Remembering Va. Tech, Holding onto Faith

danieljacob76 »

Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

The fact is, we don't know all of God's purposes. We must faithfully acknowledge that God is behind every single happening in the creation - though He does this without sin. Our action may be sinful, but He can and does both ordain and use these same events to further His holy purposes:
"But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased." Ps. 115:3
"...being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counseld of his own will:" Eph 1:13
"But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive." Gen 50:20

Florida School Board Hears Final Evolution Arguments

danieljacob76 »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:53 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

Most Christians - even "fundamentalists" aren't opposed to the teaching of Darwinian evolution as a theory or an idea, but we are opposed to the teaching of it to our children as dogma. Private Christian schools and the bulk of homeschoolers will in fact teach their students about Darwinian evolution, but not teach it as the settled answer concerning the big question of origins and that it is "fact." A problem I see consistently in both camps is the sloppy use of language. We must not employ the "shell game" when we use our words. "Change over time" is NOT Darwinian evolution! Creationists believe in change over time. Creationists believe in natural selection. This is not the thing we're arguing against! However, we ARE arguing over the pervasive dogma of molecules-to-man evolution. Molecules-to-man evolution is not simply "change over time." It is natural selection paired with random mutation hat somehow results in the ADDITION of information to the genome (thus the idea of a single-celled creature being the progenitor of human beings and such.) This is something that is definitely not proven and has not been observed. There has been no mechanism discovered to show how Darwinian evolution can do this. All we have been able to see through our direct observations of "change over time" is LOSS OF INFORMATION. There are significant problems with Darwinian evolution. Children should be exposed to the truth about this and not subjected to deceitful word games. Christians should also be very clear in their discussions about this topic as to be more effective.

Study Reveals Most Religious Nations in the World

danieljacob76 »

Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:03 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

I somewhat dislike studies like this because I see them as somewhat disingenuous and misleading. "Relgious" is a slippery word. If "religious" simply refers to accepting certain propositions by faith and acting upon them, then we are all equally religious: Billy the Kid is as religious as Billy Graham, and Charles Finney as religious as Charles Darwin. The truth is, there are no "brute" facts. Every "fact" is an interpreted fact as seen through a pre-theoretical grid of one's presuppositions and/or unprovable axioms. This holds true for the beliefs and conclusions of the most atheistic or skeptical anti-supernaturalist scientists as it does for the greatest Christian evangelists and theologians.

Poll: 1 Out of 6 Won’t Vote for Mormon President

danieljacob76 »

Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:13 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Hesadanza,

You say:
"Do you mean to suggest that members of the LDS Church do not know their own doctrine? This is almost laughable. Scott Gordon said it well, "It amazes me that some anti-Mormons claim that Mormons don't know their own beliefs and only anti-Mormons know what Mormons 'really' believe. How can we believe something if we don't even know what it is? ... It can't be a belief of the Mormons if the Mormons don't believe it."

I see that maybe I should have said it differently. Of course I don't think that Mormons don't know what they believe - though I do think self-deception is possible (case in point: millions of professing Atheists - though the Scripture in Romans 1 says that the fact of God's existence is manifest and is truly known by all.) In any case, what I should have said is that many LDS do not know what MORMONISM (as a system of doctine) teaches. I wouldn't use all caps normally, but I can't do italics on this! I say this in the same sense that I say that there is a general ignorance among Christians in regard to what CHRISTIANITY (as a system of doctrine) historically teaches. If a professing Protestant or Catholic Christian and a professing LDS person think that Mitt Romney's statement that Jesus Christ is the savior of mankind and the Son of God means that we all share the same belief about Jesus then clearly someone (or all) do not know their doctrine and the content of that confession historically. LDS doctrine teaches that "God" (Elohim) was a man from another planet that became a god - of this universe - and that Jesus was physically begotten via the Father and Mary's union. Christian doctrine teaches that there is ONE God of ALL creation who exists eternally in three persons: Father, Son, Holy Ghost. The nature of the atonement is also different between the systems, as is the nature of Jesus. Again, it is ignorance of MormonISM and ChristianITY as systems - and not the general mass of people not knowing what they personally believe.

Poll: 1 Out of 6 Won’t Vote for Mormon President

danieljacob76 »

Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:50 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hezadanza, there is a difference between proof and persuasion that needs to be recognized. Something can be logically disproved, but still people are not persuaded. This is because we tend to cling tenaciously to our beliefs. This holds true for orthodox Christianity as well as the Mormonism. The fact that 13 million LDS have not been persuaded to think otherwise simply means they have not been persuaded. There are millions more Muslims than there are Mormons. Truth is not something determined simply by majority opinion.

Concerning the attacks of critics, check out http://www.aomin.org/
Dr. White has interacted with Mormon apologists and scholars perhaps more than anyone else. More importantly though, he frequently goes back to LDS primary source documents and interacts with them. Just as in orthodox Christianity today, there is a general ignorance of today's LDS in regards to the history and doctrines of the church they profess to be a part of.

As for looking to the heart to determine truth, refer to Jeremiah 17:9, Proverbs 13:13, andProverbs 14:12.
Look also at 1 Thes. 5:21 and Acts 17:11.

Southern Baptists Debate Calvinism, Urge Cooperation

danieljacob76 »

Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:50 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 3

Has anyone commented yet on the history of the SBC? The SBC founders had a strongly Calvinistic confession. The truth of the doctrines of Grace (i.e. Calvinism) do not rest on John Calvin, his former Roman Catholic priesthood, or even his character. They rest on the authority of the Scripture. "World" does not always mean the entire human population of the world, for one thing. There are three greek words that are all translated as "world" - but the greek words have different meanings. We must look at context. Also, "All" does not always mean every human being on the planet. For instance, do you believe the Roman census directed by Caesar Augustus went out to China, the Australian aborigines, the South Pacific Islands, and Northern America and its natives? Of course not. The "..desires all men to be saved..." passage in second Peter comes directly after a command by Peter to pray for various sorts of people. The "all" simply means that God desires ALL those kinds of people to be saved - not just peasants, not just kings, not just Jews, and so on.

Yes, God is a God of love, but he also is sovereign over hearts. He is the Potter, we are the clay. We are still commanded to evangelize because God not only ordains the ENDS, but He ordains the MEANS also. Calvinism doesn't teach that we somehow "know" who the elect are. Only God does, and He does because he has worked out all things according to the counsel of His will. We are to show love and proclaim the Gospel to everyone. Read the passages of John 6, John 8, and John 10. In John 10, Jesus said the pharisees didn't believe because they were not His sheep, not the other way around. God's sovereign love and choice can be seen in John 6 and John 8 as well.

Two other things: 1)The Great Awakening was strongly Calvinistic. Sure, John Wesley (who broke from Calvinism) was part of it, but Edwards and Whitfield were staunch Calvinists and were major movers in that movement. 2) The number of baptisms should not be used as an indicator of success. The numbers game encourages light and shallow professions of faith and the numbers of baptized individuals who remain members of the church bear this out. Evangelism is successful if it is non-comprimising, preaches the full counsel of God, and is followed up by discipleship and growth.

I think the current discussion of Calvinism is a good thing.

Christian Groups Claim Religion-Purged 'Golden Compass' Movie Promotes Pro-Atheism Books

danieljacob76 »

Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:12 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 5

Pumman's contention religion being used “to dominate and suppress human freedoms" makes no sense in light of his atheism. Without a God and the moral absolutes that come with it, why should it be wrong to supress human freedoms? With no Lawgiver, life is simply the survival of the strongest. In an atheist universe there are really no freedoms at all. We do the things we do simply because we have to do them. All our actions and thinking are the result of physical causes and according to the impersonal laws of physics and biology. He opposes the implications of his own worldview. His hatred of, and opposition to Narnia is laughable. What place does Pullman have as some sort of moral crusader when his worldview implies we are simply matter-in-motion?

Obama to Throw Star-Powered Gospel Music Concerts

danieljacob76 »

Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:15 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Someone needs to press Obama on the reason(s) behind his "personal" opposition to abortion. There is a difference between opposition due to distaste (such as distaste for broccoli) and opposition because of moral conviction. If he is opposed to abortion because of the former cause, we have no reason to commend or support him. If he is opposed for the latter reason (conviction), then HOW CAN HE NOT support overturning Roe v. Wade? If he truly believes that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life then his pro-choice position is absolute lunacy. If the issue were chattel slavery would he be "personally" opposed but not willing to act? I think not.

www.danslongrun.blogspot.com