The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

robindch

wolfsbane wrote:

I'm in sympathy with you concerning the insincerity of many who gather around a label. But that is not to say there are no compassionate Conservatives, members of the 'moral majority', facist liberals, or what ever. They do exist, just as Christian Fundamentalists do, or militant Buddhists, etc.

You're missing my point -- "fascist liberal" is a contradiction in terms just as much as "compassionate conservatism" and the other terms I mentioned. These things don't don't exist in reality, but they are useful labels which can be used by unscrupulous people to stir up sentiment against their opponents or to develop or maintain their own power-base. It's labelling for the sake if politics only. Tilting at windmills, if you like.

Of the labels you mention, only 'christian fundamentalist' has any genuine meaning. The rest are unspeak.

The Mad Hatter

The Mad Hatter wrote:

Washington Intelligence?

Microsoft Works?

Zombrex

Galvasean wrote:

Okay, so if Satan is insane, shouldn't God help him overcome his insanity? Or would that just leave evil?

One wonders why God created him in the first place.

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

The end became the means......

i.e. the 'end' of Judas became (a part of) the 'means' of salvation......the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ!!!!

So Judas suffers that we might be saved? Interesting - pretty much the same job as Jesus, then. Although he gets an eternity of torment, of course, rather than resurrection and a place at the right hand of God.

intrigued,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

So Judas suffers that we might be saved? Interesting - pretty much the same job as Jesus, then. Although he gets an eternity of torment, of course, rather than resurrection and a place at the right hand of God.

intrigued,
Scofflaw

I promised myself I would steer clear of this thread, but....

Judas eternal destiny would have been determined by whether he repented or not after the act of betrayal. If he repented and sought forgiveness then he would have been saved.

Similarly, Peter's denial of Christ was also prophesied, but Peter repented and so went on to be used by God, and of course resurrection etc.

The point is that eternal damnation was not, for Judas, a necessary consequence of his betrayal of Christ.

Galvasean

PDN wrote:

I promised myself I would steer clear of this thread, but....

Judas eternal destiny would have been determined by whether he repented or not after the act of betrayal. If he repented and sought forgiveness then he would have been saved.

Similarly, Peter's denial of Christ was also prophesied, but Peter repented and so went on to be used by God, and of course resurrection etc.

The point is that eternal damnation was not, for Judas, a necessary consequence of his betrayal of Christ.

So, If Judas had of repented he wouldn't have gone to hell?
I think I get it now.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Judas eternal destiny would have been determined by whether he repented or not after the act of betrayal. If he repented and sought forgiveness then he would have been saved.

Similarly, Peter's denial of Christ was also prophesied, but Peter repented and so went on to be used by God, and of course resurrection etc.

The point is that eternal damnation was not, for Judas, a necessary consequence of his betrayal of Christ.

wolfsbane wrote:

No, Judas was damned:

Matthew 26:23 He answered and said, “He who dipped his hand with Me in the dish will betray Me. 24 The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

These appear to be somewhat different views, unless one decides that wolfsbane's quotes support PDN's interpretation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

These appear to be somewhat different views, unless one decides that wolfsbane's quotes support PDN's interpretation.

No, it sounds like Wolfbane holds to a Calvinist (or Wicknightian) position, that God's foreknowledge involves predestination.

I, as a Wesleyan/Arminian, believe Judas had the freedom to either repent or to persist in his rejection of Christ.

Of course that well known theologian, Bob Dylan, posed this question a long time ago:

In a many dark hour I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you. You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot had God on his side.

"With God on Our Side" (The Times They are aChangin')

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Wicknightian

:eek:

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

No, it sounds like Wolfbane holds to a Calvinist (or Wicknightian) position, that God's foreknowledge involves predestination.

I, as a Wesleyan/Arminian, believe Judas had the freedom to either repent or to persist in his rejection of Christ.

So, how do you interpret the verses wolfsbane uses in support of his position? Do you believe that both positions are tenable, but that the Wesleyan position is preferable, or is the Calvinist position incorrect?

By the way, if at some point you should feel the need to use it, my preferred adjective would be "Scofflavian".

Scofflavianly,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

So, how do you interpret the verses wolfsbane uses in support of his position? Do you believe that both positions are tenable, but that the Wesleyan position is preferable, or is the Calvinist position incorrect?

The Calvinists and the Wesleyans have been arguing this one for centuries. If people a lot smarter, and better, than me have been unable to prove their case conclusively then I doubt that I have much chance. My opinion is that the Calvinists are wrong, but I'm quite happy to entertain the possibility that I am the one who is wrong.

