Ephesians 1:11 and Bible Translation

Image via Wikipedia

A few months ago, I was discussing Ephesians 1 in an blog debate. Ephesians 1 was one of the texts Dr. James White and Dr. Michael Brown discussed in their interaction last Thursday. They spent some time on verse 11 and I was amazed on how each exegeted the text. Dr White gave some examples on how various translations render the text and what the text means. It's a real interesting post. God is a genius.

Ephesians 1:11 and Bible Translation

Confident Christianity: Atheist Sam Harris On Morality

Image via Wikipedia

The Confident Christianity blog has posted a video of Sam Harris talking about morality and religion. It's amazing that Harris tries to say that it's wrong to say to be sure about stuff you can't possibly know and then does it himself. He is right that Islam and Christianity can't be reconciled but like the comments on the post. He said that there are people who are wrong about human fulfillment? How does he know that? Who died and made him the authority? He borrows from Christian ethics and morality for many of his definitions for what is right and what is wrongs (except the ones he wants to reject) and then argues that we don't need Christianity or God or any religion. Really lame.



Confident Christianity: Atheist Sam Harris On Morality

Thanks to Michael Brown

Dr. James White has posted some thoughts on his blog regarding his interactions with Dr. Michael Brown. I enjoyed the exchange as well as this post. Dr White wrote the following:

I know this exchange is a bit uncomfortable for zealous folks on both sides of this issue. I'm glad it is. We need the discomfort. I may make it even worse by asking if Michael would join me to discuss some of the key prophetic texts relating to the person of Jesus, and maybe I could reprise my time on his show to discuss some topics like the reliability of the text of the New Testament, or key texts in the Qur'an Christians should know. In any case, I look forward to next Thursday, when you will hear--over and over again, "But Michael, you really, really need to allow the whole of Scripture to speak here, and to realize that since God has not chosen to reveal the identity of the elect, which even you must admit, given your view of foreknowledge, God possesses, then we must accept the distinction between the prescriptive will of God, found in His law, and the decretive will of God, which envisions the existence of evil, and all the corollaries that flow therefrom." Maybe I won't use those exact words, but you will hear that theme over and over again. But, what you won't hear, Lord willing, will be any caricaturing of the positions by either side, and hopefully, in so doing, we will encourage others who engage the topic to strive for a high standard in the effort.

In my opinion, he is exactly right. Accepting or rejecting neither of the 5 points of Calvinism is going to save you for Heaven nor damn you to hell. Not that the matters they disagree with aren't important. They are. But not important enough to break fellowship over with brothers and sisters who also believe that Jesus is the only way to be saved but differ in how God executed that salvation. Some people accuse James White as being uncharitable and just plain mean when it comes to people he disagrees with. This simply is not true. It's not true of Dr. Brown either. I am really looking forward to next Thursday!

Thanks to Michael Brown

Responding to Brennon's Thoughts: Response to Marcus: More on Trauma in Sovereignty à la James Swan

Image via Wikipedia

For some reasons and I guess I should research why, sometimes people have problems commenting on Blogger blogs. my brother-in-Christ Brennon tried to respond to a responding post I made to one of his blogs and couldn't get his comment accepted by Blogger. I don't know why. But he was kind enough to post his response on his own blog. I'm responding in kind. My response to his response is in bold. I have been following Dr. James White's interaction with Dr. Michael Brown on some of these very issues.  I have great admiration and respect for both men and I really liked how they were able to disagree and not be disagreeable! I want to thank Brennon for his interaction. In all the time that I have corresponded with him his salvation, integrity, and kindness have never been absent nor in question.

I have been trying to comment on a response to my response to James Swan of Alpha and Omega Ministries (found here) from Marcus. The post I am responding to is found here. His contentions are in italics.

I think you're missing one of the main premises in my argument, and that is that God creating free agents whom He knows would sin does not somehow cause Him to share in their responsibility for those sins. That seemed to be one of Swan's main points, but I see no reason to impute responsibility of the acts of individual agents to God. The only thing we could say if we were to complain is that God was negligent somehow in creating free creatures even though He knew they would sin. But that, as I say, is just the problem of evil.

I think Swan's argument was that the Arminian position does not really answer why God is not responsible for evil. 

Now, to defend my arguments:

The problem is that it does not answer the issues raised in Scripture that we see that God does not just ordain events but also decrees them.

Here is the problem with this argument. You are assuming determinism in this premise itself. What we are trying to determine is whether God is the one decreeing all human actions in the argument between theistic determinism and libertarianism. So to say that the reason I am wrong is because God decrees these sins is begging the question.

Decreeing events and decreeing sins are no the same thing. We see that God can and has stopped people from sinning. This means that he could stop all people from sinning. Why doesn't he? 

 ¹ Now Abraham moved on from there into the region of the Negev and lived between Kadesh and Shur. For a while he stayed in Gerar, ² and there Abraham said of his wife Sarah, "She is my sister." Then Abimelech king of Gerar sent for Sarah and took her.
 ³ But God came to Abimelech in a dream one night and said to him, "You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman."
 ⁴ Now Abimelech had not gone near her, so he said, "Lord, will you destroy an innocent nation? ⁵ Did he not say to me, 'She is my sister,' and didn't she also say, 'He is my brother'? I have done this with a clear conscience and clean hands."
 ⁶ Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her. ⁷ Now return the man's wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live. But if you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all yours will die." - Genesis 20:1-6

God tells Abimelech that he did not touch Sarah not because he didn't want to but God stopped him from doing it. Yet Abimeleh was also told that if he did not choose to give Sarah back he was going to die. Therefore sometimes we see that God dictates terms. Sometimes God makes us do right and sometimes God allows us to make the decision and live with the consequences. How do we know in what circumstances God will do which or other? That's up to God.

In Genesis 50 we find Joseph, whose brothers sold him into the evil of slavery, who lied to their father breaking his heart, claiming Joseph was dead. In front of his brothers, years later Joseph states, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive." The two statements in Hebrew are in direct parallel. Joseph's brothers meant evil by their actions, but God intended the same actions for good.

According to the Genesis 50 passage, there is no reason to think that God actively caused Joseph's brothers to sin. That seems to implicate God in that He took part in their sin. No, He simply used their sin to accomplish a far greater good, which actually supports my first argument against the POE.

I distinctly said that God did not force His brothers to do evil. But Swan's argument does come up. How do you reconcile that God could have stopped Joseph's brothers from  selling Joseph into slavery. But God didn't. What God did was use them to save the whole world from famine - the greater good. God could have done all of this a different way, but He did it this way. Why? I don't know. Think for a second of how many choices had to be made for Joseph's life and Genesis to unfold as it did? It's innumerable. I'm willing to bet that God did a lot more in all of their lives too, not just Joseph's life. Each and every life unfolded the way God purposed before hand.  And everyone - to a point - did what they wanted to do....as far as they knew. Same thing for us.

This same principle can be found in Isaiah 10: 5-12, where God uses Assyria as an instrument of judgment on the rebellious people of Israel, and then holds Assyria responsible for her sinful attitude and desires against Israel.

Same for Isaiah 10. God uses the sins that these individual agents contrived through their own powers of deliberation, through their own wills, for His purposes. He did not purpose or decree or make necessary the sins or actions of individuals, but in foreknowing the sin worked them out for His eternal purposes.

 Brennon, is that really what the passage say? 

 ⁵ "Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger,
       in whose hand is the club of my wrath!
 ⁶ I send him against a godless nation,
       I dispatch him against a people who anger me,
       to seize loot and snatch plunder,
       and to trample them down like mud in the streets.
 ⁷ But this is not what he intends,
       this is not what he has in mind;
       his purpose is to destroy,
       to put an end to many nations.
 ⁸ 'Are not my commanders all kings?' he says.
 ⁹ 'Has not Calno fared like Carchemish?
       Is not Hamath like Arpad,
       and Samaria like Damascus?
 ¹⁰ As my hand seized the kingdoms of the idols,
       kingdoms whose images excelled those of Jerusalem and Samaria-
 ¹¹ shall I not deal with Jerusalem and her images
       as I dealt with Samaria and her idols?' "
 ¹² When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem, he will say, "I will punish the king of Assyria for the willful pride of his heart and the haughty look in his eyes.

God distinctly says that Assyria is doing what God wants and they don't know it and God is going to punish Assyrians for their sins - judging them for their sinful hearts and attitudes. Is this fair? No, but it Just. Justice does not equal fairness.


The most important example of compatibilism though is Acts 4:27-28. Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and the Jews all sinfully join forces to crucify Jesus. Yet God's predestined the entire event for his holy purpose.

Same with the Acts 4 passage. God knew that when placed in the situation they were that Pilate and the Pharisees would choose to crucify Jesus. He allowed them to freely act knowing how they would act. He did not cause them to act.

If God had not put Pilate and the Jewish leaders in those situation, could they have chosen to crucify Jesus? No. Sounds like  God was in control. Look at verse 28.

²⁸They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.

I would argue that its impossible for an unregenerate human being to relate with God. Unregenerate sinner are spiritually dead, remember? Completely unable to obey or even respond to God. All we can do on our own is rebel

The issue isn't whether man in his natural state can do anything to relate to God. Both you and I recognize the need for God's grace because man is totally unable and unwilling to come to Him without His drawing. The issue is whether we can choose to reject this drawing. If we can't, then the entire relationship aspect is called into question. Is a relationship where one side causes the other side to not be able to choose not to be in the relationship a genuine one?

It's not an equal relationship. We both agree that you can do nothing of your own to initiate it. If we can't initiate it, why should we think we can reject it? Apostasy is explained in 1st John 2:19

¹⁹They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

 I understand this to mean that if you are an apostate you were never really in relationship in the first place...not that you changed your mind.  I can find no scripture that leads me to the conclusion that God gives you just enough grace so you can choose to accept or reject Christ.

It's interesting to me how people are quick to give us the freedom to reject a relationship with God, yet no thought seems to be given that God could choose who to be in relationship with of God's own free will.

I certainly recognize that it is entirely God's prerogative whom He chooses to show mercy to; whom He chooses to be in a relationship with. I simply believe the scriptures teach that God has purposed to extend His love to all human beings and to allow them to freely come to Him or reject Him.

I'm sorry I don't understand. Can you recognize that God can choose who to have a relationship with and who not to have a relationship with and then argue that God must extend at least enough grace to everyone to give them the option to chose to come to Him or reject Him at the same time? How does that work?

I think reality may be explained by the the point that God can arbitrarily do whatever God wants at any time.

This contention baffles me, Marcus. If you are correct, then God is the author of sin and He irrationally blames us for the sin He has made necessary. It would contradict the scriptures which indicate that God only does what is good! If this is the case, then how do we differentiate between the works of the devil and the works of God? Indeed, the works of the devil actually are the works of God, since God is the one who decrees and makes necessary the works of the devil, if theistic determinism is true.

Let me give an example. I agree that everything God does is good, but it depends on your point of view about what is good.  Was it good for Pharaoh when God ran over him to free Israel while working through Moses? What about the Amorites and the Amalekites? Not good for them the way we think it was good but it was justice. When bad things happen to us it's justice because we deserve to go to hell.  When good happens that is mercy because we don't deserve it. I would further contend that none of know what "good" is because none of us good. In relationship with God we are learning what "good" is.  The sin in the garden is being used by God for larger purposes with the purpose of glorifying God at it's center. American slavery was an evil thing. But without it, I  and my relations and most of the people I am close to, perhaps every single American, would not exist in the form we do now and if we did, how do I know I would have ever heard the Gospel, believe, and be saved. I don't. This is the way God has decided to do it and it was set up long before any of us was here.

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— ⁶to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. ⁷In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace ⁸that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. ⁹And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, ¹⁰to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ. - Ephesians 1:4-10

My assertion was "He has the right to create free agents, allow them to sin, and hold them responsible for those sins." I don't think He has the right to create people and cause them to sin and then hold them responsible for that sin. That would be totally irrational; a logical contradiction. But God is not irrational and cannot do logically contradictory things.


George Bryson and James White faced off on this question years ago, and Brennon I think you are explaining your position much better than Bryson did!  I want to be clear I'm not saying that God causes us to sin. I am saying that we have no other choice but to sin unless God chooses to save us. I agree God is no irrational or illogical but I don't think we are qualified to define what irrational or illogical really is because until God reveal his will and the plan to us we have no idea - our view point is tainted always. Let's look at Joseph again Why was he able to forgive his brothers and accept the events of his life. He could not catch a break. At times he must have felt like everything he touched was disintegrating in his hand. What did he take away from  his life? At times it sucked, but it was all for good in the end. 


For anyone reading this you can find Brennon's post before this one you can find it at the link below.


Brennon's Thoughts: Response to Marcus: More on Trauma in Sovereignty à la James Swan

There was a comment that I felt also needed to be responded to I thought

One of the basic problems with determinists is that they confuse power with morality. Does God have the sovereign right to arbitrarily do whatever He wants? Yes, He has that power. But if He were to do so, He would stop being good by His own standards. It also goes against Scripture which states that God never changes (and Scriptures emphasis when it says this is God's character).

 God's character shows us that God does have the right to do whatever he wants. Everything belongs to him...without exception. Why would God doing whatever He wants, whenever He wants, however He wants invalidate God's goodness? I have to reject that God's character would change because everything God does is good....even if I disagree....especially if I disagree because like Paul there is no good in me....or any of us!

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED ? DISCUSSION WITH EVANGELIST DAN CORNER.

This was an interesting article that was posted discussing the doctrine of eternal security.My comments are in red.

It seems that an issue that always comes up when Arminian and Calvinist have their theological clash is on the problem and question of evil.

Agreed!

I personally find Dan Corner to be a very sincere gentleman and when I listen to him I don't detect deceit and treachery when he speaks. I believe the man to be a true and faithful Christian and I also found it striking that when the host ask him questions he gives the response 'I believe WHAT JESUS SAYS' and than he quotes the scriptures. He also will say 'I believe what the Bible says' and than he quotes the relevant passages.

This is very different than people today who drag in allot of exegesis, and philosophy and you hardly ever hear them quote the Bible. To my understanding Dan Corner is a former Roman Catholic. I am not sure of his church affiliation. 

I agree that Dan Corner seems like a nice guy. However I believe in eternal security and I don't believe what he says I believe. Neither does anyone I know who accepts eternal security. More on this later. I would like to know who the blog author has been conversing with about eternal security who does not think its important that their view be scripture based. Also I wonder if the author knows anything about what "exegesis" is. "Dragging"  in exegesis means looking at scripting and drawing out your understanding from the text. Eisogesis is reading into the text something that is not there.  I think eisogesis is more important than philosophy.

For example was Lucifer 'saved'? Did Lucifer loose his salvation? Where did Lucifer get the inclination to rebel from? Did God create an imperfect program? If the program or creation had within its design and capacity to rebel why be so harsh upon it? After all anyone who is a computer programmer knows that a program only does what it's programmed to do.

The Bible says that "iniquity was found in" Lucifer (Ezekiel 28:15). The Bible does not say where the rebellion in Lucifer came from. What I think is more important where is the rebellion, iniquity and sin came from within our own hearts!? We know that this is what makes us unable to come to God on our own. Even Islam is about bridging that gap between us and God. At least we all admit that there is a gap. We disagree on how to overcome that Gap. This is why I prefer Calvinism over Arminianism: Calvinism has an answer. The suffering and crap we see in the program is not a bug....it's a feature...in a larger plan. I've written software myself where I purposely allow it to fail at certain spots so that I can force other parts of the program to do things as I see fit. Why? Because I want to. Is it it Efficient? Not your call. It's my program! Same thing with God except on a much larger scale.

Christians talk about God's 'justice' needing satisfaction. So did it satisfy God to create beings destined for hell? If so than why is sin such a big deal? If not than who programmed the creation to have the ability to sin? Why would God allow a creation to have an ability that he hates soo much?

It's a big deal because sin really is that bad. Thumbing your nose at the one who made you and outright rebellion deserves infinite and final punishment. And again neither you nor I know the complete picture in order to figure out if God could have done things differently in order to make sure all the "t's" God wants crossed are crossed. We can't know. God does. That is where trusting God is so important.

For the Calvinist if God already had a special elect group of people who were saved in Christ before the foundation of the world than why the need to incarnate and die for this saved group since they are already 'in Christ' (see: regeneration before faith). This seems a bit redudant.

It seems redundant because the author does not understand if Jesus had not incarnated and died the elect would not be saved,.

Christians need to answer these questions. The Manichean view of good verses evil seems appealing but people will ultimatley ask where the will to do evil or rebel came from.

The Manichean view of good verses evil is wrong. It gives evil too much credit and God not enough control. The truth is that evil can do nothing unless God allows it. 

You can see further my blog entry:

Fall of Man, Doctrine of Original Sin and Islam

Okay let me see about answering Corner's video statements now.

I think Dan Corner is really concerned with making sure that we know that God requires repentance and a holy life. Eternal Security does not mean that you get live any kind of way because you are going to heaven.When I use the term I mean that if you are born again, you will repent and continue to follow Jesus no matter what. What will happen is if you flub up and if you turn your back on God you will be restored - like David and Peter. However if you are never restored then you were never saved or elect in the first place.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED ? DISCUSSION WITH EVANGELIST DAN CORNER.

YouTube - "Hell No! You can't!" . . . "Yes, we can." - Countdown

Image via CrunchBase

I could not resist. This funny! The video even puts the mash up into context. Hilarious!



YouTube - "Hell No! You can't!" . . . "Yes, we can." - Countdown

Resurrection Debate: Gary Habermas & Mike Licona vs Robert Price

Here is a great discussion for Easter. The Infidel Guy & Robert M Price vs  Gary Habermas and Mike Licona. It was fun seeing Price being challenged. Habermas does a marvelous job showing how many Price makes some horrible assumptions that makes it hard for him to understand what Christians are saying. Price is definitely on the fringe. Even most skeptical scholars accepts the Paul really wrote some of the stuff that we attribute to him and Price says Paul wrote none of them. Another thing that got me was he said that in Greek "Phileo" and "Agape" from John 21 are synonyms!!! I admit that I don't read Greek, but I have never heard anyone not make a difference between what those words really mean. It was really interesting.

http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/Infidel_Radio_01-17-07_pt1.mp3


http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/Infidel_Radio_01-17-07_pt2.mp3

http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/Infidel_Radio_01-17-07_pt3.mp3

George Bush shakes hands of Haitians, and wipes hands on Bill Clinton's shirt

Okay, I admit it. I may be making too much of this. But there is footage of Ex-President George Bush shaking the hands of Haitians and then wiping his hand on Bill Clinton's shirt!!! My question is does he do that with white people too if the issue is that he's afraid of germs? I have no idea. The footage could have even been doctored or taken out of context, but if is true...makes me wonder if Kanye West was right.




THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: George Bush still doesn't like black people, or their Haitian germs

Why is God Hidden? (Pascal) | Faith Interface

Here is quote from Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) about why God is not obviously revealed to everyone.

God has willed to redeem men and to open salvation to those who seek it. But men render themselves so unworthy of it that it is right that God should refuse to some, because of their obduracy, what He grants others from a compassion which is not due to them. If He had willed to overcome the obstinacy of the most hardened, He could have done so by revealing Himself so manifestly to them that they could not have doubted of the truth of His essence; as it will appear at the last day, with such thunders and such a convulsion of nature that the dead will rise again, and the blindest will see Him.” It is not in this manner that He has willed to appear in His advent of mercy, because, as so many make themselves unworthy of His mercy, He has willed to leave them in the loss of the good which they do not want.
It was not, then, right that He should appear in a manner manifestly divine, and completely capable of convincing all men; but it was also not right that He should come in so hidden a manner that He could not be known by those who should sincerely seek Him.
He has willed to make himself quite recognizable by those; and thus, willing to appear openly to those who seek Him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from Him with all their heart. He so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him, and not to those who seek Him not. There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.

I respect Pascal a whole lot. He was brilliant! I disagree with him on this point because none of are seeking God by default. God seems to have to nudge us...otherwise none of us would seek Him. The thing is God does not nudge us all to the same degree at the same time.


Why is God Hidden? (Pascal) | Faith Interface

YouTube - Biden to Obama: Health care reform 'a big f**king deal'

Image via Wikipedia

When will people learn to not make comments they don't want a room full of people/television audience of millions to hear next to a microphone? We gotta make sure to think before we speak. Case in point....




YouTube - Biden to Obama: Health care reform 'a big f**king deal'

Brennon's Thoughts: Is There Trauma in Sovereignty? A Response to James Swan

Image via Wikipedia

Brennon has posted a response to a post from James Swan, in which Swan argues that libertarianism does not  give an adequate answer to the problem of evil. You can read Swan's original post God and Evil: The Trauma of Sovereignty. The issue under question is about if God is responsible for our sins and suffering. I think Brennon selected the perfect quote that sums up what he argues against:

When non-Reformed people argue against the Reformed understanding of sovereignty, I have to immediately ask them how they also avoid their own argument. If we apply their argument against their own position what happens? They similarly believe God created all that is, and knew the beginning from the end before He created. If I knew in advance that a person was going to get in their car by their own choice, and while driving down the road strike and kill someone, and I let them do it, I share responsibility. It's actually a severely culpable responsibility because I knew and they didn't. When God chooses to create knowing full well what evil will happen, and creates anyway, I don't see how a non-Reformed person can avoid the same charge they place on us (emphasis his).

I think Swan makes a valid point and although Brennon makes a valiant attempt to explain why the point that Swan is making is not a problem for libertarianism I just can't buy it. Brennon gives three possible responses.that he believes refutes James Swan.  I've got some comments to make. 

1. Even if you reject the problems the grandfather paradox brings up, God still may have morally sufficient reasons to allow free will and have known the sin and have still created humanity. Let's apply this to the Mr. Smith car accident analogy. Say that I do know that Mr. Swan will have an accident and kill someone if I allow him to freely take my car. But perhaps I also foreknow that beyond the car accident there is an unspeakable good that will come about as a result of the car accident. Imagine that I knew the person he killed was going to try to kill the president. Would it still be wrong that I allowed him to take the car? It doesn't seem so. It seems that the reasoning behind my decision is morally sufficient to justify allowing Smith to take the car, resulting in the accident.

This is what libertarians could argue about God's decision to create free people He knew would sin. We could argue that God, in eternity past, decided to create creatures with libertarian free wills knowing they would sin in order to manifest a far greater good, namely the glorification of God! He knew He would save those who freely choose Him showing us His grace, mercy, righteousness, and love by redeeming us from those sins. I would argue He created the world in which the optimum amount of free creatures would freely choose Him.

This is the argument that I keep hearing from JP Moreland and William Lane Craig. The problem is that it does not answer the issues raised in Scripture that we see that God does not just ordain events but also decrees them. I want to quote something from the Swan's article Brennon quotes:

In Genesis 50 we find Joseph, whose brothers sold him into the evil of slavery, who lied to their father breaking his heart, claiming Joseph was dead. In front of his brothers, years later Joseph states, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive." The two statements in Hebrew are in direct parallel. Joseph's brothers meant evil by their actions, but God intended the same actions for good. The text shows one action with two intentions. This same principle can be found in Isaiah 10: 5-12, where God uses Assyria as an instrument of judgment on the rebellious people of Israel, and then holds Assyria responsible for her sinful attitude and desires against Israel. The text shows one action with two intentions, a sinful intention and a holy intention.The most important example of compatibilism though is Acts 4:27-28. Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and the Jews all sinfully join forces to crucify Jesus. Yet God's predestined the entire event for his holy purpose.

 I have never heard libertarians answer these points that Swan bring up.

2. One of God's main purposes in creating humanity was to cultivate a personal relationship with them. If He has determined all that we do, then the relationship is one sided, and therefore a sham much like a puppet show. It appears that for there to be genuine relations between people, it requires both parties to be able to choose not to be in the relationship. That could be the rationale behind God allowing freedom, and therefore the possibility of rebellion.

I would argue that its impossible for an unregenerate human being to relate with God. Unregenerate sinner are spiritually dead, remember? Completely unable to obey  or even respond to God. All we can do on our own is rebel.

 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.  - Romans 8:5-8

It's interesting to me how people are quick to give us the freedom to reject a relationship with God, yet no thought seems to be given that God could choose who to be in relationship with of God's own free will. We act like God has to put out the same amount of effort to save everyone. I wonder why that is?

3. God is sovereign, and there is a demonstrable difference between our relationships with other created beings and God's relationship to us as Creator. Since He has sovereign rights over His creation, He has the right to create free agents, allow them to sin, and hold them responsible for those sins. So while it may be wrong for us to allow a helpless person to be murdered, it is not wrong for a maximally good and righteous God to allow His sinful creation to be killed, especially since He is their judge before and after they die (and since He has morally sufficient reasons to allow this sin as shown in #1).

Number three sounds almost Calvinistic (except the free agents) part. It amazes me because I have heard people claim to be Arminian and yet refute the bulk of number 3. I have a problem with "free agents" because none of us are even almost free until Jesus frees us.

I think this sufficiently shows that Mr. Swan is mistaken in his assessment. It shows that his analogy doesn't actually show what he wanted it to show, and the problem that seemed to arise in the form of the problem of evil isn't actually a problem at all for libertarian Arminians. But the determinist is still stuck with the problem in spades. If God has made necessary all events that happen, then sin is included and God actively causes sin. He becomes the active agent behind sins. The problem is still there and I don't think it can be resolved without holding to libertarianism.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that these show Swan mistaken at all. None of the points really answer the problem. I think determinism answers the problem with the bulk of number 3. I think reality may be explained by the the point that God can arbitrarily do whatever God wants at any time.Sometimes God allows us to just do what we want. Like how Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery. Or how they crucified Jesus. Both events were decreed by God, but God didn't make the transgressors do those things. Sometimes God changes our minds so that we do and not do things as God has decreed and predetermined. The Kings of Persia show that in how God used them to end His people's exile. They thought they were in control, but God tells us He did it although the Kings did not know it.  And sometimes God forces us to do things without touching our will at all and we know He is forcing our hand. Just ask Jonah.


Brennon's Thoughts: Is There Trauma in Sovereignty? A Response to James Swan

Monergism vs. Synergism on the DL Today

Today Dr. James White  and Dr. Michael Brown debated Calvinism as promised. It was awesome Brown is a non-Calvinist  but he isn't an Arminian either. Although I don't agree with Brown on how he understood the scriptures they talked about both were awesome.  I liked hearing these. Today they discussed John 6, Romans 8-9, and  Ephesians. 1. I cant's wait for next week.

Monergism vs. Synergism on the DL Today

The Merged Gospels (Matthew Mark Luke John)

There is now a book where all events found in the 4 gospels have been placed in chronological order. I've seen similar books but nothing exactly like this project.

*This is not a paid advertisement .





The Merged Gospels (Matthew Mark Luke John)

Red Sea Crossing Discovered. Artifacts & Evidence

Many skeptics say that there is no evidence of the Book of evidence. Some people disagree.  I found a great article linked below that explains some of the evidence. I realize some people dismiss Ron Wyatt as a crack pot and not everyone agrees with his conclusions, but I think that we need to look at his evidence ourselves. I look for conflicting arguments.



Red Sea Crossing Discovered. Artifacts & Evidence

Debunking Christianity: Nightline Face-Off: "Does God Have a Future?"

John Loftus has posted a video that shows a discussion that aired on Television. It wasn't most of a debate. Samuel Harris and Michael Shermer wanted to argue that the God of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism is irrelevant and need to be forgotten. Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston agree! They disagree that religion and spirituality need to be cast off. Exclusivity of truth needs to be destroyed,according to all of them. I really disagree with all four of them!   When it comes to the Bible and God's sovereignty thay agee with one another. I wonder why they Christians, Jews, and Muslims were excluded from the conversation?

Debunking Christianity: Nightline Face-Off: "Does God Have a Future?"

Debunking Christianity: What is the Difference Between an Education and Indoctrination?

I recently read a post by John Loftus on his blog about the differences between being educated and being indoctrinated. I find that I agree completely with his viewpoint. Knew I'd find something on his blog worth supporting.

As I have said before, if a Christian reads through my book and his faith is strengthened then it did him no harm. In fact, it did him good. If however, reading through it destroys his faith, then that faith was not worth having in the first place.

Become educated. If all you ever do is read Christian apologetics books in response to the arguments of atheists like me, then you are not being educated. Here's an example of what I mean. Look at my friend Dr. Norman Geisler's review of my book (the former self-published edition, Why I Rejected Christianity), and what I wrote about his review. There is no comparison between reading his review of my book and reading it yourself, as I've said before.

Again, become educated, not indoctrinated.

I find the post interesting because on one hand, Loftus argues that its wrong to present information from one side and not present the truth that many intelligent people interpret the information differently and why they see it that way, yet many atheist refuse to even discuss intelligent design and think that it should never be taught in our schools. By Loftus' and my own definition of indoctrination - Macro Evolution is not being taught to our students, they are being indoctrinated. To be fair to Loftus, I don't know if he denies ID should be taught along side macro evolution.in the classroom, but I know a lot of atheist don't think it should be. Who is indoctrinating whom?

Debunking Christianity: What is the Difference Between an Education and Indoctrination?

Line of Fire » Blog Archive » March 23, 2010: Brown vs Buzzard pt 2

Image by Zombie Inc. Wholesale zombies for over 20 years via Flickr

This was a great discussion. I liked it better than the first one. I think Anthony Buzzard is sincere. I just totally disagree with him when it comes to the deity of Christ and the Trinity. I think his sticking point is that He argues that God is a person and not just a being. This leads him to reject the pre-existence of Jesus. and reinterpret a lot of scriptures in a way no one in orthodox and historic Christianity understood. This one is definitely worth listening to.

Line of Fire » Blog Archive » March 23, 2010

Memorable Keys to the Greatest FEAT in History

I've found this great page from the Christian Research Institute that allows you to read a short book by Hank Hanegraaf that explains and defends Jesus' Resurrection.. You can even buy a print copy if you want.  I like this. It concisely explains the most importantly part of Christianity.

Adnan Rashid vs. David Wood: The Satanic Verses

This was an interesting debate. It's over a specific text in the Qur'an (Surah 53) that apparently came from Satan not Allah that Muhammad spoke. Rashid attempts to prove that there are no Satanic verses and David Wood argues that it is really a part of Islam casting suspicion on the whole text. Listen to Rashid's argument about why the Qur'an is more reliable than the Bible. He used the same faulty arguments against the Bible that has been refuted (look at the other posts on this blog on his debates). This debate is definitely about that  reliability of the Qur'an because if Muhammad had delivered a text from Satan that disqualifies him as a prophet. I think David wood was able to prove his point without lying about the reliability of Qur'an while Rashid said things about the Bible that I know is not true.











Adnan Rashid vs. David Wood: The Satanic Verses (Part One of Four)

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: DavidW on Gnosticism and Calvinism

Rhology.has posted a very interesting article discussing the relationship between Gnosticism and Calvinism - in other words no relationship at all! The post does a good job in explaining the differences views on predestination.

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: DavidW on Gnosticism and Calvinism