R.C.Sprouls Teaching On Reformed Theology

quote:

---

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.

---

That is not really a rational argument. It is more the old apologists trick of asserting God as the final explanation - which they may believe but assertion is not argument.

In reality the probabilities involved in the big lotteries are designed to an extent. The lotteries have to bring in a certain amount, and not too much - and they have to have some big prizes to lure people in. But those are the reasons - there is nothing in the notion of probabilities that require them to be designed.

Consider a simple raffle. Sponsors donate prizes, tickets are sold and when the time comes the sold tickets are drawn until the prizes have all been awarded. Nobody has to set the probabilities. Nobody has to say that there must be so many prizes, so many tickets sold. But the probability of any particular ticket winning a prize is determined by those things.

Phat writes: ...but it may well point out the differences between a God of order and a God of random chaos.

Would you rather have a God who carelessly fires a shotgun out the window or a God who targets you specifically?

the shotgun is a negative analogy. I would rather have a God who favors me rather than a random God who simply wound us all up and then left us to do as we wilted...

Unfortunately, I cant deny that Sprouls theology is pure TULIP. I read his explanations and must say that I find myself disagreeing and challenging them.He tries to skate around Limited Atonement, and it only makes the issue more confusing.

jar writes: 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.

RC Sproul, Essential Truths Of The Christian Faith writes: 1. Definite atonement replaces the term limited atonement in the acrostic TULIP. 2. Definite atonement refers to the scope of God’s design for redemption and the intent of the Cross. 3. All who are not universalists agree that Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all, but effective only for those who believe. 4. Christ’s atonement was an actual propitiation for sin, not a potential or conditional propitiation. 5. The Atonement in a broad sense is offered to all; in a narrow sense, it is only offered to the elect. 6. John’s teaching that Christ died for the sins of the whole world means that the elect are not limited to Israel but are found throughout the world...

Its sad to see.

I would prefer a God who knows us, loves us, allows us to learn and grow yet is there to save me from my mistakes....a bit like my parents used to do.

I cannot deny that humans usually create the God that they want.

The trial that I am going through now is making peace with the GOD Who is.

Atheism is not an alternative for me. Nor is random chaos a comforting thought.

Phat writes: the shotgun is a negative analogy.

They're both negative analogies - deliberately, because there doesn't seem to be a positive side to Sproul's theology.

Phat writes: I would rather have a God who favors me rather than a random God who simply wound us all up and then left us to do as we wilted...

What you would rather have is not pertinent either to Sproul or to reality.

Phat writes: Its sad to see. I would prefer a God who knows us, loves us, allows us to learn and grow yet is there to save me from my mistakes....a bit like my parents used to do. I cannot deny that humans usually create the God that they want. The trial that I am going through now is making peace with the GOD Who is.

It's often difficult but it can be done. The problem I see is a self created one within much of current Christianity; Christianity today too often markets the God they create rather than teaching kids about the GOD who is. You would have far less trouble had this awakening happened when you were a preteen or early teen.

Edited by jar, : add Mom

I watched it, despite frequent stuttering of the video and it was a big pile of nothing.

He talked about an unnamed physicist talking about “gradual spontaneous generation” - which would at least give me something to check - but googling it doesn’t come up with ANY scientific results. Most of the references are to Sproul. It’s almost as if Sproul made the whole thing up.

PaulK writes: He talked about an unnamed physicist talking about “gradual spontaneous generation” - which would at least give me something to check - but googling it doesn’t come up with ANY scientific results.

It's the scientist Jack Chick talked to.

That video hits close to home.
Fairness has always been an issue with me.

I

What you would rather have is not pertinent either to Sproul or to reality.

Not sure I agree.

jar writes: 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.

RC Sproul, Essential Truths Of The Christian Faith writes: 1. Definite atonement replaces the term limited atonement in the acrostic TULIP. 2. Definite atonement refers to the scope of God’s design for redemption and the intent of the Cross. 3. All who are not universalists agree that Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all, but effective only for those who believe. 4. Christ’s atonement was an actual propitiation for sin, not a potential or conditional propitiation. 5. The Atonement in a broad sense is offered to all; in a narrow sense, it is only offered to the elect. 6. John’s teaching that Christ died for the sins of the whole world means that the elect are not limited to Israel but are found throughout the world

I was surprised to see Sproul defending Calvinism so strictly. Your argument actually has merit, and yet I can also see when Sproul argues that if chance even exists, God is finished. He likely would argue that chance only applies to predetermined possibilities but that ascribing any power to chance to determine anything, it is effectively robbing his God of the power of absolute determinism.

Essentially, his argument is that chance is nothing and yet people use it to describe the origin of virtually everything. I suppose he would argue that God belongs in that spot.

Phat writes: Your argument actually has merit, and yet I can also see when Sproul argues that if chance even exists, God is finished.

Yet chance, probabilities, are a fact and can and are tested daily by everyone. What is finished is the God he creates and markets. And that, in the immortal words of W. C. Sellar and R. J. Yeatman, is a Good Thing.

Phat writes: He likely would argue that chance only applies to predetermined possibilities but that ascribing any power to chance to determine anything, it is effectively robbing his God of the power of absolute determinism.

If he did make that argument it would simply be another stupid thing to say.

Consider chance and God. One can be demonstrated, the other cannot be demonstrated. One can be tested while the other cannot be tested.

And when Sproul titles a work "Essential Truths Of The Christian Faith" it is simply another example of his mouth writing a check his ass can't cash.

RC Sproul is not the comptroller of Christianity. He may well make money selling that idea but he has no vested control over what Truths of the Christian Faith exist.

He can market HIS Chapter's bylaws but can only address HIS Chapter.

I was surprised to see Sproul defending Calvinism so strictly. Your argument actually has merit, and yet I can also see when Sproul argues that if chance even exists, God is finished.

That argument is nonsense.

He likely would argue that chance only applies to predetermined possibilities

Actually isn't this actually an argument you have made on several occasions? Have you ever convinced anyone that such arguments have merit?

but that ascribing any power to chance to determine anything, it is effectively robbing his God of the power of absolute determinism.

Is absolute determinism essentially in any way? As long as God can overcome chance whenever He so chooses, is chance really any kind of obstacle?

I agree and yet in a way, I mourn the death of God as I understood God to be. Mind you I never ascribed to the God of TULIP knowing the evil and illogic that has been exposed, but I always have seen God as interactive and personal rather than distant, majestic, and necessarily aloof due to the chasm that separates my ant from His omnipresence.

Of course, I still am left with Jesus, and I still believe that Jesus is a living intercessor.

Phat writes: Mind you I never ascribed to the God of TULIP knowing the evil and illogic that has been exposed, but I always have seen God as interactive and personal rather than distant, majestic, and necessarily aloof due to the chasm that separates my ant from His omnipresence.

And there is little wrong with continuing that belief as long as you don't use it as an excuse for YOU not doing stuff.

Go back just a few posts and review the discussion on "How to Pray". That represents an interactive and personal relationship but with a slight twist. It's saying "Teach me how to tie my shoes" rather than "Tie my shoes".

quote:

---

And now, Father, send us out
to do the work you have given us to do,
to love and serve you
as faithful witnesses of Christ our Lord.
To him, to you, and to the Holy Spirit,
be honor and glory, now and for ever. Amen.

---

Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

So far there have been a few key points I'd like to list just as way points in the travel so far.

It has been established that RC Sproul is a Calvinist. Message 3

It has been established that RC Sproul favors and tries to emulate Whitfield in an enthusiastic ministry which is a counter to a ministry based on reason. Message 12 & Message 14

We touched on Biblical Inerrancy since RC Sproul was one of the organizers and motivators as well as a signator to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Message 18

We have spent many posts discussing TULIP which Sproul has said is the basis for the Calvinist position and have arrived at a definitive statement from Phat about the topic. Message 63

It was asked how I define Biblical Christianity but I explained I don't try to do that; rather I accept the word of those who claim and self identify as Biblical Christians and then compare their teachings to what is actually written in the Bible stories. Message 36

Most recently we discussed the issue of chance and addressed several of the strawman creations presented by Sproul. I don't think any consensus has been reached there yet.