For this month’s episode, I interviewed Alan Shlemon of Stand to Reason on the subject of Islam. Alan trains Christians to persuasively share their convictions on various cultural issues, as well as share the Gospel with Muslims in a gracious, yet persuasive manner, as Stand to Reason is known for.

Our conversation was broken into two main parts. In the first part, Alan gives an overview of what Islam is, what Muslims believe, and compares and contrasts Islam and Christianity. In the second part, Alan explains how he goes about engaging Muslims in a thoughtful discussion on spiritual issues, and answers their most common objection: that the Bible cannot be trusted because it has been corrupted.

An Outline of the Discussion

Alan’s Background

• Alan is ethnically Assyrian. his family is originally from Baghdad, and he still has family there. His family is, like most Assyrians, historically Christian, but being from the Middle-East his family has a lot of experience and understanding of Islam and Muslim culture.
• Alan’s understanding of Islam comes mostly through research and study that he has done on his own as a staff member at Stand to Reason.

Explaining Islam

• Islam has Five Pillars (required behaviors) and Five Articles of Faith (required beliefs.)
• The Five Articles of Faith are as follows:
  • The unity of God. God/Allah is Unitarian, as opposed to Trinitarian. This is the most fundamental of the beliefs of Islam, and to reject it is to commit the most grievous of sins, which they call the sin of shirk.
  • Belief in God’s Angels. Similar to Christianity’s views, that there are angels. However, Islam teaches that angels do not have free will. They also believe in angel-like beings called Jinn, which are similar to the Christian understanding of demons. Jinn are mischievous beings that do have free will. Satan is a Jinn.
  • Belief in God’s prophets. The belief that God has sent prophets to mankind. Examples of prophets include: Adam, Noah, Moses, David, Jesus, and Mohammad.
  • Belief in God’s Books. Islam teaches that there are four holy books written by God/Allah. These include: The Torah, the Psalms, the Gospel, and the Quran.
  • Belief in the Final Judgment. At the end of time, all people will be resurrected and judged based on good deeds and bad. All of our good deeds and bad deeds will be put on a scale and if the good outweighs the bad, we will enter Heaven/Paradise. If the bad outweigh the good, we enter Hell. This eliminates the possibility of assurance of salvation, since we can’t possibly know how the scales will tip. The only exception is that death in jihad (holy war) dying for the cause of Allah guarantees salvation.
• The five Pillars are as follows:
  • Reciting the Creed. The creed says “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammad is his messenger.” Saying this creed, and believing it sincerely makes one a Muslim.
  • Daily Prayer. Muslims pray five times every day.
  • The Fast of Ramadan. A month-long fast in which Muslims abstain from food, drink, smoking, sex, etc. during the daylight hours, and is done to commemorate that Mohammad receive the Quran from Allah via the angel Gabriel over a 22 year period.
  • The Giving of Alms. Similar to the Judeo=Christian concept of tithing, though it is 2.5% rather than 10%, and the money goes toward serving the poor and needy.
  • Pilgrimage to Mecca. Muslims are required to travel to Mecca, Saudi Arabia and perform various rituals at least once in their life (more is better), though there are exceptions for those who cannot do so for physical or financial reasons.
• There are several sects of Islam, the two main ones being the Shia and the Sunni. The division arose after the death of Mohammad over who would be his successor. Sunnis believed that the successor should be elected, whereas the Shiites believed that the successor should be divinely appointed, as was Mohammad, and wished for the succession to follow the blood lines of Mohammad. Each of these two main sects sees the other as apostate.
• The succession determined the source of authority for theology.
• Muslims often name their children after successors to Mohammad, so often it’s easy to determine if they are Shia or Sunni based on their name.
• Alan sees two common misconception that Christians have of Islam, which he describes as two sides of the same coin. The first is that Christians often assume that, given Islam’s often violent nature, that all Muslims are violent people. This isn’t the case, most Muslims are peaceful people. The second misconception, which comes about from the observation that most Muslims are peaceful is that they then think that Islam is peaceful. As Alan says, Islam is not a peaceful religion hijacked by violent Muslims, for the most part it is a violent religion that is practiced by mostly peaceful people often unaware of what their religion really teaches.
• Many people believe that the God of Christianity and the god of Islam (Allah) are the same. They have many similarities, but significant differences as well.
  • Similarities include:
    • Both claim they are the one true god.
    • Both are transcendent, which is to say that they created the universe, but are separate from it.
    • Both are omnipotent and omniscient.
  • Differences include:
    • Yahweh is Trinitarian, whereas Allah is Unitarian.
    • Yahweh is immanent, which is to say that He enters into creation; Allah is not immanent.
    • Allah is unknown and it is not man’s job to know god, but only to obey him. Yahweh is both known and obeyed.
• Another way to answer the question is “do Christians and Muslims worship the same god?” Alan says no. Christians worship Jesus as God, but that is considered blasphemy by Muslims.
• Christianity teaches that we must not only worship the right God, but we must do so in the right manner, that is to say as He wishes to be worshiped.
• All false religions, be they psuedo-Christian cults or different religions entirely, teach a false view of the person and works of Jesus Christ. Islam teaches the following about Jesus:
  • He is a created being (not God the Creator).
  • He was appointed as a prophet.
  • He is not the son of God.
  • He is not the second person of the Trinity.
  • He did not die on the cross. It would be offensive for a prophet of Allah to die like a criminal.
  • He was not resurrected.
  • He could not and did not atone for our sins.
• Islam teaches things about Jesus that are surprising to many Christians. In fact, it says things that it doesn’t say of Muhammad, including:
  • That his birth was announced by angels.
  • He was born to the virgin Mary.
  • He was sinless.
  • He had the power to heal and raise the dead.
  • He was called the Messiah.
  • He was taken up by God to Heaven to be in His presence at the end of his life.
  • Shiites teach that Jesus will return at the end of the age to judge humanity.

Answering Muslim objections and Sharing the Gospel with them:

• Alan describes Stand to Reason’s approach to engaging with unbelievers in general by using questions to advance a conversation and make a point rather than making statements.
• Alan’s straightforward approach to engaging with Muslims is to share the Gospel with them just as he would with any other non-believer.
• The most common objection Muslims give is that the Bible has been corrupted, and so they cannot accept what it teaches about Jesus.
• Alan leverages the Muslim’s respect for the Quran by showing that it teaches the following:
  • God’s word cannot be changed or corrupted.
  • The Bible is the word of God.
  • Therefore: The Bible is trustworthy, and it is not true that it has been corrupted.
• Answering this objection typically leads to a healthier respect for Christians by Muslims.
• Muslims love to talk about religion, and tend to be people who are very easy to share your faith with.

Scripture References

Biblical:

• John 4:24
• James 2:19

Islamic:

• Surah 2:136
• Surah 4:136
• Surah 29:46
• Surah 10:94
• Surah 5:43 & 5:47-48

Additional Resources

• The Ambassador’s Guide to Islam – Alan Shlemon
• Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross – Norm Geisler & Abdul Saleeb
• Engaging Islam – George Houssney

Video via tweet by Dr. James White, January 31, 2012:

Get Connected

Sign up for email notifications of new episodes of Echo Zoe Radio, and follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and/or Google+!

An Outline of the Discussion

• Ryan begins by giving his own theological background on the issue of tongues, being raised in an Evangelical Lutheran (ELCA) church that didn’t teach on the topic. As he began his Biblical studies, he didn’t have an opinion either way.
• The decision to study tongues came out of preparations for teaching a class at the church he pastors.
• Ryan sought to understand the passages regarding Tongues as they would have been understood by first century Christians, rather than from a 21st century America understanding.
• To understand the phenomena of tongues, Ryan begins at the beginning in Genesis with the creation of human languages at the Tower of Babel. (Genesis 11:6-9)
• When God called Abram/Abraham and established the Hebrew nation, the Hebrew language was established as the Holy Tongue, with which most of the Old Testament was written, and was the language that was used in ecclesiastical teaching.
• Isaiah predicted that God’s Word would one day go out in foreign languages (besides Hebrew): “Indeed, He will speak to this people Through stammering lips and a foreign tongue, He who said to them, “Here is rest, give rest to the weary,” And, “Here is repose,” but they would not listen.” – Isaiah 28:11-12
• Peter quotes Joel in regards to what happened in Acts at the time of Pentecost: “It will come about after this that I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and daughters will prophesy,Your old men will dream dreams,Your young men will see visions. Even on the male and female servants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.” – Joel 2:28-29
• Tongues are always accompanied by prophecy in scripture.
• The Jews began to lose Hebrew as their native tongue beginning with the Babylonian captivity.
• In the eastern portions of the Roman empire, including ancient Israel, the predominant languages were Greek and Aramaic. Latin was used in official, governmental capacity, and Hebrew was primarily used in ecclesiastical settings in a liturgical capacity, much like the Catholics used Latin up until Vatican II.
• The book of Acts begins with Christ telling His disciples that they will receive power from the Holy Spirit and will take the Gospel to all of Jerusalem, Judea and Sumaria, and to the uttermost parts of the Earth (Acts 1:8). This is the primary focus of the entire book of Acts.
• The first incidence of “tongue speaking” takes place at Pentecost, a feast in which all able-bodied Jews are in Jerusalem to celebrate. These Jews primarily spoke either Aramaic (eastern Jews) or Greek (Hellenized/western Jews).
• Greek words used in Acts are: laleo (speak), apothengomai (utterance), glossa (tongues), and dialoectos (native languages).
• The miraculous gift seems to be in the boldness of their speech.
• When we read the list of various nationalities present at Pentecost in Acts 2:8-11, it’s natural to assume that each nationality has its own lanquage, but in the Roman empire everyone spoke one of just a few languages.
• Mockers suggested that those who were speaking were drunk (in the morning). This is often used to suggest that they were babbling, at least from the point of view of those listening, and that they must have been speaking some heavenly language, since Peter responded that they were not drunk. Drunkenness doesn’t necessarily lead to babbling, especially mild drunkenness, but rather lowers inhibitions. Those speaking were thought to be drunk because they were speaking of the things of God in common languages, and were common men themselves, not priests, scribes, or Pharisees. It was thought that one would have to be drunk to be so bold.
• Over and over, the speeches given are with boldness.
• If what Ryan is saying is right: that the supernatural gifting is in the boldness, but not necessarily in the language spoken, it is hard to engage in an argument about cessationism.
• The focus of Acts is in the proclamation of the Gospel.

Please feel free to direct questions and feedback our way. We’ll be following up on this subject sometime in mid 2012, and would like to incorporate feedback in that discussion. You can do so via the comments sections (here, on Facebook, or Google+), via the feedback form, or even by old-fashioned snail-mail (see feedback form for address).

Scripture References

• Genesis 11:6-9
• Genesis 12
• Isaiah 28:11-12
• Joel 2:28-29
• Numbers 11:27-29
• John 19:19-20
• Acts 1:8
• Acts 2:3
• Acts 2:8-11
• Acts 2:12-21
• Acts 4:8-10, 13
• Acts 4:31
• Acts 10:44-46
• Acts 19:1-10

Get Connected

Sign up for email notifications of new episodes of Echo Zoe Radio, and follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and/or Google+!

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. – 2 Corinthians 11:13

Sandy Simpson, of the Apologetics Coordination Team, joins me to discuss the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). Sandy runs Deception in the Church, an extensive library of resources on the NAR and related movements and organizations.

I would appreciate feedback, along with questions about this subject. Sandy has graciously agreed to the possibility of a follow-up interview, possibly late in 2012, and I would love to have listener questions to use in such an interview.

An Outline of the Discussion

• Sandy begins by describing his initial encounter with the New Apostolic Reformation while working as a missionary in Guam, which led him to investigate their movement.
• The NAR teaches that there are foundational Apostles today that are equal to, if not greater than, the original twelve Apostles of the first century.
• They teach that there is a transferrable impartation. The Holy Spirit can be imparted upon individuals by NAR “apostles”.
• Sandy sees links between NAR, Emergent, and “Church Growth”; all coming out of Fuller Theological Seminary.
• NAR puts together large-scale prayer meetings to lure in orthodox Christians to their methods and teachings.
• NAR and Word-of-Faith come from the same roots, and have many similarities.
• NAR seeks to take over the government, and Sandy asks what the difference is between “Christian Fascism” and “Islamic Fascism”?
• Sandy asserts that NAR denies some of the fundamental, core doctrines of Christianity. This places them within the definition of a cult movement. Core doctrines that they deny include: the Trinity; the divinity and personhood of Christ (hypostatic union); salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone; the supremacy of Scripture in all matters of faith and practice; the fact that Christ is going to return bodily to judge and rule the Earth (dominionism requires us to conquer the Earth before He returns).
• We discuss the prophetic element of NAR. The movement rarely references scripture, favoring instead “new revelation”. When they give prophesy over someone, they often just puff up the person they are supposedly prophesying over.
• “Slain in the Spirit” is a practice that is common in the NAR. It was picked up by William Branham on a trip to India, and is just a repackaged version of the Hindu practice of shakti-pat.
• Sandy explains the practice of diaprax, which is in use by various groups and forces hostile to Christianity. It pits a thesis against an anti-thesis. The two battle, eventually merging into a synthesis.
• Scandals and immoral behavior often follow false teachers.
• I ask Sandy to give his thoughts on a few of the players. Specifically I asked about Dutch Sheets, Rick Joyner, and Mike Bickel.
• NAR has a practice called “Prayer Walking” by which they supposedly cast out territorial demons.
• The NAR has many similarities to the ancient gnostics. Namely, they place heavy emphasis on special knowledge (new revelation), and attempts to create a “higher order” of Christianity/Spirituality.

Scripture References

• 1 Corinthians 15:8
• 2 Corinthians 11:12-15
• 1 Corinthians 3:10-11
• 2 Corinthians 13:5
• 1 Corinthians 15:2
• Matthew 7:1,15 – See my “Misapplied Scripture” article on this verse.

Additional Resources

• Sandy’s Website: Deception in the Church
• Sandy’s main page on NAR
• Sandy’s DVD series on NAR
• The “New Apostolic” church movement – Mike Oppenheimer
• The Roots and Fruits of the New Apostolic Reformation – Bob DeWaay
• What Is The New Apostolic Reformation? (And Why Should We Be Concerned About It?) – Christine Pack
• C. Peter Wagner – Herescope
• Slain in the Spirit – Let Us Reason

Get Connected

Sign up for email notifications of new episodes of Echo Zoe Radio, and follow me on Twitter, and/or Facebook!

“The sacred and inspired scriptures are sufficient to declare truth” – Athanasius

I am joined for the October episode of Echo Zoe Radio by Pastor Mike Abendroth of Bethlehem Bible Church in West Boylston, Massachusetts. Mike also hosts a radio show and Podcast called No Compromise Radio.

This episode marks the third installment in the series on the Five Solas of the Reformation, this one on Sola Scriptura. (For the first two, see Dr. James White: Sola Gratia & Sovereign Grace, and Phil Johnson: Sola Fide.)

An outline of our discussion is as follows:

• The history of Sola Scriptura. The doctrine arises from the debate over authority that took place early in the Reformation. The Reformers argued that the Scriptures alone carry the authority of God in all things relating to the Christian Faith.
  • Sola Scriptura is the formal principle of the Reformation. (Sola Fide being the material principle.)
  • Without Sola Scriptura, everything else falls.
  • In fact, if you listen carefully, you will notice that the real authority for Rome is neither Scripture nor tradition, but the church. What is Scripture and what does it teach? Only the church can tell you. What is tradition and does it teach? Only the church can tell you. As the Roman theologian John Eck said “The Scriptures are not authentic, except by the authority of the church.” As Pope Pius IX said at the time of the First Vatican Council in 1870, “I am tradition.” The overwhelming arrogance of such statement is staggering. But it confirms our claim that, for Rome, the only real authority is the church: sola ecclesia. – W. Robert Godfrey, Sola Scriptura, page 43
• The role of tradition in the Protestant Church.
  • The creeds and confessions (the London Baptist Confession of 1689, the Westminster Confession, The 39 Articles of the Anglical Faith, etc.) carry much weight in the Protestant Church, and summarize what we believe, but they are subordinate to Scripture.
• How do we define the Scripture?
  • The Roman Catholic Church will say that they selected the Canon of scripture, so they know what it contains, and what it lacks.
  • Jesus affirmed the Old Testament Canon by quoting from it, and taking it as it at face value. He never quoted from the Apocrypha, and neither do the New Testament writers.
  • The Apocrypha was added to the Catholic Bible approximately 30 years into the Reformation.
  • Mike recommends that people read the Apocrypha.
• How do we rightly interpret scriptures?
  • “You have Scripture for a master instead of me; from there you can learn whatever you would know” – John Chrysostom
  • Mike goes by what he calls the “blue-collar hermeneutic”, which is to say that blue-collar workers, then as well as now, were the primary audience, and the Bible was written such that they could understand it.
  • Scripture is illuminated to the believer by the Holy Spirit.
  • Men are gifted supernaturally with the gift of teaching to better understand the Scriptures.
  • Scriptures must be interpreted in light of authorial intent.
• We discussed the contemporary Protestant application of Sola Scriptura, and where Evangelicals diverge from the application of Sola Scriptura in the Church today.
  • When people begin to add internal machinations such as “God told me,” “God revealed to me,” “God gave me an impression,” “God gave me some intuition,” “God told me something and His Spirit testified to my spirit,” etc. they do the same thing Catholics do by putting their tradition at an equal standing, or above the Scriptures.
  • The idea that God talks to people today is a functional denial of Sola Scriptura.
  • Blackaby’s “Experiencing God,” Beth Moore’s Contemplative Prayer, etc. are other contemporary examples of a functional denial of Sola Scriptura
• How do the cults abuse Sola Scriptura?
  • They approach scriptures in one of two ways:
    • They use their own book, outside the Bible.
    • They use the Bible, but add to it with their own writings and/or teachings.

Scriptures Referenced

• 2 Timothy 3:16
• Acts 17:10-12
• 1 Thessalonians 5

Additional Resources

• Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible – R.C. Sproul, Joel Beeke, et. al. [Aff.]
• What Do We Mean by Sola Scriptura? – by Dr. W. Robert Godfrey
• Scripture Alone (Video)
  From R.C. Sproul’s teaching series What is Reformed Theology?
• The Sufficiency of Scripture – John MacArthur (two audio sermons)
• Why Evangelicals are Returning to Rome: The Abandonment of Sola Scriptura as a Formal Principle – Bob DeWaay
• Thoughts on the Sufficiency of Scripture: What It Does and Doesn’t Mean – John Piper
• Sola Scriptura – A.A. Hodge

Get Connected

Sign up for email notifications of new episodes of Echo Zoe Radio, and follow me on Twitter, and/or Facebook! Note that if you’ve followed Echo Zoe on Twitter in the past, you are probably now actually following my personal Twitter account, and will need to re-follow @EchoZoe for the blog and podcast.

An outline of this month’s episode is as follows*:

• How the topic came to be:
  • It’s totally a guy thing – From the Minneapolis Star Tribune, July 26, 2011
  • Dick’s Ad Agency experience
  • Dads in ads today
  • Husbands need help
• Our ideal in Christ – the perfect husband
  • Ephesians 5:18b-33
• Back to the beginning: The vows
  • Remember how this started? This thing called marriage?
    “to have and to hold,
    from this day forward,
    for better for worse,
    for richer for poorer,
    in sickness and in health,
    to love and to cherish, till death do us part.”
  • There are no “if” statements in there!
• She is a treasure, and she has to know it – Every Day!
  • Alistair Begg — “there is no more precious gift entrusted to a man than the treasure of his wife. She is to be admired and prized above all others. She is to have first place in his heart, mind, and affections. She is to be given special care and attention that leaves no doubt of her husband’s esteem”.
• Begg breaks it into four topics:
  • Ears for her alone
    • Communication
    • Face-to-face
    • Eye-to-eye
    • Listening and engaged – because you care
    • It’s an act of love
    • Helen Keller would have chosen hearing if given the opportunity to be able to hear or to see. Lack of sight kept her from things, whereas lack of hearing kept her from people.
  • Eyes for her alone
    • If she is a treasure—she must know that you have only ‘eyes for her alone’; Not the magazines, Not victoria’s secret, Not compared to other women, and Watch out for website porn!
    • James Dobson interviewed Ted Bundy, who stated that his psychotic behavior began with pornography.
  • Lips for her alone
    • Limit compliments about others
    • Never compare
    • Do not comment on appearances
    • Avoid flirting
  • Hands for her alone
    • Men often see casual touching as friendly, but women may see it differently
• Husbands are responsible to lead
  • Poor leadership causes conflicts
  • The husband’d authority to lead is God given, limited, and active
  • There are purposes to the husband’s leadership role:
    • To show how God leads His people
    • To develop humility and obedience in all concerned
    • To guide the family in righteousness
    • To give a sense of order and stability in the home
    • To provide what is needed for the family
    • To protect the family
    • To accomplish ministry for God more effectively
    • To help family be a good witness to the world
• Our idols often get in the way, that which is in our hearts: our thoughts, intentions, beliefs, desires, and attitudes
  • Security
  • Material things
  • Knowledge
  • Control
  • Wealth/job/work/success
  • Ourselves
  • Good health
  • Other gods, gods of the cults
  • Another person
• Share the household workload
• Protect your wife
  • Physically:
    • Provide a safe home
    • Be chivalrous
    • Take care of her car
    • Care for her personal health
  • Emotionally:
    • Protect her from the stress of overworking
    • Protect her from unnecessary worries regarding finances and your family’s well being
    • Protect her from the emotional strain of harmful people
  • Spiritually:
    • Make time to nourish her spiritually
    • Pray with her
    • Read the Bible and solid Christian books with her
    • Block out devotional time with her
    • Talk to her in everyday conversations about Christ & His promises of grace
    • Enjoy Christian music together
    • Get involved with a local church
  • To do this, you must know her!
• Guard your finances
  • Follow key financial principles:
    • Give to God first
    • Spend less than you earn
    • Develop a budget
    • Have emergency cash reserves
    • Don’t finance pleasure items
    • Protect your family’s finances with adequate life insurance
  • Be aware that most family debt comes from the husband
    • Women generally fear debt
    • Women take on debt in small, incremental amounts
    • Men take on large sums of debt at once
  • Develop a budget and keep it

*Note: This outline is adopted from Dick’s presentation notes, much of which was taken directly from his source materials: the books by Begg, McCall, and Scott that are listed below under “Additional Resources”.

Scriptures Referenced

• Ephesians 5:18b-33
• Psalm 119:2
• James 4:1-3

Additional Resources

• Dick’s Adult Sunday School class on the subject.
  • Loving Your Wife – Part 1 (mp3)
  • Loving Your Wife – Part 2 (mp3)
• Why Honoring My Wife Matters So Much – Brandon A. Cox
  (This came to me in the form of a tweet from another believer, which he sent out at roughly the same time we were interviewing. While I endorse this particular article, I don’t necessarily endorse other works by the author.)
• Lasting Love: How to Avoid Marital Failure – Alistair Begg
• Loving Your Wife as Christ Loves the Church – Larry E. McCall
• The Exemplary Husband: A Biblical Perspective – Stuart Scott
• The Fulfilled Family: God’s Design for Your Home – John MacArthur

Disclosure: links to book on Amazon are affiliate links. Echo Zoe Ministries receives a commission on sales generated via these links. Your purchase provides financial support for Echo Zoe.

Get Connected

Sign up for email notifications of new episodes of Echo Zoe Radio, and follow me on Twitter, and/or Facebook! Note that if you’ve followed Echo Zoe on Twitter in the past, you are probably now actually following my personal Twitter account, and will need to re-follow @EchoZoe for the blog and podcast.

An outline of this month’s episode is as follows:

• We started off by describing why a Biblical worldview matters. Robert boils down the debate between Old and Young Earth Creationists to the question of Biblical authority.
• Robert describes the hermeneutical terms “eisegesis” and “exogesis”.
• Much of the discussion revolves around how one interprets the Hebrew word “yom”, which translates to “day” in English. Just like the English, there are three ways to interpret it:
  • A 24 hour period of time.
  • The portion of that 24 hour period which is between sunrise and sunset. As opposed to the night.
  • A historical period of time. “Back in my day…” or “I remember the day when…”
• Robert illustrates the importance of a worldview by telling a story of a magic show in which the magician makes his assistant disappear. As adults, familiar with how magic works, we know it is merely an illusion, slight of hand. However, a child witnesses the same magic trick believing the assistant actually disappeared. The proper worldview (that of the adult) leads to an accurate conclusion of what happened at the magic show.
• In discussing the differences between an atheistic, or secular-humanist worldview and a Christian worldview, the differences are black & white.
• Robert does one-on-one evangelism, and local Universities are his favorite places to go. Universities being popular places among those holding a materialistic worldview, Robert often has to break down the veil between their worldview and his in the process of sharing the Gospel with them. He illustrates to them that the existence of a building is proof of a builder. and likewise the creation, which is far more complex than a building, is proof of a creator.
• He can then invite the person he’s speaking with to step into Robert’s worldview for a moment, to show the implications of that worldview; the nature of sin and the necessity of a savior.
• Robert quotes geneticist professor and self-described Marxist Richard Lewontin:
  • “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

• Materialism relies heavily on science. However, science is merely a tool for developing an understanding of the world around us, and is not a worldview in and of itself.
• Scientific materialism relies on what is observable (seen) in order to understand the world. In contrast, Hebrews 11:3 says that “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.”
• Robert believes that what is clouding the worldview of Old-Earth Creationists is a feeling of intimidation. Materialistic secular-humanists speak with a sense of authority in describing their worldview, which can be intimidating. Old-Earth Creationists attempt to explain their creationist worldview in light of a contradictory explanation that is found in scientific-materialism. Rather than seek out alternative explanations for evidence that seems to contradict their worldview, they surrender to it and revise their own worldview.
• The clearest reading of Genesis 1-2 will lead the reader to understand that the Earth and the Heavens were created in six literal 24-hour days. In addition, Exodus 20:8-11 leaves no room for anything but a literal understanding of the creation week.
• Robert uses the analogy of a sunken shipwreck with many gold coins on it to illustrate how we interpret evidence. If the newest coin found on the shipwreck is dated 1850, we know it couldn’t have sunk before then.
• Evidence of a young earth, and a relatively recent creation:
  • The salinity of the oceans. Based on the current salinity, and the rate at which the oceans get saltier every year, an old Earth is all but impossible unless the oceans were filled with freshwater until only recently.
  • The Earth’s magnetic field. The magnetic field of the earth is steadily getting weaker. If the earth is older than that suggested by the young-earth view, the magnetic field would have been too strong to support life based on the current rate that it is weakening.

• Much of the explanation of the evidence we see in nature for the age of the universe, or age of the earth, is based on assumptions. Many of these assumptions expose a world-view bias. Examples include radio-metric and radio-carbon dating methods. Radio-carbon dating is built on the assumption that levels of carbon 14 have always been constant, and have always decayed at a uniform rate. If there were ever smaller concentrations of carbon 14 in the atmosphere, or if it ever decayed faster than it does today, dating methods would result in a specimen appearing older than it really is. To complicate the issue, a cataclysmic global flood would result in a decrease in carbon 14 levels.
  • The assumption that material processes have always been the same throughout history is called Uniformitarianism.

Scriptures Referenced

• Genesis 1
• Hebrews 11:1,3
• Job 38:4
• Exodus 20:8-11

Additional Resources

• Robert’s original lectures from Twin City Fellowship:
  • The Case for a Biblical Worldview Part 1
    mp3 Audio | Power Point | Handout PDF
  • The Case for a Biblical Worldview Part 2
    mp3 Audio | Power Point | Handout PDF
• A young Earth—it’s not the issue! – Ken Ham
• Answers in Genesis: In the Beginning – Echo Zoe Radio episode 17, September 2009
• Steeling The Mind of America 2000 Conference #05 – One Blood: The Biblical Answer To Racism – Ken Ham MP3
  I mentioned my first experience with Ken Ham, and this was it, I attended this conference in Keystone, Colorado in August of 2000.
  * File courtesy of Firefighters for Christ
• Origins – Starlight and Time with Dr. Russell Humphreys (youtube)

Get Connected

Sign up for email notifications of new episodes of Echo Zoe Radio, and follow me on Twitter, and/or Facebook! Note that if you’ve followed Echo Zoe on Twitter in the past, you are probably now actually following my personal Twitter account, and will need to re-follow @EchoZoe for the blog and podcast.

For the July 2011 episode of Echo Zoe Radio, I chatted with Scott Klusendorf, president of Life Training Institute, and organization that endeavors to equip Christians to share a pro-life point of view in an articulate manner. Scott also lectures at Biola University as a bio-ethicist, and is the author of The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture.

An outline of our discussion is as follows:

• Scott described his background, having majored in English Literature, which helped him to organize his thoughts, as well as a Master’s in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He also described the mission of Life Training Institute, to equip Christians to make a case for the Pro-Life view persuasively and graciously.
• Scott sees the question of abortion as moral, theological, philosophical, and political.
• The fundamental case in the discussion, in Scott’s view, is that an elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being. He makes his case both scientifically and philosophically. Scientifically he makes the case from embryology that the unborn are human, and philosophically he argues that there is no essential difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today that would have justified killing you at that earlier state of development.
• Scott uses the acronym S.L.E.D. to illustrate the four essential differences between embryos and adult humans:
  • Size – body size isn’t considered key to the value of human life. A two-year-old is smaller than a ten-year-old, but has no less fundamental right to live than the older child.
  • Level of Development – A four year old girl does not have a fully developed reproductive system, as a twenty-four year old woman does. This does not justify taking her life.
  • Environment – Where we are has no bearing on who we are. If moving from one room to another doesn’t change who you are, or the value of your life. Why would traveling eight inches down the birth canal be any different?
  • Degree of Dependency – Some newborns can only tolerate their mother’s milk, and not formula. Does this dependency on mother’s milk change the value of that child’s life?
• The value of a child seems to be determined by the mother in our current legal system. If the mother wants the child, it has the legal right to life, but if the mother doesn’t want the child, it can be legally killed. For example, my wife is pregnant with our third child. She wants the child, so no one can legally kill him. If I, even as the father, didn’t want the child, and harmed her with intent to end her pregnancy, I would be charged criminally with murder (and rightly so).
• When asked about rape, incest, and life of the mother, Scott stated that we need to distinguish between intellectual arguments and emotional ones. To cut through the underlying assumption that the child in question is not human, he will use a tactic called “trot out the toddler”, which is to apply the same argument used to abort an unborn child to justify killing a toddler. If the argument doesn’t hold water for the toddler, it’s not a good argument for aborting the unborn child either. The first question that always needs to be asked is “what is it?” before the question can be addressed whether or not it is okay to kill it.

Andy's third child, due mid August, 2011

• Scott also addressed the challenge that Christians often face: if you are not willing to adopt all of the children that are unwanted, you shouldn’t argue to take away the “right” of the mother to kill her child. Again, does the same argument hold up when applied to a toddler?
• Another objection Scott addresses is that Pro-Lifers are often in favor of the death penalty, which is argued is an inconstant view in their opinion.
• Most arguments offered by people in favor of the pro-choice view are ad-hominem attacks. 80% of the arguments that Scott encounters fall into two categories: assuming the unborn are not human, and attacking the person rather than refuting or addressing the argument.
• I asserted that many of the debates we encounter in the world today illustrate that most people do not have a proper understanding of logic and logical fallacies, and that it affects their thinking.
• Scott and I discussed the legal mechanics of an abortion ban. As I understand our American legal system, and because I see abortion as an act of murder, I understand it to be an issue that the states should address as any murder is in our current legal framework, though I desire to see it criminalized throughout the country. Scott would like to see a federal ban, recognizing that life is a fundamental and inalienable right as described in the Declaration of Independence.
• Also in the realm of the mechanics of an abortion ban, Scott addressed the consequences of abortion under a Federal ban. One common challenge pro-choicers ask is “do we execute women who have abortions?” to which Scott responds “it depends.” Motive, intent, and circumstance would play just as much a role in an abortion ban as currently play in cases of homicide today.
• The most compelling argument from the pro-choice side, in Scott’s opinion, is Judith Jarvis Thomson’s Violinist argument. It surmises that a small violinist requires you to be attached to him for nine months in order to sustain life while he receives treatment for a kidney disorder. She grants the humanity of the unborn child, but treats him/her like a parasite. Though Scott finds this the most compelling argument he’s heard, he is certainly not persuaded by it.

Additional Resources

• Life Training Institute
• Case for Life (website)
• The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture (book – amazon affiliate link)
• Ethics at the Edge of Life with Scott Rae & Scott Klusendorf – A lecture series given at Biola Univeristy (Youtube video)
• Abortion Debate at Westmont College between Scott Klusendorf and Nadine Strossen (Vimeo video)
• Natural Rights and the Right to Choose – A book by Hadley Arkes that Scott recommended to me after we finished recording (amazon affiliate link)
• Answer Every Defense for Abortion: Chart & Video – STR Place Blog
• 12-year-old speaks out on the issue of abortion (Youtube video)

Get Connected

Sign up for email notifications of new episodes of Echo Zoe Radio, and follow me on Twitter, and/or Facebook! Note that if you’ve followed Echo Zoe on Twitter in the past, you are probably now actually following my personal Twitter account, and will need to re-follow @EchoZoe for the blog and podcast.

Phil has twice been a guest of Echo Zoe Radio, and I have great respect for him, both “on-air” and off. I can say that everyone I have ever had on my show has been as friendly, accommodating, and pleasant off-air as when the recorder was rolling, and Phil is no exception. I don’t have a critical word to say of him or his ministry. Add to that the fact that I am, in more secular-sounding terms, and “amateur theologian”, and have always run this site in a hobby/part-time basis, I look to Phil and others like him to do the heavy lifting within the realm of theology.

In this case, Phil is dead-on right about the reaction of the Reformed community to Rob Bell’s heretical work “Love Wins.” Rob Bell’s vision of Heaven and Hell is not an insignificant difference between otherwise orthodox believers. This is an essential issue, that must be addressed in serious terms to, at the very least, let the world know what the scriptures actually teach. Standing against Rob Bell’s heresy is exactly what Jude instructed us to do in verse three of his epistle when he commanded the church to “contend earnestly for the faith.”

The Reformed community has been fairly vocal about Bell and his book, and has been since Bell released his first Youtube video promoting the book some time before it was released. While criticism of the criticism should be expected, It’s a bit frustrating for me to see such coming from within the Reformed community. If there’s anything we can agree on, it’s that the importance of sound doctrine. Also, while watching one’s tone is important, I think the cry of contending “lovingly” is often abused and overused. There’s little that is less loving than allowing an outsider who has yet to receive salvation to think that heresy is okay, and that the differences are minor. If one does not get the person and works of Christ correct (or as Brett Kunkle put it in our episode on Mormonism: the Nature of God and the Nature of Salvation), one cannot be saved. That’s not to say one need have a Doctorate in Theology, but one cannot hold to false teaching on these very essential issues. To claim that Hell doesn’t exist, or is only temporary, as Rob Bell does, is to fail miserably in regards to Salvation/the Works of Christ.

Phil also addressed the notion that some had that too many people were weighing in on the issue. Again, Phil is right that there are no designated spokespeople for the Evangelical world, nor should there be. Often the reaction to false teaching tells the rest of us more than just that the teaching is false, it lets the rest of us know where one stands. It gives us insight into other ministries. The explanation of why a teaching is bad shows other Christians just how learned and grounded a ministry is in truth. Agreeing that just a few speak and the rest remain silent would deprive the church of this valuable insight within our own ranks.

Also, my greatest criticism of the reaction to Bell is that too many want it to be too swift. Not withstanding this post, shooting off a blog post or two addressing an issue and forgetting about it isn’t going to suffice. Unfortunately, Rob Bell has more exposure and name recognition within the greater Christian community than do the most popular Reformed personalities. Should we limit ourselves to a book review from Tim Challies or Kevin DeYoung and an article by Justin Taylor, we’ll be lobbing a few shots in a battle and hoping the enemy will cease-fire and surrender with little engagement. It’s asking our adversaries to reduce a major war to a minor skirmish by simply asking nicely, it just isn’t going to happen. To be honest, I barely recognize the name “Justin Taylor”, and I’m reformed. I know nothing about him. To expect our non-Reformed, Evangelical friends to keep up with them is asking too much. What we need is more voices in the discussion, not less.

It seems to me that as the influence of Christianity wanes in society at large, the boldness of Christians wanes as well. We’ve been too “Americanized” in that we just want to be comfortable. Engaging in the culture war is far from comfortable. Phil acknowledges the necessity of some forms of controversy, which is also uncomfortable. We don’t want to engage false teachers, and when we do we want to win a war with a Molotov Cocktail, lobbing a shot here and there to address false teaching, without seeing the battle through to the end. I tend to be overall oblivious to the world around me, and late to just about every party, but I have noticed that the complacency of many Christians has given way to “Discernment Ministries” that may be strong on doctrine, but tend to be weak on presentation. We need more of our leaders that have developed a more thoughtful approach to be engaged. Sometimes that means giving them a little time to work out a response in wisdom. I’d rather they be late to the battle if it means they are better armed to win the war.

So to summarize, I am glad that Phil Johnson has weighed in on the issue, and am in full agreement. I fear that the issue will wane in the minds of the Reformed community, and Rob Bell will see his career as a public figure survive to promote more heresy. Addressing his heresy needs to be done early, often, and for as long as it takes to prevent him from ensnaring the unsuspecting in his trap.

For this episode of Echo Zoe Radio, I’m joined by Brett Kunkle, the Student Impact Director at Stand to Reason. He has a degree in Christian education from Biola University, has worked on graduate studies at Denver Seminary, and just received a Master’s degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics at Talbot School of Theology. Brett speaks regularly at churches, conferences, and college campuses across the country. He has developed a groundbreaking approach to mission trips, creating a one-of-a-kind training experience that immerses participants in real-life apologetics, theology, and evangelism. He orchestrates interactive trips to Berkeley, California, and to various parts of Utah where participants are equipped to engage atheists, Mormons, university students, and other non-believers. The focus of our episode today is on Mormonism.

An outline of the interview is as follows:

• Stand to Reason is an organization dedicated to helping Christians understand what they believe, why they believe it, and to help articulate that graciously and intelligently to the culture around them.
• Brett began evangelizing Mormons in college and has been taking mission trips to Utah ever since.

Separating Mormonism from orthodox Christianity

• The two essential truths that one must hold properly to be within the realm of orthodoxy, and have salvation are proper views of the Person and Works of Jesus Christ; or as Brett puts it: a proper view of the Nature of God and the Nature of Salvation. We discuss some of the major differences between Mormonism and orthodox Christianity in these two areas.
  • Mormons will use a lot of the same terms that orthodox Christians use, but with redefined meaning.
    • By claiming that Mormons are Christian, they may mean one of the following:
      • Mormonism is just one denomination among many in Protestant Christianity
      • Mormonism is identical to Christianity, and Christianity is identical to Mormonism. In other words, only Mormons are Christians. This is the official teaching if the Mormon “church”.
  • Mormons believe that Jesus is a created being, literally the first-born of the Heavenly Father.
  • The Heavenly Father was once a man, like us, with a body of flesh and bone. He progressed to the point of becoming a god. He has his own “God the Father.” He lives on another planet with a mother goddess (or goddesses), who all produce spirit children, the first of which was Jesus.
    • “As Man is, God once was. As God is, Man may be.” – Lorenzo Snow
  • Mormons will affirm one god, but they will say this world has one god, though there are an unknown number of gods in existence, each over their own world. Thus Mormons are inherently polytheistic in their worldview. In addition, they also believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate beings, so even this world has three gods over it, rather than one God in three persons as the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity teaches.
  • Mormons say they believe in salvation by grace, but when pressed, grace has little to no role at all; rather they reach exultation by a process of works, and grace is added at the end to “make up the difference.” However, their religion ultimately requires perfection, so grace really never enters the picture. Brett calls this “the impossible gospel.”
• The Mormons have more works of “scripture” than orthodox Christianity.
  • The Bible. However, they only use the King James version, and have a lower view of the Bible than their other works. They will say that the Bible is true only when it is interpreted correctly (though it seems the word they should is is “transmitted” rather than “interpreted) – Article of Faith #8. They cannot point out any passage of the Bible that is not interpreted (or transmitted) correctly.
  • The Book of Mormon
  • The Pearl of Great Price
  • Doctrines and Covenants.
• We talked ever-so briefly about some of the unique believes and practices of the Mormons that Brett doesn’t emphasize heavily in his evangelism such as:
  • Abstaining from alcohol and caffeine
  • Bizarre temple rituals
  • Religious undergarments
  • Polygamy
  • Joseph Smith’s occult associations (not discussed, but much of the temple ritualism comes straight out of Freemasonry.)
• Offshoots of the main Mormon church were also discussed briefly
  • The Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (which actively practices polygamy).
  • The Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints

Getting into witnessing to Mormons

• Lead with John 17:3 “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”
• Show them that Scripture teaches that there is only one God.
• They may fall back on their view that the Bible is only true as it’s correctly translated. Brett points out that this is effectively a claim that the Bible, or parts of it at least, is not correctly translated. He points out that once someone makes a claim in a discussion/debate, it is the duty of of the one making the claim to bear the burden of proof in regards to that claim. Ask them specifically which parts of the Bible have been mistranslated.
  • A similar set of questions is to ask if they read the Bible regularly. If they say they do, ask them which mistranslated portions of the Bible they avoid.
  • Share with them what the scripture says of itself, such as Matthew 5:18 “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”
• After showing that there is only one God, show that there are three distinct and divine persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
  • Analogies of the Trinity fall short, and end up demonstrating heretical views
    • The egg (shell, yolk, and white) demonstrates Tri-Theism. The parts of the egg can be separated, but God cannot.
    • A man (father, son, and husband) and water (liquid, steam, and ice) demonstrate modalism, since the man never holds the same relationship to all people at the same time (he is never a father to everyone, etc.) and water cannot be simultaneously liquid, steam, and ice.
  • A slight modification of James White’s definition of the Trinity taken from his book “The Forgotten Trinity”: Within the one being that is God, there simultaneously exists three co-equal, co-eternal, and distinct persons; namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
• We also discuss how to deal with a Mormon when he wants to give his testimony as evidence that Mormonism is the truth.
  • If a Muslim were to pray about the Koran and Muhammed, and feels that Allah is telling him that the Koran is true and Muhammed is his prophet, is this a valid testimony?
  • Will a Mormon pray to ask if murder is wrong?
    • Of course they don’t, because the scripture says that murder is wrong. This question forces them back to scripture as the standard for truth, rather than a subjective testimony.
  • Do they know any Mormons who have been married in the temple, and later gotten divorced?
  • Acts 17:11 demonstrates that the proper response to any teaching is to search the scriptures to see if they are true.
  • 2 Thessalonians 2:11 says that God will send a strong delusion, further demonstrating that subjective experience isn’t a reliable test of truth.
• Using the “Tactical Approach.” Questions are key!
  • “What do you mean by that?” A useful question to get information out of the person you’re talking to.
  • “How did you come to that conclusion?” Helps to illustrate why people believe what they believe. Sometimes people don’t know why they hold certain beliefs, or they use faulty reasoning to come to the conclusion they do.
  • Be patient, and be willing to take time. It may take many conversations to win a Mormon to Christ.

Scriptures Referenced

• Biblical:
  • Ephesians 2:8-9
  • John 17:3
  • Isaiah 14
  • Isaiah 43:10
  • Isaiah 44:6,8
  • Matthew 5:18
  • Matthew 3
  • Matthew 26
  • Acts 17:11
  • 2 Thessalonians 2:11
• Mormon:
  • 1 Nephi 22:13
  • Doctrines & Covenants 1:30
  • 2 Nephi 25:23
  • Moroni 10:32
  • Articles of Faith #8
  • 1 Nephi 13:28
  • Moroni 10:4-5

Additional Resources

• Stand to Reason
• STR Place
• Mormonism Research Ministry
• MormonInfo.org
• Never Read a Bible Verse
• Mormonism at CARM
• The Trinity in Scripture

Recommended Books

• Mormonism 101 – Bill McKever & Eric Johnson
• The Mormon Scrapbook – Daniel Thompson
• An Embassador’s Guide to Mormonism – Brett Kunkle (Available late summer or fall of 2011 at str.org)
• The Forgotten Trinity – James White
• Letters to a Mormon Elder – James White
• Is the Mormon My Brother? – James White
• Kingdom of the Cults – Walter Martin
• Out of Mormonism – Judy Robertson
• Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons – Ron Rhodes & Marian Bodine
• Fast Facts on Mormonism – John Ankerberg & John Weldon
• Fast Facts on False Teachings – Ron Carlson & Ed Decker
• The God Makers – Ed Decker & Dave Hunt

Get Connected

Sign up for email notifications of new episodes of Echo Zoe Radio, and follow me on Twitter, and/or Facebook!

An outline of the interview is as follows:

• Phil explained Sola Fide, or “Faith Alone,” as a respones to Roman Catholic doctrine, which blends justification and sanctification, and enslaves followers in a system of works-righteousness. Sola Fide declares that justification comes by faith alone, and is a one-time, instantaneous event, not an ongoing process.
• Sacerdotalism and its relation to Sola Fide. Sacerdotalism is a sort of “priest-craft” that places a human mediator between man and Christ.
• James 2:17 is often used to challenge Sola Fide, and to argue that works are important. We discuss the context of this verse, and the response to those to who would use it to challenge Sola Fide.
• Legalism vs. Antinomianism. Paul’s writings often challenge legalism, whereas James’ epistle refutes antinomianism. While legalism and antinomianism or commonly seen as opposite extremes, this isn’t always the case, Phil often sees the two working together, hand-in-hand.
• We discuss “The New Perspective on Paul,” an attempt to make Paul’s teaching more politically correct, shifting the question away from one’s standing before God and toward the question of who is a member of the Covenant Community.
• We discuss the relationship between the Doctrine of Election and Sola Fide. This led to a short discussion about the nature of faith itself, and the beliefs of Arminianism, Palagianism, and Semi-Palagianism.
• The failure to see the distinction between justification and sanctification leads to Roman Catholic works-righteousness. The Lutheran phrase (in Latin) is Simil Iustus et Peccator, or “simultaneously justified and sinful.” Justification is not a process, but a legal standing before God, whereas sanctification is a process, the working out of our salvation. It is the process of bringing our state of being into alignment with the legal standing that has been given to us in Christ. Phil uses the analogy of marriage: Justification is like the pronouncement of marriage by the minister at the ceremony, whereas sanctification is analogous to the rest of the lives of the bride and groom, living out their marriage. Roman Catholics had to invent purgatory to explain how someone who dies in a state of imperfection can still be saved because of this failure to distinguish between justification and sanctification.
• We are sanctified by faith, but not by faith alone, at least not in the same sense that we are justified by faith alone. The Arminian and Palagian misunderstanding of justification leads to a doctrine of perfectionism, which makes justification a process and sanctification an instantaneous event, rather than the other way around.
• Every false cult and man-made religion, in some way, involves a denial of the doctrine of Sola Fide.
• Rob Bell’s denial of Hell, and quasi-universalism theatens the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone (Sola Fide) because he declares that faith in Jesus Christ isn’t ultimately necessary at all for salvation.
• I asked Phil to relate to relate Sola Fide to the other four Solas. They all tie together naturally, but he believes Sola Fide to be the most important to understand, along with Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide were known as the formal and the material principles of the Reformation, respectively. Sola Scriptura being the basis by which the rest of the Solas were derived.

Scriptures Referrenced

• Romans 4:4-5
• Romans 5:1
• Romans 7 (in regards to Paul’s struggle with sin)
• Romans 8:1
• Galatians (in regards to Paul preaching against a different Gospel)
• Galatians 1:8-9
• Philippians 3
• James 2:14-20

Additional Resources

• Jesus’ Perspective on Sola Fide by John MacArthur
• Are We Justified By Faith Alone? – What Still Divides Us: A Protestant & Roman Catholic Debate by Michael S. Horton
• Why is sola fide important? – gotquestions.org
• Sola Fide links at monergism.com
• Living Out Sola Fide (video) – Dr. James White
• Sola Fide – R.C. Sproul
  Session 11 from Evangelism According to Jesus: 2008 National Conference
• Simul Iustus et Peccator – by Kelly Kapic
• Simul Iustus et Peccator – Monergism.com

Purchase CD

This episode of Echo Zoe Radio is available on CD. Proceeds from your purchase are used to support ongoing expenses of Echo Zoe Ministries.

Get Connected

To sign up for email notifications of new episodes of Echo Zoe Radio, visit http://www.echozoe.com/archives/2292

Also, you can follow me on Twitter, and/or Facebook!