Rob Bell gets the Gold Medal for “Dodgeball” as Martin Bashir attempts to get a couple of straight answers.
Vodpod videos no longer available.
MSNBC Host Makes Rob Bell Squirm: “You’re Amend…, posted with vodpod
Monthly Archives: March 2011
Human Reasoning & Naturalism
“All possible knowledge. . .depends on the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like must be and therefore and since is a real perception of how things outside of our own minds really “must” be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling in our minds and not genuine insight into realities beyond them – if it merely represents the ways our minds happen to work – then we have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid no science can be true.” – C.S. Lewis
A Comparison of Arminianism and Calvinism
The information below provides an accurate and easily understood explanation of the central teachings of two schools of thought concerning the salvation of men. This post is not intended to promote one view or the other. The topics presented can certainly be discussed without labels connected to the men they represent, Jacob Arminius and John Calvin. However, they seem inextricably linked and therefore are used in this post. You are encouraged to further research both systems of thought, and to examine both in the light of Scripture.
HUMAN WILL
Free-Will or Human Ability – Arminianism
Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does not interfere with man’s freedom. Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man’s freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God’s Spirit and be regenerated or resist God’s grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit’s assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man’s act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner’s gift to God; it is man’s contribution to salvation.
Total Inability or Total Depravity – Calvinism
Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not – indeed he cannot – choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit’s assistance to bring a sinner to Christ – it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God’s gift of salvation – it is God’s gift to the sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God.
GOD’S ELECTION
Conditional Election – Arminianism
God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call. He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. Election therefore was determined by or conditioned upon what man would do. The faith which God foresaw and upon which He based His choice was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man’s will. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free will, choose Christ. Thus the sinner’s choice of Christ, not God’s choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of salvation.
Unconditional Election – Calvinism
God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will. His choice of particular sinners was not based on any foreseen response of obedience on their part, such as faith, repentance, etc. On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected. These acts are the result, not the cause of God’s choice. Election therefore was not determined by or conditioned upon any virtuous quality or act foreseen in man. Those whom God sovereignly elected He brings through the power of the Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ. Thus God’s choice of the sinner, not the sinner’s choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation.
THE EXTENT OF CHRIST’S ATONEMENT
Universal Redemption or General Atonement – Arminianism
Christ’s redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone. Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe on Him are saved. His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condition that they believe, but it did not actually put away anyone’s sins. Christ’s redemption becomes effective only if man chooses to accept it.
Particular Redemption or Limited Atonement – Calvinism
Christ’s redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ’s redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation, including faith which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, therefore guaranteeing their salvation.
THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN SALVATION
The Holy Spirit Can Be Effectually Resisted – Arminianism
The Spirit calls inwardly all those who are called outwardly by the gospel invitation; He does all that He can to bring every sinner to salvation. But inasmuch as man is free, he can successfully resist the Spirit’s call. The Spirit cannot regenerate the sinner until he believes; faith (which is man’s contribution) precedes and makes possible the new birth. Thus, man’s free will limits the Spirit in the application of Christ’s saving work. The Holy Spirit can only draw to Christ those who allow Him to have His way with them. Until the sinner responds, the Spirit cannot give life. God’s grace, therefore, is not invincible; it can be, and often is, resisted and thwarted by man.
The Efficacious Call of the Spirit or Irresistible Grace – Calvinism
In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By means of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man’s will, nor is He dependent upon man’s cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God’s grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended.
THE SECURITY OF SALVATION
Falling from Grace
Those who believe and are truly saved can lose their salvation by failing to keep up their faith, etc. All Arminians have not been agreed on this point; some have held that believers are eternally secure in Christ – that once a sinner is regenerated, he can never be lost.
Perseverance of the Saints – Calvinism
All who are chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved. They are kept in faith by the power of Almighty God and thus persevere to the end.
SUMMARY
According to Arminianism
Salvation is accomplished through the combined efforts of God (who takes the initiative) and man (who must respond) – man’s response being the determining factor. God has provided salvation for everyone, but His provision becomes effective only for those who, of their own free will, “choose” to cooperate with Him and accept His offer of grace. At the crucial point, man’s will plays a decisive role; thus man, not God, determines who will be recipients of the gift of salvation.
