Friday, June 18, 2010

The Miracle Of Healing vs. Skepticism?

(Click "Read More" to watch the video)

I want to say that the blogosphere is an interesting tool. There are all kinds of people who claim to have some sort of expertise on some sort of subject. There is probably more argumentation over God and miracles than anything else on the internet including internet porn. One one hand this is a good thing that there is robust conversation and that conversation is about God, on the other hand the misinformation that centers around God and miracles is astounding. That misinformation seems to create its own culture of either internet miracle proponents or internet miracle critics and professional critics and skeptics like Michael Shermer, James Randi and others, who are modern thinkers who are scientifically centered. (so they say) These are  individuals who follow Humes thoughts that miracles don't exist as we discussed in an earlier post The Miracle Of Life After Death.

To these individuals it really doesn't matter what anyone's personal experience with God is or what anyone has experienced so far as healing by the hand of God. Yet they persist in calling others close-minded. First, for them, God doesn't exist. Secondly, all things that are not understood in the current realm of reality are chalked off to simple ignorance or lack of knowledge of some natural process. Therefore, critics such as these men play the "naturalistic faith card" to explain what they don't currently understand saying that "We'll understanding it better (by and by) when science comes". So the critic applies a "faith" in science with an expectation that science will answer all things even if its not in their lifetimes...This is revealing. It is called Scientism or Philosophical Materialism, and is actually the worship of the creature (science) and not the creator. 

Romans 1:20-25 ~ "20-For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21-Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22-Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23-And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24-Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25-Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."  

Read more!

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Has God Condemned Some While Saving Others?

2 Peter 3:9 ~"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

In my post on the Dunamis Word 2 'Is Reformed & Evangelical Theology Biblical? Pt. 2' recent discussion has focused on God's purpose and sovereignty as it pertains to the salvation of the individual. Simply put, the question is this:

Did God create some individuals to be saved while simultaneously creating others to be condemned eternally?

Within reform circles this is often referred to as Limited Atonement. This is said to be the L of TULIP. The acronym TULIP represents the 5 Points Of Calvinism outlined as follows:
Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)
To be fair, not all individuals who hold to Reformed or Evangelical doctrine espouse a straight line or fundamental interpretation of this doctrine, but many do who are unashamed to declare it. This type of teaching seems to be more on Parr with a cumulative case type of argument building upon many different types of additional doctrines.

Popular Versions Of Limited Atonement

As noted in the previous article, the Reformed Blacks Of America address the issue of Limited Atonement by distinguishing the difference between the power and the extent of the atonement of Jesus' on the cross. Though the power of the Cross is sufficient for all, the effect of the Cross is only efficacious for those who God has deemed to be elect for salvation. Therefore Jesus didn't die for all, he only died for the elect. They sum it up in the following manner:
“Jesus died and rose for those whom the Father predestined. If God were to die for all, then all would be saved. The atonement is sufficient for all, but not efficacious for all. The atonement is accomplished and eternally secured for the elect through the cross of Christ. Christ did not die a hypothetical death for every single human being, but rather a real death for his people, his sheep whom he actually and really saves. Therefore, the atonement is not limited in power, but in extent.”
John Calvin himself seems to have taught that some are simply born to be lost. The following is a recitation of his teaching on the issue:
“…(God) does not create everyone in the same condition, but ordains eternal life for some and eternal damnation for others.” (Cited in Alister McGrath, Christian Theology, p. 396) 

Read more!