a much nicer picture than the one actually painted in the

Bible. They spend money to brainwash their kids as they have been brainwashed by their parents, and the cycle continues.

I said the New Testament is evil. I never said it was stupid. Now, let's talk about the diabolical concept of hell in the first place.

Hell is mentioned only superficially in the Old Testament, but it's expanded greatly in the New Testament in all gory detail in an obvious attempt to scare the reader into submission.

Infinite torture. Infinite pain. A lake of fire.

Revelation 21 .8 reads, but the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and the liars, their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur.

I tell you here and now, there are no finite crimes for which an infinite punishment is appropriate.

There is no amount of murder that can justify a billion billion years in a lake of fire. No amount of thievery warrants an eternity of suffering.

Nothing is that bad. But that's not all that gets you into hell.

Because Christianity is truly unique in one very horrifying detail.

You will go to hell for thinking the wrong way. Again, that phrase,

Revelation 21 .8, cowardly and unbelieving. Those are thoughts.

Think about that for a second. Imagine punishing your child who you love forever, not for an act, but for a thought.

How insidious is that? Consider this.

Imagine two naked women kissing each other right here on stage. Do I have everyone's attention now?

Yes, I do, because as human, you are attracted by sex. Each of you heard me loud and clear because you're genetically programmed to do so.

Indeed, every one of you briefly imagined two women kissing on stage because I told you to.

You couldn't help it. Why? Because most thoughts are involuntary.

You can't help believing what you believe or fearing what you fear. You can concentrate, you can learn, and you can change your mind given new information.

But for the most part, thoughts are involuntary. Look, now they're men.

See? You can't be held responsible for thinking. It's not, as Christianity would have you believe, a fully deliberate act.

Thinking is not a sign of weakness. It is not a need for help. It is a natural human condition.

We make ourselves think about something, yes, but other people can make us think about it too.

Puppies. See where I'm going? But a subset of thinking is believing.

And herein lies the rub, because you cannot control what you believe. You believe what you believe.

You believe what you believe. If I held a proverbial gun to your head and commanded you to truly believe that the world was flat, you would not be able to comply.

You could try to convince yourself, but if the knowledge wasn't there, you would not succeed because you cannot choose to believe anything.

You can only choose to pretend to believe. And in Christianity, for the crime of not believing, you're punished forever in the lake of fire.

In Mark 16, 16, I already said, he that believes and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believes not shall be damned.

You can't get much clearer than that. It doesn't make sense that babies go to hell.

You go to hell. If it doesn't make sense that Eve and Adam were trapped, or that God could have just forgiven people without the whole savior exercise, you spend eternity in hell, burning forever while true believers rejoice above you in heaven.

We. And so, you fear. You fear because there are parts of the

New Testament that make no sense at all, no matter how hard you squint. You fear because you're brainwashed from childhood, thinking that you are a sinner, and that you will go to hell for these involuntary thoughts.

And your only way to salvation is confession and obedience and the self -loathing practice known as prayer, which is really just another form of begging.

You fear because God will send you to hell for something you cannot control.

And here it is, the reason that the

New Testament was written. It's the fact that thoughts are involuntary. In Matthew, Jesus says, if you lust after a woman, you have committed actual adultery against your wife.

Time to go to church and beg forgiveness for this involuntary victimless crime. Lust is not voluntary or sinful.

It's part of being human. If you think God is a bit less of a lover and more of a tyrant, go to church or go to hell.

If it occurs to you that Mark 13 30, Jesus says, I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until these things have happened, referring to the second coming of Jesus.

But this time has long passed, and the Christians have been saying, any day now for about 2 ,000 years, if that causes doubt in your mind, and you think it might all be a lie, you have sinned by thinking too much.

You need church. And don't think it's accidental. Don't for a second think it's accidental.

The church frequently takes positions on women's rights. God bless you. And don't think it's accidental.

The church frequently takes positions on women's rights, gay rights, and other social issues that go against what all or many of you moral people would say, thereby deliberately causing moral conflict in your head.

Conflict in your head causes doubt, involuntary doubt.

Doubt causes you to fear that you may not have enough faith to get into heaven. So again, you need church.

And what does the church tell you? Obey the church. Number one, work hard, stay poor, and don't question.

Remember, thought is not linear. Not necessarily logical either.

One minute. I'm going to need an extra couple. I'll play fast.

Thought is not linear. You can have doubts and fear of the consequences of those doubts, especially if you're raised that way.

It's another part of being human. You can be taught to fear what you don't think exists, which is why we fear the dark, the boogeyman, and yes,

God. And you do. So you comply. And the church grows.

And you defend the church. Because if you don't, the church won't help you navigate the haunting knowledge in the back of your mind that God is exactly like every other mythology that you all dismiss.

And if you don't lose that thought, if you don't suppress it completely and utterly, I'll be fast, if you don't suppress it completely and utterly, you risk eternity in hell where nobody will save you.

Hell for an involuntary thought. This is not love. It's terrorism.

Many true Christians are terrified, hoping with every bit of hope that you have that the all -powerful mind reader will decide in the end that you have enough faith to get into heaven.

It is the most important thing in your life, or at least it's supposed to be. More important than love, more important than family, more important than your own children.

Your religion needs to be number one in your life. Whether you are good is not as important as whether you are faithful.

In fact, making good behavior irrelevant is evil in and of itself. Now, give me half a page.

I'm almost done. I'm almost done. I'll let him go long too and I'll be short later. I know,

I know. But I'm getting to the good part. Faithfulness gets you into heaven, but being obedient, productive, and generous makes you a good

Christian. Of course, when you add faithfulness, obedience, productivity, and poverty and mix it together, who benefits the most?

God? No. You? No. Your church and your pastor, who have conveniently got the ability to understand, but you cannot, and give you things to buy or do that will bring you closer to God for at least the short term.

I'm speeding up. Of course, people can be unbrainwashed. You're going to stop me in a minute?

So, let me conclude. I was going to talk about blasphemy. Blasphemy is also a sin.

You say something wrong, you go to hell, get to the end. So, let me conclude by re -examining the definition of evil.

Morally wrong, bad, harmful, or injurious. Is the New Testament morally bad or injurious?

Yes, because it uses hell as a default for babies and children and as a punishment for involuntary thoughts, placing adherence at a constant state of fear of eternal damnation, the salvation from which can never be guaranteed, but only alleviated in direct proportion to how high a priority is given to the church, which collects money from its adherence in exchange for constantly reminding them that they are in constant danger of hell, they don't deserve heaven, and that they must obey and not question.

Okay, Mr. Silverman, I'm going to stop you there. Thank you very much. Then they cloak the whole thing in the word love.

I'm going to give now Dr. White 23 minutes. Well, thank you very much for being here this evening.

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to address such an important issue. Let me just explain at the beginning where the topic came from.

We had originally planned the debate with Christopher Hitchens, and I came up with the topic because the fact that Mr.

Hitchens' own book, God is Not Great, in the section on the New Testament, used the terminology of evil in describing the

New Testament, the evil of the New Testament. If you've listened to any of Mr. Hitchens' debates, you know that they pretty much flow along the same lines.

We wanted to get into some of the biblical material, some of the claims that he made against the New Testament and against its unity and its teaching, and that's where the topic came from.

As we all know, Christopher Hitchens is currently undergoing chemotherapy for esophageal cancer.

Even he has mentioned in most of the interviews that I've seen that many of us have indicated to him that we are praying for his recovery because obviously our desire is not that I get a chance to debate him in the future, but that he come to know the truth of who his creator is before he faces him in judgment.

We continue to pray toward that end. That's where the topic comes from this evening. Now, I was making notes that it is ironic to me that while most of the time when

I engage opponents of the Christian faith, whether it be Bart Ehrman or John Dominic Crossan or Marcus Borg or whoever else it might be, the argumentation they present is that the

New Testament is completely disjointed, that it is self -contradictory, et cetera, et cetera.

But the argument this evening has been just the opposite, that it is a maniacal document that purposefully is designed to create this church where you have to do what your pastor says.

Now, it sounds a little bit like medieval Roman Catholicism, but as most of you know, I'm not a Roman Catholic.

And in fact, I just debated a Roman Catholic apologist on Saturday evening on the subject of the Immaculate Conception.

I am a Reformed Baptist, and we are part of the free church tradition. And most of what was said in regards to the idea of making money and all the rest of that stuff was, of course, utterly irrelevant to me and utterly irrelevant to the vast majority of Christians.

It's a straw man, and I think most of you can recognize that and dismiss that. But I am very thankful for the direction that Mr.

Silverman has gone this evening because we have an opportunity, I think, to truly understand the fundamental differences between a naturalistic materialist, as my opponent is this evening, and a

Christian in regards to the subject of one's worldview and the centrality of one's worldview in the interpretation of the text of the

New Testament. I would first like to challenge Mr. Silverman to reflect upon the absurdity of a naturalistic materialist as he is, a pure secularist, to even have walked into the room this evening to debate the subject.

He has absolutely positively no foundation upon which to define something as evil.

How can anyone who believes that we are merely the random result of billions of years of undirected random mutation, how can anyone who believes that there is no transcendent value to human life whatsoever, that we might be here, we might not be here, it doesn't really matter, and that mankind itself is not the result of a process that was aiming for him, we're just the accident at the end of an undirected series of micromutations, how can anyone who really believes that call anything evil?

Fundamentally, if you're a neo -Darwinian micromutational evolutionary theorist, you believe that that which is good is that which passes the majority of your genotype on to the largest portion of the next generation.

That's it. And if that means going around and raping and pillaging and destroying your enemies or whatever else it might be, then that would have to be good from that perspective.

But upon what basis does my opponent this evening raise and pull at our heartstrings about little babies?

Little babies are nothing but protoplasm in his worldview. The fact of the matter is, folks, no matter how hard he tries, since Mr.

Silverman is in fact created in the imago Dei, in the image of God, he will not be able to stand before you this evening and argue any of these points without stealing from my worldview to do it.

He is going to utilize all sorts of statements that make sense only in the theistic worldview to then turn around and bite the hand that feeds him.

And we've already seen it in the presentation that has been made. But the question is, upon what basis would a naturalistic materialist walk into this room and say the

New Testament is evil? Well, we just heard, I don't like what it says. Now, I'm not granting for even a moment that what

Mr. Silverman has said is an accurate representation of the New Testament in many ways. It ignores much of what it says.

I'll get into that in the rebuttal period because that's what I'm supposed to do at that point in time. But the reality is, is what we've heard is, well, it's evil because I can contort it in such a way that it flows against a presentation that I can make that will sort of hopefully bring a lot of you along.

I can allege that you're all in this just for the money. You're all in this just for fear. I can present a perspective of the gospel that ignores the vast majority of its own statements.

And as a result, I can call that evil. But again, from his worldview, how is any of that evil?

From a naturalistic materialistic perspective, how is any of that evil? I mean, I could make an argument from an evolutionary perspective that if that allows me to have more children and pass my genotype on to the next generation, which is the greatest good in a naturalistic materialistic world, then that makes it good.

See, we need to look at the foundations upon which we stand. And I say to you this evening that the whole reason that we've gathered here this evening, the whole reason any of you came here, atheists or Christians, is because you believe that we can actually logically reason with one another.

We can communicate with one another. And the communication that we have with one another can actually make sense.

And we can determine whether something is true or something is false. And I suggest to you that my opponent this evening cannot explain why on his worldview, we can do what we're doing this evening.

How do you explain the laws of logic? Or do you just simply say it's a brute fact?

Well, it's just the way it is, might have evolved differently. We might have come up with a different way. Maybe, you know, the law of non -contradiction, you know, we can't say that this table is in this room and not in this room the same way at the same time.

You know, things might have been different. There might have been different rules in the universe that would have allowed that to be true. Just a brute fact.

I can tell you why that's true. I can reason with you because I have a worldview and a

God that is sufficient as the creator who made me a communicating being. And the reason that logic works in my brain and it works in your brain too is not just because of some agreement we've all come to.

It's because of the way that we ourselves have been created. And so first, I will challenge

Mr. Silverman to explain why do you call any of this evil? You may not like it, but you're not our final authority, just like I'm not the final authority.

Was it true before you were born? Was it evil before you were born? Will it be evil after you're gone?

That's the question. In fact, will anything be true or false, evil or good, beautiful or ugly five minutes after Mr.

Silverman's heart stops beating or mind stops beating? From a naturalistic perspective, how can you even answer that question?

He won't exist anymore. Transcendent meaning, transcendent reality.

We have to start there to even ask the question. And once we do, what we've seen this evening is that the natural man hates the things of the spirit of God.

He who is in rebellion against God hates the message that he is in rebellion against God. Many, many years ago,

I stood outside of the National Convention of the American Atheists in Scottsdale, Arizona, and I held a sign up along with some friends of mine.

And my sign said, atheists, creatures denying their creator. Now, I had been out of high school for a little while at that point.

