THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Addressing a response to my Matthew 24 Challenge

My brother-in-Christ, Mike Felker issued a challenge to defend a future fulfillment for Matthew 24. I wrote a response and he was kind enough to write a response to my post with a great deal of respect and tact. A link to it appears at the end of the this post. I want to respond to his post. His words will be in red and mine will be in black.

I want to thank Marcus for taking the time to write his blog and address my challenge. I think these conversations are important to have, as long as they are done with respect. I consider Marcus to be my brother in Christ and would never see an issue like this as a reason to divide from him and i'm sure he feels the same way. And if he, or anyone else, would like to respond, i'd be very interested in reading other views.

Ditto. I love ya, man.

It seems to me that Mike's response can be grouped into three areas: 1. the actual question the disciples asked Jesus; 2. the sign of that "abomination that causes desolation"; 3. the meaning of "the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory."

1. Mike wrote

The first problem I see is that I don't find "when will the end of the world happen" anywhere in the text. Instead, the verse reads, "what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?" This is significant because the disciples did not say, "when will be the end of the world?" If they did, then kosmos would have been more appropriately used by Jesus. However, I will admit that "world" is used by some Bible translations to translate aion, but "age" seems to be more of a reasonable translation in light of the context. And since the context is what is in question, it would suffice to engage Marcus' primary point to establish whether "world" would be an appropriate translation. And this would inevitably lead to a future fulfillment of Matthew 24.

The verse in question is Matthew 24:3. I have looked it up in 5 translations and two out of three of them use the word "world". I agree that Jesus did not use the word kosmos - the word used is aion. I think "age" is the correct rendering...but what "age" is being discussed? I didn't discuss this in my first post because it never occurred to me that not all my brothers saw the "end of the age" as "end of the world". Let's look at the context. In verse 2 Jesus tells all listening that the temple was going to be destroyed. I think Mike and I agree that Jesus meant that the temple destruction being at a different time than His coming and the end of the age. Therefore I don't think AD 70 can fulfills the entire prophecy Jesus gave in Matthew 24. If the disciples thought that his coming and the destruction of the temple were near simultaneous events then it appears to me that the ask the same thing twice and that does not seem reasonable to me. So I ask what did the disciples thought was ending? Israel as a sovereign nation? No, i think they meant the point at which Jesus would set up his kingdom and take control.

2. Mike Wrote

In addition, Jesus changed the subject from the worldwide preaching of the gospel to the abomination that will make the temple "desolate." In referring back to Daniel 9:27, 11:31 and 12:11, Jesus draws on these themes to speak of something that would be set up in the temple at the time of the destruction. Whatever this was, it would be the thing that makes the temple "desolate," as Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:20 explicitly affirm.

But what was this "abomination?" Clearly, Jesus is making a dual fulfillment application of the Daniel passages. That is, Daniel 12:11 seems to be fulfilled in part when Antiochus Ephiphanes set up a pagan altar in the temple in 168 B.C. And the fact that Jesus speaks of this type of abomination as a future thing implies that Daniel 12:11 had not been completely fulfilled. This is important in considering Marcus' view because whatever it was that "desolated" the temple, it had to be of the same type as the ancient context. That is, unless it can be demonstrated that Jesus was speaking of something of a different type, which is what Marcus seems to be implying, then my view seems to be more reasonable because every Jew knew the story: Antiochus Ephiphanes rendered the temple unclean with his erecting a pagan statue. And there is nothing in the Daniel account or the Olivet discourse that explicitly affirms that the "abomination" is some sort of "anti-Christ" figure. Maybe it is, or maybe it isn't. But whatever it is, we can only go by what the text is trying to describe; namely, that something is going to desecrate the temple in such as way that Antiochus' profanations will only pale in comparison. In other words, I don't see that Marcus' view is more reasonable than a 70 A.D. fulfillment.

I totally agree that Jesus was referring to Antiochus Ephiphanes and making a parallel. However during the Jewish War (c 70 AD) there had been no idol set up in the Temple. It only almost happened then. I totality agree that we don't know really know what the "abomination" is and i don't think the Left Behind series has truth I wanna base my life one but i don't think the events of 70 AD completely fulfill the prophesy. Some of it like this part I think speaks to 70 AD and the future.

3. The discussion where Mike explains how you can see that Jesus' coming could be explained as happening in AD 70 really didn't move me. If I understand correctly, Mike is arguing that the "Son of Man coming on clouds" breferes to judgement and punishing Israel. He points out that there are many Old Testament passages including Jesus later on using the langauge to say He will be vindicated. Thing is, the destruction of Jerusalem did not make Jews who denied Jesus embrace Jesus. The Roman went on like nothing happened. For them, it was another day at the office. I just don't see how Jesus coming on clouds "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." can be found fulfilled in AD 70.

