tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post115573366424913584..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: The "It's not for me to say" dodgePhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger111125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-28315171887042866812008-12-21T18:19:00.000-08:002008-12-21T18:19:00.000-08:00Religion is Futile, even for Billy Graham.See the ...Religion is Futile, even for Billy Graham.<BR/>See the PUBLIC Confession or Apostacy of Mr graham and trace it back to his early days with Rome and the works religions of men. along with the fear of men:<BR/><BR/>http://boerseuntjie.multiply.com/video/item/2<BR/><BR/>http://apprising.org/2006/07/evangelical-inclusivism-is-older-than-you-think/<BR/><BR/>http://apprising.org/2008/09/roman-catholicism-billy-graham-we-are-brothers/<BR/><BR/>The day my idolatry was shattered was when Mr Grahams comments in PUBLIC became known to me, without any refuting from him. I do not take any joy in sharing these links; but have a very confusing comment from Mr Graham's office:<BR/><BR/>http://www.billygraham.org/MyAnswer_Article.Asp?ArticleID=1651<BR/><BR/>Then we MUST consider the Qualifications of an Elder, which includes being BLAMELESS... I sMr Graham still QUALIFIED as an Elder?Boerseuntjiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12823588390354919031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1166216606111663512006-12-15T13:03:00.000-08:002006-12-15T13:03:00.000-08:00Phil Johnson said:Meanwhile, the confusing stateme...<B>Phil Johnson said:</B><BR/><BR/><I>Meanwhile, the confusing statements--which go back to the 1970s--add up to very troubling evidence that Graham himself is a committed "inclusivist" <B>(though I would grant that Graham is probably not a full-fledged universalist)</B>.</I><BR/><BR/>Why would a "full-fledged universalist" even bother to preach the gospel?Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18196737077210254855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155853723075110322006-08-17T15:28:00.000-07:002006-08-17T15:28:00.000-07:00I believe that everyone acknowledges and desires s...<I>I believe that everyone acknowledges and desires some sort of spiritual "grace"; however, I think that those who don't accept it are put off by how the often dogmatic theologies in religion conflict with observed realities </I><BR/><BR/>I take it you are a universalist then? <BR/><BR/>Does it strike you that this is the same attitude that the guilty always take in earthly courts? That is, they first deny they are responsible for their own actions, then they challenge the authority of the court to judge them.Craig Schwarzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156017639962303656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155853543252351862006-08-17T15:25:00.000-07:002006-08-17T15:25:00.000-07:00Cheers DJP, thanks mateCheers DJP, thanks mateCraig Schwarzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156017639962303656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155831763427350432006-08-17T09:22:00.000-07:002006-08-17T09:22:00.000-07:00CraigS -- your input on this comment-thread, to us...<B>CraigS</B> -- your input on this comment-thread, to use an Americanism, <B>rocks</B>.<BR/><BR/>My favorite: <I>But we can't abstract the attributes of God from the scriptural revelation of them</I><BR/><BR/>I'm using that.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155823464142058972006-08-17T07:04:00.000-07:002006-08-17T07:04:00.000-07:00Hey Mark,'I believe that everyone acknowledges and...Hey Mark,<BR/><BR/>'I believe that everyone acknowledges and desires some sort of spiritual "grace"' <BR/><BR/>I'd like to believe this, but aside from Romans 1-2, I've seen evidence that some people really don't (with the knowledge or 'light' they're given) desire grace. I'll mention just two:<BR/><BR/>* I once saw a teenager with a Marilyn Manson shirt on, and it said something to the effect of, "Are you gonna let eternity in hellfire keep you from having any fun?" <BR/><BR/>* An unbelieving couple we've gotten to know here in the UK were planning on getting married and were getting marriage counseling at the Church of Scotland church where they would be having their ceremony. They thought agreeing to this would be a gesture of appreciation to the church. The guy once joked as we were talking about their experience in counseling, "We'll just be going for that ... it's not like we want them to save our eternal souls or anything." He said this in jest, and I don't know how much he really knows about the Lord (we've shared a bit), but given the light he has, at present he isn't interested in hearing about God's love for him. <BR/><BR/>Sad, but true.Chris Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08832290458905110111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155821682673492812006-08-17T06:34:00.000-07:002006-08-17T06:34:00.000-07:00Thanks guys for fielding my questions. I promise I...Thanks guys for fielding my questions. I promise I do not comment to be an irritant, but I felt the "tribesmen" case was important to talk through. I appreciate all the responses.<BR/><BR/>craigs - <BR/><I>Mark, perhaps you can answer a question that no synergist has been able to answer - according to your scheme, *why* is it that some accept and some reject God's grace?</I><BR/><BR/>Honestly, as I said before (holding to Dr. Craig's view of general revelation in nature), I believe that everyone acknowledges and desires some sort of spiritual "grace"; however, I think that those who don't accept it are put off by how the often dogmatic theologies in religion conflict with observed realities (i.e. science). Whether people are conscious of these conflicts, or have simply adopted popular views, I believe that people are swayed by what is now considered scientifically impossible. I believe that everyone is quite serious about their place in the universe, and, consequently, very cautious of getting "duped." Accepting a God who gives mercy discriminately as opposed to giving mercy to all free agents who choose to accept it, I'm sorry to say, comes across as a dupe to modern man.Mark W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05035426215243471845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155819417949054432006-08-17T05:56:00.000-07:002006-08-17T05:56:00.000-07:00Hi Don,I appreciate your comments and agree wholeh...Hi Don,<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your comments and agree wholeheartedly. The hardest part of the Gospel for folks seems to be the premise that everyone is starting out short of the glory -- not just 'flawed' with innocent 'shortcomings' -- but possessing real guilt. None of us deserves anything. <BR/><BR/>That's what makes grace amazing, no? <BR/><BR/>I'd perhaps nuance what you said about Graham by saying he didn't temper his large sense of compassion with an equally large sense of truth/justice. I think what we all need is to max out in both, like our Lord. I'm sure this is what you had in mind too.Chris Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08832290458905110111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155816930479393682006-08-17T05:15:00.000-07:002006-08-17T05:15:00.000-07:00hc ross,I appreciate you bringing in those verses ...hc ross,<BR/><BR/>I appreciate you bringing in those verses of Scripture.<BR/><BR/>"What shall we say then?" Rom. 9:14<BR/><BR/>It sounds like God is unjust. On the contrary, God is infinitely merciful.<BR/><BR/>We are totally undeserving, and incapable of doing anything except being selfish and unthankful. And God has mercy on people who hate Him, and don't want His mercy.<BR/><BR/>What an awesome Lord to save me from myself!<BR/><BR/>Billy Graham is a man I admire in so many ways.<BR/>But his weakness, in my way of seeing it, was, and is, his over-emphasis on compassion. He genuinely loves people. And we should all be like him in this regard.<BR/>But his theology was weak because he would not let the truth rule his heart, but it seems he let his heart rule the Scriptures.<BR/>And this is a lesson for us all. And it is certainly a stuggle for me. I have a tendency to take the truth and make it fit my personality. <BR/>However, with the help of the Holy Spirit working through the Church I am kept in check by so many brothers and sisters in Christ, as we read, study, and meditate upon the Bible together.<BR/>Thanks be to God.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155807148436966162006-08-17T02:32:00.000-07:002006-08-17T02:32:00.000-07:00[Is there such a thing as 'comment fatigue'? We ma...[Is there such a thing as 'comment fatigue'? We may need to create that term if we continue ...]<BR/><BR/>Actually, I just wanted to thank you, Phil, for the wealth of info you left on Billy Graham above in the comments. All your experiences in ministry and publishing have proved to be a great blessing for us all.<BR/><BR/>A great blog this. God bless.Chris Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08832290458905110111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155805107213257072006-08-17T01:58:00.000-07:002006-08-17T01:58:00.000-07:00The emphasis tends to be more to: "If you do not r...<I>The emphasis tends to be more to: "If you do not repent, you too will perish".</I><BR/><BR/>I dare say "too" is an important word, here. That presupposes that some other entity, to whom "you" are being compared, has already perished, does it not?<BR/><BR/><I>It tells us how to make sure we are on the right side of the line; it tells us the criteria which will determine whether others are on the right side of the line; it does not enable or warrant us to make that determination for ourselves.</I><BR/><BR/>And if someone dies who can only match the criteria for the "wrong side of the line," we can determine—<BR/><BR/>Well, I guess we can't determine anything, because such a determination strikes at the heart of a comfortable agnoticism which doesn't offend those in grief over the death of a loved one.<BR/><BR/>Hell is a reality. There are real, particular, and specific persons who are going to end up there, just as in heaven. It isn't tactful or kind to tell someone that their recently-deceased relative has only hell to look forward to, but in my estimation, it is no better to hold out the hope of heaven for the dead where no such hope is warranted.<BR/><BR/>Apart from faith in Christ, damnation is all that remains. And we ought not to be ashamed of that truth, though it offend the whole world. The death of a sinner is far less offensive than the sins of a sinner.Kyjohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02576699017770933239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155803857110787342006-08-17T01:37:00.000-07:002006-08-17T01:37:00.000-07:00Translation: An unknowable and undeserving elite a...<I>Translation: An unknowable and undeserving elite are divinely "picked" to receive mercy while others in exactly the same predicament are left to eternal torment without having any choice in the matter?</I><BR/><BR/>They already made their choice: they chose to hate God. No one is condemned because he ended up on the losing end of some divine lottery and never heard about Christ; he is condemned because he is a sinner, and as a sinner he hates God and loves wickedness. That is what makes the regenerating work of the Spirit and the hearing of the Gospel of Christ necessary for anyone to be saved. If some do not hear, that is God's prerogative—they never deserve to hear because they were sinners. Those who do hear have been shown mercy by God—and if they do not then repent, they have earned a double condemnation for themselves. The Jews, who had the special revelation of the Law, were the more condemned for their failure to obey, than were the Gentiles who had only the general revelation.<BR/><BR/><I>Hmm, sounds like the kind of justice extended to African Americans pre-civil rights.</I><BR/><BR/>If you think blacks were all justly deserving of death at the hands of whites, then yes, it would sound similar. But I don't think that, and I'm willing to bet no one commenting here does, either. However, in the case of God and man, man IS justly deserving of death at the hand of God. So the scenario is rather different.<BR/><BR/><I>Actually this reasoning looks like a fairly typical Calvinist problem - that of begging the question:<BR/>Q: "So, how do you know that God's children will all have the opportunity to hear the gospel?" <BR/>A: "Because God's children are always among those who will have heard the gospel."<BR/>Uh, yeah...that's just the question spit back at me.</I><BR/><BR/>Christ, through His death redeemed a people whom God chose, and God established means by which those people would be brought back to him in time: namely, through the preaching of the Gospel. If God wishes to save anyone in accordance with His own plan, He must ensure that that person will hear the Gospel—and since God cannot fail at anything He sets out to accomplish, there can be no doubt that all whom God has chosen for salvation shall certainly hear the Gospel.<BR/><BR/>There is, in short, no such thing as a person whom God wants to save, but who never hears the Gospel.Kyjohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02576699017770933239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155803644262511982006-08-17T01:34:00.000-07:002006-08-17T01:34:00.000-07:00I'm not quite sure what you're saying in your post...I'm not quite sure what you're saying in your post, Dan. Are you saying that the answer to, say, the fourth of your point-blank questions is, "Yes, of course your mother's in hell", or is the answer, "Never mind your mother, let's talk about <I>you</I>, and what will happen to you if you don't repent"?<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure I can think of a single example in the NT, other than Judas, where Jesus or an apostle specifically says, in so many words, "This specific, named person who died without faith is now in hell". The emphasis tends to be more to: "If <I>you</I> do not repent, you too will perish". (Admittedly, both Graham and Wright fall well short even of this response in the quoted paragraphs.) <BR/><BR/>The Law tells each of us that we face damnation for our sin; the Gospel tells each of us that Jesus has died to bring us forgiveness, life and salvation. It tells us how to make sure we are on the right side of the line; it tells us the criteria which will determine whether others are on the right side of the line; it does <I>not</I> enable or warrant us to make that determination for ourselves.<BR/><BR/>As Aslan puts it, "No-one is told any story but their own".John Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074559601919298190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155802763651466632006-08-17T01:19:00.000-07:002006-08-17T01:19:00.000-07:00MW,I think you're under the impression that you ca...MW,<BR/><BR/>I think you're under the impression that you can work out God's plan and counsels BY logic -- but you can't. Notice that the Apostle notes, very conspicuously, the parts of God's plan that SEEM, in human estimation, unjust. And he dismisses the conclusions that man comes to by logic with a response many have found unsatisfactory -- but there it is (Rom. 9:20-21): <BR/><BR/>"But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Why have you made me like this?' Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?"<BR/><BR/>Romans 9:13-23 is especially relevant to this conversation.Chris Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08832290458905110111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155802694669617212006-08-17T01:18:00.000-07:002006-08-17T01:18:00.000-07:00Because the entire divine redemptive plan for the ...<I>Because the entire divine redemptive plan for the universe which God brought into being with perfect foreknowledge was, in the most powerful sense, caused by HIM. Thus, the very existence of every soul not-receiving mercy in a universe where some are receiving mercy would be evidence against God's omnibenevolence.</I><BR/><BR/>If this is the case, for God to withhold His mercy from Satan himself would be evidence against God's omnibenevolence—and what a grand absurdity that would be.<BR/><BR/>God is benevolent in allowing human beings to live life with a modicum of enjoyment at all—to eat, drink, marry, love, have sex, study creation, raise children, etc.—these are all inestimable gifts from God. This is what is frequently termed "common grace." Yet none of these is salvific; in themselves, since the Fall, they only reveal the depravity of man who does not obey God even when He has showered him with good things. They show that man is rebellious and ungrateful, and as such worthy of death. Even man's complaints about his estate are sinful, for he must rely on the sustaining hand of Divine Providence to make complaint against God! And all of this man does, not under any compulsion, but out of the freedom of his own nature.<BR/><BR/>Why, then, is it incumbent upon God to show mercy unto salvation to such creatures as these? And if it is indeed incumbent, then it is no longer mercy, but justice—for mercy can never be made obligatory on the benefactor, nor can it be deserved by the beneficiary. In which case, God is no longer merciful <I>and</I> just, but <I>only</I> just.<BR/><BR/><I>I don't see how one could hold on to omnibenevolence without revelation avaliable to all. This is the only scenario wherein the responsibility falls upon man, not God.</I><BR/><BR/>There is general revelation available to all, through the created world. This revelation would be sufficient for a man in Adam's created estate, who was not spiritually dead, and who could perfectly obey God's commandment—for creation reveals that man are obligated to obey God. (Prelapsarian Adam didn't need to be "saved.") But in the fallen estate, wherein man is corrupted in all aspects of his being, all that such general revelation can do is condemn him: he knows that he is obligated to obey God, and that the just penalty for failure to do so is death, but he does not obey God—and he does not obey God because he <I>does not want to</I>.<BR/><BR/>This is what general revelation, and even the special revelation of the Law leaves us with: the just condemnation of God.<BR/><BR/><I>Romans 3:23 identifies our "own" sins - not Adam's.</I><BR/><BR/>Adam's sin is our own, much as Christ's righteousness belongs to those in Him; read Rom. 5.<BR/><BR/><I>If I am to be condemned for my own actions, I must have the opportunity to be confronted with knowledge of the consequences of my actions, otherwise I should be held as innocent.</I><BR/><BR/>Paul's point in Rom. 1 and 2 is precisely that: through the created world and their own consciences, all men are confronted with their rebellion against God and suppression of the truth concerning Him, leaving them justly condemned. Consider once more my discussion of the effects of general revelation above.<BR/><BR/>It is precisely at this point that the Gospel becomes important—not because God would somehow be unjust in not providing for our redemption, but because it is beyond human comprehension that the holy, righteous, and just God would love a sinful world in such a way that He would give His only-begotten Son to die for believers.<BR/><BR/>Salvation, and the things necessary to it, are the results of God's <I>mercy</I>. They must never be conceived in any terms that would make them an obligation upon God or the due reward of men. Men do not deserve to escape their condemnation, and God is under no obligation to provide them with the option of escaping.Kyjohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02576699017770933239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155802608415044032006-08-17T01:16:00.000-07:002006-08-17T01:16:00.000-07:00Mark, perhaps you can answer a question that no sy...Mark, perhaps you can answer a question that no synergist has been able to answer - according to your scheme, *why* is it that some accept and some reject God's grace?Craig Schwarzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156017639962303656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155802510091431662006-08-17T01:15:00.000-07:002006-08-17T01:15:00.000-07:00Translation: An unknowable and undeserving elite a...<I>Translation: An unknowable and undeserving elite are divinely "picked" to receive mercy while others in exactly the same predicament are left to eternal torment</I><BR/><BR/>Yes - it is called "grace".<BR/><BR/><I>Hmm, sounds like the kind of justice extended to African Americans pre-civil rights.</I><BR/><BR/>So, what you are saying is that Calvinists are morally equivalent to lynch mobs? Helpful.<BR/><BR/><I>Actually this reasoning looks like a fairly typical Calvinist problem - that of begging the question:<BR/>Q: "So, how do you know that God's children will all have the opportunity to hear the gospel?"<BR/>A: "Because God's children are always among those who will have heard the gospel."<BR/>Uh, yeah...that's just the question spit back at me.</I><BR/><BR/>The correct answer to your question is "Because God has promised He will save His people." We believe His promise. You are creating problems where they don't exist. <BR/><BR/>The real issue is that you don't like the God revealed in Scripture.Craig Schwarzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156017639962303656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155798361106886522006-08-17T00:06:00.000-07:002006-08-17T00:06:00.000-07:00kyle - You and Dr. Craig imply that God would be u...kyle - <BR/><BR/><I>You and Dr. Craig imply that God would be unjust for condemning a person without giving them sufficient revelation to be saved. The question is, Why?</I><BR/><BR/>Because the entire divine redemptive plan for the universe which God brought into being with perfect foreknowledge was, in the most powerful sense, caused by HIM. Thus, the very existence of every soul not-receiving mercy in a universe where some are receiving mercy would be evidence against God's omnibenevolence. I don't see how one could hold on to omnibenevolence without revelation avaliable to all. This is the only scenario wherein the responsibility falls upon man, not God. Romans 3:23 identifies our "own" sins - not Adam's. If I am to be condemned for my own actions, I must have the opportunity to be confronted with knowledge of the consequences of my actions, otherwise I should be held as innocent.Mark W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05035426215243471845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155796935251998382006-08-16T23:42:00.000-07:002006-08-16T23:42:00.000-07:00craigs - The elect receive mercy. The reprobate re...craigs - <BR/><I>The elect receive mercy. The reprobate receive justice. No-one receives injustice. The problem you posit simply doesn't exist.</I><BR/><BR/>Translation: An unknowable and undeserving elite are divinely "picked" to receive mercy while others in exactly the same predicament are left to eternal torment without having any choice in the matter? Hmm, sounds like the kind of justice extended to African Americans pre-civil rights. <BR/><BR/>Also - <I>For the monergist, "those who haven't heard" do not present a problem, as God knows who His children are and will ensure that they hear the gospel.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually this reasoning looks like a fairly typical Calvinist problem - that of begging the question:<BR/>Q: "So, how do you know that God's children will all have the opportunity to hear the gospel?" <BR/>A: "Because God's children are always among those who will have heard the gospel."<BR/>Uh, yeah...that's just the question spit back at me.<BR/><BR/>Clear these up too?Mark W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05035426215243471845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155796322142655262006-08-16T23:32:00.000-07:002006-08-16T23:32:00.000-07:00Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Omnibenevolence (whi...<I>Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Omnibenevolence (which implies "justice").</I><BR/><BR/>You and Dr. Craig imply that God would be unjust for condemning a person without giving them sufficient revelation to be saved. The question is, Why? There isn't a soul who deserves such revelation, and so it cannot possibly be unjust to withhold it from any.Kyjohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02576699017770933239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155794038737676222006-08-16T22:53:00.000-07:002006-08-16T22:53:00.000-07:00However, I think Dr. Craig's view is more logicall...<I>However, I think Dr. Craig's view is more logically solid given the attributes of God.</I><BR/><BR/>You would need to develop this. But we can't abstract the attributes of God from the scriptural revelation of them. The Bible not only tells us that "God is love" - but it also tells us what that looks like. <BR/><BR/><I>My problem with Calvinism is that I've never seen it able to deliver the "just" God that it promises.</I><BR/><BR/>Strange, it seems to me to deliver a perfectly just God. God will judge every man perfectly according to the revelation they have. All are sinful, so all will be condemned, apart from the objects of God's mercy. <BR/><BR/>The elect receive mercy. The reprobate receive justice. No-one receives injustice. The problem you posit simply doesn't exist.<BR/><BR/><I> Simply retorting that God's justice is "unknowable" is not any stronger a position than the statements Phillips is condemning in his post.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree. Fortunately I've never "retorted" that God's justice is unknowable. It is perfectly knowable, and I've just explained it above.Craig Schwarzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156017639962303656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155792531686328442006-08-16T22:28:00.000-07:002006-08-16T22:28:00.000-07:00centuri0n - My assertion was hardly a mere "drive ...centuri0n - My assertion was hardly a mere "drive by." Any rhetorician can see that the exaggerated descriptions such as "ultra-scholarly academic" and specifically chosen metaphors like "verbal lubricant" being used to describe the "sophisticated" theologians whom Phillips is criticizing are language choices deliberately invoking a common, negative intellectual stereotype and applying it to those Phillips is arguing against...Rather underhanded <I>ad hominem</I> if you ask me. Perhaps I should have been more specific and said "anti-academic."<BR/><BR/>craigs - Thanks for the precise and articulate comments to me. I can tell that you are certainly trying to solve the theodical quandry of Phillips' "tribesmen" in a logical way. However, I think Dr. Craig's view is more logically solid given the attributes of God. My problem with Calvinism is that I've never seen it able to deliver the "just" God that it promises. Simply retorting that God's justice is "unknowable" is not any stronger a position than the statements Phillips is condemning in his post. At least Craig's view maintains the traditional theodical attributes of the Christian God: Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Omnibenevolence (which implies "justice").Mark W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05035426215243471845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155790813491962282006-08-16T22:00:00.000-07:002006-08-16T22:00:00.000-07:00Well brother Dan... look at what you've gone and d...Well brother Dan... look at what you've gone and done <B>this</B> time!<BR/><BR/>I noted this post to read later, and at the time it had 30something comments. I came back to 90something! I almost never read all the comments all the way through, but I have to tell you:<BR/><BR/>This was a great post, and the comment thread discussion was quite likely one the best I have read in a long time.<BR/><BR/>I'm glad I came back later. :o)<BR/><BR/>SDG,<BR/>CarlaCarla Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09395062089776262435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155788905231715252006-08-16T21:28:00.000-07:002006-08-16T21:28:00.000-07:00This post was not only well written it was an insp...This post was not only well written it was an inspiration in good apologetics.jazzycathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16720471765591930568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155786901157928482006-08-16T20:55:00.000-07:002006-08-16T20:55:00.000-07:00William Lane Craig far overstates his case, and re...William Lane Craig far overstates his case, and really, he turns the meaning of Rom. 1 & 2 on its head; Paul's meaning is not that one can be saved apart from knowledge of Christ, but that everyone has sufficient knowledge to be condemned.<BR/><BR/>At any rate, it seems Dr. Craig didn't read on to ch. 3:<BR/><BR/><I>We have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written,<BR/><BR/>"There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one. There throat is an open grave, with their tongues they keep deceiving, the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood, destruction and misery are in their paths, and the path of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes." <BR/><BR/>Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.</I><BR/><BR/>And perhaps he also missed ch. 10:<BR/><BR/><I>For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." </I>[cf. Acts 4:12] <I>How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!" However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.</I><BR/><BR/><I>Sola fide</I>!Kyjohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02576699017770933239noreply@blogger.com