In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will -Ephesians 1:11

Holding, in response to the Calvinistic understanding of Ephesians 2:20 gives this reply:

Yes, but if this is inclusive of literally all things, then what of these passages?

Matt. 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

All things are possible for God -- yet as skeptics are fond of pointing out, it is not possible for God to lie (Heb. 6:18). It is also obviously impossible for God to wish Himself out of existence, or to make 2 and 2 actually equal 5, or to make a stone so heavy He cannot lift it. "All things" here clearly does not include certain things but is expressive of a certain context. One more example will suffice:

Mark 4:34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.

As I have noted elsewhere, "All things? Including the living habits of sea slugs?" The example is facetious, but nevertheless makes a certain point. "All things" is not a literal expression but has contextual limits; the phrase expresses completeness within a context.

Holding commits a serious mistake by taking one or two verses that say "all things" (But clearly cannot mean so) and then juxtaposes it to Ephesians 1:11 to make it fit his line of thinking. Suppose we grant that all things cannot mean "all things". What then about this passage:

For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.- 1 John 3:20 (Emphasis Mine)

Does this mean that God does not know some things? Hardly. This is obviously what happens if you follow Holding's conclusion to its logical end.

One thing to note is that the passages that Holding cite can clearly be shown that to interpret it literally would lead to an absurd conclusion. However, would interpreting Ephesians 1:11 or 1 John 3:20 literally lead to a ridiculous conclusion? No. Likewise, I do not see any reason why we should grant that the "all things" in Eph. 1:11 does not mean "all things" unless it can be shown within the context that to interpret it literally would lead to absurdity.

**

On other matters, I'll be away from blogging for perhaps about a week, as I'll be crazy in preparations for my college (Orientation being five days away). I'll try to get back ASAP!

Haven't been blogging for quite a while since my eyes started hurting badly...turned out I'm having conjunctivitis. My sight is much better now. God willing, it'll clear up.

Anyway, I've pretty much nothing new at the moment to serve up...so, I guess you'll have some chilled dinner (typed up around three weeks ago).

***
It looks like we have been living in the "last days" for about two thousand years already. Strangely enough, it is only now, after the likes of so many terrorist attacks and natural disasters do the majority of Christians really believe that they are living in the last days.

I must confess I've been having a paradigm shift in my eschatological framework since I last wrote "A Bit On Eschatology". I was much more lenient towards the different end-time flavors. Unfortunately, I've been hardened a little bit- no thanks to a recent conference I attended on eschatology.

The speaker there was an Israeli ministering in Jerusalem (Though not a Jew; he's a Japanese-American) and I knew it was gonna be a bad day when:

1. He only had a M.Div (Okay, perhaps I'm a little too harsh on the qualifications since he is light-years ahead of Hal Lindsey already, but still, perhaps something more would make me a feel a little more secure listening to him)

2. Also, another pastor started the conference with a prayer. In the middle of it he said, "may he deliver the church from replacement theology...". Not that I have any problem with his comments on replacement theology, but I have a strong feeling people like him will throw fits everytime someone mentions "preterism". I also noticed they were selling "The End Times Controversy" by Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice. They sure are gonna throw fits now.

3. The guy with the M.Div ripped certain verses from their context and boldly said to a crowd of over a thousand Christians that "this verses predict the return of the Jews to Israel in 1947!" Ugh.

4. When we had to pay TWENTY BUCKS A PERSON to enter. The food wasn't even good.

After sitting through a whopping eight hours of "Israel is God's timepiece" chit chat (and those who think otherwise are anti-semites, by the way), it would be only proper for me to say that I'm not convinced; and that I am still none the wiser when it comes to serious, scholarly exegesis of eschatological texts. And to also say that we definitely have to get out of our theology more often- to expose ourselves to the differing views on prophecy. Most have only heard the dispensational side of the story, I'm sorry to say.

I'm pretty much fed up of countering hyper-charismaticisim and horrible spiritual warfare theology, and now, it looks like I might just have to start training up to jump into the realm of eschatology.

Lock and load, baby!

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.' Matthew 7:21-23

These passages bring out a disturbing implication: There are some who profess Jesus as their Lord and even do miracles, but nevertheless on Judgement Day He would disown them. This brings to mind another question: Will there be people who think they are save (and other people would think that they are too) but in the end, end up going to hell? "The implications", as I like to say, "are clear."

Many have said that we have underestimated the size of the church. That the church is "bigger than we think". That there are more people saved than we could imagine. Perhaps so. But what if we have overestimated the size of the church? What if the church is even smaller than we think? Perhaps it would be time again to reconsider what Jesus said in Matthew 7:14, "For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

Phil Johnson blogs on the ongoing conversation between the definition of essential and unessential doctrines. I think the more important thing is between heresy and orthodoxy. I've not really thought about this issue in detail, but perhaps I'd sometime address it. Until then, I point to you an article written by Blomberg. I haven't read it in detail, but since its written by a great scholar, its worth a read.

Typical hormone driven teen critiquing popular Christianity. Parents who attend a church that can be safely classified as belonging to the "popular Christianity" denomination. (No, not my church. We attend different churches and they don't like that either) Do the math, and you get some rather less-than-happy parents.

Actually, I resent the label of me being a critic of "popular Christianity". This is not Slice Of Laodicea (Sorry Ingrid!). I'm just a simple fifteen year old kid who enjoys reading Phil Johnson, Challies, and Steve Hays. And I happen to take the study of theology (and the critique of bad theology) as somewhat like a hobby (Beats wasting your time with those MMORPGs out there, eh?) though I do take apologetics somewhat more seriously. But don't misunderstand- this is not like a game to me. I do it by the Book. You know what I refer to. Being faithful to God. Thinking of Christ.

Anyway, my parents are of the brand of Christians who, well, pit faith against reason. "Take that leap of faith" (so they say) when I mention apologetics. "The Bible is a simple book". That's when I mention theology. And unfortunately, they're not happy with me being active in both areas. Oh, and did I mention that they are charismatic and I'm not? I guess I have now. And yes, you guessed it: they're not happy with that either.

It gets rather frustrating when I try to establish my case for this things. Arguing against a LDS on whether the Book of Mormon is historically accurate is much easier than putting forth the case for taking serious theology and engaging in apologetics with your parents, apparently. Everytime when I utter something in defense (or offense) it kind of cuts into your heart. You're arguing against your parents. Not very nice.

They are, also, pretty much fed up with me bringing back home books on apologetics and theology (Though my church library has come in handy, though even then, the books I borrow are subject to scrutiny). And my father makes those baptist jokes everytime he sends me to church. Ouch. And no, I don't retaliate with such things as "How many charismatics does it take to change a lightbulb". I've never ever thought of such things. I love and respect them.

That is why, also, I feel heavy-hearted everytime they express objections against me going to my church, or everytime I read something related to apologetics (or theology). Its not like I want to disobey my parents. I can't because its against the Word of God, and the whole idea of teen rebellion, is, like, so lame! Especially when you have a very strong views on such things like God's laws and commands. On the Lordship and Sovereignty of God. On Calvinism.

Speaking of the Doctrines Of Grace, I'm rather hesitant to reveal my "reformed" status to them. What are the different reactions I expect when I expound the Five Points to them? Two, I reckon. Calmly accepting it (and maybe even attending my church) or freaking out and SOSing for the nearest Arminian pastor. I do pray that it will be the former.

But perhaps its because I'm only fifteen and I'm already studying Kantian philosophy. Maybe its because I'm writing against the New Perspective on Paul, vigorously defending the imputation of Christ's righteousness (I'm not much interested in the FV/Auburn Avenue controversy though) against people who've read too much N.T. Wright- uncritically. I don't really know. But perhaps I've given you a little too rosy picture of my intellectual prowess (Hehe). Let me show you how "teenaged" I am.

For starters, I hate maths (I suck at it to boot). Physics? Chemistry? Good gosh...don't even talk to me about those things. I guess that would be enough to convince you. If it wasn't for me homeschooling, I would have most certainly crashed and burn in public school. (Oh, and to add something to that, I've grown a little contempt for the government schools. Too much Van Til, me thinks. Darn antithesis been bugging me. Grrr...)

But I guess I've digressed too much. Its about my parents, not me, after all. Anyway, all I ask my Lord is this: That He will help my parents see that what I'm doing is according to His word. But, if I'm wrong, I would ask Him to show me my errors and to help me turn away from them. Amen, and Soli Deo Gloria!

Mystical revelation claimed by many in the interim as a personal privilege is out of keeping with the genius of Biblical religion. Mysticism in this detached form is not specifically Christian. It occurs in all types of religion, better or worse. At best it is a manifestation of the religion of nature, subject to all the defects and faults of the latter. As to its content and inherent value it is unverifiable, except principle of submitting it to the test of harmony with scripture. And submitting it to this it ceases to be a seperate source of revelation concerning God. -Geerhardus Vos

On my previous post I linked to Challies' take on Campolo's recent response to the Katrina disaster. Now, I link to Steve Hays' assessment. To add a brief response of my own, I'll critique this paragraph (that really got me scratching my head):

Perhaps we would do well to listen to the likes of Rabbi Harold Kushner, who contends that God is not really as powerful as we have claimed. Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures does it say that God is omnipotent. Kushner points out that omnipotence is a Greek philosophical concept, but it is not in his Bible. Instead, the Hebrew Bible contends that God is mighty. That means that God is a greater force in the universe than all the other forces combined.

Now this is truly amazing. Since, as Campolo says, that God is a greater force than all the other forces combined (Which would include Katrina and even Death, no?) shouldn't it be logical that He should be able to stop this from happening? Apparently not for Tony. I suppose this is what happens when you stick "love" at the top of the list of God's attributes (making it His central one) and then say its not God's fault when people die (else He would've stopped it).

Ah well, enough of that. We all know that God is sovereign, and we know that he could've stopped this disaster from happening. But he didn't. Perhaps if we start with the affirmation of God's absolute sovereignity-maybe then we can move onward towards a biblical solution.

Ah yes, the weather is wonderful. Not too hot, not too cold. Perfect.

Anyway, I would like to bring to your attention James White reply to the IMonk's recent post. It focuses on mainly Spencer's assessment of White's replies to another article he has written ("I'm Not Like You"). You can find White's response here (Scroll down toward the lower part). I think it shows clearly who is the one with a problem.

On other matters, I'm about to slog through some of Plato's major works (From Phaedo to the Republic) as an assignment. Only God knows whether I'll come out a platonist =).

Challies brings to light Campolo's response to the recent disaster in the US brought about by Katrina. Tim concludes with saying that, "This is outright, blatant heresy. It is unbiblical and dangerous. Avoid this man and his teaching!"

Read it for yourself and decide. For me, at least, I agree with Challies.

One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." - Titus 1:12

The person Paul quotes is believed to belong to the Cretan poet Epimenides. One thing troubled me though: Was Paul aware of this statement's paradoxial nature?

For, the quote clearly says that Cretans are always liars etc. If it is true, then this statement is false!

However, a quick glance on Paul's use of quotations from other pagan poets (Such as in Acts 17:28) shows that he did it to make a point rather than to use it seriously. I propose that Paul's quotation should be taken lightly, and only used by him to make a point. In this regard, I think the skeptics are wrong to say that Paul didn't know the nature of what he was quoting.

I'm scratching my head at the hoo-ha Phillip Johnson has created with this piece of satire against the folks at BHT. Now, if this is about political correctness, then so be it. I suppose this would have been nothing had Johnson featured an all male cast. Darn feminism.

As Jus Divinum aptly put it, "What's next on the agenda? The scandalous exposure of the apostle Paul as giving 'tacit approval' to emasculation (Gal 5:12)?"

And (Surprise, surprise) the Internet Monk (animal or monastic, I don't know), Michael Spencer has posted yet another article lamenting his treatment by the "Truly Reformed Folk" (A very convenient label to apply to us, like McLaren's "Modernists"). I suppose when I have the time I'll parody it. Or, perhaps to keep it serious, I'll give a reply.

I haven't been blogging lately due to the fact that I have not been in the best of health for the past few days. And yes, you guessed it. I'm writing about Katrina.

Well, perhaps not about it, but about a problem raised by it: the problem of evil. We Christians, of course, have had our fair share of the different theodicies offerred to solve this problem. I have been content with the explanation that God has a morally sufficient reason for letting evil exist (I do not, by the way, subscribe to the popular free will theodicy as I see it to be problematic, though I will not discuss it here).

So I think that would be the best answer to give someone (especially a skeptic) when he asks you about this "problem". Of course I expect an immediate objection: What is the reason for God allowing evil to exist? I will not seek to answer this question here; rather, I pose a simple yet deadly question to the skeptic: What is evil?

Answers has been given to that question: ranging from Kant's categorical imperative to other more subjective reasons. I will not go into a complete refutation of each of these answers here, but suffice to say, one would be hard pressed to prove your definition of evil to be the true one (Considering that there are other definitions out there, all of them conflicting with each other). In this regard, it all boils down to a preference over others.

So, then, if the skeptic states his answer to your questions and goes on to state that that is the reason why he sees such a thing as evil, one can just as easily reply to the contrary and state that it is not! Doug Erlandson has written a more technical explanation in his article "A New Perspective On Evil" (You can find it here) of this:

Let us call the foundation F. F (e.g., the categorical imperative, greatest happiness principle, etc.) cannot itself be part of the system of morality. If it were, it could not serve as the foundation of the system. Rather, F must be a statement (or statements) about the moral system (such statements are sometimes known as metaethical statements ).

At the same time F does not appear to be a statement about a state of affairs (or states of affairs) in the world. If it were, we should expect general agreement on whether it is true or false. At the very least, its proponents should be able to tell us how its truth or falsity could be determined. Metaethical statements, however, are typically open to great dispute. For instance, many people reject the categorical imperative and the greatest happiness principle.

Perhaps F is true by definition. (Kant seemed to treat his categorical imperative in this way.) Competing ethical systems, however, have conflicting metaethical statements. Therefore, if these statements function as definitions, they appear to be arbitrary.

The only remaining alternative is that F consists of statements of preference. Any system of morality which they uphold, then, is entirely subjective. The proponents of such a system cannot rightly question the moral rightness or wrongness of any action. When they do, they are merely expressing their preferences.

If the anti-theist were truly honest he would say nothing more than, "I personally don't like the idea of God allowing evil" or "evil is determined subjectively." He has no right to say anything more. In particular, he has no justification for asserting that a totally good God would not permit preventable evil.

Only with one presupposing the Christian Worldview (and the laws given by God in the Bible) can one seek to use the problem of evil against God. One should not hesitate to point this out to the skeptic that he cannot help but depend on the truth of the Bible!