What had happen' was.....

Monday, June 13, 2011

Calvinists confuse God with Megatron « Hacking Christianity

Although Martin Luther seems to agree a great deal with John Calvin on a lot of things, it seems that many Lutheran disagree with Calvinists. I came across the following video from Lutherans that try to poke fun at the concept of "Limited Atonement". The truth is I do not fully accept that concept but I think the other four doctrines from Calvinist Theology definitely summarize what is in the Bible.

I don't really buy the video. It tries to insinuate that calvinists eisegete scripture to get limited atonement. I think it would be useful to look at the scriptures they think Calvinists butcher. I found the quote from Westboro Baptist Church completely undfair because they ain't sane. So many straw men. Where to start?

1. John 3:16 - Didn't quote the whole passage.

¹⁴ Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, ¹⁵ that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”
¹⁶ 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. ¹⁷ For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. ¹⁸ Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.- John 3:14-18

The passage is clearly not talking about the abilities of everyone on earth to believe. It says that if you believe you will be saved, not that you can choose believe on your own when you get ready. I am aware now that many Arminians do not think that people get saved when they decide on their own, however I'd more strongly state that on one can even think of coming to Christ on their own because Jesus said no one can come to Him unless they be drawn by the Father (John 6:44).

2. 2 Peter 2:1

1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping. - 2 Peter 2:1-3

While I see strong scriptural basis for Total depravity, Unconditional election, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints, I can't quite fully embrace Limited atonement. this is one of those scriptures that prevent me from going all the way. I see no problem with reading it and understanding that Jesus' sacrifice was enough to cover everyone who has or ever will exist. This does not mean that the remission of sins are in effect for everyone - only they that believe - and one cannot believe unless moved upon by God.

3. Matthew 22:!4

¹⁴ “For many are invited, but few are chosen.”

I don't think non-Calvinist should get all excited because Jesus was not saying that the invitation is enough to be at the banquet. One needs to be chosen to be accepted.

4. 1 Timothy 4:10

⁹ This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance. ¹⁰ That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe. - 1 Timothy 4:9,10

Here is another of one of those verses that i think mean you can't be so quick to assert that Jesus' propitiatory sacrifice was only for the elect. However, I do not think this verse is good to use against Limited Atonement either. I think Paul is pointing out that there is no other means of salvation for anyone other than God, but only them that believe will benefit - that is why he wrote "especially of those who believe.".

The Video also suggests that Calvinists have no assurance that thay are saved. That is not what Calvinism teaches. The Bible does not say you cannot know if you are saved, it shows us tha tI can't judge someone else's salvation perfectly.

¹⁵ The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” ¹⁶ The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. ¹⁷ Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.- Romans 8:15-17

As for comparison to Megatron, I think that is a cheap shot because no one who believes in the God of the Bible thinks that God and Megatron have anything in common. God is in sovereign and complete control of everything and Megatron wants to be. BIG DIFFERENCE!!!

Calvinists confuse God with Megatron « Hacking Christianity

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Rabbi Singer takes Evangelical Radio Host to Task.

Thegrandverbalizer has posted an article regarding an exchange from Rabbi Singer and "The Way of the Master" Radio host. Thegrandverbalizer believes that Rabbi Singer was able fend off the host's attempts to convert him. And after listening to the exchange myself I decided to add my comments which are in Red.

This is a deeply interesting exchange between Rabbi Singer of outreachjudaism.org and 'The Way of the Master' Evangelical Radio Host.

The Creator says in the Qur'an:

The Jews say, "The Christians have nothing to stand on," and the Christians say, 'The Jews have nothing to stand on" Yet they (all) quote from the [same] Book. Likewise those who do not know make a statement similar to theirs. God will judge between them on Resurrection Day concerning how they have been differing." (Holy Qur'an 2:113)

I don't think a single Bible believing Christian or Religious Jew would disagree with that statement. However I would have to ask, do we know what criteria and standard God will use on Judgment Day? How do you know if when weighed, counted, and measured that you will not be found wanting?

So this is deeply interesting. Because they both claim that they are taking from the TNCH (Torah, Prophets and Writings) yet they are coming to radically different conclusions.

The Christian approach the TNCH with their various Christian presuppositions. Some times their philosophy also helps to guide their views of scripture.

Thegrandverbalizer here seems to suggest that the reason why Christians understand the Torah and the Prophets differently than today's Jews is because of our presuppositions. As if Jews, or anyone else for that matter, don't have presuppositions.

²¹ 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. ²² Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, ²³ but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, ²⁴ but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. - 1 Corinthians 1:21-24

Outreach Judaism-Way of The Master

This is a link to the exchange in question. I've embedded it here.

Some times I do not understand why talk show host have to be smug with their comments.

I'm not sure how Todd Frielwas smug. What is it that Thegrandverbalizer is seeing?

However, the Rabbi made a good point that Christians have more hostility towards Islam than they do towards Buddhism and other faiths.

Did Thegrandverbalizer not hear the Rabbi refer to Islam being a threat to Israel, all Jews, and Christians? Why does Thegrandverbalixer only focus on Christian "hostility".

Notice that the Radio Host did not contest that point. The Rabbi was talking about the suffering that the people of Israel have suffered at the hands of Christians (Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical) you name it through the years.

Why should Friel contest the point? It's true that some Christians persecuted Jews and that is stupid. I don't understand why would Christians hates Jews. It's stupid. Jesus was a Jew. All of his first followers were Jews. Just because someone claims to be "Christian" doesn't make them a Christian. antisemitism is a sure sign that one is not a Christian.

Of course that struck a cord with the radio host and he tried to say 'well that's different'.

I think you can't conflate things all willy-nilly. In the New Testament, it was Jews who hunted down and killed Christians in the beginning. Both were wrong. Even today the first century Rabbi, Gamaeli said something worth repeating regarding his contemporaries who were Christians.

³³ When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. ³⁴ But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. ³⁵ Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. ³⁶ Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. ³⁷ After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. ³⁸ Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. ³⁹ But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”- Acts 5:33-39

The Rabbi counters mentioning the fact that Martin Luther (A Christ filled Christian) said many hateful and evil things about Jewish people.

He mentions that Calvin and other (Christ filled Christians) have gone on record to say hateful things about Jewish people.

Thegrandverbalizer seems to imply that if a person was truly sprit-filled they would be unable to make the mistakes and judgments that Luther and Calvin did against Jews, but he seems to forget the Peter made a similar error and Paul called him on it,.

Was Peter wrong? Yup. Does that mean that he was not Holy Spirit filled? No.

For those interested I did a blog entry about Martin Luther's notorious book "The Jews and their Lies"

You can find that link here: http://www.acommonword.net/2010/04/jews-and-their-lies-by-martin-luther.html

I also had to call out a Protestant blog that specializes in Martin Luther's literature to condemn Anti Jewish Hate Literature! Ken Temple and James Swan (major contributors to a blog that holds Martin Luther in high esteem) to their credit did condemn Martin Luther for his vile and hate filled statements and distanced themselves from it.

http://www.acommonword.net/2010/04/call-upon-beggars-all-to-condemn-anti.html

You can find the comments at the bottom of the entry above where Ken Temple says,

"So, yes, we condemn Luther’s Anti-Semitism and course language. Many believe he was not being racially hateful, but he was speaking theologically. But that is no excuse for the sin of that kind of language.

Ken"

You know I am glad that they did that. Just as I as a Muslim condemn any hate filled rhetoric by Hamas, Hezbollah or political organization that takes issue with occupation of Palestine.

Me too. And I've got to admit I have read thegrandverbalizer make such repudiations to his credit.

However, what is deeply troubling for me as a Muslim is how Martin Luther was still held in such high esteem by Christians. Was Martin Luther 'Christ filled' when he made those statements?

Was Martin Luther "filled with the Holy Spirit of God" when he made those hateful and ugly statements?

It's worth looking at how Paul corrected Peter

¹¹ When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. ¹²¹³ The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
¹⁴ When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
¹⁵ “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles ¹⁶ know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in^[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
¹⁷ “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! ¹⁸ If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.
¹⁹ “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. ²⁰ I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. ²¹ I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”- Galations 2:11-21

It's also worth pointing out that Peter repented of his sin. I don't know if Luther repented of his sin against Jews (I hope so) but as the original articles on Beggar's All blog site show it's a lot more complicated than thegrandverbalizer tries to make it out to be.

Think of the following passage from the New Testament and think of Martin Luther (a saved Christian one of the elect of God)

5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous. (1 John 3:5-12)

Now think of a man filled with the Holy Spirit filled over flowing with the cup of Christ compassion and warmth saying the following things about the Jewish people. If I didn't know better I could have sworn the following came from Adolf Hitler at a speech in Berlin in the 1930s.

" They are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine." The synagogue was a "defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..." He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them."

My sincere apologies to the reader has I have digressed. However, I feel it was necessary to give some substance to what the Rabbi said concerning Protestant Christianity's reformers.

Yes, Luther was wrong, but thegrandverbalizer makes misuse of 1st John 3:5-12. John is not saying that a person who is filled by the Spirit never sins and never makes a mistake again. Sinless perfection is not a reality of any living person, no matter you religious persuasion, knows anything about. Neither did Paul (See Romans 7). We are not righteous or obtain salvation for what we do, but by what Jesus did for us. John is talking about sinful unrepentance.

The Radio Show Host said that Luther did not write books condemning Jews? Either he is a) ignorant or he is b) not being honest.

Christians are allowed to be dishonest because Robert Morey said so! You will also see that the Christian does indeed lie because he doesn't keep to his promise to the Rabbi (very typical).

Who cares what Robert Morey says if the Bible says the opposite? The Bible tells us not to lie and that God hates lying. The Bible clearly says God hates lying more than he hates homosexuality.. What I want to know what does thegrandverabalizer have to say about the Qur'an that says it's okay for Muslims to lie to non-Muslims?

The Qur'an:
Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.
Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves.”
Qur'an (9:3) - “…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…” The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.
Qur'an (2:225) - “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts”
Qur'an (66:2) - “Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths”
Qur'an (3:54) - “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.” The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit. If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also
8:30 and 10:21)
Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be “compelled” to deceive others for a greater purpose.

Islam Permits Lying to Deceive Unbelievers and Bring World Domination!

The Christian promised to the Rabbi after the commercial break that he would try and convert the Rabbi to a belief of three beings living in community as one god, and the Rabbi would try and bring him back to the God of Israel.

Than the Rabbi had to correct the Radio Host who was trying to play the role of God.

The Christian Radio host says the following:

"I try to convert you and you try to convert me"

I admit I wish Friel wouldn't have tried to go toe-to-toe like that. I don't think there was enough time and some key points were missed.

The Rabbi had to correct him that it is God who converts (not we human beings) So the Christian once again says,

"You try and make me a Jew and I will try and make you a Christian of course God doing it"

Now of course the Christian could have let the Rabbi go first after the break, but he decided to take the first shot. (Note) The Christian did not give the Rabbi a chance to convert him.

I'd like to know what recording thegrandverbalizer listened to because I heard the rabbi give a clear argument for why and how a person should become a Jew instead of a Christian. .

So the Christian gives his spill about has the Rabbi walked perfect before God keeping all the commandments etc (basically is he perfect). The Rabbi quoted scripture showing what the JEWISH definition of Righteousness is as given in the scripture.

If you asked Gamaliel the same question, I don't think he would have given the same answer as Rabbi Singer. It's important to keep in mind that Rabbi Singer said in the beginning that the Bible is not his source of authority but that its the Prophets of Israel.

The Christian only gave Philosophical arguments (how can you stand before a Holy God) note this is the Christian presupposition superimposed upon the Rabbi.

The Rabbi brought up the points that you can Repent (turn back) to God.

No Bible-believing Christian would disagree. The issue is how does your debt get paid?

³ “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. ⁴ For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die.- Ezekiel 18:3-4

The Christian makes the mistake of saying that a sin completely cuts you off from God unless there is some offering of blood. The Rabbi shows this is not the case. No Sacrifice to God!

So the Christian prefaces his statement with the following:

"Very quickly than we will let you scoot" -Basically the Christian is realizing that this discussion is not going the way they want so we will 'let you scoot'.

Um...how does thegrandverbalizer know that?

You can see during the exchange the Christian starts to grumble, and mumble, yeah well mmm alright. You can see that the Christian is the one who is not happy with what the scripture says.

Where is that? A lot of scripture was not brought out that should have been.

The Rabbi brought him scripture and irrefutable example that his Christian presupposition that he gets from Paul that he starts to superimpose upon Judaism is absolutely untenable!

How is that?

¹⁰ “‘I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people. ¹¹ For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life. ¹² Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood.”- Leviticus 17:10-12

No one who reads the Bible would say that repentance is not necessary to restore your relationship with God, but the Bible also clearly shows that there must be something sacrificed to propitiate the debts we have incurred to God. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Atonement. The ancient sacrificial system was symbolic of what Jesus did for us.

So the Christian tries to take one last shot by saying within the Mosaic covenant was a system of sacrifice and 'Let us just leave it as that because you and I have a different hermeneutic"

Obviously, Jews, Christians, and Muslims use differing hermeneutics!

Interesting! Note as well the Christian didn't give the Rabbi a chance to convert him! Ha! ha! Typical!

I think the grandverbalizer missed it. All of the Rabbi's arguments were apologetic in nature.

So this brings me back to what the Creator said about this on going feud between the Jews and Christians here:

You maybe interested in seeing the link: http://www.acommonword.net/2010/11/rabbi-declares-islam-mankinds-original.html

I don't think that the Qur'an correctly expresses what Christians and Jews believe. No one knows what we believe if they use the Qur'an alone as a source.

The Rabbi's final words were "BLESS YOU"

The Christian's final words were "GOOD BYE"

WHICH HAD MORE GRACE AND LOVE ???

I don't think either Friel or Rabbi Singer were mean, rude, or ingracious. I'd really like to see what thegrandverbalizer thinks that Friel said that was loveless or graceless.

Marcus McElhaney (A Christian gentleman who is still searching for the truth) is very fond of coming over to my blog and lifting material from me from time to time I don't think he will want to publish this over at his blog.

Than again who knows?

Well, I think what is even more interesting question is will thegrandverbalizer answer these questions and explain what exactly Todd Friel said that was out of pocket. I appreciated Rabbi Singer. He gave some great information about Jewish history and culture, I just found some disagreement with the Rabbi's theological conclusions.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Rabbi Singer takes Evangelical Radio Host to Task.

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Professor X is Not Martin Luther King | Tor.com

Okay. I just saw X-Men: First Class and I did like it. One of the best things about X-Men is it's moral message: Everyone is valuable no matter your race, gender, genes, or any difference from what the majority of people consider "normal". I think it is too simple and inaccurate to equate Professor X with Martin Luther King Jr and Magneto with Malcolm X. I found this article about the issue at the following link.

Professor X is Not Martin Luther King | Tor.com by Steven Padnick

He wrote:

King was a pacifist who refused to use violence, even to defend himself. Professor X, on the other hand, trains his teenage students to be masked freedom fighters who beat the crap out of anyone, human or mutant, who threaten the lives of mutants.

No, Professor X’s belief that mutants have the right, and sometimes the need, to use violence to defend themselves makes him a lot closer to, appropriately enough, Malcolm X.
Which brings up the second point, borrowed from Comics Alliance’s David Brothers: Magneto is NOT Malcolm X.

Magneto is a supervillain, tried and true, which means he has both goals (the enslavement of humanity) and tactics (conquering Manhattan) that are just outside the realm of human understanding, and any comparison to a real person or movement gets ridiculous, if not insulting.

I would not say that Professor X is only about using violent to protect Mutants. Professor X wants to protect all humans! Even those who would kill him and his fellow mutants. That is a high morality. Something worth emulating. Though Martin Luther King's protests and philosophy were nonviolent, that does not mean that they were not confrontational. Getting into your oppressor's face and pointing out why they are wrong takes great courage - using the resources you have. Malcolm X is not like Magneto because Malcolm wasn't for exterminating his opponents only not willing to settle for scraps.

Personally, I think David Brother's review is much better than this one. He does a much more complete job describing how the racial politics of Hollywood in the 21st Century are illustrated in this movie. I agree with him. He is very complete so I'd read his article after you see the movie.

The Best and Worst of 'X-Men: First Class' -- Moral Complexity and Depressing Racial Politics

Calvinistic Cartoons: The Lone Calvinist

Hilarious!

Calvinistic Cartoons: The Lone Calvinist

Is the multiverse the atheist’s supernatural realm? - Albuquerque Christian Apologetics | Examiner.com

Mariano has written a great article about the Multiverse theory. He points out how the multiverse is based on the same kind of blind faith atheists erroneously accuse Christians of harboring. It works for science fiction like DC & Marvel Comics, Star Trek, The One (Jet Li's movie), and several other fictional stories. However not so much for real science. Take a look at his article.

Is the multiverse the atheist’s supernatural realm? - Albuquerque Christian Apologetics | Examiner.com

Saturday, June 11, 2011

My Common Sense Is Tingling: Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Protestant Christians Support Polygamy!

Image via WikipediaThegrandverbalizer has posted an article pointing to a Christian article about Polygamy. He wrote:

I found this very interesting web site that I thought I would share.

It seems more and more Christians from the Protestant tradition (Methodist, Calvinist and others are showing the Bible supports Polygamy).

There is also mention of how Christian missionary attempts have failed in areas where they are not sensitive to the culture on this issue.

http://www.blainerobison.com/concerns/polygamy.htm

The article is written by Blaine Robison. I agree that this particular author claims that the Bible supports Polygamy, but this man is a Christian who is a part of the Protestant Tradition. I would have liked to have seen evidence that some Methodists and Calvinists believe that the Bible Supports polygamy. However, the conclusion Robison offers has a serious flaw in it. He writes:

Researching the subject of polygamy has been an enlightening and thought-provoking venture. Polygamists offer cogent arguments for their lifestyle and deserve to be heard. Polygamy is not going away and polygamists will continue to press for equal rights. It's long past time in my view to de-criminalize polygamy between consenting and competent adults. I encourage all Christians to study for themselves what God’s Word has to say on this important issue and let Scripture be the final arbiter. I think our churches could benefit from increased dialog on this subject and greater charity toward those who choose to live differently than the majority.

His argument hinges on the idea that God does not permit what God Hates. One example in scripture of God permitting something he hates (and a reason given for it) blows his argument apart. And that example is Divorce. Do we have any scripture at all that tells us how to divorce and protect the women and children involved? Yup. Just like polygamy. Did God allow righteous people to get divorced? Yes. So why did Moses permit and legislate Polygamy. The same reason why God permitted divorce. What reason was that?

¹ When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. ² Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
³ Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
⁴ “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ ⁵ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? ⁶ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
⁷ “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
⁸ Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. ⁹ I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
¹⁰ The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
¹¹ Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. ¹² For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” - Matthew 19"1-12

So why was polygamy allowed under the Old Covenant - Because our hearts are wicked. It's not the ideal. Jesus told us the ideal. Marriage should be monagamous and life-long commitment between a man and a woman. This is what God intended. The question is put to us: "Do you want the ideal best that God designed for us, or do you the pale imitation of true fulfillment in which just your sexual desires are temporarily sated? Personally, I want God's best.

Many times Polygamy is thought to look like thus:

But almost never:

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Protestant Christi ans Support Polygamy!

Friday, June 10, 2011

Alister McGrath on Why God Won't Go Away MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

Dr. Alister McGrath poses for a picture while ...

Image via WikipediaBrian Auten has posted an audio lecture by Dr. Alister McGrath based on his book Why God Won't Go Away: Is the New Atheism Running on Empty? Great stuff!

Alister McGrath on Why God Won't Go Away MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

Faithful Thinkers: Video: Purpose of Hell

Here is a very interesting video of Dr Norman Geisler explaining the purpose of hell. Take a look.

Faithful Thinkers: Video: Purpose of Hell

Christianity Today on Adam and Eve | Bible.org Blogs

Dr Darrell Bock has posted links to articles from Christianity Today regarding the Genesis account of Adam and Eve. Did they literally exist? Does it Matter? Follow the links to read the articles.

Christianity Today on Adam and Eve | Bible.org Blogs

ID.Plus: William Lane Craig, Richard Dawkins and the Empty Chair

Dr Peter S. Williams posted the following video in his blog

The descriptipm on the video from YouTube are also worthy of consideration:

Will Richard Dawkins finally engage in a scholarly one-to-one discussion with William Lane Craig when he visits Oxford? It would appear not, and even some fellow atheists seem to think he's making a big mistake. This is the story, so far, but what will come next?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-c...

http://www.premier.org.uk/craig

http://www.bethinking.org/craig

http://www.reasonablefaith.org

http://www.richarddawkins.net

http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/

Material in this video is incorporated either with permission or under Fair Use for independent, non-profit, educational, illustrative and documentary purposes. Happy to discuss with any parties about potential amendments or crediting. This video voices concerns - shared by both theists and non-theists alike - about impediments to the open exchange of academic thought.

ID.Plus: William Lane Craig, Richard Dawkins and the Empty Chair

God's Gracious Gift to Humanity is the "Capacity of Free Will"

Alan Kurschner has posted an interesting article. He recounts a discussion he's been having with an Arminian named Martin Glynn. The article revolves around this question Alan poses:

Since you believe that God is all-powerful and all-loving, why does God not cause everyone to be saved?

Good question. It's not just for the Arminian but also the Calvinist. Both agree that God is all-powerful and all-loving. I think Calvinism answers this question well, however I don't think Arminian salvific theology does as good a job. Kurschner is correct in writing:

Instead, the Bible affirms that the human ability to resist God's grace is grounded in our sinful rebellious nature. God's grace effects Man to live righteously---not to provide us some anthropological "neutral will."

I don't see how this can be argued against.

Glynn finally gets to answering my question: "Because He wants us to make a choice."

His answer demonstrates that the non-Calvinist couches the ultimate reason for their salvation in their own will.

“But to all who have received him—those who believe in his name–he has given the right to become God’s children –children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband’s decision, but by God.” (John 1:12–13)

Next he writes: "This is the nature of love. If you love someone, do you force them to be with you, or do you want them to want to be with you? Hopefully the latter."

Glynn's answer doesn't really answer the question. The Bible is clear that without God we can't choose to love him. We are stuck in our hatred of God. And unable to come to Him on our own.
We love God because He first loved us - not because we thought it was a good idea at the time!

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. - Romans 8:5-8

⁴⁴ “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. - John 6:44

¹⁸ There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. ¹⁹ We love because he first loved us. ²⁰ Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. - 1 John 4: 18-20

I thought that this was a great article and I can't recommend it highly enough.

God's Gracious Gift to Humanity is the "Capacity of Free Will"

My Common Sense in Tingling: Debunking Christianity: God cannot know that he is omniscient

Johnny P apparently thinks himself pretty clever on his post at Debunking Christianity in which he actual makes a very common argument I've heard from Atheists before. Basically the claim is that God cannot exist if God is omniscient, therefore the God of the Bible cannot be real. Let's take a few minutes and see if there is anything new added to this argument. My comments are going to be in red.

Theists, the world over, claim that God is omniscient. However, this is not an easy claim to make for a whole host of reasons, one of which is worth looking into here. I want to look at the idea that in many instances, you cannot know that you don’t know something. If there is a situation where you cannot know something, then if it is claimed that you are omniscient, this would invalidate that claim.

I'm grateful at least that Johnny P is not claiming that there are no instances where you don't know that you don't know something. His argument that we cannot always know when we don't know something. I think that any honest person would admit that sometimes we are ignorant of our ignorance. This is also why no sane human being would claim to be omniscient because the fact that there are a lot of things we don't know - even to the extent that we don't know that we don't know things - does indeed invalidate any claims to omniscience. I think most agree with this. The Bible agrees. It says we don't even know how to pray as we ought.

²⁶ In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. ²⁷ And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.
²⁸ And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. ²⁹ For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. ³⁰ And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. -Romans 8:26-30

For example, there could conceivably be something that God does not know. Conceivably, perhaps another dimension run by another God exists that does not coincide at all with this dimension. If one eternal God can exist, why not another in an entirely different dimension and unbeknownst to the first God? Now, it is unimportant as to whether this is possible or not. What is important is that God could not know that he did not know this by the very nature of not knowing it!

Here is where Johnny P's logic falls out of the wagon and gets run over by the weight of Common sense. In order to apply this argument you have prove that there is something that God does not know. Here is what a theist means by "omniscience": What does God know? Everything. When did He know it? There wasn't a time God didn't know everything. One cannot prove that God does not know something when one does not know it either. Hypothesizing other dimensions (parallel and otherwise) is all well and good but we can't prove they exist. And if they do exist, what gives us a reason to assume that the God in this Dimension does not know about them? How do we know that He did not create them just as He created this one?! Here is the key point that Johnny P seems to be missing: "Omniscience" does not just mean knowing everything but also that there is nothing that the one who is omniscient does not know.

Where does this leave God? Well, God is in a situation whereby he cannot know that he knows everything. He might think he knows everything. Epistemologically speaking, though, he cannot know it. There's always a chance he's an experiment in an elaborate lab, programmed to think he's omnipotent and omniscient (yes, God could be plugged into the Matrix and he’d never know it!). There's a chance he's one of a trillion gods in a trillion different universes etc. etc.

Where does this discussion leave God? On the throne. Johnny P's speculation means that he redefines what "omniscient" means by pretending that there is knowledge that is hidden from God. Does he prove that there is something God does not know? No. Can he? No. The reason why we understand that God is the supreme being is because there is no one else higher than God. This "logic" does not apply to the God of the Bible because the god that Johnny P is discussing is not in the Bible and of course does not exist.

It only takes one thing you cannot know to invalidate omniscience. God cannot know that he knows everything.

Agreed that it takes only one thing you cannot know to invalidate omniscience, but Johnny P did not show that God cannot know everything. Arguments like these always amaze me because when people raise them they are tacitly saying "Okay, for the sake of arguments let's say your God exist and see if what the Bible says about Him makes rational sense." Then they talk about a god that isn't in scripture and then prance away thinking they have won an argument - but it was the wrong god. It's interesting that God does deal with the possibility of there being other gods in reality right in the scripture.

⁹ Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.
¹⁰ I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say, ‘My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.’
¹¹ From the east I summon a bird of prey;
from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose.
What I have said, that I will bring about;
what I have planned, that I will do. - Isaiah 46:9-11

So apparently God does know if there are any other gods that exist. And not just that, who is it that is running history and making all thing move towards His predetermined purpose? God.

³ I foretold the former things long ago,
my mouth announced them and I made them known;
then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass. - Isaiah 48:3

⁹ All the nations gather together
and the peoples assemble.
Which of their gods foretold this
and proclaimed to us the former things?
Let them bring in their witnesses to prove they were right,
so that others may hear and say, “It is true.”
¹⁰ “You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD,
“and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor will there be one after me. - Isaiah 43:9,10

⁷ Who then is like me? Let them proclaim it.
Let them declare and lay out before me
what has happened since I established my ancient people,
and what is yet to come—
yes, let them foretell what will come.
⁸ Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

⁹ All who make idols are nothing,
and the things they treasure are worthless.
Those who would speak up for them are blind;
they are ignorant, to their own shame.- Isaiah 44:7-9

⁴ For the sake of Jacob my servant,
of Israel my chosen,
I summon you by name
and bestow on you a title of honor,
though you do not acknowledge me.
⁵ I am the LORD, and there is no other;
apart from me there is no God.
I will strengthen you,
though you have not acknowledged me,
⁶ so that from the rising of the sun
to the place of its setting
people may know there is none besides me.
I am the LORD, and there is no other. Isaiah 45:4-6

Recall that an idol is anything that you put ahead of your relationship with God. Atheists have idols too.

Debunking Christianity: God cannot know that he is omniscient

Debunking Christianity: When Atheists Should Side with Jehovah's Witnesses

Give an unbeliever or a heretic enough time, they immediately and never disappoint in refuting themselves. On Debunking Christianity today, TGBaker has really put his foot in his mouth in grand fashion. Again my comments are in red.

As an atheist I often quote from the Jehovah's Witness New Testament. Why? Because their translators are not effected by certain doctrines like Trinity. They rely on the most likely version of the Greek text under consideration. Most believers look at John 1:1-4 to argue for Jesus as God.

Jehovah's Witnesses rely on a translation that the consensus of scholars is that it's poorly translated. It's called the New World Translation. And it is untrue that it is influenced the doctrine of the Trinity. Quite the the opposite. The translators who were not experts in Kione Greek or Ancient Hebrew mistranslated the Bible is several instances differently than other great English translations like the Kings James Version so that they could dispense with things like the Trinity. The New World translation is inferior and it's like bringing a dull pocket knife to a gun fight in a scholarly debate.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

Here is where TGBaker shows some dishonesty. He extols the value of the New World Translation but he doesn't point out that it renders John 1:1 differently and side-steps the fact that most translations do not render it into English that way.

1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. - John 1:1 (New World Translation)

It reads really differently to avoid referring to Jesus as God. This is a horrible translation and people who really know Kione Greek agrees. If you want to read documentation on a trial during the early 20th century about the reliability of the New World Translation, you can read the Jehovah's Witness chapter in Dr Walter Martin's book Kingdom of the Cults.

But the much neglected verses of John 1:17-18 not only clarifiy these verses but point to how Jesus as a human teacher became a messiah and then became a god.

17 ὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωϋσέως ἐδόθη, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο. 18 θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

The Law was given through Moses, Grace and Truth came about through Jesus Christ, No one has seen God at any time, but the only begotten god which is in the bosom of god has made him known (exegeted him).

We find here in these verses are an elevation of Jesus to a divine person that replaces the law. This is a teaching no different than of Paul. We see a shift from Paul's presentation of Jesus as Wisdom to a Hellenistic function of reason as an agent of creation (Logos). This is already known in Philo of Alexandria's work. http://www.scribd.com/doc/55625043/33/The-Logos-as-Agent-of-Creation

Where does this passage tell us that Jesus replaces the Law? It doesn't. Where does this passage tells us that any of Jesus' first followers considered him just a human teacher. From Matthew to Revelations, Jesus is presented as Messiah and Lord. I know about Philo of Alexander but his description of the Logos does not even compare to a personal being. Paul does not refer to Jesus as a living embodiment of Wisdom.

We also see this term identified as “image” by Philo of Alexandria. Christ as the “image of God” or “form of God” is a way pre-existence enters into the earlier Pauline writings. Verse 17 shows the comparison of the pre-existent Law with the pre-existent Messiah:

Pesachim 54a on the name of the Messiah "Seven things were created before the world was created, and these are they: The Torah, repentance, the Garden of Eden, Gehenna, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, and the name of the Messiah... The name of the Messiah, as it is written, His [sc. the Messiah's] name shall endure forever, and has (Yanun) exited before the sun."

The Jewish idea of the pre-existence of the Messiah's name combined with “image” that we see in Philo is a further opening for Jesus, a mortal soul, to be uplifted by metaphor of worship hymns to literal belief. The Name of the Messiah becomes the Image of God in the hymnal passages of Paul. Again we find Philo who equates the Wisdom of Proverbs 8 with Logos, Image and Spirit:

Proverbs 8:22-30 "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him..."

I agree that metaphorically "Wisdom" in Proverb 8 can be mapped to Logos but TGBaker take the analogy much farther than what is warranted. By showing the the idea that the pre-existence of the Messiah was already a part of Jewish thought, shows that the Deity and Messiahship of Christ is not out of pocket in the slightest.

In this we can see a first begotten prior to creation. So the potential already resides in Judaism. The intensification of this belief and its rise to a literal per-existent entity that becomes flesh are readily identifiable elements in external literature. The only flaw of the Arians were they were more conservative theologically than the Trinitarians. They were more routed in the meaning of scripture than theological/philosophical speculation. Their motto, There was a time when He was not” point directly to the translation in the Jehovah's Witness and to there doctrine. Their scholars simply continue the second century line of thought:

“Similarly, though Wisdom has had her own independent history within Israelite culture, she has already been identified with the Angel of the LORD long before early Christianity. This is clear from Sirach 24:4 where Wisdom takes up the position of the Angel of the LORD in the cloud of Exodus 14:19 and Wisdom of Solomon 9:1-2, 18:15-16 where Wisdom, Logos and Angel of the Lord are equated. Wisdom and Logos, then, both point to the importance of angelic categories as the common denominator in Jewish mediatorial speculation.” http://tearsofoberon.blogspot.com/2009/09/high-angel-christology-is-jesus-christ.html

I agree that Jehovah's Witness are just carrying on the 2nd Century heresies of the Arians and Gnostics. That is the problem. John 1 speaks against the idea that the Logos ever came into existence. The scriptures do not allow us the luxury of thinking that there was ever a time when the Logos was not and if Jesus is the Logos there was never a time when He was not! The other thing most Protestants, Jews, and Jehovah's Witness agree on is that Sirach is not scripture. Failure all around in this argument.

Please do not misunderstand my usage of Watchtower research. I do not believe in their presentation of a god any more than normative Trinitarian Christianities. But they are not blinded by the presuppositions that trinitarian doctrine entails. The validity of their observations point to the source of their differences from normative Christianities. They like the Restoration Movement of The Campbell's and Barton W. Stone sought to have Christianity based only with what was in the Bible. Stone in fact debated Alexander Campbell for years contending that Trinity was non-biblical and espoused an Arianism long before the Jehovah's Witnesses existed. ( The Millennial Harbinger and The Baptist volumes). What this biblical research of “non-orthodox” Christian movements do is allow us to circumvent doctrines that have blinded many Biblical scholars unconsciously and see what is actually there in its native environment and original historical context.

TGBaker is wrong. Jehovah's Witnesses are so blinded by their desire to reject the normative Christianity that they have gone as far as twisting scripture to support their ideas. They have not made valid observation about the Bible or scripture. They are blinded by other presuppositions. Their doctrines can't be found in the Bible. What the research of "non-orthodox" Christian movements does is further deceive and distort the truth.

² Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. ³ For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. ⁴ They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. - 2 Timothy 4:2-4

Debunking Christianity: When Atheists Should Side with Jehovah's Witnesses

Monday, June 13, 2011

Related articles

Related articles

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Related articles

Related articles

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Friday, June 10, 2011

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles