Tag Archives: Interpretation

Humor

This evil satire of Calvinism is not funny at all!!!

2 Comments

I don’t even think you should read it. It’s so evil!

Excerpt:

In this post I would like to look at the extent of the atonement. By using proper exegesis of scripture it can be proven with certainty that Jesus died to effectually secure salvation for Paul of Tarsus. And for Paul alone.

First, let’s take a look at Galatians 2:20. This is the most important verse in the Bible, because it explicitly states the extent of the atonement (bold mine):

“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

This verse is key. It indisputably proves that Jesus loved and gave himself only for Paul.

And:

In Matthew 18:12 we learn that the shepherd only wanted to save one sheep. In fact he abandoned 99 sheep to save the one (bold mine):

“What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off?”

This passage is so clear. It proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the shepherd found and saved only one sheep (Paul). The shepherd left the 99 other sheep on the hills. By doing this the shepherd maximized his glory. Moreover, he increased the appreciation and adoration of Paul, whom was effectually retrieved. If other sheep could have been retrieved, it would have diluted the value of the shepherd’s act.

This is so awful, that I have no words to describe how awful! Awful!

Here’s another thing that you shouldn’t read!

All kidding aside, I do believe in definite atonement. Sufficient for all, efficient for some, based on God’s foreknowledge of who would respond to his taking the initiative to draw a specific group of people toward him, who did not want him at all, but who he knew would freely responding to his loving them FIRST.

I apologize to all of my Calvinist readers for posting this. Please forgive me. You have to allow me my fun once in a while. Isn’t that what friendship is all about?

Mentoring

How to respond to postmodernism, relativism, subjectivism, pluralism and skepticism

1 Comment

Four articles from Paul Copan over at the UK site “BeThinking”. Each article responds to a different slogan that you might hear if you’re dealing with non-Christians on the street.

“That’s just your interpretation!”

Some of his possible responses:

  • Gently ask, ‘Do you mean that your interpretation should be preferred over mine? If so, I’d like to know why you have chosen your interpretation over mine. You must have a good reason.’
  • Remind your friend that you are willing to give reasons for your position and that you are not simply taking a particular viewpoint arbitrarily.
  • Try to discern if people toss out this slogan because they don’t like your interpretation. Remind them that there are many truths we have to accept even if we don’t like them.
  • ‘There are no facts, only interpretations’ is a statement that is presented as a fact. If it is just an interpretation, then there is no reason to take it seriously.

More responses are here.

“You Christians are intolerant!”

Some of his possible responses:

  • If you say that the Christian view is bad because it is exclusive, then you are also at that exact moment doing the very thing that you are saying is bad. You have to be exclusive to say that something is bad, since you exclude it from being good by calling it bad.
  • There is a difference, a clear difference between tolerance and truth. They are often confused. We should hold to what we believe with integrity but also support the rights of others to disagree with our viewpoint.
  • Sincerely believing something doesn’t make it true. You can be sincere, but sincerely wrong. If I get onto a plane and sincerely believe that it won’t crash then it does, then my sincerity is quite hopeless. It won’t change the facts. Our beliefs, regardless of how deeply they are held, have no effect on reality.

More responses are here.

“That’s true for you, but not for me!”

Some of his possible responses:

  • If my belief is only true for me, then why isn’t your belief only true for you? Aren’t you saying you want me to believe the same thing you do?
  • You say that no belief is true for everyone, but you want everyone to believe what you do.
  • You’re making universal claims that relativism is true and absolutism is false. You can’t in the same breath say, ‘Nothing is universally true’ and ‘My view is universally true.’ Relativism falsifies itself. It claims there is one position that is true – relativism!

More responses are here.

“If you were born in India, you’d be a Hindu!”

Some of his possible responses:

  • Just because there are many different religious answers and systems doesn’t automatically mean pluralism is correct.
  • If we are culturally conditioned regarding our religious beliefs, then why should the religious pluralist think his view is less arbitrary or conditioned than the exclusivist’s?
  • If the Christian needs to justify Christianity’s claims, the pluralist’s views need just as much substantiation.

More responses are here.

And a bonus: “How do you know you’re not wrong?“.

Being a Christian is fun because you get to think about things at the same deep level that you think about anything else in life. Christianity isn’t about rituals, community and feelings. It’s about truth.

In case you want to see this in action with yours truly, check this out.

Mentoring

Can people twist the Bible to make it say anything they want?

4 Comments

The Pugnacious Irishman Rich is at it again!

Here’s the challenge:

“People twist the Bible all the time to make it say whatever they want.”

Ever heard that one?  Have you ever been the one who said that?  Perhaps you just finished giving your view on homosexual behavior.  In the process, you cite a Bible verse or two, and the person you are conversing with responds with the above.  Where to go from there?

Now, I don’t like to use the Bible with people who don’t accept its authority, unless I’m ready to argue for the reliability of the verses I want to use using the historical criteria for surfacing reliable passages. (Early, Multiply attested, Enemy-attested, Embarassing to the author, etc.)

But I think Rich is  talking about people who are asking you what the Bible teaches.

He continues:

Really, most of the time, that one liner is merely a dismissal of your case.  You give a verse, explain the context, and give an argument for its meaning, and someone merely dismisses it with a “ah, people twist the Bible all the time.”  You’ve made a specific case, and somehow, just by making the general observation that people twist the Bible, your whole case is defeated.  Really?  No, not really.

Click through to see his response, with a sample conversation to illustrate. This one was new to me!