Sunday, November 22, 2009

Truthbomb Apologetics: Resurrection Research Links


Here is a great resource listing books, audio, and video regarding why it is tenable to believe that Jesus Christ really rose from the dead and that tomb was empty Easter morning.

Truthbomb Apologetics: Resurrection Research Links
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Who Forgive Sin?


Here is Mariano's next part of his series on the Trinity just hit the Atheism is Dead blog. This time the question being evaluated is "Who Forgives Sin?" Most people would agree that only God has the right to forgive sin, therefore if someone is in scripture can be shown forgiving sin, He is God. Thereby showing the Trinity. You can see the list of scriptures showing that Father and Son have the right to forgive sin.


Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Who Forgive Sin?
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Apologetics 315: Sunday Quote: C. Stephen Evans on the God Question

 Here is another great quote from the Apologetics 315 blog. Thanks, Brian.

"The question about God is not merely a question about another entity but a question about the character of the universe as a whole. The rejection of the cosmological argument implicitly carries with it a commitment to a rival metaphysical view, such as pantheism or naturalism. Ultimately, the question is not, 'Can God's existence be proved?' but 'Which metaphysical view is most plausible?'"

- C. Stephen Evans

Apologetics 315: Sunday Quote: C. Stephen Evans on the God Question
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Responding to True Paradigm: Corporate versus individual election

the_bibleImage by Brent Nelson via Flickr
Now this is what I'm talking about. Brennon posted an exegesis on Romans 9 and I posted a response, and now bethyada has posted a response. bethyada and I have gone back and forth a little bit in comment, but I thought that it would help to respond to his latest response giving it the space and time it deserves. My words are in red. Please read the above links with comments to follow what has been said already. The issues I have been discussing with bethyada and Brennon are important and will affect how one sees God, witness, and live but neither position make one more pleasing to God or  less saved.

Hi Marcus. What we mean by freewill is not complete absolute freedom to do absolutely anything, it means the ability to make choices that are ours.

I agree that free will means that we are able to make choices that ours that we are responsible for. MY argument is that left to ourselves the only choices we can make are disobedient to God.

We are best to make them in line with God's will and God may aid us in this, but we can make decisions, at least some of the time, against what God wills for us. That is we can choose to disobey God even while God wills us to obey him. And that choice is ours, it is not some second will of God's. Essentially freewill says that exhaustive determinism is not true.

I also agree that God holds us accountable for our acts of disobedience and evil because we are responsible we disobey because we want to disobey not because God makes us disobey. The question is - is the opposite true - can we obey God without God helping us and prompting us? Since no one does good and all sin and no one measures up - I have to answer "no". Romans 3:23

This does not mean we act completely without God. For Christians much of what we do is with God's help, he strengthens our spirit to do what we know is right, even while our flesh entices us otherwise. But we still have the choice to align our behaviour with what the Spirit is doing in us, or not.

Where does the Bible say we have the choice to obey or not to obey. The Bible tells us its a choice to obey and we do choose. If there is such thing as free will as Brennon and bethyada have defined it, then we can choose to go to Christ without God doing anything but on our own. John 6:44 disagrees.

Next, the inability to do good does not mean we are determined by God. If we were determined by God then we will be doing good. Rather one is choosing various wrongs. Hebrews 11? Are you referring to verse 6? I don't know how you are reading this. I don't see pleasing God as exactly the same as doing good. And claims about no one doing good I read as doing everything good. Of course people do some good. And all good done by everyone is with God's help. Unbelievers do some good things which we can trace to God's workings in this world.

Not everyone is determined by God to do good. It's a gift. Not everyone gets it. I was referring to Hebrews 11:6...it's impossible to please God without faith.  If an unbeliever does good...it is inadvertent. They aren't trying to please God  and don't even realize that God gets the credit. God even uses the evil that people do to bless His people and carry on his purpose.  Think of Joseph's brothers...what they meant for evil God intended for good!

Acts 17 does say that God does a lot. But freewill does not say God does nothing. God does heaps! But identifying many things God does is not proving we have no will and I am an automaton. Romans 1 shows we make choices.

I surely would not argue that any born-again Christian, as I know Brennon and bethyada are, could be described as an automaton. Romans 1 does say we make choices, Romans 9 shows that aside from the power of God there is no other choice a sinner can make.

God does work on the corporate level and the individual level. But these are categorically distinct.

God doesn't leave man to himself. He works on men's hearts but still lets them make the choice whether or not they wish to join his kingdom.

How can we say that God works on our heart and then say that we can choose to join the kingdom. Jesus told his disciples "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." John 15:16  Do we really think the same is not true for us?  bethyada must be saying that if a person can choose to join the kingdom then we can get choose to leave it if we decide, right? I don't know if that is what bethyada is saying but it seems the  logical conclusion.

You are pushing freewill to far. It seems that you see the 2 options as

1. God controlling absolutely everything including our thoughts and actions (exhaustive determinism)

2. God doing nothing and humans being able to make any decision and do anything.

But a denial of 1 does not entail 2.

I admit being told that I push free will too far is funny to me, given that I am arguing that God has true completely free will and we as humans don't. A synergistic gospel seems to deny Ephesian 2:8-10

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

We have several scriptural examples of how God sent one nation to judge and punish Israel and then God judge and punished the nations whom God sicced on Israel in the first place. God judged the nations because of their heart. In our churches we don't talk about Habbakuk much be we should because it covers this very issue.

True Paradigm: Corporate versus individual election
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

YouTube - Debunking William Lane Craig

William Lane CraigImage via Wikipedia
Um, where is the "A" material? I was expecting something hardcore that would make me sit up and notice. The video's argument basically is that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroy therefore God could not have created the universe out of nothing. It further asserts that the Quantum Wave function of the universe points to high probability that the universe formed uncaused.

Here are my problems:
1. There is a distinct presupposition that there can be no supernatural explanation and that the laws of matter/energy conservation have always held. He offers no proof.
2. Current science does point to the universe sprang out of nothing, leading to two possible explanations: multiple universes with all possible physical constants and laws being present and actualized in each universe, or one universe in which someone set everything up for life and reality as we know it. Take your pick? Which one is more plausible?
3. The arguments concerning the quantum wave function was too much hand-waving. I took a year of Quantum Mechanic at UC Berkeley and I would have rather have seen some equations showing how he is getting numbers of his probabilities for the universe springing forth uncaused.

William Lane Craig is far from debunked...insulted maybe....but not beaten by any stretch of the imagination.






YouTube - Debunking William Lane Craig

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]