I think I was in seminary at that time. And I heard words from folks going by me that I hadn't heard since the locker room at high school.

And I'm not going to repeat any of them because I respect you. But you know what?

There were people there that did not like what I had to say in any way, shape, or form, because the natural man does not like to hear what the gospel says.

In fact, I was reminded, listening to Mr. Silverman, to the words of the Apostle Paul. He said, the word of the cross, the message of the cross is foolishness.

It's foolishness. Moria, the same root word we get moron from.

It's foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God.

How can two intelligent people, educated people, look at the same text and come to such completely different conclusions?

Because when I look at the New Testament, I see the fulfillment of God's covenant promises that he made generations before.

I see the fulfillment of prophecy. I see an incredible message that God in his mercy and his grace has actually condescended to enter into his own creation so as to provide the only means of salvation, not for a bunch of innocent people, but for people who hate him.

They love their rebellion. They're not people who are splashing about in an ocean looking for someone to rescue them.

When the rescue boat pulls up next to them, they spin at the person and dive. We're talking about haters of God.

And yet, that's where all of us were at one point. All of us had hearts of stone until we were given a heart of flesh by the miracle of regeneration.

And it is those rebels that God in his love, the second person of the

Trinity, enters into human existence, human experience, takes on the form of a man, lives amongst us, and becomes obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross, so that every person who is in him, every person who has saving faith in him, every person united to him, can have what only he can give, that is forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

When I see the New Testament, I see the testimony of the triune God, the fulfillment of the promises of the

Father, the coming of the Son, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and God accomplishing his purposes.

Yes, we are given moral direction, and yes, we are told. We are told about God's judgment, because that's what lies behind the cross.

If you do not see in the cross the wrath of God against sin, then you don't understand the holiness of God. If all you see in the cross is the love of God, then you're not seeing the whole picture of the cross, because behind the cross lies

God's absolute holiness, and hence the condescension that is his in the cross of Jesus Christ and the expression of that love in redeeming undeserving rebels is truly seen only when we see the seriousness of what the

Bible says about God's holiness. Now, those who rebel against that holiness don't want to hear about that fact of sin, and they are going to say, well, you're just trying to make people fearful.

Most criminals who know they're guilty are fearful of a judge.

Most criminals who know they're guilty, who are suppressing the truth of their own guilt, aren't really looking forward to standing before that judge who will hear the facts of the case and judge rightly.

Romans chapter 1 tells us very clearly that men know that God exists.

I believe that Mr. Silverman knows that God exists. Now, I don't know. I've listened to a number of his presentations, and he's very confused about what

Christians believe and very confused about the history of Christianity. He thinks that none of it's unique.

We got it all from Osiris and things like that. I would love to debate that, by the way. That's been debunked for a long, long time, but only the internet drags that kind of stuff back up.

But one thing that is very, very clear is that the scriptures tell us that everyone sitting in this room knows that God exists, and either you, by God's grace, embrace that and worship him, or you are in some way suppressing—the

Greek term is katakonson, an active participle—holding down that knowledge of God. Now, you can do that religiously.

There are many people who suppress that knowledge of God religiously through false religion, even people who call themselves

Christians. Or, in the open way of an atheist, suppressing that knowledge, denying that God that you know exists is there.

And since that's the case, then the scriptures say that you are unapologetus, without an apologetic, without a defense.

The truth, if you will but hear it, the truth, if you will but stop yelling long enough to hear it and to consider it, will expose the fact that you are holding down that knowledge.

And in that act of holding down that knowledge, mankind twists the truth of God.

He twists the conscience that is within him. Now, fundamental to all of this is a recognition that God as our creator has the right to determine what is right and what is wrong.

In fact, I submit to you that when a society loses a firm grip on the reality that we are created beings, when a society devolves to the point where it embraces the idea that we have no transcendent meaning, that there is no moral absolute that we can appeal to, that society is in its death throes.

The results are what we see around us today, the Holocaust and murder of unborn children, the push to begin allowing us to get rid of the elderly because, well, you know, there's such a drain on society, you know.

The culture of death we see around us makes sense if we are but bags of protoplasm who are not created, who have no purpose and no direction from God.

If that were the case, then we would have a very different debate this evening.

But the fact of the matter is that God has revealed to us in his word that he is holy and we know that we have violated his law.

As such, we know that we cannot stand in his presence.

We heard it said earlier, well, you can be convicted for thought crime, my friends. Rebellious and sinful thoughts flow from a rebellious and sinful heart.

As Lord Jesus himself said, as a man speaks, that represents what is in his heart.

And the doctrine of original sin is not a heinous evil any more than when you go to the doctor and he brings you in, he says, we did the x -rays, we did the tests, you have cancer.

You may not like that. That may change your world. You don't want to hear those words, but if it is a true analysis of your situation, those words are not evil.

That man's doing the best thing that can be done for you, telling you the truth. And so you see, to the heart that has yet to be reigned in, in its rebellion, the announcement of one's conviction before God, that's evil.

How dare you say something like that? The fact of the matter is, what the scriptures say is true.

God is holy and God in his mercy and in his love is glorifying himself, the salvation of a particular people in and through Jesus Christ and only in and through Jesus Christ, because he doesn't owe us multiple ways of salvation.

I will address the issue of God's sovereignty, of God's decree in my rebuttal period.

But let me just simply say for the moment, the message of the

New Testament will only be evil to those who have yet to come to know its author.

I fully understand why a person who hates this God and hates this gospel and continues to suppress the knowledge of God would hate what this

New Testament says. I understand that. But you see, as the text in 1

Corinthians 1 tells us, the word of the cross, which is the central message of the

New Testament, that is its unifying core, the word of the cross is foolishness to a particular people, to those who are perishing.

But to us who are being saved, it's the very power of God. The same message heard and received completely differently by different people.

How can that be? I suggest to you that in eternity to come, in eternity to come, when there are those who stand upon the parapets of hell, screaming their hatred of God and their continued rebellion, sin doesn't stop, by the way, for them.

It's not like they become morally good and therefore they should be let out after a certain time on parole. The difference between those who stand upon the parapets of hell and their rebellion against God and those by God's grace who bow before the throne in humble adoration, filled with love for their creator, is a five -letter word called grace.

I am no better than anyone who this evening continues in their rebellion. The fact of the matter is, at a young time in my life,

God was gracious to me. He reached down, He took out that heart of stone,

He gave me a heart of flesh, and once I have that heart of flesh, I wanted to do what was right before my creator.

And I continue to desire to do that to this evening only by His grace.

My prayer is that God will glorify Himself this evening in drawing many others, in changing hearts, in changing minds, by His grace, through His word.

Thank you for being here this evening. Okay, at this time we're going to have

David Silverman with 15 minutes of rebuttal. 15 minutes, and I will signal you at two minutes.

My argument was not a straw man argument. My argument wasn't close to a straw man argument.

A straw man argument is when you avoid the subject and distract with another word and say, well don't listen to him, he's something else.

I came out with a strong argument along the topic tonight.

Is the New Testament evil? I take the position, yes. He's supposed to take the position, no.

In his opening remarks, he did not say that the New Testament was not evil.

He said, you can't define the New Testament as evil because the

New Testament is only good, and without the New Testament you can't get to evil. That is a circular argument.

That is the very definition of a stereotypical religious circular argument.

The Bible is good because the Bible says it is good. The Bible is true because the

Bible says it is true. My argument was based on fact. Babies and children go to hell.

I judge that to be evil. I used the reference .com

dictionary version of the definition of evil. I can do that, and so can you.

I asked you in my opening remarks that I want you to judge the

New Testament. He does not want you to judge the New Testament. He wants you to take it for granted that what he says is true because it says it's true.

Let me tell you something. Let me make it loud and clear. Every religious text that has ever been written has said that that religious text is true.

Without exception, without failure, every single one, including the

Egyptian texts from which Christianity evolved, by the way. A straw man argument is actually saying, don't listen to him.

He's a God -hater. That's a straw man argument.

Not taking apart the fact that the babies go to hell or that you go to hell for an involuntary thought or that you can go to hell for simply speaking about it.

That's not an argument. A straw man argument is, don't listen to him. He can't even walk into this room with this topic because he doesn't know what evil means.

He's a God -hater. He believes in God but actively denies it.

Why would I do that? Why would anybody do that? I'm not stupid.

Neither is he. Neither are you. If I thought that God existed, I wouldn't be here.

Why in the world would I gamble like that? He knows that. You know that. You have brains.

You have intellect. And you have ears. And I want you to use them. Because he did not come out in his argument and say, oh, the

Bible is not evil because. Except to say that the

Bible is not evil because the Bible says it's not evil. And without the Bible, you can't tell what is evil. I can tell you what is evil.

Pointing at all of you and comparing you to criminals. Saying, oh, if you were in front of your judge and the judge called you a criminal, you'd be afraid.

Guess what? You're not criminals. You're not. You're good people.

You're stand -up people. You're not bad. You have no reason to fear.

You have no reason to worry. I had hoped that we wouldn't get into the whole circular argument of evil being defined by being against God.

He's right on that, by the way. If we have to go in with that premise, there is no reason to have this debate.

Because you can't get around that. Evil is whatever is against the

Bible. If that's your definition, then the Bible can't be evil. Boom. We're done. But that's not the definition of evil.

Evil is what destroys families. Evil is what puts good people in a constant state of fear.

Evil is what puts people in a constant state of fear in order to make money. And don't think for a second that the

Catholics are the only Christian sect that makes money off the New Testament. Don't think that for a second.

Don't allow him to say, oh, that's not us. Because there aren't mega churches.

Oh, the Vatican is a huge, rich, granted evil empire.

But don't think the Protestants are not like that. Don't think that's only one little sect of Christianity.

That's every religion. But only Christianity goes after you for thought crimes.

Involuntary thought crimes. And then, what does he do?

He does what every preacher does. God reached down to me from heaven and turned my heart from stone to flesh.

Now we have to listen to him. Now he has put himself above you. He has placed himself above you so that you will look to him for guidance.

That's marketing. That's salesmanship. That's business. Babies are not protoplasm.

Children are not protoplasm. We're humans. They're humans.

When we believe life begins, we might disagree. But once a baby is born, nobody disagrees.

Those babies are innocent, sinless, wonderful things.

I do not think that babies are protoplasm. I do not think babies are worthless. That is yet another straw man argument to tell you not to believe what

I say because I think something totally unrelated. That's awful.

That's not good debating. And I hope it gets better than that. Now, let's go back to the

New Testament. Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad.

Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God. The Lord is one.

If we were having a debate on the triune God, he would be pulling that right out. That's what he does.

That's cool. His concept is that that is a very definite statement right there.

The Lord is one. A definite statement that does not allow for a triune

God to be considered polytheism. Okay. I can do that. A nice, definite statement.

Adonai Echad. God is one. Let's go for some other definite statements, shall we?

He that believeth and baptized shall be saved. He that believeth not shall be damned. Doesn't say some.

Doesn't say many. Doesn't say most. He that believeth and baptized shall be saved. He that believeth not shall be damned.

Nice, definite statements using the same logic that he uses in other debates.

Romans 3 .23. For all have sinned. Not some. For all have sinned and all come short of the glory of God.

Not some, not few, not many, not most. All. Same logic that he uses. Whosoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already,

John 3 .18, because he is not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. Not some, not few, all.

Definite articles just like Adonai Echad. There's no room for error here.

There's no room for God's grace. If you use God's grace, then there's no room for the

Savior, and Jesus is unimportant and impotent. He who believes has eternal life.

James says Jesus is able to save everyone to the uttermost, and faith is a gift from God.

Doesn't quite follow. If faith is a gift from God, why are you going to go to hell if God doesn't give you faith?

That would make it his fault that you don't have faith. His fault that I don't have faith, not mine.

If God can reach down from heaven and touch his heart, he can touch mine anytime he wants to, but he has not.

So when I go to hell, it's going to be God's fault, not mine, because God says to the uttermost, and God's grace cannot be resisted.

Right? Right. Now, there is a clause in Ephesians, for by grace you have been saved through faith and not by yourselves.

It is a gift of God. It is a result of works. That's the only place that I could find easily and quickly where works are recognized instead of faith.

Of course, it is a contradiction now, isn't it? Because Matthew says you're going to be saved by faith alone.

I'm sorry, Mark says that. So I'm a little disappointed that we got into the, you have to define evil according to my terms.

I gave you a formulation for defining evil. How can

I explain, how can I call anything evil? Well, how can you call anything evil?

Do you really believe that everything in the Bible is good and everything that's against the

Bible is evil? Is that your definition? Not his. Don't tell me about his definition.

Is your definition of the Bible, anything that's against the Bible is good and everything that's against the

Bible is evil and everything for the Bible is good? Does that even make sense to you?

Does that make sense in your head? Well, some of you will. Not to me.

