Thursday, July 8, 2010

Brennon's Thoughts: See, I Can Change My Mind; or Accepting Molinism

My brother-in-Christ, Brennon, recently posted an article on his blog about why he is now accepting Molinism. I still have a great deal of problems with this attempt at reconciling Human Free Will with God's Sovereign Will and decrees. Brennon wrote:

So, with this in mind, it is easy to see how God could very easily providentially guide creation to His ends and still deal with free creatures. Take, for instance, the crucifixion. Peter says in Acts that Jesus was "delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death" (Acts 2:23). Well we know that God Himself didn't cause the pharisees to be godless. Rather, God knew what kind of godless men the pharisees would be, and He knew that if they were put in the position they were in, they would act to murder Jesus. Thereby, God was able to decree that Christ would be crucified to accomplish His justice, and was able to use the freely chosen sinful actions of evil men to accomplish this.

My problem with example is the full credit is given to God for Jesus' sacrifice - including the suffering not just the glorious ending.

Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. - Isaiah 53:10
Another important verse is regarding Judas. Jesus knew Judas was a goner when Jesus selected him.

12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. - John 17:12
Given these facts and others. I am unable to understand how we can infer that God decrees outcomes without also having a hand in ordaining means. Let me be clear, I'm not saying that God forces or tempts anyone to do evil. God does allow people to do evil things and uses the outcome to get good out of it. Jesus' crucifixion is indeed of an example that God does take the evil that men desire to do and turns it to ultimate good. However there are times when God does stop people from sinning. This is where Middle Knowledge (Molinism) falls apart. God tells us that at times what man means for evil, God means for good.

15 When Joseph's brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, "What if Joseph holds a grudge against us and pays us back for all the wrongs we did to him?" 16 So they sent word to Joseph, saying, "Your father left these instructions before he died: 17 'This is what you are to say to Joseph: I ask you to forgive your brothers the sins and the wrongs they committed in treating you so badly.' Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the God of your father." When their message came to him, Joseph wept.
 18 His brothers then came and threw themselves down before him. "We are your slaves," they said.
 19 But Joseph said to them, "Don't be afraid. Am I in the place of God? 20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. 21 So then, don't be afraid. I will provide for you and your children." And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them. - Genesis 50:15-21
Joseph recognized that his brothers were not looking out for his best interest but intended for Joseph to suffer but God intended Joseph's suffering to ultimately save lives and to fulfill the promises made to His great-grandfather Abraham. Does this get Joseph's brothers off the hook for their sin. No. But Jesus does.

These are a few reasons why I think Molinism fails to explain Human will and God's sovereignty. I realize that Dr. William Lane Craig believes that Molinisim is a great tool understand the Bible and Philosophy but I don't think he is right in this although I admire the man for many other reasons. I've been writing several posts on this subject based on the work of William Lane Craig, James White,  and TurretinFan. The posts are regarding  Middle Knowlege (Molinism), Free Will, and God's Sovereignty.  Feel free to check out the past articles. And check out the additional link from James White: Craig vs. Hitchens at Biola Reviewed on the Dividing Line (Update!) This is a link to one of Dr. White's webcasts in which he discusses William Lane Craig's debate against Christopher Hitchen and Dr. Craig describes Calvinism as a "false Christian denomination." And I'm including it here because it points to why Dr. Craig may feel Molinism is a better explanation.

Brennon's Thoughts: See, I Can Change My Mind; or Accepting Molinism
Enhanced by Zemanta

Christopher Hitchens has cancer, the faithful begin to respond - "gotcha"

Christopher HitchensImage via Wikipedia
I recently found out that Jeff Musall of the Portland Atheist Examiner linked to my article about Dr. James White's  response to the announcement of Christopher Hitchens' illness. You can read my article and get a link to White's response here. The reason I bring this up again is because I have to take issue with what much of what Musall said.  Musall wrote:

What the myriad comments like these are saying with we will "pray for you" is a slap in the face to the nonbeliever more pointed than any simple insult. It would be better if they took the sly smile off their faces and just went ahead and laughed at him. 
Like the "hate the sin, not the sinner" chant fundamentalists use against homosexuality, the cloak of love doesn't quite cover the body of hate. 
Of course, atheists aren't innocent. Many smiled with glee at the passings of Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, and D. James Kennedy. And some will party when James Dobson slides into his imagined eternity. 
But we are in the open with it, we don't hide behind false feelings. We didn't like them, and were glad to see them go. I wish the religious could be so honest about atheists.
Here's hoping Christopher Hitchens comes through this just fine, and emerges on the other side not in any way thankful to those who offered their prayers.

It's sad that Musall would think that Christians are hiding their true feelings.Why would I be happy for Christopher Hitchens to die painfully and end up in hell? Can he really think that Christians are that mean and petty? I guess so. By definition if we believe the Bible about God's attitude about such things we can't take that attitude.

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? - Ezekiel 33:11

9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9

It's not Christians who pray for the physical and spiritual recovery of Christopher Hitchens who are being hateful. Hate fills those who are described by:


Many smiled with glee at the passings of Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, and D. James Kennedy. And some will party when James Dobson slides into his imagined eternity. 

A video of Hitchen was also posted with Musall's post. Let's look ast it juxtaposed with the attitude Christians like Dr. White have.








"Gotcha!" isn't the appropriate response. Prayer is. No one is better or worse.  We are all sinnersand withoout Jesus Christ we have nothing.

Christopher Hitchens has cancer, the faithful begin to respond - "gotcha"
Enhanced by Zemanta

Brennon's Thoughts: Verses All Arminians Should Know Part 3

Brennon has posted a great list of scriptures that support Arminianism. I'm not certain that they support the Arminian position. Rather than try to responding to them all at once, I will break them down into several posts based on how the list is presented.This topic interests me because I really wanna know what the Bible says. Here is part 3 regarding the idea that Bible teaches that God's grace is resistible. 


Verses that show grace is resistible:
24 But they did not listen or pay attention; instead, they followed the stubborn inclinations of their evil hearts. They went backward and not forward.

Many Christians talk about "common" grace. This describes the grace that every human being receives from God.  For example, Gravity so that we don't go flying off the earth. However I think this portion of the post is regarding the grace that leads to salvation. The grace of understanding and recognizing your own sin and need for salvation and the desire to please God in gratitude for forgiveness.  From this point of view..everyone begins at the point of resisting this idea. We are aren't even capable of grasping it without God's grace.  IT's not like everyone starts at a neutral position and then after making a decision to follow or not follow Christ after hearing the gospel they either accept or resist the Gospel.  Resisting is the default.  Therefore I think that this verse is not describing resisting grace but describing the position of every sinner.
29(All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus' words, acknowledged that God's way was right, because they had been baptized by John. 30But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.)   - Luke 7:29-30

Does it say that Pharisees and law experts rejected God's grace? No. They rejected God's purpose for them.  Again I must ask what else would you expect unregenerate sinners to do?
  • Acts 7:51 - Blatant resistance of the Holy Spirit. It is proper to infer that if they didn't resist, they would have been led to repentance.
 51"You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

Is rejecting the Holy Spirit the same as rejecting grace? No, I don't think so. And I don't think the inference is is that they could have chosen on their own not resist. Again John 6:44 tells us that without the Father drawing us to Christ we are unable to go to him.
 16But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?"

Just because some who hear will and do reject the Gospel that does not mean that they are rejecting grace. Given that no one can can accept the Gospel without grace it stands to reason that if they reject the Gospel they didn't have the necessary grace in the first place.
  • 2 Corinthians 6:1 - One can receive God's grace, yet not appropriate it in their lives.
1As God's fellow workers we urge you not to receive God's grace in vain. 2For he says,
   "In the time of my favor I heard you,
      and in the day of salvation I helped you." I tell you, now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation. - 2 Corinthians 6:1-2

What does Paul mean? He is addressing fellow workers and warning that you can be used to reconcile others to God (chapter 5) but don't miss out yourself. I do not see how this is saying that grace can be rejected or resisted because for such a one, salvific grace isn't applicable.

I think that this brings up a very important point. What is grace? Grace is God's unmerited favor. It is God gifting you with thing(s) you do not deserve. It is unearned. It's something God does because God wants to do it. It can't be duplicated or demanded or traded. If you don't earn something how can it be rejected?  For that matter how do you reject something that has no place in you. It never belonged to you. Grace is a gift. Grace is a God-given gift that can't be recognized apart from the Holy Spirit. A sinner can't reject something he/she doesn't recognize that exist. He/She must reject it.  And without the Holy Spirit we can't see it or even begin comprehend anything about it.  The Old Testament gives a brilliant illustration of just how much a radical change it is for a human being to be in a position to receive grace.

And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: - Ezekiel 11:19

A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. - Ezekiel 36:26

Brennon's Thoughts: Verses All Arminians Should Know
Enhanced by Zemanta

He Lives: Comparative Views of the End Times (Lesson 2-2)

Dr David Heddle has posted a great article discussing the 4 predominate views of eschatology held by many Christians today. It's in-house, intramural debate. It's a very interesting summary!

He Lives: Comparative Views of the End Times (Lesson 2-2)
Enhanced by Zemanta

The Myth of Warfare Between “Science,” “Religion” and “Miracles” | True Freethinker

Mariano has posted a couple of great videos of Dr John Lennox about the relationship between Science and Religion.









The Myth of Warfare Between “Science,” “Religion” and “Miracles” | True Freethinker

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Is God a dictator? | True Freethinker

I love hearing Dr. John Lennox. I really appreciate Mariano posting this on his blog. In a democratic republic (yeah, I know I'm trying to keep a straight face even as I write this) such as ours, the thought of a sovereign dictator is repugnant. So repugnant in fact that it colors the way we see God and how God works and does things. We think that in no way could a good and loving God act in a unilateral way despite what we want or think. Such a thought ignores our fallen nature, limitations, and stupidity. As well as ignore the fact that God really does know what is best for us. Here is the video Mariano posted in which Dr. Lennox discusses this very question.




Is God a dictator? | True Freethinker
Enhanced by Zemanta

Truthbomb Apologetics: Do You Desire to KNOW if Jesus' Teaching Comes from God?

Chad has again posted something (happens often) that I can't help but share!



“If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority" [John 7:17, ESV; Emphasis mine].

Follow Him and find out...

To find out what it truly means to follow Jesus, see here.

Amen! Amen!!!


Truthbomb Apologetics: Do You Desire to KNOW if Jesus' Teaching Comes from God?
Enhanced by Zemanta

YouTube - Hazakim - 'Fulfillment' (with lyrics)

I love Hazakim's music. This particular song is awesome. It sums up Jesus' mission and identity perfectly and how Jesus figures in fulfilling God's salvation plan for humanity. It's great and awesome. I love the quote at the end by Dr. Michael Brown putting it all into perspectives.




YouTube - Hazakim - 'Fulfillment' (with lyrics)
Enhanced by Zemanta

Debunking Christianity: Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True? Part 2

16) That while the results of science are assured when it comes to chemistry, physics, meteorology, mechanics, forensic science, medical science, rocket science, computer science, and so forth, when it comes to evolutionary science that shows all present life forms have common ancestors, or when science tells us that dead bodies do not arise from the grave because total cell necrosis is irreversible, the results of science are wrong because the Bible says otherwise.
Just because we don't know how to reverse total cell necrosis does not mean the creator of all cells doesn't know how to. Not all scientists agrees that the evidence shows that all present life forms have a common ancestor.

17) That although there is no rational explanation for why Jesus had to die on the cross to atone for our sins, his death atoned for our sins.
The Bible clearly explains that. Okay one more time: If the wages of sin is death, someone has to die to pay for it. This is the system that God says because sin is that horrible. It offends the very nature of God Our sin is what separates us from God. Sin requires a perfect sinless sacrifice. Neither you nor I can pay that. So God paid it. Isaac's near sacrifice,Passover, the blood sacrifices were all pictures of what God ultimately did for us through Christ. Do you want to be judge for your own sins knowing that you must be found guilty. Or do you want to be justified because Jesus took the punishment for you and freed you from the penalty you deserve. Jesus loves you that much.



18) That although historical reconstructions of the past are are notoriously difficult because they depend on the poor evidence of history, and even though historians must assess that evidence by assuming a natural explanation for it, and even though historical evidence can never establish how to view that evidence, the Christian faith can be established historically anyway. My argument is that when it comes to miraculous claims, yesterday’s evidence no longer can hold water for me, for in order to see it as evidence, I must already believe in the framework that allows me to see it as evidence. In other words, in order to see yesterday’s evidence as evidence for me, I must already believe the Christian framework that allows me to see yesterday’s evidence as evidence for Christianity.
That is circular reasoning. You don't have to assume that Christianity is true to come to that conclusion from the evidence we have.



19) That although there is no cogent theodicy that can explain why there is such ubiquitous and massive human and animal suffering if a perfectly good omnipotent God exists, God is perfectly good and omnipotent anyway.


The Bible gives the perfect theodicy. Free will does not answer that one and the Bible does not support it. The Bible says that God does everything he want how He want to do it and when He wants to do it. This means that even those things that we think of as evil are acting according to God's ultimate plan and when we see the final product we will know that God was right and ultimate good real be seen.

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.
11In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. - Ephesians 1:9-12


20) That while scientific tests on petitionary prayers have produced at best negligible results and at worst completely falsified them, God answers these kinds of prayers anyway.
This objection amazes me because people seem to think that an answered prayer automatically means "yes". It's like those who think like this never thought that God can answer a prayer with :"No"

13I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. 14This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him. - 1 John 5:13-15


21) That even though Christianity shows evidence that it is nothing but a cultural by-product of human invention there is a divine mind behind it anyway.
Another assertion made without proof.


22) That Jesus is the Son of God even though the textual evidence in the New Testament conclusively shows that the founder of the Jesus cult was a failed apocalyptic prophet who prophesied that the eschaton would take place in his generation, which would involve a total cosmic catastrophe after which God inaugurates a literal kingdom on earth with the "Son of Man" reigning from Jerusalem over the nations.
Where did Jesus say that he would return in his generation? I think that you Loftus is misunderstanding Matthew 24. You can can read more

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



23) That although there can be no moral justification for the sufferings of animals in this created world, a perfectly good God created this world anyway. We don't even see God's care for the lower animals in his supposed revealed word, which is described in Psalm 119 as his "perfect will." Think otherwise? Then read what I wrote here.
The Bible says otherwise:

25"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? 26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his lifeb]">[b]?
28"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' 32For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. - Matthew 6:25-34

And what about:

18I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21thati]">[i] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
26In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. 27And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will. - Romans 8:18-27


24) That although the only method we have for determining the truth in factual matters is methodological naturalism, which assumes a natural explanation for any phenomena, and although this method is the hallmark of the sciences, the phenomena of the Bible can be exempted from this method as applied through Biblical Criticism, and believed anyway.
Rationally, is it true that methodological naturalism is the only way to determine factual truth? Lots of people disagree with that. Loftus should prove this premise before basing an argument for testing Christianity.



25) That although God's supposed revelation in the canonical Bible is indistinguishable from the musings of an ancient, barbaric, superstitious people, the Bible is the word of God. As SilverBullet recently said: “...the lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his non-existence. It seems to me that there is nothing in the Christian scriptures, no sentence, paragraph, or idea, that couldn't be anything more than the product of the humans alive at the time that the apparently divinely inspired scriptures and ideas were "revealed". Sure, its possible for a god to reveal himself in an inspired book, and throughout history, in ways that are indistinguishable from the work of human minds and human minds alone. But how probable does that seem to you?”


This is a baseless assumption: "there is nothing in the Christian scriptures, no sentence, paragraph, or idea, that couldn't be anything more than the product of the humans alive at the time that the apparently divinely inspired scriptures and ideas were 'revealed'." Where is the proof? Not everyone believes that statement is true. I think Romans 6:23 is not something at all that anyone would come up with on their own. or how about:

14 Why do I put myself in jeopardy
and take my life in my hands?
15 Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him;
I will surely defend my ways to his face.
16 Indeed, this will turn out for my deliverance,
for no godless man would dare come before him! - Job 13:14-16



26) That although it's claimed God got the attention of Abraham, Moses, the Pharaoh, Gideon, Mary, Joseph, and Saul (who became Paul) and that he knows how to get the attention of anyone and everyone, there is no objective evidence he's trying to get the attention of the billions of people who don't believe. In fact, Christians are much more concerned than God is that non-believers are converted. Just compare the lengths to which Christians will go in order to convert non-believers, with a God who has the means to convert everyone and yet does nothing to help them do this. If you say God is helping to convert non-believers then tell us how to objectively know God is actually doing this.
Simple: By the witnesses and proclamation to the work God does in the lives of the believers.

14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"
Romans 10-14-15
g]">
I got saved because I heard the word of God. Same as everyone else.


27) Christianity is a faith that must dismiss the tragedy of death. It does not matter who dies, or how many, or what the circumstances are when people die. It could be the death of a mother whose baby depends upon her for milk. It could be a pandemic like cholera that decimated parts of the world in 1918, or the more than 23,000 children who die every single day from starvation. These deaths could be by suffocation, drowning, a drive-by shooting, or being burned to death. It doesn't matter. God is good. Death doesn't matter. People die all of the time. In order to justify God's goodness Christianity minimizes the value of human life. It is a pro-death faith, plain and simple.
That is hilarious. Atheism undermines the value of human life. If a person has no purpose how does that not minimize human value? Christians don't minimize death just because with Christ we know there is nothing to fear. The sting is gone.



28) That God's punishments are good, right, and just, even though it means sinners are thrust into a surprisingly dangerous world, and in death will be blindsided by an eternal punishment in hell, which is "Christianity's most damnable doctrine." In this world how do you think human beings first learned that venomous creatures like certain kinds of spiders, snakes, ants or scorpions could kill us? People/children had to die, lots of them. How do you think human beings first learned that polluted water or lead poisoning could kill us? Again, people/children had to die, lots of them. It was inevitable since God never told us what to avoid in order to stay alive. We had to learn these kinds of things firsthand. The same thing can be said for hell. People do not know their choices will send them to an eternal punishment in hell. For if we knew this, and if it was possible not to sin at all, we wouldn't sin. Do you doubt this? Then consider that if you knew with certainty that by crossing a line drawn in the sand you would get beaten to a pulp by a biker gang, you would not do it!
But, Loftus, you do know that transgressing God's law will lead you to hell, yet you do. We all do. The Bible tells us there is a remedy. We have no excuse. We have been warned. We should know better. Natural dangers are different. And knowledge has been passed down. In certain circumstances I doubt that many people died. Just how many people do you think died before people realized you should not stand under a tree when it falls? I doubt many. And whether you believe Adam and Eve are factual or not we all have to agree that we are all descendant from a single woman from a single geographic location. Given that all of her descendants would have been taught to avoid certain animals and situations and to be cautious.



29) When believers like Christians or Muslims contend their faiths are based on reason, one may simply object that this can’t be so because their god in fact doesn’t allow it. Using reason to arrive at any other belief than the correct one will earn you an eternity in hell. Thus, reason is an evil to be avoided....Blind, unquestioning, and unexamined belief is what the theist’s retributive god truly desires, not a belief grounded in reason. And yet they maintain Christianity is reasonable.
I'm not going to speak for Muslims but it's a flat out lie that God does not allow us to use reason. Reason can't lead you to an other world view.

17 learn to do right!
Seek justice,
encourage the oppressed. a]">[a]
Defend the cause of the fatherless,
plead the case of the widow.
18 "Come now, let us reason together,"
says the LORD.
"Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient,
you will eat the best from the land; - Isaiah 1:17-19

If you take God up on His offer, you have no other conclusion that God is right and we are wrong.



30) The Christian thinks there is an objective absolute morality that stems from their perfectly good God, which is both eternal and unchangeable. But the morality we find in the Bible is something quite different than what they claim. Morality has evolved. What we find in the Bible is not something we would expect from a perfectly good God, but Christians believe there is a perfectly good God anyway. So Christians must choose, either 1) hold to a philosopher's god divorced from the historical realities of the Bible, or 2) continue to worship a moral monster.


This one is really a crappy argument. How do you know what good is? I'm not saying that atheists can't do good things or understand good. I'm asking where did it come from? Loftus asserts morality has evolved but he should prove that this assertion is true. The God of the Bible is not immoral or evil. By what standard is Loftus judging God's moral character? He does not say. What does Loftus expect from a perfect God? Where did his standard come from? Why does he think his opinion, or anyone's opinion, should even matter to God?

This is an interesting list intended to make Christians question their faith. Personally, it makes me question John Loftus' understanding of scripture and history.

Debunking Christianity: Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Debunking Christianity: Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True? Part 1

John Loftus has been posting several posts he calls "Reality Checks" in which he takes an aspect that he believes most Christians believe and then tries to dispute it based on trying to show that it doesn't make sense. He has been promising to make post summarizing his points. Today he published the first 30. My comments are in red. My approach is to agree that some people who call themselves Christians believe what he says, but what I wanna ask is: "Does the Bible say the same thing?"

Below I've put together all thirty theses (so far) that most Christians agree on and why they are all improbable:

1) There must be a God who is a simple being yet made up of three inexplicable persons existing forever outside of time without a beginning, who therefore never learned anything new, never took a risk, never made a decision, never disagreed within the Godhead, and never had a prior moment to freely choose his own nature.

Why does Lofus think that God never made a decision? Where does the Bible say that God is simple or doesn't make decisions? That is something people say If God is omniscient and made everything that existed, does exist, or ever will exist how can there be something that He does not know? How can anything be new to him? We don't choose our own ontologcal nature. God is,. Never changes. There is no need for Him to choose His nature. Why does this make God seem unreal? Why would you want to worship a god that needs to take risk? Supreme being means not having to risk failure. In God there is no failure. I realize some people think that God can't be omniscient because he is bound by time. God made time. Why would he be bound by it? As for agreement in the Godhead the Bible agrees.  I'm not going to pretend that I understand how the Trinity works, but the Bible says the Father is God.  The Son is God.  The Holy Spirit is God. And that God is one. One Being. Three persons.  Being and person are not the same thing.

2) There must be a personal non-embodied omnipresent God who created the physical universe ex-nihilo in the first moment of time who will subsequently forever experience a sequence of events in time.

The Bible agrees that God is spirit and does not have a Body and created everything out of nothing. However it does not say that God "experiences a sequence of events in time". We do. God is. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  In other words, God is eternal.  

Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD, is the Rock eternal. - Isaiah 26:4

3) There must exist a perfectly good, omnipotent God, who created a perfectly good universe out of a desire/need to glorify himself by rewarding in heaven the few human beings who just got lucky to believe by being born at the right time and place, and who will condemn to hell those who do not believe.

Excuse me God does not need anything. God certainly doesn't need anything from us. God does not just deserve praise for saving the people who believe and punishing those who don't believe. God deserves praise, honor and glory for who God is. In addition people do not believe just because they are born at the right time and the right place. If that was the case everyone born in Christian homes would be Christians and those not born in Christian homes would never become Christians. And again the Bible disagrees with Loftus. Paul told the Athenians that every single person was born in the place, at the best time, and under the best circumstances for that person to best find God. 
 24"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' - Acts 17:24-28

4) That the highest created being, known as Satan or the Devil, led an angelic rebellion against an omnipotent omniscient omnibenelovent omnipresent God, and expected to win--which makes Satan out to be pure evil and dumber than a box of rocks.

When people make this argument, I've got to ask if you think that Satan was so dumb and stupid to start a war that he could not even hope to win, then why do you commit the same act of stupidity in rebelling against your creator?

5) That there was a first human pair (Adam and Eve) who so grievously sinned against God when tested that all of the rest of us are being punished for it (including animals), even though no one but the first human pair deserved to be punished. If it's argued that all of us deserve to be punished because we all would have sinned, then the test was a sham. For only if some of us would not have sinned can the test be considered a fair one. But if some of us would not have sinned under the same initial conditions then there are people who are being punished for something they never would have done.

The argument that there are some people people would not have sinned under the same initial condition  is silly because if that were true we would not sin now. However, we all sin and fall short of the standard of Holiness. Sure Adam and Eve failed their test, but we continue to fail in our tests. We are all sinners. 

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 6:23

 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

We deserve hell. Those who are spared and their sins forgiven are given an undeserved gift.

6) That although there are many other similar mythological stories told in Ancient Near Eastern Literature that pre-date what we read in the Bible, the stories in the Bible are about real events and real people.

I haven't seen any evidence that the Bible are not talking about real people or real events. And if you really compare the Bible to other Ancient Near Eastern Literature you will find significant differences. For example, the proportionate ratio given for the ark that Noah used to survive the flood would have made it uncapsizeable and seaworthy while the description pf the craft the survivors of the flood used  given in Sumerian texts would not have worked.

7) That although we see completely different perspectives and evolving theologies in the Bible, including many things that are barbaric and superstitious to the core, it was authored by one divine mind.

I think that number seven is really weak. No proof is given that the Bible represents superstitions, different perspectives (or what they are), or what is meant  by evolving theologies. More details need to be given.

8) That when it comes to verifiable matters of historical fact (like the Exodus, the extent of the reign of David, Luke's reported world-wide census, etc) the Biblical stories are disconfirmed by evidence to the contrary as fairy tales, but when it comes to supernatural claims of miracles that cannot be verified like a virgin birth and resurrection from the grave, the Bible reports true historical facts.

I don't know any Bible-Believing Christians who would agree to number eight. I do know that some scholars disagree about the Exodus, the extent of David's reign, and Luke's report of a world-wide census, but Loftus misrepresents that it's agreed by all experts that these things are not facts. This is not true. There is evidence that such things are true. As for the unverifiable miracles, assuming that they aren't true is also disingenuous. Loftus also ignores the facts reported in the Bible that most scholars and experts do agree.  For example they agree that Jesus really was crucified. 

9) That although a great number of miracles were claimed to have happened in the different superstitious cultures of the ancient world, only the ones in the Bible actually happened as claimed.

I don't know any where in the  Bible that claims that  reported miracles in other cultures were lies or hoax. The Bible is clear that Satan deceives people Remember: Pharaoh's magicians were able to turn water to blood and make their staff turn into snakes.  How do we know when a miracle is from God or not?

1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you. - Deuteronomy 13: 1-5

Realize "testing" doesn't mean tempting them to do evil, but allowing them to be  exposed so that they will know what the counterfeit looks like.  

10) That an omniscient God could not foresee that his revealed will in the Bible would lead believers to commit such atrocities against others that reasonable people would conclude there is no divine mind behind the Bible. I call this The Problem of Miscommunication.

There is no problem of miscommunication. God did forsee that there would be false prophets and liars. We are warned throughout the Bible. In addition to Deuteronomy 13:1-5 we can add

23At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. 25See, I have told you ahead of time. - Matthew 24:23-25

12And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. - 2 Corinthians 11:12-14

11) That God created human beings with rational minds that require evidence before they accept something, and yet this same God does not provide enough evidence but asks them to have faith instead.

Loftus does not know what faith is. At no time does the Bible condone blind faith. The Bible disagrees with Loftus.
11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. - Acts 17:11


 1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. - Hebrews 11:1

12) That although people around the world are raised in different cultures to believe in their particular god(s) there is only one God and he will judge all people based upon whether or not they believe Jesus is Lord.

People often cite this as though it means something. They again ignore Acts 17:24-28. And another relevant passage is Romans 1:18-32

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
 28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

The  Bible also tells us that obeying the laws leads one to Christ. We know that if one follows what God has given us you will be led to Christ.

19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." - John 3:19-21


13) That Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy even though there is not one passage in the Old Testament that is specifically fulfilled in his life, death, and resurrection that can legitimately be understood as a prophecy and singularly points to Jesus as the Messiah using today's historical-grammatical hermeneutical method.

That's a bold statement. Completely erroneous,  but bold. Here is one single example: 

41Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him. - John 12:41 

What did Isaiah see? Who did he see? When?

1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2 Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. 3 And they were calling to one another:
       "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty;
       the whole earth is full of his glory." - Isaiah 1:1-3

Isaiah saw the Lord. How is it that Isaiah saw God? John is saying He saw Jesus. John is explicitly calling Jesus God.

14) That although there were many false virgin birth claims about famous people (like Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Plato) mythical heroes (like Mithra, Hercules) and savior gods (like Krishna, Osiris, Dionysus) in the ancient world, Jesus was really born of a virgin.

Jesus' virgin birth was not sexual. Alexander's mother was supposedly impregnated by a snake. Hercules' mother had sex with Zeus who had taken human form (how would that be a virgin birth?). Dionysus came out of Zeus' thigh (how does that even compare to Jesus?). I've done some research on just how close these examples really parallel Jesus. Take a look at these. In case you don't want to take the time to look it up yourself I'll save you some time: They don't.


15) That while there is no rational explanation for how a person can be 100% man and 100% God, and although ancient pagan superstitious people believed this can take place (Acts 14:11-12; 28:6), Jesus was incarnate God in the flesh.

 The Jews believed that God could take human form.  Recall that Abraham saw God  (Genesis 18). These are called theophanies. The Old Testament is full of examples. Jesus is not the same as the Greco-Roman gods taking human form.  Don't forget the Greco-Roman gods had bodies and were not spirits. Jesus was not an example of God minus. But Jesus was God plus an uncorrupted sinless human nature. Jesus is what we should strive to be. He is what God is transforming a believer into. The Bible tells us that Jesus is God incarnate

 14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. - John 1:14



Debunking Christianity: Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Debate: The Rubicon Crossing and the Resurrection - Holding vs Carrier

I've come across an interesting written debate on the internet between Jame Patrick Holding and Richard Carrier. The debate is over The Julius Caesar's Rubicon Crossing and Jesus' bodily Resurrection from the dead - Which is better attested to by history? One tell-tale sign that a written debate is good is if there is a lot of back and forth. That means that each side brings up good points that must be answered and challenged. This when it gets good. Holding quotes William Lane Craig's statement in Reasonable Faith and this is what causes such uproar:

Historians of the Roman Empire often refer to "Caesar's crossing the Rubicon" as an undisputed fact of historic significance, even though it is attested only by four ancient writers, two to three generations after the event, all dependent on one eyewitness account [long since disappeared!], and preserved in significantly different forms corresponding to the various authors' ideologies, including one which attributes Caesar's decision to enlarge his frontiers to divine guidance.


I invite anyone with even a passing interest to read Holding's and Carrier's website. For my comment I want to focus on how much attestation we have for the Rubicon crossing. Carrier said he thought that Holding is being nit picky by pointing out that no where in the The Civil War (assuming in any of the 10 copies we have) does Caesar mentioned the Rubicon. I think it might be because Caesar looked at it like crossing the street not a watershed event in his career or history. How could he have known that. I mean he would have to have been God to know that. The thing is a lot of people (especially Muslims) are skeptical because no where in the Gospels does Jesus explicitly says "I am Yahweh, worship me!" and desire to ignore all the evidence that is in the Gospels and yet are willing to see that there is is plenty of Evidence that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Notice that no where does Holding try to argue that Julius Caesar did not cross the Rubicon and Carrier tries to prove that Jesus did not rise from the Dead. Jesus however does claim to know what was going to happen to him well before his crucifixion and Resurrection.

 21From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. - Matthew 16:21

How did He know know? Gee, Jesus would have to be God or something. Yup, definitely God.

The other point that needs to be made from the stand point of manuscript attestation is that we only have 4 textual attestations for the crossing of the Rubicon.

The fourth point made is that we have the story of the "Rubicon Crossing" in almost every historian of the period, including the most prominent scholars of the age: Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio, Plutarch.

This is true, but it is irrelevant. As my co-apologist Mike Licona has noted, replying to the objections of Acharya S, these sources are rather late - later than even Carrier believes the Gospels to be from their sources: Appian wrote in the 2nd century A D, Plutarch after 70, and Suetonius around 115. And to make matters worse for Carrier, our earliest manuscripts of these works are as much as a millennium removed from the originals.

I make this point not to accuse these works of unreliability or having been tampered with, but because I see no reason to think they have been. The point rather is to treat these documents in the same way Carrier treats the Gospels would be unreasonable. (A reader has added that Plutarch does give an account of the personal crossing.)

Carrier has a retort for this, observing first that these other authors "have been confirmed in material evidence and in other sources." Of course the same may be justly said of the Gospels, especially Luke; but Carrier offers no further details at this juncture, so neither will we.

He adds secondly that these authors "often quote and name many different sources, showing a wide reading of the witnesses and documents, and they show a desire to critically examine claims for which there is any dispute." Be that as it may, it would not occur to Carrier that the Gospels lack this because there was no dispute over source material which required this kind of comparative work -- in other words, it is unreasonable to demand that the Gospels do comparative work if their sources are uniform and reliable, as indeed would be first-hand testimony.

On the matter of alleged bias in the Gospels, we refer the reader here, and to here, section titled, "Was Paul a Liar?", for a reply to the matter of the use of oaths, which shows exactly the opposite of what Carrier claims.


So the earliest attestation of Julius Caesar moving a huge army across the Rubicon is well over 100 years after it happened. Does this mean that Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio, and Plutarch were wrong? Nope. I wouldn't argue that. But that leaves folks like Richard Carrier in a quandary: Why accept Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio, and Plutarch because all four talk of the Rubicon crossing, yet discount Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John who all talk of the crucifixion, empty tomb, and Resurrection? Rejecting one means rejecting both.

While the discussion in the two article is really about the historicity of the Rubicon crossing with the Crucifixion of Christ, it lends itself well to the discussion to just how reliable History is in general and the New Testament in particular.

JP Holding - The Rubicon Crossing and the Resurrection
Richard Carrier - The Rubicon Analogy

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Apologetics 315: Terminology Tuesday: Panentheism

Brian Auten  has posted a great definition for "panentheism". He even goes as far as contrasting it with "pantheism" and this is good because they are often confused with one another. This is an important post.

Apologetics 315: Terminology Tuesday: Panentheism
Enhanced by Zemanta

CADRE Comments: The Best Attested Event in History?

I like this article. It's very honest. It does make me think that when I quote William Lane Craig, Michael Licona, JP Holding, and Paul L. Mair that I need to be careful how I quote what they say. I have never hear them say things that in context makes it seem that they overstate or exaggerate any of the facts. I know that I can be so imprecise. I will be more careful to be clearer and to not overstate anything. The whole article is well worth reading. I think the bottom line of the article is thus:

So, overall, I think that the claim that the attestation to the life of Jesus is "the best attested event of history" is definitely wrong, and the claim that it is "the best attested event of ancient history" is also an overstatement -- but not by much. Certainly, given the circumstances of the time, the amount of information available about Jesus from the contemporaneous biographies is (to my knowledge) unprecedented.

I'd go a tad further. The article mentions that Jesus' earthly background does not mean that someone like him would have much written about him because at the time they didn't know how important Jesus is. Of course more would be written of Julius Caesar. I think that the very fact that we as everyday people know so much about Jesus and next to nothing about the other itinerant preachers, and would-be messiahs shows us that Jesus is different. That Jesus wasn't and isn't like everyone else who has walked this planet. Regardless of whether or not you believe the things Jesus said and did, the fact that you can know something about Jesus is indisputable. The truth is Jesus' life affects yours on way more levels than Julius Caesar's did. Jesus matters.

CADRE Comments: The Best Attested Event in History?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, July 5, 2010

Brennon's Thoughts: Verses All Arminians Should Know Part 2

Brennon has posted a great list of scriptures that support Arminianism. I'm not certain that they support the Arminian position. Rather than try to responding to them all at once, I will break them down into several posts based on how the list is presented.This topic interests me because I really wanna know what the Bible says. Here is part 2 regarding the idea that Bible teaches that atonement is available for all.


Verses that show the atonement is available for all:

       We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
       each of us has turned to his own way;
       and the LORD has laid on him
       the iniquity of us all.

I think without question, everyone has gone astray. This agrees with other scriptures that tells us about Jesus died for all.
28"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

The passage indeed tells us that all who come to Jesus are welcome but it does not tell us anyone can come when they get ready.
  • Matthew 18:14 - The Father does not wish that any should perish (anti predestined-reprobation).
 10"See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.
 12"What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? 13And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. 14In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost. - Matthew 18:10-14

I think we need to look at the context of verse 14. Who are the Father's little one? Everyone?  Nope. Jesus is talking about the sheep and we know that not everyone is the sheep. I do agree that predestined re-probation is not supportable because re-probation is default. Before one knows they are elected to salvation, they are going to hell whether they know it or not. God knows they are elect, but they don't.
  • John 1:7 - Jesus intended for all, wants all to believe.
Oops, this passage is not regarding Jesus himself:

 6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. - John 1:6-8
The passage is about John the Baptist and does not talk about Jesus' intention or desire. The point to John the Baptist was to point the way to Christ.
29The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' 31I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel." - John 1:29-30

I don't see how John the Baptist was saying that atonement was available for all considering that not everyone is going to get it it. It says to me that it's only through the Lamb of God - Jesus  -  that sin is done away with. I do not see this as a promise that Jesus substitutionally paid for the sins of everyone who has ever lived.
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Again God is the actor. He does it. He sets it in motion. Jesus is not suggesting that those who believe believe because of their own volition. Further, Jesus did not need to condemn the world because it's in the crapper whether or not He came.  Jesus came to fix it not make it worse - and He has.
33For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
Jesus does not suggest that the eating of the bread He gives is something that people can eat on their own. Jesus tells us what happens when we take the bread.
47"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. 48There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. -  John 12:47-48

Jesus is not saying that those who reject His words will not be judged for it. They will be.
  • Romans 3:23-24 - All have sinned and all have access to justification in Christ Jesus.
 21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
 27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. - Romans 3:23-30


I don't see how Paul is making the argument that everyone is justified in Christ. He is explaining how the atonement justifies us.
  • Romans 5:6 - Christ died for the ungodly. Since all are ungodly, Christ died for all.
6You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
 9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! 10For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. - Romans 5:6-11

Paul affirms that  all have sinned but he does say that Christ died for all. :Look at verse 8 and 9 and 10. We are reconciled to God through the death of Jesus. Christ died for us true.. and we are all sinners and ungodly. Yet Paul did not say Jesus died for all. He died for us. Who is us? We - those who believe in Christ.
  • Romans 5:15 - Since sin spread to all, Christ's atonement is meant for all.
 15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
Christ's atonement is a gift. A gift can't be earned or obligated only received. And it's not a gift to all but to many.
  • Romans 10:13 - Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
 Agreed, but it does not say that everyone has the ability or the opportunity to call on the Lord. It's a gift.
14For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.

Does Christ's love compels everyone? Nope. Was Paul telling us that all no longer live for themselves or only for those whom Christ died for? I don't think so. I don't see how "all" mean every human being in this context.
  • 1 Timothy 2:3-6 - God desires all men to be saved, and gave Himself for all
1I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time. - 1 Timothy 2:3-6

It is impossible to understand verse 3-6 without 1 -3. The "This" that pleases God is that we make prayer and intercession for everyone and living lives characterized by holiness and godliness.While God wants all men to be saved because he gave us one mediator - one sacrifice. I think that this this is the strongest verse against limited atonement. I'm not to comfortable saying that Paul is referring to only :"all kinds of men" not what it says. I'm planning to do more study on this but I don't think we can use it to say that everyone has equal opportunity and ability. Indisputably it is a gift of God.
8For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come.
 9This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance 10(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.- 1 Timothy 4:8-10

Jesus is the hope of all men because He is the only hope we have. It seems to me Paul is highlighting that the salvation is actualized in only those who believe. It's not saying that believers believe as an act of their own will aside from God drawing them.

  • Titus 2:11 - God's necessary grace that leads to repentance appears to all.
For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.
I think this verse goes back to the fact that no one has an excuse for not accepting God's grace because it is being plainly presented.
 5It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking. 6But there is a place where someone has testified:
   "What is man that you are mindful of him,
      the son of man that you care for him?
 7You made him a little lower than the angels;
      you crowned him with glory and honor
    8 and put everything under his feet." 
    In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him. 9But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
 10In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering. 11Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers.- Hebrews 2:5-11

The passage does not say that everyone shares in the atonement of  Jesus' death. Look at verse 10. The author says that "many" not "all" sons are brought to glory.  
8First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.  - Hebrews 10:8-10

Is the writer of Hebrews saying that Jesus' sacrifice was once for all people or once for all time? I'd say once for all time because the letter then goes on and draws a parallel between Jesus' office as high priest and the high priests of the Levitical priesthood who made sacrifices for the whole people of Israel. In those days the sacrifices weren't for the sins of the whole world but only for Israel - God's people. Why would the ultimate and best sacrifice also not be for only the people of God?
9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

The Greek term from which "wanting" is translated comes from the word "Boulemai" and that term shows desire but not follow through. It's passive. In effect, God does not want anyone to perish but He isn't going to force it or make it happen. Peter is agreeing with Paul who wrote in Romans 8 that the whole of creation is waiting for the sons of God to be revealed.  This is something God does.


14And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

The verse does not say that the whole world is saved it's saying that no one will be saved apart from the Son.
  • 1 John 2:2 - Jesus is the propitiation, not just for believers, but for the whole world.
1My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for  the sins of the whole world.

Admittedly here is another verse that seems to be against Limited atonement and will require more study on my part. If Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for the whole world then he took away the sin of the whole world also. I don't believe the Bible teaches that Jesus just makes up savable. I believe that his sacrifice literally saves us on an individual level. This verse seems to be saying that this is true for the whole world. Yet there is something going on because we know that some of the world will be going to hell. This isn't a contradiction just proof that I don't understand everything.
  42They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."

The Samaritans in that town understood that Jesus is the savior of the world in that there is no salvation apart from him not that everyone is justified and reconciled apart from faith.


 17The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

 One of my favorite scriptures. Due to Romans 8:5-8

 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. 

I have to conclude that no one apart from God can come to Jesus. I mean without God revealing to you that you are sinful, needy, and thirsty that you even know you need a savior. A mind controlled by a sinful nature is unable to process that or even agree. 

Additionally, I think there are two scriptures the shed even more light on atonement.

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. - Ephesians 2:8-10

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 6:23

These passages as wells as other underscores that salvation is a gift - not something to be earned - or obligated. The atonement was enough to save every human being ever but salvation itself is something for which we can only thank God for.

Brennon's Thoughts: Verses All Arminians Should Know
Enhanced by Zemanta