How does divine justice compare in Christianity compared to Islam? Does Allah always act in a way that is just. Or does he sometimes act deceptively? This is what the following video will discuss. It is a snippet from the Operation 513 Gold Coast outreach held on the 23rd July 2010, where Ryan Hemelaar responds to Muslim hecklers.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Friday, November 19, 2010
On 23rd July 2010, as part of the Gold Coast Operation 513 outreach, there were a few Muslims heckling the preacher, Ryan Hemelaar. One of the questions they asked was: "Why God can't simply forgive sin if someone repents? For that way, Jesus didn't have to die." Watch the follow video to hear how Ryan responds.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Muslims often ask the question, "If Jesus is God, how is it that God can die?" This argument is based on a misunderstanding of the incarnation of Jesus, as David Wood explains in the following video:
Friday, August 6, 2010
On the 28th July 2010, Operation 513 held a debate on the existence of God. It was between Ryan Hemelaar (from Operation 513) and Wayne Cunningham (a former Catholic, now an atheist).
Many have wondered what the outcome of the debate was last week. Here is what one person said:
Monday, August 2, 2010
Ever wondered how different Christianity is to all the other religions in the world? Why is it any better? Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason endeavours to answer this question in the following short video.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Have you ever wondered why scholars today consider the passion narratives in the Gospels to be early and accurate? The following clip is from an interview with Dr. William Lane Craig on the John Ankerberg show which seeks to answer this question.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Often atheists like to dismiss the testimony of the eye-witnesses of Jesus' resurrection by saying that the only people who saw Jesus alive were those who were already believers. But John Warwick Montgomery in this video shows why this is not the case, and why that objection in the first place is not logically valid.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Are miracles inconsistent with science? The philosopher David Hume thought it was. Was he right? John Lennox in this video discusses why David Hume was incorrect about the impossibility of miracles and shows that miracles are not at all incompatible with the things we have learned from science.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
Richard Dawkins is well-known for saying that faith is irrational and not based on evidence. Here though, he comes unstuck, and admits that faith does have evidence.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Have you ever heard someone say that the physical world is all there is? That belief is called naturalism. But as William Lane Craig proves in this minute and a half video is that naturalism is not based on evidence, but on faith.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
John Dickson, of the Centre for Public Christianity, interviews Karin Sowada on the relationship between archaeology and the Bible. Karin has been a politician in Australia, is Assistant Curator of the Nicholson Museum at Sydney University and is a researcher in Egyptian archaeology with Macquarie University in Sydney. She has carried out excavation work in Jordan, Egypt and Israel and is a specialist in the foreign relations of Egypt and the Near East during the Bronze Age.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Many people mistakenly think that if evil exists, then therefore God cannot exist. But the question must be asked, "How are the two incompatible with each other?" Dr. William Lane Craig in this short two-minute video shows that the atheist is actually the one who has the burden of proof to shoulder, showing that the two cannot co-exist.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
For sure one of the most common arguments used against the existence of God is the fact that there is evil in the world. But in actuality, evil much less than being an argument against God's existence, actually proves His existence. Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Greg Koukl in this close to 3 minute video explain how this is the case.
Monday, May 10, 2010
The Ontological Argument for God's existence is one that has been greatly discussed as to its validity ever since its first formation by Anselm in the 11th century AD. Since then, the argument has been developed further by various philosophers in response to some of the criticism the argument has received. Dr. William Lane Craig in the following 5 minute video lays out the Modal Ontological Argument, and then addresses some of the criticism that Richard Dawkins has made against the argument.
Friday, May 7, 2010
With the sheer amount of Muslims migrating to Western countries these days, undoubtedly you have seen many in your day to day life. But would you know how to witness to a Muslim? Are there any points of commonality? Do they have different concept of God and salvation? Dr. R.C. Sproul, from Ligonier Ministries, with special guest Abdul Saleeb have recently given an 8-part lecture series (20 some minutes each) answering these sorts of questions. This dialogue was recently broadcast on Dr. Sproul's Renewing Your Mind Podcast.
- Opposing Foundations
- The Fatherhood of God
- The Trinity
- Man the Sinner
- The Necessity of Grace
- The Necessity of the Atonement
- Christ: God and Man
- The Authenticity of Scripture
Sunday, May 2, 2010
If you have talked with an atheist before about the existence of God, undoubtedly you have heard them respond with, "But who created God?" This is usually in the context of presenting the cosmological argument, explaining that all things that have beginnings have causes, the universe had a beginning and therefore must have had a cause. Atheists strangely think by saying, "What caused God?" they have found a defeater for this cosmological argument. But as Dr. William Lane Craig explains in the following one minute video, the question the atheist is asking there is completely irrelevant, and therefore not a defeater to the cosmological argument.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Have you ever wondered what the Roman Catholic Church teaches? Do you know how it differs from Protestantism and why the Reformers labelled it as non-Christian? Dr. R.C. Sproul, from Ligonier Ministries, has given an informative 10-part lecture series (20 some minutes each) on this very topic and broadcast it recently on his Renewing Your Mind Podcast. Very well worth the listen.
- Scripture and Tradition (Part 1)
- Scripture and Tradition (Part 2)
- Papal Infallibility (Part 1)
- Papal Infallibility (Part 2)
- The Church and Salvation (Part 1)
- The Church and Salvation (Part 2)
- Sacraments (Part 1)
- Sacraments (Part 2)
- The Virgin Mary (Part 1)
- The Virgin Mary (Part 2)
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Q&A with Dr. William Lane Craig
My question is one I have never been able to get a clear answer on. When Jesus died on the cross, did God die? That being, did the essence of Jesus actually die?
This question really bothered me after hearing the song "And Can it Be?" There's a line in there towards the end of the chorus "Amazing Love! How can it be that Thou my God shouldst die for me? Amen?"
I've never really been able to get a clear and concise answer to this question and there seems to be some differing opinions among theologians as to the nature of this question. Pastor John MacArthur seems to think God did die because Jesus is God. But R.C. Sproul on the other hand disagrees and believes that God cannot die.
I don't see how it's possible that God could actually die. For if God were to die then He wouldn't be a necessary Being. But this is impossible because God must be necessary by definition. So when Christ died on the cross, was it just the human part that died?
Dr. Craig responds:
I couldn't resist your question, Jesse, since it appeals to my favorite hymn, the magnificent "And Can It Be?" by Charles Wesley. I urge anyone who knows only praise songs and choruses to listen to this hymn and contemplate the wonderful lyrics about God's amazing love.
Your question is one that also troubles our Muslim friends and is therefore very urgent. Fortunately, the historic Christian church has addressed this question clearly.
The Council of Chalcedon (451) declared that the incarnate Christ is one person with two natures, one human and one divine. This has very important consequences. It implies that since Christ existed prior to his incarnation, he was a divine person before taking on a human nature. He was and is the second person of the Trinity. In the incarnation this divine person assumes a human nature as well, but there is no other person in Christ than the second person of the Trinity. There is an additional human nature which the pre-incarnate Christ did not have, but there is no human person in addition to the divine person. There is just one person who has two natures.
Therefore, what Christ said and did, God said and did, since when we speak of Christ we're talking about a person. For that reason the Council endorses speaking of Mary as "the mother of God." She bore the person who is a divine person. Unfortunately, this language has been disastrously misleading because it sounds as though Mary birthed the divine nature of Christ when in fact she birthed Christ's human nature. Mohammed apparently thought that Christians believed that Mary was the third member of the Trinity, and Jesus was the offspring of God the Father and Mary, a view which he rightly rejected as blasphemous, though no orthodox Christian holds it.
To avoid such inevitable misunderstandings it is helpful to speak of what Christ does or how he is relative to one of his two natures. For example, Christ is omnipotent relative to his divine nature but he is limited in power relative to his human nature. He is omniscient with respect to his divine nature but ignorant of various facts with respect to his human nature. He is immortal with regard to his divine nature, but mortal with regard to his human nature.
You can probably see now where I'm headed. Christ could not die with respect to his divine nature but he could die with respect to his human nature. What is human death? It is the separation of the soul from the body when the body ceases to be a living organism. The soul survives the body and will someday be re-united with it in a resurrected form. That's what happened to Christ. His soul was separated from his body and his body ceased to be alive. He became temporarily a disembodied person. On the third day God raised him from the dead in a transformed body.
In short, yes, we can say that God died on the cross because the person who underwent death was a divine person. So Wesley was all right in asking, "How can it be, that Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?" But to say that God died on the cross is misleading in the same way that it is misleading to say that Mary was the mother of God. So I think it better to say that Christ died on the cross with respect to his human nature but not with respect to his divine nature.
Monday, March 8, 2010
By Michael Gleghorn
Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!
I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative "life of Jesus!"
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
By Michael Gleghorn
Evidence from the Lucian
Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:
The Christians ... worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.... [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.
Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that account."
Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!
Notes Lucian, "The Death of Peregrine", 11-13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4., cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 206.
Monday, March 1, 2010
By Michael Gleghorn
Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud
There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200. The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."
Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus. So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do. If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!
The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?
Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons." But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching. Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.
Notes Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 202-03.
 The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203.
 Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203.
 See John 8:58-59 and 10:31-33.
 Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 204. See also John 18:31-32.
 Matthew 12:24. I gleaned this observation from Bruce, Christian Origins, 56.
 Luke 23:2, 5.
Friday, February 26, 2010
By Michael Gleghorn
Evidence from Josephus
Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ." F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother." And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.
As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he ... wrought surprising feats.... He was the Christ. When Pilate ...condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared ... restored to life.... And the tribe of Christians ... has ... not disappeared.
Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D. But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.
For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, "if indeed one ought to call him a man," is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as "the so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!
But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!
Notes Josephus, Antiquities xx. 200, cited in Bruce, Christian Origins, 36.
 Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament", 212.
 Josephus, Antiquities 18.63-64, cited in Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament", 212.
 Another version of Josephus' "Testimonium Flavianum" survives in a tenth-century Arabic version (Bruce, Christian Origins, 41). In 1971, Professor Schlomo Pines published a study on this passage. The passage is interesting because it lacks most of the questionable elements that many scholars believe to be Christian interpolations. Indeed, "as Schlomo Pines and David Flusser...stated, it is quite plausible that none of the arguments against Josephus writing the original words even applies to the Arabic text, especially since the latter would have had less chance of being censored by the church" (Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 194). The passage reads as follows: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Quoted in James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, (Garden City: Doubleday, 1988), 95, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 194).
Monday, February 22, 2010
By Michael Gleghorn
Evidence from Pliny the Younger
Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians. Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.
At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:
They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food – but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.
This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, "as to a god", as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth." If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.
Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians "bound themselves by a solemn oath" not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast." This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely "food of an ordinary and innocent kind". They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism." The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.
Notes Pliny, Epistles x. 96, cited in Bruce, Christian Origins, 25; Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 198.
 Ibid., 27.
 Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 199.
 M. Harris, "References to Jesus in Early Classical Authors," in Gospel Perspectives V, 354-55, cited in E. Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament: What is the Evidence?", in Jesus Under Fire, ed. by Michael J. Wilkins and J.P. Moreland (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), p. 227, note 66.
 Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 199.
 Bruce, Christian Origins, 28.
Friday, February 19, 2010
By Michael Gleghorn
Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements. In the introduction to one of his books, F.F. Bruce tells about a Christian correspondent who was told by an agnostic friend that "apart from obscure references in Josephus and the like," there was no historical evidence for the life of Jesus outside the Bible. This, he wrote to Bruce, had caused him "great concern and some little upset in [his] spiritual life." He concludes his letter by asking, "Is such collateral proof available, and if not, are there reasons for the lack of it?" The answer to this question is, "Yes, such collateral proof is available," and we will be looking at some of it in this article.
Evidence from Tacitus
Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament." Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:
Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome....
What can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.
But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect ... testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave." While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal. How else might one explain that?
 F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian
Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 13.
 Edwin Yamauchi, quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998), 82.
 Tacitus, Annals 15.44, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82.
 N.D. Anderson, Christianity: The Witness of History (London: Tyndale, 1969), 19, cited in Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus (Joplin, Missouri: College Press Publishing Company, 1996), 189-190.
 Edwin Yamauchi, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Have you ever encountered an atheist who claimed that he doesn't believe in God because of 'science'? Dr. William Lane Craig in this 3 minute video objectively examines whether science actually does prove the non-existence of God, and comes to the conclusion that it is actually logically impossible for it to do so.
Friday, February 5, 2010
When you are presented with a particular truth claim, do you know how you would go about discovering its truthfulness? Dr. Ravi Zacharias in this short 3-minute video outlines three tests, which any proposition should be compared against.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
The gospel accounts and Paul's first letter to the Corinthians contain very clear statements about Jesus appearing alive to people after His death. But is it possible that these were just hallucinations? Dr. William Lane Craig discusses this hypothesis to see whether it is actually historically tenable.
Friday, January 15, 2010
So far in this series you might be asking, but what about the really tricky verses like 1 Peter 3:21 which explicitly states that "baptism now saves you". Matt Slick from CARM.org embarks on the task of explaining these verses, and then goes onto addressing the consequences of believing that a person must be baptised to be saved.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
What about the verses in the Bible that seems to teach that baptism is a requirement for salvation? In this video, Matt Slick from CARM.org continues discussing this important topic, addressing those tricky verses that seem to contradict the clear teaching of Scripture regarding baptism.
The next video in the series will be posted tomorrow. This is part 3:
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
In this video, Matt Slick from CARM.org continues discussing the important topic of whether baptism is a requirement for someone to be saved. He begins by comparing new covenant baptism to the circumcisions which was performed in the old covenant.
The next video in the series will be posted tomorrow. This is part 2:
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
The belief that a person must be baptised to be saved is not an uncommon one. It has been taught by the Roman Catholic Church for centuries and many of the cults teach the same thing. This is why Matt Slick from CARM.org has taken on the task to examine what the Bible has to say about this issue in four short videos.
The next video in the series will be posted tomorrow. This is part 1: