Regarding Brennon's Thoughts: More with Marcus

Image via Wikipedia

Brennon has been kind enough to respond to my post and continuing the discussion. I appreciate his time and and kindness in discussing these matters with me. I'm responding to his post in red font and leaving his in black. He was kind enough to italicize the text I wrote previously  that he is responding to.

Continuing in my discussion with Marcus, he responds to my contention that John 12:32 clearly says that Jesus will draw all to Himself: John 12:32 says "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” Jesus is not saying that all men - every single person is drawn to Jesus - all kinds of people are.This particular translations makes it clear - "all peoples". Brennon, you are definitely right that we do indeed agree that not everyone is drawn at the same intensity or even at the same time, but no one gets saved without that drawing.

The translation he used is one of my favorites, the NKJV. However, I think this translation falls short of capturing what this verse is saying. Most other translations say, "all men" and not "all peoples". In looking at the original Greek, you will see that that phrase is added in by the translators for clarity (as seen here). Thus, the verse would actually literally read "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to Myself." Translating this to read this as a drawing of all kinds of people or something like that is showing a prior theological bent, because the Greek reading is just "all". You are correct, Marcus, that no one is saved without the drawing of Christ, but that is not what is being debated. We both agree on that.

Brennon, the fact that we agree on that no one can be saved unless they are drawn was brought up by me in the previous post because I wanted to be clear that I know you agree. I'm sorry if I made it sound like you did not know that. I recognize that you do. As for the meaning of John 12:32, I think the context of Jesus' words tells us the scope of who is going to be drawn when Jesus is lifted up. Let's examine verses 20-36

²⁰Now there were some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the Feast. ²¹They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, with a request. "Sir," they said, "we would like to see Jesus." ²²Philip went to tell Andrew; Andrew and Philip in turn told Jesus.
 ²³Jesus replied, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. ²⁴I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. ²⁵The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. ²⁶Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.
 ²⁷"Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. ²⁸Father, glorify your name!"
   Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it again." ²⁹The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.
 ³⁰Jesus said, "This voice was for your benefit, not mine. ³¹Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. ³²But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." ³³He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.
 ³⁴The crowd spoke up, "We have heard from the Law that the Christ will remain forever, so how can you say, 'The Son of Man must be lifted up'? Who is this 'Son of Man'?"
 ³⁵Then Jesus told them, "You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going. ³⁶Put your trust in the light while you have it, so that you may become sons of light." When he had finished speaking, Jesus left and hid himself from them.

We see the passage begins with Greeks seeking an audience with Jesus - people whom many Jews thought were outside of the promises of God. I think a real telling thing is that God spoke from heaven but not everyone heard a voice. Some only heard thunder. Jesus said that the voice was for "your benefit" and he could have only been addressing the people who heard a voice and not thunder. The people who heard the voice were being drawn and the voice was not for the benefit of those who did not hear it. It's at that point we get verse 32, therefore I can't see how we can conclude that Jesus is saying that every individual is being drawn.


We also agree that people frustates the desires of God to come to him. We don't want God. We don't look for Him. We never will if God does not initiate the relationship

Marcus, this isn't really the case. In Calvinism, God has chosen a select few to bestow His grace on. When He does this, this grace is irresistible, in that it is outside the capability of the will of man to resist this. Man cannot frustrate the purpose of God in drawing them irresistibly. This is what a major portion of this debate boils down to; is God's grace such that it can be resisted or not? We both agree that it is necessary. I have displayed clear passages of man resisting the Holy Spirit and frustrating the desire of God. This is because God allows this measure of freedom so He might have a genuine love relationship with His creatures.

When I said that people frustrate the desires of God to come to him, I was referring to everyone before they get the call and respond. Calvinism agrees with that. If I understand, you are saying that it is outside the capability  of the will of man to come to Jesus, but you disagree that the call is irresistible. The thing is that something must happen to allow us to come to Jesus if by default we are incapable of doing it on our own. I don't think proving that people resisting and frustrating the desire of God by not repenting disproves the "I" in TULIP - Irresistible Grace because in those situations the people have not had that grace applied to them and is in their unregenerate state.
 

Regarding Acts 13:46 - what else can an unregenerate man do but reject Jesus?

This is the point though. It's clear that Stephen recognized the work of the Holy Spirit in these people's lives. They were resisting the teaching and drawing of the Holy Spirit in the teachings of Stephen. Thus, the work of the Holy Spirit can be resisted by men.



All men are called to repentance and we who are saved were once one of them who refused to repent. What happens that causes us to stop resisting and surrender? It can't be our free will because, as you agree, we can't do it. We are unable. So how does it happen?

I admit that I don't read Greek, nor can I use the grammar well but I don't see any difference between the two definitions. I mean to put something in place or to arrange something really isn't different firom fixing or determining or appointing with regards to that which is being τάσσω.

Arminians believe that God must put in place the ability to believe in the gospel. He arranges circumstances for people to hear the gospel and respond. The work of the Holy Spirit on the heart is also arranging for a person to believe. This is all very similar to what the Calvinist believes except we contend that it is not an irresistible work. God allows a person to resist if they choose. If they cease resisting, He will complete the transformation, regenerating their heart. If we are to say that God "fixes" or "determines" a time for an individual to believe, then it is an irresistible and predetermined act and impossible to see where the responsibility of man lies.

This is exactly my point. We cannot come to God on our own until God places the ability in us - yet we are held responsible because as you agree, we are all hell bound by default. Therefore, it doesn't change man's responsibility if the the grace to repent is irresistible.  

I think scripture plainly gives complete credit four our accepting the call to repentance and our rejection as own fault. I don't see how they shut the door because the door was shut for them in the first place.

I'm not sure what you're saying here completely. As for the door shutting, Acts 13:46 says, "Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, 'It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.'" They rejected it. They judged themselves unworthy of eternal life. It's clear that the offer was open and genuine and able to be accepted by these people, but they thrust the gospel from themselves. It wasn't withheld by God, it was pushed away by men.



I would not say that Calvinism is saying that God withholds the grace from some and gives it to others because those who have not been regenerated hate God and does not want the grace in the first place. No one who wants the grace of God will ever be denied. But no one wants salvation without that grace in the first place. They have no other choice but to reject the gospel.

I also think that James White deserves more credit than what you have stated.

I will confess I'm not a big fan of James White, nor of Steve Gregg. I'm sure they're both brothers in the Lord, but I disagree with the tactics of the former and the latter I don't really know that much about.

I think you may look at Steve Gregg's debate with White and then tell me what tactics of White's you disagree with. I think he was fair and gracious. Brennon are you familiar with the work of George Bryson? Do you think he accurately represent your views?

You have articulated the salvation process as I would have about 10 years ago. What changed my mind was the realization that all people are hell bound as a default.

But Marcus, I agree that people are hell bound by default.

The fact that you agree is why I am so interested in talking to you. It was my understanding that Arminians did not agree with the fact that all people are hell bound by default. Does this mean that you agree with the "T" in TULIP - Total depravity of man? Not all who call themselves "Armininan" would agree. I don't remember who it was but in a debate he said that no one is so dead in sin that they can't accept the gospel of their own free will.

It's not up in the air, until a person makes a decision - from the time you are born and accountable for your sins (we'll skip the babies, young children, and mientally handicapped for now) you, me, all people deserve hell. And the understanding that no one can be saved unless they are drawn

This isn't a point of disagreement between us. We agree here.







This is why our interaction interest me so much, Brennon, because people, claiming to be Arminians, have rejected this point. These are the people with whom James White often finds himself in opposition. And I understand that we agree..
 
If I understand you, you are saying that God tweaks a person just enough so that they can make a free decision.

Then you haven't understood me Marcus. I have tried to make crystal clear that the grace of God is completely necessary in every aspect of salvation. It is God alone who works on our heart, drawing and calling us for salvation. It is God's work alone that saves. Our only command is to stop resisting and put our faith in Jesus for our salvation.

I'm confused I thought I stated the same thing you said about your viewpoint. How is it different?

As Arminius writes:

In reference to Divine Grace, I believe, 1. It is a gratuitous affection by which God is kindly affected towards a miserable sinner, and according to which he, in the first place, gives his Son, "that whosoever believers in him might have eternal life," and, afterwards, he justifies him in Christ Jesus and for his sake, and adopts him into the right of sons, unto salvation. 2. It is an infusion (both into the human understanding and into the will and affections,) of all those gifts of the Holy Spirit which appertain to the regeneration and renewing of man -- such as faith, hope, charity, &c.; for, without these gracious gifts, man is not sufficient to think, will, or do any thing that is good. 3. It is that perpetual assistance and continued aid of the Holy Spirit, according to which He acts upon and excites to good the man who has been already renewed, by infusing into him salutary cogitations, and by inspiring him with good desires, that he may thus actually will whatever is good; and according to which God may then will and work together with man, that man may perform whatever he wills.

In this manner, I ascribe to grace the commencement, the continuance and the consummation of all good, and to such an extent do I carry its influence, that a man, though already regenerate, can neither conceive, will, nor do any good at all, nor resist any evil temptation, without this preventing and exciting, this following and co-operating grace.¹(emphasis mine)

Thanks for quoting Arminius directly. I largely agree with the statement except I'm wondering about this part:

It is that perpetual assistance and continued aid of the Holy Spirit, according to which He acts upon and excites to good the man who has been already renewed,

That sounds like he is saying that the Holy Spirit is acting on one who has been renewed so that he/she can do good. It seems like he recognized that by default no one is good. However the quote does not answer the question: How is it that people miss Jesus. We agree that we only find Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit. But this quote does not deal with those who miss it.

He also said:

"Concerning grace and free will, this is what I teach according to the Scriptures and orthodox consent: Free will is unable to begin or to perfect any true and spiritual good, without grace. . .I confess that the mind of a natural and carnal man is obscure and dark, that his affections are corrupt and inordinate, that his will is stubborn and disobedient, and that the man himself is dead in sins. And I add to this -- that teacher obtains my highest approbation who ascribes as much as possible to divine grace, provided he so pleads the cause of grace, as not to inflict an injury on the justice of God, and not to take away the free will to that which is evil.²

I agree with that completely. Man is never able in his natural state to do any true spiritual good. This is why God is the one who seeks us. It's not just a "nudge," Marcus. He is imploring us to come to Him.

By "nudge", I meant that God has to put the ability in us so that we can positively respond. I see by the quote that Arminius believed that our free will to choose God is important but without the ability given to us, we can't come. Imploring does not make any difference if we are unable to come...and you agree that by default, we can't come. I use the word, "nudge" to describe your view because I thought that you were saying God gives you the ability to believe but  the person must choose to believe or not to believe. What messes me up is the fact that all reject the work of the Holy Spirit by default. You have stated that God gives us the ability to choose to serve him, but I think you are also saying that he gives people who choose not believe the same ability to choose. Right?

However, if God has to and does nudge you just enough so that you can says yes (and you would not say yes otherwise) why doesn't he nudge everyone so that they say yes and no one has to go hell?

Because some resist this calling. He calls all but not all respond.

Brennon, can you give me a list of scriptures that believe shows that God is calling everyone? I mean we agree that all don't respond, but do all have the ability to respond? By default...no.

Okay. The problem is we know that by default no one has faith.

It's not a problem though, Marcus. I agree with you on this.

Great!

What is it that make a person say "Yes" after by definition they said "No,"?

In this question you're assuming that something must make us choose something. That is begging the question.

You agreed with me that something does make us choose because apart from God's grace we can't choose. No one gets to not choose.

Scripture says that they say "No" because it is the only choice they can make. (Romans 8:5-8; Hebrews 11:6)

That passage from Romans are dealing with man in his natural state. If God shows His grace to someone, they can exercise faith.

So are you saying that God does not show His grace to everyone?

Calvinism does not explain why the elect are chosen other than that God wanted to do

I didn't say it does. But in being chosen by God from eternity past, you are automatically better than the non-chosen pagan.

Sorry, I disagree. The Bible clearly says that it's not because we are better. 1 Corinthians 1: 25-27

²⁵For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
 ²⁶Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. ²⁷But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

No. Scripture says that it is God causing us to accept God

Actually scripture only affirms that God enables us to come to Him.

Where?

Matthew 11:27 does not say that Jesus chooses to reveal the Father to everyone either

Jesus says He chooses who to reveal the Father to, and then says "come to Me ALL you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." This is Jesus extending the gospel to anyone who will respond, not just a select few. This is widening the gospel call, not restricting it.

Jesus knows that not all can respond unless they are drawn by the Father. We also know that only those can come. Are you saying that God gives the ability to everyone? Where?

How can you say that God does not cause us to enter into union with Christ in that we can't go unless He enables us to do so?

Enabling someone to do something doesn't mean they will necessarily do it.

I agree but we are back to the question: Does God enable everyone?

I admire William Lane Craig (WLC) but I have to disagree with him on this, partly. He rejects that we are hostile to God prior to conversion.

He absolutely does not, Marcus. On page 46 of the third edition of Reasonable Faith, Craig writes, "Here the Holy Spirit's ministry is threefold: he convicts the unbeliever of his own sin, of God's righteousness, and of his condemnation before God...This is the way it has to be. For if it weren't for the work of the Holy Spirit, no one would ever become a Christian" (emphasis his).³ He goes on to affirm that natural man does not seek God in the next sentence, quoting from Romans. You can read the page online here.

I stand corrected. Thanks, Brennon. I misunderstood Dr. Craig. 

His theology does not address this problem. Your's attempts to but tries to hold on to libertarian free will.

I have the suspicion, Marcus, that you're taking someone's second hand word for this, as I have just shown that Craig does deal with this. His and my position are virtually identical on this point.

What happened was I misunderstood Craig's refutation of Calvinism. He places a lot of emphasis on human free will in my opinion.

The truth is if it's going to keep my butt out of hell, I'll be God's puppet but I think it's way more complicated then that

The problem that arises from this kind of determinism is God as the author of sin.

I disagree. God is not the author of sin. But you have to admit that He allowed sin to become actualized and He didn't have to. Our sins are own faults and we are held accountable outside of Christ. Brennon, do you believe that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross covers those who reject Christ?

Um, but that is what Paul wrote.

No, Paul did not write God chose us to be in Christ. He wrote that He chose us in Christ.

I don't really understand the distinction you are making because no one is in Christ unless they are chosen. God has to give you the ability. I'd like to get some more scripture from you to understand if you believe that God gives the same ability, in equal measure, to everyone?

Sorry this response took so long. I have been busy lately. God bless you, brother.

Thanks for response! I really appreciate it! I'm glad God saved you and that you are going to heaven and deepening your relationship with the One who made us all. I look forward to more interaction on this!


Brennon's Thoughts: More with Marcus

Atheism is Dead: VIDEO: Richard Dawkins Exhibiting Neo-Paganism-Atheism, Childhood Rejection of God, Self-Professed Erudition and Lots of Stuff He Knows Nothing About

Richard Dawkins via last.fm

Here is a must see article from Mariano. He provides a video interview of Richard Dawkins and then interacts with it showing what happens if you really think about what the man is saying. Take a look at another brilliant piece of writing.

Atheism is Dead: VIDEO: Richard Dawkins Exhibiting Neo-Paganism-Atheism, Childhood Rejection of God, Self-Professed Erudition and Lots of Stuff He Knows Nothing About

Atheism is Dead: Conan Versus Jesus

Mariano, has written a short post showing the differences between world view and philosophy shown in Conan and what Jesus said. The quotes deal with the meaning of life. Unfortunately the philosophy of our society seems to line up more with Conan's than with Jesus.


Atheism is Dead: Conan Versus Jesus

Truthbomb Apologetics: Reasonable Faith Podcast: How are Morals Objectively Grounded in God?

Image via Wikipedia

Here is a timely post from Chad over at Truthbomb Apologetics. He posted some links to great resources on the addressing the question about whether or not morals are truly object and grounded in God. This is a must see! I mean this is an issue that believers and unbelievers must wrestle with and come to a decision. The resources are two audios by William Lane Craig and an article by Greg Koukl. Thanks, Chad.

Truthbomb Apologetics: Reasonable Faith Podcast: How are Morals Objectively Grounded in God?

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : A Consideration of Anti-Trinitarian Views, part 1 of 2

Image via Wikipedia

Mariano is changing the focus of his series of articles  regarding the Trinity. He has a two-part essay discussing objections to the Trinity and why they don't hold. In this first part he tackles Judaism and Mormonism. Read his masterpiece at the link below.

Many people don't realize that there is Old Testament references to Jesus and therefore the Trinity. Mariano's series on the Trinity is most certainly a great place to begin your study of such a thing. Also I would recommend the music of Hazakim. In the song posted below...they summarize why Christians believe you can see the Trinity in the Old Testament.




Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : A Consideration of Anti-Trinitarian Views, part 1 of 2

Apologetics 315: Walter Martin MP3 Audio: Reasons for Faith

Brian has posted a great lecture from Dr. Walter Martin.  It's awesome. He defends the historicity of Jesus and how you can trust the reliability of the Bible.  This is a must-hear. 

Apologetics 315: Walter Martin MP3 Audio: Reasons for Faith

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: "This Generation" changed by the Watchtower...yet again

Mike Felker has posted a very important article on his Apologetic Front blog regarding how the Jehovah Witnesses' WatchTower publication has changed over the years it's teaching on Jesus' discourse when He used the term "this generation". This post directly is related to our discussion on eschatology and Matthew 24. To be sure Mike and I agree that we disagree on Jehovah Witness teaching. Take a look at his post.

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: "This Generation" changed by the Watchtower...yet again

NCOTB

This is how a press conference should run!

NCOTB

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Shroud of Turin

Image via Wikipedia

Dr. Claude Mariottini has done it again - upsetting my little apple cart! Thanks! In this post, he pointed out research showing that a 1st Century AD shroud burial has been excavated in Jerusalem. This is big! For the first time we have to Jesus' life and burial artifact to compare the Shroud of Turin to. I had rejected the Turin shroud to be a fake because there was no evidence of the practice of burying people in shrouds existed in Jerusalem. Now that one has been found I have to rethink my position as this artifact is studied and compared to the Shroud of Turin. Boy is my face red. Oh well, gotta follow the truth where ever it leads.
Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Shroud of Turin

The 10 Most Puzzling Ancient Artifacts

Here is a list of 10 artifact that have been discovered that have yet to have a sound explanation. All of them are interesting. The one I would like to point out most are the "impossible fossils". They aren't mentioned much and have never been explained as far as I know. However the available data does not match the theory of evolution. Explanations please!


The 10 Most Puzzling Ancient Artifacts

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Birthplace of Emperor Vespasian

Dr. Claude Mariottini has posted a very interesting blog post pointing to information that an archaeological dig has unearthed the birth place of the nineh Roman Emperor, Vespasian. This is exciting for many historical reasons.

1. This is the emperor who presided over the destruction of  Herod's Temple, Jerusalem and the events at Masada.
2. These events are clearly described in the historical accounts of Roman sources and Josephus
3. Jesus prophesied the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 about 40 years before it happened.
4. Provides another touchstone validatying the historical record.

Check out the link below to see Dr. Mariottini article on his blog.


Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Birthplace of Emperor Vespasian

WonderCon 2010 :: Registration

Image via Wikipedia

WonderCon 2010 is now open for Registration. I think this year I am going Friday and Saturday!

WonderCon 2010 :: Registration

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : The Many gods of the Bible

Image via Wikipedia

Mariano has posted another article in his series of articles regading the Trinity. He obliterated the notion that Bible says that there are multiple God in the same sense that YHWH, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is God. Here is his introduction - says it all!

This summary of scriptures relevant to the biblical statements of there being many gods will be followed by the actual quotations:

Exodus 7:1; 2nd Corinthians 4:1; Deuteronomy 32:36-39; Psalm 82:6-7; Psalm 86:8-10; Isaiah: 41:23-24, 29; Galatians 4:8; 1st Corinthians 8:5

The Hebrew word elohim is translated God, god, goddess, judge, great, mighty. Therefore, it is utterly inappropriate to read the word gods in the Bible and build a doctrine that makes humans little or lesser gods or that being, humans or demonic, described as gods are somehow ontologically—in origin, nature or essence—divine.
When Moses, judges, idols, false prophets and satan are said to be a god and when, for instance, Jesus is referred to as God the difference is that Moses, judges, idols, false prophets and satan, unlike Jesus, are never referred to as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, creator, etc.

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : The Many gods of the Bible

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Addressing a response to my Matthew 24 Challenge

My brother-in-Christ, Mike Felker issued a challenge to defend a future fulfillment for Matthew 24. I wrote a response and he was kind enough to write a response to my post with a great deal of respect and tact. A link to it appears at the end of the this post. I want to respond to his post. His words will be in red and mine will be in black.

I want to thank Marcus for taking the time to write his blog and address my challenge. I think these conversations are important to have, as long as they are done with respect. I consider Marcus to be my brother in Christ and would never see an issue like this as a reason to divide from him and i'm sure he feels the same way. And if he, or anyone else, would like to respond, i'd be very interested in reading other views.

Ditto. I love ya, man.

It seems to me that Mike's response can be grouped into three areas: 1. the actual question the disciples asked Jesus; 2. the sign of that "abomination that causes desolation"; 3. the meaning of "the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory."

1. Mike wrote

The first problem I see is that I don't find "when will the end of the world happen" anywhere in the text. Instead, the verse reads, "what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?" This is significant because the disciples did not say, "when will be the end of the world?" If they did, then kosmos would have been more appropriately used by Jesus. However, I will admit that "world" is used by some Bible translations to translate aion, but "age" seems to be more of a reasonable translation in light of the context. And since the context is what is in question, it would suffice to engage Marcus' primary point to establish whether "world" would be an appropriate translation. And this would inevitably lead to a future fulfillment of Matthew 24.

The verse in question is Matthew 24:3. I have looked it up in 5 translations and two out of three of them use the word "world". I agree that Jesus did not use the word kosmos - the word used is aion. I think "age" is the correct rendering...but what "age" is being discussed? I didn't discuss this in my first post because it never occurred to me that not all my brothers saw the "end of the age" as "end of the world". Let's look at the context. In verse 2 Jesus tells all listening that the temple was going to be destroyed. I think Mike and I agree that Jesus meant that the temple destruction being at a different time than His coming and the end of the age. Therefore I don't think AD 70 can fulfills the entire prophecy Jesus gave in Matthew 24. If the disciples thought that his coming and the destruction of the temple were near simultaneous events then it appears to me that the ask the same thing twice and that does not seem reasonable to me. So I ask what did the disciples thought was ending? Israel as a sovereign nation? No, i think they meant the point at which Jesus would set up his kingdom and take control.

2. Mike Wrote

In addition, Jesus changed the subject from the worldwide preaching of the gospel to the abomination that will make the temple "desolate." In referring back to Daniel 9:27, 11:31 and 12:11, Jesus draws on these themes to speak of something that would be set up in the temple at the time of the destruction. Whatever this was, it would be the thing that makes the temple "desolate," as Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:20 explicitly affirm.

But what was this "abomination?" Clearly, Jesus is making a dual fulfillment application of the Daniel passages. That is, Daniel 12:11 seems to be fulfilled in part when Antiochus Ephiphanes set up a pagan altar in the temple in 168 B.C. And the fact that Jesus speaks of this type of abomination as a future thing implies that Daniel 12:11 had not been completely fulfilled. This is important in considering Marcus' view because whatever it was that "desolated" the temple, it had to be of the same type as the ancient context. That is, unless it can be demonstrated that Jesus was speaking of something of a different type, which is what Marcus seems to be implying, then my view seems to be more reasonable because every Jew knew the story: Antiochus Ephiphanes rendered the temple unclean with his erecting a pagan statue. And there is nothing in the Daniel account or the Olivet discourse that explicitly affirms that the "abomination" is some sort of "anti-Christ" figure. Maybe it is, or maybe it isn't. But whatever it is, we can only go by what the text is trying to describe; namely, that something is going to desecrate the temple in such as way that Antiochus' profanations will only pale in comparison. In other words, I don't see that Marcus' view is more reasonable than a 70 A.D. fulfillment.

I totally agree that Jesus was referring to Antiochus Ephiphanes and making a parallel. However during the Jewish War (c 70 AD) there had been no idol set up in the Temple. It only almost happened then. I totality agree that we don't know really know what the "abomination" is and i don't think the Left Behind series has truth I wanna base my life one but i don't think the events of 70 AD completely fulfill the prophesy. Some of it like this part I think speaks to 70 AD and the future.

3. The discussion where Mike explains how you can see that Jesus' coming could be explained as happening in AD 70 really didn't move me. If I understand correctly, Mike is arguing that the "Son of Man coming on clouds" breferes to judgement and punishing Israel. He points out that there are many Old Testament passages including Jesus later on using the langauge to say He will be vindicated. Thing is, the destruction of Jerusalem did not make Jews who denied Jesus embrace Jesus. The Roman went on like nothing happened. For them, it was another day at the office. I just don't see how Jesus coming on clouds "with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other." can be found fulfilled in AD 70.

As for

Here, Marcus describes Matthew 24:30-31 as something that could not have happened in 70 A.D. But unless i'm mistaken here, I believe that Matthew 24:34 provides me with justification in interpreting these verses within the context of the first century:

"Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."

What generation could Jesus have been speaking of other than the disciples? Therefore, "all these things," or everything that Jesus mentioned, including the "Son of man coming on the clouds of the sky, etc." took place in the events leading up to the destruction in 70 A.D. And though I realize how unlikely it may seem to the modern, western mind, I believe this view is entirely justifiable and far more reasonable than the futurist view.

I think you have a point but "this generation" is translated by some as "this race" as in the human race.
Mike, this is a lot fun and helps me a great deal! I hope youj will respond and specifically asnwer the question how you see Jesus' return on clouds with power and great glory as being fulfilled in 70 AD? Thanks again.


THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Addressing a response to my Matthew 24 Challenge

Debate: James White vs Tim Staples - Debating Purgatory

Image via Wikipedia

On Thursday, January 28, 2010, James White debated Tim Staples on the Dividing Line web cast on the question "Does 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 support the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory?" Staples claims that it does. James White says no. The debate had the following format:

15 minute opening statements (Tim gets to go first)
8 minutes rebuttals
5 minutes cross examination each
8 minute closing statements
Then, they took phone calls for just under 20 minute

I think White did a great job showing that it does not work. Here is what 1st Corinthians 3:10-15:

¹⁰By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. ¹¹For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. ¹²If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, ¹³his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. ¹⁴If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. ¹⁵If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

I think the exchange tells us a lot. The thing that amazed me was Staples arguing that the teaching of Purgatory has not changed in 2000 years! I thought: WHAT???? Then he claimed that purgatory is not a place people go when they die it is the judgement of our lives and he read a quote from the current Pope to back him up. I know during the Reformation - 500 years ago - the Roman Catholic church taught that purgatory was a place where people go to get rid of sins they could not get rid of while they lived. They even taught that if you paid the church - indulgences - one could pay their way and loved ones out of purgatory! If Staples is correct as to what the Roman Catholics teachesd about what purgatory is - then it has changed. You can't claim a 2000-year unbroken tradition, and then ignore what used to be taught. Go ahead and follow the link below to hear the exchange.

I also think that I must comment that his discussion was vastly different than White's discussion with Michael Brown earlier in the week. Staples as mean and kept talking like any intelligent person could see that he was right and White was wrong.  I'm always amazed at how patient James White can be. 

1 Corinthians 3 and Tim Staples on Today's Dividing Line

Atheism is Dead: One Century After Her Birth, Mother Teresa is Still Inspiring…Vile Hatred

Image via Wikipedia

I just read a post on Mariano's blog about atheists like Dan Barker trying to block the circulation of a postage stamp bearing the image of Mother Teresa on the grounds that it violates the separation of church and state because she was a Roman Catholic Nun. They argue that it doesn't matter that she did such great humanitarian work, or that she was an honorary US citizen. The bottom line is the government should not endorse any religion.  Okay. What about Santa Claus? He is based off a real man, named Saint Nicholas. He was not an American citizen. He was a Saint recognized by the Roman Catholic Church.  And he regularly appears on our postage stamps every year!  Why isn't Barker protesting that?

I see nothing wrong with honoring Mother Teresa with a postage stamp. She deserves the honor for the work she did helping those our governments would not touch.

Atheism is Dead: One Century After Her Birth, Mother Teresa is Still Inspiring…Vile Hatred

Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - Chris Matthews: Speech So Good Made Me Forget It Was A Brown Person Talking!

Okay, I would have expected this from Fox News, but MSNBC?! Watch the video below to hear commentator Chris Matthews make some of the most racist remarks I've heard in a long time! The sad thing is that he can't even see how what he said was racist! Sad! Follow the link at the end, to read Danielle's Belton's insightful remark about just how stupid Matthews' remarks really are.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - Chris Matthews: Speech So Good Made Me Forget It Was A Brown Person Talking!

Biblical Evidence: Solomon's Temple

Dr. Claude Mariottini has recently posted two very important posts on his blog regarding 10th Century BC Israel and Solomon's Temple. He provides a couple of resources from current archaeology showing that there was indeed a centralized kingdom of Israel and there really was a King Solomon. And King Solomon really did build a magnificent temple in honor of the God of Israel.Read Dr. Mariottini's posts below:


William G. Dever and the Existence of Solomon’s Kingdom 
The Location of Solomon’s Temple

Sam Harris | Author | Big Think

Image via Wikipedia

I've been discussing one of my posts with another user of Twitter, Hudsonryan, who really disagrees. He doesn't think Christianity is true or holds anything of value. He tweeted:

@mmcelhaney Your words: "By helping Haiti, Atheists are acting against their worldview". The most ignorant thing I've read in months.

I did indeed write that. I agree with him that atheist can be and many are good and moral people. I was never saying that they can't or never are. My argument was that because atheists don't recognize an absolute authority outside of themeselves, they have to borrow form religious worldviews to give their morality meaning. If I think it's okay to rape and kill you as long as you can't stop me, then why shouldn't I? I agree that I shouldn't. I agree that it's wrong. But while i have a concrete reason for saying that it's wrong. What does the atheist appeal to validate that it is wrong? When i pressed him on this issue, he would not ansswer me. Instead he gavce me the link at the boottom of this article tweeting

@mmcelhaney In my absence to teach you what your parents failed at, listen to Harris, he and I agree 90+%. http://bigthink.com/samharris

and

@mmcelhaney And I point u to him, as I won't debate this over 140 chars at a time. We share enough views that I am OK in doing that.

I appreciate the link. I am going to be doing a series of articles examining Sam Harris' world view and see if it's really up to snuff. Does his religion - practices setting the pattern for his way of life - really something one can consistently stand on? The site contains short videos of Harris discussing different topics. In each post in the series, I will choose one and see what we get.

My brother-in-Christ, Mariano has written some great articles about Sam Harris. Read them on his blog:

Atheism Essays Particular to Sam Harris

Sam Harris | Author | Big Think