According to Calvinism
Salvation is accomplished by the almighty power of the Triune God. The Father chose a people, the Son died for them, the Holy Spirit makes Christ’s death effective by bringing the elect to faith and repentance, thereby causing them to willingly obey the gospel. The entire process (election, redemption, regeneration) is the work of God and is by grace alone. Thus God, not man, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation.
The above material was taken from The Five Points of CALVINISM – Defined, Defended, Documented. David N. Steele and Curtis Thomas, are Baptist ministers in Little Rock, Arkansas. Their contrast of the Five Points of Calvinism with the Five Points of Arminianism is the clearest and most concise form found for the edification of the average student. It is also included as an Appendix in, Romans: An Interpretive Outline by the same authors. Each of these books is published by the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Phillipsburg, N.J.
Doing Away with Hell? Part Two
Albert Mohler – Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
The doctrine of hell has recently come under vicious attack, both from secularists and even from some evangelicals. In many ways, the assault has been a covert one. Like a slowly encroaching tide, a whole complex of interrelated cultural, theological, and philosophical changes have conspired to undermine the traditional understanding of hell. Yesterday, we considered the first and perhaps most important of those changes — a radically altered view of God. But other issues have played a part, as well.
A second issue that has contributed to the modern denial of hell is a changed view of justice. Retributive justice has been the hallmark of human law since premodern times. This concept assumes that punishment is a natural and necessary component of justice. Nevertheless, retributive justice has been under assault for many years in western cultures, and this has led to modifications in the doctrine of hell.
The utilitarian philosophers, such as John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham argued that retribution is an unacceptable form of justice. Rejecting clear and absolute moral norms, they argued that justice demands restoration rather than retribution. Criminals were no longer seen as evil and deserving of punishment but were seen as persons in need of correction. The goal — for all but the most egregious sinners — was restoration and rehabilitation. The shift from the prison to the penitentiary was supposed to be a shift from a place of punishment to a place of penance, but apparently no one told the prisoners.
C. S. Lewis rejected this idea as an assault upon the very concept of justice. “We demand of a cure not whether it is just but whether it succeeds. Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether; instead of a person, a subject of rights, we now have a mere object, a patient, a ‘case’.”
Penal reforms followed, public executions ceased, and the public accepted the changes in the name of humanitarianism. Dutch criminologist Pieter Spierenburg pointed to “increasing inter-human identification” as the undercurrent of this shift. Individuals began to sympathize with the criminal, often thinking of themselves in the criminal’s place. The impact of this shift in the culture is apparent in a letter from one nineteenth century Anglican to another:
“The disbelief in the existence of retributive justice . . . is now so widely spread through nearly all classes of people, especially in regard to social and political questions . . . [that it] causes even men, whose theology teaches them to look upon God as a vindictive, lawless autocrat, to stigmatize as cruel and heathenish the belief that criminal law is bound to contemplate in punishment other ends beside the improvement of the offender himself and the deterring of others.”
The utilitarian concept of justice and deterrence has also given way to justice by popular opinion and cultural custom. The U.S. Constitution disallows “cruel and unusual punishment,” and the courts have offered evolving and conflicting rulings on what kind of punishment is thus excluded. At various times, the death penalty has been constitutionally permitted and forbidden, and in one recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, the justice writing the majority opinion actually cited data from opinion polls.
The transformations of legal practice and culture have redefined justice for many modern persons. Retribution is out, and rehabilitation is put in its place. Some theologians have simply incorporated this new theory of justice into their doctrines of hell. For the Roman Catholics, the doctrine of purgatory functions as the penitentiary. For some evangelicals, a period of time in hell — but not an eternity in hell — is the remedy.
Some theologians have questioned the moral integrity of eternal punishment by arguing that an infinite punishment is an unjust penalty for finite sins. Or, to put the argument in a slightly different form, eternal torment is no fitting punishment for temporal sins. The traditional doctrine of hell argues that an infinite penalty is just punishment for sin against the infinite holiness of God. This explains why all sinners are equally deserving of hell, but for salvation through faith in Christ.
A third shift in the larger culture concerns the advent of the psychological worldview. Human behavior has been redefined by the impact of humanistic psychologies that deny or reduce personal responsibility for wrongdoing. Various theories place the blame on external influences, biological factors, behavioral determinism, genetic predispositions, and the influence of the subconscious — and these variant theories barely scratch the surface.
The autonomous self becomes the great personal project for individuals, and their various crimes and misdemeanors are excused as growth experiences or ‘personal issues.’ Shame and guilt are banned from public discussion and dismissed as repressive. In such a culture, the finality of God’s sentencing of impenitent sinners to hell is just unthinkable.
A fourth shift concerns the concept of salvation. The vast majority of men and women throughout the centuries of western civilization have awakened in the morning and gone to sleep at night with the fear of hell never far from consciousness — until now. Sin has been redefined as a lack of self-esteem rather than as an insult to the glory of God. Salvation has been reconceived as liberation from oppression, internal or external. The gospel becomes a means of release from bondage to bad habits rather than rescue from a sentence of eternity in hell.
The theodicy issue arises immediately when evangelicals limit salvation to those who come to conscious faith in Christ during their earthly lives and define salvation as anything akin to justification by faith. To the modern mind, this seems absolutely unfair and scandalously discriminatory. Some evangelicals have thus modified the doctrine of salvation accordingly. This means that hell is either evacuated or minimized. Or, as one Catholic wit quipped, hell has been air-conditioned.
These shifts in the culture are but part of the picture. The most basic cause of controversy over the doctrine of hell is the challenge of theodicy. The traditional doctrine is just too out of step with the contemporary mind — too harsh and eternally fixed. In virtually every aspect, the modern mind is offended by the biblical concept of hell preserved in the traditional doctrine. For some who call themselves evangelicals, this is simply too much to bear.
We should note that compromise on the doctrine of hell is not limited to those who reject the traditional formulation. The reality is that few references to hell are likely to be heard even in conservative churches that would never deny the doctrine. Once again, the cultural environment is a major influence.
In his study of “seeker sensitive” churches, researcher Kimon Howland Sargeant notes that “today’s cultural pluralism fosters an under-emphasis on the ‘hard sell’ of Hell while contributing to an overemphasis on the ’soft sell’ of personal satisfaction through Jesus Christ.” The problem is thus more complex and pervasive than the theological rejection of hell–it also includes the avoidance of the issue in the face of cultural pressure.
The revision or rejection of the traditional doctrine of hell comes at a great cost. The entire system of theology is modified by effect, even if some revisionists refuse to take their revisions to their logical conclusions. Essentially, our very concepts of God and the gospel are at stake. What could be more important?
The temptation to revise the doctrine of hell — to remove the sting and scandal of everlasting conscious punishment — is understandable. But it is also a major test of evangelical conviction. This is no theological trifle. As one observer has asked, “Could it be that the only result of attempts, however well-meaning, to air-condition Hell, is to ensure that more and more people wind up there?”
Hell demands our attention in the present, confronting evangelicals with a critical test of theological and biblical integrity. Hell may be denied, but it will not disappear.
Doing Away with Hell?
Albert Mohler – Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
After reviewing the rise of the modern age, the Italian literary critic Piero Camporesi commented, “We can now confirm that hell is finished, that the great theatre of torments is closed for an indeterminate period, and that after 2000 years of horrifying performances the play will not be repeated. The long triumphal season has come to an end.” Like a play with a good run, the curtain has finally come down, and for millions around the world, the biblical doctrine of hell is but a distant memory. For so many persons in this postmodern world, the biblical doctrine of hell has become simply unthinkable.
Have postmodern westerners just decided that hell is no more? Can we really just think the doctrine away? Os Guinness notes that western societies “have reached the state of pluralization where choice is not just a state of affairs, it is a state of mind. Choice has become a value in itself, even a priority. To be modern is to be addicted to choice and change. Change becomes the very essence of life.” Personal choice becomes the urgency; what sociologist Peter Berger called the “heretical imperative.” In such a context, theology undergoes rapid and repeated transformation driven by cultural currents. For millions of persons in the postmodern age, truth is a matter of personal choice –- not divine revelation. Clearly, we moderns do not choose for hell to exist.
This process of change is often invisible to those experiencing it and denied by those promoting it. As David F. Wells comments, “The stream of historic orthodoxy that once watered the evangelical soul is now dammed by a worldliness that many fail to recognize as worldliness because of the cultural innocence with which it presents itself.” He continued: “To be sure, this orthodoxy never was infallible, nor was it without its blemishes and foibles, but I am far from persuaded that the emancipation from its theological core that much of evangelicalism is effecting has resulted in greater biblical fidelity. In fact, the result is just the opposite. We now have less biblical fidelity, less interest in truth, less seriousness, less depth, and less capacity to speak the Word of God to our own generation in a way that offers an alternative to what it already thinks.”
The pressing question of our concern is this: Whatever happened to hell? What has happened so that we now find even some who claim to be evangelicals promoting and teaching concepts such as universalism, inclusivism, postmortem evangelism, conditional immortality, and annihilationism — when those known as evangelicals in former times were known for opposing those very proposals? Many evangelicals seek to find any way out of the biblical doctrine that is marked by so much awkwardness and embarrassment.
The answer to these questions must be found in understanding the impact of cultural trends and the prevailing worldview upon Christian theology. Ever since the Enlightenment, theologians have been forced to defend the very legitimacy of their discipline and proposals. A secular worldview that denies supernatural revelation must reject Christianity as a system and truth-claim. At the same time, it seeks to transform all religious truth-claims into matters of personal choice and opinion. Christianity, stripped of its offensive theology, is reduced to one “spirituality” among others.
All the same, there are particular doctrines that are especially odious and repulsive to the modern and postmodern mind. The traditional doctrine of hell as a place of everlasting punishment bears that scandal in a particular way. The doctrine is offensive to modern sensibilities and an embarrassment to many who consider themselves to be Christians. Those Friedrich Schleiermacher called the “cultured despisers of religion” especially despise the doctrine of hell. As one observer has quipped, hell must be air-conditioned.
Liberal Protestantism and Roman Catholicism have modified their theological systems to remove this offense. No one is in danger of hearing a threatening “fire and brimstone” sermon in those churches. The burden of defending and debating hell now falls to the evangelicals–the last people who think it matters.
How is it that so many evangelicals, including some of the most respected leaders in the movement, now reject the traditional doctrine of hell in favor of annihilationism or some other option? The answer must surely come down to the challenge of theodicy — the challenge to defend God’s goodness against modern indictments.
Modern secularism demands that anyone who would speak for God must now defend him. The challenge of theodicy is primarily to defend God against the problem of evil. The societies that gave birth to the decades of megadeath, the Holocaust, the abortion explosion, and institutionalized terror will now demand that God answer their questions and redefine himself according to their dictates.
In the background to all this is a series of interrelated cultural, theological, and philosophical changes that point to an answer for our question: What happened to evangelical convictions about hell?
The first issue is a changed view of God. The biblical vision of God has been rejected by the culture as too restrictive of human freedom and offensive to human sensibilities. God’s love has been redefined so that it is no longer holy. God’s sovereignty has been reconceived so that human autonomy is undisturbed. In recent years, even God’s omniscience has been redefined to mean that God perfectly knows all that He can perfectly know, but He cannot possibly know a future based on free human decisions.
Evangelical revisionists promote an understanding of divine love that is never coercive and would disallow any thought that God would send impenitent sinners to eternal punishment in the fires of hell. They are seeking to rescue God from the bad reputation He picked up by associating with theologians who for centuries taught the traditional doctrine. God is just not like that, they reassure. He would never sentence anyone — however guilty — to eternal torment and anguish.
Theologian Geerhardus Vos warned against abstracting the love of God from His other attributes, noting that while God’s love is revealed to be His fundamental attribute, it is defined by His other attributes, as well. It is quite possible to “overemphasize this one side of truth as to bring into neglect other exceedingly important principles and demands of Christianity,” he stressed. This would lead to a loss of theological ‘equilibrium’ and balance. In the specific case of the love of God, it often leads to an unscriptural sentimentalism whereby God’s love becomes a form of indulgence incompatible with His hatred of sin.
In this regard, the language of the revisionists is particularly instructive. Any God who would act as the traditional doctrine would hold would be ‘vindictive,’ ‘cruel,’ and ‘more like Satan than like God.’ Clark Pinnock made the credibility of the doctrine of God to the modern mind a central focus of his theology: “I believe that unless the portrait of God is compelling, the credibility of belief in God is bound to decline.” Later, he suggested, “Today it is easier to invite people to find fulfillment in a dynamic, personal God than it would be to ask them to find it in a deity who is immutable and self-enclosed.”
Extending this argument further, it would surely be easier to persuade secular persons to believe in a God who would never judge anyone deserving of eternal punishment than it would to persuade them to believe in the God preached by Jonathan Edwards or Charles Spurgeon. But the urgent question is this: Is evangelical theology about marketing God to our contemporary culture, or is it our task to stand in continuity with orthodox biblical conviction–whatever the cost? As was cited earlier, modern persons demand that God must be a humanitarian, and He is held to human standards of righteousness and love. In the end, only God can defend himself against His critics.
Our responsibility is to present the truth of the Christian faith with boldness, clarity, and courage — and defending the biblical doctrine in these times will require all three of these virtues. Hell is an assured reality, just as it is presented so clearly in the Bible. To run from this truth, to reduce the sting of sin and the threat of hell, is to pervert the Gospel and to feed on lies. Hell is not up for a vote or open for revision. Will we surrender this truth to modern skeptics?
Current controversies raise this issue anew among American Christians and even among some evangelicals. Nevertheless, there is no way to deny the Bible’s teaching on hell and remain genuinely evangelical. No doctrine stands alone.
Publication date: March 8, 2011
A Short Summary of Sovereign Grace
adapted from multiple sources
The sovereign grace of God determines who will find salvation, not human decision. Human choices are crucial, but they are not the final, determining factor in bringing a person to final glory. That belongs to God’s sovereign grace.
1. Before the foundation of the world God chose (elected) whom he will save. God’s choosing is unconditional, not on the basis of foreseen faith that humans produce by a supposed power of ultimate self-determination (“free will”).
Acts 13:48, “When the gentiles heard this they were glad and glorified the word of God. And as many as were for ordained to eternal life believed.”
Romans 11:7, “Israel failed to obtain what is sought. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened.”
John 6:37, “All that the Father gives to me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out.” John 17:6, “I have manifested my name to them whom thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them to me.” (John 6:44, 65).
2. The Atonement, the sacrifice of Christ on behalf of those he came to save, applies to the elect in a unique, particular way, although the death of Christ is sufficient to propitiate the sins of the whole world. The death of Christ effectually accomplished the salvation for all God’s people.
Eph. 5:25, “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.”
Heb. 10:14, “By a single offering he perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”
John 10:15, “I lay down my life for the sheep.”
Rom. 8:32, “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how shall he not with him freely give us all things?”
3. Because of the Fall, humans are incapable of any saving good apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, called being born from above, or born again. We are helpless and dead in sin. We have a mindset that “cannot submit to God without divine enabling.
Rom. 8:7-8, “The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, it does not submit to God’s law; indeed it cannot. But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you.”
Eph. 2:1,5, “You were dead through your trespasses and sins.”
4. God’s call to salvation is effectual, and, hence His grace cannot be ultimately thwarted by human resistance. God’s regenerating call can overcome all human resistance.
Acts 16:14, “The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul.”
John 6:65, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted to him by my Father.” (Matt. 16:17; Luke 10:21)
1 Cor. 1:23-24, “We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God.”
5. Those whom God calls and regenerates He also keeps, so that they do not totally and finally fall away from faith and grace (apostasize).
Rom. 8:30, “Those whom he predestined, he also called and those whom he called he also justified and those whom he justified he also glorified.”
John 10:27-29, “My sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me; and I give them eternal life and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.”
Phil. 1:6, “I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Christ Jesus.” (1 Cor. 1:8).
1 Thess. 5:23, “May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly, and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful and he will do it.”
God’s sovereign grace is a doctrine found in the pages of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. Sovereign grace doctrine exalts God and humbles men. Anyone who would become prideful for having been chosen by God for salvation does not understand it. The one who would claim that God’s sovereign grace limits the free will of man does not understand the will of fallen men, nor does he understand the awesome power of God to being men to willing choose Christ.
Conclusion
Romans 11:36, “From him, through him, and to him are all things, to him be glory forever amen!”
How to Become an Atheist
by Ray Comfort
There are two main hard and fast rules for anyone who would like to become an “atheist.” If you are tempted, beware. It’s not an easy thing to do.
The first rule is to ignore design in nature. You will see it everywhere—from the planets, to the atoms, to the seasons, to the design of the human body, to the design of the birds and the bees, flowers, fruit, feet, and even fungus. And, of course, the amazing human eye. Everywhere you look and everywhere you can’t look, you will see design.
Now here’s the hard part: ignore your God-given common sense. Admit that everything man made is manmade, but be uncompromisingly adamant that everything in nature came from nothing, with no Designer. Once you have set aside your acumen to do this, crown yourself as being intelligent. Very. Then find other atheists who will confirm that you are indeed intelligent.
The second rule is to “believe.” This is very important, because if you let doubt in, it will let in fear, and that can be a scary thing when the issue at stake is a place called “Hell.”
Believe that you are right in your beliefs. Believe that evolution is indeed true. Believe that it’s scientific. Believe that there are no missing links, and believe that Richard Dawkins knows what he is talking about.
Believe that you are related to an ape, and therefore you are not morally responsible because apes have no moral absolutes. Believe that your conscience was given to you by your parents and society, and not by God (always use a small “g” for God, if possible).
To grow as an atheist, you will need to learn believers’ language—phrases like, “There is no creation,” “Evolution is a proven fact,” and the powerful “Flying Spaghetti Monster” argument. Learn the fine art of cutting and pasting quotes, and responding to evidence with “Straw man!” That means you won’t have to respond to anything challenging.
All this will give a perception of intelligence. Never question evolution, and don’t think for yourself.
Do these things, and you will be able to call yourself an atheist, or even a “new” atheist. How cool is that! Well, I should say, as much of one as you can be called one. No one can be a true atheist because you need “absolute knowledge” to say that there is no God. So until you are omniscient (like God), you will just have to do with pretending to be one.
From “Atheist Central.”
The Doctrine of Eternal Security and Hebrews 6:4-6
Of all the scripture passages that are quoted in the debate about the Eternal Security of the believer, perhaps this short passage in Hebrews is the one most used by opponents of Eternal Security to ‘hammer the nail in the coffin’, so to speak, of the possibility that those whom God saves, He keeps. The article that follows is the perspective of a Professor of Systematic Theology and presents a Reformed (Calvinistic) perspective.
Perseverance of the Saints
by Douglas Kelly
In my many years as a professor of theology and conference speaker, one of the questions I am most frequently asked is, “Doesn’t the Reformed (or Calvinist) tradition teach the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints?” “Yes, it does,” I reply. “But how can a Bible-believer teach something like that since Hebrews 6 says that people who once became Christians turned away from faith in Christ and lost their salvation?” is the common response. I have always felt that this is an honest question that deserves an honest answer. Let me devote this brief article to what, I hope, is a fair and biblical response to those who sincerely believe that Hebrews 6 teaches that believers can lose their salvation.
Just before this point in the epistle, the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ has been lifted up as the only way sinners can enter into the eternal rest of God. True faith in Christ’s priesthood takes us spiritually into the heavenly places (Heb. 4:14 and Eph. 2:6), even while we are still on earth physically. Eventually our bodies will be raised and taken there as well. The reality of our High Priest bearing us upon His heart into heaven means that as we pray in Jesus’ name, we are taken directly to “the throne of grace,” where we “obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Heb. 4:14–16). Surely all of God’s people will be given the grace they need through the mercy of their High Priest to get them to their final home, where He is.
Thus, for a believer, who is being represented directly by the High Priest, to be lost before he reaches heaven would imply that the High Priest is weak and powerless. Jesus, however, has been given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18). He is the great Shepherd who gives His sheep eternal life, and nothing can pluck them out of the Father’s hand (John 10:28–29). The same Lord prayed to the Father in John 17 that the Father would keep those whom He has given the Son (v. 11) and that not one of them would fail to get to heaven to behold their Savior’s glory (v. 24).
So then, what does Hebrews 6:4–6 mean? If human language means anything, then these verses teach that some people, who experienced great privileges with the Holy Spirit and Christ Himself, can become apostate, die, and tragically wind up in hell. Five massive spiritual experiences are attributed to these people in Hebrews 6:4–5: They were once enlightened, tasted of the heavenly gift, made partakers of the Holy Ghost, tasted the good Word of God, and tasted the powers of the world to come. Yet in spite of such glorious experiences in the very midst of the church, they may fall away so that it is impossible to renew them again to repentance (Heb. 6:6).
What can this be but a sad and solemn illustration of what Jesus taught about the seed that fell on rocky ground, received the word with joy, grew rapidly, but soon dried up because it had no roots (Matt. 13:5–6, 20–21).
As the Holy Spirit ministers in the life of the church, the seeds of truth are spread everywhere. Even unbelievers are profoundly influenced as the Spirit ministers to His people. The Spirit ministers in answer to prayer (Luke 11:13), He ministers in worship, and He ministers in Word and Sacrament. In His work among the sheep, His power is felt by all — even by those who are not sheep but goats.
People who are never born-again by the Holy Spirit can be touched by His tender and mighty power in such a way that causes them to break down and weep. People who never submit to Jesus as Savior and Lord are able to feel the anointed preaching of the eternal Gospel of God. Thus, they have really been enlightened; they have tasted of the powers of the world to come and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit.
Nevertheless, as wonderful as such impressions are, some are never born-again. The feelings and impressions get no deeper than seed on stony ground. There will be superficial growth for a time, and many will express joy that comes as a result of being around the ministry of the Spirit. But, as a seed without roots dries up, the professing faith of the unregenerate vanishes.
It would take a greater mind than my own to comprehend pastorally and psychologically how people can have such spiritual impressions and not believe. Indeed, I have grieved to see it more than once. But as tragic as it is to see, the experiences listed in Hebrews 6 in no way constitute an argument against the perseverance of the saints. Rather, it shows how high some can go in terms of spiritual experiences, without going all the way to a saving knowledge of God in Christ.
What must we say to those who have strayed? It is the same thing that the author of Hebrews says to us: If we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firmly unto the end, we can rest assured that we are the house of Christ (Heb. 3:6). If those who have strayed humble themselves in prayer and repentance, they will find a throne of grace and a seat of mercy (Heb. 4:15–16).
Dr. Douglas F. Kelly is Richard Jordan Professor of Systematic Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina. The article is available online here.
Eisegesis Unplugged – Matt 12:31-32
To refresh your memory:
Eisegesis (from Greek εἰς “into” and ending from exegesis from ἐξηγεῖσθαι “to lead out”) is the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one’s own ideas, reading into the text.
What follows is from an actual forum thread about the Eternal Security of the Believer:
The passage in question:
“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.” – Matt 12:31-32
The ‘no kidding’ comment from an adherent of the ‘you can ‘jump’ out of the Father’s hand’ school of thought:
“This passage indicates that the unforgivable sin of blasphemy can be committed only by someone who was a true Christian or truly saved.”
In context, we have Jesus speaking to some Pharisees after he cast a demon out of a person and they (the Pharisees) said it was by the power of Beelzebub that Christ did it. the blasphemy charge was directed to those who rejected Christ! Wondering how anyone could make such a ridiculous claim?
Well……there was a ‘companion passage’ from Hebrews:
“For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance..” – Heb 6:4-6
The ‘companion’ verse is of course only about genuine believers and taken ‘together’ they ‘prove’ that a genuine believer in Christ can blaspheme the Holy Spirit, remain unforgiven, and of necessity end up in Hell. Never mind that the passages are set in two completely different contexts, one is the opposite of the ‘point’ being made, and the other has been fought over for a couple of centuries.
What we have here is an all to common attempt to prove what someone ‘needs’ to believe about the Eternal Security of the believer (it’s not possible) to support the concept of ‘self-determining’ free will.
It’s not the first time someone has approached scripture in order to ‘prove’ a particular point. I do however think this one rather ‘clumsy’, especially with the Matthew passage turned upside down like that. I have never heard that passage used to prove only Christians can blaspheme the Holy Spirit. I think I’d have a better shot at ‘proving’ that Ezekiel’s Wheel was the Starship Enterprise.
The Battle Cry 