I love this song....let me just get that out first. The important thing to understand that the duo, two brothers, making up the group Hazakim refer to their music as "Hip Hop Hopologetics". They use hip hop music to praise God and teach apologetics. I enjoy the way they put their music together and the messages they convey.
This post is about their song Theophanies and it is based on the Biblical passage Genesis 18:1-15. They tell the story of Abraham being visited by three personages. Abraham recognizes that one of three is God. The man most definitely talked with divine authority. Then the song brings up the point that no man has seen God any time.
Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. - 1 John 4:11-13
This is where we get the song's hook which points out that the preceding verses are true, however we have several recorded instances where the patriarchs see or physically experience God, so they ask the question, "Who was that they saw?". Many scholars and theologians answer the question the same way the song does: the pre-incarnate Christ. We know that God becoming a man is not out of nowhere because of Abraham and Sarah's experience in Genesis 18 as well as from other passages in the Old Testament. We also know this about Jesus:
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. - John 1: 18
In his third article spotlighting Jesus as the ultimate intellectual evidenced by his apologetic and logic, Chad announces a new book by Norman Geisler and Patrick Zukeran called The Apologetics of Jesus. This article is an awesome book preview. Chad has also given us the honor of providing a link to an interview of Patrick Zukeran and an article written by Zukeran on this topic. Great stuff!!!
Here is Chad's next article examining Jesus fr0m the point of view of Jesus being a master intellectual. It features a lecture by Dallas Willard called Jesus as a Logician and Apologist.
I am enjoying this series immensely. I agree that as Christians we don't think of Jesus is light of the fact that He did engage his culture and audience intellectually and we must do the same. This is why I see smaller audiences in Bible study services than other kind of services. I think that many people are either too lazy to put the time and energy necessary to learn as much as they can about everything they can.
I'm not saying that everyone need to be a scholar. You do not need to be able to identify logic concepts and be able to know everything. Some people are called to it but not everyone. No one is going to be as good as Jesus at it. What I've got to remember is the following verse and serves to keep us humble.
Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God. - 1 Corinthians 8:1-3
I just found out that using the magic of computers a portrait of Anne Frank underwent age progression so now we know what she probably would have looked like had she grown up and was alive today.
RE-Do. About two weeks ago, I read a post on the Apologetics 315 blog and now I can't find it! I hate it when that happens especially since I wrote quite a bit. Here is my attempt to re create it. Here is the quote:
“God maintains a delicate balance between keeping his existence sufficiently evident so people will know he's there and yet hiding his presence enough so that people who want to choose to ignore him can do it. This way, their choice of destiny is really free.”
– J.P. Moreland
I found myself looking up this post because othe post just below this one. There is a link to a lecture given by Moreland on how it's important to be able to reason out and think about what you believe and why. I totally agreed with everything he said. What struck me is the fact that I so vehemently deny the quote I read from him on June 7, 2009. It really left a bad taste! Re-reading the quote and the comments made me relaize that I jumped all over Moreland because I thought that he was talking about salvation. While he may be an Arminian (ad I don't know that for sure), I should not have taken the discussion there. Moreland was only talking about human knowledge when it comes to God's existence. He just tacks on "free choice". I'm gonna have to disagree with him and agree with one of the commenters on the original blog
I disagree with J.P. Moreland there. Everyone knows that God exists, but the reason why many deny His existence is not because there is not enough evidence, but because "...by their unrighteousness [they] suppress the truth." (Romans 1:18).
Setting aside the idea of "free will" for other posts, Paul is really clear...no one has any excuse for not recognizing that there is a creator.
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. - Romans 1: 18-25
Chad is starting a series on his blog Truthbomb Apologetics in which he provides resources and astute commentary regrading Jesus from the point of view of Jesus as an intellectual and apologists. I agree with Chad that Jesus is not just the best and perfect man who ever has ever lived but also the most intelligent. He was constantly intellectually challenged by the skeptics of His day and He pawned all of them. This is a series worth checking out to learn more about who Jesus is.
I listened to the JP Moreland recording in the post and he does a great job of showing through scripture that we must love Jesus with our minds and be prepared to explain what we believe and why we believe it.
Not long ago President Obama gave a speech to the world in general and the Arab world in particular. In this day, the Presidential offices seems to post all speeches in YouTube so i have linked to it below.
As always the speech in structure and style was flawless. The content I have a problem with. Anyone who has studied anything about Christianity and Islam knows that there can never be any true common ground! By definition being a Christian means that you believe that Jesus was the incarnate Son of the living God who died for the sins of humanity via crucifixion to reconcile us back to God and then rose again 3 days later. It is by this we are saved. Islam rejects every bit of this! Every thought expressed in my summary of what a Christians is Muslims reject by definition. Where is the common ground? Yes, we are monotheistic, hate abortion and immorality, but so are many Atheists, Buddahists, and other folks. How can we have common ground if we reject the foundations the other stand on? There will be no peace in the Middle East until Jesus comes back and brings it.
Here is a documentary that uses actors, interviews, and computer animation to show what happened when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima back in August, 1945. All I can say after seeing this video: 1. I'm glad I wasn't there. 2. We need to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Over from Apologetics 315 is an audio by Greg Bahnsen explaining what a worldview is and how everyone has one only that most people don't take the time to think it through. It's a great lecture and you should listen to it if you want to know why philosphy is important or need a great summary of the most-common worldviews you will run into when you talk to people.
TurrentinFan has posted a great post quoting early Christians concerning what they believe about the atonement. I thought that I could comment on each quote in red. Thank you, TurrentinFan!
The following is a list of several patristic quotations (previously posted at the link) that relate to the topic of the atonement. Some affirm limited atonement, some are simply germane to the topic of the atonement without necessarily affirming limited atonement. The last two show that interpreting 1 John 2:1-2 the way that Calvin did was not new to Calvin.
This is by no means an exhaustive list, and it is not intended to be a representative list. There are a lot of odd statements by the church fathers on the atonement, and a lot of strange theories that some of them adopted. Also, just because they adopted a view of limited atonement (in the sense of understanding that Christ was offered to bear the sins of the elect or in that he redeemed the elect in particular) does not mean that they held to a thoroughly "Calvinist" (what an anachronism to call it that!) understanding of TULIP. This, therefore, provides some patristic views of the atonement.
Ambrose (c. 339-97): Although Christ suffered for all, yet He suffered for us particularly, because He suffered for the Church. Saint Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke, trans. Theodosia Tomkinson (Etna: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998), Book VI, §25, p. 201. Latin Text: Et si Christus pro omnibus passus est, pro nobis tamen specialiter passus est; quia pro Ecclesia passus est. Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam, 6.25, PL 15:1675.
Ambrose does not seem to be trying to say anymore than 1st John 2:2. He does not explain what does "suffered for all" mean to him.
Ambrose (c. 339-97): Great, therefore, is the mystery of Christ, before which even angels stood amazed and bewildered. For this cause, then, it is thy duty to worship Him, and, being a servant, thou oughtest not to detract from thy Lord. Ignorance thou mayest not plead, for to this end He came down, that thou mayest believe; if thou believest not, He has not come down for thee, has not suffered for thee. “If I had not come,” saith the Scripture, “and spoken with them, they would have no sin: but now have they no excuse for their sin. He that hateth Me, hateth My Father also.” Who, then, hates Christ, if not he who speaks to His dishonor? — for as it is love’s part to render, so it is hate’s to withdraw honor. He who hates, calls in question; he who loves, pays reverence. NPNF2: Vol.: Volume X, Of the Christian Faith, Book IV, Chapter 2, §27.
Ambrose seems to be saying to me that Jesus' sacrifice was only for the church - those who love Christ.
Ambrosiaster: The people of God hath its own fulness. In the elect and foreknown, distinguished from the generality of all, there is accounted a certain special universality; so that the whole world seems to be delivered from the whole world, and all men to be taken out of all men. See Works of John Owen, Vol. 10, p. 423. Latin text: Habet ergo populus Dei plenitudinem suam, et quamvis magna pars hominum, salvantis gratiam aut repellat aut negligat, in electis tamen et praescitis, atque ab omnium generalitate discretis, specialis quaedam censetur universitas, ut de toto mundo totus mundus liberatus, et de omnibus hominibus omnes homines videantur assumpti: De Vocatione Gentium, Liber Primus, Caput III, PL 17:1084.
Ambrosiaster Seems to be saying the same thing as the doctrine of Limited Atonement: That Jesus only suffered and died for the elect - the true church - not all of humantiy
Jerome (347-420) on Matthew 20:28: He does not say that he gave his life for all, but for many, that is, for all those who would believe. See Turretin, Vol. 2, p. 462. Latin text: Non dixit animam suam redemptionem dare pro omnibus, sed pro multis, id est, pro his qui credere voluerint. Commentariorum in Evangelium Matthaei, Liber Tertius, PL 26:144-145.
Jerome is pretty clear about what he thinks.
Hilary of Arles (c. 401-449) commenting on 1 John 2:2: When John says that Christ died for the sins of the “whole world,” what he means is that he died for the whole church. Introductory Commentary on 1 John. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XI, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 177. Latin text: et non pro nostris tantum. set etiam pro totius mundi peccatis; Aecclesiam mundi nomine appellat. Expositio In Epistolas Catholiicas, Incipit Epistola Sancti Iohannis Apostoli, Cap. II, v. 2, PL Supp. 3:118.
I'm not sure what Hilary means by that. Seems like he's reading a lot into the text.
Augustine (354-430): 2. But alongside of this love we ought also patiently to endure the hatred of the world. For it must of necessity hate those whom it perceives recoiling from that which is loved by itself. But the Lord supplies us with special consolation from His own case, when, after saying, “These things I command you, that ye love one another,” He added, “If the world hate you, know that it hated me before [it hated] you.” Why then should the member exalt itself above the head? Thou refusest to be in the body if thou art unwilling to endure the hatred of the world along with the Head. “If ye were of the world,” He says, “the world would love its own.” He says this, of course, of the whole Church, which, by itself, He frequently also calls by the name of the world: as when it is said, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.” And this also: “The Son of man came not to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” And John says in his epistle: “We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also [for those] of the whole world.” The whole world then is the Church, and yet the whole world hateth the Church. The world therefore hateth the world, the hostile that which is reconciled, the condemned that which is saved, the polluted that which is cleansed. 3. But that world which God is in Christ reconciling unto Himself, which is saved by Christ, and has all its sins freely pardoned by Christ, has been chosen out of the world that is hostile, condemned, and defiled. For out of that mass, which has all perished in Adam, are formed the vessels of mercy, whereof that world of reconciliation is composed, that is hated by the world which belongeth to the vessels of wrath that are formed out of the same mass and fitted to destruction. Finally, after saying, “If ye were of the world, the world would love its own,” He immediately added, “But because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” And so these men were themselves also of that world, and, that they might no longer be of it, were chosen out of it, through no merit of their own, for no good works of theirs had preceded; and not by nature, which through free-will had become totally corrupted at its source: but gratuitously, that is, of actual grace. For He who chose the world out of the world, effected for Himself, instead of finding, what He should choose: for “there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace. And if by grace,” he adds, “then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.” NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate LXXXVII, §2-3, John 15:17-19.
Augustine (354-430): Hence things that are lawful are not all good, but everything unlawful is not good. Just as everyone redeemed by Christ's blood is a human being, but human beings are not all redeemed by Christ's blood, so too everything that is unlawful is not good, but things that are not good are not all unlawful. As we learn from the testimony of the apostle, there are some things that are lawful but are not good. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, Adulterous Marriages, Part 1, Vol. 9, trans. Ray Kearney, O.P., Book One, 15, 16 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1999), p. 153.
Chrysostom (349-407) on Hebrews 9:28. “So Christ was once offered.”: By whom offered? evidently by Himself. Here he says that He is not Priest only, but Victim also, and what is sacrificed. On this account are [the words] “was offered.” “Was once offered” (he says) “to bear the sins of many.” Why “of many,” and not “of all”? Because not all believed, For He died indeed for all, that is His part: for that death was a counterbalance against the destruction of all men. But He did not bear the sins of all men, because they were not willing. NPNF1: Vol. XIV, Epistle to the Hebrews, Homly 17.
Prosper of Aquitaine (d. 463): He is not crucified with Christ who is not a member of the body of Christ. When, therefore, our Saviour is said to be crucified for the redemption of the whole world, because of his true assumption of the human nature, yet may he be said to be crucified only for them unto whom his death was profitable. . . . Diverse from these is their lot who are reckoned amongst them of whom is is said, ‘the world knew him not.’ Latin text: Non est autem crucifixus in Christo, qui non est membrum corporis Christi, nec est membrum corporis Christi, qui non per aquam et Spiritum sanctum induit Christum. Qui ideo in infirmitate nostra communionem subiit mortis, ut nos in virtute ejus haberemus consortium resurrectionis. Cum itaque rectissime dicatur Salvator pro totius mundi redemptione crucifixus, propter veram humanae naturae susceptionem, et propter communem in primo homine omnium perditionem: potest tamen dici pro his tantum crucifixus quibus mors ipsius profuit. . . . Diversa ergo ab istis sors eorum est qui inter illos censentur de quibus dicitur; Mundus eum non cognovit. Responsiones ad Capitula Gallorum, Capitulum IX, Responsio, PL 51:165.
Prosper of Aquitaine (d. 463): Doubtless the propriety of redemption is theirs from whom the prince of this world is cast out. The death of Christ is not to be so laid out for human-kind, that they also should belong unto his redemption who were not to be regenerated. Latin text: Redemptionis proprietas haud dubie penes illos est, de quibus princeps mundi missus est foras, et jam non vasa diaboli, sed membra sunt Christi. Cujus mors non ita impensa est humano generi, ut ad redemptionem ejus etiam qui regenerandi non erant pertinerint. Responsiones ad Capitula Objectionum Vincentianarum, Capitulum Primum, Responsio, PL 51:178.
Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) commenting on Hebrews 9:27-28: As it is appointed for each human being to die once, and the one who accepts death’s decree no longer sins but awaits the examination of what was done in life, so Christ the Lord, after being offered once for us and taking up our sins, will come to us again, with sin no longer in force, that is, with sin no longer occupying a place as far as human beings are concerned. He said himself, remember, when he still had a mortal body, “He committed no sin, nor was guile found in his mouth.” It should be noted, of course, that he bore the sins of many, not of all: not all came to faith, so he removed the sins of the believers only. Robert Charles Hill, Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 2 (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), p. 175.
Bede (672/673-735) commenting on 1 John 2:1: The Lord intercedes for us not by words but by his dying compassion, because he took upon himself the sins which he was unwilling to condemn his elect for. On 1 John. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XI, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 177. Latin text: Interpellat ergo pro nobis Dominus, non voce, sed miseratione, quia quod damnare in electis noluit, suscipiendo servavit. In Primam Epistolam S. Joannis, Caput II, PL 93:89.
Bede (672/673-735) commenting on 1 John 2:2: In his humanity Christ pleads for our sins before the Father, but in his divinity he has propitiated them for us with the Father. Furthermore, he has not done this only for those who were alive at the time of his death, but also for the whole church which is scattered over the full compass of the world, and it will be valid for everyone, from the very first among the elect until the last one who will be born at the end of time. This verse is therefore a rebuke to the Donatists, who thought that the true church was to be found only in Africa. The Lord pleads for the sins of the whole world, because the church which he has bought with his blood exists in every corner of the globe. On 1 John. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XI, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 178. Latin text: Qui per humanitatem interpellat pro nobis apud Patrem, idem per divinitatem propitiatur nobis cum Patre. . . . Non pro illis solum propitiatio est Dominus, quibus tunc in carne viventibus scribebat Joannes, sed etiam pro omni Ecclesia quae per totam mundi latitudinem diffusa est, primo nimirum electo usque ad ultimum qui in fine mundi nasciturus est porrecta. Quibus verbis Donatistarum schisma reprobat, qui in Africae solum finibus Ecclesiam Christi esse dicebant inclusam. Pro totius ergo mundi peccatis interpellat Dominus, quia per totum mundum est Ecclesia, quam suo sanguine comparavit. In Primam Epistolam S. Joannis, Caput II, PL 93:90.
Enjoy!
-TurretinFan
I think the key to understanding what scripture teaches about the Atonement is to really look and see what scripture has to say about the Atonement. What it's scope really is. I desire to study it in detail and post my methodology and conclusions.
I love this song....let me just get that out first. The important thing to understand that the duo, two brothers, making up the group Hazakim refer to their music as "Hip Hop Hopologetics". They use hip hop music to praise God and teach apologetics. I enjoy the way they put their music together and the messages they convey.
This particular post is about their song "Brace Yourself". The song is most definitely gospel It praises God for who HE is - His power and His authority and His sovereignty. They even fit in God's love and our responsibility to Him. Some of the lyrics are straight from scripture and all of the song has scriptural underpinnings. For example when the lines of the songs say:
"Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said:
"Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?
Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. "
This is straight from Job 38:1-3. The song continues with much of the same imagery and language used in Job when God answered Job and us when we ask the question "Why is this happening to me." I believe that this is as close as an apologetic we get from God in the Bible. On top of that the song exalts God and talks about His omniscience, His omnipresence, and His omnipotence. The song points out that omnipresence is not just being present everywhere at once but at all times also. As the song says
I am with Gideon as he fights Midianites [sword clashes] and at the same timeI am in this Millinium right now!
It's awesome thought. Gideon is in the book of Judges before 1000 BCE! He's with Him and us right now at the same time! Of course this means thinking of Time as a constant where past, present, and future exist at the same time although we don't experience them at the same time. Who says God doesn't see it that way since He created time and space themselves and transcends both of them.
I just saw a video irreverently called "God Sucks" by a YouTube user calling himself "The Amazing Atheists". I had to wonder how could anyone come up such a hostile and mean title! The video goaded me into responding. I can't resist because there are several assertions made without proof. Here is what the Bible has to say in answer.
1. That there are people who do not know that God exists because they are not genetically pre-disposed to faith. 2. A person ignorant of God does not go hell. 3. Only non-analytical, dim-witted people have faith
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. - Romans 1:18-20
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. - Romans 3:21-26
The passage truly explains that we have no reason for not recognizing God's existence and we are fooling ourselves thinking otherwise.
4. Life is a test of faith.
We are not being tested because God does not know what we are capable of but it's "testing" in terms of "trying" in the way that precious metals are purified in fire.
So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?
But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. - Romans 2:3-5
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, whohave been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. - Romans 8:28 - 30
Recall that God chooses our genetics and place of birth, we don't.
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' Acts 17: 24-28
The only desirable character trait the faith have that non-believers don't have is that they believe. No one on their own is good enough or righteous enough to relate to God on our own. We need Jesus.
Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day."
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" - John 11:24-26
And the you have it: the only thing that separates unbelievers and believers. The one thing that makes all the difference between heaven and hell. It's not unreasonable faith. It's faith founded on evidence. I invite anyone to search out the evidence and see that the Bible is true and all of it's claims.
Apparently, the video author has written a book called In Defense of Evil and here is the blurb summarizing it's contents:
A manifesto against all expectations and a criticism of all moral certainty, IN DEFENSE OF EVIL is a biting dissection of popular American ethics and the exoneration of society's so-called villains.
This reminds me of what Bible says.
To those who say, "Let God hurry, let him hasten his work so we may see it. Let it approach, let the plan of the Holy One of Israel come, so we may know it."
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight. - Isaiah 5:19-21
People who think the morality given to us by our creator is something we should abandon are the ones going against our genetic programming.
I just heard about last week where a 72 year-old grandmother was tasered by a cop during a traffic stop. I think it's shocking that a person that age would be tasered but after seeing the video, if a young man acted that way would certainly be tasered.
I just heard that based on a picture taken in the Oval Office of Obama talking on the phone with the Israeli Prime Minister that people in Israel are angry. They feel insulted by the soles of Obama's shoes being prominent in the foreground. Re-calling that in the Middle East, to the Arabic Mindset, showing the soles of your shoes to someone is a huge, disrespecting insult.
I'm amazed that Jews would make this connection. I mean: 1. These are Jews, not Arabs complaining. 2. Given that Obama is not an Arab I'm certain he did not think he was insulting anyone propping his feet on his desk - I mean it is his desk!
The article I read about this in pointed out that the sensitivity could be coming from the tensions in the Middle East now and with the way Obama so glowing talked of Islam in his recent speech in Cairo last week I'm sure it makes those who recognize that Fundamentalist Muslims are never going to play nice with others very nervous. It's those people who have their finger on buttons to attack Israel they are concerned about - not the the Muslims President Obama addresses in Cairo. I also think that if Obama had a more "western" name (ie "White") they wouldn't have went there.
Some one by VorJack has written an essay on Christianity and the Tradition of Marriage. He talks about how people's ideas of women and marriage has changed over time. I'm not going to respond to everything in his article. I want to respond to an assertion that he made:
Christianity was born into a greco-roman world, and the first Christians accepted the structure of Roman marriage. Marriage was monogamous and heterosexual, but divorce was possible and the husband might have a concubine before marriage. Marriage and procreation were considered civic requirements, and Augustus found it necessary to legislate marriage for Roman citizens.
By the time of Imperial Rome, marriage was relatively fair to women, who were able to control their property and most aspects of their life. In light of this, it’s probably not surprising that rich wives and widows were able to contribute financially to the early church, and that some women could preach and lead rituals.
People who based their lives and worldview on the Bible cannot fit the the points that were made could not agree with the point: "divorce was possible and the husband might have a concubine before marriage." Jesus said in Matthew 19:3-12 the following.
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
The church even today allows divorce easily. But that is not what Jesus said.
Just because a person is a Christain does not mean that he or she knows everything correctly. The author cites some quotations from Christian "fathers" however they they fly in the face of what the Bible says.
The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree. -Tertullian
But the Bible says:
For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 1 Timothy 2:13,14
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. - Romans 5:19
Tertullian may have well blamed our sinful state on Eve, but Paul didn't. Along with the Old Testament, the accountability was on the man. Not the wife. Centuries of blaming women for the fall is just what Adam did, but God would not buy that. If it comes down to the word of Tertullian versus the inspired words of Apostle Paul, I'll take Paul's.
I praise wedlock, I praise marriage, but it is because they give me virgins. -St. Jerome
The Bible also praises marriage but for far different reasons. Because the marriage relationship symbolizes the way Jesus loves the church. It's not for the purpose of providing clergy with fresh virgins/children to molest.
The Apologetics 315 blog has a great posted audio that explains the history of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The audio also provides information about the Dead Sea Scrolls supports the reliability of the New Testament.
I've thought of another series of posts that I will call "Is It Gospel?". In this series I will attempt to dive into a song's meanings and message to see if I can find the heart of the Gospel or something of value for the Christian life. I don't want to come off as judging the song writer and/or artist. I only want to look at the theology and worldview in the song.
Here are the lyrics:
Yo, We at war We at war with terrorism, racism, and most of all we at war with ourselves (Jesus Walks) God show me the way because the Devil trying to break me down (Jesus Walks with me) with me, with me, with me [fades]
You know what the Midwest is? Young & Restless Where restless (Niggas) might snatch your necklace And next these (Niggas) might jack your Lexus Somebody tell these (Niggas) who Kanye West is I walk through the valley of the shadow of death is Top floor the view alone will leave you breathless Uhhhh! Try to catch it Uhhhh! It's kinda hard hard Getting choked by the detectives yeah yeah now check the method They be asking us questions, harass and arrest us Saying "we eat pieces of shit like you for breakfast" Huh? Yall eat pieces of shit? What's the basis? We ain't going nowhere but got suits and cases A trunk full of coke rental car from Avis My momma used to say only Jesus can save us Well momma I know I act a fool But I'll be gone 'til November I got packs to move I Hope
[Hook x2] (Jesus Walks) God show me the way because the Devil trying to break me down (Jesus Walks with me) The only thing that that I pray is that my feet don't fail me now (Jesus Walks) And I don't think there is nothing I can do now to right my wrongs (Jesus Walks with me) I want to talk to God but I'm afraid because we ain't spoke in so long
To the hustlers, killers, murderers, drug dealers even us cripples (Jesus walks with them) To the victims of Welfare for we living in hell here hell yeah (Jesus walks with them) Now hear ye hear ye want to see Thee more clearly I know he hear me when my feet get weary Cause we're the almost nearly extinct We rappers are role models we rap we don't think I ain't here to argue about his facial features, But here to convert atheists into believers I'm just trying to say the way school need teachers The way Kathie Lee needed Regis that's the way I need Jesus So here go my single dog radio needs this They say you can rap about anything except for Jesus That means guns, sex, lies, video tapes But if I talk about God my record won't get played Huh? Well let this take away from my spins Which will probably take away from my ends Then I hope this take away from my sins And bring the day that I'm dreaming about Next time I'm in the club everybody screaming out
(Jesus Walks) God show me the way because the devil trying to break me down (Jesus Walks) The only thing that that I pray is that my feet don't fail me now (Jesus Walks) And I don't think there's nothing I can do now to right my wrongs (Jesus walks with me... fades) I want to talk to God but I'm afraid because we ain't spoke in so long
The song has many positive messages. When anyone reaches out to God and seeks after him...it's a good thing and definitely godly. The song gives a picture of the life of many people in our society. It recognizes that the Devil is real and actively out to steal, kill, and destroy. The song also correctly points out that there is hostility that one encounters when ever someone speaks about Jesus from the institutions of society. The song gives the same command Jesus gave us about we have to weigh the cost of following him. I think that the cost is too high not to follow him.
I would not call this song "Gospel". I'd call it more of a cry for help from Jesus. It does not reveal any knowledge of who Jesus is. It does not give Him the praise He is worthy of. However, I would say that it does give us more insight how people seek for God. Such a person knows that he is being dogged by the suffering in this life. He knows that he (like everyone of us) is unworthy. He also seems to know that Jesus is the answer to all of life's problems, he just does not know how to reach out for Jesus or even if God will answer him. I think that this song is more of a spring board for giving other's the Gospel. I would pray that someone will take such an individual who feels this way aside and give him the truth. Here is what I would tell him:
The fact that you are having these feelings and thoughts mean that God is not far from you. He loves you. He's not worried about your past sins and mistakes. He will take you just as you are now. All you have to do is surrender to Him and believe that Jesus is all he claimed to be and that He paid for the cost of your sins when he died on the cross and rose again. The gosple is that simple. It's the only way to get rid of your sins. If you put your trust in God and live the way you know you are supposed to God will help you live it. And He will teach you what you do not already know now.
I have just read on the Black Snob blog a very interesting summary of current events involving people who flip out and kill other people due to "-isms" like racism and homophobia. The most shocking story is about an 88 year-old men who walked into the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum today and shot and killed a security guard who was black! This was James von Brunn, an 88-year-old white supremacist. I googled the story and came across an article from CNN. He was apparently motivated by the fact that he denies the Holocaust ever happened and that Anne Frank's diary is a hoax. I wonder how many people's other worldview will cause them to break like von Brunn. I mean we have an African-American President that had to shock him. IF anything all of this shows us that Jesus is returning soon!
I just found out that Carrie Prejean has been fired from being Miss California. They are saying that its because Carrie did not fulfill her contractual obligations such as making the public appearances that pagent officials have officially sanctioned. If this is true then I can see why she lost her crown. However, I'd like to know if they were constantly asking her to go places and say things against her conscious. I'm going to be following up on that.
The Truthbomb blog has posted an incredible post showcasing a flash video discussing the following question, "How Can a Good and Loving God allow Evil?". People often try to use this question to deny the existence of God. After all it is a question we must all deal with and come to grips with. "If God exists, then why does He allow pain and suffering? Why doesn't He just eradicate it?" The thing about the question presupposes that
1. We truly know what good and evil are. 2. We can hold God accountable to our standards not His. 3. That if God did obliterate everything that is evil we will be left standing...which we would not.
The video is way more philosophical than I would like. It uses the free will argument and I'm not comfortable with that. I think we can argue that Adam and Eve were perfect free-will agents before they sinned - actualizing evil; but we who came afterward are enslaved to sin and can't claim free-will. Jesus is the only avenue for our redemption and escape.
How would you like to be paid to have children? It's been widely reported that industrialized "first-world" countries have dwindling birth rates. In large part it is because people are purposely choosing not to have children. This has become such a major concern in Japan that some of its companies have taken "drastic" measures. Koei Tecmo, the company responsible for the Dead or Alive video game series, Ninja Gaiden, and other awesome game, is paying their employees bonuses for having children!
First Child - around $1,000 Second Child - around $2,000 Third Child - around $20,000
I saw that with my two, and I thought, "Nah, my wife would not go for the third!" Still almost makes me wanna move to Japan. I got this information form G4TV.
On Apologetics 315, the following quote from J.P. Moreland was published:
“God maintains a delicate balance between keeping his existence sufficiently evident so people will know he's there and yet hiding his presence enough so that people who want to choose to ignore him can do it. This way, their choice of destiny is really free.”
– J.P. Moreland
Of course this caused a mini-debate on that blog in the comments section. People get really passionate about this. I know I do. When I first read the quote I was up in arms. But before I could comment a lot of people said what I was I thinking. For example I think that Ryan Hemelaar is right that people really know that there is a God and actively suppress that knowledge according to Romans 1:18. I also agree that with kart2d2 because Paul also wrote that the evidence for the existence of God is so compelling that we all stand without excuse for not recognizing His existence. In the Greek it could also be rendered "without an Apologetic".
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. - Romans 1:18-20
I must say that I have learned that this passage really only concerned understanding that there is a God because coming into the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ is by special revelation by the Holy Spirit.
You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit. - 1 Corinthians 12:2-3
As for free will, there are so many Bible verses that tell us to choose to serve God and that if we choose to submit to God through Jesus we will be save just as Franck Barfety pointed out in the comment section:
"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." John 3:18
The thing is that verses like these say nothing about us being able to choose to believe...only that if we believe we will be saved! What does the Bible have to say about how we come to believed.
1. When we are unregenerated by the holy spirit we are hostile against God and His enemy.
The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. - Romans 8: 6-8
2. No one seeks after God...all have gone astray.
What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."
"Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit."
"The poison of vipers is on their lips."
"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
ruin and misery mark their ways,
and the way of peace they do not know."
"There is no fear of God before their eyes."
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. - Romans 3:9-20
3. No one comes to the son unless drawn by the father. Let's not forget John 6:44
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
If you look up the word "draw" helkuo you see it means "dragged". God must drag us to the cross so that we will be saved. Brothers and sisters this is indeed an in-house debate and whether you think that you chose Jesus solely by an act of your will or you were dragged you are justified and going to heaven. This is the important thing. I however know that God put me in the place where "yes" to him was the only response I could make. He was so slick about it I thought that it was all my idea. It wasn't. All I did was responded because He allowed me to get it. If anyone is interested, let me suggest two books: Martin Luther's On The Bondage of the Will and Jame White's The Potter's Freedom.
The only reason I can come up with why Richard Dawkins will not debate a Christian Theist of William Lane's calibur is because he knows his ideas will not be able to stand against the crushing weight of science, logic, and scripture. I think Dawkins is chicken. I don't agree with everything Craig believes in especially when it comes to Calvinism and Free will, but I have greatly been impressed with his evidential apologetic against folks who don't accept the Bible as the word of God. We can show that there is good evidence for the Bible being true and that the God described in it is real. Dawkins will not be able to stand before the arguments...although it could be fun to watch his squirm as he tries.
Mariano has delivered another great post that I totally agree with. In the comments section, a person who is either agnostic or atheistic has asked a pretty good question. It is basically the "problem of evil". I'd summarize his point this way: If your god is personal than why is he not accountable or responsible for human suffering in the same way we hold Hitler and Stalin accountable for the atrocities they committed? It's a good question. Ultimately I'd answer that Hitler and Stalin were but men. They took upon themselves the authority to determine who lives and who dies that they had no right to claim or exercise. God on the other hand has the right and authority to do whatever He wants, when He wants, how He wants, and where He wants. Scripture tells us that what ever He does is just even when we don't see the big picture or how it is for the best. We can only see bits and pieces, God has the masterpiece in mind that He is creating. "Who are you to answer back to God?" - Romans 9
NonStampCollector, has put together three YouTube videos that attempt to show inconsistency in the Christianity based on what we teach concerning human free will and salvation. The author is an atheist and he is criticizing Arminianism, but I don't think he knows what he's arguing against. Look at the third video below to see what he is saying
I think that this is the worst part of the series. It makes no sense. The issue is that this does not represent the God I serve. The plan of redemption that God has put into practice was not an afterthought. The Bible says in Roman 5:5-7 that:
And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die.
The thing is that God at no point say that he has given us complete autonomy. The author even sounded like Christopher Hitchens in that he insinuates that sending Jesus to first century Palestine was a stupid idea. However, it was actually the perfect time. Let me explore that a moment. The first century is not the "Bronze Age" as Hitchens and this video author says. Also consider for the first time in history the same language was being spoken and written in from Spain to India: Greek. And the Roman Empire was held together by a complete system of roads. This way the message could easily spread all over the empire very well!
You may have noticed that there are debates that occur on YouTube. Someone posts a video expressing a viewpoint for the world to see and others write comments or post a video of their own. This is one such duel. First an atheist gives his viewpoint:
NonStampCollector, has put together three YouTube videos that attempt to show inconsistency in the Christianity based on what we teach concerning human free will and salvation. The author is an atheist and he is criticizing Arminianism. Look at the second video below to see what he is saying
In the second video, the argument is advanced that God is like a government that imposes taxes and but says that we have the choice not to pay. However if we don't pay we will be punished. It's an analogy parable....but a flawed one. Like the citizens of a government who are indebted to the government we are indebted to God because he owns everything and because of our many trespassed and rebellions against him. However a more apt way of looking at is from the point of view of one who is bankrupt and owes so much in back taxes that we can't possible pay what we owe. This is the state of every human being! Added to that we are so sick and oblivious to how sick we are. Added to that we are like militant radicals hostile to the very government (God) that wants our salvation. Here are some scriptures that illustrate these points:
All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. - Isaiah 64:6
Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. - Romans 8: 5-8
What government would ever say to it's citizens: "You have free will so pay your taxes but only if you want to."? No all governments will force you to pay because of the threat of punishment. God is not like that. He knows we can't pay. He knows we are bankrupt. He knows that we are hostile.
We all, likesheep, have goneastray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. - Isaiah 53:6
This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. - Romans 3: 22-24
Instead God gives some people a "New Deal" but better than any of Franklin Roosevelt's. He changes them and pays the debts for them. All they have to do is believe and their taxes are paid. This is the ultimate Bailout and its for the individual! This has nothing to do with who you are. God's choice. Just like when the government gives grants. Not everyone gets a Bailout. No one who asks God for this Bailout is refused. Not like the government at all.
He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. - Acts 16: 30-32
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. - Romans 9: 14-18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." - 1 Corinthians 1: 18-19
Recently James White debated Jalal Abualrub on "Is Jesus God?" It's interesting to hear Muslim perspectives on Jesus because many of the same arguments that are effective against Islam perspectives on Jesus work on other viewpoints and world viewa
In 2003, William Lane Craig (left) debated Anthony Flew (right) on the subject Does God Exist? Anthony Flew argued the Atheist position and Dr. Craig argued for the Christian Theist position. Here is is the debate:
This debate also shows William Lane Craig's Arminianism when it comes to discussing why we have a reality where "evil" exists. I liked Craig's answer on hell, however. I also have to say that Flew actually did show some respect to Craig by obviously having read some of his Craig's work. I really did not think that the debate would also include discussing Free Will. As an Arminian, Craig isn't equipperd to deal with that. Flew, I've got to admit, may have one this one.
I looked up Anthony Flew on Wikipedia. He is one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century. The man has been an atheist for much of his life. He is now 86 years old and sometime after 2003 he has embraced theism. This means that he believes that there is a God who created the universe but rejects Christianity and Islam. Here is what I read on Wikipedia
Conversion from atheism
On several occasions, apparently starting in 2001, rumours circulated claiming that Flew had converted from atheism. Flew denied these rumours on the Secular Web website.[10]
In January 2003 Flew and Gary Habermas, his friend and philosophical adversary, conducted a dialogue on the resurrection at California Polytechnic State University - San Luis Obispo. During a couple of telephone discussions shortly after that dialogue, Flew explained to Habermas that he was considering becoming a theist. While Flew did not change his position at that time (he signed the Humanist Manifesto III), he concluded that certain philosophical and scientific considerations were causing him to do some serious rethinking. He characterized his position as that of atheism standing in tension with several huge question marks.[11]
In December 2004, an interview with Flew conducted by Gary Habermas was published in the journal Philosophia Christi (published by the Evangelical Philosophical Society with the assistance of Biola University), with the title, Atheist Becomes Theist - Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew. Flew agreed to this title.[3] According to the introduction, Flew informed Habermas in January 2004 that he had become a deist,[3] and the interview took place shortly thereafter. Then the text was amended by both participants over the following months prior to publication. In the article Flew states that he has left his long-standing espousal of atheism by endorsing a deism of the sort that Thomas Jefferson advocated ("While reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings."). Flew stated that "the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries" and that "the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it". He also answered in the affirmative to Habermas's question, "So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?". He supported the idea of an Aristotelian God with "the characteristics of power and also intelligence", stating that the evidence for it was stronger than ever before. He rejects the ideas of an afterlife, of God as the source of good (he explicitly states that God has created "a lot of" evil), and of the resurrection of Jesus as an historical fact though he has allowed a short chapter arguing for Christ's resurrection to be added into his latest book.[3]
Flew is particularly hostile to Islam, and says it is "best described in a Marxian way as the uniting and justifying ideology of Arab imperialism."[3] In a December 2004 interview he said: "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins".[12]
Although Flew has not publicly endorsed Christianity, to my knowledge, it is a major change to have taught and endorsed atheism and now accept that there is a God. It's huge. I hope he gets a chance to do embrace the light of Christ. I have in the past written a post that shows a video of Flew talking about his conversion. http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2009/04/habermas-flew-wright-dialogue-mp3-audio.html\
In listening to Flew, it seems to me that he does not truly understand how bad sin really is. He does not see how punishments in hell are justified and commisserate with the sins people commit in life. Although he does recognize God's existence, he does not know God. He has had no relationship with God. I hope he will be able to have that before his life is over. My grandfather just died 2 weeks ago at 84 and he gave his life to Jesus at age 79. I would artgure that he knew more about God's character and who God is than Flew does. Flew only knows what God is - the Creator of the Universe - not who He is.
Frequent readers of this blog may have noticed that I I usually pit all things of interest to me in terms of fiction on this blog. I've come to realize that I need to focus more on smaller topics to be of the most benefit to the readers and supporters. Therefore from now on this blog will focus less on art and media and more on things I like to study. It will continue to be for reviews, demos, announcements, and interviews but nowe only dealing with the Mugen community. I will now be maintaining 4 blogs.
1. Favorite Fiction will house all my Mugen related activities. 2. What Had Happened Was... will be for all the things I like to study: Theology, Science, Politics, News, Technology, and History. 3. Favorite Media will cover movies, television, YouTube, comic books, and music. 4 Favorite Gadgets will be used for field testing new web technology and widgets.
Please feel free to visit any of these blogs at any time and leave comments on any of them blogs or e-mail me. Thanks for your support
Here is a great debate I got from the Apologetics 315 blogs. It's really interesting. Dawkins is in denial. He actually talked about the God that he would respect. It's not the god of the Bible. His problem is that he doesn't think that a God who created everything would care about us personally. He said it's petty that God cares about how we morally live our lives. That's frightening. No wonder Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are friends. John Lennox did an awesome job challenging Dawkins philosophically and scientifically. This was awesome.
I don't understand why people like Dawkins think that by crediting God for intelligently designing reality that we don't care about how God's creation functions and why things take the shape they do. All theistic scientist don't see God as the answer to how the universe works, we see God as the cause, sustainer, and designer. He allows us to study and learn how He did what He did. I liiked the approach Lennox took.
There is this show on the CW called "Supernatural". The premise of the show is that two brothers are hunters who travel around opposing supernatural and demonic forces that hurt people. Recently, instead of bunches of stand-alone, crisis-of-the-week episodes, there has been a couple of major story lines. In the first one the brothers and their father face the demon who killed the boys' mother and in the course of it the fathers sells his soul to demon in exchange for saving the older brother, Dean's life. And at the end of season 2, Dean sells his soul in exchange for the life of his younger brother, Sam. They defeated the demon they were after who was attempting to open a gateway between hell and earth, but Dean had only a year to live before he was going to hell. At the beginning of season four, Dean's soul was freed from hell by angel, and the boys had a new mission to stop the demons from starting the Apocalypse by freeing Lucifer via opening 66 seals. At the end of the season 4, the brothers discover that the Angels lied to them. They wanted the seal broken so that Lucifer could rise and be defeated...however looking at the billions of human lives that could be killed as collateral damage. Should be an interesting season starting next September when the show continues.
Although it's enjoyable fiction. I saw the following post and I thought it brings up important questions.
I think it's important to think about what the show says about God, angels, and demons. The show presents an unbiblical view of God. It's complete fiction. God is largely silent. The angels in the show seem to be operating just like us. Many of them have approached God as agnostics because they have never seen God nor interacted with Him. Also it makes no sense that people could make deals with demons without input from God. Demons do not have power on their own. They can't do anything unless God allows it. The show depicts good and evil as equals and opposites. The Bible does not say that. God is supremely in control. And because of Jesus, Lucifer has already been defeated. It's over. We are just watching the final acts play out. God is portrayed form a deist point of view. As if He made everything and then went on vacation sentencing us all to make it up as we go. The Bible says that God is constantly and purposely working in the creation he created and as well transcends. It is supremely important that the show is fiction and if you want to know what Angels are really like and who God is, you have to study the Bible.