As for

Here, Marcus describes Matthew 24:30-31 as something that could not have happened in 70 A.D. But unless i'm mistaken here, I believe that Matthew 24:34 provides me with justification in interpreting these verses within the context of the first century:

"Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."

What generation could Jesus have been speaking of other than the disciples? Therefore, "all these things," or everything that Jesus mentioned, including the "Son of man coming on the clouds of the sky, etc." took place in the events leading up to the destruction in 70 A.D. And though I realize how unlikely it may seem to the modern, western mind, I believe this view is entirely justifiable and far more reasonable than the futurist view.

I think you have a point but "this generation" is translated by some as "this race" as in the human race.
Mike, this is a lot fun and helps me a great deal! I hope youj will respond and specifically asnwer the question how you see Jesus' return on clouds with power and great glory as being fulfilled in 70 AD? Thanks again.


THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Addressing a response to my Matthew 24 Challenge

Debate: James White vs Tim Staples - Debating Purgatory

Image via Wikipedia

On Thursday, January 28, 2010, James White debated Tim Staples on the Dividing Line web cast on the question "Does 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 support the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory?" Staples claims that it does. James White says no. The debate had the following format:

15 minute opening statements (Tim gets to go first)
8 minutes rebuttals
5 minutes cross examination each
8 minute closing statements
Then, they took phone calls for just under 20 minute

I think White did a great job showing that it does not work. Here is what 1st Corinthians 3:10-15:

¹⁰By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. ¹¹For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. ¹²If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, ¹³his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. ¹⁴If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. ¹⁵If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

I think the exchange tells us a lot. The thing that amazed me was Staples arguing that the teaching of Purgatory has not changed in 2000 years! I thought: WHAT???? Then he claimed that purgatory is not a place people go when they die it is the judgement of our lives and he read a quote from the current Pope to back him up. I know during the Reformation - 500 years ago - the Roman Catholic church taught that purgatory was a place where people go to get rid of sins they could not get rid of while they lived. They even taught that if you paid the church - indulgences - one could pay their way and loved ones out of purgatory! If Staples is correct as to what the Roman Catholics teachesd about what purgatory is - then it has changed. You can't claim a 2000-year unbroken tradition, and then ignore what used to be taught. Go ahead and follow the link below to hear the exchange.

I also think that I must comment that his discussion was vastly different than White's discussion with Michael Brown earlier in the week. Staples as mean and kept talking like any intelligent person could see that he was right and White was wrong.  I'm always amazed at how patient James White can be. 

1 Corinthians 3 and Tim Staples on Today's Dividing Line

Atheism is Dead: One Century After Her Birth, Mother Teresa is Still Inspiring…Vile Hatred

Image via Wikipedia

I just read a post on Mariano's blog about atheists like Dan Barker trying to block the circulation of a postage stamp bearing the image of Mother Teresa on the grounds that it violates the separation of church and state because she was a Roman Catholic Nun. They argue that it doesn't matter that she did such great humanitarian work, or that she was an honorary US citizen. The bottom line is the government should not endorse any religion.  Okay. What about Santa Claus? He is based off a real man, named Saint Nicholas. He was not an American citizen. He was a Saint recognized by the Roman Catholic Church.  And he regularly appears on our postage stamps every year!  Why isn't Barker protesting that?

I see nothing wrong with honoring Mother Teresa with a postage stamp. She deserves the honor for the work she did helping those our governments would not touch.

Atheism is Dead: One Century After Her Birth, Mother Teresa is Still Inspiring…Vile Hatred

Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - Chris Matthews: Speech So Good Made Me Forget It Was A Brown Person Talking!

Okay, I would have expected this from Fox News, but MSNBC?! Watch the video below to hear commentator Chris Matthews make some of the most racist remarks I've heard in a long time! The sad thing is that he can't even see how what he said was racist! Sad! Follow the link at the end, to read Danielle's Belton's insightful remark about just how stupid Matthews' remarks really are.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - Chris Matthews: Speech So Good Made Me Forget It Was A Brown Person Talking!

Biblical Evidence: Solomon's Temple

Dr. Claude Mariottini has recently posted two very important posts on his blog regarding 10th Century BC Israel and Solomon's Temple. He provides a couple of resources from current archaeology showing that there was indeed a centralized kingdom of Israel and there really was a King Solomon. And King Solomon really did build a magnificent temple in honor of the God of Israel.Read Dr. Mariottini's posts below:


William G. Dever and the Existence of Solomon’s Kingdom 
The Location of Solomon’s Temple

Sam Harris | Author | Big Think

Image via Wikipedia

I've been discussing one of my posts with another user of Twitter, Hudsonryan, who really disagrees. He doesn't think Christianity is true or holds anything of value. He tweeted:

@mmcelhaney Your words: "By helping Haiti, Atheists are acting against their worldview". The most ignorant thing I've read in months.

I did indeed write that. I agree with him that atheist can be and many are good and moral people. I was never saying that they can't or never are. My argument was that because atheists don't recognize an absolute authority outside of themeselves, they have to borrow form religious worldviews to give their morality meaning. If I think it's okay to rape and kill you as long as you can't stop me, then why shouldn't I? I agree that I shouldn't. I agree that it's wrong. But while i have a concrete reason for saying that it's wrong. What does the atheist appeal to validate that it is wrong? When i pressed him on this issue, he would not ansswer me. Instead he gavce me the link at the boottom of this article tweeting

@mmcelhaney In my absence to teach you what your parents failed at, listen to Harris, he and I agree 90+%. http://bigthink.com/samharris

and

@mmcelhaney And I point u to him, as I won't debate this over 140 chars at a time. We share enough views that I am OK in doing that.

I appreciate the link. I am going to be doing a series of articles examining Sam Harris' world view and see if it's really up to snuff. Does his religion - practices setting the pattern for his way of life - really something one can consistently stand on? The site contains short videos of Harris discussing different topics. In each post in the series, I will choose one and see what we get.

My brother-in-Christ, Mariano has written some great articles about Sam Harris. Read them on his blog:

Atheism Essays Particular to Sam Harris

Sam Harris | Author | Big Think

Barack Obama's State of the Union Address 2010

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Last night I watched a lot of President Obama's speech and I liked what I heard. The thing is I hope he is being honest about  caring more about doing the right thing than being re-elected. He most certainly is making moves that are cheesing off people whose support he is going to need to get re-elected - and perhaps avoid the possibility assassination. We really need to pray for out President. It seems like such simple thing he is trying to do if we all work together - balance the budget, keep the nation safe from terrorism,  and heal the economy. He seems to always meet with opposition. Instead of offereing their own solutions they seem to just be intent on blocking him (and not just Republicans). I really agreed with the President's criticism of the Supreme Court. It really was a bad idea overturning limits on campaign spending by corporations. I mean who's butt was kissed for that to happen?!! Obviously Justice Samuel Alito thinks it's a good idea...I just can't say I see any way he could be right. Funny he couldn't contain his disdain for the President's remark. It was written all over his face. Well here is the speech:




And while Alito's reaction was not as extreme as Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouting "You lie!" at the President, it still bothers me because I wanna know what part of remark he disagreed with.





Justice Samuel Alito Shows Distaste With Barack Obama's Barb on Campaign Finance Ruling - AOL News

Atheism is Dead: Haiti and the Hypocrisy of Christian Theology - Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins via last.fm

Yesterday, I wrote an article responding to a blog post on the Stand To Reason blog by Greg Koukl responding to an article by Richarcd Dawkins. Dawkins asserted that Pat Roberston statement  implying that the Haitians deserved the earthquake was in line with Christian  doctrine for explaining why bad things happen to people. I disagree. Fortunately, Mariano wrote a brilliant post explaining why Dawkins is wrong by stepping through Dawkins article. Dawkins' worldview does not answer the question and Pat Roberston answers the question as to the source of the calamities befalling Haiti. Read Mariano's article at the link below.


Atheism is Dead: Haiti and the Hypocrisy of Christian Theology - Richard Dawkins

Truthbomb Apologetics: Lectures by Ravi Zacharias: Apologetics and Worldview

Thankfully Turthbomb Apologetics has presented a valuable resource: A lecture by Dr. Ravi Zacharias regarding why Apologetics is so important. Here is what Chad wrote.

Ravi Zacharias presents two lectures that deal with the state of apologetics today and why we must be able to defend the faith against opposing worldviews.

As Zacharias's website notes:

"A classroom style lecture that Ravi delivered recently at Wheaton College to a group of budding apologists. The message is; your worldview affects not only your apologetics but all your efforts to spread the Gospel."

Truthbomb Apologetics: Lectures by Ravi Zacharias: Apologetics and Worldview

Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - White House: A Year In Photos

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

White House photographer Pete Souza's finest.

Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - White House: A Year In Photos

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!