By the way, if at some point you should feel the need to use it, my preferred adjective would be "Scofflavian".

Not Scofflegal?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote:

Despite the fact that he had served God's purpose, exactly as God intended.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Indeed. That Judas' course was made to serve God's purpose, did not excuse it.

wolfsbane

Son Goku wrote:

Does every Christian agree with this view? As there seems to be no free will for Judas in this picture. Judas might as well be a line of code in the saviour program, a cog in the machine.

Christians differ on the meaning of free-will and predestination.

What I'm saying is that Judas did exactly what he wanted to do. He was not some innocent drugged and brainwashed into it. Satan tempted him with money, resentment, whatever - and Judas went for it.

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter wrote:

Can I point out that J C and wolfsbane have very successfully derailed this thread just when it seemed progress was being made (about four pages ago).

Scofflaw (once again) correctly interprets my position.

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw (once again) correctly interprets my position.

Mm. Apologies.

Honestly I was more interested in the scientific side of things anyhow.

wolfsbane

Galvasean wrote:

Okay, so if Satan is insane, shouldn't God help him overcome his insanity? Or would that just leave evil?

I think the insanity JC was referring to was not the clinical type, but the moral one. A nonsensical course driven by sheer hatred.

Moral insanity is an evil, not a sickness. The proper response in punishment, not cure. In such circumstances, cure would be an act of mercy rather than justice. There is no necessity for God to be merciful. He is perfectly entitled to have mercy on whom He will, or leave to their just deserts, as He sees fit.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

The Calvinists and the Wesleyans have been arguing this one for centuries. If people a lot smarter, and better, than me have been unable to prove their case conclusively then I doubt that I have much chance. My opinion is that the Calvinists are wrong, but I'm quite happy to entertain the possibility that I am the one who is wrong.

Do you know, the "if people a lot smarter, and better, than me have been unable to prove their case conclusively then I doubt that I have much chance" position never occurs to me, either on my own behalf or anyone else's?

PDN wrote:

Not Scofflegal?

Only under certain circumstances, I think - as in "this does not constitute Scofflegal advice, and you should consult him directly"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

I think the insanity JC was referring to was not the clinical type, but the moral one. A nonsensical course driven by sheer hatred.

Moral insanity is an evil, not a sickness. The proper response in punishment, not cure. In such circumstances, cure would be an act of mercy rather than justice. There is no necessity for God to be merciful. He is perfectly entitled to have mercy on whom He will, or leave to their just deserts, as He sees fit.

It's not an idea with much current support, of course:

"The term "moral insanity" is unfamiliar to psychiatrists today, but it was an accepted diagnosis in Europe and America throughout most of the 19th century. As late as 1883, the American Journal of Insanity (forerunner of the American Journal of Psychiatry) published an article titled "Moral Insanity."

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

robindch wrote:

You're missing my point -- "fascist liberal" is a contradiction in terms just as much as "compassionate conservatism" and the other terms I mentioned. These things don't don't exist in reality, but they are useful labels which can be used by unscrupulous people to stir up sentiment against their opponents or to develop or maintain their own power-base. It's labelling for the sake if politics only. Tilting at windmills, if you like.

Of the labels you mention, only 'christian fundamentalist' has any genuine meaning. The rest are unspeak.

Hmm. I personally know conservatives who are compassionate. They reject the socialist dogma, but stand firmly for helping the truly needy and encouraging everyone to be their best.

I aslo know folk who regard themselves as liberals, but who have actively discriminated against those who did not dot their ideological 'i's. Fascist seems an appropriate term for such conduct.

On the broader front, all these sort of folk do exist in reality, can be observed in the news and in their own writings.

As to being a contradiction in terms, I certainly agree 'fascist liberal' is so. They are only pseudo-liberals. They may have liberal policies, but their insistence of forcing all of these on the rest of us is not liberal at all.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote:

One wonders why God created him in the first place.

He doesn't say. So we don't need to know.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Hmm. I personally know conservatives who are compassionate. They reject the socialist dogma, but stand firmly for helping the truly needy and encouraging everyone to be their best.

Well, but those are "compassionate conservatives", and they don't prove the existence of a philosophy of "compassionate conservatism".

wolfsbane wrote:

I aslo know folk who regard themselves as liberals, but who have actively discriminated against those who did not dot their ideological 'i's. Fascist seems an appropriate term for such conduct.

Again, these people don't prove the existence of "liberal fascism", but of individual "fascist liberals" - where fascist is really just a synonym for "intolerant". I don't think I would deny the existence of intolerant liberals - if they don't exist, I am personally wasting a lot of dislike.

wolfsbane wrote:

On the broader front, all these sort of folk do exist in reality, can be observed in the news and in their own writings.

As to being a contradiction in terms, I certainly agree 'fascist liberal' is so. They are only pseudo-liberals. They may have liberal policies, but their insistence of forcing all of these on the rest of us is not liberal at all.

Yes, conservatives are saved from that particular piece of hypocrisy...

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote:

So Judas suffers that we might be saved? Interesting - pretty much the same job as Jesus, then. Although he gets an eternity of torment, of course, rather than resurrection and a place at the right hand of God.

intrigued,
Scofflaw

Only in the sense that the Roman Empire was created for the same purpose. Christ had to be born in Bethlehem, Caesar proclaimed a census requiring Mary and Joseph to go there at her time of delivery. All of history is directed by God to accomplish His purposes.

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote:

wicknight wrote:

One wonders why God created him in the first place.

He doesn't say. So we don't need to know.

Oh, come on, that's a bit of a cop-out.

wolfsbane

PDN wrote:

I promised myself I would steer clear of this thread, but....

Judas eternal destiny would have been determined by whether he repented or not after the act of betrayal. If he repented and sought forgiveness then he would have been saved.

Similarly, Peter's denial of Christ was also prophesied, but Peter repented and so went on to be used by God, and of course resurrection etc.

The point is that eternal damnation was not, for Judas, a necessary consequence of his betrayal of Christ.

I agree, it was Judas' choice that brought him to hell. That includes his failure to repent. But it was never going to happen. Judas' black heart would only ever choose the way he did.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Only in the sense that the Roman Empire was created for the same purpose. Christ had to be born in Bethlehem, Caesar proclaimed a census requiring Mary and Joseph to go there at her time of delivery. All of history is directed by God to accomplish His purposes.

Which, in turn, makes me wonder why Jesus was necessary.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

PDN wrote:

No, it sounds like Wolfbane holds to a Calvinist (or Wicknightian) position, that God's foreknowledge involves predestination.

I, as a Wesleyan/Arminian, believe Judas had the freedom to either repent or to persist in his rejection of Christ.

Of course that well known theologian, Bob Dylan, posed this question a long time ago:

Yes, I'm a Calvinist. But, correct me if I'm wrong, did not Wesley hold to Prevenient Grace? That is, that man cannot repent and believe unless God first gives grace to enable him. Arminius, I think, held to your view - that man is able of himself to repent and believe.

Here's one from Dylan in a more sensible frame of mind :
Born already ruined,
Stone-cold dead
As I stepped out of the womb.
By His grace I have been touched,
By His word I have been healed,
By His hand I've been delivered,
By His spirit I've been sealed.

I've been saved
By the blood of the lamb,
Saved
By the blood of the lamb,
Saved,
Saved,
And I'm so glad.
Yes, I'm so glad,
I'm so glad,
So glad,
I want to thank You, Lord,
I just want to thank You, Lord,
Thank You, Lord.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote:

Which, in turn, makes me wonder why Jesus was necessary.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Because only He could pay for His people's sins. Being both God and sinless man, He could take on Himself all their sins, make atonement for these sinners so that they would be right with God.

Hebrews 9:11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Because only He could pay for His people's sins. Being both God and sinless man, He could take on Himself all their sins, make atonement for these sinners so that they would be right with God.

Yes, it just seems a little roundabout for a God who has also orchestrated all of history - but we know that we disagree on this.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw
It's a good deal less true than it was 30 years ago. The intervening decades have seen an explosion in palaeontology, and the filling in of a good number of 'missing links'. However, the picture will never be filled without a full, and totally provable, parent-child succession for ever single lineage. Funnily enough, if the world were only a few thousand years old, we'd be an awful lot closer to having such a thing...

It is just as true as it was 30 years ago…… even though our knowledge of the fossil record has expanded since then, the situation hasn’t changed much.
…….and all of the ‘missing links’ are still MISSING!!!!:eek:

……..and Evolutionist ‘icons’ like as the supposed evolution of the Horse and the Peppered, have had to be discarded as a result of more detailed information......over the past 30 years!!!!!:D


Scofflaw
Actually, punctuated evolution is a form of gradual evolution.

Whatever!!!:eek:

Anyway, punctuated equilibrium never was accepted by the majority of Evolutionists……and it has been in decline due to the absence of any observed mechanism for it's existence…….a fact that YOU have graciously confirmed in the following quote:-
Scofflaw
"Punctuated evolution" is hardly "largely abandoned" - it has just never had a particularly prominent place in evolutionary theory. It has achieved a greater measure of public fame than scientific respect (because Gould is a good writer, but never offered much in the way of proof)


Originally Posted by J C
Lovingly
J C

Scofflaw
I love flattery!

….my declaration of love is generalised and entirely platonic……I hasten to add!!!:eek:


Scofflaw
I haven't forgotten - we've got as far as "we can add new information to the genome by beneficial mutation", and JC has stated for the record that he never claimed beneficial mutations didn't happen, which is JC's form of graceful acceptance.

I have ALWAYS accepted that ‘beneficial mutations’ can (rarely) happen.
However, they DON'T add new information to the genome……..
.....they may ‘leverage’ existing information……or phenotypically expose existing information…….but they DON’T add new original information!!!!:cool:


Scofflaw
Just for the record, I'd like to point out that it has that JC has no answer to the nylon enzyme frameshift mutation, and the convenient reference point of post 7000 will take us back to that little bit of progress at any time he tries that approach.

…….and l, in turn, refer you to Post # 6981 on page 350…….where I comprehensively ‘buried’ the ‘Nylon Bug’……and all its (empty) Evolutionist promises!!!!!:D


Galvasean
Okay, so if Satan is insane, shouldn't God help him overcome his insanity? Or would that just leave evil?

Apparently, God doesn’t extend His grace to spirit beings……..and that is ALSO why Humans cannot be saved AFTER we die!!!!:cool:


Bluewolf
Microsoft Works?

.....it does for me ……..

……..except when I try to change a table in Word !!!!:eek:


Scofflaw
So, how do you interpret the verses wolfsbane uses in support of his position? Do you believe that both positions are tenable, but that the Wesleyan position is preferable, or is the Calvinist position incorrect?

I am a bit of an 'Armenian' myself…….on this issue!!!:D


Originally Posted by PDN
Judas eternal destiny would have been determined by whether he repented or not after the act of betrayal. If he repented and sought forgiveness then he would have been saved.

Similarly, Peter's denial of Christ was also prophesied, but Peter repented and so went on to be used by God, and of course resurrection etc.

The point is that eternal damnation was not, for Judas, a necessary consequence of his betrayal of Christ.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
…..Judas was damned:

Matthew 26:23 He answered and said, “He who dipped his hand with Me in the dish will betray Me. 24 The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

PDN
The Calvinists and the Wesleyans have been arguing this one for centuries. If people a lot smarter, and better, than me have been unable to prove their case conclusively then I doubt that I have much chance.

This is your lucky day then.

The Wesleyan (Armenian) Position is the correct one.

Wolfsbane is correct to conclude that Judas was damned……because in the two verses quoted, Jesus definitively prophesised the loss of Judas.

However, PREDICTING the loss of Judas is not the same thing as CAUSING (predestining) the loss of Judas.
Although Jesus KNEW that Judas wouldn’t be saved…….the reason that Judas wasn’t saved was because he DIDN’T BELIEVE on Jesus Christ to save him!!!

Similarly, God knows everyone who is going to be saved……..because He knows everyone who is going to use their free will to believe on Jesus Christ…….and thus to be saved!!!!
…..BUT God does not cause (or predestine) each person to be saved......or not, as the case may be!!!

……our salvation is the point where God’s grace and Man’s free will MEET…………and both parties VOLUNTARILY exercise their respective powers ......to save and to believe!!!!:cool:

………it is what God has always wanted from His relationship with Mankind……..that we FREELY love Him and believe on Him.:cool:

......are there any other 'thorny' theological issues that I can resolve for you .....while I'm at it?????:D

Lovingly,

J C:)

J C

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Because only He could pay for His people's sins. Being both God and sinless man, He could take on Himself all their sins, make atonement for these sinners so that they would be right with God.

Scofflaw wrote:

Yes, it just seems a little roundabout for a God who has also orchestrated all of history - but we know that we disagree on this.

God voluntarily limits His omnipotence in His dealings with Mankind.......
He does so by LOVINGLY allowing us to freely choose to be saved.......
......and He did so by LOVINGLY paying for people's sins Himself.

God is a LOVING God who died so that Mankind might live.....and all He asks is that we freely believe on Him!!!:cool: