Response to Brennon Regarding to Comments on Post Re: Ephesians 1

Image via Wikipedia

I really appreciate Brennon giving an Arminan viewpoint to this ongoing discussion. I appreciate his patience and graciousness explaining his comments. My comments are in red and his are in black.

Hey Marcus,

To answer the questions posed to me in your comment:

you have else where agreed that no one can be saved unless they are drawn by the Father (John 6:44)? The answer is right there no one believes unless they are drawn by the Father.

But not everyone that is drawn believes.

Brennon, where does scripture say that God gives draws everyone to the same extent with the same intensity?  Where does the Bible say God draws everyone period? All we can truly say is that all those who believe were drawn by the Father. I think it's going too far to say that even those who reject the call were drawn.

I think we can further say that God does appoint those who believe unto salvation (Acts 13:48).

Acts 13:48 is at the heart of much exegetical debate. Many argue that the passage in Greek is speaking in middle voice, which would cause the passage to read more like "to those who were disposed toward eternal life believed." They could have been prepared beforehand by their study of the OT or by being more sensitive to the calling of the Holy Spirit. But it is glaringly apparent that the passage does not say they were "fore-ordained" or "predestined to" eternal life. The word "tasso" is not once used in Scripture to express eternal predestination of any kind. I don't think you can take Acts 13:48 as even speaking on the doctrine of election unless you approach it with a presupposed interpretation.

I think he's talking about what was done in time at that moment. Those who were moved by the Holy Spirit and did not thrust it away from themselves as those in vs 46 had done (notice the parallelism between these verses), judging themselves unworthy of eternal life. In other words, they heard and the believing and appointment to eternal life were simultaneous. Also, notice what was said about the event afterward. "Now when they had come and gathered the church together, they reported all that God had done with them, and that He had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles" (Acts 14:27). So, God opened the door to the Gentiles. That doesn't smack of an irresistible appointment at all.

I agree that God opens the door, but no where does scripture say that we shut the door for ourselves. I looked up a bunch of English translations for Acts 13:48 to see  how many translate the passage to read more like "to those who were disposed toward eternal life believed." Out of the five translations I looked up, none of them translated it the way you suggested as a matter of fact the King James and World English translate it in such a way to convey the idea that those who believe were chosen beforehand.

⁴⁸And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

King James Version (KJV)

⁴⁸And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

English Standard Version (ESV)

The only other place I have heard the translation you suggest was from Steve Gregg in his debate with James White on the radio back in April 2008. Dr White ended that real quick. To be fair, you defended it much better than Mr. Gregg.  Here are the links to that debate.

Day 1 of the Steve Gregg vs. James White Debate 
Day 2 of the Steve Gregg vs. James White Debate
Day 3 of the Steve Gregg vs. James White Debate
Day 4 of the Steve Gregg vs. James White Debate
Day 5 of the Steve Gregg vs. James White Debate

I don't agree that the passage is saying that their or our appointment to eternal life is response to our faith. Being appointed to something does not mean that it's based on the one being appointed.

One cannot elect or appoint oneself but must be nominated and confirmed - which is what God does.

I'm not prescribing that he or she does. I am saying God chose to elect a corporate body of people, those who believe. He elects you, but it is up to the individual to accept this election.

Here is  the question: If a person is only elected personally when they decide to excercise faith according to their own free will, how is that  electing yourself?  It sounds like insurance and you can "opt-out".  I don't think that describes what salvation really is.

We believe because He appointed us for salvation

It's really straining to get this passage to say that.

I know you agree with the scriptures that say that we are unable to choose to follow Christ unless the Father draws us (Not all .people who call themselves Arminians say that, but all Calvinists do). If no one is seeking God and is going astray, then what happens that causes a man or woman to change? You  have said you believe that God gives one enough faith to make a decision. What person in their right mind, who fully understands the Gospel, would be stupid enough to say "No."? Yet intelligent people do that. So you have to ask are those who say "Yes" smarter or better in some way?  More spiritually  sensitive? I used to think so, but now I know better. There is nothing about me better than any unbeliever. Nothing! So why do people choose to reject the very thing p- the only thing - that can save them? Free will, does not really answer the question because before God touches us we all reject Him. We love Him because He first loved us. The only way we can see it is if the son chooses to reveal Himself to us. Jesus said:

²⁷"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. - Matthew 11:27

One big thing about Ephesians 1 is that Paul makes the point that God's chosen was predestined.

We agree on that. What we disagree on is whether it is speaking of individuals or of a corporate group. Paul is speaking to a group and thinking of this predestination and election as in Christ. Those who would be in Christ by faith are predestined to adoption and to be the praise of His glory. It's not just individuals that accomplish this, it's the whole church.

Yes, we largely agree on this point. but disagree where you said. All believers - the church are predestined, but God knows which individuals are in that group. Because no one in that group can join that group on their own, that is why I think Paul was talking about individuals being predestined.


however Paul makes it personal. He says "us", "you" not some amorphous, faceless blob of humanity

"Us" sounds more corporate than "you." God's elect aren't a faceless blob, they are His church, His chosen people. He chose to save those who believers as a group, but it is individuals who believe. It is individuals God draws and shows grace so that they would accept His gift of salvation. Saying this makes election impersonal is just flatly mistaken. I know you got it from James White, but it's just a straw-man.

Brennon, I actually posted the video on my blog several months ago that you are referring to I don't think its a straw man at all. Dr. White was referring to people who go farther to you and reject the idea that we are incapable of choosing Jesus on our own without divine intervention. The thing is White said that God did not just predestion the group but the individuals in that group. He was saying that ignoring that means that one misses the idea that when God made the universe, He knew He was going to make you and had already decreed that at some point you would believe the Gospel and be saved. Not just that believers were going to be saved but Brennon and Marcus and Dan  (for example) were going to be saved. That is why Dr White called it depersonalization to reject that.  I still think you should call in to Dr White's webcast and raise these concerns. He'd welcome discussing it further with you.

Ephesians 1:4 makes it really clear for me that He picked us before he made anything

Not it says He chose us "in Christ." This is Paul's whole train of thought, that election is Christocentric. It does not say He chose us to be in Christ, it says He chose us in Christ. To be in Christ we must believe.


I totally agree that it is Christ-centric! No one is saved apart from being elect in Christ. No Calvinist would disagree with you on that. But I believe the scriptures are further saying that the election was beforehand. 

Let's look at Ephesians 1:4 which says

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love

I know we agree that the "him" is Jesus. Is the verse saying that he (The Father) chose Jesus before the foundation  of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight, or is it those chosen in Christ that were chosen before the creation of the world?  It's gotta be talking about us. Jesus was not chosen to be holy and blameless because Jesus always was, is, and will be holy and blameless. This is why I don't understand why you say that the election is only corporate and individually  depends on us positively responding to the Gospel. IF we were predestined before the creation of the world, we choose to believe because we were chosen by him first.

God bless. I hope I was clear.

Thanks  for clarifying your position. I'd like more interaction because I think we are actually getting somewhere. Thanks!

Atheism is Dead: The Mad Pagan Skeptic, part 3

Image via Wikipedia

Mariano has release his final piece discussing the insanity of paganism. Here is his introduction. I highly recommend this series - read all three parts!

"We now conclude our tripartite consideration of the mad Pagan skeptic having already considered Friedrich Nietzsche’s virtual prophecy about what would come about due to the death of God.
We also considered a biblical statement about humanity’s natural knowledge of God and our purposeful negation of such knowledge.
Now we will consider to what atheism has come as they seek to find meaning in a meaningless universe and seek to prop up their favored ideas upon contradictions of their own making.

This essay will be parsed as follows:
1) An Exposition of The Parable of the Mad Man
2) Neo Pagan Atheism
3) The Modern Skeptic"

Atheism is Dead: The Mad Pagan Skeptic, part 3

YouTube - T.V. Rants: Black Panther Animated Series

I found this video on YouTube and while I commend the author for his "enlightened" view about televised violence - especially - at 17 years of age, I must respectfully disagree. To be fair, the young man is not real familiar with the Black Panther character and based his whole opinion on this trailer that has been rolling round the internet since 2008. He also told me that he has not read the 6 issues of the comic book on which the animated series is based. All that being said I'd like to comment on the animated series now that I have seen 2 episodes in their entirety.


Both the books and the show make it clear that Wakanda (Black Panther's nation) was

Image via Wikipedia

under attack by a hostile tribe. What happened was violent yest, but needed. The Wakandans handled the situation with finality and left one alive so he could spread the word: Leave Wakanda alone. The story contains must political intrigue
and social commentary - that isn't politically correct but historically correct for a work of fiction. The Black Panther is the fist black superhero in all of fiction to be solo and not not connected to an established white character. He is iconic. The animated series' choice to adapt Hudlin' first 6 issues was genius because it's a great jumping on point for anyone who knows nothing about the character and establishes that Storm (yes, of the X-Men) will eventually marry him.

Now about the violence. The young man remarked that in the X-Men cartoons, Wolverine does not kill, however anyone who knows Wolverine from the comic books know that he crosses the line repeatedly. In the cartoon, it was for children and back then you could not show blood in children's programs. Same thing is true for the Batman and Superman series. Batman does not kill either but he toes that line. Remember when he threatened to drawn a suspect in the Gotham Bay while he dangled him by one hand from the Batwing? That was from the animated series' first season. Superman gives it a much wider breadth. The reason why those series worked was that they stayed with source material. The producers for Black Panther are doing the same.

What about the morality of the Panther's actions? I'll table the discussion of Superman, Batman, and Wolverine for later. I don't see a problem with the Panther's actions in the Who is the Black Panther story arc because the Panther is never shown killing anyone. Even in trying to avenge his Father, it's not about murder. Remember killing and murder are not the same thing. The men in the clip below came to steal, kill, and destroy Wakanda. There is nothing in the Bible against self defense. If someone starts a war with you, it's perfectly moral to end it. sometimes that mean ending them. I want to end with a quote from Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

1 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:

2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,

3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,

4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,

5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,

6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,

7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,

8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

Here is what the young man posted:



What do you think?

YouTube - T.V. Rants: Black Panther Animated Series

Iron Sharpens Iron: Dr. Anthony Bradley: "Liberating Black Theology: The Bible & the Black Experience in America

As you may know, i enjoy listening to the Iron Sharpens Iron ministry. Last week they had a guest that I think all black people need to hear. It's awesome. Dr. Anthony Bradley was interviews on his new book the refutes Black Liberation Theology. The book is titled "Liberating Black Theology: The Bible & the Black Experience in America". He councils that we have to take our attention of ourselves and how racism has affected our lives and stop blaming white people for everything and instead focus on God. I agree. Take a listen. 

Iron Sharpens Iron: Dr. Anthony Bradley: "Liberating Black Theology: The Bible & the Black Experience in America

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Messianic Expectation of the Old Testament

I always wondered how a modern scholar would summarize how Jews in the Old Testament viewed their expectation of the messiah., Looks like i don't have to wonder anymore. I highly suggest reading the link below.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Messianic Expectation of the Old Testament

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: A challenge to futurists on Matthew 24

There is an awesome challenge put forth by Mike on his blog, The Apologetic Front. I, like him have always thought of Matthew 24 as talking about future events (our day?)  but is now backing off somewhat from that assumption. I still don't think that all of Revelations or Matthew 24 or Daniel can be explained from the point of view as being fulfilled in the past, but I think that a great deal can be shown to have been fulfilled. Mike proposes that the people who believe that Matthew 24 has future fulfillment.write their arguments in his comment section. He is asking for arguments from Matthew 24  that are categorically to be fulfilled in the future. I like that idea! I have the same question.

I would say that Matthew 24  & 25 must be interpreted remembering that Jesus is responding to a question. Look at verses 1 - 3 of Matthew 24.

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."
As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

The disciples asked Jesus two separate questions: When will the temple be destroyed?  When will the end of the world happen? I believe that Jesus answered the first question  in verses 4 - 25 about the Temple's destruction. I take verse 15 as proof of that. Starting at verse 14:

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time.

I think Jesus did a good  job in describing the events of 70 AD - about 40 years prior to what happened. The Emperor Caligula had tried to set up idols in the holy pace in the Temple. The interesting thing to me is that Jesus said that when you see the abomination that causes desolation standing in the holy place he seems to be describing a person not an idol and as far I can tell Caligula's order was never presented. This is why I've never thought that Jesus was merely describing AD 70. I would argue that it was in this paassge Jesus is sifting from talking about the temple to the end of the world. I'd say vs 26 to the end pf the chapter are definitely future. Look at verses 30 and 31 for example:

"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, 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.

This has not happened yet. It can only happen once and it has not happened ever in any history we can point to.

I found some great links on the Internet concerning the Fall of the Temple and 70 AD.
Eyewitness to History.com - The Romans Destroy the Temple at Jerusalem, 70 AD
The Destruction of Herod's Temple in 70 A.D. As Foreseen by the Prophet Ezekiel
Destruction of Jerusalem fulfilled Matthew 24 in 70 AD - Siege Map
The Destruction of the Second Temple

Most important fun fact about the Temple's destruction that I did not know was that the fall of the Temple was the same date (month and day) as the Babylonian destruction of Solomon's temple!

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: A challenge to futurists on Matthew 24

The 12 Most Powerful Christians in Hollywood - The 12 Most Powerful Christians in Hollywood - Beliefnet.com

Here is a great article listing the 12 most powerful Christians in Hollywood. It's really cool. I'm planning to go more in-depth into what they believe in the coming months.

The 12 Most Powerful Christians in Hollywood - The 12 Most Powerful Christians in Hollywood - Beliefnet.com

THE ANTIKYTHERA MECHANISM WAS EVEN MORE RAD THAN WE THOUGHT | Gamma Squad

This is a great article about a historic artifact - the antikythera mechanism. It's one of the most complex machines ever. It's also mysterious. Here is what we don't know.

1. Who made it?
2. What did they make it for? We think it was used to predict eclipses. That's in dispute.

It's agreed that it's ancient - something on order of 2100+ years old. The conundrum is that it contains technology that was believed to be out of reach of humans from that time period. The article is great. It contains the following video showing how it works using a working model.





THE ANTIKYTHERA MECHANISM WAS EVEN MORE RAD THAN WE THOUGHT | Gamma Squad

Arminian Chronicles: Response to Marcus on Ephesians 1

Image via Wikipedia

Last week Dan, a blogger who writes insightful posts on theology, posted his exegesis on the beginning of the book of Ephesians. I did not fully agree with him so I wrote a response stepping through his post paragraph by paragraph. He was kind enough to read my response and offer further comments. He chose to discuss the key topic: election in Christ. He also responded to specific sentences I wrote which he italicized. His comments are in regular black font while my additional comments will be in red.
 
Marcus was kind enough to read and respond to my post on Ephesians 1. While his response covers a wide range of topics, D.V. I will restrict my response to the key topic: election in Christ.

Marcus: Did God predestine us or did he predestine the plan of salvation? God predestined us not a plan. Does a plan get adopted like children? Does a plan get seated in heaven?

This indirectly get’s at the key issue of understanding ‘in Christ’. The answer to your first question is both. God does choose us but He also chose and predestined to save through the Gospel. John 3:16, 1 Cor 1:21 especially in light of 1 Cor 2:7.

Let's take a closer look at the texts Dan cites:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. - John 3 16

"whoever" refers to a person who believes not the plan of how God offers salvation.

For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. - 1 Cor 1:21

Again, I see the verse saying that God saved those who believe - not a plan. And 1 Cor 2:7 is not talking about the plan being glorified but those whom God had chosen. Therefore, sorry, I don't see how the we can say that the plan is what was predestined and not the people who are elect. Nor do I think we can say the plan was the point being talked about although you could argue that God chose this plan before he created anything. In fact the Bible tells us exactly that.

So the next question is naturally, is the Gospel the foundation of our election or is our election the foundation of the Gospel. In other words, does God first say ‘I want to glorify these people’ and then say ‘to do so I will use Christ, the cross and their union to Christ through faith’ or on the other hand does he first say ‘Christ is the foundation of Gospel through the cross and these people are united to Christ through faith’ and then say ‘I will glorify them and adopt them into my family’?

Biblically speaking, we cannot say that the goal of salvation is to glorify us. This is a problem. Our glorification is a byproduct of God glorifying Himself. 

Me: The election is not of certain individuals whether or not they are united to Christ. It is all those and only those who are united to Christ. The election does not unite people to Christ. Rather it adopts them to God through their union to Christ. We are united to Christ by grace through faith.

Is there anyone who is united to Christ, yet is not elected to be adopted into the family of God? Vice versa?  This is why Dan's argument confuses me because there is no one who is elected who is not united to Christ by faith. Scripture says that it is because we are elected we believe. There is no one who believes who is not elected and everyone who is elected believes. 

Marcus: I agree election is not of certain individuals whether or not they are united to Christ. I have never heard or read James White, RC Sproul, John MacArthur, John Piper or any Calvinist say that it was.

Ah, but by implication, you say it when you say:

God has chosen to predestine some of us to unite with Christ and be reconciled to Himself.

I think that Dan and I are not meaning the same thing. What I think he means is that election is not depended on whether or not a person is united to Christ. This I agree with. It's not either/or. If a person is elect, he/she is united in Christ. The election comes first. It's all or nothing. You can't be elected and not be united with Christ.

If God first chooses us and then chooses to unite us to Christ, our election is not 'in Christ'. Again, if God chooses us before the foundation of the world and then in time uses Christ to fulfill that choice, we are not elected 'in Christ'. But if God views us as united to Christ through faith and then chooses to adopt and glorify us, then our election is in Christ.

Again, when God predestined the election, he has already chosen us to be adopted and glorified even if it had not been realized yet. IT seems that Dan is arguing that the election is non-temporal and before anything was created (very Biblically sound) but argues that the adoption and glorification doesn't happen until we accept Christ of our own will. And put that way I agree, partially. Because God exists outside of time, when he elected us our reunion with Christ was a done deal. Put a fork in me....I'm done.

Me: Also the election is in Christ, not unto union with Christ.

Again, how can you have one without the other?

Marcus: I don't believe the author has been able to prove that there is a difference between being elected in Christ and being elected into union with Christ.

The text says "in Christ", not "into union with Christ", nor are these two things gramatically equivalant. If I said I chose the chips in the cabinet for dinner, I am not saying I ate the chips in the cabinet.

Interesting analogy.  By God's nature when He makes a decision reality automatically manifests itself into whatever He decided when He decided that it would. Nothing can or will change it. That is why He is God. As for us when we choose anything for dinner, that does not mean that is what you will be having for dinner. Anything could happen to stop it. While  if you or I chose (exelexato - 1605 is the Strong #  - selected out of several possibilities) chip for dinner, we may not eat chips for dinner. That is very different. God exelexato those who are to be saved out of all who will ever live (without rejecting those who were not saved) and  did so perfectly. Our decision making is not so nearly precise or accurate. Please note that exelexato is used in Ephesians 1:4,5

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—

Thanks again for the response!

Thank you, also!

God be with you,
Dan

Dan, you wouldn't be considering such things, if God wasn't with you.

Arminian Chronicles: Response to Marcus on Ephesians 1

Atheism is Dead: The Mad Pagan Skeptic, part 2

Mariano has posted the second part of a wonderful series he is doing on his blog, Atheism Is Dead. Here is his intro for the post:

We now continue our tripartite consideration of the mad Pagan skeptic, having already considered Friedrich Nietzsche’s virtual prophecy about what would come about due to the death of God.
We will now consider a biblical statement about humanity’s natural knowledge of God and our purposeful negation of such knowledge.
And lastly, we will consider to what atheism has come as they seek to find meaning in a meaningless universe and seek to prop up their favored ideas upon contradictions of their own making.

This essay will be parsed as follows:
1) An Exposition of The Parable of the Mad Man
2) Neo Pagan Atheism
3) The Modern Skeptic

Mariano really does an awesome job stepping through Romans 1. I really recommend reading this, And part 1 of the series deserves your time also.

Atheism is Dead: The Mad Pagan Skeptic, part 2

Anthony Buzzard Debate on Unbelievable!

Dr. James White just posted on his blog an announcement that he will be debating Anthony Buzzard (pictured) on the radio during his trip to  London. Dr White wrote:

Well, the Lord answered prayer and opened the way for an Unbelievable Radio Program debate with Sir Anthony Buzzard, formerly of Atlanta Bible College, one of the leading Socinians of our day.

After hearing last Thursday's Dividing Line webcast I'm interested in hearing the debate because during that program Buzzard's Anti-Trinitarian arguments were refuted. Take a listen to get to understand why the Trinity is so important. 

Anthony Buzzard Debate on Unbelievable!

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Frank Turek of CrossExamined.org

Brian has posted an insightful interview with Dr. Frank Turek! It's a great interview. We get to hear how Turek was brought to God through Jesus. We get to hear Turek comment on his two debates with Christopher Hitchens and Turek gives good advice on how to get into apologetics and how to get your church involved. He recommends books and resources.
The post even includes links to all of Turek's resources. This one is a "must-hear". The two things I got most out of it is that we don't need to fret and overwork ourselves refuting unbiblical worldviews...instead when someone makes a statement they need to back it up...just like we Christians must. We are accused of having blind-faith because that is all our accusers have in their philosophies and worldviews.

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Frank Turek of CrossExamined.org

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Grek Koukl on "same-sex marriage"

Image via Wikipedia

I'm glad to see Greg Koukl's comments on this subject . I agree, they need to be read and discussed. It really does come down to whether or not we are going to live God's way or our own.

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Grek Koukl on "same-sex marriage"

Atheism is Dead: The Mad Pagan Skeptic, part 1

Friedrich Nietzsche via last.fm

Mariano has written a great essay discussing  atheism and its logical conclusions. He begins this series building on a Nietzche's  Parable of the Mad Man. It is brilliant. Here is his introduction:

Atheism is Dead will now begin a tripartite consideration of the mad Pagan skeptic whereby we will consider Friedrich Nietzsche’s virtual prophecy about what would come about due to the death of God.
We will also consider a biblical statement about humanity’s natural knowledge of God and our purposeful negation of such knowledge.
Lastly, we will consider to what atheism has come as they seek to find meaning in a meaningless universe and seek to prop up their favored ideas upon contradictions of their own making.

This essay will be parsed as follows:
1) An Exposition of The Parable of the Mad Man
2) Neo Pagan Atheism
3) The Modern Skeptic

Here is another example of a post so brilliant that i can't help but share it. I truly think that Nietzche went insane because without God there is nothing else for a human mind to do, but snap. Even atheists today, who are not insane, don't realize that they maintain conscious cohesiveness and rationality byu the whim of God.I recommend that everyone read Mariano's full article and the whole series!

Atheism is Dead: The Mad Pagan Skeptic, part 1

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Did Moses Have a Cleft Lip?

Image via Wikipedia

This is a great post from Dr. Claude Mariottini. I never considered that Moses could have had a medical condition. I also disagree with the rabbinical idea that God does not call people to service who have disabilities. I know that God does use people who are disabled. One of the Pastors in my denomination is blind and he is constantly used by God. He is just one of the examples I know of. Mariottini does a great job showing  how Moses' answer when God called him from the burning  bush. has been interpreted and re-interpreted.


Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Did Moses Have a Cleft Lip?

YouTube - Hitler Finds Out Scott Brown Won Massachusetts Senate Seat

Image via Wikipedia

Gotta love YouTube. Here is another bit of creative video editing to make Hitler go on a tirade of Scott Brown winning a Senate seat and putting the Health Care bill in jeopardy.





YouTube - Hitler Finds Out Scott Brown Won Massachusetts Senate Seat

Cindy & Meghan McCain Poses for Ad Supporting Gay Marriage -- Politics Daily

It's been reported that Cindy McCain, the wife of 2008 Presidential candidate - John McCain, has appeared in an ad supporting gay marriage. It's part of a series of ads where celebrities pose with duct tape over their mouths and the words "No H8" tattooed on their faces. I want to first point out that I think these people's hearts are in the right place. I mean hating anyone is wrong and freedom of speech is important. The mistake is that gay marriage issue has nothing to do with hate or free speech. I'm surprised that so many people in our culture equivocate opposing gay marriages with subverting civil rights, hating homosexuals, and silencing free speech. This equivocation dodges the real issue. It comes down to few questions. The first two questions are: What is marriage and can the definition change just because the morals and ideas of society have changed? My worldview makes it necessary to define marriage as a union - socially, economically, emotionally, physically, and spiritually- between a single man and a single woman. Further I have to argue that definition is not mutable because of relativistic morality. This begs the next question: Who said the definition of marriage is immutable? Answer: The one who created it is the only one who has the right to define "marriage". So then we are left to the fundamental fact that God created marriage - I mean he matched Adam and Eve. I know the objection. Many object that there is no God - no absolute law giver - and that there was no Adam and Eve. Let's consider for the moment that there is a God and that He made all of us, wouldn't it matter what He had to say about gay marriage, abortion, and everything else? Given that there is a God - Lord over all - of course it would matter. So even if I don't personally care who or what one chooses to marry or have sex with, it matters because it matters to God because He wants what is best for us and has given us a standard. As for proving the existence of God or that there is a moral standard by which we are all judged I'm going to save that for another post. I'm pointing out here that if you accept that there is a God and that he has an objective moral standard, then you cannot support gay marriage and be logically consistent. It's about following God no matter what. My subjective opinion does not matter in the face of God's. Making it about hate and civil rights is a smoke screen. It's like protesting earthquakes or gravity. It's the pot trying to call the potter to the carpet and trying to change the pootter to fit what the pot thinks is right. Does not work.

As far as I know both Cindy and Meghan are Christians so it should matter to them what God thinks of gay marriage. Given that the Bible is the infallible and undeniable word of God (I'll be posing my proof on this at a latter time about how we know this is objectively true), it would be a good idea to see what Jesus is recorded to have said regarding marriage in it's perfect purposed state.

1When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and 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'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For 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." - Matthew 19: 1-12

Jesus is clear. There was an Adam. There was an Eve. And marriage should be between one woman and one man.

The McCain's involvement in the ad campaign is newsworthy  because John McCain has publicly denied the legal defnition of marriage should be changed. He did respond regarding his wife's and daughter's activities.

McCain's office issued a statement saying that the senator respects differences of opinion between his family members, but still "believes the sanctity of marriage is only defined as between one man and one woman."

It is more loving to tell people the truth rather than allow them to destroy themselves going against God. Given that anyone who tries to point out what God said is being stigmatized and ridiculed and demonized who is really being ductaped?

Cindy McCain Poses for Ad Supporting Gay Marriage -- Politics Daily

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Are there Other Attributes Shared by the Members of the Trinity?

Mariano has done a great post continuing his series on the Trinity. This time he focuses on various scriptures talking about the Father's, Son's, and Holy Spirit's shared attributes. This is a great post!

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Are there Other Attributes Shared by the Members of the Trinity?

Haitians and People With Common Sense Respond to Pat Roberston.

I found some great videos of responses to Pat Roberston's assertion's last week that Haiti is suffering because it gained its independence through making a pact with Satan. He even asserted that because of this Haiti deserves the suffering it has endured, even before and including the earthquake. I think he is even trying to say that we are qualitatively  better - more righteous - than they.  Not true! I've written more about this last week. This time I want to focus on the videos. Priceless! Especially the comments from the ambassador from Haiti. Someone really needs to pull Pat's coat tails!

Biblical Exegesis: Arminian Chronicles: Ephesians 1 Chosen "In Him"

Image via Wikipedia

Here is a great article I learned about from Brennon's Thoughts.It is a verse-by-verse analysis of Ephesians 1;2:1-10. It's from an Arminian viewpoint. Here are my comments in red, the author's are in black.

Verse by Verse Analysis

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

God the Father is truly the Father of Christ. Christ proceeds from the Father, yet Christ is no less eternal or God.

No argument here;

The phrase “heavenly places” is in Ephesians 5 times and nowhere else in the New Testament. (Eph 1:20; Eph 2:6; Eph 3:10; Eph 6:12). In Ephesians 2:6 the believer is already seated with Christ.

No argument here;

Eph 2:6 “and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus”

No argument here;

This could be taken as future or now but spiritually. Based on the next two verses, the future seems to be the correct understanding.

I think it means that it is now true spiritually and will be a physical reality in the future because Paul describes it in the past tense referring to the point at which we were saved.

We are blessed in Christ Jesus. Our blessings are from and through and in Him. God the Father’s purpose of salvation was in Him. Only through union with Him is the Church blessed.

The “us” Paul refers to is the Church. Paul, a Jew, is uniting himself with his Gentile audience. In Christ, they are united.

At this point we we know "us" refers to the church. What is the church? Them that believe is the church - past, present, and future.

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

God’s choice, from eternity past, was to save the Church, those united to Christ, through Christ’s work. Election is in Christ. Christ is not simply the means to save those the Father elects. Rather, Christ is eternal and the very foundation of election.

We will be holy (positive) and without blame (negative). God will completely forgive those that are in Christ Jesus. God has decided to save those united to Christ. The phrase holy and without blame appears also in Colossians 1:22-23:

Col 1:22 yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and without blemish and unreproveable before him:
Col 1:23 if so be that ye continue in the faith, grounded and stedfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye heard, which was preached in all creation under heaven; whereof I Paul was made a minister.

Here in Ephesians ending up holy and without blame is certain, unconditional and caused by God. In Colossians ending up holy and without blame is contingent and conditional based on our continuing in the faith. Here in Ephesians the Church is being addressed as a body. In Colossians, the individuals are addressed. The Church will never fail, but individuals may or may not be joined with or remain within the Church.

I think we have a problem here. The church cannot be saved unless the individuals who make up the church are saved. I've got to disagree that Ephesians is just referring to an organization. Paul writes "us" - the people who believe are loved and chosen. Because the people who make up the church are chosen - the church is chosen. If a person continues in faith it is because God has predestined him/her.

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

God pre-arranged that the Church would become His children, through Christ. His plan is certain, and even though we are still on earth, we might as well be in heaven seated with Christ.

Did God predestine us or did he predestine the plan of salvation? God predestined us not a plan. Does a plan get adopted like children? Does a plan get seated in heaven? No, 

Corporate Election

Was it necessary for Christ to come and redeem us? Were the incarnation and atonement simply means of accomplishing God’s preexisting plan? This passage teaches that Christ’s role is both instrumental and all-inclusive in election.

Amen

The incarnation and redemption were indeed necessary. God’s very character of justice requires that sin cannot be ignored or go unpunished. There could not have been any salvation without redemption through Christ’s blood, which provides the forgiveness of sins. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19-21). God loved the world so much that He gave his only begotten Son (John 3:16), He spared not His Son but delivered Him up for us all (Romans 8:32) and Christ’s death was foreordained before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20).

Amen

With that in mind, God’s election was based on Christ and His work. Election could not have been otherwise. God could not have chosen to save sinners apart from redemption in Christ Jesus. God’s holiness would not allow salvation through other means.

Amen

Christ was established by God’s choice to be the foundation of salvation. By His blood, sinners would be saved. But in the establishment of Christ as the Savior the Church is implicitly chosen. Those that are in Christ and united to Him have been established by God’s plan. All in Christ are elected to salvation and apart from Christ, no one is elected to salvation.

Amen. God knows who will be saved. 

The election is not of certain individuals whether or not they are united to Christ. It is all those and only those who are united to Christ. The election does not unite people to Christ. Rather it adopts them to God through their union to Christ. We are united to Christ by grace through faith.

I agree election is not of certain individuals whether or not they are united to Christ. I have never heard or read James White, RC Sproul, John MacArthur, John Piper or any Calvinist say that it was.

Is it possible to be elected to adoption and not be united to Christ. No way! You can't be adopted as a child of God  without being united with Christ through faith. The thing is that all those who are united with Christ are elected.

The Gift of Faith

Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Faith is a gift from God and through this gift, we are united to Christ and thereby saved. ¹ A gift implies a giver and a receiver. If the receiver does not want the gifts, they may be rejected and returned. Gifts are never earned or deserved. They are given freely.

How is faith returned? Either a person has faith or doesn't. Is it possible for a man to have faith yet reject Jesus. I don't see how.

So in what sense is faith a gift? First we must understand what faith is. In Hebrews 11 we read that:

Hebrews 11:1-3 Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen. For therein the elders had witness borne to them. By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which appear.

Normally we assent to truth as soon as we see and understand the proof. That’s the difference between a belief and an opinion. The proof is the evidence of the truth. Often the truth is its own proof, or rather; it is self evident. In faith, we hold a conviction of something not seen. Faith itself is the assurance. Faith itself is the evidence. Faith acts as the proof in convicting us of a truth we have no other proof for.

I can agree with that.  But how does that prove that faith is a gift that can be rejected? If faith is rejected it seems more like it was never given. Is there a passage of scripture that says that saving faith is given to all people in the same proportion?

Once we understand basic math, believing that 1 + 1 = 2 is not really a choice. Once it’s understood, it can not be rejected. The evidence forbids it. Believing or not believing is not volitional. The evidence, not our will, moves us to assent to the truth.

Faith is like opinion in that we don’t have evidence moving our mind to hold a conviction. Rather, we choose to do so, voluntarily. In contrast to the math equation example where the evidence moves our mind to hold a conviction, our will moves our mind to hold a conviction. Faith differs from opinion in that faith is the substance or assurance. Faith itself causes us to accept the truth.
So faith is a gift from God, in that He moves our wills to assent to the truth of the Gospel, which we have no other proof of. He starts our will moving towards believing the truth, and as long as we don’t resist His grace, He carries us through to fully assent to the truth of the Gospel.

Look at what is commented: 

Once it’s understood, it can not be rejected. The evidence forbids it. Believing or not believing is not volitional. The evidence, not our will, moves us to assent to the truth.

I see the point and agree.  However he also wrote 

So faith is a gift from God, in that He moves our wills to assent to the truth of the Gospel, which we have no other proof of. He starts our will moving towards believing the truth, and as long as we don’t resist His grace, He carries us through to fully assent to the truth of the Gospel.

How can God move our will, yet we can resist His grace? How? I have talked to several Arminians who agree that without God we are unable to come to the truth of the Gospel but if God only nudges us to the point to which we can decide why doesn't God push us all to the point that we accept the Gospel? Free will doesn't answer the question because God had to violate our will so that we would even begin to consider the Gospel. Everyone is going to hell by default. God has chosen to predestine some of us to unite with Christ and be reconciled to Himself. - the elect.

By way of example, let’s say a dog is stuck in a house, unconscious and the house is on fire. Rubble falls on the dog and breaks its legs. The dog will certainly die. A man runs into the house and wakes up the dog. The dog gets scared, but doesn’t know how to escape. The man shows the dog the way out, but the dog can’t follow because of its broken legs. The man picks up the dog and runs to safety.

If the dog had bitten the man when he ran for safety, the man may have dropped the dog and it would have died. But if the dog doesn’t resist, we still wouldn’t say that it saved itself.

In the same way God carries our wills to assent to the truth of the Gospel.

I think that the analogy fails to illustrate what is really happening. Let's and it real and say that it's a man. in the burning house. The man has just raped and murdered everyone in the house and set it on fire. a piece of concrete falls and knows the man unconscious and breaks all of his limbs. The king of the country runs into the burning house and carries the man out  and sets his broken bones and allows him to live in the palace, pardoned and free of condemnation..  This more accurately illustrates what God has done for us. We were dead in sin and trespasses. We didn't want to be saved. We didn't even know we needed a savior. Nor do we deserve it. Yet, the king of all reality swoops in saves us, heals us, and forgives us, transforming our very nature.  That is how God brings us to the truth of the Gospel.

Answers to Calvinist Objections

Based on this passage three arguments in favor of unconditional election have been asserted:

Argument 1: He chose us to be holy, not because we were holy
Argument 2: The choice happened before the foundation of the world and not at the moment individuals come to faith
Argument 3: No further reason was given other than the good pleasure of His will

The Calvinist view breaks down into two major varieties. The first called supra-lapsarian states that God predestined some for glory, others for destruction before considering man as fallen or in Christ. The second, infra-lapsarian states that God predestined some for eternal life and passed by the rest after considering man as fallen and in sin.

The first argument does not support the supra-lapsarian (pre-fallen mankind) position. In fact it opposes it. Those that were predestined were unholy. They were sinners. But Adam, before he fell was not a sinner in need of saving grace. Verse 6 states that predestination is to the praise of the glory of His grace. Grace is given to sinners so a reference to grace here seems to consider man in a fallen condition. Further, the passage states that we are made accepted in Christ, but we must first be considered rejected because of our sin. This is evidence that God considers men as sinners prior to predestination.

I agree while we were yet Sinners Jesus died for us (Romans 5:8).

The infra-lapsarian (post-fallen mankind) position does not have this problem. They concur that man was considered as sinners when they are predestined to salvation. The mistake is not that the election is made prior to individuals believing, but that the election relates to individuals and not the group. Also the election is in Christ, not unto union with Christ.

I don't believe the author has been able to prove that there is a difference between being elected in Christ and being elected into union with Christ. 

Verse 4 describes the individuals as “in Him” but only believers are united to Christ. Because Christ is the foundation of salvation, no one could be predestined to salvation apart from union with Christ.

Agreed

Further, the “us” in verse 1 is “the faithful in Christ Jesus”. Verses 13 & 23 indicate that the reference is to a group and not individuals. In verses 22 & 23 those that are “in Him” are named the Church, but the Church is a group of believers not “individuals without being considered believers”. In verse 13 only after believing did the gentiles join the Jews who first believed and were officially added to the group by the Holy Spirit who sealed them.

First verses 13 does not refer to group but to the same individuals who believe.  Look at its context.

¹¹In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, ¹²in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. ¹³And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, ¹⁴who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory.

The "you" is the same "us" Paul has been discussing. Second, I agree that the Holy Spirit seals us. 

when we believed The question is if we are sealed how is it that we can become "unborn again"? We can't. If you get into union with Christ by your own free will....why isn't your free will enough to get you out? Because it's not anything we do, it's a gift. If a person rejects that gift...they never received it.

Paul is saying is that God before the foundation of the world chose to save believers through Christ and predestined them to heaven. Basically, this is the formulation of the gospel before the foundation of the world. God did not have to choose to save anyone at all. Believers do not earn salvation through faith. God out of the good pleasure of His will, graciously chose to save believers.

Yes, Amen! The point of disagreement is how does one become a believer? Can you just choose to believe without any intervention from the Father. John 6:44 knocks that possibility out. So if you can't believe on your own, how is it do you come to faith? God saves us despite ourselves.

Conclusion

Ephesians 1 teaches that God before the foundation of the world chose to save believers through Christ and predestined them to heaven. God does not accept sinners nor does he choose anyone to eternal life except in Christ and for the sake of Christ. "He hath chosen us in Him," verse 4; "wherein He hath made us accepted in the Beloved," verse 6. This demonstrates that man’s condition prior to election was fallen and in need of saving grace. This grace is in Christ and provided through faith which unites us to Him.

I agree with the conclusion. However I can't see how if God is doing the choosing how is it that we can reject. Jesus said of his disciples that the father gave Him, none of them he lost (John 17:12). Why would Jesus be a butterfingers now and some of His followers be lost?  No way!

-------------------------------------------------
¹ Some people object that faith itself is not the gift here, noting the gender of it and faith are different in the Greek. They prefer to understand that salvation or the economy of salvation through faith as the gift. The Greek is inconclusive and has been read either way. Though I prefer the understanding that faith is the gift, either read is permissible. But the concept that we need God’s grace to believe is clear from many passages of scripture, such as John 15:5 (without me ye can do nothing), Acts 18:27 (he helped them much that had believed through grace) and 2 Timothy 2:25 (if peradventure God may give them repentance unto the knowledge of the truth).

In case you are wondering, I agree with the footnote too.

Arminian Chronicles: Ephesians 1 Chosen "In Him"

Truthbomb Apologetics: 'Religion-free' Haiti Relief Fund

This is a great post from Chad over at Truthbomb Apologetics. I join him in congratulating Dawkins and other atheists in raising money for Haiti. I thank God for their help and I also agree that it's silly and wrong to argue that atheists are incapable of doing good things and caring about other people. They clearly can and do. However, Chad is correct, atheism does not explain how or why we should care about what happened in Haiti. I want to quote Chad's closing because I think it sums up the only way a Christian can respond to this move by the Atheists.

In closing, I want to once again commend Dawkins and his fellow atheists for providing relief for those in Haiti; and, it is indeed wrong to say that atheists cannot be good or live ethical lives. However, from the atheistic worldview it is unsustainable why it is better to help the Haitians than to not help the Haitians.

It's really a major issue for me because my wife is Haitian. She was  born in Port-au-Prince and still has many relatives and friends there, including her father. Miraculously, they all survived the earthquake, but lost their homes. Even more, I find even more miraculous is their attitude. They like every single survivor that I have heard speak credit and thank God for their survival and for the help of the world. My father-in-law and his wife actually experienced the hand of God preserving them and bringing them out of the wreakage of their home that collapsed on top of them. He said he knows that God saved their lives. He said he heard a voice tell him how to lead his wife out, crawling out of the house. He knows it was God. And my wife's cousin  escaped her house collapsing on her and her baby by mere seconds. When she realized that there was an earthquake she grabbed her baby and left the house.  There are other miracles. Other examples of God's grace and power in the face of devastation. We were praying and continue to pray. No way can we say that prayer does not do anything. The survivors themselves disagree with the worldview of the atheists. Those who actually are suffering are holding on to God while some of those who are rejecting God are wondering why would a loving God allow such a thing. The contrast is striking. Note: the picture is of my father-in-law, Marion-Phillip with my daughter, Makayla from when he visited the States in 2007.

Truthbomb Apologetics: 'Religion-free' Haiti Relief Fund