If God Does Exist ~ Why Is There Death And Suffering?

Tonight I had a dialogue on Facebook with a new Facebook Friend from Canada, whom I will call Friend 1 - and another gentleman from England whom I will call Friend 2, although we are not yet Friends on Facebook.   

Friend 1 had posted a photo of large fire and flooding among a community of homes, which he later said was caused by an earthquake and tsunami.  I am not sure where or when this event occurred.  However he sees this as proof that God does not exist.

Friend 1 from Canada posts:  Proof that an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing god does not exist.

Bill Gray responds:  Just curious, how is a man-made fire proof that God does not exist?  God does not stop man from doing dumb things.  But, He does offer eternal life to all who will believe and receive His wonderful gift. 

Friend 1 tells me:  That's not a man made fire.  It's flooding and fire due to an earthquake and tsunami.

Bill Gray:  And, how does that prove that God does not exist?  

Friend 1:  Bill, Millions of children die of diseases and starvation in Africa every year.  Think about the parents of these children.  If God loves these children and can do anything, then he must not know about the suffering.  If God loves these children and knows everything, then he must be incapable of doing anything about the suffering.  If God knows everything and can do anything, then he must not love the children and their parents.  In a nutshell, such a god must be impotent or malevolent.

Friend 2 from England joins in:  There is suffering in the world; including the suffering of innocents with no rhyme or reason.  Due to completely random freak accidents - lives are snuffed out whilst others are ruined.   Could an almighty God not easily prevent all this suffering and make the cosmos a vale of happiness, fulfillment, and joy?

The fact that this suffering exists either proves that God does not, in fact, exist - or that, despite all the unbearable suffering, there is a point to existing in this universe and we gain enough from it to make it worthwhile.  My money's on the latter.

Bill Gray:  I will respond to both your comments. When God created the first man, Adam - He gave Adam the gift of Free Will, the ability to make a choice. Man was given the ability to choose between loving and following God - or denying Him.

Why did God give man that freedom to choose?  Assuming you are married - did you force your wife to marry you? Or did she choose to marry you of her own free will? If you had to forced her to marry you - are you sure she even wants to be your wife?

It is the same with God.  God's love is perfect and given freely.  He wants YOU to love Him just as freely.  So, He gave you the freedom to choose.

When Adam, using his Free Will chose to disobey God, his disobedience brought sin and death (physical and spiritual) into the whole creation.  Because God's Justice is also perfect - that Justice has to be satisfied.  If you commit a crime and go before a judge - that judge will pass a sentence, or punishment, on you - and that sentence must be satisfied.  In that respect, you have a crime debt to be paid - just as man, because of Adam, has a sin debt to pay.  And, the penalty for that sin debt is death.

Why is Adam's sin passed down to all mankind?  Well, actually, it is not.  But the effect of his disobedience caused changes that are passed down to all mankind. Adam's sin of disobedience brought both physical death and spiritual death into the creation.  Before that, neither existed - it was a perfect world. 

We read in Genesis 1:31 the culmination of His six days of Creation, "Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was VERY GOOD. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day."  In other words, God had created the perfect world and had placed Adam in that perfect garden called Eden.

Adam's sin of disobedience changed all that.  For Adam's personal sin, he was cast out of his perfect garden home, Eden, and forced to live in a world which had been corrupted by his sin.  His sin brought spiritual death, i.e., a total disconnect between God and him - and this spiritual disconnect passed down to all of Adam's descendants.  That is part of our DNA now, no spiritual connection with God.  In other words, we are born not knowing God.  In that sense, we are born with the curse of the Adamic Sin Nature.

However, because God's Love is perfect - He had a plan, a way for man's sin debt to be paid.  He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die in our place, to pay our sin debt. Christ took the sins of all mankind on His shoulders and died on the cross to pay our sin debt.

Through that death which He suffered for us - we all have the Free Will means of now choosing to follow God or to deny God.  When we choose to follow Him, we once again have spiritual life.

Adam's sin brought both physical death and spiritual death to the whole creation.  By receiving Christ's free gift of spiritual life - we have a secure eternal life - but, physical death is still in the creation meaning that all people will die physically.  The only people who will not die physically are those believers who are alive when Christ comes for His church and are raptured (1 Thessalonians 4:17).

When man, Adam, chose to turn from God and become disobedient, i.e., sin - that brought death and disruption into the whole creation - disrupting all the natural phenomenon and creating such things as earth quakes and tsunamis.  And, those natural disruptions do cause famine, hunger, and suffering to many people.

Could God stop all that suffering?  Yes and No.  Yes, because He is omnipotent, all powerful, He has the power to stop it.  But, NO, because all of God's attributes are perfect and complete - meaning that His attribute of Love which would put an end to all suffering - has to balance against His attribute of Justice - which demands payment for sin.  God cannot choose to let one attribute outweigh another.  So, because His attribute of Justice is perfect - He cannot stop the suffering.

But, in His perfect Love, He did send His Son, Jesus Christ, to offer every single person an opportunity to believe and receive eternal happiness and joy with no more suffering, ever again.  If you will believe and receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior - He gives you a firm promise that YOU will spend a joyful and blessed eternity in the presence of pure Love, God.

If you refuse this wonderful gift - then YOU are condemning yourself to an eternity of pure hell.  All people WILL live eternally.  Your choice is: will you spend it in eternal joy - or will you spend it in eternal hell?  THE CHOICE IS YOURS!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Should "X" Replace "CHRIST" In Christmas?

This week I received an e-mail from Ligonier Ministries which shared the article "What Does the X in Xmas Mean?" written by the Reform theologian, R. C. Sproul, Calvinist author, pastor, and founder/chairman of Ligonier Ministries.  And, I must say this is not the first time I have disagreed with Dr. Sproul.  Normally I disagree with him on his Calvinist view of Predestination - even though that belief does not affect his standing with our Lord.

However, when he starts to justify replacing CHRIST with an "X" (regardless of his justification) in CHRISTmas - I take that personally.   Is there a precedence for using "X" to mean Christ in Christmas?   Well, some Liberal theology followers may think so and our secular friends will agree with them.  However, most anything which takes God or Christ out of our communities is acceptable to those in the secular society.

The following article is what I received from Dr. R.C. Sproul's Ligonier Ministry, with my notes inserted:

What Does the X in Xmas Mean?
From R.C. Sproul, Dec 19, 2016,  Ligonier Ministries
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/why-is-x-used-when-it-replaces-christ-in-christmas/

The "X" in Christmas is used like the R in R.C.  My given name at birth was Robert Charles, although before I was even taken home from the hospital my parents called me by my initials, R.C., and nobody seems to be too scandalized by that.

Bill Gray Note:  “Christ” comes from the Greek word Christos, meaning “anointed one” - the equivalent of the Hebrew word Mashiach, or “Messiah.”  Jesus is the Lord’s human name given to Mary by the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:31).  Christ is His title - signifying Jesus was sent from God to be our King and Deliverer (see Daniel 9:25; Isaiah 32:1).  So, unless Dr. Sproul's name means that he, R.C. Sproul, was sent from God to be our Deliverer - using his initials is NOT the same as mislabeling Christ as "X."

"X" can mean so many things.  For example, when we want to denote an unknown quantity, we use the symbol "X."  It can refer to an obscene level of films, something that is X-rated.  People seem to express chagrin about seeing Christ’s name dropped and replaced by this symbol for an unknown quantity "X."  Every year you see the signs and the bumper stickers saying, “Put Christ back into Christmas” as a response to this substitution of the letter "X" for the name of Christ.

First of all, you have to understand that it is not the letter "X" that is put into Christmas.  We see the English letter "X" there, but actually what it involves is the first letter of the Greek name for Christ.  Christos is the New Testament Greek for Christ.  The first letter of the Greek word Christos is transliterated into our alphabet as an "X."  That "X" has come through church history to be a shorthand symbol for the name of Christ.

Bill Gray Note:  The "X" abbreviation was first used in the mid 1500s.  "X" is the Greek letter “chi” - the initial letter in the word Χριστός.  And Χριστός in Greek does mean “Christ.”   The secular world and many Liberal Christians will tell us that "X" has been an acceptable representation of the word “Christ” for hundreds of years, known as a Christogram.   They also use that logic to dignify using "Xtian" in place of the word Christian. 

God's name - whether it be God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit - is holy and should be honored - not abbreviated, shortened, nor condensed.   Exodus 20:7, "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain .  .  ."  Substituting anything for His name, i.e., changing His name in any way - could be viewed as taking His name in vain.  And, I, personally, would not want to take that gamble.

The Greek spelling for ichthus is - Iota, Chi, Theta, Upsilon, and Sigma.  The English translation is IXOYE.  The five Greek letters stand for the words meaning, "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior."  The Greek rendering is, "Iesous Christos, Theou Uios, Soter."   He is the Christ, not the "X."

There’s no "X" in Christmas:  We don’t see people protesting the use of the Greek letter theta, which is an O with a line across the middle (θ).  We use that as a shorthand abbreviation for God because it is the first letter of the word Theos, the Greek word for God.

Bill Gray Note:  While I have often seen folks trying to replace Christ with an "X" - I don't ever recall a single time seeing the Greek letter theta used to replace God.  Maybe in some theology class a student might use the shorthand theta in place of God - but how much more effort does it really take to write the word "God"?

The idea of "X" as an abbreviation for the name of Christ came into use in our culture with no intent to show any disrespect for Jesus.  The church has used the symbol of the fish historically because it is an acronym.  Fish in Greek (ichthus) involved the use of the first letters for the Greek phrase “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.” 

So the early Christians would take the first letter of those words and put those letters together to spell the Greek word for fish.  That’s how the symbol of the fish became the universal symbol of Christendom.  There’s a long and sacred history of the use of "X" to symbolize the name of Christ, and from its origin, it has meant no disrespect.

Bill Gray Note:  During the reign of Emperor Nero (54 A.D.- 68 A.D.), and throughout the reign of subsequent evil emperors of the Roman Empire, Christians were commonly persecuted, tortured, and put to death because of their faith in Christ Jesus. 

In order to prevent this unnecessary capture and persecution, Christians would often draw an "ichthus" (fish symbol) in the dirt, mud, sand, or on the walls of caves to let another Christian know that he, too, was a fellow believer of Christ and that it was safe to talk about their faith without the fear of being turned in.

Yes, early Christians did use the Christian fish (ichthus) to identify themselves when meeting in public.   The "Ichthus" or "Ichthys" is a valid Christian symbol, just as is the cross.   However, if an "X" can replace Christ, then why didn't those early Christians merely draw an "X" in the sand or dirt to identify themselves? 

It would seem to me that drawing an "X" in the sand takes less effort that drawing a fish.   The "X" is only a pagan symbol used by those who would deny God and mock Him and our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  It has no other purpose that is valid.

On December 26, 2010, in the Religion Forum of my hometown newspaper, the TimesDaily, a discussion was begun by Vic, a forum Friend who identified himself as a Roman Catholic. 

His post raised the question,  "Is Xmas A Bad Thing?"  In this dialogue, he attempted to justify the use of "X" to replace CHRIST in CHRISTmas.  And, typical of secular logic, he attempts a misdirection, i.e., to tie this slight against Christians and our Lord, to valid symbols recognized in the Christian faith.

He begins this discussion suggesting, "The X is also a symbol of Jesus in the fish, the Jesus Fish, on the back of so many cars.  But I haven't found a lot of info on that yet."

And, in a later post in that discussion he tells me, "Another example is the symbol of the fish, one of the earliest symbols of Christians that has been found scratched on the walls of the catacombs of Rome.  It likely originated from using the first letter of several titles of Jesus (Jesus Christ Son of God Savior).  When combined these initial letters together spelled the Greek word for fish (Ichthys, ichthus)."

I responded to him:

Vic, I am happy you bring this up - for the use of the Christian fish (ichthys or ichthus) has nothing whatsoever to do with the non-believer's insistence upon replacing CHRIST with an "X" in Christmas.

Let's take a look at that practice.  Actually, the writing of CHRISTmas is not that much more difficult than writing Xmas.  So, why do non-believers do this?  I would say it is only because they want to denigrate our Lord and insult Christians.  Mocking our Lord and Savior is a game to them; much like the kids who will taunt and tease animals.

But, let me clarify the issue.  If a person is so feeble and weak that the writing of four more letters would be detrimental to his health - then, I have no problem with that person writing Xmas instead of CHRISTmas.  But, to be very honest with you; I do not believe it has anything to do with the person being weak; at least, not physically weak.

As I said - that practice is in no way related to the early Christians use of the "fish" symbol.  Nor does it relate at all to Christians today using the "fish" as a symbol of our saving relationship with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

So, my Friends, let me leave you with this Scripture passage:

Philippians 2:5-8, "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bond servant, and coming in the likeness of men.  And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

Philippians 2:9-11, "Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

And, since God gave Him the name Jesus Christ - how can we attempt to change or abbreviate His Holy Name?

Let us all remember that it is Merry CHRISTmas, a name given by God Himself.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed Merry Christmas,

Bill

We Need God Back In America! ~ On December 18, 2012, I Posted A Tribute

ON DECEMBER 18, 2012, I POSTED THE TRIBUTE BELOW to the children killed at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, when 20 children between six and seven years old, as well as six adult staff members were killed by a gunman.  At that time, after four years of Liberal Socialist reign under Obama - it was so obvious that America needed God, Jesus Christ, back in our schools. 

Why do we need God back in our schools?   Because it is at an early age, in the home and in our schools - when the minds of our young children are greatly influenced.  And, we have to make a choice:  Do we want those minds influenced toward walking with God?  Or do we want them influenced toward following the secular society which is increasingly birthing more and more acts of mass violence?

But, unfortunately, in 2012 that was yet to be, for Obama had been given another four years to pull America into the chasm of racism, radical divide, and anti-God laws and executive orders.  Yes, in 2012, for another four years God would not be welcomed in our schools and public venues - and the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre was the beginning of that period when we would see other massacres such as San Bernardino, Orlando, and many others all across America.

This article from 2014 is very telling:

Rate of Mass Shootings Has Tripled Since 2011,
Harvard Research Shows
Why claims in media that mass shootings aren't increasing are wrong. 
By Amy P. Cohen, Deborah Azrael, and Matthew Milleroct15, 2014
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/mass-shootings-increasing-harvard-research

Editor's note: The authors are scholars from the Harvard School of Public Health and Northeastern University; this article details their independent research, which is based on the mass shootings data Mother Jones has collected and published since 2012.

In June, following gun attacks in California and Oregon, President Obama remarked that mass shootings are "becoming the norm." .  .  .

Have mass shootings become more common?  According to our statistical analysis of more than three decades of data, in 2011 the United States entered a new period in which mass shootings are occurring more frequently.

With that said, let me share my Facebook post from 2012:

Bill Gray:   December 18, 2012

TRIBUTE TO THE TWENTY  ~  Today, my Christian Friend, Margaret Withrow, posted this poem on Facebook. It touched my heart and I want to share it with all my Friends. May you be blessed by these words, and, at the same time may your heart tell you, "Enough is enough!  Let's protect our children and bring God and prayer back into our schools." 

Another Friend posted on Facebook, "I cannot recall any shootings or such tragedies in school when I was a child.  But, in those days, we talked about God in school, we had prayers in school, and every morning we said the Pledge of Allegiance which included, 'one nation under God.'   Maybe it is time to bring Him back to school." 

I could not agree more.  Let this poem speak to your heart:

WE'RE SPENDING CHRISTMAS AT GOD'S HOUSE
Written by Cameo Smith, Mt. Wolf, PA

Twas' 11 days before Christmas, around 9:38
When 20 beautiful children stormed through heaven's gate.
Their smiles were contagious, their laughter filled the air.
They could hardly believe all the beauty they saw there.
They were filled with such joy, they didn't know what to say.
For there was no memory of what had happened earlier that day.

"Where are we?" asked a little girl, as quiet as a mouse.
"This is heaven." declared a small boy.
"We're spending Christmas at God's house."
When what to their wondering eyes did appear,
But Jesus, their Savior, the children gathered near.
He looked at them and smiled, and they smiled just the same.
Then He opened His arms and He called them by name.

And in that moment was joy, that only heaven can bring
Those children all flew into the arms of their King
And as they lingered in the warmth of His embrace,
One small girl turned and looked at Jesus' face.
And as if He could read all the questions she had
He gently whispered to her, "I'll take care of mom and dad."

Then He looked down on earth, the world far below
He saw all of the hurt, the sorrow, and woe
He closed His eyes and He outstretched His hand,
"Let My power and presence reenter this land!
May this country be delivered from the hands of fools
I'm taking back My nation. I'm taking back My schools!"

Then He and the children stood up without a sound.
"Come now, my children, let Me show you around."
Excitement filled the space, some skipped and some ran.
All displaying enthusiasm that only a small child can.
And I heard Him proclaim as He walked out of sight,
"In the midst of this darkness, I AM STILL THE LIGHT."

Praise God that on January 20, 2017, America will begin our journey on the positive path toward Restoring America.  Let us pray that we will not tarry long before inviting God back into all aspects of our lives - especially into our schools where young minds are molded and where their futures, and the future of America, are determined. 

God bless, Bill

The Bible ~ The Literal Written Word Of God - Or A Book Of Myths And Symbolism?

From January 2007 until January 2015, I actively posted on my hometown newspaper's Religion Forum.  In 2007 I began posting there because I noticed a discussion posted on the Religion Forum titled "What Is A Christian?" - and, with my home state of Alabama being the Belt Buckle of the Bible Belt, that piqued my interest. 

When I opened the discussion, I found it totally under the control of two atheist members.  I joined the forum to be able to refute their teachings - and I stayed as an active member of that forum until 2015, when the newspaper's relatively new, and obviously atheist-leaning, publisher, urged by an atheist lady - banned me from posting there. 

The publisher's response to my request to be reinstated:

I’m well aware of your long standing as a forum member.  I’m also very familiar with your posts and our forums.  You need to know that I support revoking your access – 100%.  Our policy on answering inquiries on these subjects is simply to refer you to the member’s agreement.   I’m not going to debate or discuss the details or merits of that decision.   We are also not considering reinstating your access at this time.

So, even though this was an action taken by combined atheist forces, I took this as God showing me that I should move on and find new venues.  At that time I reactivated our Bill & Dory Gray Christian Ministries Blog and did as God seemed to suggest, I moved on.  With that short background, let me share a post from December 2012, when I was still an active member on the TimesDaily Religion Forum:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Bible  ~  The Literal Written Word Of God - Or A Book Of Myths And Symbolism?
December 12, 2012 at 2:34am

In several discussions on the TimesDaily Religion Forum, a Roman Catholic Friend and I have been having a running dialogue - on how to have a Biblical dialogue.  She believes that just copy/pasting Scripture passages/verses which may, or may not, mention the issue under discussion - is sufficient proof of her contentions.  I have asked her to go a step further and tell me what she truly believes each verse or passage means.  In other words, what is the true message God has for us in those passages?

In one of these discussions, an atheist Friend suggests I am just evading the issue by asking my Roman Catholic Friend to interpret and explain what she believes those passages are telling us.  She tells me, "Bill,  There was no need for interpretation in the verses she gave as examples of her beliefs.  I thought you believed in the literal, inerrant Word of God.  I guess that only applies in your mind, when you decide its so."

I respond to her:
 

There is ALWAYS reason to offer valid interpretation and understanding of the Scripture we quote.  Any trained monkey can copy/paste verses - but, it does take some spiritual discernment to understand and explain them.  That is what I am asking her to do.  She wants me to respond to Scripture passages/verses she has typed by reflex action - but, she does not want to, or possibly cannot, exert the effort to explain her understanding so that I might respond to that understanding - and not just to her automatic typing reaction.

That is all I am asking.  Seems reasonable to me.  Would a scientist submit anything as scientific analysis - with the only proof being, "I believe it!"?

Then, another atheist Friend joins the dialogue and responds, "Well, Bill, this is where we agree.  I can't answer why she believes that the Bible is proof either.  What would be required in a scientific analysis of anything would have to be backed up by more than, "the Bible said it, so I believe it."   Finally, something we agree on."

Yet, my Friend, there is astounding evidence that the Bible is valid and truly the Written Word of God.  The Bible is validated by prophecy.  In all the world religions (and I am only including the Christian relationship with Jesus Christ in this group of religions for the sake of comparison) the Christian Bible is the only sacred book to offer prophecies.   Scientific proof demands that an experiment be repeatable, i.e., no matter how many times it is repeated, it will produce the same result.

Based upon that postulation - the Bible is scientifically proven to be true and valid.  Let me explain:
 

The Bible Is Validated By Prophecy:

The Bible contains 1,817 individual prophecies - on 737 separate subjects - found in 8,352 verses - 27 percent of the 31,124 verses in the bible.   All, except His return, have been fulfilled - proven by Christian and secular historical evidence.

There are 1,239 prophecies in the Old Testament and 578 prophecies in the New Testament.

There are over 300 prophecies about Jesus Christ -- all except His return and the End Time events have been fulfilled.

In other words, using 1817 experiments (prophecies) - not one has failed to produce the same result - fulfillment.   Now, let's apply this same test to Jesus Christ as deity, preexisting and eternal, the second Person in the Triune Godhead:
 

Jesus Is Validated By Prophecy:

Professor of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner (past Chairman of the Departments of Mathematics and Astronomy at Pasadena City College; past Chairman of the Science Division, Westmont College; Professor Emeritus of Science, Westmont College), had over 600 of his students calculate the probability of one man fulfilling the major prophecies made concerning the Messiah.

Recommended URL links relating to Dr. Stoner's prophecy evaluation, definitely worth reading:

http://lamblion.com/articles/articles_bible6.php http://compassioninpolitics.wo...d-biblical-prophecy/

Using only eight prophecies, they estimated that the chance of one man fulfilling eight prophecies was one in 10^17.

That is 1 chance in - 100,000,000,000,000,000

Let's examine Professor Stoner's scientific/statistical test a bit more:
 

Suppose that we take 10^17 silver dollars and lay them across the state of Texas.  They will cover the entire state of Texas two feet deep.  Mark one, only one, of those silver dollars and stir them thoroughly, all over the state.
Blindfold a man and allow him to travel as far as he wishes, in any direction.  At some point, he must stop and pick up only one silver dollar - and have that one be the marked silver dollar.  What chance would he have of getting the right one?
He would have the same chance of finding that marked silver dollar - as the prophets would have had of writing eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one Man - unless the prophecies were from God.

This only includes eight prophecies about Jesus Christ  – 10^17   (One plus seventeen zeroes!)

Look at 48 prophecies, which gives us the incredible number - 10^157  (One plus one hundred fifty seven zeroes!)

Now, can you imagine the number of zeroes to fulfill 300 prophecies?

The only unfulfilled prophecies about Jesus Christ are those of His Second Coming, His Millennial Kingdom, and Eternity!

Dr. Stoner wrote of this test of prophecies in his book "Science Speaks: Scientific Proof of the Accuracy of Prophecy and the Bible."   So, what does the scientific community think of Dr. Stoner's work?  The American Scientific Affiliation gave Stoner's work their stamp of approval:
 

http://www.allaboutthejourney....hecy-about-jesus.htm
The manuscript for "Science Speaks" has been carefully reviewed by a committee of the American Scientific Affiliation members and by the Executive Council of the same group and has been found, in general, to be dependable and accurate in regard to the scientific material presented.  The mathematical analysis included is based upon principles of probability which are thoroughly sound and Professor Stoner has applied these principles in a proper and convincing way. 2

Dr. Stoner's Statistic Classes Proves The Bible:
 

Excerpt from the book "Science Speaks: Scientific Proof of the Accuracy of Prophecy and the Bible": 

http://sciencespeaks.dstoner.n...ist_of_Prophecy.html

The Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship at Pasadena City College sponsored a class in Christian evidences.  One section of the work of this class was to consider the evidence produced by the fulfilled prophecies referring to the first advent of Christ.  The students were asked to be very conservative in their probability estimates.  They discussed each prophecy at length, bringing out various conditions which might affect the probability of any man fulfilling it.

After discussion, the students agreed unanimously on a definite estimate as being both reasonable and conservative.  At the end of the evaluations the students expressed their feelings thus: If any one were able to enter into the discussions and help in placing the estimates, as they had done, that person would certainly agree that the estimates were conservative.

The estimates used in this chapter are a combination of the estimates given by this class on Christian evidences combined with estimates given me later by some twelve different (Statistics) classes of college students (at Westmont College), representing more than 600 students.  I have carefully weighed the estimates and have changed some to make them more conservative.  If the reader does not agree with the estimates given, he may make his own estimates and then carry them through to their logical conclusions.

This, my Friend, is scientific proof that the Bible is the valid and true Written Word of God.   Proof found ONLY in His Written Word, the Bible.

Next, my atheist Friend writes, "However, she is right that the Bible (if it is to be taken as truth) does support her belief in sacred traditions and oral teachings. She presented Scriptures to back up her belief.  Now whether you believe her source is entirely up to you.  Yet, being a Christian yourself I am surprised that the Bible is not proof enough for you.  EVERYBODY knows that there had to be oral teachings around before there was a Bible."

You are addressing two separate issues:  (1) Can we rely upon our Roman Catholic Friend's "Because I believe it" testimony as validation of her absolute adherence to Roman Catholic doctrines?   And, (2) Can Bible verses/passages be considered proof of any theology, doctrine, or teaching - if the one offering them cannot explain what those verses/passages mean?  In other words, can we just accept "Because I believe it!" as proof of God's intent when He inspired the writing of the books of the Bible - or - must we look deeper through prayer, study, and interpretation to learn the message God truly intends for us in His Written Word?

I contend that Scripture verses/passages just tossed out helter-skelter have no meaning if the one sharing them cannot explain their meaning.

Finally, my atheist Friend concludes, "I guess it will just have to come down to whether or not you believe her source.  She has told you her beliefs, and backed up her beliefs with bible scriptures she believes supports her beliefs.  In other words she has told you what she believes these scriptures mean.  So what are you going to do?"

First, I will have to question her source.  Is the source proof of her doctrines and theology the Bible?  Or, is her source the Vatican?

If the Bible, then I absolutely do believe it.   However, her obvious contention that, "The Vatican said it, I believe it!" - and offering the Scripture verses/passages dictated to her by the Vatican as her proof, without personal study, understanding, and interpretation of the Bible to see if those verses/passages actually do teach what the Vatican said - will not hold water.  Too many holes.

Regardless of whether a person is Roman Catholic or Protestant - merely copy/pasting Scripture verses is not proof of anything.  Without spiritual discernment and understanding - that is nothing more that ink on paper, or in our case, letters on the screen.

There have been folks who have complained that many of my writings are too long.  And, they are most often right.  But, why do my writings tend to be longer than other folks' posts?  Because when I offer verses from God's Word, I also do my best to give you my understanding of what that verse or passage means, what I believe was God's intent when He inspired that writer.

There are two basic approaches to Bible interpretation:  exegesis and eisegesis.

Exegesis is studying the Bible, all 66 books, to "pull from it" God's intended meaning or message for us.  Through prayer, study, and being open to the Word of God, we are led to an understanding of the Scripture text, including an understanding of whether this passage was meant to be read literally or was meant to give us a symbolic or metaphorical lesson.

Eisegesis is the practice of deciding beforehand what you want that Scripture passage to tell you - and then reading that desired meaning into the passage.  This is done to support a chosen theology, agenda, or teaching which was not necessarily God's intent.  A very good example is the Roman Catholic church's attempt to read the Lord's Supper into John chapter 6.

John chapter 6 is the narrative of Jesus, shortly after feeding the 5000+ on the eastern banks of the Sea of Galilee with only two fish and five loaves of bread, teaching this same crowd which has followed Him to Capernaum.  In this teaching, He takes them back to God feeding the Israelites in the wilderness "manna from heaven" to sustain their physical bodies.  And, He relates this to His providing physical food for the 5000+ hungry people who were listening to his message the day before.

Then, He relates the manna sent from heaven to sustain their "physical health" - with His being sent from heaven to offer people "spiritual health."  Manna was physical food - He is spiritual food.

This was His message in John 6 - and we find that later, in John 13 and in related Synoptic Gospels, He institutes the Lord's Supper, i.e., Communion.  To the best of my knowledge, the time between these two events was close to two years.  He waited until just before He is to be crucified - and, at that Passover meal in the Upper Room - He explains the Lord's Supper and tells us to do this "in remembrance of Him" (Luke 22:19).  We are to do this until He returns.

Although John 6 has similar wording, i.e., comparing the bread and fish He had fed them the previous day on the eastern banks of the Sea of Galilee with His body and blood, which He would later give for our atonement - He clearly showed that He was speaking of spiritual food:
 

John 6:49-51, "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.  (50) This (manna) is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.  (51) I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."

   
His body and blood is the spiritual bread to give us spiritual life.  But, the Roman Catholic church insists that John 6 is teaching about the Eucharist, transubstantiation, the Communion elements actually becoming the true body and blood of Christ, which is to be eaten and drank at mass.  Why do they lay all their cards on John 6?  Because it mentions His body and blood.

But, John 6 takes place in a different scenario, in a different context, and in a much earlier time.  Not until John 13 does He institute the Lord's Supper - and, as we see in Luke 22:19, He teaches this to be a symbolic practice to be done "in remembrance of Him" until He returns.  In the Lord's Supper, we receive Him spiritually, we remember and are blessed by what He did on the cross for us.  And, we recommit ourselves to following and serving Him faithfully.

This misreading of John 6 is a perfect example of Eisegesis, reading into a Scripture passage what you have already predetermined you want it to say.

And, this is why I have asked my Roman Catholic Friend to use her own spiritual discernment, pray, read, and study the Scripture verses/passages she is offering as proof text - and then see if what she is proffering is Vatican teaching - or God's teaching.

My Friends, I apologize for this being so long.  But, I do not apologize for attempting to offer you my full understanding of our dialogue, or my best understanding of God's Word.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill
 

Calvinism, Arminianism, And Salvation! ~ Revisited

In February 2016, I posted a blog titled "Calvinism, Arminianism, And Salvation" to my Friends Ministry eNewsletter and on my Bill & Dory Gray Christian Ministries Blog.  Recently, in our Sunday School Class, the question of Predestination was raised, which obviously led to a discussion of Calvinism, Arminianism, and their opposing views of salvation. 

After our class a Friend asked me to share my blogs on this subject with him.  Going back and reviewing my earlier blog led to me updating it.  And, that is what this current blog/eNewsletter is all about.

Subject:     CALVINISM, ARMINIANISM, AND SALVATION!
Date:   Sat, 06 Feb 2016     From:  Bill Gray

Long before you and I were alive, folks have been debating Calvinism vs Arminianism, most often in friendly debates; but, at times, in rather heated confrontations.  Over the years that I have been writing, I have had many of the more pleasant discussions - but, I have had some of the less pleasant dialogues, and with folks who would otherwise call me brother.

Along the way I have had the terms "Calvinist" and "Fundamentalist" - and a few other names I will not mention in polite society, thrown at me from Liberal and Legalistic theology followers.  I will accept the Fundamentalist label, although I prefer the more accurate label:  Conservative Christian.  That said, no one could ever honestly accuse me of being a Calvinist.

Also, I should not forget my non-believing Friends, those who often hold the belief that calling me a Fundamentalist is worse than calling me Satan.  Although I have also been called Satan a few times by those same folks.  We will discuss Fundamentalism in another writing; for now we will take a closer look at Calvinism vs Arminianism.

I have many Christian Friends who know nothing about either of these diametrically opposed theologies, preferring to just concentrate on loving and following Christ in their own fellowships and leaving all other discussions alone.  That is not a bad thing.  But, It is much like folks who grow up in a protected environment, not realizing or noticing many of the things happening around them in our secular society.  Many of those folks will also accept the secular falsehood of "separation of church and state" - declaring, "Let the politicians do their thing and I will do my Christian thing."  Oh, if it were only that simple.

"So, Bill, why is it so important to recognize and understand the difference between Calvinism, Arminianism, and those other theologies which teach neither?"

Good question.  Let's see if we can answer it.   A person would have to be blind to not recognize that we live in a fallen world, a world where evil abounds and where a person must be constantly aware, lest someone steal his property, defame him, cheat him, harm him and his family, even to the point of killing them, etc.   Where does one find peace and security in such a world?  Some find it to some degree in accumulating wealth, often paying armed guards to protect them and their families.  Some find security in knowing that with their accumulated wealth, they can buy themselves out of problems and harm.  But, is that really security?

Jesus Christ offers us "eternal security" - promising that once we have, by grace through faith, chosen to follow Him as Lord and Savior - NO ONE can snatch us out of His hands nor out of the Father's hands (John 10:28-29).   In other words, once we have received His promised eternal life, i.e., salvation - we cannot lose it.  He will not break His promise to us.  And, keep in mind that "eternal" means "never ending."   Our eternal security in Christ will never end!  Period!

That is real security, eternal security, not just protection from tribulations of this world.  We have His promise to keep us secure eternally, not just for the few years we have in this mortal body.  That "eternal security" we claim the instant we believe and receive Him, for at that moment we are indwelled and sealed by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13), never to have that seal broken nor to have the Holy Spirit evicted (Ephesians 4:30).   That is real Eternal Security, which no amount of accumulated wealth can buy; but which God freely gives to us the very moment we are adopted into His family (Ephesians 2:8-9, Galatians 4:5-6, Ephesians 1:5).

"But, Bill, doesn't Calvinism and Arminianism offer that same Eternal Security?"

Glad you asked.  And, the only answer can be a resounding, "Yes and No!"   Confused?  No need to be, for ALL Christian believers have His "eternal security" even if the theology they follow teaches otherwise.

Calvinism tells us that before God created the heavens and the earth, before He created any living humans - but, knowing that He was going to create billions upon billions of humans, all created in His own image (Genesis 1:26) ~ God decided that He was only going to allow a small minority of those divinely created humans into His heaven (the Elect). 

And, according to the Calvinist theology, He decided, before the Creation, that the vast majority of those divinely created human souls He would condemn to eternal hell, misery, and suffering (the Reprobate) - without them having any opportunity to choose to enter His heaven.  Wow, what a God!

Now, ask yourself, "Why would God create billions of people - in His image - just for the purpose of condemning them to eternal suffering and sorrow in hell?" 

We know that God created man for His pleasure and to glorify Him.  Does anyone really believe that the eternal, almighty, perfect God - would create billions of humans "in His image" - just for the purpose of condemning them to suffer eternally in hell?  Can that really give pleasure to God; can that really glorify God?  No.

Leading Reformed Calvinist theologian, John Piper, tells us on his "DesiringGod" web site:

The Bible Is Clear:  When the first chapter of the Bible says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27), what is the point?  The point of an image is to image.  Images are erected to display (or reflect) the original.  Point to the original.  Glorify the original. 

God made humans in his image so that the world would be filled with reflectors of God.  Images of God.  Seven billion statues of God.  So that nobody would miss the point of creation.  Nobody, unless they were stone blind, could miss the point of humanity, namely, God.  Knowing, loving, showing God. 

("Why Did God Create the World?" by John Piper  - http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/why-did-god-create-the-world)

Bill Gray note:  All italics, underline, and parenthetical comments in the quote above are mine.

So, based upon Piper's logic that God created man to be a reflection of Himself - why would He choose to condemn billions of those self-images to eternal hell with no chance of redemption?  Does that really sound like the God you worship, the God of the Bible? 

And, there are Calvinist writings which tell us that God also applies that Elect or Reprobate classification to all babies - aborted babies, pre-born babies who die, infants who die after birth, young children who die before reaching the age of understanding, i.e., all young children.  According to those writings, if that child: aborted, pre-born, infant, or young child - is conceived by an Elect couple - that child automatically has Eternal Security assured, that child will be in heaven.

On the other hand, if that child: aborted, pre-born, infant, or young child - is conceived by a Reprobate couple - that child automatically is condemned to eternal hell, misery, and suffering.   Is that the God you worship and serve?

Most of us know that Calvinism and TULIP go hand in hand.  But, many churches and pastors have realized that a large number of folks view their TULIP doctrines as being very harsh.  Maybe it was okay in John Calvin's day.  But, not so much today.  So, how do they get around this stumbling block?  Simple, they just create a euphemism to replace TULIP which is more acceptable sounding to the masses.  They came up with "Doctrines of Grace."  Now, that sounds like a phrase which all Christian believers will embrace - for after all, we are all saved "by grace through faith."

So today, a church or a pastor may tell you, "No, we do not teach TULIP, we teach Doctrines of Grace."   In my own personal experience, I have met pastors who will just avoid answering the question, "Are you Calvinist?" -  and I have had pastors who have deferred to "Doctrines of Grace" when I asked if they were Calvinist.  Regardless of which they use: TULIP or Doctrines of Grace - they are the same, no difference.

The phrase “doctrines of grace” is used as a replacement for the term “Calvinism,” in order to remove the attention from John Calvin and instead focus on how the specific points are biblically and theologically sound.  The phrase “doctrines of grace” describes the soteriological doctrines that are unique to Reformed theology, which is Calvinistic.  These doctrines are summarized with the acronym TULIP.   ("What are the doctrines of grace?" - https://gotquestions.org/doctrines-of-grace.html)

Even though I believe that the web site GotQuestions leans toward Calvinism, I often visit that site for I think they offer good Biblical answers in most cases.  I view such web sites as a resource, much like I do hard copy commentaries - as a means to start my thinking process when studying or writing about a particular Scripture passage.   The only real authority on any Scripture verse or passage - is the Bible. 

But, often when I want to jump start my thoughts, I will look at several commentaries or web sites, such as GotQuestions and CARM (both Calvinist), just to see what they have to say.  Then I will take those thoughts and go back and take another look at the Scripture passage to see if any of those thought fit with what the Bible tells me.   In the end, I always look to Scripture, with prayer, to understand that Scripture passage.  But, why should we ignore the years of learning and scholarly theological studies of those who have gone before us?  Use their knowledge - on such web sites and in commentaries with discretion and with prayer - to springboard or jump start your understanding of a portion of God's Written Word.

To conclude this portion on Calvinism, there is one question which no Calvinist, lay person or pastor, has ever been able to answer for me:  "If, before the Creation, God truly did select only certain people, the Elect, to be saved - how can YOU be certain that you were chosen among the Elect?"   I have never had anyone give me an answer.

Arminians believe that God offers salvation and eternal life to all who will believe and receive His Son as Lord and Savior.  That is good.  However, the Arminians then tell us that, even though we have believed and received Christ - we can still lose that salvation.   They obviously ignore what Jesus teaches in John 10:28-29, that no one (and that "no one" includes the believer) can snatch the believer out of His hands nor out of the Father's hands.

Yes, according to the Arminians, all Christian believers must go through life looking over their shoulders - lest they commit that one small sin, often a sin unknown to them, which will rob them of their salvation, rob them of the Eternal Security which Christ has promised to all believers.  Where is Eternal Security to be found in life if we must constantly be looking over our shoulders lest we be robbed of our salvation?  And, why do Arminians change "eternal" to no longer mean "never ending"?

In a sense, I can relate to Dr. Norman Geisler's position of being a "moderate Calvinist" as he wrote in his book "Chosen But Free" (1999) - meaning that  he walks in the  middle of the road between those two diverse theologies.   But, in reality, I have a problem with any theology that is based upon the teachings of any man and given the name of that man, i.e., Calvinism, Arminianism, etc.  I prefer to follow a Christian Theology, based upon His name only, i.e., CHRISTian. 

So, I will often just define myself as standing somewhere in the middle between the theology created by John Calvin (1509-1564) at one end of the salvation spectrum - and the theology of Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609) at the opposite end of the salvation spectrum.   To be true to Scripture, I have to deny some doctrines in both of those camps.

A view of this Calvinism vs Arminianism debate is found in the Calvinist leaning web site GotQuestions:   http://www.gotquestions.org/Calvinism-vs-Arminianism.html

Question: "Calvinism vs. Arminianism - which view is correct?"

Answer:  Calvinism and Arminianism are two systems of theology that attempt to explain the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility in the matter of salvation.  Calvinism is named for John Calvin, a French theologian who lived from 1509-1564.  Arminianism is named for Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch theologian who lived from 1560-1609.

Both systems can be summarized with five points. 

T -  Calvinism holds to the total depravity of man - while Arminianism holds to partial depravity.   (see Isaiah 64:6, John 1:12, John 16:8, Romans 5:21, 2 Corinthians 5:21)

Calvinism’s doctrine of Total Depravity states that every aspect of humanity is corrupted by sin; therefore, human beings are unable to come to God on their own accord. 

Arminianism's doctrine of Partial depravity states that every aspect of humanity is tainted by sin, but not to the extent that human beings are unable to place faith in God of their own accord.

U -  Calvinism includes the belief that election is unconditional - while Arminianism believes in conditional election.   (see 1 Peter 1:1-2, Romans 8:28-30)

Unconditional election is the view that God elects individuals to salvation based entirely on His will, not on anything inherently worthy in the individual. 

Conditional election states that God elects individuals to salvation based on His foreknowledge of who will believe in Christ unto salvation, thereby on the condition that the individual chooses God.

L -  Calvinism sees the atonement as limited - while Arminianism sees it as unlimited.  This is the most controversial of the five points. (see John 3:16)

Limited atonement is the belief that Jesus only died for the elect. 

Unlimited atonement is the belief that Jesus died for all, but that His death is not effectual until a person receives Him by faith.

I -  Calvinism includes the belief that God’s grace is irresistible - while Arminianism says that an individual can resist the grace of God.  (Free Will, 2 Peter 3:9)

Irresistible grace argues that when God calls a person to salvation, that person will inevitably come to salvation. 

Resistible grace states that God calls all to salvation, but that many people resist and reject this call. 

P -  Calvinism holds to perseverance of the saints - while Arminianism holds to conditional salvation.   (see John 10:28-29)

Perseverance of the saints refers to the concept that a person who is elected by God will persevere in faith and will not permanently deny Christ or turn away from Him. 

Conditional salvation is the view that a believer in Christ can, of his/her own free will, turn away from Christ and thereby lose salvation.

So, in the Calvinism vs Arminianism debate, who is correct?  It is interesting to note that in the diversity of the body of Christ, there are all sorts of mixtures of Calvinism and Arminianism.  There are five-point Calvinists and five-point Arminians, and at the same time three-point Calvinists and two-point Arminians. Many believers arrive at some sort of mixture of the two views.  Ultimately, it is our view that both systems fail in that they attempt to explain the unexplainable.

Human beings are incapable of fully grasping a concept such as this.  Yes, God is absolutely sovereign and knows all.  Yes, human beings are called to make a genuine decision to place faith in Christ unto salvation.  These two facts seem contradictory to us, but in the mind of God they make perfect sense.

Bill Gray Note:  The underline, bold, and cap TULIP letters were added by me.

Keep in mind that if you accept the Calvinist doctrine of Predestination, you are also accepting that God has chosen before the Creation - to condemn billions of people, including babies, to eternal hell, misery, and suffering with no possibility of salvation.

And, if you chose to follow the teaching of Arminianism, that believers can lose their salvation - then you are refusing to accept the promise of Jesus Christ in John 10:28-29, "And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.  My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand."

So, where do you stand:  in the "Calvinist Predestination For All" corner - or - in the "Arminian Lose Your Salvation" corner.  OR, do you stand in the Biblical Christian center which tells us, in John 3:16, "For God so loved the world (you, me, all people) that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever (you, me, all people who) believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

If you choose the Calvinist corner, you also must ask yourself, "Am I really sure that God chose ME before the Creation to be among the Elect?  How can I to know, for sure?"   If you say, "Because I want to follow Christ - and I could not want that unless the Holy Spirit put that faith in me" -  how do you know that this is not just a reaction to someone sharing the Gospel with you - and you believed what that person told you?  Or maybe someone shared a Scripture verse with you and it resonated with your desire for peace and happiness?   Is it really the Holy Spirit - or was it something you heard and feel that you need?   How can you be sure?

And, if you choose to stand in the Arminian corner, you must ask yourself, "Why does Jesus, over and over in the Bible, promise the believer eternal life - if He is not going to keep the believer secure in that promise?"  Would Jesus Christ mislead you?  Would He promise you eternal, never ending life - and then take it away?

Our Calvinist brethren tell us that the doctrines of Elect (selected for eternal life in Christ) and Reprobate (selected for eternal hell) in their teaching of Predestination are true because God is a sovereign God.  Yes, God is a sovereign God - but in His sovereignty God cannot go against His own nature.  In other words, God is perfect and His attributes of love and justice are perfect.  Therefore, that is His nature and He cannot go against His own nature. 

To create billions of people, including small children, and declare them to be Reprobate, i.e., automatically condemned to eternal hell before the creation - would not be pure justice, nor would it be pure love.  Therefore, God cannot do it.  His sovereign nature demands pure love and pure justice - and that is why He has provided only feasible escape clause - the perfect Lamb to make atonement for the sins of all people.  His perfect love and perfect justice provides a way for all people to come to eternal salvation.  But, each person must make a personal decision to receive or reject His sin pardon.

2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance."

Praise God, I KNOW, with no doubt, that I have eternal life in Christ, i.e., eternal security.  And, I KNOW, with no doubt, that all believers, regardless of the fact that some follow an erroneous theology - are saved and will have eternal fellowship with Jesus Christ and all other believers.  This I know:  ALL my brothers and sisters in Christ, even those I do not know in this life, regardless of the Christian theology they follow in this life - I will see in heaven!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill