Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-13-2017 12:06 AM
305 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 302 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,060 Year: 28,666/21,208 Month: 732/1,847 Week: 107/475 Day: 0/17 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
567Next
Author Topic:   R.C.Sprouls Teaching On Reformed Theology
jar
Member
Posts: 29758
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 46 of 99 (824966)
12-05-2017 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Phat
12-05-2017 5:22 PM


Re: Questions & Answers From RC Sproul
Look at his answers within the context of TULIP.

AbE:

Phat writes:

Classical Apologetics, Sproul included, assume that God requires perfect obedience from us.

Again, look at what is actually written in the Bible stories. Remember, for every quote taken out of context there is another quote that can be taken out of context to refute the former. Or the Latter!

So look at the stories as a whole. They are filled with tales of humans interacting with the God character where there is NOT perfect obedience. This pattern starts pretty early in the stories and goes right on through to the end.

Adam & Eve disobey but God does not damn them to hell, he makes clothes for them. God wrestles with Jacob and God praises him for struggling with God and even renames him. Peter walks to Jesus but loses his nerve and starts to sink but Jesus reaches out and holds him up. Peter denies Jesus yet Jesus says Peter will be the foundation upon which all is built.

Sure, the Calvinists can pick pieces parts to support their picayune god but they must do so by taking those pieces parts out of context.

Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Edited by jar, : eve not even


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Phat, posted 12-05-2017 5:22 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Phat, posted 12-05-2017 5:30 PM jar has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 47 of 99 (824968)
12-05-2017 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by jar
12-05-2017 5:26 PM


Re: Questions & Answers From RC Sproul
I did! TULIP assumes a lot of things about GOD that I dont necessarily agree with anymore. I find myself questioning the origins of modern belief, even though I dont throw Jesus away. I have started questioning Who God actually is and am assuming that He would approve of me asking more questions and throwing out my prior assumptions.

add by EDIT: I think Sproul and others keep the doctrine around to lend credibility to their teaching...for if they threw it out, all that they would have would be opinions and not any link to historical Faith.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 12-05-2017 5:26 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 12-05-2017 5:37 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29758
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 48 of 99 (824969)
12-05-2017 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Phat
12-05-2017 5:30 PM


Re: Questions & Answers From RC Sproul
Sorry, I hit the wrong key. See the AbE in the prior message.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Phat, posted 12-05-2017 5:30 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29758
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 49 of 99 (824987)
12-06-2017 9:48 AM


origins
My comment when you brought up Sproul was that Sprouls says some really stupid things at times. An example is the one you have as a quote in your signature; "Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul".

Let me try to explain.

That comment is also implicit in the Calvinist belief system, that they are among the elect, that God chose them, that Jesus death as a sacrifice only applies to them and that their election was totally irresistible.

But what does reality show?

Calvinists tend to come from Calvinist families raised and educated in the Calvinist tradition.

But the vast majority of folk are not Calvinists.

If you happened to be born in India or Tibet or Vietnam or Cambodia or Japan or Korea or Thailand the odds are you will not be a Calvinist or even a Christian.

But that's the plan the Calvinist says?

So there are two possibilities. God, the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, created lots and lots of Thais and Tibetans and Japanese and Koreans and Vietnamese and Cambodians and decided they were not elected and that Jesus salvation would not apply to them and that they would be able to resist even attempts at election.

The second possibility is that chance played a part in them not being Calvinists. They were born in areas where Calvinism was not the dominate indoctrination force.

Look at the history of evolution. As conditions changed those critters most adapted to the immediate conditions succeeded while those least adapted to those conditions failed. But conditions changed and so did the success stories.

Can we test chance? Sure, and it does get tested constantly by polls and gambling and sports and failure rate calculations for pieces parts.

Chance exists. Chance is not a myth but a reflection of reality.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Phat, posted 12-06-2017 10:26 AM jar has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 50 of 99 (824989)
12-06-2017 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by jar
12-06-2017 9:48 AM


Re: origins
Not sure I agree. We can define probability, but strictly speaking, how does one define chance?What exactly is chance? Sproul would argue that chance in and of itself has no power. Chance is not a thing.

Or can anyone argue that chance is either a person, place, thing, or idea. And if it is an idea, what precisely is that idea? Are you suggesting that a Calvinistic God is not a god of chance but that GOD, if GOD exists is a God of chance?

Sproul argues, if I understand him correctly, that there is no such thing as a cosmic lottery. In reality, a lottery is determined by set probability. If we were to argue that the universe is also a universe of probability, someone or something had to set that probability.

The argument that chance in and of itself is a governing reality is likely what Sproul would argue against.

The argument being that God is not a random God who favors nothing and directs no one. Lets keep discussing this...I need to understand the implications.

Creation or chaos

Edited by Phat, : added link


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 12-06-2017 9:48 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by PaulK, posted 12-06-2017 10:36 AM Phat has responded
 Message 59 by jar, posted 12-06-2017 12:12 PM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 12-06-2017 1:35 PM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 66 by PaulK, posted 12-06-2017 3:32 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13367
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 51 of 99 (824990)
12-06-2017 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Phat
12-06-2017 10:26 AM


Re: origins
quote:

Not sure I agree. We can define probability, but strictly speaking, how does one define chance?What exactly is chance? Sproul would argue that chance in and of itself has no power. Chance is not a thing.

More accurately chance is an abstraction rather than a concrete entity.

The problem isn’t that what he says is strictly wrong about chance, but it is very likely wrong about the position he’s responding to.

Calvinism with its idea of predestination and Divine Sovereignty denies any actual role to chance - even properly understood - and that may be the point he’s getting at. But if so, he’s going the wrong way about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Phat, posted 12-06-2017 10:26 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Phat, posted 12-06-2017 10:48 AM PaulK has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 52 of 99 (824991)
12-06-2017 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by PaulK
12-06-2017 10:36 AM


Re: origins
I know that you usually dont watch videos, but in that link I provided is Sprouls lecture. It made a lot of sense to me, and I think we are touching a nerve here. It may well be that I have always believed in the God of Calvinism and am only now being challenged by jar to consider a different God. And I'll tell you that if this is true, it will be difficult for me to change.

perhaps Faiths God of obvious evidence fits in here somewhere also.

And if scripture can defend one God over another, I'll use it.

To me, reality is not random and unfavoring....or at least it shouldnt be


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by PaulK, posted 12-06-2017 10:36 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 12-06-2017 10:54 AM Phat has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13367
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 53 of 99 (824993)
12-06-2017 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Phat
12-06-2017 10:48 AM


Re: origins
quote:

I know that you usually dont watch videos, but in that link I provided is Sprouls lecture. It made a lot of sense to me, and I think we are touching a nerve here.

My main objection is that I have a very strong suspicion that Sproul is misrepresenting the position he opposes. At best your sig. quote deals only with people who misunderstand what chance is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Phat, posted 12-06-2017 10:48 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Phat, posted 12-06-2017 11:03 AM PaulK has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 54 of 99 (824995)
12-06-2017 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by PaulK
12-06-2017 10:54 AM


Re: origins
The lecture is Sprouls whole teaching on what chance is and is not. It made sense to me when I first heard it several years ago, and it really doesnt mention God at all...but it may well point out the differences between a God of order and a God of random chaos.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 12-06-2017 10:54 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 12-06-2017 11:18 AM Phat has responded
 Message 62 by ringo, posted 12-06-2017 2:23 PM Phat has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13367
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 55 of 99 (824997)
12-06-2017 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Phat
12-06-2017 11:03 AM


Re: origins
Actually I’m far less interested in that than in why Sproul thinks it important to fight against the idea of chance as a concrete entity with causal powers. Does he identify anyone actually promoting that idea ?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Phat, posted 12-06-2017 11:03 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Phat, posted 12-06-2017 11:23 AM PaulK has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 56 of 99 (824998)
12-06-2017 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by PaulK
12-06-2017 11:18 AM


Re: origins
He does not mention anyone by name. His basic argument is that science is at its core a distinction between finer and finer degrees of taxonomy.

He derides the idea that creation happens due to time, space, and chance.

His argument is that creation has a definite purpose and objective, I think.

Let me say that his lecture is quite rational and persuasive. I wish I could have it in print so that we could break down his points and discuss them.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 12-06-2017 11:18 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by PaulK, posted 12-06-2017 11:53 AM Phat has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13367
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 57 of 99 (825002)
12-06-2017 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Phat
12-06-2017 11:23 AM


Re: origins
Then it’s probably a straw man. Whether constructed through ignorance or dishonesty doesn’t really matter.

quote:

He derides the idea that creation happens due to time, space, and chance.

But your quote doesn’t help there. Addressing a view of chance that isn’t a part of his opponent’s position doesn’t do anything to refute their position.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Phat, posted 12-06-2017 11:23 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Phat, posted 12-06-2017 11:58 AM PaulK has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 58 of 99 (825003)
12-06-2017 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by PaulK
12-06-2017 11:53 AM


Teaching
When I listened to the lecture, I didnt sense an opponent. He briefly mentioned several scientists whom he had conversed with informally, and brought up the idea that he disagreed with them, but there was never any mention of an opponent to his position. He does discuss general revelation and the meaning of nature.

He would argue that the author of the Bible and the author of general revelation are one and the same. Essentially his argument appears to be a philosophical one.

There are arguable points, but I'll have to listen carefully to find them.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by PaulK, posted 12-06-2017 11:53 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by PaulK, posted 12-06-2017 12:20 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29758
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 59 of 99 (825005)
12-06-2017 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Phat
12-06-2017 10:26 AM


the God Calvinists create and market!
Phat writes:

Or can anyone argue that chance is either a person, place, thing, or idea.

Only a conman would make such an argument.

Phat writes:

Sproul argues, if I understand him correctly, that there is no such thing as a cosmic lottery. In reality, a lottery is determined by set probability. If we were to argue that the universe is also a universe of probability, someone or something had to set that probability.

And thus he makes a really stupid argument. No one has to set up any probabilities and again, only a conman would even try to make such an argument.

No one sets the probabilities of a lottery. The probability of any lottery in an inherent property of that particular instance. Stop and think.

In a lottery probability is determined by three things, the number of possible outcomes, the number of lottery tickets sold and the number of lottery tickets any one individual person buys. If a person buys enough tickets to account for every possible outcome, the probability of that person winning that lottery is 100%.

In reality chance is also an inherent property of the universe. Everything can't happen at once. Not everything happens at the same place.

Phat writes:

The argument being that God is not a random God who favors nothing and directs no one.

But again, that is simply more of Sproul's conman spiel. That is not what Sproul really markets.

What Calvinists market is that God favors them only and specifically, that Jesus death as atonement is not for everyone but Calvinists only, that God chose Calvinist only.

Remember the L in TULIP; Limited Atonement. It is perhaps the most vile form of Christianity I can imagine and goes directly against what the Bible claims Jesus taught.

"Jesus died only for the elect. Though Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all, it was not efficacious for all. Jesus only bore the sins of the elect."

Think back to the conversation about the War Lord and food.

Limited Atonement is worse than the example of the warlord. Compare the I in TULIP (Irresitable Grace) to the threat of starvation.

"When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted. This call is by the Holy Spirit who works in the hearts and minds of the elect to bring them to repentance and regeneration whereby they willingly and freely come to God. "

Remember while the offer is to all it is only God that chooses the elect.

What Sproul markets, what all of Calvin markets, is simply the warlord god at his worst. The elect cannot even choose to starve but rather get force fed at the whim of the warlord.

But that is simply the god Sproul and Calvin created and market. It has absolutely nothing to do with reality or the universe.

Reality says that everything will not happen at once or in one place. Therefore probability, chance, is an inherent factor in the universe.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin and add what I in TULIP stands for


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Phat, posted 12-06-2017 10:26 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13367
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 60 of 99 (825006)
12-06-2017 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Phat
12-06-2017 11:58 AM


Re: Teaching
quote:

He would argue that the author of the Bible and the author of general revelation are one and the same. Essentially his argument appears to be a philosophical one.

That’s a theological argument and a rather weird one. I don’t think that anyone who’s read the Bible without inerrantist blinders firmly on could argue that the Bible is anything other than a collection of human-penned works written by a number of different people - who don’t always agree.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Phat, posted 12-06-2017 11:58 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
Prev123
4
567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017