Debate Teacher Reacts: James White vs. David Silverman
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 сен 2024
- After the recent Turek vs. Silverman debate, y'all told me you want me to react to James White vs. David Silverman. The topic is: Is the New Testament Evil? Who bested the other? Find out right now!
Link to the full debate: • Debate: Is The NT Evil...
Link to Frank Turek vs. David Silverman: • Debate Teacher Reacts:...
Get your Wise Disciple merch here: bit.ly/wisedis...
Want a BETTER way to communicate your Christian faith? Check out my website: www.wisedisciple.org
OR Book me as a speaker at your next event: wisedisciple.o...
Check out my full series on debate reactions: • Debate Teacher Reacts
Got a question in the area of theology, apologetics, or engaging the culture for Christ? Send them to me and I will answer on an upcoming podcast: wisedisciple.o...
Next time Frank Turek gets asked tough questions he should play a clip of James White lol.
🤣🤣
😂 nailed it!
😂😂😂😂😂 I love it
🤣🤣❤❤👍👍
Lol, next time Turek is asked a question he should just become a Calvinist 😉
So basically, the debate came down to this.
Q:So evil is anything you don't like and has no objective component
A:Yes
The moment Silverman admitted he was a moral relativist he lost the debate.
For if morals are relative, they don’t exist.
They become mere preferences or opinions.
And if morals don’t exist, then _nothing_ is good or evil, including the NT.
The most Silverman can say about the NT is that he doesn’t _like_ it, not that it’s evil.
Great job as usual, Nate!😁👍
Exactly! Which is why he tries so dang hard to subvert the very definition of evil
Obviously morals don't exist, it's a man made thang. That's why every holy book, every dogma, is different
Gods don't exist. That's why every god is different. All made-made inventions
And Abrahamic religions, as are all the others, are a pile of dung
Not that I’m a moral relativist but I do think it’s possible for him to still give an argument from that position. If he was going to claim to be a moral relativist, he should’ve outlined a framework in which one can judge different moral systems though. And he didn’t do that, he just basically threw his hands up and said that it depends, which is a terrible argument when your goal in the debate is defending a moral judgement lol
And it's not like they ARE objective.
One is just claiming them TO BE objective.
As opposed to the christian moral view?
Atleast silverman can say he doesnt like it. All you can say is: repent before the end.
White was the clear winner here as Silverman couldn’t provide a transcendent basis for morality.
Morality is a man made concept. It dunt exist in reality
Is there...does there need to be a transcendent basis for morality.
Would have to define morality me thinks.
Maybe they did in the full debate????
@@jerryp6001
Everyone treats their concept of morality as transcendent over others so the argument boils down to what is one’s rational justification for treating their concept of morality as transcendent over others.
This is the debate I was hoping you would react to next!
What a contrast in style and approach between White and Turek
At 21:57 Silverman says slavery used to be moral. At 26:00 Silverman says slavery is always wrong.
If he were to then say..
Yes. It was moral...to them...at that time...based on xyz.
It's still wrong.
Objectively wrong?
How about self evidently wrong?
@@jerryp6001 unless it’s objective that’s just your opinion.
@@jerryp6001 Why is that wrong though?
Dr. White has been a fantastic resource for my understanding of many doctrines. Love his debates , he is so clear and well thought out in his responses.
Checking out Dr. White’s debates and came across your channel just subscribed. I love this format looking forward to checking out some more.
I'm a big fan of these debate critics. I've seen/listened to a large number of James White's debates and your commentary is very insightful. Keep them coming!!!
Thank God for you! I swear I was gonna have an aneurysm if you left us with just FT v. DS. Seriously though, this is what good debating looks like, impactful, straightforward, engaging. I was on my toes!
Man, excellent work from Mr. White around the 20 min+ mark, getting Silverman to admit he was contradicting himself.
Doesn't White contradict himself as well? He says God predetermined some to salvation but then he says God will give us what we choose. He also says God is patient toward sinners. Wouldn't patience imply God was giving men time to repent? Calvinists contradict themselves all the time and don't even know it. That's why I know they are double minded and don't know the truth.
@@graftme3168 While I do agree with your contentions on calvanism, I would argue that their being double minded and lacking knowledge of the truth is a bit harsh. There are very strong wasy using scripture to support calvanism, albiet wrongly in my view, but none the less there are ways and scriptures that can indicate the calvanist position. I am not saying that we shouldn't come against calvanism, but rather that we should treat it as a debate with fellow brothers and sisters in christ, which they are. The way that you seem to portray calvanist (unless I am mistaken) is not as a group of fellow christians who are simply mistaken, but rather, as the enemy, which I would caution against.
Dr. James White is absolutely amazing
As far as debate skills I agree. As to understanding the attributes of a God who is described as being love itself, not so much.
@@coachmarc2002he understands the attributes of God as revealed in scripture just fine.
@@KnightFelLike the loving attributes of a God who creates most people for destruction to the praise of his Glory?
@@coachmarc2002God creates people for His own glory. People do what they want for their own glory. God chooses to have mercy on whom He has mercy. Would you rather God is “fair” and let all people get what they deserve?
White is a great debater against atheists, but he struggles to justify protestant positions against Catholics like Trent Horn and Jimmy Akin.
Silverman seems to only want to cause controversy and not understand the other’s position.
I love this debate because both debaters actually hold to their arguments.
I guess you completely ignored Nate's entire comments.
I think he means they are both consistent. Silverman never backed down to his moral relativism even though it was clearly hurting his position and White never backed down to the fact that God has the right to condemn babies if He chooses. While one might have argued better than the other, they both kept the hard pills to swallow of their positions.
In my opinion Silverman wins because Christianity makes no sense to me anyway
@@jeanramirez6441what doesn’t make sense?
@@slayr4170don't expect a logical answer.
We still need that Dyer vs Dillahunty and yes I will keep commenting this on all reactions until it happens!
Why would you want another Dillahunty debate lol
@@TomBombadil89 it makes us all feel better about ourselves.
Always enjoy the content. "If I were White in this situation," is infinitely memeable. Just saying.
It seems Silverman is used to interacting with talking points rather than a person who is showing respect for his questions and responding appropriately.
Good commentary. Helpful. Entertaining. Bring more!
This was a masterclass from Dr James White. Thank you so much for reacting to it. I hope my Arminian and Molinist brothers and sisters contrast this to the Turek debate.
By no means would I as a Molinist consider Turek's performance as a representative of the Arminian/Molinist position.
@@rauljaramillo3264 He did enter into Molinism when he invoke the possible worlds theory. Armenianisn alone doesn't have the sufficient answer, it either have to flow into Molinism or Open Theism....
@@jonathanhauhnar8434 sure... Frank tried to use Molinism to answer. But that's beside my point.
My point is that I would never appeal to Turek's example to answer the question of the problem of evil. Turek is not an authority neither on Molinism nor on Arminianismo. There are other scholars who actually are experts on the subject.
Turek did a bad job. No question, but his performance is not a reflection of the strength of the Molinist or Arminians answer.
@@rauljaramillo3264 I don’t see how Turek’s answer was much different from what William Lane Craig would say
@@Christian-ut2sp I don't think that WLC would've played a video. Turek's performance was just bad and shouln't be used as an example of a Molinist response.
Hey, Nate! You haven’t posted an “in-house” debate in about 6 months. A good one on the Textus Receptus is a brand new one from James White & Peter Van Kleeck. Took place at the end of September.
I wouldn’t really describe that debate as “good” 😂
@@Christian-ut2sp 😂 You have a point… It was a spectacle to say the least!
Hi Nate. I just found your channel and love it! You're very smart and I love the way you present. You're fast becoming one of my favorite Christian apologist You Tuber's! Thanks for sharing your knowledge, and, of course, wisdom.
The intellectual honesty of both of these gentlemen was quite commendable the entirety of this event.