Because unlike what James said, I'm telling you this. We are the final authority on what is evil.

We are the final authority on what is evil. You're here tonight to decide for yourself what is evil.

Not to just hear what a man who claims to have been touched by God who tells you what is evil.

You are here today to think for yourselves, learn for yourselves, and critique for yourselves whether or not something is evil.

And I say in my opinion and my assertion that anything that punishes anyone at an infinite level for an involuntary or finite crime is evil.

I'm done. Thank you. Dr. White will have his 15 -minute rebuttal.

While it's still fresh in your mind, I want you to hear what was just said. We are the final authority on what is evil.

Yes, we are. And that's exactly what led to Stalin and Hitler and the bloodbath of the last century under communism, the abandonment of a recognition that God is our creator and he provides the standards.

Oh, but what about the inquisitions? They were going against a revelation that they themselves held to be authoritative.

There was nothing inconsistent about what the communists did in the destruction of simply highly evolved humanoids.

That's what we're talking about this evening. Now, I honestly assert to you that the debate is over with given what

Mr. Silverman just said. He said, I do not think babies are protoplasm.

Mr. Silverman, I'm awful glad that you don't because you see, you have to work really hard to think that.

I think every atheist that sees a child is amazed at the giving of life.

But my point, and I think most of you already caught this, my point, I never said that Mr.

Silverman believes these things. I said his worldview demands these things and he can't live consistently with his worldview.

And he just demonstrated it over and over again. He didn't give us, well, you can go to dictionary .com

or reference .com and come up with the meaning for evil. What about before the internet? What was evil then?

That's not a sufficient basis, folks. That's showing no reflection upon whether your worldview is consistent or not.

I said at the beginning, what did I say? I hope you heard my words. No matter what happens today, no matter what subject we address or how we address it, my opponent will continuously give evidence of the fact that his worldview cannot explain why he's even here this evening.

And over and over again, he will demonstrate. He has to borrow from mine to make his attacks against mine work.

You want circular argumentation? There it is. You see, we're creating the image of God. There's no way out of this.

And the fact he'll do it over and over again, he'll keep saying, this is evil. I think this is evil.

I don't think babies are protoplasm. But from a naturalistic materialistic perspective, which is his worldview, what else is it?

You can't look at that baby and say there's any transcendent meaning to this life. He says, we're human beings.

Yeah. But in an atheistic worldview, so what? What does that matter?

Oh, well, I think it's important. Why? Show how this flows from your worldview.

And I submit to you, the atheist cannot do it. The atheist can only continue repeating the same assertions.

And so we've been told, well, you know, we have these, you're going to hell because of involuntary thought crimes.

No, you're not. That's not a Christian belief. That's why I was talking about straw men. It is obvious we go to hell because we love our sin.

We love fulfilling our own lusts. We love suppressing the knowledge of God.

And by the way, if you're an atheist and you were confused by what I said, when

I said that God in his grace took out my heart of stone and gave me a heart of flesh, that's the confession of every single

Christian there is. I wasn't making myself better than you. I was saying I had to experience

God's grace. That wasn't marketing or salesmanship. And it only shows, you know,

I don't know who Mr. Silverman's talking with, but he doesn't show a lot of understanding of the position that he's denying.

Now there's, we were told evil is what destroys families.

Really? Where do you get that from a naturalistic materialist worldview? Where do you get that?

A family was established in Genesis um, the first couple chapters, the family was established.

That's why marriage can only be between one man and one woman because that's how God designed it.

And that's what Jesus taught. But you see from a naturalistic materialistic worldview, why should anyone care about a family?

In fact, I would say to you from his worldview, if he were consistent with his worldview, which he can't be, but if he were, families would be silly.

Monogamy is ridiculous. From Darwin's perspective, the greatest good his genes can do, read

Dawkins books. The greatest good his genes can do is to propagate themselves amongst as many women as possible, creating as many children as possible.

That's what's good in that worldview. So how is evil?

What destroys families? He's borrowing my worldview again. My worldview explains why things that destroy his families are evil, but his world cannot.

I will for the moment resist the temptation to talk about the silliness of Egyptian texts from which

Christianity evolved. I will only make one statement. Those very religions did not claim that what they were saying about history was true at all.

And if you've read any of them, you would know that there are such fundamental foundational differences that again,

I will lay out the challenge right now. I will debate Mr. Silverman any day on that one.

I'll come on his television program and demonstrate that any allegation that Osiris, Horus, Dionysus, or anything else is the foundation of where Jesus came from is beyond the level of absurd and fully refutable to anyone who will just take the time to actually read the original sources.

All there is to it. Now, I promised you that I would address the fact that, so this is horrible.

So this belief of original sin is horrible because you see, God knew what was going to happen.

Well, my friends, God knew what was going to happen because according to scriptures, he decreed what was going to happen.

He's the creator of all things. And this creation is not about you and me. I hate to break that news to you, but we as creatures are

God's creatures and God has the right to do with us as he pleases. He is the potter and we are the clay.

Now I'm very thankful technology. I love my little iPad here. It's great for taking notes and all that kind of stuff like that.

But you know what I can do with this iPad, whatever I want to do with this iPad and the iPad can't tell me otherwise.

Now, some people might think that the owners of Apple have something to say about that, but that's another issue. The fact of the matter is

I firmly believe that God decreed whatsoever takes place in time, but it does not follow for a moment that Adam A had no real choice in matter at all because Adam wasn't some innocent guy and God's sitting there going, do something evil, do something evil, do something evil.

He was following his desires just as Joseph's brothers were following their desires and selling

Joseph into slavery in Egypt. But what did Joseph say in Genesis chapter 50, verse 20? I know you meant this for evil, but God intended it for good.

Same action. Their desire is evil. God's desire is good. God accomplishes his purposes and he holds them accountable not based upon knowing what his decree is, but upon acting upon the desires of their hearts.

See how God does the exact same thing with the king of Assyria in Isaiah chapter 10. And the biggest example of this, the clearest example of this is

Acts chapter four. When the early church is told, don't preach the name of Jesus, they come back together again and they pray and the early church talks about the persecution and they talk about how

Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Jews and the Romans had come together against Jesus. Now there are four groups that had very different reasons for doing what they did.

Herod was just nuts. Pilate was a politician who was a coward. The Jews hated

Jesus because he'd exposed them over and over again and the Romans were just killing somebody. That's what they did.

That's just sort of what Roman soldiers do on the weekend. All had different motivations, but notice what

Acts 4 .28 says, to do whatever your hand had predestined to occur.

Because folks, crucifixion of Jesus was the greatest single self -glorifying act that God has ever accomplished.

The greatest good expressed the evil of the hearts of men.

Tricked Adam? No. Adam did what he desired to do.

Herod, Pontius Pilate did what they desired to do. And we keep saying, well, you know, my opponent this evening says that God can save the uttermost.

By the way, that's actually a citation of Jesus in from Hebrews chapter seven, talking about Jesus. He is able to save the uttermost.

He says, well, if I end up in hell, it's because God didn't give me faith. No, sir. If you end up in hell, it's because you didn't repent from your sins.

But you see the idea as well. But if I'm dependent upon God to raise me to spiritual life, God is under no obligation.

Grace cannot be demanded. Grace must be free.

You see, folks, you don't want justice from God. Because every single one of us,

Mr. Silverman looked out over you. You're not criminals. You're good folks. In comparison to who?

In comparison to who? What is the greatest commandment according to the Lord Jesus Christ?

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. And there is not a person in this room that has done that perfectly this day, including myself.

According to whom are you good? You see, the reason anyone's a Christian is because what

I talked about, God reaches them. He takes out that hard heart. They can say, oh,

I'm good. I'm good. He gives you a heart of flesh and you start realizing how often you're needlessly angered, how often you have thoughts of lust, how often you put yourself before others, how selfish you are.

And once we know that, once we have that knowledge, we flee from our sin to a perfect Savior.

And that's why any one of us is a Christian. It's not because we're better than someone else. It's all a matter of grace.

But God is under no obligation. God is under no obligation to save every single person.

He could, I say, he could. You see, think about it. God would have just a few choices.

Either God can save no one, God can save everyone, or God can save someone.

If he saves no one, then we never see his mercy, his love, and his grace. If he saves everyone, we never see his justice, his holiness, and his wrath against sin.

But when he saves someone, we see both. And in that situation, not only does

God have freedom to choose to do as he pleases, to glorify himself, but we see the whole range of the divine attributes expressed, which is what we have in the

New Testament. Now, folks, I couldn't believe that Mr. Silverman stood up and said, well, he never said the

New Testament wasn't evil. If I need to say it clearly, let me say it clearly for you.

The New Testament is the theanoustos, God -breathed Word of God. It is pure and good in every syllable.

How's that? Okay? Now, what I was explaining that Mr.

Silverman didn't seem to understand was that that message of the cross is foolishness to certain people, and it's the power of God to other people.

Why is it that case? Why is it that we can both hear the same message and come to completely different conclusions?

It's a matter of the heart. It's a matter of the soul. It's a matter of the spirit, things that Mr.

Silverman's worldview can't even begin to address because none of those things exist. We are just atoms banging together.

That's all we are. All you see happening in front of you this evening are two bags of protoplasm with neurons firing random electrical signals back and forth in their cranium.

That's all that's happening. From an atheist worldview, that's all you can say is happening. But you see, as you sit here this evening, you know better.

You know that each one of us should be concerned about consistency. You know each one of us should be concerned about accuracy.

You know each one of us should be concerned about clearly expressing ourselves if we respect you.

I wasn't disrespecting you when I looked out and talked about the criminal in front of the judge in any way, shape, or form because I was talking about myself as well.

I say to you once again, the greatest way I can show love, respect, and concern for you and affirm that you are a creature creating the image of God is to tell you the truth about your creator and your need for his salvation.

That's the greatest thing I can do for you. I can explain that in my worldview. I can explain why the

New Testament is good and pure from my worldview. How can

Mr. Silverman, as a naturalistic materialist, even begin to meaningfully demonstrate his assertion, the thesis this evening?

Dictionary .com or reference .com is not. There needs to be something more.

Thank you very much. Cross -examination period.

Interesting cross -examination. I think this is a very important part of the debate. I think we're going to begin with, according to this,

David Silverman will question Dr. White for 10 minutes. The way we're going to do this is we're going to have the questioner stand and the person being questioned seated at their desk.

That's pretty much like a courtroom situation. Again, I'm going to thank you for being respectful just like you would in a court of law, even if you hear something that you strongly disagree with.

Okay. Please be respectful and be quiet so that everybody can make their points such as they are.

And I'm also going to admonish gently the questioners and the questionees that the question actually be a question and the answer actually be an answer, meaning responsive to the question.

No speeches, no ducking the question. Preferably if you can answer the question with a yes or no would be ideal.

That is how cross -examination works. I'm doing this only for 30 years. Okay. But if you need to give an explanation, certainly give an explanation, but it must be responsive to the question.

So with that in mind, we welcome David Silverman to question James White for 10 minutes. And again,

I'll give a one minute warning on this. Thank you. My mic on? Can you hear me?

Okay. Do I get to pace around? You're an attorney, right?

So Dr. White. Okay. You want me to go over there?

Really? All right. Oh, all right. All right. That's good.

I see. He can be right. There you go. I'm really having a good time tonight.

I hope you're all having a good time tonight and enjoying yourselves. I really appreciate the hospitality that I'm being offered. Dr. White, let's talk a bit about original sin.

Adam and Eve are in the Garden of Eden. Before they eat that apple, we'll call it an apple, they're perfect.

Yes? Testing one, two.

Okay. There you go. Perfect as in God created them to be upright. Yes. Perfect as in knowing good from evil?

Not in the sense that they had not experientially as yet, no. Okay. So Adam is in the

Garden of Eden and God puts the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden.

Adam hasn't sinned yet. Adam hasn't eaten the apple yet. God knows at that point in time that you and I are going to have this conversation right now.

Not only knows that he decreed it, that's why he knows it. His knowledge is based upon his decree. Okay. So Adam eating the apple was part of God's plan.

Yes, sir. Are there babies in hell? Are there babies in hell?

Yeah. As you may have, I'm not sure if you were quoting me when you were talking or not,

I believe that God has the exact same freedom in the salvation of infants that he has in the salvation of adults.

That's not my answer, that's not my question. Well, but I'm explaining it since you asked are there quote unquote babies in hell.

I believe that God has the same freedom in the salvation of infants that he has in adults. Since all of us, no matter what our stage of development, are fallen sons and daughters of Adam, then

God would not be under any compulsion to show mercy to anyone. But I believe that he does based upon the very same freedom that he has in saving any adult person as well.

So I do not know, I cannot look someone, and I've been a hospital chaplain so I've had to do this more than once,

I cannot look at someone and play God and tell them what God is going to do in that situation.

My response always is the judge of all the earth will do right and leave it to the very same thing that I do with my children or anyone in my family.

So when Adam was about to eat that apple, when God put that tree of knowledge of good and evil in the

Garden of Eden, he knew that he would be in this situation right now. He decreed it, he insisted on it, he made it happen.

He chose to glorify himself in this particular fashion through the atonement of Christ. He made it happen.

When you say made it happen, what do you mean? Are you differentiating between primary movers, secondary means, etc.,

etc.? I'm saying that if I take my keys and I drop them, the keys have no will.

I'm saying that I know that I'm going to drop these keys and they're going to fall.

I knew that was going to happen, but God was more sure than I was that Adam would eat the fruit, that Adam would cause the fall of that, that that would cause the fall of man, and that billions and billions of souls created by God, who he loved, would go to hell as a result.

God's knowledge of the future is not analogous to your knowledge of physical laws. That would be a category error.

However, the point that you're making is that God knows the future and that the future flows from his own decree.

Of course, what did not follow was the conclusion that you included in your question. Is it not then

God's will that billions and billions of souls are in hell? It is God's will to glorify himself in the salvation of particular people and to demonstrate his justice in his just punishment of many others.

I don't know. First of all, I don't think there's anybody in hell right now, so I want to correct that.

I believe that's a future state, but the fact of the matter is I don't know what the percentage of people is going to be who are going to experience his grace and the percentage of people is going to be who will not.

So, I don't know how many people there are, but their just punishment was not only known to God, but the result of his will from the beginning.

Yes, no question about that. So, you don't think that there's anybody damned? No, I do believe that there are people that are damned.

All I said was hell is a, if you're familiar with the book of Revelation, it says that death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire.

The dead right now are not in a place called hell, they're in a place called Hades. They're not the same thing. Maybe you're confusing those two terms.

But God had all of this in mind when Adam ate the apple.

In fact, it was God's will, it was God's intention. God could have stopped it if he didn't want it to happen, but he chose not to.

Certainly, God could have stopped anything that he did not want to have happen as he does very regularly in curbing the evil of man.

We never thank him for that, but I do differentiate very strongly between talking about God's decree and the fact that God's will, as revealed to us, is found in his law.

We don't know what God's secret decree is. God's will says, thou shalt not murder. So, you need to differentiate when you're using the term will because you're asking a

Christian theologian what he believes about that, and I will have to differentiate on the basis of the scripture at that point. I'm confused.

Okay. God could put everyone in heaven any time he wanted to.

God could show his grace. God could show himself. God has in many times during the

Bible. Very complex question. You've already gotten to two different places that I would have to interrupt you and to answer part of the question.

Please do. When you said God could, are you talking about before creation, before he began to do his work?

Are you talking about now? Both. Well, theoretically, prior to the fall of man and to the working out of his will,

God could have just created us all to go to heaven, and that would have been it. He never would have glorified himself in the cross.

He never would have demonstrated his love or mercy. He could have, theoretically, but once the fall took place, then no longer is that a theoretical possibility because God has already begun to act, make promises, and God's not going to go back upon the promises he's already made to the prophets or whatever else it might be, so you have to pick and choose which area you're going to approach there.

Let's do that again. God could not choose right now to send everybody to heaven?

No, because he's made revelation. He has revealed exactly how a person is to go to heaven and exactly upon what grounds he has given prophecies.

He'd have to be able to lie, and the scripture says God cannot lie, and so to vitiate his own prophecies, he would have to be able to change his own nature and be able to say,

I was dishonest in what I said before. Moses had one covenant. God gave us a second covenant with Jesus.

That changed the rules. No, it did not. Two minutes. No, it did not change the rules. You're not understanding the relationship of the covenant of grace, which actually begins with Adam, and that each one of those covenants are a representation of that covenant of grace.

There is a fundamental unity that exists through those, even though there is a difference in how those things are worked out.

The book of Hebrews makes it very plain that the argument you just made is not really an accurate argument to the

New Testament. It's not an accurate argument. So, God could have done something once before, which is send everybody to heaven, and just glorified himself by showing himself to everybody.

Now he can't do that. Now he has to glorify himself by sending lots of people to Hades.

God will be consistent with the promises he has already made. Yes, he does not change, and he has made a revelation as to what he's doing, and he's not going to change that.

I'm done. Okay, we have no further questions. The prosecution rests on this question.

Okay, and now we'll have ten minutes of questions by Dr.

James White for Mr. Silverman. Mr. Silverman, to win the debate this evening, you need to establish that the

New Testament is evil. Could you explain to us, based upon your naturalistic worldview, how something can be evil?

First of all, to win this debate tonight, I have to prove that it's evil better than you can prove that it's not.

How can I explain something that is evil is that evil is a judgment call based on our current morality.

You and I are humans. We are thinking humans, and evil is a human concept.

What some religions do, and Christianity does this, is that it takes human morality, and it defends it by adding a mythology to it, thereby strengthening the human morality.

I should say, giving the credit for that morality, for those judgment calls to a book so that they're not questioned.

You just said that evil is a judgment call based upon current morality.

Current morality amongst whom? Current morality among living humans. All living humans?

No. Living humans in this area. It changes. Morality is a relative statement.

There's absolutely no question about it. So morality changes based upon where you live?

And when you live. And when you live. Yes. So, the obvious question

I think is crossing everyone's mind here then is, upon what basis could we say it was moral for us to have entered into World War II against the

Axis powers, given that the morality that prevailed in their culture could have said that it was good to slaughter

Jews, and gypsies, and people like that? Why did we have a moral reason for engaging in a war like that?

In our judgment, yes, we did. And in German's judgment, no, we did not. That's what makes it work.

That's what humanity is all about. So those people gave their lives based upon just a moral judgment made in one particular area that wasn't necessarily true someplace else.

Yes. Absolutely. Because people make their moral judgments based on the information that's available to them at the time.

Just like slavery used to be moral here in the United States, and it used to be supported by the

New and the Old Testament. But now we all know that slavery is an intolerable, immoral thing.

So you're actually asserting that the laws on slavery in the Old Testament had something to do with the

American form of slavery? I am saying that the laws that the New Testament and the Old Testament were both used to support slavery among Christians in America.

But you recognize that a written document can be used to support almost anything as long as you don't worry about its context, right?

A written document, in fact, the Bible can be used to support anything at all. Anything at all you can support with the

Bible, yes. By ignoring its context or in its context? By supposing and presupposing its context and by taking things to context and making it fit the morality that you currently have.

For instance, the Pauline Epistles specifically mention that a slave has to obey his master. That, if taken into the context, can be used to support slavery.

But you would agree, I would hope, that we should interpret any text like that within the original context in which it was written, right?

If we interpret it, we are subjecting it to our own thoughts and we are taking our own morality and reading it into the

Bible. Your interpretation of the Bible within its context is exactly that.

It's your interpretation, your brain's interpretation of the Bible in the context that you think.

Have you written anything, Mr. Sullivan? Have I written anything? Published a book, booklet, anything like that? I published lots of articles on the internet.

After you're dead, will they still have the same meaning they had when you wrote them? That's a pretty broad statement.

Will they still have the same meaning? When you write a sentence, do you intend it to communicate an actual meaning to someone?

Yes. Do you have children? Yes. When you command, do you have teenagers?

Yes. Oh, man. And I've seen your video where you talk about having a teenage girl.

Have you experienced what I've experienced in the past where the teenager only hears half of the sentence, which instead of clean your room, then we'll go to have pizza, all they hear is the we're going to have pizza part.

Have you experienced that? I certainly have. Okay. Now, back to the serious part.

When you say something serious to your teenager, do you intend to be interpreted within the context you intend them to interpret your words in?

Yes. Okay. So, when the Apostle Paul writes to the Corinthians, should not our first concern be to know what he intended his original audience to understand?

Or are you denying that we can't know what that was? We can't know what that was. We cannot know. That's what I'm saying. In our current morality, we can't.

You're talking about a 2 ,000 -year -old document. We can't even determine if it was written by whom. Wait a minute.

I'm confused. So, you cannot read Cicero and understand anything

Cicero said? I can understand what he says, but I can't. Why? Because he uses words. Didn't Paul use words?

Words, yes. Okay. So, I'm just wondering.

Are you actually trying to say that Paul's letters where he actually says that a slave should obey the master doesn't say that slavery is okay?

Yeah, that's a conclusion. You're asking me a I need to keep asking you questions. Oh, I'm sorry. Shouldn't we interpret what

Paul said about the subject of slavery within the context in which he said it in antiquity, not within the context of American slavery, which existed 1 ,800 years later and was fundamentally different in its form, purposes, and foundation?

In my personal moral opinion, slavery is always wrong, sir. And that's my personal moral judgment.

And there's no way I didn't ask you. I'm sorry, I can't go there. If you're actually going to say to me that the

Paulines are absolute, then we're not going to have too much of a discussion. Mr. Silverman, my question is actually, and I want to come back to what you just said, because I want to ask you why you can think that slavery is evil at all times.

But before that, I think we have to establish a simple fact of human language here.

If someone digs up one of your internet articles 1 ,000 years from now, do you believe that the words that you wrote will still carry the meaning you intended?

I hope so. You hope so? Yes, I hope so. Would someone have the ability to accurately understand what you said in that article 1 ,000 years from now?

I hope so. And would you want them to interpret you in the way you intended rather than putting into your mouth words and thoughts you never intended?

What I would want? Yes. Okay, so when we then read the Apostle Paul addressing the institution of Roman slavery and not calling for all slaves to rebel, causing revolution in the

Roman Empire, should we not read his words in the context of first century

Rome rather than 19th century Georgia? Two minutes. I would say yes.

Okay, good. All right. Now, I'm glad we got there. Unfortunately, it didn't happen.

Unfortunately, it didn't happen. People interpreted it as they so chose, which is what they do all the time.

And so if someone interprets the Bible contrary to what the original author intended and that he expressed by his own words, is that an abuse of the

Bible or a proper use of the Bible? That is an abuse. Good. Thank you. All right.

And if someone abuses your writings, you're not responsible for their abusing your writings, are you?

No. Okay, good. All right. Now, you had said just now that you believe that slavery, and please repeat if you could,

I didn't have a chance to write it down. I think you said that you believe slavery is always wrong, right?

Yes, I do. So in the Roman Empire, where everybody in the

Senate, all the people, I mean, it was the economic system of the day.

Why don't they get to determine their morality, and you get to say that they were doing something that was wrong?

How are you consistent at that point? I'm going to permit you to answer this, and then the time is up. No, that's exactly what I'm saying, that morality changes over time and per location, that I believe here in my time in this location, that slavery is always wrong.

However, the morality of the ancient Romans was different, just like the morality of early

Americans was different. It changes. Morality is relative. Now we'll have

David Silverman question James White for 10 minutes. Dr.

White, I'd like to talk to you a little bit about predetermination. You state that faith is a gift from God, and Ephesians 2 -6, for by grace you have been saved through faith and not of yourselves.

It is a gift from God as a result, not as a result of works that no one should boast. That's actually Ephesians 2 -8 -9.

Yes. Where is the free will if God can save to the uttermost and chooses not to?

If faith is a gift, how am I to be blamed for God not giving me faith?

You're not blamed for God not giving you faith. You're blamed for your sin and your rebellion and your refusal to repent.

Giving someone the gift of faith is an act of grace. It's not the basis upon which you're sent to hell.

Your sin is the basis upon which you're sent to hell. Say it again. Your sin and your guilt before God is the basis upon which you are justly condemned.

Grace goes beyond the categories of justice. Grace and mercy go beyond those categories.

So God can save to the uttermost. Jesus can save to the uttermost. And that's all completely up to God.

He can choose by His grace to soften my heart, turn it from stone to flesh, and make me a

Christian. Even you. Yes, sir. Even me. Even you. But He chooses not to.

And if I die in this state right here, right now, I'm damned. Yes? Yes, sir.

In fact, the biblical teaching is the wrath of God abides, present tense, upon you right now. The wrath of God.

Yes. Yes. How is that fair?

Fair? How is it fair? In fact, well, you know what? It isn't fair because if it was only fair,

God would bring His wrath to bear upon you right now. He's extending grace and mercy to you in patience.

So I need to thank

God that He hasn't sent me to hell yet. Yes, sir. Yes. That's quite true.

That's good. No question about it. Yeah, so if you're talking about strict fairness in the sense of bringing about the punishment immediately, then

God has always demonstrated mercy and grace even in extending life and patience to people and not bringing

His judgment to bear immediately. But once again, I'm predestined. Wherever I'm going to go, I'm predestined.

God knows where I'm going to go, whether or not I'm going to hell, whether or not I'm going to accept

Jesus. But is that a question or a statement? It's a question. Okay, could you put it in the form of a question? Does God already know where I'm going to go, when

I'm going to go, and if I'm going to accept Jesus? I notice you changed the question, and I find that interesting because the original statement was you were predestined to do something.

And as I said in my response in the rebuttal period, you do what you desire to do.

I've heard many an atheist, when I debated Dan Barker, he said, I don't want to be in the presence of your

God. When I die, I want to go to hell, so I will be as far away from your God as possible.

And God will grant him his wish unless he changes his heart, which of course is my prayer both for him and for you.

But again, if you don't have the desire to be in the presence of God, why would you say it's unfair if he doesn't bring you into his presence?

My question was, am I predestined? I do believe, but see, I need to differentiate, and that's why

I asked you to put it in the form of a question. Okay, am I predestined? Because predestination has two forms.

You have the positive act of God, whereby he extends his grace to save his elect.

In regards to the others, that's not an extension of grace, even an extension of power. It is simple justice, because they are already fallen in Adam.

And so there's something called equal ultimacy that we deny. They are not the same act except just the positive and negative side.

To save someone, God must extend incredible grace. To judge someone,

God really doesn't have to do anything at all other than just simply bring his justice to bear. But God can't extend that incredible grace anytime he wants to without effort.

It's not an effort. Without effort, no. It's actually the very power that raised the Son of God from the grave.

It is a massive effort. It is the greatest power. But God is all -powerful, though. All -powerful means anything can be done without effort.

No, I don't believe that's what all -powerful means. I disagree with the foundation of your question. Oh, what does all -powerful mean?

Well, having all -power does not mean that there is an equal extension of power to do anything.

To raise a rebel sinner to spiritual life is a fundamentally different thing than making a tree grow.

Those are different kinds of things. And according to the

Gospel, it is a miracle that is, I think, even greater than the resurrection of the dead recorded in John 11 or elsewhere in the

Gospels. Are you suggesting that God could actually get tired? No, sir, I'm not. I'm simply recognizing that the

Scriptures themselves use that language to talk about the power that raised

Jesus from the grave is the same power that animates believers. Perhaps I'm not being clear. If God is all -powerful, that means

He has an unlimited amount of power. And therefore, it doesn't matter how much power it takes to do something.

He can do it with relatively no effort. The New Testament does not agree with your assessment of omnipotence.

Okay. Still, let's talk about free will.

If we're talking about something that is predetermined, pre -known, why are we going through this whole life exercise in the first place?

Well, whose free will are you talking about? You're talking about God's or ours? Mine. Yours? Mine. My personal free will.

Do I have it? From a Christian perspective, what you possess is creaturely will. And according to the

New Testament, Jesus himself said, he who commits sin is a slave of sin. So, your will has been enslaved to your nature, which is that of a fallen creature.

But I'm predestined. God knows what's going to happen. I can't change God's will. I can't go against God's will.

I'm physically incapable of doing anything against God's plan. And as I said beforehand, you don't want to.

I'm not sure why you keep raising a theoretical that isn't relevant to the situation. But sir, it is.

If you have the desire, that is the result of God's grace in your heart. But the point is that you do not have that desire.

You do not desire to turn from him. And he's under no obligation to give to a rebel sinner that which the rebel sinner despises and hates.

So, I am physically incapable of going against God's plan. Well, I wouldn't use the term physically because we're talking...

I'm incapable. I'm incapable. Well, I make the differentiation because I believe you to be a naturalistic materialist. And therefore, I need to answer in an appropriate fashion.

Go for it. And the scriptures specifically say in Romans chapter 8, that those who are according to flesh cannot submit themselves to the law of God.

They cannot do what is pleasing before God. That is the biblical teaching. And so I am doomed. Two minutes. Unless God, by his spirit, grants to you spiritual life and raises you to spiritual life, that's exactly correct.

You will continue to do exactly what your nature causes you to want to do.

And that is to act in rebellion. And your particular form of rebellion is a form of atheism.

But to be perfectly honest with you, I don't see any difference in the motivation, what motivates you to be an atheist, as what motivates people involved in false religion to do the greatest feats of religiosity.

It's still rebellion against God. And we have no choice in that matter.

No, you make the choice every day. No, we don't. Because we cannot go against the will of God. Is that a question or are you arguing the point?

It's a discussion. Okay, I understand. But we're supposed to be doing this in the form of questions. And so the question…

See, you assumed something that I would have immediately challenged, had you asked it in the form of a question.

When you say you have no choice, I say you have all the choice in the world, but you don't have the desire.

If you understood the nature of the will, especially as I think Jonathan Edwards very rightly brought it out in his massive treatise on the subject, you would know that the will operates on the desires presented to it by our nature.

Your nature as a fallen person does not present to your will the desire to do what is right before God.

Therefore, as Jesus said, you are enslaved to your sin. I'm done.

Well, your time was up anyway. And now

Dr. White will question David Silverman for 10 minutes. This is exhausting.

I do it every day. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, it is. But I'm appreciating the effort, and I hope everyone else is listening very, very carefully.

I think my wife is getting an appreciation for what I do on a daily basis. I'm loving this. All right. So are we starting now?

Yes, please. All right. Okay. Here we go. Mr. Silverman, I got completely lost at one point in your rebuttal.

You, at one point, quoted Ephesians 2 and said that's the only place where works was brought in, and then you said that was contradictory to Mark that says it was by faith alone.

Yeah, that was my mistake. Okay, could you explain? No, I obviously misread the passage.

Okay, so your actual assertion was that Ephesians is the one that says it's by grace, and that's contradictory to something else?

No, my original assertion was that Ephesians said it was by works, but actually the works is really in Matthew, where it says you get to heaven by doing things according to the commandments, and in Mark, it says you get to heaven by submitting yourself to God and by accepting

Jesus. Okay, so you're alleging that Matthew actually teaches as a whole that you get to heaven by your good works?

Yeah. Where would you find that? What are the greatest commandments? The greatest commandment is love thy

God and be good to thy neighbor. So, you're interpreting—

There's nothing, and you can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I don't see anything in Matthew that says belief is required.

I see, okay. So, when you read Matthew, you're understanding the judgment and the existence of God's law as being the means by which we somehow earn

God's favor and enter into His presence. Restate your question, please. So, you really think that Matthew is saying that we earn our salvation by loving

God perfectly? You think Matthew actually has the idea that anyone actually does that? I am not in a position to interpret.

Okay, all right. Okay, but yeah, that's what it appears to me. Okay, all right. I'm saying, what

I'm saying is that there's nothing in Matthew as there is in Mark, as there is in John that says belief gets you into heaven, and belief is required to get into heaven.

Matthew doesn't say that. So, if I were to present text to you, that would probably take us out of our subject here, because you're not saying this is evil.

So, I want to stay in the subject range we're in. No, I'm not saying that Matthew is evil. There's not that much in Matthew that's evil.

There's not that much in Matthew that is evil. Is it evil? No, it's mainly John and beyond.

Is it evil for Jesus to say, take up your cross and follow me?

Deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me? If what Jesus was teaching was false, and there is no

God, and Jesus was saying, leave your father and mother and follow me,

I thought you said that which would destroy a family was evil. Yes. So, if Jesus calls someone to follow him, and that results in the destruction of the family, how is that not an evil thing?

No, I guess you're right. Okay. I'll yield that point, because the destruction of families is evil, and yeah, that's in Matthew.

Okay. Now, based upon a naturalistic worldview, why should families not be destroyed?

Why should they not? I'm sorry. I think the term you used was either disrupted or maybe destroyed. I forget which one it was.

I'm saying the human race is a social animal. We're here as a social animal, and anything that gets in the way of our ability to live our lives as we see fit, in peace, in harmony, anything, by your own admission, that destroys families.

I mean, you've said online that faith destroys families more than it unites them.

I believe you said that, although I don't have the exact thing. Yeah. Let me see if I'm a lawyer here.

Where did I say that? Oh, I'm sorry. I don't have that quote with me. Yeah, I didn't think so. Oh, it's on there, though.

I'm pretty sure you said it. I'm sorry. But my point is that families, like I said, morality is a judgment call.

Evil is a judgment call. But given your worldview, sir, I've listened to as many of your programs as I could find that were relevant to this subject, and you seem to very strongly hold to a secular, naturalistic, materialistic worldview.

We got here by neo -Darwinian micromutational evolutionary process, yes? Yes. All right.

Now, could you explain how your worldview gives rise to your conclusion?

Let me back up. Hold that thought for a moment. Let me ask this. What's a family? That's a judgment call in and of itself.

That's a judgment call. So is one man and 10 women a family?

That's a judgment call in and of itself. Is one woman and her chihuahua a family?

No. Why not? Because I would say no. You know what? But if you ask that woman, she might say yes, that chihuahua is part of her family.

Okay. What if this woman had been abused by others, and this was the only living creature that she had ever found that did not abuse her?

That's a family, wouldn't it be, from what you just said? I think it would be, yeah. Okay. So how do we even define destruction or disruption of the family, given that you can't tell us what a family is?

I can tell you what a family is, but it's my interpretation of what a family is. My interpretation of a family is people who live together in harmony, hopefully in harmony.

You're married? Somebody in harmony. You're married and have kids, right? I'm married. I have a child. We're a family. My father -in -law also lives with us.

He's part of the family. My dog lives with us. He's part of the family. Would your wife think that it was appropriate for you to define your family as you and two women?

No. Yeah. I've asked.

Yeah. So I think you see the point that I'm making.

When you say that there are—basically, it sounds to me like you're saying there is no objective moral definition of any of these things.

That's correct. Okay. So all of the moral actions that we undertake are merely the consensus result of a local group of people and nothing more than that.

There is no objective morality, sir. Okay. I will tell you that over and over again. And it's not a—

So what—when you stand at the gates of Auschwitz, all you can say is, for me, this was bad.

Yep. Thank you. I believe there's another 10 -minute section of cross -examination, or do you want to go to closing statements?

I'll leave that up to you. Oh, I thought there was one more. There is one more. I'm asking for a consensus. But for you, when you go to the gates of Auschwitz— Oh, so we're going on.

Okay. As is his right, because this is what we agreed to. Of course. Yeah, we have three.

Of course. You have another 10 -minute section. But for you, when you stand at the gates of Auschwitz, you say, this is all part of God's plan.

Not only do I say that, but I likewise say that plan includes the moral law, which will judge every single person who was involved with that.

And I can look at the world and say, this is what happens when God withdraws his hand from the hearts of man.

And we see the actual depths of the depravity that fills that heart.

Or you can look at it and see, this is what happened when God extends his hand and helps the

Germans kill 6 million Jews. No, sir. No, sir. That's a judgment call, is it not?

No, sir. Why is that not a judgment call? Now we see the fundamental difference between you and I. I have an objective revelation that makes the theoretical position you took absolutely impossible.

That is not possible to come up with that perspective in my worldview, given God's revelation in his word.

How's that? How is that? Yeah, how is that? Because you just said, well, this is what happens when

God helps the Germans do something. The point is that I had just pointed out that God is restraining the evil of man.

And once in a while, he lets up a finger so we can see what really fills their hearts.

He doesn't have to help them do something. In fact, if he hadn't been restraining them, they would have done worse than they did.

Good speculation. No, no, sir. Not speculating. Excuse me. Is that a question? Are you asking me if I'm speculating?

I am asking you a question right now. In reality, would it not be the

Germans, Christians from back from 1940s who would say that this was just, would it not be up to everybody to decide what

God wants? No, sir. And then impugn that onto what is happening?

Completely, completely outside of the Christian worldview. The German church to this day recognizes that they knew what was morally right, given the normative function of the word of God.

They recognize that to this very day. They would have to go against the objective revelation of God's scripture to do the things that they did.

It is not a matter of German Christians having the right to pick and choose what they are going to believe.

We believe God has spoken. That's why we have objective moral standards. Are you aware that the

SS uniform had God mit uns, God is with us, on? I believe that we just established in my cross -examination that the abuse of a written text is not the responsibility of the written text.

So when it's moral to your satisfaction, it's the use of a

Bible, but when it's immoral to your satisfaction, it's the abuse.

It has nothing to do with my satisfaction. No, it is exactly what you do. Can I finish the question? Go for it. Yes. It has nothing to do with my satisfaction.

It has to do with exegesis, sir. As we established in my cross -examination, words have meanings, and the

New Testament has meanings. You've been operating on the idea that the New Testament has meaning all night, and that meaning completely contradicts the actions of the people wearing

Gott mit uns on their shoulder. Therefore, their abuse of a written text is an abuse, not a use.

It's not a matter of my judgment. It's a matter of the fact. You're saying that nobody has done anything evil according to the

Bible? What? Nobody has done—that people who have done things in the name of God have never done anything evil.

If they've done it evil, then they've been abusing the Bible. If they've done it good, then they've been using the

Bible. What I'm saying is that if you have an objective revelation of what

God's will is, and you go against that will—for example, the

Inquisition, where you have a clear revelation being violated, then you have an abuse of a text.

This would be different than a naturalistic materialist in China or Russia, where there is nothing in the atheist worldview to say that what they're doing is wrong.

So one would be acting against their principles. One would be acting in accordance with their principles. So you're suggesting that with the

Nazis and with the Spanish Inquisition, those people who did those things, they did not think they were doing things in accordance with God, or they did think that they were doing things in accordance with God?

Depends on the individual, but you can have people that are incredibly deceived and ignorant of the

Word of God who think they're doing things for God. I mean, there are lots of people that are strapping bombs on themselves today that think they're doing it for God.

So it's a judgment call. But God's revelation is not what they're actually following. In your opinion.

I believe in any consistent opinion, given the revelation of God over time.

One last thing, Dr. White, because we are going in circles, and the reason that we're going in circles is because you're not allowing the actual premise of the argument.

Let me ask you the question, because that's what I'm supposed to be doing. Yes, yes, yes.

Mr. Lawyer, Mr. Attorney. Is it possible in your mind, by definition, for the

New Testament to be proven evil? No, sir, simply because you have not established any rational grounds for even establishing what something is evil outside of God having created it and providing those norms.

I do not accept your personal authority as binding upon me any more than I would say my personal authority is binding upon you.

Let me restate the question, because that's not the question I asked. Is it possible in your mind for me to have won this debate, given the premise?

My mind is, sir, the question assumes a presupposition that is completely against my worldview.

My mind is not the issue. The issue is, can you present a meaningful argument to demonstrate that the

New Testament is evil? That would require you to provide me with a meaningful foundation for defining the word evil.

There would have been a way to do that, that you didn't go there, and if you want me to tell you what it would be, I could tell you.

Oh, I do. Okay. Oh, I totally do. You have three and a half minutes to tell.

Oh, no. The direction that you could have gone, it's a little bit late now, the direction you could have gone would be to recognize the teaching of the

New Testament itself, that it is the continuation of God's Old Testament revelation and demonstrate that the

New Testament revelation is a fundamental violation of the same themes that are found in the Old Testament revelation. That wouldn't have been valid, because you would have said that the

New Testament trumps the Old Testament. Well, that sounds like an argument, not a question, but I'll go ahead and answer that.

No, I never would have said that, and if you were familiar with my theology and my beliefs, you would know that I couldn't say that.

Now, maybe you've talked to people who think the New Testament, quote unquote, trumps the Old Testament, but I happen to have a kid that has 66 books in it, not 27.

And the scripture says, and when Paul said to Timothy, all scripture is God breathed, the primary scripture that he had in reference to that point was the

Tanakh, the Torah, the Nevi 'im, and the Ketuvim. And so, no, sir, I do not have a secondary inspiration level for the

Old Testament, so I could not have gone there. So, done. Now, the final 10 minutes of cross -examination, and then we'll have closing statements of 10 minutes each, and then the questions.

Now, Mr. Silverman, in listening to your opening statement, it seemed to me that there was also some, you referred to sending children to hell as a ghoulish doctrine.

Yes. Then you said something about infants and the New Covenant. I did not understand, because you then went on to talk about the age of accountability.

Do you think I believe in something like that? The quote that I gave you was true.

The quote that I attributed to you is true. Age of accountability does not come from you. It comes from John MacArthur.

Okay, but when I was talking about infants and the New Covenant, was

I not talking there in the context of the dispute that I have with my beloved Presbyterian brothers on the issue of infant baptism?

Yes. Do you think I think that infant baptism saves children? No. Or that my

Presbyterian brothers think the same thing? I believe that you believe that there are babies and children in hell, and you won't admit it because you know that it stinks.

Okay, that's an interesting response. So, let me ask you if you've ever heard this particular argument from an atheist.

And in fact, I think I heard either you or your co -anchor, interviewer, what's his name on your television program?

Dennis? Yes, Dennis. One of the two of you used this. I've listened as closely as I could over the past number of weeks.

You're passing by a house, and you see that it's on fire. And you see through a window a baby in a crib.

And you have the ability to get to that baby, to save it from the house fire.

Yes. But you do not. Is such a person morally good, in your opinion, when they will not extend that effort to save that baby?

What I was talking about was going in and saving the baby at no risk and at no cost, with no effort.

And yes, if I were to be in that situation, and I were to let that baby burn, even though I could save it with no effort, no cost, and no risk to myself or anyone else, then yes,

I would be a wholly immoral person. And you made application to God on that level, didn't you? Yes, I did. Okay.

Do you think that it would have been morally good for God to cause

Adolf Hitler to have a heart attack at age 18 so as to save millions and millions of people if he could do so?

I think it would have been morally good not to cause the fall of man in the first place.

Could you answer the question I just asked, however, in regards to Hitler? Would it have been a morally appropriate thing for God to have killed

Hitler before he could have built the Third Reich and murdered all of those people? Perhaps. Perhaps.

Would it have been appropriate? It would have been better for him to change Hitler so that he didn't do that.

Okay. What if the baby in the burning house was Hitler? You know, what about it?

If the baby in the burning house was Hitler, he hadn't done anything yet, and you're asking me if I'm a human.

Yeah. The question is, you said that God would be immoral if he did not save the baby.

But you've also acknowledged that God knows exhaustively the future, at least in the Christian perspective.

Yeah. So if the baby was a future Hitler, then God would not be wrong for allowing the baby to die because he's stopping what that future

Hitler would do. He could have stopped the future Hitler from doing the bad things and let the baby live.

But isn't the point that you can't second -guess an eternal being and judge him the way that you are?

Oh, no, I certainly can. You can? Oh, I certainly can. Even though you don't know what the future is, how much of all of knowledge, of human knowledge, do you possess personally?

You're asking me. I'm asking you a question, yes. How much knowledge I have. What percentage of all of human knowledge do you possess?

A very small percentage. Very small. And so on the basis of a small fraction of even human knowledge.

And would you admit, sir, that mankind knows a very small fraction of what there is to know?

Yes. Okay. So based upon an infinitesimally small fraction of knowledge, you are willing to say you can judge the eternal

God as to what he does? Yes, I can. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay.

Very interesting. All right. And we're winding this down here. We have 10 -minute closing statements from both sides.

And I believe David Siltman goes first. Do I have to stand again?

It's up to you. It's up to you. We would prefer it, but it's up to you. It's my moral decision that you can do whatever you want.

Okay. So I have free will. Yes, you do. Ah. Well, I'm not going to take 10 minutes because I went long.

I just want to take a few moments to thank you all for coming. I have been the recipient of a good amount of hospitality tonight.

Most of it good old -fashioned Christian hospitality. And I want to thank you all for showing me that. I hope you enjoyed yourselves as much as I enjoyed myself.

Myself. About 10 ,000 years ago, Neanderthals invented religion.

Their gods were bears. Why? Because bears did something that they could not do.

They could resurrect. Bears could do that. A bear would be around in the summer and the spring.

And then in the fall, the bear would die, not come around anymore. And then in the spring, the bear would resurrect from the dead and come back.

That was what they considered holy. Neanderthals didn't know much or anything about hibernation.

All they knew was what they saw. They sacrificed their food. The bear ate the food.

Didn't eat the Neanderthals. The sacrifice worked. Pleased the bear. Everybody was happy.

It was plain and simple. From ignorance like this sprung thousands of religions and tens of thousands of gods.

Each one very real to its adherents. Each one with stories and songs and wars and atrocities.

Today's Christianity is no different from any other mythology.

And in many ways, I mean quite literally no different. The gods, gospels, and mythos are not original.

We really didn't get into that. But indeed, the parts of the New Testament that I judge to be evil,

I judge to be evil, are truly original to the

New Testament. And they are wholly repugnant, in my opinion. The concept of hell for children, which my opponent still hasn't gotten to.

I've mentioned it several times. He's avoided the question every single time. Thought crimes.

Hell for thought. Involuntary thoughts. And hell for blasphemy, which we really also didn't get into.

But I'm guilty of that. These three concepts mixed together do create a perfect storm of fear and terror and money and power for the churches and for the pastors.

And a whole bunch of wasted time for the participants. And that last part is the most evil part of all.

And yes, again, I judge it to be evil. Because we're not

Neanderthals. It's 2010. And we can see the truth. The truth is that our lives are short.

And then we die. And for any church or entity to make those few years worse by making you fear what isn't there in order to gain money and power from you is evil.

My friends, I am asking for you to do two things tonight. Number one, don't believe me.

Don't trust me. You don't know me. Challenge me. Go home and think about what

I've said tonight. Go home and think about hell for thought. Go home and think about hell for babies and make your own decision.

Second, take a serious look at the New Testament. The mythologies from which it's stolen and the concepts that lie within.

Not relying on what people say about it. Pick it up and read it yourself.

Don't read books about the New Testament. Pick it up. Open to page one alone and read it through all the way, stem to stern.

I'm asking you to do that. Because I think if you do that, you will see that I'm right here.

That the New Testament has some pretty evil stuff in it. And you have every bit the needed capacity as lowly criminal -like humans to judge it evil.

You have every capacity. You have every ability. Think for yourself. Think hard.

And don't fear a God that isn't there in the first place. Keep your money.

Keep your time. And live your life well. Tonight's debate, as far as I'm concerned, is dedicated to Christopher Hitchens.

Get well soon. Thank you all and good night. Thank you,

Mr. Silverman and James Wright. We'll have up to 10 minutes for his closing remarks.

Then we'll take Q &A. You were just told, live your life well.

But Mr. Silverman can't tell you what it means to live your life well at all. It's totally up to you.

Whatever that means. If that means murdering

Jews. If that means cheating on your wife, your employer, abusing your kids.

If that's well for you. And if you can find enough people around you to come up with a consensus opinion, then, well, that's living life well.

I say to you, we all know better. You know how I know we all know better?

Think of the little child, even at 18 months. Mom and dad says, you don't touch that.

And then you leave the room. And if you put up a video camera that they don't know is there, you watch them.

And when they go over and they touch the thing you told them not to do, what do they do? They're looking around because they know.

They're not living consistently with Mr. Silverman's worldview, but they are living consistently with mine.

I'm sorry that Mr. Silverman does not like the answer that I've given to him, that God has just as much freedom in the salvation of infants as he does in the salvation of adults.

I'm sorry that he seems to demand that there be a list in the Bible someplace of exactly which babies are considered to be good enough to go to heaven, even though they're the fallen sons and daughters of Adam.

But I've given the answer. I just don't believe that he either accepts or understands the answer that I've given. But you see, fundamental to most of what

Mr. Silverman has said this evening is the unspoken assertion that somehow, if God is

God, he owes me something. May I suggest something to you? If we are his creatures, we owe him everything.

And I don't care how much you possess. I don't care what your health is.

The scripture says to us that if he gave to us life, then we owe him thanks for who he is and what he's done.

He gives us much more than that. Most of us are rich in the world's estimation. But the fact of the matter is, we as creatures are the work of his hands.

He is the potter. We are the clay. The potter has the right over the clay to do with it as he wishes. And that no unregenerate man or woman will ever accept.

That's what they hate. We all hate it at one point. And I submit to you the only reason any person ever comes to love the reality that I am the clay in the potter's hand is because the potter has placed a heart of flesh into me.

That doesn't make me better. That doesn't make me superior. It was not my argument that you need to listen to me because that's happened because any believer has experienced that.

I'm not in this for money and power. That to me is just anybody who knows me and knows how

I've lived my life knows that it's hard not to chuckle when you hear that. I know there are people who do things like that.

I expose them all the time. But there are so many who have given their lives in service to Christ and to his people that it demonstrates the money and power argument is so vacuous and so empty.

The real issue this evening is that my opponent has demonstrated for us that all he can do is come here and say, well, in my opinion,

I don't like the New Testament, but I can't make any decisions for you.

I can't say it's evil for you. I can only say for me, I don't like what it says. Well, we didn't need to get together for a debate on that one.

There are a lot of people that don't like what the New Testament says. But you see, to have a debate, there has to be a truth that we are debating.

There has to be a right and a wrong. And my point from the beginning has been my opponent cannot give you a worldview that can explain how you can know right and wrong to begin with.

And I stopped a couple of my cross -examinations so just to make sure you could hear what had just been said, where the objective reality of right and wrong had been completely denied.

I hope you see the moral anarchy that results from this worldview.

But that's a necessity. Bags of protoplasm without spirits, without a creator who only randomly came to have the form they have, can't talk about what's right and wrong and what's true and false, folks.

You can't do it. And so by just walking in here,

Mr. Silverman has demonstrated that he knows. He knows he's created in the image of God.

He just can't live consistently with his own worldview. It just keeps popping out all over again.

Mr. Silverman, I'm sure, loves his wife and his kids, but he can't explain why that is on atheistic worldview.

Because on atheistic worldview, if all of a sudden somebody else comes along, well, I can love multiple women at the same time.

And we all know the devastation that causes. So as soon as Mr.

Silverman said, it's evil to destroy families, the debate was over. The debate was over to any consistent person who wants to ask the question, are you living consistently in accordance with your own worldview?

If you have a worldview where you have to take something from my worldview to make yours work, that means your worldview doesn't work.

It's not worthy of continuing to follow. And I say to all of you here this evening, the

New Testament reveals to us God's truth about our creator and what he's done in this world. It reveals to us the most incredible act in all of human history, and that was the incarnation of Jesus Christ, or the second person of the divine trinity.

He who is the creator of all things, and by the way, Shema Yisrael, Yahweh Eloheinu, Yahweh Akkad does not contradict the trinity.

The trinity is monotheistic. But the second person of the trinity who created all things in heaven and earth, visible or invisible, principalities, powers, dominions, or authorities, all things are created by him and for him.

He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. That majestic divine person entered into human flesh and proved in his life and in his self -giving that God is just and God is merciful.

He proved it. And when that tomb was empty on that Lord's Day morning,

God the Father put his stamp of approval on what Jesus had taught and done in his giving of his life.

Now, we could discuss all sorts of those issues, the historicity of Jesus, all those things.

Be glad to do it because the facts are on our side. But the reality is that this evening you do get to judge, not judge

God's existence. God does not give you that right. God does not ever step down from the throne of heaven and put himself in a position and say, hey, you judge whether I exist.

No. God says that anyone who denies he exists is without a defense because he has made it abundantly clear externally and internally so that we have to hold down that knowledge.

But he has given you the opportunity this evening of hearing two very different worldviews express themselves.

If you come here this evening as an atheist, I say to you, you will not be able to walk out of this room and go to your home this evening living consistently with your worldview.

You can't do it. And I pray every time you violate your worldview by borrowing from mine,

God will convict you and reveal himself to you. But to my fellow Christians, fellow

Christians, we have a tremendous revelation in the scriptures and most of us ignore it regularly.

Most of us are more concerned about looking like the world and acting like the world and talking like the world and being successful according to the world standards than we are according to what

God has revealed in his inspired word. And so should we really be all that surprised when people like Mr.

Silverman don't understand where we're coming from? May God cause each one of us to have a fresh love for his truth and a desire to live consistently with the divine revelation he's given to us, entrusted to us to be our guidance so that we might know how to truly live a life that is pleasing to him.

Is New Testament evil? No, it's God's divine revelation.

It defines for us what is good and righteous. Thank you for being here this evening. SPROUL JR.:

Well, that was a fascinating discussion. I'm sure you'll agree. And now we're going to have some

Q &A. And actually, I have a couple of questions for each of you. So since I'm here and I have the mic,

I guess I get to go first. That's the mic makes right morality. First, Dr.

White, because I don't know if this is clear. And some talk about belief, you know, you could go to hell for belief or believing in Jesus and then you don't go to hell.

Can you please define what you believe the Bible means by belief in Jesus? Does it mean believing he exists?

Or what does that mean? WHITE SPROUL JR.: Thank you. Yeah, at one point I pointed out a person is not sent to hell for any other reason than the justice of God in regards to their sin.

But to believe in Jesus is not merely to believe the facts about his life, though you cannot believe in Jesus without believing he existed, obviously.

A college professor of mine, a dear man, used to illustrate it like this. You can know all sorts of facts about Jesus, but you need to know

Jesus, personal relationship with Jesus to have eternal life. You need to be in him.

And so faith, when I talk about faith as the gift of God, the reason faith is a gift of God is because it requires me to do something that I, as a fallen sinner, are incapable of doing.

I need to be raised to spiritual life. That's why I brought up Romans chapter 8. Those who are according to flesh cannot do what is pleasing to God.

To believe and repent is pleasing to God. Therefore, we have to be brought out of the realm of spiritual death into spiritual life to be able to do these things.

And so the only reason I continue in the faith is because the Spirit of God continues to uphold me and to give me that spiritual life that is mine.

I thought we were... By the way, we didn't talk about time limits. I was assuming 90 seconds. Yes. 90 and 60. It's a 90 -second answer and a 60 -second rebuttal.

Okay. And I have 60 seconds now. Yeah, you have 60 seconds. If you want to weigh in on that, or I'll ask you a question, whatever you prefer.

I also have a question for you, but you can respond to that. Well, the question of faith is one of those things that really does flex a lot when you talk to one

Christian versus another versus another. Matthew 16, 16 specifically says, He that is baptized and believeth in me goes to heaven, and he that is not is damned.

I don't think there's anything there about grace. Now, if you're going to say that there's an exception to that rule, well, that's fine.

Then you're saying that Jesus was wrong. Jesus was right, or Jesus was wrong.

And if you're saying, He that is baptized and believes in me goes to heaven, and he does not goes to hell, unless God changes his mind, well, that's fine.

You've just completely negated the need for a savior in the first place. I think I'm a little confused, actually, from both your answers.

I'm going to just try again. Mr. Silverman, what do you think the Bible means by that word belief when it says,

He that believeth on me? Just basically try to confine your answer to what is meant by the term belief, if you can.

The acceptance of Jesus as the Christ. Okay. And Dr. White, what would you say specifically the term belief means when it says, if you believe in Jesus, just believing that Jesus is the

Christ, is that enough to get you to heaven? No, I don't believe it is, because in John chapter 8, we had the specific instance of people who believed

Jesus was a prophet. They probably would have even accepted him as the Messiah, but they rejected him for who he revealed himself to be,

God incarnate. And Jesus said to them, unless you believe that ego I am, you will die in your sins.

So it is a supernatural act of saving faith that saves. It embraces the true and living

Jesus Christ. It includes repentance. And I would just like to point out, Mark 16, 16 is not even in the oldest manuscripts of the gospel of Mark, and there is nothing in saying believe and repent that excludes grace.

If you allow Jesus to teach as a whole, then you recognize that even the belief in him is something we're capable of having only by grace.

Okay. I think at least that answers the question from both points of view, and the audience certainly will make their own determination.

This question is for Mr. Silverman. This is also for me. You said quite clearly, like the quote was, we are the final authority of what is evil.

You actually said you were the final authority for yourself as to what is evil. My question is, this is my question.

What happens when human beings differ on their respective views of what defines evil and those views come into a clash of sorts?

How would you resolve that, for example? That happens. It happens every day among every person.

Like I said, morality is relative. It's relative and it's changeable. It happens.

I wish that there was an actual objective source that was relevant, but there isn't.

Morality is relative. Morality does change, and my perception of evil might be different from somebody else's.

Now it's a relative statement, so something that, like Auschwitz, like the Holocaust, I think we'll all agree is pretty darn evil.

I think that telling people that they're going to go to hell if you don't follow this book, I think that's evil too.

He thinks it's truth. Do you think, as a follow -up question, do you think there would be any basis objectively to criticize the

Nazis? Because pretty much that was the prevailing belief in Nazi Germany at the time, that Jews were subhumans and we could do with them as we please and we can put them in concentration camps and kill them.

Do you think there's any objective way that we can say that that belief is evil and that what they did was evil, or is it really just, you know, that was what they believed and we really can't criticize it?

Don't minimize morality just because it's relative, okay? There is no objective morality, okay?

So no, the answer to your question is no. That doesn't mean that what they said was kind of okay. What they did was horrible.

And we would all admit that what they did was horrible. But that doesn't mean that there is an objective morality to it.

Morality changes. Just like it used to be moral to own slaves in this country, now it's not.

It changes. And we all have to face the fact that we make these judgment calls and we are responsible for making these judgment calls.

Now, what Christians and what all religionists do is they take that judgment that they make themselves and they attribute it to a passage in their holy book so that they can support it and say, aha, it's objective, but it's not.

It's subjective. It's always subjective. It's always not. So you would say that the morality came first and then it was described in a book rather than vice versa.

Exactly. Would you weigh in on that, Dr. White? And then I'll get into the questions. Hi, I'm over here.

Very quickly, everyone's sitting in the audience. Well, I think everyone's sitting in the audience anyways.

Most people are sitting in the audience going, look, when you stand at the gates of Auschwitz, you do not look at what happened there.

The soldiers who liberated that place did not stand there and say, you know, I find this personally offensive.

They didn't do that. They recognized that what took place there is a fundamental violation of what it means to be human and that there is no, and the

Nuremberg trials made it clear, there is no defense. There is no excuse. Mr.

Silverman just said, well, we don't want to minimize morals just because they're all relative. I don't think you can do anything but minimize morals if they're just relative.

Because you can find plenty of people in the Soviet Union who would still to this day defend what

Stalin did. And I don't care what anybody says, that's always immoral because God created us in his image and said, you shall not take the life of man in that way.

We cannot live in a world with that kind of morality or I would say lack of morality.

That's not advancing forward. That's walking backwards into utter moral chaos.

Thank you very much. All right, this is from the audience. This is for Dr. White. I'm going to try to go back and forth.

There'll be a 90 second answer and a 60 second rebuttal. To Dr. White, why did God have to sentence

Adam and Eve to hell? Was it because they committed a crime of rebellion against their eternal creator, calling for an eternal penalty, hell?

I'm just reading the question verbatim. All right, the punishment of any sinner is first of all, a punishment that is meted out in light of the glory of the person that has been sinned against.

There is no question in my mind that we as sinners do everything we can to minimize the weight of sin and the seriousness of it.

But it seems that behind a lot of the questions is this idea that, well, but it's a finite sin, but it's an infinite punishment.

What's the assumption that people are operating on there? That once you die, you stop sinning.

What's the evidence of that? I mean, why does anyone believe that once a person dies and they go into outer darkness, that all of a sudden they're gonna become angelic in their behavior?

You see, there's no remedy for their sin. And so if there's no remedy for their sin, they will continue to do what?

To be sinners. So if there's no way of changing their nature, then how can they, as unholy things, ever be brought into the presence of he who is holy?

So there's an unspoken assumption there that needs to be examined. And I think rejected, at least from a biblical perspective, because the question's being asked on a biblical grounds.

And so I can only answer it on a biblical grounds at that point. Okay, Mr. Silverman, if you'd like to have 60 seconds.

Oh, I certainly would. This is a very clear and different opinion that I have from Dr.

White. Adam and all of us are completely incapable of going against God's will.

We have no ability to do that. God had complete foreknowledge back when he put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the

Garden of Eden. He put that there knowing that it would cause the fall of man.

Adam had no choice. Therefore, there was no fall of man.

Adam was kicked out of the Garden of Eden. It was intentional. And the whole concept of original sin is a biblical lie because there was no sin.

Adam did exactly what God made him do. Okay, this is a question for Dr.,

I mean, for Mr. Silverman, from the audience. I'm gonna read it exactly as it is. Question, I wonder how

Mr. Silverman would explain or articulate your viewpoint of abortion and pro -choice. Which is the greater good?

The greater good. The question of abortion. I had a similar question. I guess

I would rephrase it this way. If it's bad for babies, for us to think that babies are going to hell, wouldn't it be worse for us to actually kill them?

Yes, but we're not talking about babies. When we're talking about babies, we're talking about babies.

When we're talking about abortion, we're talking about fetuses, and we're talking about embryos. And the question.

No, no, no, this is the answer to the question because the fundamental question of abortion is when does life begin?

According to the New Testament, life begins at conception. Most Christians agree that life begins at conception.

Most scientists don't. Is there a fuzzy line? Yes, because life in and of itself is a relative term.

Sorry, it is. Somewhere in there, there's a gray area when something is partially alive and partially not.

Yes, partially human, partially not. Before that time, abortion is nothing more than contraception.

After that time, abortion is murder. Do you take a position on where that line is?

I take a position that if it's got a, if it's sentient, if it receives, if it feels pain, if it's, you know, somewhere in the fourth or fifth month.

Dr. White, would you like to weigh in on that, please? I find it somewhat interesting that he says, it's not a baby, it's a fetus.

And the Latin word fetus means baby. So it's not a baby, it's a baby. This kind of.

No, that's not what I said. My response, sir. Obviously, at this point, we once again have the fundamental inability of the naturalistic materialistic worldview to even provide any kind of light or guidance at this point.

Because we are talking about life itself. But aside from the abortion issues, I just simply want to stand back and say, upon what basis does a naturalistic materialist even talk about the value of life?

What is the value of life? If I can kill the offspring of somebody else so that my genes predominate in the next generation from a naturalistic atheistic perspective, that's a good thing.

Where is the consistency in the worldview? That's the question. Okay. This is actually a very interesting question that seems to come from the atheist side of the audience for Dr.

White. I understand that you find great meaning and love in the New Testament, and I respect and appreciate that.

But in terms of answering the question, you simply said, because it's pure and good in every syllable.

My question is, how do you know? I think that's a very good question. Well, I didn't simply say, it's just good and pure in every syllable.

I identified its origin and source. It is theanoustos. It is God breathe.

The term actually refers to if you hold your hand in front of your mouth as you're speaking, you can feel the breath coming out.

This is what the New Testament is. It is God's breathe. Therefore, it partakes of the holiness, goodness, and righteousness of its source, which is

God himself. Since God himself is good and just, and is the very standard of what is good and just, then his word is going to represent that to us.

Now, that is a theological conclusion because I have a worldview that provides me with a foundation for defining what is good and what is evil.

My point this evening has been that you first have to provide us with a meaningful basis upon which to say that you can identify what is good and evil before you can even begin to argue that point.

At least maybe another theist might be able to mount some kind of an argument against the

New Testament being good. But the atheist who repeatedly says, it's my judgment call, has nothing more to give to us than, well, in my judgment, this is evil, but my judgment, well, it can change over time.

There's no objective moral revelation, et cetera, et cetera. That's not a foundation for a debate. I'm perfectly capable of making a judgment call on what is evil and what is moral, just as everybody else in this audience is.

What has not really been said here, and I will make it very plain, is that looking at a book and saying, this is my holy book, this is what

I believe, is exactly what every theist does with their holy book.

The Jew will say it. The Muslim will say it. The Hindu will say it. They will look at this book and they say, this is my holy book.

It comes from my God. Therefore, it is moral and just. And that is the end.

They stop there. They don't critique. They don't look at it and say, you know, this part's kind of messed up.

They don't go there because they start with the presupposition that this is pure good and not evil.

That's the problem that Dr. White has. He does not critique his own belief.

He starts with the presupposition that his book is much better or much more real than the thousands of religious texts that have predated it.

Okay, for Mr. Silverman, in terms of making a determination of what is evil and what is not, how do you differentiate that or do you differentiate that from your own just a mere opinion?

Like I said, morality is relative. We have to go there, okay, because there cannot be, there is not an objective place for morality to come from.

Morality is relative. Morality is fluid. It is and it does. Okay, I wish,

I kind of wish that it wasn't but it is and that means that we are all responsible for making our decisions.

That means we are all responsible for the ramifications of us making those decisions and that means that when we make judgment calls on what is moral and what is evil, we bear the responsibility solely for ourselves and on ourselves as to what the effects will be.

So if I get the question correctly, how do I judge evil? I judge evil the exact same way that everyone else judges evil.

We go through the exact same process. The only difference is that Christians, specifically in this audience, will make those religious judgments, will make those moral judgments, those relative judgments and then defend them with the book that they find holy, just like they defended slavery back when slavery was moral.

Any response, Dr. White? Yes, Mr. Silverman just said we are all responsible for making our decision.

Why? To whom? Who holds us responsible? How can random particles, random firing of neurons in our brains be held responsible?

How can you even use the word responsible within that worldview? Can someone explain that to me?

For example, I responded immediately when Mr. Silverman just said, well,

James White, he never looks at all these other texts. Those of you who know me know I debate the Muslims on the

Quran all the time, Book of Mormon, the New World Translation, Jehovah's Witnesses. I do everything he said

I don't do and there was immediate response on my part that he would misrepresent me.

But why should I care in his worldview that what he said about me was factually and easily knowably untrue?

Because I'm creating the image of God and I value truth, that's why. There's another interesting question.

This is for Mr. Silverman from the audience. It's actually a takeoff on Pascal's Wager, which I'm sure you've heard.

Okay. If atheists are correct, then when we die, we do not go to heaven or hell.

If a Christian is correct, we go to heaven. But why not at least take a chance on heaven? Not at all.

To rephrase it, it's Pascal's Wager. If you're a gambling man, why not play it safe? There's two answers to Pascal's Wager.

First, that religion is not Boolean. It's not Jesus or atheism.

It's Jesus or Muslim or Islam or Hindu or Buddhist or Zeus or Quetzalcoatl or any of the other tens of thousands religions.

Okay. And you don't pick a religion based on the penalty. You pick a religious belief based on what the information is available to you.

That's answer one. Answer two is, of course, God can read your mind. Therefore, if you're faking it, it's not good enough.

So if you're using Pascal's Wager, you're going to live your life as a religious person, but you're not going to really believe it.

That's why Pascal's Wager fails. God would still see you if you're talking about the Christian Bible.

God would still see you as a faker. You would not have your true faith in Jesus Christ, and you would go to hell or you would be damned.

I actually agree with the faking part. I think that's a good point. Sure. But that's my own opinion. Because I'm right. Dr. White, would you like to respond on Pascal's Wager?

Pascal had some great insights, but that wasn't one of them. And the idea of the popular formulation of Pascal's Wager is in no way, shape, or form consistent or commensurate with Christian faith.

And I would never use that type of argumentation. But at the same time, if you were to actually read Pascal, you would discover he had much greater insights than that.

And I think one of the insights that he had that would be relevant to the constant claim that was just made by Mr. Silverman is this idea of reducing the

God of Christianity down to the same level as Quetzalcoatl or Zeus or anybody else. I find that to be one of the worst elements of Mr.

Silverman's presentation because it demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of the worldviews of polytheism versus the overarching worldview of Christian theism.

And I would highly challenge him to step up his game at that point and realize that that comparison is really fraudulent and that does not carry any weight for someone who is very serious about the subject.

Well, at least we have a little inkling of agreement on the fact that nobody likes Pascal's Wager. This is an interesting question for Mr.

Silverman, and I'm going to assume it's asked with the right intent. David, do you have a soul?

No. OK, it almost sounds like a negative question, but I'm going to take it on face value. And I think it's a legitimate question.

Do you believe you have a soul? That's really the better question. There is no such thing as a soul. The soul is a fictional thing.

It doesn't exist. You are a collection. And he's right. You know, Dr. White is right.

He keeps bringing up, oh, how can we even make this, you know, a collection of atoms, collection of chemicals?

Yeah, you are a collection of atoms and a collection of chemicals. And your soul is something that the certain religionists believe that they use to say, oh, this is something that somehow connects to your physical brain and goes somewhere after you die.

No, there is no such thing as a soul. And when you die, you die. Thank you.

How does a naturalistic materialist answer the question whether you have a soul? He's told us what his opinion is.

The problem is, as a naturalistic materialist, he precludes any evidence that could actually answer the question because the soul is a spiritual object.

But if you preclude the existence of spiritual objects a priori, you can't actually answer the question.

You've already cut off any logical discussion of the subject because from your perspective, no evidence could possibly exist that would falsify or prove the thesis.

This is the whole reason you have to approach the issue on the level of the worldview.

The atheist says, if I can't measure it, if I can't see it, it doesn't exist. Therefore, God doesn't exist because he's outside of the realm of the naturalistic materialistic worldview.

And you see the vicious circle that it gets you trapped in at that particular point with that kind of question.

And it's come out a number of times this evening. This is an interesting question for Mr.

Silverman. And the vast majority of questions are for you. No, surprise, surprise. Yeah, it's pretty withstanded.

But what is beauty? Actually, I like this question. I'm a beauty guy. I like art.

What is beauty? And how can beauty derive from an accident or I guess not accident or randomness?

Okay, this is very similar. Beauty is a perception, okay?

And it is an opinion. One person thinks it's beautiful. Another person does not.

This is a lot about... This is a lot very related to the order from chaos question.

Beauty is personal. It's relative.

And it is certainly something that I appreciate. It is certainly something that I take for...

No, I really do take for granted a little too often. I am a very emotional person.

I see beauty in lots of things. That doesn't mean it's divine. It just means that my perception of what

I see is good and beautiful. And I see it everywhere. Dr.

White? The naturalistic materialist cannot even define what beauty is for us outside of, well,

I find that to be beautiful. And when we talk about painting and something like that, I can understand that. But I had a debate with Dan Barker, the head of the

Freedom from Religion Foundation. And Dan Barker is a concert pianist. And I asked him a question.

I said, Dan, will your music be beautiful five minutes after the last neuron fires in your brain?

And I think that communicated something to him and something to the audience. Because the reality is, beautiful music will be beautiful after I'm dead.

It's not just a matter of my taste. There is something about Beethoven that's absolutely, to me, a proof of theism.

To you? Yes, to me. And I believe that most of us realize that will be beautiful.

It was beautiful before we were born. And it will be beautiful after we're dead. That doesn't fit in the naturalistic materialist worldview.

So just to kind of sum that up, you would say there's an objective standard for beauty. And you would say it's a matter of opinion.

Well, I would say we appreciate beauty because we're made in the image of God. We're thinking his thoughts after. We're recognizing the beauty that exists.

But it's really an objective standard to a certain extent. And you're saying it's totally subjective.

An objective standard for beauty. No, we disagree on that one. Beauty is relative. It's personal. And it's very real. But it's also very personal.

For example, I think the refutation of this is very simply seen by the fact that my tie is beautiful and it's more beautiful than his.

Hey. And I don't like either of your ties. Hey. All right.

I actually found the question here for Dr. White. Hey, I was starting to feel in love over here. Thank you. I found the...

I like my tie. I didn't say that I disliked it. We're actually over the time.

But I'm having so much fun here. If you want to stop me, let me know. For David Silverman.

What happened to my question? I lost it, but I'll find it. It's here somewhere. But this one is a good one.

I like this one for Mr. Silverman. What would you say as far as... It's a little bit off track, but it's a good question.

How did the universe come into existence? Cosmology. I am not a cosmologist.

I will tell you what I understand to be true. The sum total of matter and energy in the universe.

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. It can only be converted into energy, which is also another form of matter.

Therefore, matter plus energy in the universe is a constant. Now, a theist won't like that.

A theist will say, no, the matter and energy in the universe had to be created.

They will just take that and take it out a step further and say, oh, God created it. And then you have to go to, well, who created the

God? It's a cosmological... What your questioner is looking for is first cause.

That's what they're asking, apparently. That's what we're asking is first cause. The answer to first cause is that matter and energy have always existed and they are eternal.

There is substantial scientific evidence to prove that. There is no substantial, no scientific evidence at all to prove that something else created it.

If you do, then you're just saying that God is eternal and you're just taking the step out, the question out one level and ignoring the whole who created

God thing. I don't know what cosmology Mr.

Silverman is reading. Matter and energy are not eternal. This is a perfectly valid question.

And the answer that was offered in regards to saying, well, if you say God created, then who created God is not a valid response either because matter and energy requires an origination and the very nature of God is uncreated.

So it's a mixture of categories and a mixture of some confusion at that point. But obviously, there are many people who in looking at even modern theories of cosmology, which change every few years, have recognized not so much that the origination is the issue, but the complexity that is a part of living matter that is a part of that creation to me is one of the greatest issues that can be discussed.

That really is very, very important. All right. And I think this should be the last question since it's well after 11.

Dr. White, I got applause for that. It's like motion for adjourn needs no second. I'm running for on fumes here.

Last question, and this is Dr. White. What is your theory of truth, what it is, and how is it recognized universally by all human beings?

Really, this is not addressed to anybody, but we'll give you both 90 seconds on this. How's that? Can you repeat the question?

What is your theory of truth, what it is, and how is it recognized?

Is it recognized universally by all human beings? I wouldn't call it a theory of truth.

That's being asked sort of in a scholarly way. So to answer it in that fashion, I believe that we can know truth because God is true.

And therefore, when we know truth, we are thinking his thoughts after him and thinking in a way that is commensurate with his creation and, in fact, are honoring him and glorifying him.

In fact, I believe that's why Christians should try to seek, to think logically and to think with clarity, to think deeply about issues.

Because in so doing, we are honoring the God who made us in his image and gave us that capacity and that ability.

And so how do we know truth? God made us capable of knowing truth because he made us in his image.

That is a very, very constituent element of what it means to be made in the imago dei, in the image of God, is that we not only can know truth, but that we long after truth, honor truth and want to possess truth.

That is something that the rest of creation simply knows nothing about and shows no interest in.

Even the chimpanzee cares nothing about truth, but he does care about getting his banana.

But we have this concept of truth that separates us from any of the rest of the creation, and that is because we're made in the image of God.

God makes it possible for us to know truth through his revelation. Mr. Silverman, 90 seconds, please.

Truth is that which is real. It presupposes nothing. It doesn't say

God is real, therefore everything that looks like God, feels like God or touches God or we say is

God is truth. Truth is something that can be usually tested and proven.

That is how we know truth. We test it, we hypothesize and we prove. That's how we know truth.

If we start with a presupposition of what is essentially a mythological figure and a book like this, then we're never going to get to the real truth because we'll start with fiction.

If God were provable, I wouldn't be here. If God were truth, we would be able to prove it.

But he isn't and he can't, so I'm here. That which is truth is usually provable or at least it's theoretically provable, falsifiable and replicable.

Do you think there are some truths that are just not provable? Not provable yet.

Well, I think it is the truth that the air conditioning has been turned off. Yes, yes. And it is quite late.

And I want to thank both of you for a really fine debate and for the hard work and preparation that you put into this. And thank you very, very much for coming.