Line of Fire Debate - James White and Michael Brown Debate Calvinism

As you may know, if you have been following my blog, I've been engaged in discussing Calvinism with my brothers-in-Christ, Brennon and Dave, as it pertains to the exegesis of Ephesians chapter one. The discussion of corporate and individual election as well as human autonomy and free will invariably come up in in such discussions. I've profited greatly...it's always good to hashout out your thoughts and ideas with others especially if they disagree. It's also a gift when you get to see professional theologians do the same! These past two days, January 26 and 27th, James White and Michael Brown did just that concerning Calvinism. My own studies have lead me to agree more consistently with James White, but I really appreciated Michael Brown. It was so sweet. No hostility. They treated and respected one another with love although they disagreed. All debates should be like that. Because each interaction was less then an hour, neither one was able to go into as much depth as they wanted to. They basically stayed on the surface, but both were able to articulate their positions on what they believe. The issue was that they were not able to really go into scripture to explain how it supports them in much detail. Fortunately, they agreed to appear on James White's web cast in the near future and verse-by-verse walk through the Bible examining and cross-examining the texts that they agree to discuss. This, I have got to hear. In the meantime, I would recommend listening to their exchange on Michael Brown's radio broadcast, Line of Fire. He has posted both days on his web site. Yoou can use the link below to hear them.


Line of Fire
January 26, 2010
January 27, 2010

Stand to Reason Blog: Dawkins Lectures Christians

Image via Wikipedia

I have found this interesting link from Twitter and I am so glad it was pointed out. Atheists like Richard Dawkins are having a field day between the fact of the devastating earthquake in Haiti and Pat Roberston's ignorant remark. Dawkins is reported in the article to have said:

Loathsome as Robertson's views undoubtedly are, he is the Christian who stands squarely in the Christian tradition. The agonized theodiceans who see suffering as an intractable 'mystery', or who 'see God' in the help, money and goodwill that is now flooding into Haiti , or (most nauseating of all) who claim to see God 'suffering on the cross' in the ruins of Port-au-Prince, those faux-anguished hypocrites are denying the centrepiece of their own theology. It is the obnoxious Pat Robertson who is the true Christian here.
Where was God in Noah's flood?....

Dawkins is saying that Roberston saying that Haiti deserves what happened shows the correct Christian understanding of what happened/ I completely disagree. Again, there is no proof that Roberston's idea saying that Haiti made a deal with Satan for their independence, but I'm amazed that this quote makes me think that  Dawkins agrees with Roberston!  That is the only reason that i think that it's hypocritical for Christians to aid Haiti.  The article's writer makes a great point. I quote it as follows:

Bertrand Russel, the famous 20th century atheist, once challenged what a Christian would have to say at the bedside of a dying child where God had not intervened to heal. But what is the atheist’s response? Too bad. The only natural response from atheism is "Tough luck, Haiti." The suffering is not even tragic or evil, it just is the way it is because there is nothing transcendent. There is no good, there is no evil, there is no tragedy in Darwinism. There is only survival and natural processes that bring death or spare us for now. Nothing more.

I agree. By helping Haiti, Atheists are acting against their worldview, not Christians. Christians are following their worldview because we believe that God demands that we help those who need it. We know that it is right. But as an atheist, many agree that we should help Haiti. But why? I mean what happened to "Survival of the Fittest" and "Natural Selection". Why should we not allow those who are strong enough to survive this and  let the weak die? I have an answer for this, however atheist don't unless they abandon their worldview. I welcome their hypocrisy because it does nothing but helps Haiti in general and my in-laws in particular. We need to help Haiti because that is the right thing to do that God wants us to do. Thanks for the help, Richard Dawkins.

Stand to Reason Blog: Dawkins Lectures Christians

Atheism is Dead: The Bible Among the Myths

Mariano, has provided a comprehensive post on some resources available that allows one to evaluate the misconception that Christian doctrines and Theology in general, and our understanding of Jesus in particular are "borrowed" from pagan and mystery religions. He has done me the honor of referencing some of my blog articles as wells as some of his in his list. He also refers us to John N. Oswalt's book.  The link to his resoursce list is below:

Atheism is Dead: The Bible Among the Myths

Another website I must mention if you want to read more about this is Tekton and look at a post I did about the founder of that site, JP Holding. Here is the link.JP Holding on the Christ Myth.

What is up with Australia?!!!!

Image via Wikipedia

I'm wondering what is so special about Australia in 2010!? I mean I'm sure it's a great country and all and great people live there and are from there. It just seems of late that Australia is getting first dibs on a few things I care about. I'm trying to not get jealous.

For example, how is Marvel and BET going to premier Black Panther in Australia first and exclusively in no other markets. I mean do they even have BET in Australia? I still can't figure this out. But since some people in Australia have been nice enough to share the first two episodes (and I hope they continue to share the rest of the six) I keep my continual moaning and groaning to myself.

And I find out that there is going to be a major global Atheist conference in Australia this year in March because I read the Atheism Is Dead. blog. I mean some of the best atheist will be together in public and away from where I can hear them in person. It seems like Australia is finally getting its due for hosting more international events. I'm happy for them, really, but I sure hope it doesn't mean that America is becoming less important

Brennon's Thoughts: Debating the Extent of the Atonement with Marcus

I am so grateful that God has given me the opportunity to have discussions like these with people who study and have strong opinions. Brennon  and Dan have both been gracious and patient with me in this discussion. I thank God for fellow believers - brothers - such as they. We agree on far more things than we disagree. As always, Brennon's comments are in black and mine are in Red.

My brother in Christ, Marcus, and I have been having an informal debate over the extent of the atonement as prompted by Dan's, another fellow Arminian blogger, post on Ephesians 1. Marcus responded to that blog post here. Dan responded here. Then Marcus responded again here (you will find my comments in the combox beginning here).

This post is in response to Marcus' latest rebuttal found here.

Brennon, where does scripture say that God gives draws everyone to the same extent with the same intensity?

The Bible never says that explicitly, but I don't think it has to. With verses like John 3:16, 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, 1 Timothy 2:3-6, and 2 Peter 3:9, the burden of proof rests on the Calvinist to show that God has not provided salvation for all.

Thanks for summing up the discussion so completely.

Where does the Bible say God draws everyone period?

John 12:32 for one. Here it seems to be saying that Jesus draws everyone to Himself. It says nothing on the intensity of this drawing, but I never claimed God draws all people with the same intensity. As Acts 13:48 seems to me to be indicating, some people require less intensity in drawing them to Christ than others. Some will not respond no matter how intensely they are drawn. But the drawing is necessary in order for us to even be able to come to Jesus, and Marcus and I agree on that.

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

I agree that God opens the door, but no where does scripture say that we shut the door for ourselves.

There are many places where man frustrates the desire of God to have them come to Him. Acts 7:51 is one of the most blatant in the New Testament. Right there in Acts 13:46 is another. Paul himself attributes the shutting of the door to the individuals themselves (which is important to note when trying to ascertain what verse 48 is saying). Jesus also laments over Israel's unwillingness to respond to His desire for them in Matthew 22:37 and Luke 13:34. The Old Testament has many examples as well. Every time the Israelites turned from God, they were resisting His grace.

We also agree that people frustates the desires of God to come to him. We don't want God. We don't look for Him. We never will if God does not initiate the relationship. Because this is our default position, it does not show that resisting God's grace says that we can close the door on our salvation that God has opened. It's shut from the time we begin to exist to the time God opens that door. Regarding Acts 13:46 - what else can an unregenerate man do but reject Jesus? It's not proof that grace can be resisted. Romans 8:5-8 says:

⁵Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. ⁶The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; ⁷the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. ⁸Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

Out of the five translations I looked up, none of them translated it the way you suggested as a matter of fact the King James and World English translate it in such a way to convey the idea that those who believe were chosen beforehand.

I content that even in the English translations cited the verse need not be taken as an irresistible foreordained appointment. However, it shall be noted that many of the translators are Calvinists and may be reading an interpretation into the text. Maybe the tradition should be bucked (as I've heard it may be in the update to the NIV).

Brennon, can you give any proof that most of the translators of the 5 translations I cited are Calvinists?

As a doctoral student who is studying Greek pointed out to me, the "BDAG (the most authoritative Greek lexicon) gives two definitions for τάσσω, the first of which is 'to bring about an order of things by arranging' and provides the glosses 'arrange, put in place'." This would be the rendering that the Arminian would support. The second definition from BDAG is order, fix, determine, appoint. This would be the Calvinistic rendering. It's interesting to note that the BDAG assigns Acts 13:48 the first meaning.

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

I need to correct what I said about middle voice in my previous response. I said it would make the passage read "those who were disposed to eternal life believed." However, this is actually the passive sense. The middle voice would make it read "to those who disposed themselves to eternal life believed."

If we consider the context given by verse 46, it would seem awkward that those who refused the gospel had thrust it away themselves, yet there was a fore-ordination of those who did accept the calling. It seems far more likely that those who were appointed were appointed because they were open, or disposed, to believing the gospel. Those who had shut the door missed this appointment.

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

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

Most Calvinists are prepared to handle the middle voice argument (which was my mistake in mentioning), but the passive voice is far stronger. Considering that we have an authoritative lexicon assigning Acts 13:48 with the passive sense, I would be inclined to take its advice over a Calvinist polemicist who enjoys verbally pounding on his opponents. Plus, what do you do with verse 46 in the meantime?

I think I have dealt with Acts 13:46. Luke is not setting up  a parallel between why the Jews rejected the call and the Gentiles accepted the call. He is merely stating why each group responded the way they did. I also think that James White deserves more credit than what you have stated. Brennon, did you listen to the debate between Steve Gregg and James White?

I know you agree with the scriptures that say that we are unable to choose to follow Christ unless the Father draws us (Not all .people who call themselves Arminians say that, but all Calvinists do). If no one is seeking God and is going astray, then what happens that causes a man or woman to change?

God shows them His grace. God must free the person's will in order for them to make a conscious decision whether to accept His gift of grace or not. God the Holy Spirit acts upon the heart of a man when that man is exposed to the grace of God. Upon the hearing of the word, the Spirit of God calls the sinner to repent of his sins, draws the sinner to accept Christ, enables the sinner to accept Christ, and convicts the sinner of his or her sins and their need for Christ. After being enabled by the Spirit, the response of the sinner is passive. The sinner must stop resisting, repent of their sins, and place their faith in Christ. This gift, like any gift, is not irresistible. The sinner must accept the unmerited gift of God. Once this is done, following the plan of the Father, the Spirit joins the sinner to Jesus and thus begins the Savior's relationship with the sinner.

You have articulated the salvation process as I would have about 10 years ago. What changed my mind was the realization that all people are hell bound as a default. It's not up in the air, until a person makes a decision - from the time you are born and accountable for your sins (we'll skip the babies, young children, and mientally handicapped for now)  you, me, all people deserve hell. And the understanding that no one can be saved unless they are drawn. If I understand you, you  are saying that God tweaks a person just enough so that they can make a free decision. However, if God has to and does nudge you just enough so that you can says yes (and you would not say yes otherwise) why doesn't he nudge everyone so that they say yes and no one has to go hell?

You have said you believe that God gives one enough faith to make a decision

I am one that says faith is not given by God. Faith is something we have in God. The ability to have faith is given by God. If you want to say faith is from God in that sense, that's fine with me, but faith is something we have in response to God's grace. Yes, I believe God gives all sufficient grace to exercise this faith.

Okay. The problem is we know that by default no one has faith. We have nothing and have no ability to please God. (Romans 8:5-8; Hebrews 11:6)

What person in their right mind, who fully understands the Gospel, would be stupid enough to say "No."?

People who choose to say no to God. We're not really in our right minds until changed by God. Some people are darkened by their own volition and choose not to accept the light given to them.

The thing is you have described every single human being who has ever lived, but Jesus and does not speak to my point: What is it that make a person say "Yes" after by definition they said "No,"?

Yet intelligent people do that. So you have to ask are those who say "Yes" smarter or better in some way?

Not necessarily. They simply choose to remain in their sins. Who knows all of the reasons but God?

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


There is nothing about me better than any unbeliever. Nothing!

Well actually, in Calvinism, there is. You're individually and unconditionally elected by God. You're de facto better than the non-elect from the outset of eternity.

 No, that is not what Calvinists believe. Calvinism does not explain why the elect are chosen other than that God wanted to do.- "His good pleasure" (Ephesians 1:9). I don't know why He chose me and you to believe and not nudge others so that they do too. The best I can do it offer what Calvin, Luther, and my mother said - none of our business.

So why do people choose to reject the very thing - the only thing - that can save them?

They choose to do it. You're assuming something has to cause them to do this, but that's what those of us who hold to libertarian free will dispute; that something must cause us to choose what we do. We believe the will is truly free to do what it is able to do. When freed by God, you are completely unconstrained by anything in your choice. You must actually choose to accept God.

No. Scripture says that it is God causing us to accept God. We deny and run away from God by default. It's what we do.  Ypo reject Christ is choosing to turn your back on that freedom....all the while thinking you are free. Calvinists if they believe the Bible do not deny that people choose to reject or accept God by an act of will. Calvinists come up with a different answer for how and why we do it.

Marcus quotes Matthew 11:27, apparently thinking this supports his view. But this verse doesn't say Jesus only reveals the Father to a select group of individuals. No! The very next verse records Jesus as saying, "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Jesus is calling everyone who is beaten down by the legalism of the day. This isn't limiting the scope of Christ's calling, it is widening it! Anyone who is weary of their sin can go to Him.

Matthew ll:27 does not say that Jesus chooses to reveal the Father to everyone either. Because the Father is not revealed to everyone, that tells us that it's limited to Jesus' will and choice.  I don't think verse 28 is saying that all persons are being called - just the ones Jesus has chosen to reveal the Father.

All believers - the church are predestined, but God knows which individuals are in that group.

Correct. However, foreknowledge does not equal fore-ordination. God knowing people who will enter into union with Christ does not mean He caused them to do so.

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

The thing is White said that God did not just predestion the group but the individuals in that group

That's what we disagree on. Predestining a group which individuals must meet certain conditions to join does not mean God has forgotten the individuals. In fact, the Arminian view says that God sincerely and honestly draws all individuals to Himself. He cares for every last person on earth. He wants us all to accept His forgiveness. But He wants this done freely, not by a pre-decreed, unalterable chain of determined events. As WLC points out, "God could produce certain chemical reactions in our brains that would issue in what we'd normally describe as loving behavior toward Him, but it would be a sham, a puppet-like response. To have a
genuine love relationship with us, God must put up with the possibility of rebellion."

I admire William Lane Craig (WLC) but I have to disagree with him on this, partly. He  rejects that we are hostile to God prior to conversion. God is not just putting up with the possibility of rebellion because before we are saved we are already in a state of rebellion, unwilling and unable to stop. His theology does not address this problem. Your's attempts to but tries to hold on to libertarian free will. The truth is if it's going to keep my butt out of hell, I'll be God's puppet  but I think it's way more complicated then that. It's not just that God has purposes and plans he has specific ways in which he wants to carry them out - that include allowing evil to exist. As many great apologists and theologians have pointed out that if God decided to annihilate evil now he would have to obliterate everyone starting with us.

Is the verse saying that he (The Father) chose Jesus before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight

No, it's saying that the Father chose us in Christ; believers as a result of choosing Christ. He chose Christ as the avenue of salvation from the foundation of the world, and in light of that those who are in Christ are chosen as a consequence of being united to Christ. It's like saying I chose a potato chip in light of having chosen the potato chip bag off of the shelf. As Robert Picrilli points out in his book Grace, Faith, and Free Will, "Christ Himself, first and foremost, was God's darling, His chosen One. Individuals are chosen in saving union with Christ" (65).

I agree that Jesus is the key but Ephesians 1:4-5 clearly says that we - believers- were chosen before the foundation of the world.

⁴For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love ⁵he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—

To construe the passage to be saying He chose us in order for us to be in Christ is adding to the passage.

Um, but that is what Paul wrote.

Jesus was not chosen to be holy and blameless because Jesus always was, is, and will be holy and blameless.

You're correct. I was not saying that. I was saying that God chose that those in Christ would be holy and blameless. Those who believe in Jesus in response to the grace of God by their choice are predestined to be adopted by God and made holy and blameless.

I agree, except for the "by their choice": part because they could not made that choice without God's intervention.. Brennon thanks again for dialoguing with me!

Brennon's Thoughts: Debating the Extent of the Atonement with Marcus

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

Image via Wikipedia

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

Hey Marcus,

To answer the questions posed to me in your comment:

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

But not everyone that is drawn believes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

King James Version (KJV)

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

English Standard Version (ESV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

We believe because He appointed us for salvation

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

Let's look at Ephesians 1:4 which says

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

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

God bless. I hope I was clear.

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

Atheism is Dead: The Mad Pagan Skeptic, part 3

Image via Wikipedia

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

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

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

Atheism is Dead: The Mad Pagan Skeptic, part 3

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

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


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

Image via Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is what the young man posted:



What do you think?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: A challenge to futurists on Matthew 24

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

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

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

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

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

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

"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

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

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

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

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: A challenge to futurists on Matthew 24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

Arminian Chronicles: Response to Marcus on Ephesians 1

Image via Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, how can you have one without the other?

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

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

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

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

Thanks again for the response!

Thank you, also!

God be with you,
Dan

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

Arminian Chronicles: Response to Marcus on Ephesians 1

Atheism is Dead: The Mad Pagan Skeptic, part 2

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

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

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

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

Atheism is Dead: The Mad Pagan Skeptic, part 2

Anthony Buzzard Debate on Unbelievable!

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

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

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

Anthony Buzzard Debate on Unbelievable!

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

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

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