Today on a Radio Free Geneva: Questions About Calvinism
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Today on a Radio Free Geneva: Questions About Calvinism
Today on a Radio Free Geneva: Questions About Calvinism
Turretin and Compatibilism: Man's Freedom and God's Decree
Although men’s actions may be free (because done spontaneously and by a previous judgment of reason), they do not cease to be necessary with respect to the divine decree and foreknowledge. Now the foreknowledge of God implies indeed the infallibility of futurition and of the event and the necessity of consequence, and yet does not imply coaction or violence, nor take away from the will its intrinsic liberty. - Institutes, third topic, question 12 (p. 211, english trans.)I like it! Read Hubner's comments at the following link.
Turretin and Compatibilism: Man's Freedom and God's Decree
“The Fatima Crusader” and False Prophecy | True Freethinker
There appears to be a deceiving spirit, a fallen angel disguised as an angel of light, who is passing itself off as Jesus’ mother, Mary. This creature has been spreading false doctrine wrapped in a veneer of Christian obeisance as well as false prophecies.Read the rest of the article at the following link.
It was a study into some of these false prophecies that lead me to write to Fr. Nicholas Gruner of The Fatima Crusader in order to pose some questions regarding these prophecies and those making them. The chronology of what follows is that Fr. Nicholas Gruner wrote an article in the year 1998 AD that made certain claims about prophecies that were to be fulfilled in 1999 AD and or 2000 AD. Once the year 2001 had come around, I wrote the following e-mail dated June 30th, 2001 AD (the usual pleasantries have been edited out)
“The Fatima Crusader” and False Prophecy | True Freethinker
Answering Muslims: Congressman Allen West vs. CAIR: "Don't Try and Blow Sunshine Up My Butt"
David Wood posted a response to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Their argument is as follows.
The latest argument from the Council on American-Islamic Relations? "You can't show us a single verse where the Qur'an explicitly commands Muslims to attack America! Since the Qur'an nowhere commands Muslims to attack America, you can't say that Muslim attacks against America have anything to do with Islam!"
Of course David Wood isn't the only one who disagrees. He also posted Congressman Allen West response.
Go ahead and follow the link to see David Wood's well-reasoned Response.
Answering Muslims: Congressman Allen West vs. CAIR: "Don't Try and Blow Sunshine Up My Butt"
Iron Sharpens Iron: David Wood: Muslim Terrorizes Other Muslims: Dearborn Case Update
Iron Sharpens Iron: David Wood: Muslim Terrorizes Other Muslims: Dearborn Case Update
Monday, February 21, 2011
Iron Sharpens Iron: Nabeel Qureshi: From the Crescent to the Cross: Testimony of a Muslim Convert to Christianity.
Iron Sharpens Iron: Nabeel Qureshi: From the Crescent to the Cross: Testimony of a Muslim Convert to Christianity.
Black History Sermon - Sunday February 20, 2011
- Benjamin Banneker
- Granville T. Woods
- Louis Latimer
- Garret Morgan
- Anna Berry Smith
- Charles Harrison Mason
I have posted the power point I used and a word document comprising the notes I used while I was speaking.
Black History Sermon February 20 2011
FacePalm of the Day #65 - Debunking Christianity: Biblical Apologetics and the Flat Earthers
Professor Keith Parsons wrote:I think that equating people who think the earth is flat with people who believe the Bible is stupid. In the case of the flat earth we have plenty of contradictory evidence showing that the earth is spherical. In the case of the Bible and especially in the case of the Resurrection - there is zero proof that conclusively disproves them no matter what you choose to believe. Definitely the kind of facepalm worthy statement I've come to expect from Loftus and at least he has something in common with God - he never disappoints either.
"Without an adequate theodicy, arguing for God’s existence will be like arguing that the earth is flat. Vast quantities of contrary data will either have to be ignored or dealt with in an arbitrary and ad hoc fashion." God and the Burden of ProofThis quote came to mind today when Ed Babinski sent me two links of people who argued for a flat earth in our modern society. One of them is an article that appeared in 1931 offering $5,000 to anyone who can prove the earth is a globe. The other one is about today's flat earthers.p. 132.
You know, the more I think of it, the more I think Christians--especially of the evangelical kind--argue in the same way as flat earthers. Read through that second link. See any parallels? I do.
As for the need of an adequate theodicy, I agree with Dr Parsons. However the Bible gives more than an adequate theodicy.
Debunking Christianity: Biblical Apologetics and the Flat Earthers
Debunking Christianity: The Goodness of God is an Oxymoron, by papalinton
P
John Loftus posted the following list from one who calls himself papalinton:
If God made everything and is in control then why shouldn't God have the right to decide what is evil and what the punishments should be? The punishments are unfathomable because we are limited. We don't know the foundation. We are all up in the kool -aid and have no idea what the flavor is unless God tells us. The evil we experience we deserve. You think it's bad now? Just wait until you are totally cut off from God in Hell. Papalinton does however make the mistake of ignoring the context of those prophecies and neglects to adequately point out that these are consequences of sin. I'm glad to see papalinton likes to quote scripture to illustrate his points. However he should look up Romans 9:14-24
Debunking Christianity: The Goodness of God is an Oxymoron, by papalinton
A small list for information:Aside from the obvious sarcasm and disrespect I think it's important to point out that this list of 20 things is in the Bible. They are brought up to call into question the goodness of God. My question is how do these things show that God is not good. papalinton gives the reasons when he said:
1. God will kill men, have their children smashed, and have their wives raped [Isaiah 13:16-16]
2. God will punish children for the inequities of their fathers and distant ancestors [Isaiah 14:21
3. God will lay waste to entire cities and make the lands desolate [Jeremiah 4:7]
4. God will set people, animals, and even plants on fire because of his anger [Jeremiah 7:20]
5. God will send so much evil that people would rather be dead than suffer [Jeremiah 8:3]
6. God will give away the property of men, including their wives, to other men [Jeremiah 8:10]
7. God will kill young men, and their children will die from a famine [Jeremiah 11:22
8. God will cause everyone to become drunk so that father and son will kill one another [Jeremiah 13:14]
9. God will make people hungry enough to eat their own children and friends [Jeremiah 19:9]
10. God will burn entire cities with the inhabitants still inside [Jeremiah 50:32
11. God will break people's bones and knock out their teeth with stones [Lamentations 3:1-16]
12. God will force fathers and sons to eat each other and scatter their remembrance [Ezekiel 5:10]
13. God will be comforted by killing everyone with pestilence, plagues, and swords [Ezekiel 5:12-13]
14. God will kill righteous men and forget their good deeds if thy ever turn to sin [Ezekiel 18:24]
15. God will turn daughters into whores and wives into adulterers [Hosea 13:8]
16. God will kill children and unborn fetuses because their parents worship other gods [Hosea 13:16]
17. God will sell children of Israel into slavery in a far away land [Joel 3:8]
18. God will kill inhabitants of entire cities if they have a corrupt government [Micah 3:9-12]
19. God will consume every living thing from the face of the earth [Zephaniah 1:2-3]
20. God will send people to steal Jerusalem, rape the women, and enslave the rest [Zechariah 14:2]
21. God will send plagues on people and animals to rot away their tongues and eyes [Zechariah 14:12-15]
The prophets warn us of the OT god's frightful, futuristic return to the earth, at which point he'll initiate every category of curse imaginable on the people who ignore his commandments, refuse to worship him, or commit acts that he arbitrarily deems evil. It's remarkable that he can dish out such unfathomable punishments for reasons a typical person would consider lacking in foundation, yet he becomes terribly enraged when one of us follow suits.
And remember Jesus did not invalidate any of these with his teachings. They were never to be cast aside. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill the law" [Matthew 5:18]
I didn't make up this information. It's all there, in the inerrant scripture, in the words of the Big Daddy, himself. Link
The prophets warn us of the OT god's frightful, futuristic return to the earth, at which point he'll initiate every category of curse imaginable on the people who ignore his commandments, refuse to worship him, or commit acts that he arbitrarily deems evil. It's remarkable that he can dish out such unfathomable punishments for reasons a typical person would consider lacking in foundation, yet he becomes terribly enraged when one of us follow suits.
If God made everything and is in control then why shouldn't God have the right to decide what is evil and what the punishments should be? The punishments are unfathomable because we are limited. We don't know the foundation. We are all up in the kool -aid and have no idea what the flavor is unless God tells us. The evil we experience we deserve. You think it's bad now? Just wait until you are totally cut off from God in Hell. Papalinton does however make the mistake of ignoring the context of those prophecies and neglects to adequately point out that these are consequences of sin. I'm glad to see papalinton likes to quote scripture to illustrate his points. However he should look up Romans 9:14-24
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For 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.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
Debunking Christianity: The Goodness of God is an Oxymoron, by papalinton
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Apologist Interview: Hugh Ross - Apologetics 315
Apologist Interview: Hugh Ross - Apologetics 315
Using the Qur'an in Witnessing to Muslims
Using the Qur'an in Witnessing to Muslims
My Common Sense is Tingling - Debunking Christianity: Two Mormon's Just Came To My Door
Does it just not cross any believer's mind that you're all ridiculous when you claim to know with certainty you're right and all others are wrong? What is it with you people? Are you just that dense? "No," you'll say, "the Mormon's are wrong and we are the only ones right." Then still others will chime in: "I'm right!" "No, I am." "Am not." "Am too." Are not." "Are too." What idiocy! Do you just not realize what this looks like? Get a grip delusional people. Skepticism is the adult attitude. Grow up!
Why doesn't it cross John Loftus' mind to apply his skepticism to his own position? Isn't he just as delusional assuming he's right and all believers are wrong? Yup, it is. He can't prove he's right. He's even gone as far as saying it could be true although there is no good evidence (and I disagree that there isn't good evidence) therefore he does seem to recognize he could be wrong but still refuses to stop calling others delusional when the same should be applied to him.
Debunking Christianity: Two Mormon's Just Came To My Door
Sunday Quote: Bradley Monton on Methodological Naturalism - Apologetics 315
Brian Auten posted the following quote!
"If science really is permanently committed to methodological naturalism – the philosophical position that restricts all explanations in science to naturalistic explanations - it follows that the aim of science is not generating true theories. Instead, the aim of science would be something like: generating the best theories that can be formulated subject to the restriction that the theories are naturalistic. More and more evidence could come in suggesting that a supernatural being exists, but scientific theories wouldn’t be allowed to acknowledge that possibility."
- Bradley Monton, author of Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design
[HT: Faith Interface]
Amen to that!
Sunday Quote: Bradley Monton on Methodological Naturalism - Apologetics 315
- Bradley Monton, author of Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design
[HT: Faith Interface]
Amen to that!
Sunday Quote: Bradley Monton on Methodological Naturalism - Apologetics 315
FacePalm of the Day #64 - My Common Sense is Tingling - Mr Loftus, A little Consistency Would Be Nice.
The Brafman’s tell us that the way to counter diagnosis bias is to ask this question: “If I were just arriving on the scene and were given the choice to either jump into this project as it stands now or pass on it, would I choose to jump in?” (p. 175). This is similar to what I had previously said when it comes to maintaining one’s faith. Believers must ask themselves if they knew then what they know now would they ever make the decision to convert in the first place? They must re-examine the initial reasons they had when they first made the commitment to faith. What were those reasons? They must ask that question. Do those reasons hold up to the evidence that was initially presented? What evidence was initially presented? Usually none, as in N – O – N – E. Usually what produces a conversion to faith is the gospel story itself and the divine hope and love it promises. There is no discussion about how Jesus was 100% God and 100% man, nor how the death of Jesus atones for sins, nor even what to think about the millions of people who will wind up in hell. So, if you were arriving on the scene when you were first presented the gospel, were you given good initial reasons to believe or not? Would you believe knowing what you do now? Doing so will help believers overcome diagnosis bias, because they will look at what they know now and apply it to what they were told then.I was raised as a Christian my whole life and I have always had access to good answers and nothing has ever been hidden from me. Loftus sounds like his Christian experience was like an Amway meeting or something where you get the presentation of hope and love and no one tell you about things that he now thinks are irrational. To be fair, of course lots of people are "converted" that way. But that is not how I came up. I've always been allowed to apply reason to these issues and have had access to learn about it. I've seen the answers for the issues Loftus brings up and I find them worthwhile and consistent. I've seen other people try to explain it to Loftus and he refuses to listen because the answers can't be rooted in science as if truth can only be determined by Science. I suggest listening to a recent lecture by philosopher J.P. Moreland's lecture on the relationship of science and Christian Faith.
Again, do you want to know the truth despite the fact that by investigating your faith you might find out you are wrong? Can you handle the truth? ;-) Yes or no?
I find that many atheist pretend they want to know the answer to this question. They prefer to believe that Christians are gullible and never thought about what they believe and why. That's not true. I may have been raised a Christian but that isn't why I am a Christian. Had I investigated my faith and realized that it wasn't true I would have walked away. I find it interesting that for people like John Loftus, that isn't good enough. The fact that I've come to the opposite conclusion means that, in their minds, I'm the one who is deluded or even stupid. As one who believes the Bible, I look at this differently. They think that that if I looked at the same evidences, read the same books, and accepted the same presuppositions I would come to the same conclusions. I didn't come to my conclusions completely one my own. God reveals Himself to us. We don't get to find him on our own terms. He gets us.
Here is where the inconsistency comes in: Loftus seems enamored with how the brain works and how to understand how the brains of believers and unbelievers process differently (if at all). He correctly points out that our minds can be tricked and and that we are all biased. He uses this fact to explain for him why rational people are religious although he says that religious beliefs are all equally irrational. In order to make that claim that would mean that he believes that people faith of faith is biased and he is not. He substantiates this by claiming that he avoids bias by trusting science in order to tell what is true and what is false. The problem is that science cannot be the inexhaustible tool to determine truth. It has limits. Aside from science he is still depending on his brain that he has already admitted that is unreliable because everyone's is unreliable.
The Bible agrees -
9 The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure.
Who can understand it?
10 “I the LORD search the heart
and examine the mind,
to reward each person according to their conduct,
according to what their deeds deserve.”
-Jeremiah 17:9-10
This is one of the reasons why I am a Christian. I find that the Bible is a reliable and objective standard on which to understand reality. The best lens to fix my own corrupt and fallible viewpoints. I realize that people like John Loftus disagree with that. However I have searched all over - history, physics, astronomy, chemistry, engineering, and various religions - and I have found none greater than God - nothing more important. With God everything falls into its proper place and makes sense. So the question I have is - given the limitations of your own mind, how do you know truth and reality? What is your authority? As an atheist, the only answer one can give is an I - N - C - O - N - S - I - S - T - E - N - T one.
From John Loftus's blog Debunking Christianity
We’re Not As Rational As We Think, A Review of “Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior”
The Mind of the Believer
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Debunking Christianity: Thomas Jefferson in Defense of Mockery
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." - Link
--Hat Tip: PZ Myers
As I alluded to earlier, Loftus did not give the full quote:
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816
I disagree with Jefferson that no one has ever had a distinct idea of the Trinity. Jesus understand it. On top of that I don't think it bothered Peter, James, John, Paul, Luke, Matthew, Mark, or any of the writers of the New Testament. Just because you or Jefferson or I completely understand it does not make it false. One more time: The Bible says God is one. The Holy Spirit is God. The Son is God. The Father is God. One Being. Three Persons. A single being does not necessarily mean a single person. A rock has being but does not have person. God has being and three persons. A human being is a single being and one person. Debunking Christianity: Thomas Jefferson in Defense of Mockery
Joe Boot vs. Clare Rowson: Does God Exist? Debate Audio - Apologetics 315
Joe Boot vs. Clare Rowson: Does God Exist? Debate Audio - Apologetics 315
FacePalm of the Day #63 - Islam and Christianity A Common Word: The Justice of God Equal Ultimacy and Re-packaged Cheerios
Why was I not surprised when I read this little gem recently? Can anyone tell me why I was not surprised? This is what happens when Calvinist are cornered on a very uncomfortable theological position within Calvinism.
I'm always amazed when Muslims and unbelievers think that Christians are uncomfortable in our theological positions. I think it's more correct to say that they uncomfortable because if we Christians were uncomfortable we would most likely abandon our positions.
When confronted with the Cruel Calvinist deity we are dealing with a sadomasochistic entity that is capricious and whimsical when dealing with his creation.
Describing God, as Christians describe God, as "a sadomasochistic entity that is capricious and whimsical when dealing with his creation." is rather inflamatory. And can't be substantiated whether you are a Calvinist or not.
I already dealt with an interview in which R.C Sproul really dropped the ball and gave the most horrible explanation ever on "Does God DESIRE all people to be saved" You can also see the com boxes where Ken Temple (an advocate of this kind of sickening theology) took quite a brow beating.
You can see that entry here:
http://www.acommonword.net/2010/06/rc-sproul-drops-ball-cruel-calvinist.html
thegrandverbalizer sure likes to toot his own horn, doesn't he.
Now in trying to save face for his hero R.C Sproul (who's son is a real gem too!) Ken Temple said this was that God's grace is the difference between the Islamic system and the Christian system,
"God's grace is the difference in the Christian system so that all the glory goes to Him; whereas in the Islamic system the difference is the innate power and merit of the human that has the ability to choose the right way, so practically, man can boast in the Islamic system. But in the Christian system, man cannot boast. Ephesians 2:1-10; I Corinthians 1:26-31"
That is fine and well but what we are talking about is ultimately where is God's justice in Christianity? Do Christians even believe in a God who is fair and just?
I agree with Temple. Where in the Bible does God say he is fair? For that matter where in the Qur'an does it say that God is fair? "Fair" and "Just" is not the same thing. Mercy trumps fairness. By definition if God was completely fair he would send everyone to hell. It's not fair for him to save some of us and not all of us. "Fairness" isn't even a concept brought up regarding God's character. God is just. God is merciful. While justice demands we all go to hell, God in his mercy has decided to save some of us. I stand by scripture that says he desires all men to be saved and come to repentance. Just because I can't understand why he doesn't make everyone believe and only reveals himself to some of us doesn't mean it's a problem with Christian theology. I don't even have to like it. The Bible tells us what God said, does, and our opinion means very little. He is the potter. We are the clay.
It is true that there are Muslims who boast of their good deeds, their achievements, their awards, their wives, their husbands, their children, but this is also true of Christians as well. The question is does the Qur'an encourage us to be boastful?
"And the servants of the Merciful are those who walk on the earth in humility...." (Qur'an 25:63) The answer is no!
The Bible says the same thing. Ephesians 2:8-10
Now notice that Ken Temple did say one thing in his statement above,
"the innate power and merit of the human that has the ability to choose the right way"
That is right! Every human being has been created with the innate power and ability given to them by God!
That's wrong. No humsn being is born with the innate power and ability to choose the right way. Remember "T" in the acrostistic TULIP that sums up the Calvinistic theology is "Total Depravity." We do not have the ability to please God. Read Romans 8: 5-8
5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.
This is all of us before we get saved through Jesus Christ.
" Say (O Muhammed): "If you do love Allah, follow me: Allah will love you and forgive you your sins: For Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful." (Qur'an 3:31)
In Islam humanity has loved instilled in them! In Islam Love is a dynamic relationship between God and humanity. We have love instilled in us, we are not born without love. We human beings develop very deep bonds with our siblings and our children and parents.
"But ask forgiveness of your Lord, and turn unto Him (in repentance): For my Lord is indeed full of mercy and loving-tender kindness."
(Waistaghfiroo rabbakum thumma toobooilayhi inna rabbee raheemun wadoodun) (Holy Qur'an chapter 11:90)
However, in Christianity we are all God's enemies! Every human baby born is an enemy of God! What a twisted doctrine! It is only when God forces you (reprograms you from an enemy to a friend) that you become this automaton that loves him.
The logic here makes me cringe. Human sin does not mean we can't love our parents, children, siblings, or even strangers. It means that we can't love our enemies. God is calling on us to more than just love those we want to love. Jesus commanded:
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, - Matthew 5:43-44
If any Christian (Assembly of God, Church of Christ, Methodist) comes up to a Calvinist basking and glowing and talking about how they love Jesus Christ and filled with the love of Jesus the Calvinist will give them a very cold look and a very stern stare. Who are these pathetic human beings who think that they are capable of love?
The Calvinist shivers and withers at the thought of it!
A crazy Hyper Calvinist maybe. Who does thegrandverbalizer talk to? An Arminian or any non-Calvinist is saved and filled with the love of Jesus just like any Calvinist who puts their faith in Jesus and believes he died as our propitiation and was raised from the dead. That is the Gospel - nothing else.
For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! (Romans 5:10)
Basically your an enemy of God and your on a collision course with death (if you think I am over exaggerating this example all you have to do is once again click on the following link: http://www.acommonword.net/2010/06/rc-sproul-drops-ball-cruel-calvinist.html
http://hereiblog.com/divine-rape-and-forced-love/
I wonder why is the troublesome if God has indeed saved you?
"Now, Mark Driscoll had a good point on this argument. He likened irresistible grace to a time his daughter was running towards the road about to get hit by a truck. He snatched her out of the way. He did not respect her will. That’s a better analogy."
Another reason why this argument is good is because the child is unable to get off the road to avoid the truck themselves. Who wants to get hit by that truck?
Another reason why this argument is good is because the child is unable to get off the road to avoid the truck themselves. Who wants to get hit by that truck?
Basically right now you have free will. Your will in this world view is to always choose evil and rebellion. That's right! No matter how many times you donate to charity, or you have given your blood or kidney to save someone. No matter how many times you are disgusted with the violence and agony and suffering of the world you are just rotten to the very core! Your fundamentally evil in nature! If you don't like it that's just tough! The reason you don't like it is because of your rebellion against a sovereign God!
The point that is being ignored is that for every good thing we do there is plenty of sinning. Think about it. No one is saying that people don't do good things. Its not those things that are going to count against us - its the sin. It's not one-to-one. One good deed does not cancel a bad one. All the good we do should be credited to God's grace and mercy. We deserve the judgment. Most of the time the objections I see about this are rooted in the desire to avoid the fact that we deserve hell and no amount of good we do apart from Jesus will balance the debt we owe God.
So what does this sovereign, cruel, capricious deity of Calvinism do? He "does not respect your will" as the Christian above so eloquently puts it.
Why should he? You are unable to fix it yourself. You are trapped in your own depravity and sin. If he doesn't interfere in your will you would be lost. Sovereign? Yes. Capricious? How? God is doing you the favor of saving you.
God forces you to love him, he changes you, generates you, smashes your will, spiritually rapes you, reconciles you. No matter how you want to put it folks Special K or Cheerios or Brand X your still eating the same cereal!
That doesn't describe what happens at all. It's not rape. It's more like drowning in the sea and being too stupid to realize it or even to ask for help, and God reaches out and snag you out of raging sea so you don't die. Sounds loving to me.
So no.1 The difference between God's relationship in Islam and Christianity (Calvin's flavor)
We human beings have the ability (given to us by God each and everyone of us with the mental capacity and faculty) to be love God. We can reach out to God. In fact I bet there is someone reading this article right now because you have something beautiful inside of you. That is right! I said it something beautiful and amazing and something that needs to be harnessed, trained, and nurtured so it becomes even more beautiful. Right now out of the thousands of web sites you could be looking at , the million and one things you could be doing you are here.
Thegrandvebalizer just showed that the Bible does not agree that all humans have the ability to freely love God. I would also like to point out Romans 5 and 6 and 7 really drives this point home. Face it, it's more attractive to think that there is a goodness and qualities about you that allows you to choose to follow God on your own and unaided. But isn't that boasting? I think it is.
In Islam you have the ability to reach out to God, and God will reach out to you.
In Christianity you are on the road to hell unless the capricious deity of Calvin randomly chooses to love you, and than he will make you love him!
Huge difference!
Why? Because you have a longing for God!
The other difference is how thegrandverbalizer describes Calvinistic Theology and what it actually says. God's choice is not capricious or random. We are incapable of loving God without His aid. Of course we have a longing for God. Longing and love are not the same thing. It's that longing that forces people into drugs, alcohol, embracing all manner of evil and sin, and other religions - in a vain attempt to fill that hole in our hearts.
No.2 The difference between God's relationship in Islam and Christianity is justice!
In Islam God is just and as Christian Ken Temple pointed out that God is actually more just in Islam than in Christianity! That's right! Where did Ken make that statement? He made it above where he said,
"the innate power and merit of the human that has the ability to choose the right way"
Right on!
However in Christianity (Calvin's version) God is very unjust and unfair. God does not give everyone an equal chance. Oh no!
Again with misrepresentation. God is not unjust and how mercy be equally applied in all circumstances? If everyone gets it...it's not mercy. Obtaining mercy is avoiding punishment that you deserve. Is there mercy in Islam? I'm not so sure.
Remember the favorite proof text of the Calvinist? Remember it well because it will come into play when we re-visit another example of R.C Sproul trying to Re-package a box of Cheerios and sale it to you under a different brand name.
So here is the crux upon which their devious and vile doctrine rest Romans 9:10-21 You would do well to know this text when dealing with Calvinist!
10Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”d 13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”e14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”f16It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For 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.”g 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”h 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
So here is the crux upon which their devious and vile doctrine rest Romans 9:10-21 You would do well to know this text when dealing with Calvinist!Notice something about the above text highlighted in red. God had a purpose for the children before they had done anything good or bad the text says.
Notice that the author of the text also recognizes that there are arguments against the position. Why does God blame us for who resist his will?
Basically it comes down to a problem of JUSTICE!!! Where is God's justice when he God in his "positive will" actively regenerates some and in his "negative will" he passes over the non-elect?
Not so fast. How is that injustice? We are the clay. God is the potter. What right does the clay have to tell the potter what to with his clay? Last I checked: none.
Christians go on and on about where is the justice of God in Islam! That's rich! That is very rich coming from people who believe in doctrines like this!
Where is the justice of God in not giving everyone the same chance and ability to be saved? It would be fine if God wanted to bring some people into some supposed secret knowledge and make them part of his 'inner-circle' but for those he doesn't do this to the stakes are way to high!
Why is this not just? It's not about secret knowledge. Back to Driscoll's analogy and upgrade it a bit. Instead of a child running in the road about to get hit by a truck, think of bank robbers who just killed and raped your family and as they are running away they are shooting guns at you, cursing you, and laughing and don't see the the 4 or 5 semi trucks bearing down on them. We are those people. And you push some of them out of the way and let the truck hit you. That's what Jesus did. Given that, I think the one doing the saving has the right to choose who he is going to push out of the way.
Only a person who has a very dark heart, or has the intellectual capacity of a walnut could even fathom that such a doctrine is even remotely a modicum of God's justice!
Obviously, thegrandverbalizer does not understand the theology.
So what do the Calvinist do? What do the Reformed Baptist do when they are confronted by this monstrosity of a doctrine?
Tell the truth.
Write books of course! Coin phrases and theological terminology. That they feel will help "explain" (read: dress up) the utter ugliness and darkness that this doctrine really is.
I wonder who is it that thegrandverbalizer talks to and reads to come up with such parody of what Calvinists believe.
In fact if truth be told in this system Jesus blood is absolutely meaningless. It is a veiled gnostic attack upon the very heart of Christian teachings of atonement.
What???!!!
It is not the blood of Jesus who saves , it is the Holy Spirit that regenerates. The blood of Jesus was not for anyone except for God. It was his own stage show, his own circus act for himself! To satisfy his own wrath for people he was already determined to save!
Um, No. The Holy Spirit does regenerate but the blood of Jesus expiates sin. Again I think thegrandverbalizer should revisit what Christians believe.
Talk about beyond weird and sadomasochistic does not even come close to the type of perversity that this doctrine is.
Still waiting for the perverse part.
Subhan'Allah! Praise be to Allah who has given humanity Islam! Praise be to Allah who by the tongues of Christ Jesus the son of Mary, Moses, Aaron, David, Abraham and Muhammed have come to teach us that this is not the way!
Christ Jesus the son of Mary, Moses, Aaron, David, Abraham all testify that we are saved by faith and not ourselves.
So this brings me to another of R.C Sproul's theological dress up. James White (the guy with the unaccredited "DR" degree from a cracker jack box) also loves to use the terminology of .... drum roll please...
EQUAL ULTIMACY ERROR (dun dun dun....)
http://prisonerofjoy-kirk.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-equal-ultimacy.html
Just when I thought that the trainwreck could get any worse.....
"R.C. Sproul in his book Chosen by God pg. 142-43 gives tells us what Equal Ultimacy is and how it does not fit in the Reformed view of Double Predestination:"
"There are different views of double predestination. One of these is so frightening that many shun the term altogether, lest their view of the doctrine be confused with the scary one. This is called the equal ultimacy view.So what has R.C Sproul done? R.C Sproul has taken toasted oats cereal and repackaged it under the label of Honey Nut Cheerios. Now R.C Sproul is supposed to be a person who understand theology.
Equal ultimacy is based on a concept of symmetry. It seeks a complete balance between election and reprobation. The key idea is this: Just as God intervenes in the lives of the elect to create faith in their hearts, so God equally intervenes in the lives of the reprobate to create or work unbelief in their hearts. is drawn from biblical statements about God hardening people's hearts. The idea of God's actively working unbelief in the hearts of the reprobate
Equal ultimacy is not the Reformed or Calvinist view of predestination. Some have called it 'hyper-Calvinism.' I prefer to call it 'sub-Calvinism' or, better yet, 'anti-Calvinism.' Though Calvinism certainly has a view of double predestination, the double predestination it embraces is not one of equal ultimacy.
To understand the Reformed view of the matter we must pay close attention to the crucial distinction between positive and negative decrees of God. Positive has to do with God's active intervention in the hearts of the elect. Negative has to do with God's passing over the non-elect.
The Reformed view teaches that God positively or actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to insure their salvation. The rest of mankind God leaves to themselves. He does not create unbelief in their hearts. That unbelief is already there. He does not coerce them to sin. They sin by their own choices. In the Calvinist view the decree of election is positive; the decree of reprobation is negative.
Hyper-Calvinism's view of double predestination may be called positive-positive predestination. Orthodox Calvinism's view may be called positive-negative predestination"
RC Sproul is correct. It's not the same thing that the Hyper-Calvinists say.
According to his biology the following is said about him:
He is the author of more than seventy books and scores of articles for national evangelical publications. Dr. Sproul has produced more than 300 lecture series and has recorded more than 80 video series on subjects such as the history of philosophy, theology, Bible study, apologetics, and Christian living. He signed the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which affirms the traditional view of biblical inerrancy, and he wrote a commentary on that document titled Explaining Inerrancy.
Dr. Sproul holds degrees from Westminster College, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, and the Free University of Amsterdam, and he has had a distinguished academic teaching career at various colleges and seminaries, including Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida, and Jackson, Mississippi.
So I guess we can all assume that R.C Sproul should understand that words convey meaning and if we are going to speak English we should assume that he means what he says.
I smell more misrepresentation forthcoming.
Remember that Sproul says above, " To understand the Reformed view of the matter we must pay close attention to the crucial distinction between positive and negative decrees of God. Positive has to do with God's active intervention in the hearts of the elect. Negative has to do with God's passing over the non-elect."
Definition of DECREE
1
: an order usually having the force of law
2
a : a religious ordinance enacted by council or titular head b : a foreordaining will
3
a : a judicial decision of the Roman emperor b : a judicial decision especially in an equity or probate court
So God has decreed that he will act to save some.
God has also decreed that he will not act to save the rest.
No where in the Bible does it say God decreed not to save anyone. It says that he decreed to save some of us.
Notice that R.C Sproul says, "The idea of God's actively working unbelief in the hearts of the reprobate is drawn from biblical statements about God hardening people's hearts."
Well would you imagine that! The whole idea of God actively working unbelief in the hearts of the reprobate is drawn from biblical statements! Who would have guessed! However, what R.C Sproul also conveniently leaves out is the fact that Calvinist believe that God creates all souls! If all souls by their very nature sin than God creates souls that sin. The amount of sin that they do and all that will germinate is from God! In fact rather than saying that God actively is working to create unbelief in people's hearts the truth of the matter is that in Christian theology God has created human beings who from the outset from the very beginning of their creations are unbelievers!
It is only by his capricious tyrannical whim that he smashes their will and makes them friends rather than keeping them as enemies whom he created to be enemies.
Some Calvinist Christians will read this and scoff and say! Rubbish! Nonsense! Blasphemy!
And I simply raise an eye brow at them put my hand to my mouth give a slight cough and say...."Ever heard of the doctrine of original sin?"
Anyone?
So what kind of nature is man born with? What kind of nature did we inherit from Adam? What kind of flesh by default mode is supposedly a loving God going to send a soul into?
A soul that by default mode is on a trajectory to hell!
What A Calvinist would scoff at is the idea that God created us to be enemies. The Bible states that we are God's enemies from the start but that is not how humanity was created. Adam was perfect remember? Unless God allowed everything to take place as it has we would not be born. God is not the author of sin, but he use our sinful choices and acts to bring about his will to bring about the people he wants to live.
Remember the above text in Romans 9 says, Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
There you have it!
And again, what's wrong that that. Creating someone, He knows will never be saved doesn't make God bad. It's his right.
Or let us use the more flowery language of the New Living Translation.
New Living Translation (©2007)
When a potter makes jars out of clay, doesn't he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into
So we know that it is his will that one will be made for decoration and one for garbage!
No matter how bad you try and make Toasted Oats into Honey Nut Cheerios it's still the same thing!
thegrandverbalizer has still failed to explain how James White and RC Sproul are wrong. Rather proud of himself though. Too bad.
Notice too that R.C Sproul (probably taking a nip of Whiskey whilst writing this piece who knows) says the following,
Though Calvinism certainly has a view of double predestination
So what part of pre-destination needs to be explained here? If it is double predestination and God has a positive decree and a negative decree than there you have it!
Nice to know he doesn't just pick on James White with personal attacks but Sproul explained the difference between positive and negative decrees but thegrandverbalizer seems to still be confused.
There is no justice in such a doctrine! None! It makes God out to be a tyrannical overlord who only makes people love him. The love does not come from the human being. The human being does not respond to God. The human being is made into an automaton.
He still hasn't been able to prove that the charge that the doctrine makes God tyrannical or us into automatons. We never loose our own will or desires. God changes them. Turns us from being sick to being well.
Those who are unfortunate enough to become automatons are destined to an eternal life in hell fire for ever lasting Glory to God the Father! Amen!
I think he meant "unfortunate enough not to become". Again more misrepresentation against Christianity. Again with the "automaton".
All this from a creator who willfully places human souls into a machine that is on a trajectory for hell!
A machine in which he entered and redeemed people with his own blood. Tyrannical indeed.
In Calvinism God is not just. God is the Most Unjust. God's justice is arbitrary. Contrary to those theologians today who know you will be troubled by this idea why don't they do what the Apostle Paul did?
God is just. The thing is "just" is whatever God says just is.
It is not sufficient for R.C Sproul, John Piper and other's to allow God's Holy Spirit to speak when supposedly he inspired Paul to respond by saying,
But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”
Instead they prefer to write whole books that try and explain away what obviously was not very clear to the masses! Trying to make Toasted Oats into Honey Nut Cheerio's is like putting icing on top of cow dung. At the end of the day it's still cow dung even with the icing on top.
Thegrandverbalizer has not explained how RC Sproul, John Piper, or James White have said anything contrary to to what Paul wrote.
You people need to act like you know! Time to pick up the Holy Qur'an and stop listening to the hype and lies about Islam!
So people can read thegrandverbalizer lie about what Christians believe and what the Bible says. Trainwreck indeed.
Islam and Christianity A Common Word: The Justice of God Equal Ultimacy and Re-packaged Cheerios
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)