Silverman just assumed "I'm right, my opponent is wrong, so if I just ask questions to have my opponent state his case, my opponent will hang himself with his answers, so this will be a cake walk" and this is often the position of the overly confident, prideful, arrogant debater
Great video! Wishing I had seen this a long time ago. I look forward to gaining debate skills as a born again Christian. Keep on doing what you do, sir!
I watched the whole debate when it was first put on RUclips. I watched this vid more to see what Nate would say about it. Just for the record, I agree with Nate 100%. But thanks for some clarification during certain parts when I couldn’t see where either one was going. I say that because I’m more than aware that I’m not the smartest person in the room and wanted to prepare myself for questions from family, friends or anyone wanting to ask about the reason for the hope that lies in me…..Thanks, Nate
In ancient Rome people used to sell themselves into slavery by asking a friend to sell them. In the eyes of the law, slaves were objects, but that doesn't mean that they were objects in the eyes of men. Sometimes, they sold themselves into slavery because it was a better option than destituteness. The status of the slaves in Ancient Rome is very interesting, and it really made an impression on me while I was in university. I recommend looking into it just for fun.
Agreed. Ancient civilizations used slavery and indentured servitude as a basis for society. Our modern idea of slavery is so lopsided, the ancients would decry "Lies".
Because of media, we think that slavery always implies chains and whips and tortuous abuse. That is not to say there wasn't abuses from some of the more uncultured among the ancients. There's always going to be somebody who's screwing something up but slavery was a useful idea in the ancient world.
Love your channel brother. Getting into debating myself. So helpful to have you break down there cross-examinations.
It’s not God’s will for man to sin or for Adam to have eaten the apple. But ….he knew that Adam would sin and that there was a necessity for redemption through Jesus Christ. He expresses His love through self sacrifice and he wants us to do the same. He doesn’t want robotic obedience. He wants self sacrificial love.
James white vs Tim Stratton!! Your reaction will be very entertaining😂
I agree with Dr. Stratton’s Molinism, but I think this was just about his first debate and it showed.
James white is terrible
@@jesuschristsaves9067 because?
@@menknurlan
Because he’s disgusting, arrogant, treacherous, and just disgraceful as any type of an example of a Christian .
The debate was over when Silverman said the idea of evil was arbitrarily.
If God has not only allowed but decreed or preordained everything about all of us, if he’s orchestrated everything that has and will come to pass, I just don’t get how free will could possibly exist at the same time.
How could we be free to make all of our own decisions in a universe created and orchestrated by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being who had already set every molecule into place, decided what the fate of each individual person would be long before they were born, etc?
I honestly don’t know what I believe. I guess I’m in the process of trying to figure that out.
hey friend! I think this is part of the journey because we all don’t understand this fully. Just like how God can be 3 persons but one God. that doesn’t make fully sense in our brain. hope you’re doing well!
Apparently according to Silverman we aught to abolish all laws. Why aught we impose a set of opinions over someone else's? What "right" do we have to do this? We don't.
David Silverman at all times spoke like he was interrogating Dr White.
Awesome 👍💯... Great analysis! Dr James White is incredibly great
Please review Bart Ehrman vs Michael Brown. We will be edified by this. God bless.
Debate Teacher Reacts: James White vs.
We are going in circles because of your relativism Silverman.
Silverman claims he believes slavery is always wrong...bet he has a smart phone and buys clothes and etc that are absolutely made with slave labor.
The question of Gods sovereignty in salvation, or the choosing of some and not others, is not removed for the non Calvinist, unless you're an open theist. The non Calvinist would agree with the Calvinist that God, from the foundation of the world knew who would believe and who would not. And yet He chose to create those who He knew would not believe. God could have chosen not to create people who wouldn't believe, but He didn't, and so there is no running from God choosing some and not others. Now, this can begin to expose us on the issue of the Gospel and its need. But thats for another day..
Can we debate your shirt? Is that shirt ugly? You be Pro I'll be anti ugly shirt relativism. 😂😂😂 Love you bro
Fun analysis. I agree with what you said that Silverman doesn't seem to have done much research on his opponent, or even the topic. I also think Silverman just wasn't very familiar with Calvinist theology and theodicy. He may have only really encountered Arminian/Molinist perspectives on theodicy, which left him unprepared for his encounter with Dr White. So he was left having to ask clarifying questions, because he didn't understand Dr White's position well enough to really press and critique it. He came across better against Dr Turek partly because he was more familiar with the kind of answers Dr Turek would give.
Ha. Even yhwh "himself" isn't very familiar with Calvinist theology and theodicy
@@jerryp6001Even if God hates calvanism, this comment is incredibly disrespectful to an all knowing God.
@@jerryp6001 completely irrelevant. no reason to be hostile.
I find the idea that God decreed beforehand that Adam would eat the apple as being absurd. The only thing I can read in scripture would be that he is everywhere at all time and can see that Adam would sin, but did not make Adam sin
Nate, great analysis. The one bullet White didn’t bite was, the fact that Silverman doesn’t have a choice, outside of God’s determination. That was the one point Silverman was trying to get to. White just didn’t want to admit that. As a Calvinist, you have to be willing to own that fact.
Is it objectively true that morality is subjective?
Nate S.
My freaking Man!
Ive been on Dr. White for like thr last 10 or more years. And i agree with your assessments, nobody, and i do mean nobody, alive that is... could have handled this any better than my man Dr. James White.
Jeff is under the right "tutoring," so to speak. Especially in church history access which JW is a master in.. but debate as well. Jeff sticks more strictly to Greg Bonson (spelling?)
Either way, they as a church body, are making some serious moves for thr kingdom! So thankful for your time and willingness to watch/review Dr. W.
You can see why there are those who seek power and to consolidate power. They wish to be the decider of morality.
I know that you said you were done with dilahunty debates but I really wanna see you react to him vs IP, it’s hilarious because IP calls him out on cross over and over again
Judgment is a future event for sure. The Hebrew word for hell is Sheol and in the Greek it’s Hades. Hell means the same thing in both the Old and New Testament. It means a “hole in the ground” it is simply referring to where we place the dead, a grave. The other word for hell is Gehenna and that word is used to refer to judgment or a spiritual fire, the “lake of fire” in which death and hades are consumed. This is a future event! No one who has existed is suffering judgment..yet
Good points. Perhaps you’d be interested in this short post I wrote up on hell. God bless you.
DOES HELL BURN FOREVER?
Many people claim that God is unjust because He burns and tortures men forever as the punishment for sin. Like Abraham, these souls are asking the question, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen. 18:25). It seems unjust to have an everlasting torture for a temporary sin. So what does the Bible say on this subject?
First there seems to be a contradiction between what the Bible says about hellfire and what it says about the punishment for sin. Notice that Jesus calls hellfire “EVERLASTING fire, prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41). So one would assume the Bible does teach that the wicked will burn forever. But then, on the other hand, the Bible says the wages of sin is death, not eternal torture (Romans 6:23), and on top of that, when describing hellfire itself it calls it the second DEATH and says that death itself will be the final enemy destroyed in hell: “Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death” (Revelation 20:14). So what’s the deal? Is hellfire everlasting or are the wicked finally killed in hellfire? The answer is: BOTH. How so?
Where does hellfire come from? It comes from God out of heaven (Rev. 20:9). This is because “our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29). If God is eternal, then that fire which comes from Him is also eternal. This is just as Jesus said. But who is it that will live for eternity in that fire of God’s? Is it the wicked? Notice:
“The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness has seized the hypocrites: Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? Who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? He who walks righteously and speaks uprightly, He who despises the gain of oppressions, Who gestures with his hands, refusing bribes, Who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed, And shuts his eyes from seeing evil” (Isaiah 33:14, 15).
It is the RIGHTEOUS that dwell in everlasting burnings forevermore because they dwell in God’s presence forever. Remember: “For the wages of sin is DEATH, but the gift of God is ETERNAL LIFE through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). It is those who believe in and obey Jesus who gain eternal life, not the wicked. The wicked are destroyed or CONSUMED by God’s fire. That is why He is called a CONSUMING fire. Sin is destroyed in His presence along with those who cling to it.
So is the punishment for sin everlasting torture or death? It is death. The fire that consumes sin is everlasting for it is from God who is everlasting, but the wicked are consumed by it and turned to ASHES according to Malachi 4:1-3. The fire is everlasting, the wicked are destroyed by it and put to an eternal death, and the righteous are the ones living eternally in God’s fire with God joyfully forever. It was Satan’s first lie to say that if we sin we would not surely die (Gen. 3:4), and sadly the majority of the Christian world has continued this lie by stating that the wages of sin is an eternal life of torture, instead of death.
God is just. He is not willing that any should perish, but all come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9). But He also allows us to make our own choice of life or death (John 3:17-19). Sin is suffering and must be destroyed. God has made a way of escape, but must in the end destroy those who refuse to let go of sin. Murderers, rapists, liars, and the like cannot continue forever for God is just. Thus hellfire will cleanse the world of sin. But God is no tyrant, and it will not last forever. Once sin and those who cling to it are destroyed, suffering will cease. This is the true teaching on hellfire according to the Bible.
“And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away” (Revelation 21:4).
"I read a book and believed it with zero fact checking........"
The height of stupidity
maybe try the mohammed hijab david wood debate
Too easy….
@@Mark-cd2wf True
20 minutes in and Silverman went all-in on moral relativism. He instantly lost the debate. If there is no objective standard of good and evil, then it is IMPOSSIBLE for the New Testament to be evil.
You know what?
I like that David Silverman was willing to admit he was wrong.
That's what a debate should lead to, IMO,
not a winner, but the truth!
Silverman probably assumed that White's point was so absurd or beyond what Turek was saying that BY CLARIFYING White's position it would in and of itself expose how crazy or evil the new testament is. By exposing predestination, babies in hell, and slavery he thought he could get White to indict himself.
So it appeared that Silverman was unprepared, but it really goes to show that he made the wrong presupposition about calvinism.
I like how White LEADS Silverman down a particular path about interpretation.
how can he say slavery is always immoral but say morality is based on time and place? shouldn't he simply say its immoral right now from where he stands?
Silverman said morality is based on where you live, are etc.. So for him to be consistent, at the start of the debate he should have polled all attendees and asked them, "Is the NT evil?", and the majority wins, and the 3 hour +debate, would be over in few minutes.
😂
Nate's feedback at the 30min mark was outstanding. The questions he followed with superb. I would just add one thing, and Nate if you see this I'd very much appreciate your feedback on it, and that is "Given your explanation/definition of Morality considering the interrelational state of countless countries on a global scale with regard to economics, human rights, military and foreign aid, etc. doesn't your system of Morality just boil down to a Might Makes Right policy?
The difference in Turek compared to White is not a debating approach or one being a more skilled debater than the other (although one seems to be much more skilled). The difference in the two is a theological one and in how they approach apologetics.
you said nothing
I'm not sure that Silverman took this debate seriously at all. I do appreciate his very cordial and fun nature in this debate and how it kept this pretty friendly, despite the fairly confronting debate thesis. Dr White did very well in this debate, but given Silverman's worldview it's not so surprising that he didn't really have anything to debate against White other than "I think the NT is evil, but that is it." The question White asked about standing at the gates of Auschwitz and saying "this was bad to me," seemed to be pretty much the nail in the coffin for Silverman's position, and is a pretty awesome soundbite at that
As a former firebrand atheist for 15 years, I could see the trap that Silverman was laying from a mile away, it’s a very common atheist position: if Adam and Eve didn’t know good and evil, they were innocent and couldn’t have known it was wrong to sin. Therefore, God rigged the system to produce people who would not be able to avoid sinning, create original sin that would stain everyone forever, making it impossible to ever lead a sinless life even if you COULD be perfect.
It’s a misunderstanding of God and his plan. It supposes that God is malevolent and cynical, creating beings just to punish them. In reality, much like we sometimes allow our own children to make mistakes that harm them in order that they can learn and grow, God also permits the conditions that allow us to learn and grow. Those that reject the lesson don’t grow. If you don’t grow, you decay.
"If I were White..."
Ehh, you're close enough, buddy. We'll let you into the club. 😎👉🏻😎
Pls comment on WLC vs Sean Carroll
One of the main issues I see is the relative truth. And objective truth when we're not standing on objective truth. And everything is relative and then what so what we just , we can't know certain things
All I know is that I don't want to live in a world where morals are not absolute. That is truly frightening to me.
But what do I know? Right now I'm suffering a bad cold and my head is foggier than a Northern Sacramento Valley Christmas night! So all I can really do is be a passive listener at this time.
Could God put everyone in heaven?- But if he did- what then? Evil cannot really survive in his presence, right? So if you chose not to be saved- you will still die. (At least that’s how i perceive it)
Assuming i just said that in a way that makes sense lol
Ignore this. I typed this literally 3 seconds before you mentioned this in the vid!!!
I'm not sure how you missed this, David Silverman wasn't supposed to be a part of this debate. The original debate was going to be between Dr. White and Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens wasn't able to make the debate because of poor health due to cancer.
Silverman agreed to step in to do the debate with little time to prepare.
Dr. White even thanks Silverman at one point during the debate for doing it on short notice.
That explains why he wasn't up to speed on the beliefs of his opponent.
I don't think it would have mattered, I think DR. White would have been able to answer all of Silverman's objections, regardless.
Could you please do a reaction video for the Steve Gregg vs James White calvanism debate?? I would apprecieate your evaluation.
I think both Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike would say it isn’t “fair.”
White's confident, solid answers are matched here by his awesome demeanour. Silverman is not at all equipped to go against White's position.
Brother James is a blessing to the Body of Christ
Moral relativism is an impossible position to hold.
The existence of the conscience alone is enough, even if it can be seared, the fact that it is there is says that we are have the ability to KNOW or SEE what is right and wrong.
Now that I think about it, Paul mentions that.
White does well because he strives to understand his opponent's side by diving deep into their books, debates, podcasts, etc. He spends multiple days listening to them and reading them so when he comes to the debate he knows what to expect and how to not misrepresent them. It's very admirable and shows his heart when it pertains to the subject at hand.
Silverman underestimated his opponent, did not do sufficient research in order to understand his opponent’s position, and wound up making a fool of himself. He must have made a cursory assessment of White’s position and concluded that he was a moron and would easily wipe the floor with him. Always a fatal mistake in debate!
Open theists are Christians who don’t have to answer the “creating knowing Adam would win.” Rather, God knew it was a possibility and was able to plan for such a contingency (and all other contingencies).
Open Theis reject God's omniscience, therefore God is no longer the greatest conceivable being. It means God is not all knowning. Every Christians reject that Idea excluding the open theist ofcourse...
Open theists are NOT Christians. They hold to a teaching that has been recognized as untrue by every christian group that looked at the question from Romanists, Orthodox, Coptic, Reformed and non reformed groups. Until the 1980's if a group claims to be part of a bigger group but also claims to believe something that has been argued repeatedly and called universally false they are not part of the group even though they claim to be.
Open theism seems to focus way more than on the free will of man than the actual will of God. Open theism doesn’t seem biblical to me.
@@timetravlin4450 I viewed it the same way early on, I’d suggested reading Four Views: Divine Foreknowledge, which gives arguments and defense for each of the theories of how God knows the future.
@@jonathanhauhnar8434 it depends on whether or not God has structured creation in a way that future events can be known. Does the future exist? If not, we can’t expect God to know something that doesn’t exist. On the other hand, with open theism, God knows every single possible outcome of an open future, which would actually equate to more knowledge than a simple foreknowledge view
When you say man has free will, what do you mean?
Great video! You should react to William Lane Craig vs. John Shook. They have a great cross examination period.
I was disappointed with the Turek vs Silverman debate. Turek was playing to the church audience and using the time as an altar call in my opinion (especially with the video about the problem of evil).
Silverman has a incredible air of arrogance about, it makes him insufferable to watch. White has the patience of a Saint to deal with him so well.
11:51 hell and the lake of fire are two different thing. Hades is sheol, tartarus, stc. Sheol is what we call hell. The lake of fire is after judgement day
Silverman’s position is unbelievably limp. He has no argument other than his own personal opinion.
This is how cordial debates should be whilst not compromising on the conviction of each argument. Oppy is one of the nicest, most genuine atheists who is so subtle but clear with his arguments. And Craig is obviously the goat. Awesome debate. I still side with Christianity here though :)
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
Winner by knock-out: Dr. James White
I think Silverman was unprepared, having a very limited understanding of the Reformed doctrines White holds to. Having said that, I think had Silverman been better prepared, White would have still slammed him to the ground. Truth wins.
How can hell be in the future when we get the rich man suffering and the poor man he didn't help with Abraham after both men died.
It was an allegory, just like many of the other stories he told.
The rich man being able to see Lazarus & Abraham, and talk with the latter should make it pretty clear that it's not literal.
Next white vs ventilacion please
I'm seeking fellowship with like minded individuals who teach or believe in exactly as the Bible teaches.
My view of religion has been pretty broken due to originally being a catholic and having parents who joined multiple versions of Christianity.
I l8sten to this Channel, voddie bauchum and John MacArthur, actually just purchased the MacArthur study Bible.
Any help would be greatly appreciated
OMG! Nate, my mom would agree with your mom 100% on the chihuahua question!
If you haven’t done so, could you react to and review the debate on God’s existence in Oxford, 2012? There are three Christians against three atheists, so there will be several videos but perhaps you could compile them into one?
"Didn't Paul use words?" Gottem!!
"Mom? Mom??" 🤣🤣🤣🥰
i don't understand your critique about molinists having to answer the question about two hypotheticals, one where you "freely choose God" and one where you "freely don't choose God" i don't believe the other exists, God knows who would freely choose him regardless of circumstance
I mean…dude said “Ephezians 2 dash 6”.
Either he’s not very Biblically literate, or he’s trolling.
Great commentary on the debate. I think James White was a little to much for David Silverman compared to Frank Turek. Still a very interesting debate. I hope this gets more views.
Silverman consistently borrows terms from the biblical ethic, like “fair”, “good”, and “evil”. If we are mere molecules in motion, those terms are meaningless.
I think the answer to "are there babies in hell" is:
Scripture tells us we serve a just God. So, no, God does not send babies to hell.
God is not willing that any should perish. I find it odd that this verse wasn't presented (that I know of) in many "ppl in hell" segments of debates.
There are different aspects of God's will.
@@uview1 even if that's true, that verse should still be presented rather than ignored.
Silverman knows that he's entirely being dishonest. He knows that not all slavery means kidnapping and forced servitude of innocent people.
He's very aware that people sold them selves into indentured servitude to avoid prison.
And whether a person likes or hates the word slavery, is of no importance. The definition and it's context is important.
I think everyone would agree that it's better to be an indentured servant, and pay off a debt that way, then to go to prison with rapists, murderers, and other violent offenders, and live that nightmare.
Rather than masters, treating their slaves, like family in the first century. Allowing them to work off of debt in the far more comfortable situation.
Many people referred to their jobs as slavery. They have to work in order to pay off debts.
Silvermans argument seems like it can only get to the point of asserting the NT is unable to be understood; which makes it innocuous, not evil. Not that he actually proves that perspective.
Silverman’s argument is interesting, because he guarantees that he is correct, based on the way that he defines morality. He defines morality as agreed-upon moral principles of a given group of people at a given time. So to the question “is the New Testament evil?“ He can absolutely say that it is, because atheists who disagreed with the moral principles put forth in the New Testament think that it is. So it is. There’s nothing to discuss.
Ezekiel 36 would argue that the person chooses anything. It's God who does the choosing and thr drawing to the son. This is what thr scriptursles teach.
The man was tasked to prove that the NT is evil and to start off, he threw his authority to make standard judgments out the window, mocked Dr. White when he made reasonable standard judgements, all while making standard judgements regarding the Bible.