Greg Bahnsen - Problems for Unbelieving Worldviews (part 2)

[plato7770]

@godkilleratheist. So I can tell which 1 of the Greeks u r

[GodKillerAtheist]

let's see

My realistic, skeptic, humanistic (that means doing good for humanity) world view

verses his superstitious apocalyptic world view...hmmmm?

I think I'll stay myself instead of perverted like this freak

[mathgeek37]

The flaw here is inevitable, but Justin Martyr mentioned that the miracles of Jesus were similar to some of the ones that Gods in the Greek and other pantheons had performed. Since Justin was an "early Church Father", Jesus's resurrection in the mind of a superstitious Greek listener could very well bring comparisons to Dionysus and Attis. So Christianity in some way may not lay a total claim on the salvation by resurrection message.

An astute believer will catch me on this I bet.

[RingAroundTheRozie]

As I understand it, Martyr was trying to build a bridge between Christianity and the Greeks, so it's not surprising that he might do that. No matter whether the miracles are similar or not (I don't think they are, read on it somewhat), what does this have to with your claim that the Greeks had similar views on salvation and resurrection? Hades was the end, you go down, you don't come up. You can't get to your conclusion from your beginning.

[mathgeek37]

As I said before, someone would catch me on this. I am owned.

[mathgeek37]

Maybe this critique is too early...but there are megachurches, small churches, cathedrals and simple altars in basements everywhere is in this world. How is that not a contradiction in Bahnsen's own worldview? It seems to me that Christians do the same thing when they plant churches on any spot that they feel like God led them toward. And since humans are metaphors for sheep, doesn't that seem at odds with Bahnsen's own point about how the sages in Ancient Greece letting the sheep loose?

[RingAroundTheRozie]

What's the contradiction?

[mathgeek37]

That he accuses Greeks of having sheep run loose and squatting down to place an altar to an "Unknown God". Christians do much the same thing when they plant churches in places where churches are already established.

[mathgeek37]

Bahnsen is one of the best Christian apologists out there. Here is what I don't understand, why aren't more churches and media outlets like Fox News promoting this kind of intellectual defense of the faith?

It seems to me that many Christians are not of Bahnsen's style and they automatically believe that the faith speaks for itself, that it defends itself because they automatically believe it.

I can't understand why Christianity needs defending. If atheism is wrong, why apologize so much?

[thesamsin]

Apologetics doesnt mean that we are apologizing, its just rational philosophical defense of the christian faith

[mathgeek37]

I think I said that in the first paragraph...an intellectual defense of the faith.

Also, being an apologist for any religion is a preference game. One comes to the decision on their own that Jesus Christ is the best God to worship.

Apologetics is a problem for me because if any religion was specifically true, then why does it even need intellectual defense.

[thesamsin]

It doesnt need intellectual defense. but since we cant stand to see other people going down a road of destruction we reach out to them in order to correct their course.

[mathgeek37]

Then why continue to do it? You say you don't want people to go down a road of destruction, and yet, people don't believe that line of reasoning to start with. It is a contradiction for the outsider and if the outsider finds fault with the reason, then they cannot be condemned for following what they believe is the truth.

Isn't that the point of free will anyway?

[thesamsin]

It doesnt matter what you believe to be true. truth is truth. If whats true to me is true to me and whats true to you is true to you, what if my truth says your truth is a lie? is it still true?

and do you really have free will? can you all of a sudden decide to be 8 ft tall with wings?

[mathgeek37]

First: truth depends upon what standards we use. I tend to view the world through a materialist-mathematical-scien­tific mindset. As long as the proposition is valid through repeated testing, then I guess it could be true. When it comes to the philosophical and theological arena, then things are more dicey.

[mathgeek37]

Second: No, free will is ultimately an illusion. If our decisions violate the scientific laws, then it cannot be done. Human free will is contingent upon the laws of science and maybe "the social contract". I can decide to eat a fish or a piece of bread to satiate my hunger, but I can not literally move a mountain by will alone.

[thesamsin]

limited free will, exactly God lets us choose things, but gives us what we need because without him nothing is possible.

[mathgeek37]

Okay, how exactly does one reasons toward the existence of God from that standpoint.

[HatemongerNTBSF1129]

@mathgeek37 First of all, gotta be honest with you mathgeek... your words are enjoyable to me.

Second, if you look at "will" as a variable that isn't an ultimate determining factor "free will" can absolutely be possible. Its not will that is contingent upon the laws of science, but rather the manifestation of that same will.

I am certainly free to will a mountain to move in a literal sense. Will it move? Lol prolly not, but I can't know untill I try.

[thesamsin]

the problem with that is that mathematics aren't material.

[mathgeek37]

Right, and the same applies to logic and even the mind and soul themselves.

Here is another problem though: if you pressuppose the existence of an immaterial God, why is the atheist disqualified from using the pressupposition of a working brain and the immaterial "realities" that come from it?

[thesamsin]

exactly, they are all immaterial. and all rely on God.

He is disqualified from it because the very Idea of science Relies on God. If the world and existence was spawned from a random act, or mistake. then there cant possibly be order.

First off nothing cant make everything. and even if it did, randomness cannot create uniformity. Now science cant possibly prove anything because without God, nothing is promised. you have to live by faith in the previous day that scientific laws will still work

[mathgeek37]

I think you have it backwards. To automically presuppose the existence of God is to fully understand what God is at least in human terms. Reason, as you and I use it, is truly acheived when a person has a fully mature brain that functions correctly. I say this because at age my current age, I knew how mathematics works much better than I did when I was a college student.

Just because you were indoctrinated to believe in a God at a young age doesn't mean you fully understand what God is.

[mathgeek37]

Furthermore, science only makes sense from the perspective of humans because we discovered (or rather invented) the method that underpins science. I think the same is true for math and logic.

Since humans are material creatures, they can only truly understand the material perspective. Since there are constraints in place both materially and immaterially, humans must make a "leap of faith" to believe in God.

[mathgeek37]

Assuming that your second paragraph is correct, then you are accepting that you must reason outside of reality, which is a leap of faith because you don't "know" whether or not a God truly exists. The same goes for me being an atheist. If I was a theist of any sort, I will likely still think this way.

This is why I accept the Kierkegaardian "Leap of Faith" hypothesis over Bahnsen's "Presuppositional Apologetic".

[thesamsin]

we don't reason outside of reality, just outside of the atheistic world view.

[HatemongerNTBSF1129]

@mathgeek37 I'm having trouble making a comparative distinction between Kierkegaard and Bahnsen. In my understanding Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" was an observation about the act of accepting the existence of God. Whereas Bahnsen's "Presuppositional Apologetics" is a method to defend that faith based issue.

[thesamsin]

but we also then must take a "leap of faith" to believe in all immaterial things as well. such as gravity, science, logic, reason, love, hate, all feelings, etc...

[HatemongerNTBSF1129]

@mathgeek37 These same limitations are parameters that come into play for any predetermination/presuppositio­n that a human being can make.

Every day of my life I sit in a chair, every time I have sat in this chair it has held my weight. I can assume that every time I could ever sit in this chair it will hold my weight. As this so far is an observable constant, I term this a "law" within my understanding of nature.

As we are limited, I cannot "know" for certain that it will hold my weight.

[HatemongerNTBSF1129]

@mathgeek37 all "laws" are a "leap of faith" by virtue of the fact that we are uniformly in all realms constrained by these material and immaterial limitations.

Everything as a result is a faith based issue.

[thesamsin]

But even still immaterial concepts cant account for physical concepts. So the atheistic worldview believes that everything is material and that immaterial concepts are created by the human brain. but that is not possible because all brains are different and there is no uniformity of the human brain. And I agree that we will never know the complete glory of God until we Die. however the proof of God is in the impossibility of the contrary.

[jaynkay100]

@thesamsin Except that "GOD" is a logically incoherent concept.

The highest form of justice, while resembling nothing of the sort. 

The highest form of love, while creating humans just to burn in hell.

Being omniscient and having a free will.

Being omnipresent and immaterial.

Being three persons all claiming to be the same individual, but not the same person, but the same thing.

[HatemongerNTBSF1129]

@jaynkay100 lets just for the sake of argument say that this "God" does exist for a moment here.

It wouldn't be the highest form of justice as the term justice would be an abstraction created by the human mind in order define the "natural law" or cause effect standards that It has defined.

Love is merely another abstraction about this same series of relationship within this standard.

The premise you "establish" for Its creation of humanity is an inference and has no actual basis, aka cheap shot

[HatemongerNTBSF1129]

@jaynkay100 The third, fourth, and fifth clauses of your series need to all be addressed at the same time.

Imagine there was is a variable not restricted by local or time, and this existence is defined by being present in realms large and small both external and integral to the human spectrum of existence. There are various observable standards within science that are akin to this kind of variable (aka anything termed a "law" when describing realms of order)

[HatemongerNTBSF1129]

@jaynkay100 the terms omniscience, omnipotence/omnipresence and immaterial would all be like abstractions to describe this same variable. Take a moment to see how many of those terms you can apply to something like gravity.

Free will and a triune nature obviously arise from the idea of sentience. Lets use a human being as a comparison.

If you as an individual with "free will" were not restricted to location/time, you would be capable of acting on three separate initiative fully and equally

[jaynkay100]

@HatemongerNTBSF1129 Assuming its even possible to be in multiple times and spaces at once assumes time/space is static, thus "cause/effect" are illusory, as both happen at once, point 'A' in time and space must exist before 'X' can inhabit it, unless you were unrestricted by that, which means you would be back to the 'cause & effect' model, with one thing happening before another in sequence, which is 'Time' as we know it.

[HatemongerNTBSF1129]

@jaynkay100 Why is this a problem? My explanation subscribes explicitly to the idea that time would not be static to such an individual. As they would not be subject or limited by any such variable then the set parameters of interaction with a "static" observation of time would make this possible. Without a dependence on time, but existing outside of time, you could theoretically be in all places and maintain multiple identities to any point of observation subject to time/space.

[jaynkay100]

@HatemongerNTBSF1129 If time were in fact static, then cause and effect are meaningless, as the effect exists simultaneously with the cause, thus eliminating any dependencies. This would undermine all understanding of any sort of "divine plan" as its conclusion is already in existence. No future, no past, only ONE simultaneous moment. And yet we can distinguish time as 'that' point and 'this' one, indicating two distinct occurrences, and a lack of homogeny in the time/space department.

[HatemongerNTBSF1129]

@jaynkay100 I think either I'm having a problem explaining to you what I'm talking about, or you're having a problem understanding it, or you understand it fully and completely so you decide to basically restate a component of my assertions dressed up in a different face. I'm making the assertion that if there is an omnipotent being, time is not an effector on it... you're just reiterating a portion of my same argument pal...

[HatemongerNTBSF1129]

@jaynkay100 Lol, and yes, it would tend to "undermine all understanding of any sort of divine plan"... you ever heard a theist talk about the "mysteries of god's plan"... This makes perfect sense in their framework

[HatemongerNTBSF1129]

@jaynkay100 Oh yea, i forgot to mention this... Its not that say time would be static, its just that it wouldn't be an effector. For example

Lets say that you come across a rock in the forest, you see its dimensions as defined by x, y, and z... Lets say that time is a lot like one of these dimensions. If someone threw the rock at you and missed, it wouldn't be static by any means it just wouldn't affect you. This is essentially what I'm saying

[jaynkay100]

@HatemongerNTBSF1129 You seem to be missing the point as well. The problem is that "time" is not an affector to begin with. It is a descriptor. The only way to make reference to time is through change. Otherwise it isn't as if it exists as some sort of mysterious dimension one can slip in and out of.

If god is not static then he enters the causal chain and is "affected by time" tho that simply means he can be described in reference to time. I can't make this any more simple.

[HatemongerNTBSF1129]

@jaynkay100 to all points of observation restricted by time and location you would seem to be three different individuals existing in all times acting on those same initiatives of your person. You would be a "trinity" yet still a complete "unity" as you are still the same person just observed in parallel events.

"GOD" isn't logically incoherent, the concept just can't be defined strictly within the limited parameters of human existence.

[HatemongerNTBSF1129]

@mathgeek37 Subjective truth or "what my truth is" will only be determined by the standards we use. This is absolutely reasonable. The real issue is which standards best explain human experience and natural law. If you do indeed like Bahnsen you should look into his writing on standards, specifically "By What Standard"

[ProfMTH]

The Parthenon was a temple for the goddess Athena, not all of the gods. The lecturer is either ignorant of this or he is mistaking the Parthenon in Athens for the Pantheon in Rome.

[Gloucester51]

You focus on the copper coin and miss the gold in the message...

[ProfMTH]

Actually, I was just correcting the speaker's mistake. Truth be told, it was the most interesting part of the presentation.

[flyingfisbeefilms]

This is false. The Greeks were an overpowered nation by the Romans. This guy is a dickhead. He's again using bullshit to convince people about his "beliefs". I'm sick and tired of these conmen. Who the fuck is this idiot!

[TheGreatPrince]

This is false. The Greeks were an overpowered nation by the Romans [AMPHIBOLY]. This guy is a dickhead [AD HOMINEM]. He's again using bullshit to convince people about his "beliefs" [STRAW-MAN]. I'm sick and tired of these conmen [AD HOMINEM]. Who the fuck is this idiot [AD HOMINEM]!

Verdict = FALLACIOUS. INVALID. DISCREDITED. SILLY. ANGRY.

[elvismilk]

This guy gets paid to teach theology, theology being make believe. To bad everyone can't have a gig like his.

[Arthyron]

Make believe, eh? Well there's the assertion, and with it comes the burden of proof. "Theology is make believe." Can you demonstrate how this is, perhaps?

[elvismilk]

I laugh every time Arth, a person really asks that. We could start with substantiation, miracles, fulfilling prophecy, where do you want to start. And sorry the burden of proof thrown back at the atheist has never been a reasonable request, you have the burden for your assertion of belief in the invisible, an atheist can never prove the existence of that which does not exist, until you prove he does exist an atheist has no burden at all. I laugh at your burden feeling you must believe old myth

[Arthyron]

Yes yes, proving the negative, I'm aware, but that's not quite what I'm asking. It's one thing to say "I lack belief in theology" and quite another to say "Theology is make-believe!" It's akin to the common perception of what "atheism" means and what the actual definition is. We certainly bear a burden, and the Apostle Paul says we must be ready at any time in season and out to give an answer to those that ask for the hope within us. We can begin wherever you'd like.

[elvismilk]

Lacking belief in theology, is lacking the belief in the make believe, sorry I did not make theology up. So let's begin, for starters I need to know what, who, is this thing we are discussing, define for me, as succinctly as you can, what you believe this deity, this higher power, this universe creator possesses, then I will reply back. You could send it to me also, I have hundreds of questions after this one that I typically ask pastors, seminary students, and LDS's.

[Arthyron]

No, you didn't say "I lack belief in theology," you said "Theology is make-believe." They are two very different things. One is a negative claim, and one is a positive claim. So either you must commit a definition retreat fallacy by assuming the former, or account for the latter. After that, I'll play your little game.

[elvismilk]

Wrong twice, it's not a game, and Theology is make believe, when a foundation of teaching and cereomony is based on an invisible, matterless, never been proven to exist, something, then it is make believe. Dividing spirits, body parts and altar incense techniques, and calling all canonical and orthodox is fine and dandy, yet still make believe.

[Arthyron]

Tell me, on what grounds do you determine that an "invisible, matterless, etc" something is thus make-believe? You begin with those presuppositions, I gathered that from the start, but how do you justify those criteria? You should know by now that Naturalism is an inherently question begging fallacy. Furthermore, what constitutes "proven?" How do you determine, establish, and justify this standard of "proof?" I do not divide "spirits." God is Spirit and bequeaths a measure of it to us.

[Arthyron]

I also do not practice "altar incense techniques." The only altar is in the temple of our hearts crying out to our Father. True, 1st Century Christianity (without all the added trappings and traditions of men) was the first and only faith to have no priests, no temples, no sacrifices, and no rituals. The message of Y'shua of Nazareth was anything but Orthodox and still incites the ire and rage of Pharisees to this day.

[rodanosamehr]

RIP Dr Bahnsen, one of the greatest apologist-theologians of the 20th century.

[Klaratu]

Dr Bahnsen kicks some serious scholarly ass! He is absolutely BRILLIANT!

[WorshipVideo]

Excellent lecture.

Dr. Bahnsen was brilliant.

[elvismilk]

Bahnsen is further proof that god needs to use some supernatural hocus pocus to save his supernatural religion. As usual the believer after all is said, all the questions begged, and all the cirlces turned back into squares, and done, the believer crawls back to their infant implicit agnosticism. There is no invisible , unknowable , omnipotent, jealous, caring, omniscient, never been proven to exist universe creator.

[WorshipVideo]

Dr. Bahnsen brilliantly points out how all worldviews ultimately exist within a circle. Some of those circles are ridiculously filled with contradictions, while others do a better job of answering the important questions - where did the world come from? what is the standard of morality? etc....

Some 'atheists' are quite schizophrenic -

god needs to use..... (implying there is a god)

there is no god.....

which is it?

[elvismilk]

There is no , which is it?, you have the burden of proof, to provide evidence for your invisible universe creator. Because you ask two questions on world beginnings and standards of morality, you believe these questions beg the question of an invisible unknowable universe creator, therefore there must be one. Grow up and use reason, the Judao/Christian tradition is all based on ignorance, it was fine for them then, but believing in the myths of dead men now is pure absurdity

[WorshipVideo]

The point is the Christian worldview has a basis for logic and reason.

What's yours?

[elvismilk]

I have logic and reason, and I sure don't claim it is Christian related, because that could also be disputed by a Buddhist, scientist, a Quaker, and also a Hindu just to name a few who feel they also have those qualities. Christianity has a few good things, mostly taken from the old testament, but for the most part Christianity is a vile religion, one that asks believers to be happy as other fellow men are damned for eternity

[Arthyron]

You speak of the "good things" of Christianity but still label it "vile." Firstly, what things are "good" and where in the Old Testament do they come from? What is vile about Christianity? Most importantly, how do you establish an objective form of "good" or "vileness" in the scope of your worldview? By what means can you identify and constrain and define these "principles" or "virtues" accurately and genuinely? Where do they come from and how can you ascertain them?

[elvismilk]

Under the same line you ascribe them to. Hell is there for a Christian reason, not for being what you ascertain is good, we use the same principles basically, I just don't enjoy a system, that in a make believe world, souls are captured and damned for eternity. As my previous reply states let's start our discussion, and maybe it's better to just send your comments directly to me, I have hundreds of questions you'll find fascinating. I have plenty of good in the NT, taken from the OT and more.

[Arthyron]

Odd, because I don't believe in a system where souls are captured and damned for eternity because that's not what Scripture teaches. Do some research into the Greek and Hebrew words that are commonly translated as "Hell" (Gehenna, Hades, Sheol, Tartarus, etc), as well as the words "aion" and "aionios" which are the Greek words typically translated as "eternal" or "everlasting." I believe in universal reconciliation, so that's one qualm you can't take up with me.

[elvismilk]

Arth you didn't disappoint,I was hoping you were going to answer with you are your own interpreter of the inspired book, that should be clear in its meaning and not open for discussion about any verse. I don't need another Greek lecture that I've already heard. Sadly you need to talk with Christians that believe Jesus is up there seperating the sheep and the goats, you'll find Matthew vividly discribing that beautiful day. In other words Hell

[Arthyron]

Oh contraire, Christ spoke in parables for a reason, to keep things hidden from those who didn't have eyes to see and ears to hear, by His own admission. You may disagree with that methodology, but the God whom I serve deems it conducive to His plan of reconciling all things unto Himself, so I'll take His word for it. As for talking with other Christians about such things, I do a great deal of that. I've confronted street preachers, evangelists, family, and friends on the matter.

[elvismilk]

This admission was proven how? You serve who?, oh yeah an invisible, matterless, loving "as only a human can describe", omnipotent universe maker. Why the reconciliation?, how could the universe maker ever make something that needs to be reconciled, he wouldn't be able to, being the god he is suppose to be. Maybe he's not that god.

[Arthyron]

As for reconciliation, it has to do with us eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and God's desire to expand His family, to have more children (b'nei Elohim). I am a proponent of volition, but not Free Will. I fully believe we are capable of making choices of our own accord. I just don't believe we can make choices independent of exterior and internal influences (circumstances, genetics, upbringing, etc). All these things factor in to every decision we make.

[elvismilk]

will PM

[Arthyron]

With choice comes both the ability to love and the ability to do the opposite of loving. So we had to fall so that we could learn how to love, and then we were redeemed so that we could transcend our ability to do evil. The Hebrew where it says God created us in our image actually says "is creating," it's an ongoing process that isn't finished (at least from our temporal point of view). If you want to go more in depth on this we should switch to PM, it just takes too much space to explain.

[Arthyron]

God's true nature is beyond our language's ability to truly describe. Besides, language never deals in the thing itself but in intellectual constructions meant to represent the thing (just like mathematics). We need not describe Him, because all that He is was contained in Christ. That's part of why Christ came, so that through Him we might see and know and accept the Father.

[Arthyron]

No, not "Hell." The purpose of Gehenna is not punitive but remedial. God will consume that which of us is not who He created us to be, so that the "us" that He had in mind before beginning of the Aion can emerge. Our sins and all that is unGodly in us shall be destroyed so that the process of creatING us in His image (that's how the Hebrew actually reads, "is creating") will progress. The separation is akin to checking the color of meat and determining whether or not it needs more cooking.

[elvismilk]

Oh, the old "that he had in mind", the infamous no freewill, just the will of god, yikes that hole your in might not be the color of meat, but it sure looks dark and deep.

[Arthyron]

I believe I explained the role our "free will" (I prefer the term "volition," free will is misleading) plays in it all to some degree, if you need further clarification we should go to PM because of the character limit. I tend to be rather verbose, just the way I write.

[Arthyron]

Also, you didn't answer my questions, really. You said they're the same principles as mine. The problem is, my principles are based on a system of presuppositions that can ultimately be accounted for, they're built upon a complete system of epistemology, ethics, and metaphysics. You may very well hold to the same principles I do, but the thing is, I doubt your ability to account for or justify those principles within the scope of your worldview. I was asking you to account for these things.

[elvismilk]

In other words an implicit agnostic, stated explicitly using epistemology that admits you will never know.

[Arthyron]

Hmm, I'm not *quite* sure what you meant here, but I'll assume that you're referring to your own beliefs. I see a conflict between "never knowing" and making absolute moral claims such as "vile" and "good." What is the basis for your morally charged assertions? How do you perceive, account for, and justify the standards and paradigms implicit to your claims of "goodness" and "vileness" in an utterly agnostic worldview?

[Arthyron]

Also, are you so certain that Christianity asks believers to be happy as others are "damned" for eternity? Check out "Unspoken Sermons" by George MacDonald, he was a minister from the 1800's that turned to writing fantasy novels (he was a big inspiration on C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Mark Twain, Lewis Carol, etc). I will heavily dispute the claim that God will "torment" people for "eternity." That's not what Scripture teaches by my reckoning.

[elvismilk]

Romans2:3 to name a vague condemning one. I love MacDonald's Calvinistic twists and interpretations, he mixes Voltaire, Poe and Robert Burns to create worlds that only a matterless universe creator could think of. C.S. Lewis' praise is worthless, although Lewis' trilogy in science fiction is a good read, his theology books are pathetic, "Mere Christianity" etc are laughable, especially the Narnia books, which almost line for line rip of Baum's first eight OZ books. I'll take the Arabian Nights

[Arthyron]

I don't discount the notion that God will judge us all and that those found wanting (including some "Believers," as per Mt 7:21) will have to pass through Gehenna, I fervently believe this and wish it upon myself and anyone else that has not reached the state that the Lord has intended for them so that we, as all things, shall be reconciled unto Him as it states in 1 Corinthians 15. I do not deny the existence of Gehenna, but the purpose for which "orthodoxy" generally ascribes it.

[elvismilk]

Actually these thoughts are very much from the Jehovah witness arena. I'll gladly be the first to see you off with your wings of an angel ready to raise you up to, wherever, and all I ask is let my bones rest in the grave.

[Arthyron]

Jehovah's Witness is a cult, I'll say that bluntly. Do some research into the lawsuit filed by their founder against a Christian minister sometime. It'll show you just how far off base their precepts are. I don't agree with their theology either. You see I'm using all of Canonical Scripture, whereas the Scriptures they use are edited and selected to validate their doctrines. Sorry, friend, but He has better plans for you. ;)

[Arthyron]

As for MacDonald, while he was a minister in the Church of Scotland (distinctly calvinist), he fell into disfavor and had his pay cut for the message he taught quite contrary to Calvinism. I sincerely implore you to check out that, his pinnacle of theological thought if you are sincere in wanting to understand the Scriptures. While I'll disagree with your "reviews" of other authors and their works, I do believe you have the wrong idea about MacDonald. He was no Calvinist, nor am I.

[elvismilk]

Just a test, I actually hated writing that, an impressionable person might consider MacDonald's Calvinism, but you didn't bat an eyelash, nice, I have enjoyed your writings.

[Arthyron]

Good to see I passed...

[WorshipVideo]

That's interesting.

Is that how you account for logic and reason? Just assume it beforehand. Why do you claim to use it if you can't even account for it?

[mindwis3]

He says 'also' not 'all' according to the tekst displayed, second slip.(see prt 1)

- All of human existance is part of gods plan. (5:30) ->ALL, so including sin and "the original sin" is part of gods plan.

[kisstheclowns]

Yep thats right. Very perceptive. Original sin is part of Gods plan.

[Tancred2006]

If a violin goes out of tune of its own accord, the Player isn't to be blamed, even when He insists on bringing a song out of it in spite of all.

There are many tools in the Smith's smithy, some of which have become warped and bent, but they are nevertheless still tools in His hand, and they all accomplish His will.

With the Fall as with the Crucifixion, man is culpable because of the evil of his motives, yet God is praised for the goodness of His.

Soli Deo gloria

[TheMusicGene]

LAUS DEO SEMPER

[younghlee]

this is great, thanks

please post more